Inquiry: Emulating "Gattaca Look" in PS?

Grettings All,

I was wondering if anyone would know how to create the look that you see for Ethan Hawke on the movie poster/DVD cover for the movie Gattaca. I just finished watching this movie tonight. I'd have to give it 2 thumbs up.

In the meanwhile I'm sitting here looking at this DVD cover for the movie. I really think this is awesome looking and would like to replicate it. Does anyone know where there might be a tut, or how to replicate this effect? Thanks.

MJ

Can you provide a sample or include a url?

"Michael J" wrote in message

Grettings All,

I was wondering if anyone would know how to create the look that you

see for Ethan

Hawke on the movie poster/DVD cover for the movie Gattaca. I just finished

watching

this movie tonight. I'd have to give it 2 thumbs up.

In the meanwhile I'm sitting here looking at this DVD cover for the movie.

I really

think this is awesome looking and would like to replicate it. Does anyone

know where

there might be a tut, or how to replicate this effect? Thanks.
MJ

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 13:00:14 +0100, "VooDooFuzz" wrote:

Can you provide a sample or include a url?

Most Certainly. Try:

http://www.mencelebs.com/pic/6/632/10134331.html

or

http://www.moviegoods.com/movie_product.asp?sku=166549&m aster%5Fmovie%5Fid=10030

OK, as a novice, just taking some first guesses and an initial stab-in-the-dark at it, I would say first that how the photo was shot is important (correct lighting, light intensity and lighting angle). When it comes to the PS part, again just guessing, I would say it's a matter of blowing out some of the highlights. Making and feathering selections and then changing hue and lightness values. Then repeating this process a number of times for different areas of the photo (such as the marked blue hue - and darker eyes and lips, etc.)

I'm just wondering, in creating that picture of Ethan Hawke as "Vincent," on the poster, if a lot
was dependent on how the photograph was initially shot, or if it was more like a 99% Photoshop thing. I realize you could practically create a Picasso from scratch in PS in you wanted to. So you always have to wonder just how much the image was manipulated and in what ways. At any rate, I'd really like to replicate this look/effect for someone else's photo, shot the same way

Thanks

MJ

In article , says
....

Grettings All,

I was wondering if anyone would know how to create the look that you see

for

Ethan
Hawke on the movie poster/DVD cover for the movie Gattaca. I just finished

watch

ing
this movie tonight. I'd have to give it 2 thumbs up.

In the meanwhile I'm sitting here looking at this DVD cover for the movie. I

rea

lly
think this is awesome looking and would like to replicate it. Does anyone

know w

here
there might be a tut, or how to replicate this effect? Thanks.
MJ

Michael,

This would have been a good article to X-post into both PS NGs. That way, all of the comments, etc. would show in both, simultaneously. Some people are not keen on X-posting, but yours is a perfect example of where it would actually benefit.

Just a thought,
Hunt

In article , says
....

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 13:00:14 +0100, "VooDooFuzz" wrote:

Can you provide a sample or include a url?

Most Certainly. Try:

http://www.mencelebs.com/pic/6/632/10134331.html

or

http://www.moviegoods.com/movie_product.asp?sku=166549&m aster%5Fmovie%5Fid=

10030

OK, as a novice, just taking some first guesses and an initial stab-in-the-

dark

at it, I would say
first that how the photo was shot is important (correct lighting, light

intensit

y and lighting
angle). When it comes to the PS part, again just guessing, I would say it's

a

matter of blowing
out some of the highlights. Making and feathering selections and then

changing h

ue and lightness
values. Then repeating this process a number of times for different areas of

the

photo (such as the
marked blue hue - and darker eyes and lips, etc.)

I'm just wondering, in creating that picture of Ethan Hawke as "Vincent," on

the

poster, if a lot
was dependent on how the photograph was initially shot, or if it was more

like a

99% Photoshop
thing. I realize you could practically create a Picasso from scratch in PS in

yo

u wanted to. So you
always have to wonder just how much the image was manipulated and in what

ways.

At any rate, I'd
really like to replicate this look/effect for someone else's photo, shot the

sam

e way

Thanks

MJ

Based on my response in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop, I'd wager that you are "right-on" with regards to this particular photograph. Without doing a calculation, I'd say that it's about 50:50 photography:photoshop, though it could all have been done in-camera/lab. My money goes on some PS work to get what the AD wanted.

Hunt

On 19 Jul 2005 14:04:50 GMT, (Hunt) wrote:

Michael,

This would have been a good article to X-post into both PS NGs. That way, all of the comments, etc. would show in both, simultaneously. Some people are not keen on X-posting, but yours is a perfect example of where it would actually benefit.

And don't forget the photography NGs. This image has had a lot of post processing, but the lighting at photo time was important to the look too. Maybe repost to a wider audience, adding:

alt.photography
rec.photo

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga

"Hunt" wrote in message

In article ,
says
...

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 13:00:14 +0100, "VooDooFuzz" wrote:

Can you provide a sample or include a url?

Most Certainly. Try:

http://www.mencelebs.com/pic/6/632/10134331.html

or

http://www.moviegoods.com/movie_product.asp?sku=166549&m aster%5Fmovie%5Fid=

10030

OK, as a novice, just taking some first guesses and an initial stab-in-the-

dark

at it, I would say
first that how the photo was shot is important (correct lighting, light

intensit

y and lighting
angle). When it comes to the PS part, again just guessing, I would say it's

a

matter of blowing
out some of the highlights. Making and feathering selections and then

changing h

ue and lightness
values. Then repeating this process a number of times for different areas of

the

photo (such as the
marked blue hue - and darker eyes and lips, etc.)

I'm just wondering, in creating that picture of Ethan Hawke as "Vincent," on

the

poster, if a lot
was dependent on how the photograph was initially shot, or if it was more

like a

99% Photoshop
thing. I realize you could practically create a Picasso from scratch in PS in

yo

u wanted to. So you
always have to wonder just how much the image was manipulated and in what

ways.

At any rate, I'd
really like to replicate this look/effect for someone else's photo, shot the

sam

e way

Thanks

MJ

Based on my response in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop, I'd wager that you are
"right-on" with regards to this particular photograph. Without doing a calculation, I'd say that it's about 50:50 photography:photoshop, though it
could all have been done in-camera/lab. My money goes on some PS work to get
what the AD wanted.

Hunt

Looks like some curves, lighting effects (color spot) maybe some artsy filter like watercolor? assuming you have nicely side lit shots to start with, if not maybe you can fake it with the lighting filters

The most important thing is to have a decent photo to begin with, not especially lit to provide the fx required, these can be added afterwards. Most decent digital cameras have a facility to check the histogram of a shot. You're looking for a good spread of values.

Starting with a good, evenly lit photo the quickest way to get the sort of fx you're after is, add a Hue&Sat adjustment layer, colorized and saturation reduced, lightness increased applied in something like Vivid light mode? Worked when I had a play!

Let us know how you get on, experiment and enjoy.

Adam

Maybe some
"Michael J" wrote in message

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 13:00:14 +0100, "VooDooFuzz" wrote:

Can you provide a sample or include a url?

Most Certainly. Try:

http://www.mencelebs.com/pic/6/632/10134331.html

or

http://www.moviegoods.com/movie_product.asp?sku=166549&m aster%5Fmovie%5Fid=10030

OK, as a novice, just taking some first guesses and an initial

stab-in-the-dark at it, I would say

first that how the photo was shot is important (correct lighting, light

intensity and lighting

angle). When it comes to the PS part, again just guessing, I would say

it's a matter of blowing

out some of the highlights. Making and feathering selections and then

changing hue and lightness

values. Then repeating this process a number of times for different areas

of the photo (such as the

marked blue hue - and darker eyes and lips, etc.)

I'm just wondering, in creating that picture of Ethan Hawke as "Vincent,"

on the poster, if a lot

was dependent on how the photograph was initially shot, or if it was more

like a 99% Photoshop

thing. I realize you could practically create a Picasso from scratch in PS

in you wanted to. So you

always have to wonder just how much the image was manipulated and in what

ways. At any rate, I'd

really like to replicate this look/effect for someone else's photo, shot

the same way

Thanks

MJ

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 18:03:01 GMT, iehsmith wrote:

I say grab a photo and play to your heart's content! I understand the new version of PS allows you to Save History. That sounds great so that you know how/what you did, and about time too. I'm still suing PS 6.0.1, so...
I just played with it, but kinda went my own way with it. I duplicated the layer and used high pas to select certain areas, played with colors, etc.
I didn't do Posterize as I didn't like the effect, but I allow GIF export to sort of posterize the middle version. I prefer the top and bottom versions more though.
www.imagessence.com/imageviewer/Gataca/
I applie Median and sharpening to the bottom version.

Playing is so fun, and instructive;¬)

Very nice effect! Thanks for kindly sharing your experimentations.

I think what Hunt said is correct also (as he spoke about the lighting, 4:1 ratio, hard light over right shoulder, etc). That would probably be the most "involved" part of the whole process. Of course, the shadows and highlights could be faked, but I've always believed one is best to make it as "real" as possible starting at the camera, then add the many great effects.

Once again, thanks for sharing. Think I'm going to set up the lights, tripod and Nikon and try a little experimenting here :)

MJ

On 19 Jul 2005 14:04:50 GMT, (Hunt) wrote:

Michael,

This would have been a good article to X-post into both PS NGs. That way, all of the comments, etc. would show in both, simultaneously. Some people are not keen on X-posting, but yours is a perfect example of where it would actually benefit.

Just a thought,

You're right, Hunt. If I'd been thinking I'd of X-posted to both groups

On 19 Jul 2005 14:02:11 GMT, (Hunt) wrote:

If you didn't have the control of the lighting, one could build the shadows with a Selection, making sure to do a good Feather.

A bit of Posterization, say 32 colors, might also help in that case

Still working with it. I've certainly discovered that to get that effect perfect isn't quite as easy as it first seems, but will keep trying.

www.imagi-vision.com/gattaca.html

In article , says
....

On 19 Jul 2005 14:04:50 GMT, (Hunt) wrote:

Michael,

This would have been a good article to X-post into both PS NGs. That way,

all

of the comments, etc. would show in both, simultaneously. Some people are

not

keen on X-posting, but yours is a perfect example of where it would actually benefit.

Just a thought,

You're right, Hunt. If I'd been thinking I'd of X-posted to both groups

No problem. Also, some might take you to task for it, but in the PS groups, I think that it is a good thing. That way, all comments follow the thread. Since not everyone gets, or reads, both NGs, you should get some different comments from each group.

Regardless, you posed a nice little problem (problem in the positive sense, here) for everyone to chew on.

Hunt

"Michael J" wrote in message

On 19 Jul 2005 14:02:11 GMT, (Hunt) wrote:

If you didn't have the control of the lighting, one could build the shadows
with a Selection, making sure to do a good Feather.

A bit of Posterization, say 32 colors, might also help in that case

Still working with it. I've certainly discovered that to get that effect perfect
isn't quite as easy as it first seems, but will keep trying.
www.imagi-vision.com/gattaca.html

excellent results so far, it's quite close to your inspiration

In article , owamanga-not-this-
says...

On 19 Jul 2005 14:04:50 GMT, (Hunt) wrote:

Michael,

This would have been a good article to X-post into both PS NGs. That way,

all

of the comments, etc. would show in both, simultaneously. Some people are

not

keen on X-posting, but yours is a perfect example of where it would actually benefit.

And don't forget the photography NGs. This image has had a lot of post processing, but the lighting at photo time was important to the look too. Maybe repost to a wider audience, adding:

alt.photography
rec.photo

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga

Yes, I agree. Since I was viewing from a PS group, I was in a PS-frame-of- mind, sorry. This would be especially useful for discussion in most of the photo NG's, as they all seem buried in Canon v Nikon, "who bombed London," and that ilk of post. This would be a REAL photo question, and long, long overdue.

Good idea,
Hunt