Any idea on how to get these soft skin color on color and black

Lightroom

>>2748985
if lightroom or adobe camera raw, use the adjustment brush and turn up colour denoising, might also improve with lowered clarity slider

in black and white, lighter colours appear softer so make red / yellow brighter after (after!) colour denoise since colour will factor in the luminosity in the black and white conversion

Are you talking about in general or this specific photo?

On that pic it's just good light and the photographer's good understanding of light and metering/exposure.

>>2749925

Just realized you might not get my sarcasm as photojournalism isn't too popular on /p/

That pic caused some controversy over use of HDR.

>>2749928
Wasn't it photoshopped or something? Like several photos stitched together?

>>2749934

IIRC, it was just that it was HDR.

IMO, I think it's going beyond what is acceptable but as always there's lots of sides to the debate.

>>2749946
Its photojournalism who gives a fuck if its HDR

File: Screen+shot+2013-11-10+at+11.29.39.png (130KB, 513x302px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 513x302px

>>2750464

Serious?

>>2750514
yes. who cares if a technique was used to make subjects in the FOV more visible. as long as information isn't added or removed from the shot, I'm fine with it.

photography is selective enough with the choice of framing, viewing angle compression and so on, that brightening up the shadows seems irrelevant to me.

File: roan_006_custom-a932459662c04b9844627ba00e6ee055bffc4100-s800-c85.jpg (154KB, 800x536px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 800x536px

>>2750514
Is it really so much worse that anything printers did with shitty negatives? The boy and the sky in this print obviously have been heavily dodged and burned in the darkroom to achieve essentially what a digital photographer hopes to achieve with HDR.

Obviously no one wants the kind of disgusting nonsense you will find if you search "HDR" on google images but this effect has been done with film photojournalism too.