I generally like Ellen Von Unwerth's photos as they balance the on-camera/raw flash trend with a more even glamorous look, that doesn't stray into being soft and cutesy.
There's not much behind the scenes that can let me see exactly what she's doing but I did see these pics of a Kylie Shoot
I was wondering if anyone could guesstimate what I can do to get a similar look?
From the above it looks like an HMI is blasting up the ambient light and a 22" Beauty Dish is doing the flash work, both the BD and flash look Profoto? (w/Hasselblad)
The fresnel was used only during the set up, maybe also for a quick movie clip. Look at the dark violet balloon in the final shot - it tells that the dish was the only source used. Otherwise it would show reflections from additional lights (as visible in the balloons of the set up shot).
andrew00 wrote:
...I was wondering if anyone could guesstimate what I can do to get a similar look?
If you look at the shadows -- under her nose, on the wall behind her, etc. -- you can get an idea of where the key light was placed, and the darkness of the shadows can indicate how much fill was used. (In these examples it looks to me like no fill was used; a one-light setup.)
The best way to get a similar look would be to use a beauty dish yourself, but if you don't have one then a small octabox or soft box without the diffusion panel can come close.
With any given size of modifier, the further the light is from the subject the "harder" the light will be; that is, the edge of the shadows will be crisper. So in addition to the height and angle of the light, its distance will have a significant impact on the quality of the light.
I'm trying to discern how much of "the look" is from the lighting vs. the processing. The size and distance of the BD compared to the falloff / key highlights doesn't quite match up with my expectations based on the lighting pattern alone.
I could be off base, but I'm wondering if "the look" here is being achieved by the lighting alone.
RustyBug wrote:
I'm trying to discern how much of "the look" is from the lighting vs. the processing.
Yes, the processing is definitley a big part of it. The photos in the linked-to group are lit differently, being outdoor shots, but have somewhat the same "feel."
That's something I need to learn more about; I've always been more of a realist, but would like to expand my repertoire.
That's the thing that I both like, would want to recreate, but am unsure of how. I.E. In the above but the images are really contrasty, but have the direct flash look, which is the thing I like.
Like others have said above - Is it a well processed 22" BD image, or is it an in camera technical detail I'm missing (but would like to recreate).
As I see a lot of flat BD images and I see a lot of direct flash images that lose the detail and evenness of the above. What I like about the images above, you can see this a lot in the second shoot I posted a link to, is that the images maintain an evenness to the light and yet still have that direct feel, it feels like a best of both worlds that I'm keen to ape, essentially!
That look comes from the beauty dish placed slightly above and ~5 feet away, like you see in those behind the scenes shots. There's a bleach bypass sort of effect going on as well, but don't overlook the great model with great makeup, hair, styling, and skin retouched to perfection.
Mike Yamin wrote:
There's a bleach bypass sort of effect going on as well, but don't overlook the great model with great makeup, hair, styling, and skin retouched to perfection.
Bleach bypass (not my thing) .. that's what I couldn't recall, as I was wondering @ processing, retouching, etc. vs. lighting.
One of the things I learned from Simon Gerzina (Shatterkiss) before he stopped visiting was that one of the most important aspects of the beauty dish was its opaque center deflector. It allows one to bring the light in really close, for crisp yet wrap-around light, without blowing out the forehead.
Do to the dramatic fall-off of light when using a close source, most lights, if set not to over-expose the forehead (or nose, or whatever), would under-expose the ears or neck.
If you use a larger source from further away, the fall-off over the few inches from front to back of a face isn't so dramatic, so the center deflector isn't needed, but unless it's a really large source you can't get the same wrap as with a BD used close.
Going by Simon's advice, for the classic "BD look" I'd use my 20-inch BD at just 20- to 30-inches from the subject. Five feet or more? It may be a good look, but not what I'd call "the beauty dish look."
Sorry to bring this up. I don't have a BD at the moment. Yet, I have both a silver and opaque deflector. I was wondering if a small softbox - silver inside - can mimic the look of BD if I use the deflector.
