So I've been trying numerous approches and seem to never get the look I want. I usually get either too many harsh highlights on the leather, either the picture looks dull. I was using a softbox on the model, and silver umbrella over the camera for fill.

Anybody know how to achieve lighting such as in this picture, or is it just photoshop magic



Thanks for viewing!
Patrick

Well, first of all, I'd get rid of the fill over the camera unless you absolutely need it. Looking at that shot, it looks like it's probably a single light source really close to the model, maybe a medium octa or even a beauty dish. Look at the difference in exposure on her legs vs. her arms, indicating the source being closer to her legs, and the difference in shadow angle from one part of her body to another - straight down at her legs, down and to the right at her chin.

Were I to approach this shot, I'd probably start with a gridded medium softbox or octa and take a look at it. If I couldn't get the coverage and shadow characteristics I wanted, I'd change approach: a large umbrella or octa over and behind the camera for fill, probably at ~4 stops under. Then either a beauty dish or gridded softbox to one side and really close to make sure the highlights were rich, not flat.

One of the most important things for a photographer is the ability to see light. Look at the photo and what do you see?

The first thing you should see is the reflection on the leather. Light obeys this simple law, the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflectance. Notice how the highlight changes from left to right, and from top to bottom. From the reflection it looks like the source is broad, not a point source.

Shatterkiss mentioned the intensity changes from left to right, top to bottom.

Shatterkiss also mentioned the shape of the shadow.

So start with one light, maybe a softbox, and move it around until you get the reflection you want on the leather. Then add model. She may or may not need a little touch-up. I prefer bounce fill, YMMV.

BTW the exposure difference from legs to face could be taken care of with a little grip equipment (but that is a different lesson)

Shatterkiss - Thanks for showing me how to "analyse" the light in the picture. I was guessing a large softbox to camera left but wasn't sure. I will try your lighting approach asap. I don't have a grid for my 2x3 softbox, but maybe just a few black clothes placed along the edges will be sufficient.

c.d.embrey - Your comments on how to "see" the light in the picture were also very helpfull, thank you. Yes I've read about that rule in the book "Light Science and Magic", I see now how you determined the source was broad. I'm curious though, what did you mean by "grip equipment" ?

Thanks again to both of you

Patrick F. wrote:
I'm curious though, what did you mean by "grip equipment" ?

He's probably referring to using a 1- or 2-stop net to knock down the exposure on the lower half of her body so that it matches her upper body. A net is essentially the fabric equivalent of a neutral density filter or gel: it's a neutral-tint mesh fabric that's stretched across a frame (usually just a 3-sided rectangle, like a "U", so that the empty side casts no shadow) that you can use to partially block light. If a flag is totally opaque and completely blocks light, a net is translucent and reduces light. However, if an ND gel is attached directly over a strobe and reduces light across it's entire coverage, a flag is attached to a stand or clamp somewhere between the light and your subject, selectively altering it for just part of its coverage.

Cinematographers and videographers are used to working this way, often using just one or two light sources but a whole bunch of flags, nets and scrims to shape it, but a lot of photographers outside of the commercial realm never gain that experience. I've found that most photographers don't own even a fraction of the grip equipment that they should, even just basic consumables like a well-stocked gel kit or a roll of Cinefoil.

Oh, and "grip equipment" is a term that essentially means "anything that doesn't have a power switch". Another carryover from the motion picture world, often encompasses stands, booms, flags, scrims, diffusers, etc. It gets especially weird in movies when it's a union production, as the gaffers (folks in charge of lights) aren't allowed to touch the grip equipment, the grips (folks in charge of grip equipment) aren't allowed to touch the lights, and neither of them are allowed to plug anything in or turn anything on (that's the domain of electricians). When I was first working on movies as a PA, often for the lighting dept, I'd be allowed to put up a light but if I needed to hang a net in front of it or adjust a c-stand or boom I'd have to call over a grip. And don't get me started about the time that, as a camera assistant, I unloaded a case of audio gear from a truck on a feature - I nearly got fired from the movie for it. Such a different world from photography.

Thanks shatterkiss, good answer to his question.

We sometimes get real C-stand forests going I like a powerful source (like a 10K tungsten or 12K HMI) set back at a distance (to take advantage of depth of light, see inverse square law). You then use nets and solid flags to control the light.

I use a lot of two inch black paper tape. If you have a grid on a lamp you can put tape on the grid to block light. Going back to the posted pix, you could use tape on the grid to cut down on the light on her legs. Because it is a broad source, light will wrap around the tape and you will never know it is there from viewing the photo (but you may, or may not, see the tape in the reflection on the leather). A net is a better solution, in this case.

The shot of the two water pumps below used a gridded beauty dish as the single source. The BD is just above the top frame line. The hub on the left hand pump was a little hot, so I put a 2x3 inch strip of tape above the hub ... and voila. This could have been done with a dot (a small circular not or flag), but the tape was a better choice here.

FWIW - I don't think your example is lit very effectively for exactly the reasons cited by shatterkiss: the legs are much brighter that the face.

The whole point of lighting is to provide clues the the viewer's brain where to send the eyes in a photo. Faces, due to the instinct to make eye contact, and contrast with the background will usually predict where in the photo the eye of the viewer will travel and tend to come to rest. In most portraits the desired center of interest is the face and you would ideally want the viewer to pass over the body and see it on the way to the face, or if seeing the face first then wandering off, be pulled by contrasting color/tone back to the face.

Look at the example blurred to the point of being just a tone map. Where is your eye pulled towards? The darker face or the brighter feet?

After all there's more than one way to skin the cat

Chuck

Precisely!

Chuck, Simon and I can all get good photos of this, and each one of one of us would use a different approach. I've always said that ten art directors and ten photographers could do a shoot (using different methods) that would satisfy the client.

I just took some shots last night of a model on a couch and used a 72" x 54" softbox horizontally and a 6' silver reflector below it, I also used a gridded light for a kicker and results were very nice.

jscoby05 wrote:
I just took some shots last night of a model on a couch and used a 72" x 54" softbox horizontally and a 6' silver reflector below it, I also used a gridded light for a kicker and results were very nice.
Don't tease us, show us the results. Remember a picture is worth 1,000 words

Seriously, there are no right or wrong ways ... just ways that work Let us see a way that worked for you. I'm always interested in seeing other ways. You don't learn anything living in a vacuum.