Hey guys, another lighting question....

Here is the picture in question: Picture

I'm gonna take a stab at it, and say the shot was lit using a directional source on the left of the model, perhaps a softbox, or maybe even the deep throat with inner diffuser.

Then a reflector underneath the model and to the right?


Photoshop to soften up some of the areas where shadow hits light.

Perhaps a fill light directly in front of the model, bare bulb or large large octa?


what do you guys think?


Best,
Adam

P.S. Happy New Year!

I think you're seriously overthinking it. I just see a softbox to camera left, probably feathered off towards the wall. It's possible it's even just window light. It's a standard fashion agency test look.

It looks like a pretty simple key light / minimal or no fill shot which could have been done with a variety of different tools. In the age of Photoshop unless the out-of-camera original is seen its difficult to tell.

More important than knowing the tools is understanding why an image resonates and creates a particular emotional vibe in your mind. That, not the tools, are the key to being able recreating it. You obviously like it, but have you analyzed why?

Perhaps I'm over thinking it Simon...
Last time I tried to create something like that, I didn't get the mood I was going for..
This I guess goes into your question Chuck, why I like it... Yep I know why!

I like the fact that soft yet sharp with shadows, the overall image has a nice mood to it, and the model I suppose is perfect for the shot in the sense that her looks and hair work well with the composition... It just appeals to me I suppose, I've seen a few shots like that now, and I think the main thing I like about them.. The model is angular, and the model has bangs... I think in all the shots I've like that look similar it's the models haircut more then anything... hahah, I suppose I'll give it another try next week or so, I have a model coming in with bangs AFAIK..

shatterkiss wrote
... I just see a softbox to camera left, probably feathered off towards the wall. It's possible it's even just window light. ...

cgardner wrote
It looks like a pretty simple key light / minimal or no fill shot which could have been done with a variety of different tools. ...

The OP is looking for a magic bullet ... and there ain't no such thing. Simon mentioned a softbox, well I don't own/use softboxes so I probably would use a panel (or maybe a large bounce card) and get the same results.

cgardner wrote
More important than knowing the tools is understanding why an image resonates and creates a particular emotional vibe in your mind. That, not the tools, are the key to being able recreating it.

Now following cgardner's advice, try several large sources, like a softbox, large window, or what have you. Experiment until you get a result that you like (doesn't have to be a clone of the photo).

The closest you will come to a magic bullet is developing the ability to see light. Once you learn to really see light, everything else becomes easy. When a friend shows you a pix of a new modifier and says "Wonder what it will do?" You won't have to wonder because you will know!

BTW I like really long bangs that cover the eyebrows

adamdewilde wrote:
the overall image has a nice mood to it, .

Her eyes look demonic to me. YMMV.

One man's demonic is another man's sexy.

Deezie wrote:
One man's demonic is another man's sexy.


I second this when I see the way a lot of my friends girlfriends treat them!

I'm sure my friends think the same about me and my girlfriend sometimes (lucky she doesn't read the forums eh!).

I think I often forget that most photos these days that I actually like are all DI anyway.

So I try things and out of camera I don't get the look I'm going for and I get depressed as a photographer.
Be it simple things like the light fall off isn't fast enough but yet smooth enough, etc etc... Then I tend to blame myself for not knowing the right modifier for the situation...

When in reality, I suppose almost most modifiers can be interchangeable when you have DI on your side.



Like often when I look at chuck or other photographers side by side BD and Octa comparisons, I think to myself, WTF they're like the same photo with slight differences that I could adjust in my raw file..


Often times I know where to put the light and how to light it, but I find that my light fall off isn't what I'm going for, so maybe I need to pay closer attention to that!


Anyway, Happy New YEAR!

adamdewilde wrote:
I think I often forget that most photos these days that I actually like are all DI anyway.

Total BS! The photographer of your posted image did it all with his lighting, no PS tricks

So I try things and out of camera I don't get the look I'm going for and I get depressed as a photographer.
Don't get depressed. Get in a learning mode!

Be it simple things like the light fall off isn't fast enough but yet smooth enough, etc etc... Then I tend to blame myself for not knowing the right modifier for the situation.
There you go, looking for that magic bullet.

When in reality, I suppose almost most modifiers can be interchangeable when you have DI on your side.
Once again, this is simple lighting ... no PS tricks.

Take a look at the work of Frank Doorhof http://www.frankdoorhof.com/ He says that there is little PS work in his photos, and I belive him.

I say Learn to see light. Frank Doorhof says To see the light you have, to understand the light, but to understand the light you have to see the light.. Same thing said in different ways. You just need to understand this simple idea!

Frank (J.A.F. Doorhof) posts to People Photography on FM. He answers questions about what he posts. Below are his last few posts:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/720880/0#6520158
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/719800/0#6506783
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/714767/0
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/708695/0#6389855
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/708168/0#6385355

Notice how he has more than one style of lighting, but all styles have his imprint.

Like often when I look at chuck or other photographers side by side BD and Octa comparisons, I think to myself, WTF they're like the same photo with slight differences that I could adjust in my raw file.

Different people like different things ... for their own reasons. A Profoto BD doesn't look like a Mola Demi (22"), a 27' Elinchron BD doesn't look lika a 28" Mola Setti, etc, etc. All are BDs, but each has its own unique look. Same goes for Octas, etc, etc.

If the lighting is right, no adjustments will be necessary.

Often times I know where to put the light and how to light it, but I find that my light fall off isn't what I'm going for, so maybe I need to pay closer attention to that!

Pick a modifier, and really learn to use it. Play with it until you learn everything about it. Change distance, where it is pointed, angle of light, etc, etc. Feather it with a flag.

You have to be smarter than your equipment! In other words, you tell the light what you want it to do!

Practice, practice, practice. After a while it becomes second nature. Really

adamdewilde wrote:
I think I often forget that most photos these days that I actually like are all DI anyway.

I assume that "DI" means digital imaging or something? If so, then you're wrong...the image you posted in this thread was simply lit like that. I think that the fogging and black point adjustment were done in Photoshop, but the lighting was the lighting. When it's that simple, why is someone going to spend the time faking it in post? That's a look that every agency model has on their comp card and in their books...here in NYC, folks like Eric Fischer are making bank shooting it on paid tests for agencies. It's a look that they can knock out in five minutes...it's not post.

When in reality, I suppose almost most modifiers can be interchangeable when you have DI on your side.

So wrong. Heavy post work might eradicate the nuance of lighting but that's a choice. It doesn't invalidate the reasons for lighting something right in the first place.

Like often when I look at chuck or other photographers side by side BD and Octa comparisons, I think to myself, WTF they're like the same photo with slight differences that I could adjust in my raw file..

That's because, to be honest, Chuck uses them poorly. If you just take a beauty dish and point it at someone it's not going to look like much. If you take a beauty dish, place it at the optimal distance, place it at the optimal angle of incidence (did you even realize how important angle of incidence is?)...the light is stunning, it leaps out of the frame. It gives you luminous skin that, with good makeup, looks like you've already retouched it. You take an octa, put it at the right angle and distance, you get wonderful, flattering light with amazing smooth shadow modeling and dimensionality.

But to see these things, you have to both be interested in the subtlety and nuance of light and you have to put in the time looking at the light. Seriously, just spend a day looking at light from different sources. I've hired models for a day just to sit still and make chitchat while I hang different modifiers, look at them, take sample images, try them from different angles and distances. You have to understand why a light might look like crap at the moment, but would look amazing if you moved it 2' closer and 10 degrees further to the right. With all due respect, Chuck isn't interested in subtlety and nuance...he's got a method, a system, and he feels it works for him.

Often times I know where to put the light and how to light it, but I find that my light fall off isn't what I'm going for, so maybe I need to pay closer attention to that!

If you're getting the wrong light falloff, then remedy that in the moment! If you're using a medium softbox and it's not falling off fast enough for you, then move it way, waaaaay closer. Don't assume that the nature of the light is inherent to the modifiers you're using, understand the relationship between the modifier and how you're using it.

shatterkiss wrote:


Don't assume that the nature of the light is inherent to the modifiers you're using, understand the relationship between the modifier and how you're using it.


+1000

Simon wrote: But to see these things, you have to both be interested in the subtlety and nuance of light and you have to put in the time looking at the light. Seriously, just spend a day looking at light from different sources. I've hired models for a day just to sit still and make chitchat while I hang different modifiers, look at them, take sample images, try them from different angles and distances. You have to understand why a light might look like crap at the moment, but would look amazing if you moved it 2' closer and 10 degrees further to the right. With all due respect, Chuck isn't interested in subtlety and nuance...he's got a method, a system, and he feels it works for him.

Honestly, this is an excellent way to obtain mastery with lighting.

Another option is take a drawing class at your local college. The essence of drawing is learning to see what you draw, which is primarily a series of connected shapes comprised of light and shadow shapes. It trains your eyes to reject the standard compositions of objects and people, and to see fine details and subtle gradations of light and shadows - which is also known as chiaroscuro.

FWIW

Looking at the nose shadow the main light came from an 45 degree angle above and left of the model. We also see a nice "Rembrandt style lighting" triangle on her right cheek. I think there was no fill light used. Maybe some reflection from the walls, but not much

c.d.embrey wrote:


There you go, looking for that magic bullet.




Who makes this "magic bullet" you speak of? Chimera? Photoflex? Elinchrom? I've heard of the deep throat, but magic bullet is a new modifier I've never heard of!



(still looking for my own magic bullets...and I imagine I will be for a LONG time.)