What goes into producing portraits like these?

<p>Here is a link to portraits by Maxim Maximov: https://500px.com/the-maksimov<br>

They are simply amazing. There are many other photographers on 500px who produce great portraits like these such as <a href="https://500px.com/nikitazavgorodny">Nikita Zavgorodny</a> and I'd like to emulate them. Well I'm a noob and I'll soon ask you for a critique of my photos but I'd like to know what does into producing such portraits; in terms of lens, lighting, postproduction or anything else. Can a single handed amateur photographer produce similar results?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Can a single handed amateur photographer produce similar results?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is the kind of question that most here probably aren't comfortable answering because we don't know the level of skill you already possess, the equipment at your disposal, the amount of commitment your are prepared to make and don't want to discourage you. In a nutshell I'd say no to your question.<br>

This level of work usually requires assistants for hair, make-up and wardrobe requirements. A sound knowledge of lighting, meters, technique and manipulation of such. An equally sound knowledge of exposure. A suitable studio space. You will need a skilled hand at the computer for post-production with PhotoShop and/or equivalent portrait based software. And in the case of Mr. Maximov, a seemingly unending supply of young, beautiful, skilled models.` I think it would be a disservice to him to answer yes to your question.<br>

Now, that being said, I hope that if this level of work is what you aspire to that you continue to work toward that end. Maybe find work or volunteer with a photographer at a studio specializing in this type of portraiture. See it produced first-hand and what is actually required. <br>

Good Luck!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks, that explains a lot. I think I can at least try to improve my knowledge and skills i.e. try to achieve</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A sound knowledge of lighting, meters, technique and manipulation of such. An equally sound knowledge of exposure.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There are so many, almost too many, books and online resources available. I know that experience is the best teacher but being informed can make the process faster.<br>

As for my skills and equipment I'll shortly ask for critique and explain more.</p>

<p>On top of the simple technical aspects @Gub mentioned there's a whole talent aspect in knowing how to place, mod, and adjust lights and choose lenses and backgrounds for the look you're after, having appealing ideas for the look you want, and getting the look out of your model. I've known many a fine technical photographer who had the creativity and aesthetic ingenuity of a donut hole.</p>

<p>You made your first step by identifying the type of photography that moves you. I could not agree more with your choice. Understand that you are mostly if not all, looking at models and not your average person. The experienced or natural gifted model will add much impact to your photo just by filling the frame up with there face. The knowledge that you need to bring to the table is how to see the light and how to create it so it falls nicely on there face. Add the help of a makeup artist,hairstylist and a set stylist and you have a complete package which results in an eye catching image. I wish the camera and a flash would be all that I would need to get shots like this. I can come close but without the team work of the others involved it would fall short. You need to just go out and practice and then collaborate with a makeup artist, hairstylist and wardrobe stylist.</p>

<p>His portraits are really beautiful and eye-catching. There's a shallow depth of field at the same time as artificial light is used. It looks very similar to some of the Peter Hurley's head shots. I know he nowadays sell some sort of continuous lighting which of course makes it possible to work with shorter shutter speeds and open aperture. My studio strobes cannot be dialed down that far, and I'd have to work with an ND filter to be able to open up.<br>

There are some photos where the plane of sharpness looks like it's tilted. There's one where the near shoulder is in focus as the same time as the eyes are, but the neck is very blurry. I guess it could be a tilt-and-shift lens or post-production work. Nevertheless, it seems to pull the eye in very effectively. <br>

In some portraits there's back-lighting, rim-lights, hair-lights etc... but some look less constructed. It might be deceiving though. Most have at least one key and one fill/reflector though, as far as I can see in the eyes.<br>

If someone can give further insights on the technical aspects behind the technique used I'm really interested. I love the warm feeling of these photos and I'm just curious how you think the look has been achieved. <br>

He's sure found some very beautiful, flawless faces! :) </p>

<p>Yes, shallow dof so needs to get his lighting powered down enough. I can get my einsteins to f/1.8 or 1.4. Peter Hurley uses florescents. I really don't like the catchlight all the way around the eye as he shoots through top, bottom and sides of those lights. Here, there is a small circular catchlight, beauty dish? I didn't look to carefully at the shadow edge transfer to see if it was rapid or not indicating modifier relative size. I agree with Michael, I do like the work but as pointed out above, this involves a production team, you won't have makeup, hair, wardrobe looking like that off the street. Often folks indicate they like work that isn't this good. </p>

I also think the photos are beautiful, but again, there is more than meets the eye, or at least than is obvious. Something I learned many

years ago is that when skin is this smooth it's almost certainly a result of makeup and/or retouching.

 

What I see in Maxim's lighting is generally a pair of fairly large light sources - one high and one low - often on the same side of the subject,

but sometimes on opposite sides. And he seems to work mostly in a location with little "natural" reflection back onto the subject, meaning

either darkish walls or a large space. It's hard to get the dark shadows otherwise. There's other "dress up" lights ( such as hair, BG, kicker), but these two mainly set the

general "look" of the lighting.

 

I wouldn't trust catch lights in the eyes as a reliable clue, even though they mostly seem to correlate. The impossibly (I think) large

pupils tell me that they've been retouched in, and in many shots are badly shaped. So perhaps the highlights are not original either.

Regarding the large pupils, if they ARE real (I'm very skeptical), the studio must have been extremely dim, almost shooting in the dark.

Anyway, I suggest to judge the lighting by its shadowing rather than reflections in the eyes. I should note that I looked at a number of

Maxim's photos, beyond just those linked, not all have the huge pupils. Something that indicates a high and low light on one side is the extra darkness of overlapping shadows; in this style, you can often notice a darker spot on the shadow side of the nose, right next to the eye. This is an area that neither of the lights illuminates well, thus the darker shadow. (Such a thing is not so obvious when the studio is brighter.)

 

The final photos almost all have hugely desaturated skin color. That seems to be a popular style right now, for whatever reason; perhaps it

is related to recent popularity of vampire movies where the reddish-pink skin color must be removed to get the "dead" look. Anyway, this is

a far from normal skin tone. I don't personally care for it, but for this style of pictures I think it works.

 

Some people have mentioned the appearance of the subjects, and I would agree that he is most likely using models; random selections from the general public won't have the same sort of facial structure.

<p>Went back and took a closer look. In several, looks like a beauty dish with dark center as key producing loop in many shots. In most cases, the catch light is consistent with the nose shadow. His fill appears to be small, low and 45 degrees from the main. Not sure if he flipped some of these images placing main on different sides or if that was lit that way because of hair. Many of us have a preferred side for main. The huge pupils may indicate he is shooting in a near blacked out studio and has low powered modeling lights. I like the control of my 250 watt Einstein modeling lights from the camera as I can dial in desired pupil size from my stool simply by adjusting the power of the modeling lights. I prefer most if not all of the ambient light from my modeling lights that go off at the moment of exposure. I'm not a fan of the double catch light, but the large pupil, double catch light and stare at the camera seems to work. He does a great job lighting his backgrounds as well. Anyone know how these were done? </p>

Bob I don't know anything about the integrity of this site (I downloaded the image via phone),but if you care to have a look, tell me if you

ever get pupils this large. I have to admit that I have never studied pupil size in near-dark, but even in a dimly lit studio I've never gotten

pupils like this. The image is the blonde girl with pigtails crossed under her chin.

http://www.redpepperwallpaper.com/download.php?res=style%2FWP38L726.jpg

<p>Bill, I will have pupils dilated that large in a couple of weeks... at the eye doctor and it takes hours before the drops wear off. Certainly excessively large. I wonder if the large pupils contribute subtly and for many, unconsciously, to the impact of the eyes in the shots. I am an advocate of the concept, like in pirates of the Caribbean, that they aren't rules, just guidelines. I will add that excessively large pupil arrow to my quiver even though I like a kicked up iris (does the dark line around the iris seem a bit over done as well). But I think it will have to be done in post. </p>

The portrait example you like all

use professional lighting and

support - as other posters have

said.

 

But they also look heavily

retouched, either with Photoshop

or something like Portrait Pro

that can do the retouching on a

batch basis.

 

Personally I prefer a more

natural look, but if the examples

in your link is the look you

want, then you'll need to develop

post production skills.

 

But if you want a more realistic

look, then you can create great

portraits with basic kit.

 

Window light from tbe side is

good, ideally a shaded widow or

with a net curtain so it's not

too harsh.

 

Then a reflector to lift shadows.

 

And a lens with a wide aperture

to achieve the blurred background

effect.

 

Just my view - but I think you

should try to get as close as

possible to the look you want in

camera, then try photoshop later

for fine retouching once you've

got the lighting and exposure.

<p>Thank you. One thing I specifically like about the PP on those photos is the warm glow that they have. I can see a similar glow/shine in a lot of professional landscape photos as well. How can this be achieved in photoshop? </p>

<blockquote>

<p>How can this be achieved in photoshop?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

The simplest way is to move the white balance temperature.</p>