How to acheive this lighting

[o._wagner]

I am new to portrait lighting and am currently setting up a small children's

studio. I have two white walls to shoot against and plan on hanging a large

black muslin on a curtain track for a 3rd wall. I love the look of "skin on

black" portrait photography. I found some great examples on this

photographer's website: http://www.linnealenkus.com/index.html

 

Can anyone tell me how to acheive this lighting? i.e. how many lights,

softbox, camera settings, etc. Before you say, "Ask the photographer", that

never works. I have contacted several photographers who's lighting I admired

and have never once gotten a response back.

[o._wagner]

Oops, I spelled "achieve" wrong. Sorry!

[ellis_vener_photography]

black background -- Black velvet or duvateen --and softboxes, different sizes.

[Jack_Maegli]

Start with a modeling/primary softbox or umbrella 45 deg off center about 4' from your subject 3' overhead with a fill softbox etc. about 10 deg off center the other side 15' back and at head heigth to fill the shadows and work from there. You can always bounce the fill backwards off your white walls for better diffusion. When I shoot against black I like to add a highlight honeycomb behind the subject to contrast the hairline against the background, but I like high key.

Jack<div></div>

[d_g5]

1. black background far enough from any lights to stay dark.

2. large controled source of main light (could be: softbox, umbrella or anything that is not allowing light to hit more than 1 side.

3. a meduim size accent light to highlight 1 area opposite the main light.

[symbolizer]

You can do a lot with one softbox and a reflector (could be foamcore) I like the look of some

hairlight in shots like that. Put the softbox on 45 degree and if you don't have a boom a light

45degrees behind but pretty high up pointing at the head of the subject. I like the look as it

seperates the subject from the backgound.

[bill c.]

O.-- As you can see from how different Jack Wagner's shot is from your specified examples, there is a whole lot more to this than first meets the eye.

 

First of all, there is a huge amount of shadow control, and it is done by means of some very large reflectors. How large? So big that you cannot specifically see them in the eye reflections in some cases. That means that they are so large that they reflect in the entire pupil.

 

Also note that, especially in the shots of people with dark hair, the background is NOT jet black. It is more like one zone up from that. There is a very tiny and extremely well-controlled tonal separation between the dark hair and the backdrop, which is just slightly lighter (in some of the shots).

 

There is also a fair amount of PhotoShop involved in this, but exactly what steps and what effects will vary greatly depending on the equipment used.

 

Doing something like this as well as that photographer has done will take 40-100 hours of concentrated studio experience to learn and even more to master. The exposure control is super-tight, and the control of the lighting contrast is even tighter. You won't be able to do this with a cheap camera. It might even involve a Leaf back and MF. Happy shooting. -BC-

[o._wagner]

Thanks for the responses so far. Is there any settings I need to know about? For instance, do I need to underexpose since it's black? Or do I just meter off the subject and blacken in PS? I'm totally clueless.

[christopher_rajkumar]

"You won't be able to do this with a cheap camera. It might even involve a Leaf back and MF."

 

Absolutely disagree with Bill Cormett's statement. You can do this with any camera that allows for manual exposure if you know the physics of lighting. It is the lighting and not the camera that depicts a scene. All that the camera does is to keep the shutter open for the specified period of time for the film/sensor to capture the image. A decent sensor and a decent lens will obviously help in case of digital.

My point is even the best MF cameras out there won't give you good images if you don't know how to light.

[bill c.]

Christopher-- Based on my years of shooting for major magazines and other publications (including the National Geographic Society), my decades of work as a photo educator, my awards from national organizations (including "Magazine Cover of the Year" from the National Art Directors Association), my degree in photography from a major university, and my nearly 40 years as a professional photographer (working for major newspapers since age 15), the hundreds of weddings I have photographed, the thousands of advertising images I have produced, and the countless portraits, headshots, and promotional images that I have taken over the decades, I stand by my assessment.

 

Before you make such a statement again, you might want to click on a person's name to get their background. -BC-

[christopher_rajkumar]

Bill - The only statement that I didn't agree with you(and still don't) is where you think that those images referred to by the OP cannot be made by normal camera.

Do you seriously think that such images cannot be produced by cameras like the Fuji S5 or a Canon 5d(or a 10D, 20D or a 30D for that matter)?

With all due respect to your resume(and you do have a very very impressive one BTW), I respectfully disagree with your assessment.

[bill c.]

Why don't you give it a try, and post some samples. I'm sure it will end up being a very educational experience for you. -BC-

[bill c.]

Gene-- In terms of "cheap", if you read my post properly, you will see that I was referring to digital (a Leaf back is digital). You used film, which has a longer latitude than most *digital* sensors, and indeed can be able to hold details in certain tonal ranges better, depending on the technique.

 

Since O. didn't specify that he was using film-- and these days pretty much everybody who still uses film will mention that in a post where they ask a question-- it was certainly safe to assume that he was intending to use digital. In terms of using digital to replicate such a shot, yes, a cheap camera is not going to cut it here.

 

In terms of film, of course, pretty much any applicable camera that will hold the film flat and give an accurate shutter speed might be made to work, as it's the film itself (combined with whichever developer is being used) that will create tonal range and smoothness (the greater or lesser resolution of the various formats and lenses still needing to be taken into account). I have a number of what people might consider "cheap" film cameras that I use for specific techniques myself.

 

Can you replicate the technique in question with a digital camera that costs less than what your Pentax body would sell for on Ebay? I would seriously doubt it. At minimum maybe a Canon D30 or Nikon D200, but more likely a D2x or 1DsMkII, and none of those are what anyone would consider cheap. Of course the MF Leaf back has a far greater exposure latitude than film, but for costing up to $30,000 it better have.

 

Digital is overwhelmingly pervasive in the photographic world today, and as I say, it is safe to assume that unless film is mentioned as the medium, the meduim in question will be digital. If I would have meant a cheap FILM camera, I would have specified a cheap FILM camera. In that situation, the same conditions might not apply.

 

So, Gene, why don't you spend another ten minutes and replicate the technique exactly, as you say you can. I'm sure O. would be extremely interested in knowing how you did it, and there would probably be a bunch more people around here who would like to know as well. Feel free to use a camera of whatever value you want, just let us know which medium you're talking about.

 

Happy shooting. -BC-