How was the light set up for this portrait?

[natalie_lewis1]

Any ideas? Other then a lot of photoshop....

[danny_liao]

What makes you think there's a lot of photoshop? This shot could easily be done without

any post production work.

[steve_levine]

That shot could be accomplished with a shoe mounted flash, adjusted to fill, and balanced to match the ambient light. The shadow pattern isn't revealing itself, nor can be catchlights be viewed in the eyes, and the lighting is overall "flat". This suggests to me that a small frontal light was used.

[randmcnatt]

You can see it in the catchlights and shadows. A single light, high and to the left, about 45 degrees up and somewhat in front of the subject (see attached). It's too directional to be full-sized umbrella or softbox, but seems softer than a tiny shoe-mount. Perhaps a 7 or 10 inch parabolic on a mono-light? There seems to be some low front fill, but it's probably just the reflection of the key light from the polished wood.

[beauh44]

I agree with Rand and don't see much "Photoshopping" going on at all.

[mikeseb]

Interesting (and unintended) commentary on where things stand in contemporary

photography.

 

An image is composed and illuminated with skill and care, IN CAMERA, and the automatic

assumption is that it was all done in Photoshop.

 

Proves once again that knowledge and study are the first pieces of gear anyone should obtain

when reaching for a solution to a problem.

[garethspics]

Well it could have had some Photoshop done. A fairly frontal light source inevitably hits the background. In this case the furniture on the left of frame has stayed very dark. Only the photographer really knows for sure. That's what I love about this hobby.

[garethspics]

That should read right of frame. Doh.

[debejyo]

I don't think there is any photoshop done on this. I use a yashicamat 124G and an old vivitar 91 flash. I have made my own reflectors with aluminium foil. That set up is enough to provide this kind of lighting. Just use an off-camera flash and enough reflectors in the correct orientation and you can see more dramatic effects than this!!!

[roger_hendrix]

Speaking of the current state of photography -

 

Isn't the computer and software such as PhotoShop just modern tools to let us express ourselves. The fact that someone might have altered a photo should not be considered a bad thing.

 

Would you feel the same way many years ago and the light meter was in vented and somebody says "It's not a real photo if you can't set your exposure without a meter.

 

I think the above photo can absolutely be done without "shopping it" but if it was modified it is STILL a very nice photo.

 

Time marches on, embrace the technology and expand your horizans.

 

Roger

[ellis_vener_photography]

I don't think the lighting was manipulated in Photoshop. I do think the toddlers skin tones were: they just have that blurry smooth blandness to them that makes it look like robotskin. Can someone please explain why they think this is attractive or desirable?