To Recreate This effect

[alice_lum]

<p>How do you recreate this effect. I assume alot of it was photoshoped? what kind of lighting do you think it is? Thank you so much.</p>

<p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.cosabellablog.com/upload/2009/01/2008_wedding_engagement_favori/wedmodernblog05.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.cosabellablog.com/upload/2009/01/2008_wedding_engagement_favori/wedmodernblog05.jpg</a></p>

[picturesque]

<p>It looks to me like the rock wall was already lit by existing up lighting behind the bench. The light on the couple is diffused, frontal flash, whether from off camera or on camera (I think the latter) flash and a heavy black vignette was applied in post. If the light on the rock was not existing, it was placed there. That's my guess.</p>

[amanda___minnesota]

<p>That's the beauty of wedding photography and really ANY photography... You get completely original location images... everything changes throughout the day, so even the same local looks different at different times... I wouldn't concentrate so much on <em>recreating this effect</em> as I would <em>enjoying</em> the times when it exists for you to use... </p>

[ejder]

<p>Shutter was probably dragged to allow the light from behind the sofa to hit the rocks; couple was asked to stay still, it looks like two directional lights (softboxes perhaps) were placed on left and right sides and aimed at the couple. The softboxes may have been aimed low to miss the rocks (possibly strip boxes). Very likely a vignette was added later, and a faint glow to the whites.</p>

<p>Of course it could be one on-camera flash, but I couldn't do this photo with one on-camera flash. Specular highlights would be everywhere, depth would be very limited in the rocks, faces, etc...</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Joey--you could bounce your on camera flash behind you or have a diffuser on it. It could even have been ambient light, but I kind of doubt that since ambient light would have been more downward, not frontal.</p>

[ejder]

<p>On-camera diffusers I don't find to be very effective. Bounced is possible, but the shadow on the right bottom edge of her dress suggests a right-side flash and the lack of shadow on the left side of his legs suggests left-side flash, which is why I thought there were two.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>I agree--on camera diffusers that don't work with bounce aren't all that effective, but you mentioned specular highlights. They do help with that. I actually think it is one flash, to the right, with or without on camera as fill--but impossible to say for sure.</p>

[sherijohnson]

<p>It is a beautiful shot!</p>

[mgk1966]

<p>The post-processing that was done looks like a little desaturation, a big contrast boost, probably some split toning and a vignette. That could all be done in ACR or Lightroom without ever going into Photoshop. There are some auto tools try to go for this kind of style if you don't want to do it manually, Kubota comes to mind I think. The only local adjustment might have been to their skin.</p>

<p>Otherwise, I agree that the lighting is a mix of ambient and flash. Possibly some dodging of the rocks.</p>

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p>Direct flash, desaturated, vignetted, soft focus filter (probably in PS)</p>

<p>Don't care that much for it actually.</p>

[david_garcia10]

<p>dodging and burning?.. actions? like antique effect or something similar forgot what its called check kevin kubota actions, some sharpening... and like david w. mentioned direct flash and a lot of vignetting in ps or similar software.</p>