Putting main focus on model and not on background

[maijaathena]

<p>I've been looking at some portraits by Annie Leibovitz, and I really love how she puts a light on her subject without lighting the background. In fact, the background becomes very dark. How does she achieve this look with lighting? Thanks. -Maija</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Light modifiers to control spill (like grids on softboxes, or flags), and enough distance between the subject and the backdrop to allow the light fall-off to separate the two by as many stops as is creatively called for.<br /><br />If you can provide a link to a specific shot, you'll probably get some much, much more specific answers.</p>

[maijaathena]

<p>Although everything I was originally looking at is in print, here's a good example. Sometimes she uses such beautifully ornate backgrounds, but they never distract the viewer. Also, I noticed a lot of her latest stuff has a bluish tint to it. Might this be blue gels on some lighting?</p>

<p>http://diversita.blog.br/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/oscar-nicole-kidman-and-baz-luhrmann.jpg</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>That one <em>could</em> be generally lit with a blue gel, or that look could be handled with a bit of post production. But the puddle of light on Nicole Kidman looks like a fresnel spot, to me. It <em>could</em> be from a tight honeycomb, but the fresnel seems more likely. The harder shadows under her chin are the give-away there.</p>

[maijaathena]

<p>Hi Matt, You are so very helpful! Here's another interesting shot showing what kind of light she's using (in this particular shot). But this shot does represent another background that one would not want to necessarily highlight. Your comments (and experience) are so very very appreciated!</p>

<p>http://www.londonstudent.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/puffy.jpg</p>

<p>Would these be considered more hard lighting? -Maija</p>

[nathan_stiles]

<p>Maija, there is definitely some hard lighting in there. Notice the pan reflectors to the right hand side-- that's what I think she used (gridded), instead of a fresnel. A fresnel also gives a unique sparkle to reflective surfaces, which I think her dress would have shown.</p>

<p>You can gel a light magenta, spot the model, white balance for it-- and your background will have a blue'ish tint. Leibovitz is my favorite, and I can tell you she sends all her stuff off to be post processed per her direction.</p>

[maijaathena]

<p>Nathan, she's becoming a favorite of mine as well. I absolutely love the dark romanticism in her photography. And I guess that's the reason for my original post. Her environments are so often so full of character and high drama, and she can take all this and still have a main focal point, the model.</p>

<p>BTW, I read a little excerpt from an article about the photo shoot she did with the Queen of England. She wanted to take a picture of the queen in the garden, but that wasn't going to happen. So she took a picture of the garden and a picture of the Queen and had the Queen put in the garden via Photoshop. With all the bantering about photoshop vs. no photoshop, I thought this was pretty interesting. </p>

<p>http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/images/2008/09/10/elizabeth2.jpg</p>

<p>I've studied her photos a lot, and yes, I agree, there's a lot of post processing. But I'm OK with that when it's done tastefully. And I think when one is an artist and post processing is part of one's artistic process, than so be it. I love the fantasy of her final product, as do you. ;-) Maija</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>In your second link, Maija, we're seeing the set (and the pans, as Nathan points out) - but we're not seeing the <em>results</em> of that lighting. That's whatever ambient light is in play on the set. You can see that the guy with the light meter is getting ready to get a reading - and will be triggering those strobes as he does (the meter is a Sekonic, that probably has a Pocket Wizard tansmitter built-in, and that will fire the strobes - which are cabled up to a pack on the floor - out of sight). That, or the pans/beauty dishes aren't actually part of this particular shot, and are just something for Puffy's large posse to hang on while they watch the crew work the scene.<br /><br />As for that background? They may not want to highlight it - but it's certainly an important part of the scene. They wouldn't haul all of that gear to that old bit of industrialness without keeping it visibly in the results.</p>

[maijaathena]

<p>Matt, you're so smart. Dar (on my part)! Funny thing about example 2, is that I didn't even notice "Puffy" in that photo. All I notice is Kate Moss (I think that's Kate Moss). </p>

<p>If I took that picture, it would look like a mob in an industrial warehouse. Instead, in the photo, all I really notice is Kate (or model). The background and everyone else in the photo just add some [very cool] tastiness. And this is another example of blueness. I don't really see any blueness in Kate, but everyone else and the background are bluish. -Maija</p>

[maijaathena]

<p>BTW, the lighting on her face in that particular photo, does that look hard or soft to you?</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>That's relatively hard light (see the racoon eyes?). But I'm still fairly convinced that we're not seeing the light as it would be used in the actual photograph that they're producing. The set has some fairly bright working light, though... and did you notice the guy operating the beefy video camera sticking out of the top-left of the frame?</p>

[maijaathena]

<p>Matt, I'm most definitely in agreement now that you pointed it out (that was my Dar! moment). Thanks again for your comments! They are always very helpful. -Maija</p>