Recreating specific lighting?

[melanie_kern]

hi -

 

I'm new to the group and I hope I'm posting this in the correct category.

 

I usually am able to figure out lighting for different circumstances but I'm having trouble with this one. I'm looking to find out how this

photographer is creating this light fall off on the flowers in her images. I'm trying to see if it's directional lighting but it seems to be coming

from different angles. It almost looks like scanography but I know that it isn't. She's got detail in the shadows yet the shadows are not

harsh. It reminds me of Flemish lighting. Can anyone help me figure out how the photographer achieves this lighting? I've tried

modifiers, flags, etc but I'm still having trouble. Thanks!

 

 

 

https://500px.com/magdaindigo

 

Melanie :)

[sheldonnalos]

<p>Check out this...</p>

<p>http://www.indigo2photography.co.uk/</p>

<p> </p>

[michael_darnton2]

<p>Many of them appear to be lit from slightly under the lens level, from the center or slightly to the side, with a small but soft source that's probably somewhere ahead of the lens, not behind it. I'm thinking something like a strobe with a stofen cap on it and a short snoot around that, or a strobe in a soup can with paper over the end--a small soft-box, in short.</p>

<p>Look up William Mortensen portraits to see what happens when you put a small light in front of the camera rather than a large one somewhere behind--the result is a bright center, with fall-off on the obliquely-lit surfaces that recede from the camera's view--that is, a dark margin all around the face because the lens sees more around to the sides than the much closer light can illuminate, combined with direct reflectivity back at the camera from things in the center. I'm seeing something like that in these flower photos.</p>

<p>The flower in the article looks quite different to me from most of the ones on the artist's photo site page.</p>

[User_6502147]

<p>It looks like the light is well diffused....and most likely she uses large soft light.</p>

<p>Les</p>

[michaelmowery]

<p>the light does not have to be diffused. The light is however soft. How can that be you ask? Remember the rule the closer the light the softer the light? It does not say the closer the soft box the softer the light. Any light source will appear softer 1 foot away than 5 feet away. In this case the light can be even inches away. The other effect light distance has is the closer the light the faster the light falls off. The black background is also achieved by not letting the flash expose the camera's lens angle of view. That is achieved by the angle of the flash and the help of grids or flags to control the spill of light.<br>

I am not saying how they took that photo I don't know but I am telling you how you can take it.</p>

[melanie_kern]

Wow I have sure come to the right place. I've been trying to figure out this lighting for almost a year. Good point about the

light source being below the camera, and also good point about it not being diffused, necessarily. Also, the point about

being close to subject=fall off. That's very helpful. She really gives no real hints about her lighting set ups. Believe me, I

have looked. Michael Mowery, could you go into a little more detail about your last sentence? Regarding the flash

angle? I'm not following that. I purchased The book Light Science and Magic recently, as it came highly recommended.

It's very scientific and technical and unfortunately my brain does not process that way. If you show me how to do

something, I can recreate it instantly. But ask me to read a text book and learn? Very difficult for me.

 

In case anyone is interested, my poor imitations of her work can be seen here. I'm just not even close. But I'm going to

keep trying. Thanks again to everyone for their great advice!

 

Http://mkfphotos.com/flora

[michaelmowery]

<p>when you take a normal picture with a speed light attached to your camera the light travels in the same direction you aim the camera. Take the flash off and point it in another direction and your light is travels away from camera's axis. When you take a picture of an object and you don't want the light to hit your background you need to angle your light at least 60 degrees or more relative to the background yet still illuminating your subject. When there is still spill light hitting the background you need further control the light by using a grid or flags. Google those terms to learn more.</p>

[melanie_kern]

Ah ha! That was one of the things I read in the lighting book I mentioned above. That completely makes sense. Thank

you!

[melanie_kern]

To avoid light spilling onto the background (black velvet in this case), could I simply move the background further away

from the subject?

[michaelmowery]

<p>Of course, that is the first step you should take when possible</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>If you're willing to work in the dark you can get some interesting results by "painting" the subject with light from a small torch (that's a flashlight in the US, although if it really flashes it probably needs repairing!). The technique can give really beautiful results with flowers, although it's a bit unpredictable until you've practised a lot. However with digital it doesn't cost anything to experiment.</p>