How were these lit?

[abcd_efgh1]

<p><img src="http://dazedimg.dazedgroup.netdna-cdn.com/1400/azure/dazed-prod/1160/7/1167366.jpg" alt="" width="1400" height="1867" /><br /> If you look at the catchlights (you will have to zoom into this page to see), I can see its two yellow gels and two blue as the overall tone of the photo is green, but the side of the face is warm. I just don't know what strobe attachments are used, if any or where they are positioned.</p>

<p><img src="http://dazedimg.dazedgroup.netdna-cdn.com/1400/azure/dazed-prod/1160/7/1167367.jpg" alt="" width="1400" height="1867" /></p>

<p>What about this one, too?</p>

<p>© http://www.nicolemariawinkler.com/</p>

[SCL]

<p>Looking at the shadows, I'd say there was a brighter one higher on the left forward side of the face pointing backward and also highlighting the hair, and another one about 1/3f as bright a little lower on the right side of the face. Additionally it looks like the backdrop was independently lit with a 3rd strobe.</p>

[brooks short]

<p>Looks light available light from hard light fixtures in the ceiling. Not a very attractive lighting, or color balance.</p>

[abcd_efgh1]

<p>Brooks, your rude opinion wasn't needed. This lighting is used very frequently in contemporary fashion photography, and they are definitely not light fixtures in the ceiling...come on. They are atleast strobe, beauty dish or umbrella from a distance and position I cannot figure out. I should have known better to ask on a site with a lot of users that use very corny lighting for their product and fashion photography. Thanks Stephen Lewis for your answer, I will try it out in the studio.</p>

[brooks short]

<p>Michelle, I don't see any reflections of beauty dishes or umbrellas in the subjects eyes, do you? Look at the double shadows, one from each side of the subject, in the white jacket in the second shot. See the yellow tungsten light balance of the shadows? Terrible disunity of light from two lights on opposite sides of the subject and poor color balance. Come on.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>I've got to agree with Brooks. The color balance is way off. One shadow is cool, the other warm -- it leads to an unattractive pallor to the skin tones as well. Lighting is critical when the primary subject is white. </p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>I agree with the previous "rude" posts.</p>

<p>How were these lit? Quite badly!</p>

<p>Actually the second example's not too bad, but it's nothing special. A softbox above and camera left with an overkill of fill from a reflector camera right most likely. Too flatly lit to give the moody expression of the model any impact. It's the sort of one-size-fits-all lighting I'd expect from a walk-in portrait studio.<br>

On second thoughts the shadows are a bit too hard-edged for a softbox, and along with the speculars off the forehead and nose I'll revise that to an open reflector strobe head, or maybe tungsten lighting given the poor colour consistency - but that might well be a post processing effect.</p>

[bob_bill]

<p>Apparently, Michele decided to go incognito. I think I remember you here before joining recently 3/18. The 2 shots have many problems. If they are yours, be open to constructive criticism. If someone produced shots like these and tried to charge me, believe me, my comments would make these pale in comparison. I am a poster on this site and was offended by the comment " a lot of users that use very corny lighting for their product and fashion photography." There are many photographers here whose work I admire, including Brooks, so I took exception to that statement. I am guessing those were your photos and hence the defensive response. Doesn't matter, but I think you should take a look at some of the lighting tutorials on this site, read what is posted here and try coming back with an open mind. If I can be of any help, you can email me directly. We artists can be ever so touchy about our work sometimes but we have to become thick skinned because there is always someone who will not understand or like our work. </p>

[johne37179]

<p>Bob is spot on. Many of us have learned most of what we know about this subject from our peers. You should seek criticism rather than push back against it. I've been taking photographs for over 60 years both professionally and as a hobby. I have always sought the advice and criticism of my peers and the longer I do this the more active my search for that critique that will help me.</p>

[mark_davidson1]

<p>This looks to me like a medium hard tungsten light source camera left with a strobe fill. As the color is mismatched but not enormously so I wonder if the strobe was slightly gelled. <br>

Either way, not my cup of tea but I am familiar with the style in some "fashion" circles.</p>

[dan_meyers1]

<p>How were these lit?<br>

Poorly!</p>

[shaie2010]

<p>I haven't contributed here in a long time if really ever. I want to throw out an idea of how this might have been lit. Just and idea and not saying I am even remotely close on a guess. My first thought when I look at the two photos is there is a possible small stage lighting above him. Two or four small stage hot lights with a CTO and CTB gel. Located high and only on one side of where ever he is sitting or facing. Ambient light appears to be showing as well. Maybe fluorescents or something else. Shadows under chin but straight shadow from the photo left white collar on the shirt makes me think some type of lighting at eye level. Either way it is not an appealing light process in my opinion. Again I am just guessing at what caused the small catch lights in one eye only, high and in straight line across. Raccoon eyes from lights to high as well. Small lights but far away. </p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>Agree with Brooks.</p>