How Was This Lighting Achieved?

[aaron_j_ban]

Hey folks, can anyone give me an idea of how the lighting was rigged

for this shot? Specifics would be helpful. Thanks in advance :)

[aaron_j_ban]

Sorry, here's the image coded in from my own server for quick reference:

<p />

<img src="http://www.medeainc.com/_slush/28.jpg" width="514" height="400" />

<p />

[aaron_j_ban]

gah, this time with HTML on:

<p />

Sorry, here's the image coded in from my own server for quick reference:

<p />

<img src="http://www.medeainc.com/_slush/28.jpg" width="514" height="400" />

<p />

[link]

To find the light source - follow the shadows.

 

There is only one shadow, a diffuse short shadow directly behind the subjects.

 

Therefore, there is only one light source, a large soft source high and infront of the

models.

[twmeyer]

<i>"models"</i>?... isn't that three shots of the same woman comp'd into one image? 3 quick shots with different hair because of the fan?... t

[link]

"models"?... isn't that three shots of the same woman comp'd into one image? 3 quick

shots with different hair because of the fan?... "

 

Could be. Does it matter to the lighting? I don't think so.

[gary evans]

"One model, 1 shot for the the pose and extra 2 headshots.

 

Neck down is everything the same, so 1 is real and the other two are just pasted."

 

I completely disagree. Take a closer look at the wrinkles in the pants. These are three different shots of the same pose.

[EricM]

"Therefore, there is only one light source, a large soft source high and infront of the models."

 

Look closer around the feet, i can count three shadows. one light would be pretty hard, which this isn't. and there's prob at least one for the backdrop too.

[chris_waller]

Large softbox top front.

[vatovec]

OK, this guy won the "Most Pathetic Lighting of the Week" Award, who is he?

[igord]

You can use 20 lights and get one shadow. You can shape the shadow with few light sources from different directions and with different character.

I do not think it is one light.

You can achieve this lighting using at least 10 lighting setup.

Keep practicing...

[leanne_newton]

Igor, I agree with you. This was probably done during a shoot where the the lighting was set for a white background, so a big studio, space length etc.

The detail on the white suggests black cards/styrofoam boards on the sides of the model..this is not one , two or three lights in my opinion. It would be nice to have a visit from someone on the lighting forum for a more precise breakdown :-)

[hans_beckert]

David:

 

You have certainly hit the nail on the head.

[aaron_j_ban]

hey folks, thanks for the answers. I'm assuming that it's two lights. One giant softbox from the top/front and then one smaller fill box directly from the front.

 

Also, although I'm new here I'd have to say that a few of you need to chill out. Why the negativity? I can't remember who the photographer is that took this shot, but I do remember that I got it from Art Department's site. So, right after you get repped by Art Department then come back and shoot your mouth off about how this wins the "bad lighting award". Perhaps less time posting in a forum and more time doing better work?

[aaron_j_ban]

oh, and as someone that works in photoshop all day long, yes, this was three separate shots, full length, that were comped into one. They did an excellent job and including the shadows.

[hans_beckert]

Aaron:

 

This does not appear to be two lights, but merely one large one, perhaps a panel.

[EricM]

Aaron, please learn to ignore it and carry on. Your input and participation is greatly appreciated, and I�d hate to see another run off the forum in frustration.

[leanne_newton]

Aaron, you are not going to get these results on your first attempt.

 

To get them, a client needs the kind of budget that will allow for a pretty decent, experienced photographer.

 

I like your website though.

[twmeyer]

One light, three full length shots of the same model (a fast sequence would be easy for all involved), and comp 'em together.<p>"<i>So, right after you get repped by Art Department then come back and shoot your mouth off about how this wins the "bad lighting award". Perhaps less time posting in a forum and more time doing better work?</i>"...hahaha. Right on the freakin mark! Ouch... t

[aaron_j_ban]

hey L, thanks for the comment on my site. It's my "day job", I run a design and development firm here in Toronto.

 

As for the results I want you're exactly right. I forgot how much there was to forget about when you're on a shoot. And, because I'm doing on fashion and beauty stuff (why would I want to photograph anything other than beautiful women? :) the pace of the shoots is pretty damn fast so things have fallen between the cracks.

 

I'm working on doing better planning for my lighting and more test-shooting of the rig before I "start" the actual shoot. I'm thinking about investing in a laptop so I can do onsite previews before I shoot. Have to see how business goes in the next few months though ;)

 

and Tom, yeah, that is right I guess, but now that I read it I feel mean. I don't want to be a prick but I've been hanging out in online forums for years and years now and there's a real negative vibe in here. With that said, everyone here seems very knowledgable and keen to share the info, just need some ground rules is all.

[leanne_newton]

I am probably stating the obvious here, but anyway....these examples one and two posted by Aaron are not "quick shots"/ let's go out and party afterwards...

 

This is a highly professional shoot, featuring a beautiful model, with excellent makeup and hair, and the styling is obviously a fashion shoot intended to sell the clothes. In this shot, the problem is the detail on the white, on the other the detail on the black.

 

I agree that this is not groundbreaking new avantegarde photography, but it is a solid job well done.

I probably wouldn't do this in my own time, but this is what you get paid well to do as a fashion photographer, often enough.

 

Setting lights and getting hair and makeup and styling together takes a few hours. After which you could be shooting 10 or so shots of this type during the day, adjusting lighting slightly to meet each new "problem" without losing the coherence of the whole sequence....so that's where it is not a quick shoot , this is done with care....time taken over details.

 

Anyway I'm sure you all know this. All I'm saying is that I agree with Igor, you need to practice a lot so that this ends up looking easy, and so that you can achieve these very professional looking results for a client on a job.

[twmeyer]

Aaron, much of the negativity you perceive here is the result of recent additions to the cast of characters. That cast is in a constant state of flux. While there are a few of us that have been posting to this forum for many years, and know each other from previous forums, some of the newcomers feel more like single entities who need to establish themselves. Us oldtimers are just hanging at the bar waiting to see who comes in from the street wearing a fancy hat that we can snicker at. Usually things calm down after some initial fireworks, or the dickheads just go away. Anyway, if you (generally speaking) can't stand the heat, just wait a week or so and it'll cool off. <p>Personally, I like talking with intelligent, opinionated people with different tastes and opinions from mine. I <i>do</i> prefer them to be on topic and polite with their insults (as you were).<p>On the other hand, if you want some good old fashioned mean spiritied fun, just go play the ratings game on the Critique Forum :^)... t

[hans_beckert]

I would not say this qualifies as 'Most Pathetic Lighting of the Week', but the hair-do sure does....

[twmeyer]

welcome to the club, Pete :^)... t (and that's <i>Mr.</i> Dickhead, to you, mate.)<p>I also agree with either Lewis Grizard or W.C. Fields (?) who said, "I wouldn't belong to any club that would have me as a member".

[mike dixon]

I thought it was Groucho Marx. (And I prefer the title <i>Lord</i>

Dickhead.)