aaron_j_ban Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Another question about how lighting was achieved in this shot:<p /><img src="http://www.medeainc.com/_slush/floatOrig.jpg" width="658" height="550" /><p />Thanks again in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
link Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 The top of the board is brighter than the edge facing the camera. The brightest light source is high and behind the subject. There is another high, soft source above the camera casting the shadow behind the subject on the floor. There may also be a fill light below the camera, or it could just be the light bouncing off the white floor. I must say that learning lighting from a map can be futile. Better to get a basketball and a couple light bulbs to see what they do. Then try it on a person. For studio work the background, costume, hair, props, pose, will imply differing approaches. The only way to learn is to do. And start with the minimum number of light sources. And more important the lighting equipment is equipment to keep the light off the areas you don't want it. I'm not sure if this is what you want to know, but I gave it a shot... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_waller Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Large softbox (e.g. northlight) above the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 just a big softbox suspended directly above the model. Very basic, very primitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaron_j_ban Posted December 16, 2003 Author Share Posted December 16, 2003 thanks again BG, and you too Chris. That's what I thought it was, but what threw me off was how well lit the model was on the underside. Perhaps it was bounce from the floor or maybe they use a reflector in a magic kind of way? Don't really know. Can't wait to rent a studio and do some testing to find out. What I really love is the falloff going up the drop. I like how it gradients to a darker shade. Hans, relax. And, if you're going to be a smartass then don't reply to my posts. Is there an ignore feature on this board? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 What was wong with my reply? 'Primitive' is not a derision term, is it? It refers strictly to the fact that the light set-up is not complex, but simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 �What was wong with my reply?� How many volatile reactions do you need? Thread after thread, month after month, it�s always the same. Your lack of manners and arrogance stops a lot participation from people I would like to converse with. You wouldn�t behave like this in public, in a coffee shop, or on a job site, so why at the keyboard? A few weeks ago I encouraged you not to quit PN, I�ve changed my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leanne_newton Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Aaron, I would really like you to post your own attempts. I am not keen on discussing photographers' work online without their consent or at the very least a credit to them for their work. Also, I think everyone learns more by discussing an actual lighting setup, with the photographer responsible, than in this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Aaron: OK: 'Just a big softbox suspended directly above the model.' Is that more to your liking? Do you really not want to hear that I think the lighting is rather plain and unexciting, that it offers nothing innovative or dramatic? OK, then, I will refrain from saying those things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 The exposure seems to be incorrect, I would say. About 1/2 to 3/4 stop overexposed... Anyone else concur? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ole_tjugen Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Hans, I agree with you for once;) I'm sure the photographer intended it that way, though. As far as I can recall there was a fad for this some years back. I never understood why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandonhamilton Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Looks to me like a camera mounted flash bounced off the cealing.. pretty simple Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaron_j_ban Posted December 16, 2003 Author Share Posted December 16, 2003 hey folks, okay, I've uploaded some of my own work if anyone is interested in checking it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 <i>OK, then, I will refrain from saying those things. </i><p> We shall see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 What is the source of this masterpiece? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenbarall Posted December 17, 2003 Share Posted December 17, 2003 One really really big overhead light, great makeup and retouching. Also maybe large reflectors going across the front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaron_j_ban Posted December 17, 2003 Author Share Posted December 17, 2003 hey folks, here's the source of the photo:<p /><a href="http://www.borispoljicanin.com" target="_blank">Boris Poljicanin</a><p /> and, yes, the shot is over exposed about 1/2 to 1/3 stop but I think he meant for that to be. Anyway, I would discuss it with him but I just figured that emailing him and asking would seem odd to him. Maybe not . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted December 17, 2003 Share Posted December 17, 2003 if he ment it to be...then it's not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leanne_newton Posted December 17, 2003 Share Posted December 17, 2003 The clothes being black, and leather too, limit the lighting options a bit...so this looks fine to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted December 17, 2003 Share Posted December 17, 2003 Eric Stillz , dec 17, 2003; 02:50 a.m. "if he ment it to be...then it's not" There are objective standards of exposure and subjective ones. The exposure here is a bit high for objective standards. The color of the skin is bleached out in the brightest areas. Of course, the reproduction here may be less than perfect. I visited the site, which is very slick. The photography that I saw is so-so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twmeyer Posted December 17, 2003 Share Posted December 17, 2003 Yeah, unimaginative and basic... and the fill is most likely a by product of the main lighting. When I shoot on a white sweep, I kill myself to keep spill <i>off</i> the subject. It's a sure sign that either the studio was too small, or the photographer doesn't care enough to control the light... possibly. It can be used to good effect as "automatic" fill, like when the subject is laying on the white surface, or when shooting outdoors on a concrete slab, or at the beach or in snow. Look at that example someone just posted (for Hans) of Ms. Turlington that was made outdoors on a white surface. Herb Ritz used that technique alot, and I think he depended on beautiful people, exotic locations and big budgets to assure "good" photographs. How's that for digression?... t Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted December 17, 2003 Share Posted December 17, 2003 Look at: Hollywood Portraits by Roger Hicks, Christopher Nisperos, Kobal Collection http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0817440208/qid=1071692752/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-4817747-5683023?v=glance&s=books Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bacsa Posted December 18, 2003 Share Posted December 18, 2003 <i>"The exposure seems to be incorrect, I would say. About 1/2 to 3/4 stop overexposed... "</i> <p> I guess, the in-camera meter was fooled by the black dress:o)<br> or, the one-hour lab made the usual stupid averaging while printing? ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted December 18, 2003 Share Posted December 18, 2003 Csab' Józsa schrieb: "I guess, the in-camera meter was fooled by the black dress:o) or, the one-hour lab made the usual stupid averaging while printing? ;)" It is to be doubted that a pro would work with a ttl metering system when using this sort of lighting. Studio lights are independent of the camera, and go off at 'full power' or a portion thereof set at the flash control box. The camera does not affect this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twmeyer Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 <i>"It is to be doubted ..."</i>, hence the pictograms of winking faces... t Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now