Can someone please tell me is this effect is done with lighting or in ps

It's both. In this one http://www.manipulator.com/Commissions/photos/children#/1 (just as an example) the child is rimlit with a light behind and to each side and with an on-axis fill - all pretty standard stuff. But the background is very much a product of PS and the face has been retouched too.
 
This looks to me like grids and coloured gels, could have also have been done in Photoshop but you would need a high res image to be sure.

This is an easy set up if you have studio lighting, much easier than trying to recreate it in PS
 
It looks mostly photoshop to me. I have a DVD somewhere at home where a guy shares his technique very similar to this. From memory his name was Gary something - a US tog who specialises in sports portraits. I'll try and find it if no one else comes up with a link.
 
Greenburg's stuff is always heavily Photoshopped, personally I think it's horrendous, but here's a link to a how-to guide....
 
:D

I always mention Jill Greenberg to clients if their children cry :) (like this)

The interesting thing about her lighting is that she uses lots of different techniques to build a recognisable style. Sh often mixes hard and soft light in the same axis. And yeah, there's a lot of post.

Glad to see her style getting recognition in the UK - anybody want to kick off a debate on the ethics of reverse engineering it and copying?
 
Thank you all for so much help would any one be able to do a lighting layout for a shot similar please
Albert
 
DovePhotographic said:
Thank you all for so much help would any one be able to do a lighting layout for a shot similar please
Albert
Click to expand...
Easy. Softbox fitted with honeycomb grid each side and behind.
Any light at the camera position for on axis fill.


The softboxes need to be far enough away to allow the subject to move around a bit (or a lot). They need to be pointing as directly towards the camera as they can, without causing flare (the honeycombs make a fairly acute angle possible)

The same setup was used here (NSFW)
 
I picked up a post from JB on another site (POTN I think) where basically she said lots of lights, and lots of layers.

Bottom line is I think she's a very accomplished all-round photographer. When you take all the elements - subject, lights, post processing - it's quite straightforward, but putting it all together is a real skill. (I have a pretty good idea of how to play a guitar, but damned if I can do it)

I think the hardest bit is the lighting, even though the PP probably contributes most to the look. The lights are very precisely poitioned and balanced (usually five) which is not always easy at the best of times, let alone with a difficult child rushing around :eek: She uses ringflash a lot too.

Edit: I think you could probably deliver a result that customers would like relatively easily with Garry's lighting guide and Graham's handy link to the PP :thumbs:
 
Last edited:
Dodge and burn in post has alot to do with this I think, exaggerating the highlights on the skin
 
Maybe it's just me but I find a lot of those photos a little creepy and odd looking.
 
You can get this effect in pp, with lots of dodging & burning and sharpening.
 
Adam_K said:
You can get this effect in pp, with lots of dodging & burning and sharpening.
Click to expand...

Up to a point yes, but you can't get 3 dimensional lighting effects using a 2 dimensional software package - and why would you want to when it's so easy to do it with lighting anyway?
 
I am sorry don't like that look at all, they look like they should be working at
Willy Wonka's Chocolate factory or something.


they look like the have been through the shimmer machine at Cadbury's


sorry very false looking images :thumbsdown:

Merc
 
Garry Edwards said:
Up to a point yes, but you can't get 3 dimensional lighting effects using a 2 dimensional software package - and why would you want to when it's so easy to do it with lighting anyway?
Click to expand...

I agree Garry but not everyone has access to three or more light set up. Just mentioning to others know it can be done with less, but more pp.

Personally I am not a fan either of this technique.
 
mercmanuk said:
I am sorry don't like that look at all, they look like they should be working at
Willy Wonka's Chocolate factory or something.


they look like the have been through the shimmer machine at Cadbury's


sorry very false looking images :thumbsdown:

Merc
Click to expand...

And yet she gets to be in the New York times and command 4-5 figure sitting fees and all the people shooting cutesy images with softboxes on white don't.

Funny that....:nuts:
 
JonathanRyan said:
And yet she gets to be in the New York times and command 4-5 figure sitting fees and all the people shooting cutesy images with softboxes on white don't.

Funny that....:nuts:
Click to expand...


When it comes to America 'funny' can often be a very apt word ;)
 
JonathanRyan said:
And yet she gets to be in the New York times and command 4-5 figure sitting fees and all the people shooting cutesy images with softboxes on white don't.

Funny that....:nuts:
Click to expand...

Agreed. I think the whole problem with photogaphy is that it's so subjective. Some people love what I personally think is rubbish, but they're entitled to, and the same people are likely to hate carefully lit shots with hard lighting, and again they're entitled to.

After all, Venture built a very successful business based on white backgrounds, flat lighting and over-processing, so 'good' or 'bad' aren't really words that any of us should use.

That's maybe why I enjoy clay shooting so much - If I hit say 42 clays out of 50 and everyone else hits less, then I've done well. It doesn't matter whether I'm using the best equipment or not, or whether I started doing it last week or have done it for 30 years, it doesn't matter which cartidges I use or which make of wellie boots I wear - I either hit 'em or I don't and nobody can say that I'm doing something wrong. Opinions just don't count. In photography it's the opposite.
 
JonathanRyan said:
And yet she gets to be in the New York times and command 4-5 figure sitting fees and all the people shooting cutesy images with softboxes on white don't.

Funny that....:nuts:
Click to expand...

Yes, and all credit to her :thumbs:

It's not easy to create something different, of real merit (whether you like it or not), striking, provocative, and a genuine talking point.

It's also a wonderful mixture of old and new techologies and skills. I predict it will be the 'next big thing' and that Edinburgh Gary will have it sorted in no time :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top