How was it lit...

A

Andrew H

Suspended / Banned
Messages
75
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
I apologise if there is a specific section of the forum for this sort of question, but I genuinely did look and couldn't find one!

There have been quite a few times recently where I have been looking through magazines or browsing the web and wondered how certain shots were lit. I'm not talking about the simple set ups, it's the more complex shots I am wondering about.

I have looked through guessthelighting.com (all of it in fact!), and a lot of it is very interesting, but I'm still baffled about quite a few shots that aren't on there. I wont start posting hundreds of images, but I will give two examples to see if anyone can please tell me how they were lit: (I don't have permission to post the images, so I will link to them instead)

David Standish - Valerija Kelava (Right image):
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lresooKOq71qcaju7o1_1280.jpg

Mario Testino - Emma Watson:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hDws6Xyx4G4/TpFvTiMjZlI/AAAAAAAAUm0/_unPZW1Sp_Q/s1600/emma.jpg

If anyone can give any ideas as to how both these images were lit I will be eternally grateful! :)

Also, if other forum members have any images you are wondering about personally, post them up and hopefully we can get a small database going with answers from knowledgeable TP members!

N.B. I am not asking because I wish to copy the setups, purely to expand my knowledge of lighting technique!
 
Why do you want to know? Technically they're all pretty dreadful!

First one, left, is ring-flash, plus a lot of cross-post processing. One on the right, a biggish/soft light to the left, but there's also something going on with the background to the right making it hard to tell.

Second link, hard bright light to the right/behind subject, plus fill-in from the front. Also evidence of post processing or maybe a gel effect.

Published images like that are often very hard to judge in anything more than general terms as they have always been heavily worked on in Photoshop. Sometimes that is just to enhance what's already there, but just as often the finished image is almost unrecognisable compared to the original.
 
Thank you for your reply Richard.

I ask purely to expand my knowledge of lighting technique! I have a fairly good knowledge of it all through my own photography and assisting, but I am always looking to learn more creative techniques.

Thank you, your explanations are really helpful. I understand there has been a lot of post on both examples, but as you said, it can be to enhance what is already there. The points you questioned were a few of the things I wondered about. E.g. Standish image - Blue flare from light on the right, but I also wondered about the blue tinged shadow on her back?

With the Testino image, could you hazard a guess as to what the hard light source may be? The reason I ask is because of the light on Miss.Watson's neck - something doesn't seem right to me with the light on the jacket and falloff on her forehead in comparison. I also wondered about the use of gels with this image - my guess was a cold gel rimlight, but this is purely a guess!

Again, thank you for your help with this, really appreciate it. :)

HoppyUK said:
Why do you want to know? Technically they're all pretty dreadful!

First one, left, is ring-flash, plus a lot of cross-post processing. One on the right, a biggish/soft light to the left, but there's also something going on with the background to the right making it hard to tell.

Second link, hard bright light to the right/behind subject, plus fill-in from the front. Also evidence of post processing or maybe a gel effect.

Published images like that are often very hard to judge in anything more than general terms as they have always been heavily worked on in Photoshop. Sometimes that is just to enhance what's already there, but just as often the finished image is almost unrecognisable compared to the original.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I agree with Richard here. These shots *may* have been enhanced with PP but personally I would say that they've been murdered in PP:(
E.g. Standish image - Blue flare from light on the right, but I also wondered about the blue tinged shadow on her back?
Click to expand...
The flare and the blue on her back is unmotivated. My personal guess on the lighting is a combination of hard and soft light - a large softbox to her left is obvious, but I'm thinking that there was either a fresnel spot or a beauty dish there as well. I've seen better.

The Emma Watson one owes far more to PP than to the lighting. Destroying an image like that should be a criminal offence:)
 
Thank you, Garry.

My untrained eye definitely needs some training! Or I may have read the name of the photographer first and then come to my own (wrong) conclusions!

I've retouched a fair few images in the past, but nothing to that extent i.e. very subtle retouching, so wouldn't be able to tell what has/has not been done in post - a bit of an eyeopener to the say the least!

I'll think I'll call it case closed! Thank you both, appreciate the answers. :)

One last quick question to all - are there any good books to read up on creative lighting? I've watched numerous youtube videos, all of which repeat the basics, but I would love to read up on more complex setups and technique. I've looked on Amazon, but with around 1700 results for 'photography lighting' I'm finding it difficult to narrow down the good and the bad!
 
Andrew H said:
One last quick question to all - are there any good books to read up on creative lighting? I've watched numerous youtube videos, all of which repeat the basics, but I would love to read up on more complex setups and technique. I've looked on Amazon, but with around 1700 results for 'photography lighting' I'm finding it difficult to narrow down the good and the bad!
Click to expand...
Light: Science & Magic, 3rd edition. It's more a book on simple applied physics than anything else, i.e. it explains and shows how to do things, it's about how to cook with light rather than a book of recipes.

Most of the basics repeated ad nauseum on Youtube are just plain wrong.
 
Thanks Garry, I'll have a look for that now.

I agree, I do tend to take a lot of the tutorials with a pinch of salt. In fact, your 'Learning Centre' has been extremely helpful along the way (more so than most, if not all YouTube videos!), so a big thank you from me! :)
 
Another view...

These are photographs that are stylised. The purpose of the images is to sell perfume or clothing. The photographs are supposed to look the way they look, faults and all. They can be as technically crappy as you like, however I guess the photographers were told what was wanted, and then paid grandly for delivering it.

Whilst we may or may not like the style, I think they work... especially considering the target audience, and the place they are used (in glossy women's magazines).

Sometimes, breaking a rule on purpose, or cheapening something, or adding a load of flare to a shot makes the shot work big time.

Let me illustrate this... the shot below technically is crap, I purposefully broke a lot of "rules" I could have exposed for the faces, I could have framed it better, I could of used a lens hood, i could have avoided the flare, I could have gone for the rich colours that were really in the scene... I didn't, and I am glad I didn't as it is one of the shots that has made me the most money. It is the shot that brides and grooms see and fall in love with, and is partially the reason at least 5 couples have booked me. The reason for this, quoting the couple that booked me last night "You captured the couple and the moment without being there"

40.jpg
 
Last edited:
Leaving aside the lighting snobbery....grab yourself a copy of Welcome to Oz by Vincent Versace - he takes very flat images then build them up to beautiful stuff in post.
 
Richard King said:
Another view...

These are photographs that are stylised. The purpose of the images is to sell perfume or clothing. The photographs are supposed to look the way they look, faults and all. They can be as technically crappy as you like, however I guess the photographers were told what was wanted, and then paid grandly for delivering it.

Whilst we may or may not like the style, I think they work... especially considering the target audience, and the place they are used (in glossy women's magazines).
Click to expand...
Agreed, it's about producing what's required, not about technical excellence. The point that I was trying to make is that there are far better examples out there for people to learn from.
Leaving aside the lighting snobbery....grab yourself a copy of Welcome to Oz by Vincent Versace - he takes very flat images then build them up to beautiful stuff in post.
Click to expand...
It really isn't about 'lighting snobbery'.
Does PP replace lighting, or for that matter photography itself? Good, if old question, but as this is the lighting forum perhaps we should concentrate on lighting and leave that argument for another place, but my view is that even if it can replace good photographic technique, it's extremely costly in terms of time and far more difficult than getting it right in the camera. And anyway, light has a third dimension, a computer monitor doesn't and the results always look fake to me, even when carried out by an expert.

Unfortunately, PS seems to have become the lifebelt for photographers who can't swim...
 
Andrew H said:
With the Testino image, could you hazard a guess as to what the hard light source may be? The reason I ask is because of the light on Miss.Watson's neck - something doesn't seem right to me with the light on the jacket and falloff on her forehead in comparison. I also wondered about the use of gels with this image - my guess was a cold gel rimlight, but this is purely a guess!

Again, thank you for your help with this, really appreciate it. :)
Click to expand...

Not at all interested in the first shots
However the Emma Watson shot brought up the same question as you did.
There are double shadows from the collar which are far closer to each other than the modelling light on the face and the brightly lit side of the face would suggest.
I can only suppose the bright side was lit with a spot or snoot with a hard barn door limiting the spread on the face. the hard division on the nose and the retouching of the light on the chin would suggest this.

The Jacket light level looks totally false and I suspect was sorted in photoshop.

The vertical line of the light on the neck does not follow the natural contours so must be a shadow line from the barn door or retouching It could not come from the jacket.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top