How was this shot lit? A new challenge

A very simple shot, just to get this thread going again
lit_background.jpg
 
I'd have a stab at an octagonal soft box slightly above and to the right of the camera, with another soft box left of scene and slightly up from camera - set at a higher output level to white-out the bg. There's some backfill on the rear left of the models hair which leads me to belive this.

So Gary, for a novice... how'd I do...?
 
theMusicMan said:
I'd have a stab at an octagonal soft box slightly above and to the right of the camera, with another soft box left of scene and slightly up from camera - set at a higher output level to white-out the bg. There's some backfill on the rear left of the models hair which leads me to belive this.

So Gary, for a novice... how'd I do...?
Click to expand...

You did well, you got it 1/3rd right:lol:
 
Main light: Large Octagonal softbox slightly above and right of camera. Background evenly lit by 2 lights I suspect? The fill almost looks like its been done with a very large reflector with a small hole in it that you have shot through, but it may just be the soft wrap around light from the main light creating the softness.
Single light on the hair probably through a snoot, exposed beautifully.

So I suspect a four light setup (with or without a reflector), 2 background (although could be one) one hairlight (probably through a snoot) and a mainlight through a softbox?
 
Near enough to win the job of putting up henext photo.

Just a single light on the background.
And the fill was an umbrella immediately behind the camera.
The hairlight was a snoot, as you said, and the key light was an Octa softbox, again as you said.

I took this shot during the filming of a new video for Lencarta - normally I avoid white backgrounds like the plague...

Over to you
 
:cuckoo:
 
I'm still at Bristol on my HNC, so no cameras, lights or photos to post. Might have a go when I;m back at the weekend!
 
EdBray said:
I'm still at Bristol on my HNC, so no cameras, lights or photos to post. Might have a go when I;m back at the weekend!
Click to expand...

OK then, I'll post another simple one to keep it going.
I said before that I hate white backgrounds;)
poser.jpg
 
oh gawd, cant quite believe I am guessing at this...ok, camera right and slightly forward, flash head higher then model pointing down, camera left and forward, flash head low down pointing upwards at model and finally, I find myself wondering if there is some kind of back light... :thinking: But I do think it may have been pasted into a black background :lol:
 
I lied about it being simple...
 
Ok as I know nothing iI shall make an educated guess.......

1) Camera left, low level slightly behind model pointing up.
2) Camera right, just above waist height again slightly behind model pointing straight.
3) Soft light at camers right pointing at model.


Probably all totally wrong but hey :shrug:
 
ok, there is something lighting model from left and right, and one of them at least is slightly behind-ish, or there is an extra light behind, but then looking again, I think there is a light almost head on too, the catch lights in her eyes are almost exactly central almost like you would get from an on-board gun...hmmm...ok, absolute stab in the dark.... big flash head to right of camera, and parallel to model, mirror or eqally powerful reflector, or softbox head, to left and lower down than right hand light, plus a lower power head with umbrella slightly above or immediately adjacent to camera :shrug: :thinking:

...and it still looks like its been either pasted onto black background, or some serious pp'ing work to turn the background from original colour to black [was it white??]
 
Well, the purpose of this thread is to get people to analyse lighting - no need to guess it - and the shadows on the face make the frontal lighting pretty obvious.
The frontal lighting isn't quite as simple as it looks, the shadows give it away but I'll be happy with an approximation as not everyone may be familiar with the technique.

The lighting on the sides of the model and the face make the position of the lights obvious - but what type of lighting and why?

Yes, there has been some PS work on the background, which was black velvet but which inevitably had some unwanted light spilled onto it. The problem with velvet is that although it absorbs light very well in one direction, when the material changes direction it becomes quite reflective in places. It's obviously black, as part of her dress is transluent and you can see the black through it. Some retouching in this kind of shot is a given, but the question is about the lighting. If I can find the original unretouched shot I'll post it
 
ok, I don't know enough yet to even guess, so instead I shall say what I am seeing, and let someone else join the dots. The light on the right, looks a bit more powerful than on the left, but also more diffused, wide spread, if that makes sense, the drop off is more gradual. The left looks much sharper but less powerful, the drop off between lit areas and shadow is much quicker and more defined. The head on light seems quite soft, fill in, an afterthought almost, but enough to provide some kind of highlight definition on bone structure and catch lights. The final thing I see is the odd piece of something, fabric I think, but not totally sure, that seems to be betwenen legs, tha back of the dress or something, that also has light, or light spill on it, possibly totally insignificant.

Limited knowledge would say barn doors left, soft box right, maybe low power or further away beauty dish head on, but I suspect thats a mile off reading your cryptic posts and some other method has been used to achieve the effect and with a reason I cannot yet begin to fathom.
 
Ok, new boy stepping in to the ring (so go easy hey!!).

I'd hazard a guess that the side lighting is done by bouncing the light off a couple of large white relectors behind the subject to either side. The front light (judging by the eyes) is probably a beauty dish. The issues with the light spill on the backdrop and the consistency of the light down the sides of the subject would also support the theory of the large reflectors.

Close?

Scott
 
SL79 said:
Crashed and burned :lol:

How about the rim lighting done with natural light*? :suspect:

* Highly speculative crazy thinking there
Click to expand...

Your first answer was better, at least in terms of the rim/side lighting but it wasn't from reflectors, hence my 'No'.
If you think about it, and the fact that the light is travelling from each side towards the camera then there can only be one family of tools that would work without causing flare (big hint there;))
The lighting each side should have been even but 2 things happened. Firstly the 2 lighting tools I used weren't identical because I didn't have 2 the same and secondly the model changed position a bit - they do that - but I kept this shot because I liked the expression on her face.

As for the frontal lighting, not easy to deconstruct and not a very common form of lighting so I'm not going to be picky about the right answer on that one.

Sorry if this one is a bit more difficult than some but the idea is to stretch people a bit...
 
Garry Edwards said:
Sorry if this one is a bit more difficult than some but the idea is to stretch people a bit...
Click to expand...

Good to be stretched. :thumbs:

I did think the light on the left was with a grid initially, but the overall coverage of light confused me.

If we're looking at the basics, there are at least two sources behind the subject, to either side (not quite at a 45 degree angle). It could even be three light sources (two to the right of the frame).

Looking at the intense light on the hand to the left of the frame, I'd go with a spot to the rear left of the frame, aimed in at waist height, and a softbox* to the rear right. Not sure on that frontal light source though. Could it be a continuous light source such as tungsten even?

*could be a grid otherwise, but the light looked a bit soft.

Scott
 
I think you/ve got close enough now for me to pass you the baton - which means that you've won the dubious honour of posting the next photo

1 softbox each side and behind, each fitted with a honeycomb. The honeycombs were essential to both control the light AND TO PREVENT FLARE. I could in fact have used just ordinary honeycombs fitted to standard reflectors but my velvet backdrop wasn't big enough to allow that.

The frontal light was a combination of hard and soft lighting. A large softbox set at very low power immediately behind me, to produce very gentle fill, together with a honeycombed light aimed at her face. That's a pretty standard pro configuration but not too common, that's why I said I wasn't going to be too picky about getting the frontal lighting right. I wouldn't use continuous lighting, she's a nice girl and i wouldn't even shine a continuous light into my ex-wife's eyes...
 
Garry Edwards said:
The frontal light was a combination of hard and soft lighting. A large softbox set at very low power immediately behind me, to produce very gentle fill, together with a honeycombed light aimed at her face.
Click to expand...

Interesting setup there. :thumbs:

Here's a still-life, which shouldn't pose too many problems...

IMG_0961%20copy.jpg
 
I'm not going to say anything here because I use the same tools, in much the same way, all the time - but as SL79 says, it's not a difficult shot to analyse and I hope that portrait shooters will have a go at it. Still life photography is an extremely good learning medium for lighting, even for people who aren't even remotely interested in doing it themselves...
 
To me it looks like the boot has been placed on a light table and lit with a large (in relation to the boot) softbox overhead and slightly front and left. This whilst casting no harsh shadows has allowed a softish shadow to the rear of the boot and allowed some subtle modelling of the boot. It looks like another weakish light has been aimed up from below the light table to produce a highlight under the boot and reduce the strength of the reflction on the table.
 
I think it's standing on that reflective flooring discussed in another thread

lit from above
smaller light to camera right rear

lites to flood the background
 
EdBray said:
To me it looks like the boot has been placed on a light table and lit with a large (in relation to the boot) softbox overhead and slightly front and left. This whilst casting no harsh shadows has allowed a softish shadow to the rear of the boot and allowed some subtle modelling of the boot. It looks like another weakish light has been aimed up from below the light table to produce a highlight under the boot and reduce the strength of the reflction on the table.
Click to expand...

Left from the camera, or left from the boots perspective?
 
plastic /perspec bottom, paper background, light from the camera lighly to the right
 
SL79 said:
Left from the camera, or left from the boots perspective?
Click to expand...

Left from the camera, there is a highlight on the rear inside top of the boot on the RHS and a highlight on the LHS of the boots toe.
 
EdBray said:
Left from the camera, there is a highlight on the rear inside top of the boot on the RHS and a highlight on the LHS of the boots toe.
Click to expand...

Nope, but you're very warm. The areas you are looking at there are not true flat surfaces, so the light might throw you a bit. My boots are a bit mashed up :)
 
Just wondering whether Edbray is close enough - or whether anyone else wants to come in with a slighty different answer...
 
:thinking: I am going to go with the same soft uplighting from a lightbox or similar but I think the main light is slightly camera right and above front, probably with a softbox, as there is so little light down the left hand side of boot [as you look it] whic I would expect to see if the main light was placed slightly to left, but there is much more on right hand side as look at it.


There is also some highlighting on the rear of boot on LHS as you look, reflector behind and to left maybe?
 
I'll have to give this one to Ed. The softbox is actually just to the right of the camera. However, everything else was spot on. It's shot on a light table with a honeycomb underneath providing some fill under the boot.

Scott
 
this should be resurrected, its a great idea. I cant(; dont know my l from r when it comes to lights.
 
I'll try and post something in the next couple of days, I have an idea for a shot but lack of willing models is the problem at the moment. My youngest is away on holiday and no one else is interested.
 
I thought I'd revive this thread, as poor Ed is obviously still having a problem finding willing victims;)

This is a bit extreme, this type of lighting is normally used in conjuntion with a fill light, and is normally pretty heavily retouched too.
Here it is, as shot
http://www.photolearn.co.uk/talk_1.jpg

Staff Edit : Images changed to clickable links. Pictures must not exceed current forum limits as per the rules.
Please feel free to replace this with a fresh/resized image and remove this text :)
 
Given I've never taken a photo under studio lights (yet) I am pretty sure this will be very wide of the mark but I think it's good practice for me so - I'm going to say it's a single light, with a honeycomb grid, mounted above the model?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top