How to do this great effect ???

(Wdflannery) wrote:

I have some specific questions …

1. Where are the lights? I’ve been experimenting … with one spot light directly in front of and above the model …. this seems to do OK on the face … note the shadows … beneath left brow … lips…but very little under nose … Today I’ll add a fill because the neck shadows were too harsh on my pics so far.

2. Is the a real shot or a collage … if real … how to get all that light on the face and so little on the body …. and … is anyone’s neck really that long ????

3. Is the picture for the most part monochrome … and … how to match that tone … I can desaturate and then try to us variations to get it … but I’m not getting close to the tone ….

What you’re looking at is the highest of high-end fashion photography, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the lighting setup resembles an explosion in a lunar lander factory. This is *not* a two-light-with-a-reflector- fill shot.

_Light Science & Magic: An Introduction to Photographic Lighting_ (Hunter and Fuqua) will answer a lot of your questions, some of them indirectly.

—
| James Gifford * FIX SPAMTRAP TO REPLY |
| So… your philosophy fits in a sig, does it? |
| Heinlein stuff at: www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah |

(jjs) wrote:

1. Where are the lights?

One light. Soft. With enough reflection to fill the underside some. A large white board reflecting at an upangle will suffice. All that said, I believe the right eye is burned in in the darkroom or Photoshop-ed.

I doubt you have more the basic elements sketched in here, and while the referenced image is poor, I’d be surprised if there is much image manipulation in PS. The tinting, sure, but I’d bet the original shot looks 99% just like it does in the ad.

—
| James Gifford * FIX SPAMTRAP TO REPLY |
| So… your philosophy fits in a sig, does it? |
| Heinlein stuff at: www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah |

(jjs) wrote:

Oh, and two ounces of magnesium flash powder tinted with unobtanium element u239x.

Now you’re gettin’ there. 🙂

—
| James Gifford * FIX SPAMTRAP TO REPLY |
| So… your philosophy fits in a sig, does it? |
| Heinlein stuff at: www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah |

In article ,
(Wdflannery) wrote:

See the image at
http://members.aol.com/wdflannery/headshotart.jpg

I have some specific questions …

1. Where are the lights?

One light. Soft. With enough reflection to fill the underside some. A large white board reflecting at an upangle will suffice. All that said, I believe the right eye is burned in in the darkroom or Photoshop-ed. This is a job (imho) for a portrait length lens, medium format.

2. Is the a real shot or a collage […] is anyone’s neck really that long ????

Well, her’s is. Really, it’s a mode’s attribute and probably natural.

3. Is the picture for the most part monochrome … and … how to match that tone … I can desaturate and then try to us variations to get it … but I’m not getting close to the tone ….

Use duotones.

In article , James
Gifford wrote:

What you’re looking at is the highest of high-end fashion photography, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the lighting setup resembles an explosion in a lunar lander factory. This is *not* a two-light-with-a-reflector- fill shot.

LOL! Okay, maybe two lights – the extra one to glance off the hair, but I think those hair-lights were puncuated with PS or a touch-up artist. We have a bet. I’ll stand by the one-light with reflector. Oh, and two ounces of magnesium flash powder tinted with unobtanium element u239x.

"Wdflannery" wrote in message

See the image at
http://members.aol.com/wdflannery/headshotart.jpg

Does the original have more detail in the eyes? You can often tell a lot about the lighting from reflections in the pupils.

In article <lqnHb.213011$>, "Warren
Sarle" wrote:

"Wdflannery" wrote in message

See the image at
http://members.aol.com/wdflannery/headshotart.jpg

Does the original have more detail in the eyes? You can often tell a lot about the lighting from reflections in the pupils.

The reflections in the eye are a statement that seems to come and go in style and in my time they were as often removed as not.

Does the original have more detail in the eyes?

Not in my ‘original’ …Note that the model’s nose casts very little shadow … suggesting the light is in front of her … yet no hightlights in the eyes ??? Also, the hair over her right eye casts a verryy deep shadow … darker than the neck shadow on her neck … Also the shadow on her lower lip suggests a light in front of her and elevated …

Though this could likely involve additional image manipulation, my first impression of the answer to "how to do this great effect?" is….

years of professional lighting experience, and a lighting studio few can afford the money or time to invest in.

"Wdflannery" wrote in message

See the image at
http://members.aol.com/wdflannery/headshotart.jpg

I have some specific questions …

1. Where are the lights? I’ve been experimenting … with one spot light directly in front of and above the model …. this seems to do OK on the

face

… note the shadows … beneath left brow … lips…but very little

under

nose … Today I’ll add a fill because the neck shadows were too harsh on

my

pics so far.

2. Is the a real shot or a collage … if real … how to get all that

light

on the face and so little on the body …. and … is anyone’s neck really

that

long ????

3. Is the picture for the most part monochrome … and … how to match

that

tone … I can desaturate and then try to us variations to get it … but

I’m

not getting close to the tone ….

Thanks in advance for any tips …
Will

In article <N1NHb.6428$>, "zuuum"
wrote:

Though this could likely involve additional image manipulation, my first impression of the answer to "how to do this great effect?" is….
years of professional lighting experience, and a lighting studio few can afford the money or time to invest in.

Utter rubbish! What’s the great mystery? If you lived and worked on a block of commercial photographers you would see more of this stuff than you want to see. One light, one or two reflectors, a modest MF camera with a long (say 150mm) lens. The light is a studio flash, of course, and modulated via bounce, but it’s not a daunting task. The very hard part is finding an art director who likes it, hired the model (approved) and breathed down your neck so long you’d almost like to strangle him.

Utter rubbish! What’s the great mystery? If you lived and worked on a block of commercial photographers you would see more of this stuff than you want to see. One light, one or two reflectors, a modest MF camera with a long (say 150mm) lens. The light is a studio flash, of course, and modulated via bounce, but it’s not a daunting task. The very hard part is finding an art director who likes it, hired the model (approved) and breathed down your neck so long you’d almost like to strangle him.

"If you lived and worked on a block of professional phtographers"……???? That isn’t years of professional lighting experience??? Even if you didn’t persnally learn so by trial and error, I would say you are tapping the knowledge of much more than theories or simple formulas read from a page.

Experience makes sophistication seem simple…. but only in hind-sight. Think about it. I didn’t say impossible. I meant techniques and the use of equipment that is ultimately the realm of professionals who involve themselves in much more than framing a subject and attempting to post-process.

In article <MuRHb.7839$>, "zuuum"
wrote:

[…]
Experience makes sophistication seem simple…. but only in hind-sight. Think about it. I didn’t say impossible. I meant techniques and the use of equipment that is ultimately the realm of professionals who involve themselves in much more than framing a subject and attempting to post-process.

Perhaps you are right about the former, and I will definitely agree to the later; Photoshop’s capabilities have given impetus to the notion that pictures can be made by sitting on one’s butt in front of a monitor, detached from the photographic event.

We’re getting pretty far afield for comp.graphics.apps.photoshop but what the heck…

Hmm, the light seems to be pointing down on her lips, slightly above her nose, straight at her eye. A relatively small diffused light source was placed about a foot outside the frame. It casts shadows as described. Another soft light high and to the photographer’s left illuminates her hair.

The model is looking away from the light and it might be enough to eliminate the catchlight from her left eye. Or it was retouched out to change the look of the eyes (the ad’s theme is "Eyes & Dolls").

Inverse square law means that her body will be darker than her face. A reflector puts light into the shadow on her neck. You burn-in her right eye with Photoshop or darkroom.

With studio strobes, the real problem is how to back the power off enough to shoot at f/5.6 or so on your medium-format camera. The solution: shoot using just the modelling lights.

The B/W photo is changed to duotone in Photoshop and hair, cheek and lip color are painted on in Color mode.

Tom Nelson
Tom Nelson Photography

In article , Wdflannery
wrote:

Does the original have more detail in the eyes?

Not in my ‘original’ …Note that the model’s nose casts very little shadow …
suggesting the light is in front of her … yet no hightlights in the eyes ??? Also, the hair over her right eye casts a verryy deep shadow … darker than the neck shadow on her neck … Also the shadow on her lower lip suggests a light in front of her and elevated …

"Tom Nelson" wrote in message

With studio strobes, the real problem is how to back the power off enough to shoot at f/5.6 or so on your medium-format camera. The solution: shoot using just the modelling lights.

I’m sure you have seen the diffusion scrims,boxes and umbrellas for studio flash, and studio flash can be set to as little as 1/4 power. With a modest 100 speed film, it’s a straight shot. ND filters can be added, too.

(Wdflannery) wrote:

I also think her neck looks drawn in ….. it doesn’t have any texture …and it looks 6 in. long ….

There are women who have such long necks. For example, have you seen the (rather stupid) Kumho tire ad where the woman zips through narrow streets in a red sports car? In the final shot in particular, her neck looks like a giraffe’s.

—
| James Gifford * FIX SPAMTRAP TO REPLY |
| So… your philosophy fits in a sig, does it? |
| Heinlein stuff at: www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah |

We’re getting pretty far afield for comp.graphics.apps.photoshop but what the heck…

Maybe … but I still think it’s a PS job…

Hmm, the light seems to be pointing down on her lips, slightly above her nose, straight at her eye.

Can’t be straight at her eye …. there is a shadow under her left brow … indicating the light is higher than that and maybe to her right …also, there is no textural detail at all in her cheeks …. very unnatural to my eye …. burned out ???? …. and yet the transition to shadow under the chin is soft ……..also the shadow on her right eye indicates the light is above her head …. so … how can the be no shadow under her nose ????

I also think her neck looks drawn in ….. it doesn’t have any texture …and it looks 6 in. long ….

And, I think the body was a separate shot …. and it was all collaged together …..

In any case, a great shot or collage in my book. I’ve tried to do it … no luck thus far ….

Will

They hired a professional photographer, that’s how.