Forums > Photography Talk > light painted dresses

Photographer

JCB522

Posts: 50

Calgary, Alberta, Canada

http://www.toxel.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/lightdress02.jpg

I'm sure many of you have seen this before and I was wondering how it was done. I've had some experience with light painting before but only on a small scale and I was wondering how this was done with people sized objects. According to the shadow there's a strobe camera left and to the rear of the model. I'm assuming the camera is set on bulb, rear curtain flash and then they use a light wand to paint on the dress. A few questions I was wondering were:

1. When using bulb mode and strobes, what shutter speed do i put in my light meter to get the f stop on the strobe (sekonic 358)
2. With the light painter walking aroudn the model, how do they avoid the motion blur of them being in the frame?
3. Am I completely off my rocker and this was done in post production?

Any help would be greatly appreciated and I would like to try something liek this out in the future. Here's the link to the other pictures http://www.toxel.com/inspiration/2012/1 … d-dresses/

Feb 02 13 11:30 am Link

Photographer

DarkSlide

Posts: 2217

Alexandria, Virginia, US

1. The flash does not care what your shutter speed is. It is the same amount of light if you shoot at 10-seconds or 1/250th.
2. Wear black.
3. Did you take the time to read the text with the photos?

Feb 02 13 11:41 am Link

Photographer

AVD AlphaDuctions

Posts: 10554

Gatineau, Quebec, Canada

JCB522 wrote:
http://www.toxel.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/lightdress02.jpg

I'm sure many of you have seen this before and I was wondering how it was done. I've had some experience with light painting before but only on a small scale and I was wondering how this was done with people sized objects. According to the shadow there's a strobe camera left and to the rear of the model. I'm assuming the camera is set on bulb, rear curtain flash and then they use a light wand to paint on the dress. A few questions I was wondering were:

1. When using bulb mode and strobes, what shutter speed do i put in my light meter to get the f stop on the strobe (sekonic 358)
2. With the light painter walking aroudn the model, how do they avoid the motion blur of them being in the frame?
3. Am I completely off my rocker and this was done in post production?

Any help would be greatly appreciated and I would like to try something liek this out in the future. Here's the link to the other pictures http://www.toxel.com/inspiration/2012/1 … d-dresses/

1. you meter for the strobe separately (or dont meter it and just figure it out first).  ignore the light painting in the exposure. as you can see they did here because the paint is a little 'hot'
2.  you will notice that there are no 'strokes' from directly behind the model. basically paint 270 degrees. you will also notice its a tight crop.
3.  you could make a composite of two images, one with the model and one with the paint (and removed the blurry model from the painted one) or just paint the 'paint' on but I think it would be a lot easier just to do it straight.

Feb 02 13 11:45 am Link

Photographer

L A U B E N H E I M E R

Posts: 8789

Seattle, Washington, US

JCB522 wrote:
http://www.toxel.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/lightdress02.jpg

I'm sure many of you have seen this before and I was wondering how it was done. I've had some experience with light painting before but only on a small scale and I was wondering how this was done with people sized objects. According to the shadow there's a strobe camera left and to the rear of the model. I'm assuming the camera is set on bulb, rear curtain flash and then they use a light wand to paint on the dress. A few questions I was wondering were:

1. When using bulb mode and strobes, what shutter speed do i put in my light meter to get the f stop on the strobe (sekonic 358)
2. With the light painter walking aroudn the model, how do they avoid the motion blur of them being in the frame?
3. Am I completely off my rocker and this was done in post production?

Any help would be greatly appreciated and I would like to try something liek this out in the future. Here's the link to the other pictures http://www.toxel.com/inspiration/2012/1 … d-dresses/

that one looks like a composite....even if perhaps it's not.

Feb 02 13 11:46 am Link

Photographer

JCB522

Posts: 50

Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Ya i did read the blurb, it says they were painted in a dark studio. What it didn't say was if they isolated the model and the dress from the background. Composited her onto a new background with a gradient and created a fake drop shadow to give it a better look. The reason I'm questioning it is because of this image http://www.toxel.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/lightdress03.jpg if you look at where her shoes are touching the floor, the drop shadow doesn;t look natural to me

Feb 02 13 11:46 am Link

Model

Laura UnBound

Posts: 27372

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

You/the painter don't get in the frame, is how you avoid the blur of you/them walking around. You use a light powerful enough/move slowly enough to get the amount of light you want so you can stand behind the camera/to the side of the frame.

If you need super wide shots, you either use a super big studio or you figure out how to replace/build extra background

Feb 02 13 11:54 am Link

Body Painter

Monad Studios

Posts: 9792

Santa Rosa, California, US

How are the hands in front of the "dresses"?

Feb 02 13 11:55 am Link

Photographer

DarkSlide

Posts: 2217

Alexandria, Virginia, US

JCB522 wrote:
Ya i did read the blurb, it says they were painted in a dark studio. What it didn't say was if they isolated the model and the dress from the background. Composited her onto a new background with a gradient and created a fake drop shadow to give it a better look. The reason I'm questioning it is because of this image http://www.toxel.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/lightdress03.jpg if you look at where her shoes are touching the floor, the drop shadow doesn;t look natural to me

Yeah, the necklace and hands indicate some PS work.

Feb 02 13 11:56 am Link

Photographer

MKPhoto

Posts: 5665

Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

Here is a basic idea, I was interested in different effect, so this is a blooper with the lights visible. The red is a blinking red LED bicycle rear light, a flat one 4" long, 3/4" thick with 5 LEDs. This gives the "rake" effect you need to draw stuff. The white streaks come from individual LEDS of the LED flashlight. The article mentions "custom lights".

I am lighting from above, he is lighting towards the camera.

http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/130202/11/510d6ea08d42e_m.jpg

Feb 02 13 11:56 am Link

Photographer

David Westlake

Posts: 1530

Mansfield Center, Connecticut, US

This had to be done in post. The model's hands are on top of the light painting.

Feb 02 13 11:57 am Link

Photographer

Michael Broughton

Posts: 2244

Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

Laura UnBound wrote:
You/the painter don't get in the frame, is how you avoid the blur of you/them walking around. You use a light powerful enough/move slowly enough to get the amount of light you want so you can stand behind the camera/to the side of the frame.

If you need super wide shots you either use a super big studio or you figure out how to replace/build extra background

to get these sorts of swirls, the painter has to be in the frame, with the light shining away from him and towards the camera. the models were photoshopped in after the fact.

Feb 02 13 11:58 am Link

Photographer

MKPhoto

Posts: 5665

Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

Michael Broughton wrote:

to get these sorts of swirls, the painter has to be in the frame, with the light shining away from him and towards the camera. the models were photoshopped in after the fact.

On some images it could have done with the model standing behind a waiting for the flash, but I don't see how you can do the images with hands on the hips. In the rest the photographer can walk in and out and move light under the arms or between the legs to get continuity and right looking opacity. But hands on the hips?

Feb 02 13 12:09 pm Link

Photographer

Michael Broughton

Posts: 2244

Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

MKPhoto wrote:

On some images it could have done with the model standing behind a waiting for the flash, but I don't see how you can do the images with hands on the hips. In the rest the photographer can walk in and out and move light under the arms or between the legs to get continuity and right looking opacity. But hands on the hips?

nope. i checked out the other images. the light painting doesn't illuminate any of the models at all, and if you check their feet, they're really obviously cut and pasted onto the backdrop.

Feb 02 13 12:16 pm Link

Photographer

MKPhoto

Posts: 5665

Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

Michael Broughton wrote:
nope. i checked out the other images. the light painting doesn't illuminate any of the llamas at all, and if you check their feet, they're really obviously cut and pasted onto the backdrop.

I have a painting with light shoot in a few days so will try and see how far you can go in one shot.

The light in front of the llama is no problem. A quick test (just done), lights behind no problem either. Hands on the hips? Shoes? edit: Atton Conrad http://www.modelmayhem.com/1119795 is on MM smile

Feb 02 13 12:29 pm Link

Photographer

Michael Broughton

Posts: 2244

Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

MKPhoto wrote:

I have a painting with light shoot in a few days so will try.

The light in front of the model is no problem. A quick test (just done), lights behind no problem either. Hands on the hips? I don't know, I see nothing wrong with the placement of the shoes.

i'm saying that waving a light source around the models' bodies would cast at least a small amount of light onto their skin. there is zero glow from the light painting on the models' skin. there's also no way to physically pass a flashlight, etc. between a hand and hip that are touching. the shadows on the floor are being cast by a single light source, if they're even real shadows, but the models are being lit by multiple light sources.

Feb 02 13 12:58 pm Link

Photographer

MKPhoto

Posts: 5665

Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

Michael Broughton wrote:

i'm saying that waving a light source around the models' bodies would cast at least a small amount of light onto their skin. there is zero glow from the light painting on the models' skin. there's also no way to physically pass a flashlight, etc. between a hand and hip that are touching. the shadows on the floor are being cast by a single light source, if they're even real shadows, but the models are being lit by multiple light sources.

OK. makes sense.

Feb 02 13 01:16 pm Link

Photographer

AVD AlphaDuctions

Posts: 10554

Gatineau, Quebec, Canada

Michael Broughton wrote:

i'm saying that waving a light source around the models' bodies would cast at least a small amount of light onto their skin. there is zero glow from the light painting on the models' skin. there's also no way to physically pass a flashlight, etc. between a hand and hip that are touching. the shadows on the floor are being cast by a single light source, if they're even real shadows, but the models are being lit by multiple light sources.

position the model.  close house lights.  open shutter.  fire strobe.  guide model to safety in the dark.  paint light. close shutter.  zero glow on model.  for the hand on hip that s gotta be either post or criss angel was involved.

Feb 02 13 01:26 pm Link

Photographer

Michael Broughton

Posts: 2244

Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:

position the model.  close house lights.  open shutter.  fire strobe.  guide model to safety in the dark.  paint light. close shutter.  zero glow on model.  for the hand on hip that s gotta be either post or criss angel was involved.

nope. photoshopping out the light painting over the hands would be difficult if not near impossible if this was a single exposure. lining up the dress and the model properly would be a serious pain in the ass using a single exposure. even if it were possible to get these results, shooting the model and light painting separately but in the same exposure would create a ton of completely unnecessary extra work. and if the model wasn't cut and pasted, why doesn't she cast a real shadow?

Feb 02 13 01:52 pm Link

Photographer

Valenten Photography

Posts: 265

Balikpapan, Kalimantan Timur, Indonesia

wow this is just awesome. i had never seen this kind of pictures :p

Feb 02 13 02:30 pm Link

Photographer

MKPhoto

Posts: 5665

Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/130202/14/510d944d08142_m.jpg

This is one take. Problem of hands is solved. The shift around the hand is because I moved the hand after front curtain flash but before painting (i.e. I am painting with my left hand trying to hold the right one steady. llamas are good at standing still wink.  Hand in front blends reasonably with the background. No light from light painting cast on the wicker thingy.

Only shadow problem remains. Somehow by this moment I think photographer would want to do it in camera in one shot. I would.

Feb 02 13 02:36 pm Link

Photographer

Michael Broughton

Posts: 2244

Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

MKPhoto wrote:
http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/130202/14/510d944d08142_m.jpg

This is one take. Problem of hands is solved. The shift around the hand is because I moved the hand after front curtain flash but before painting (i.e. I am painting with my left hand trying to hold the right one steady. Models are good at standing still wink.  Hand in front blends reasonably with background. No light from painting cast on the main subject.

Only shadow problem remains. Somehow by this moment I think photographer would want to do it in camera in one shot. I would.

still no. your hand isn't actually touching that thing and the light is far dimmer and therefore casting far less light on objects. another problem, if the model and light painting are a single exposure, the model's real shadow would be in the original shot. adding those fake shadows would require photoshopping out the real shadow in between all those little streaks of light.

Feb 02 13 03:04 pm Link

Photographer

MKPhoto

Posts: 5665

Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

Michael Broughton wrote:
still no. your hand isn't actually touching that thing and the light is far dimmer and therefore casting far less light on objects. another problem, if the model and light painting are a single exposure, the model's real shadow would be in the original shot. adding those fake shadows would require photoshopping out the real shadow in between all those little streaks of light.

My hand is not touching, obviously, so is not the model's, I surmise. But even at a snapshot 5 minute test level it looks reasonably close - the hand in original pic has this pasted look, too. I agree about the body shadows.

Feb 02 13 03:10 pm Link

Photographer

C G Photography

Posts: 142

Ukiah, California, US

I played a little last night with light painting and set camera on bulb, locked shutter painted around the llama (I was in the frame) got back to camera fired the flash and released shutter. I am not visible in any of the shots settings were ISO 100 f7.1 and the longest exposure was 23 seconds. That shoot was to try things out I will be shooting again in the next couple of days and should have some photos worth sharing then.

Feb 02 13 05:44 pm Link

Photographer

Brooklyn Bridge Images

Posts: 9759

Brooklyn, New York, US

The light painter is not normally visible in these type shots
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWeXdZj5QT4

Feb 02 13 07:23 pm Link

Photographer

AVD AlphaDuctions

Posts: 10554

Gatineau, Quebec, Canada

Brooklyn Bridge Images wrote:
The light painter is not normally visible in these type shots
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWeXdZj5QT4

what a find!  too bad most of you can't follow in French. This dude is the most engaging instructional video host i've seen ever.

Feb 02 13 07:30 pm Link

Photographer

sgnr photo

Posts: 254

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:

what a find!  too bad most of you can't follow in French. This dude is the most engaging instructional video host i've seen ever.

This guy is great. I'm now thankful for those years of French immersion in school.

Feb 03 13 06:24 am Link

Photographer

RJ Alvarade

Posts: 91

Dallas, Texas, US

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/387077_10151214749117051_193226955_n.jpg

i was just trying it

Feb 03 13 08:39 pm Link

Photographer

GER Photography

Posts: 7935

Imperial, California, US

JCB522 wrote:
Ya i did read the blurb, it says they were painted in a dark studio. What it didn't say was if they isolated the model and the dress from the background. Composited her onto a new background with a gradient and created a fake drop shadow to give it a better look. The reason I'm questioning it is because of this image http://www.toxel.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/lightdress03.jpg if you look at where her shoes are touching the floor, the drop shadow doesn;t look natural to me

Those shoes, are an accident waiting for a place to happen!!:-))

Feb 03 13 08:47 pm Link

Photographer

Christine Eadie

Posts: 2613

Charleston, South Carolina, US

The hands on top could be done by painting the dress on first (with models hands away from her body) then placing them on body when the flash fires.
Those shoes would cast odd shadow due to odd shape.

Feb 04 13 06:42 am Link

Photographer

Edward Shaw Photography

Posts: 317

Birmingham, England, United Kingdom

Christine Eadie wrote:
The hands on top could be done by painting the dress on first (with models hands away from her body) then placing them on body when the flash fires.

But exposure is cumulative. If the "dress" under the hand has already been light painted in the exposure, placing than hand there and then firing the flash will make it as bright as the light painting plus the flash exposure.
So I reckon its a composite.

Feb 04 13 07:14 am Link

Photographer

Matt Knowles

Posts: 3563

Ferndale, California, US

Mark Laubenheimer wrote:
that one looks like a composite....even if perhaps it's not.

The hands give it away.

Feb 04 13 09:50 am Link

Photographer

Michael Broughton

Posts: 2244

Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

another really obvious clue (like i haven't pointed out enough of them already) is that the jewelry and hands cast shadows on the dress. you can't cast a shadow on a streak of light. even if you could, it doesn't line up with how the model's lit.

Feb 04 13 10:09 am Link

Photographer

Michael Broughton

Posts: 2244

Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

dp

Feb 04 13 10:11 am Link

Photographer

Downtown Pro Photo

Posts: 1556

Crystal Lake, Illinois, US

Light trails where done independently of the model and added in later.
The give away is the shadows on the hands.  Exposure is cumulative and even if they did the trails and then moved the model into position to hit with a flash you wouldn't get shadows where a light trail already existed.  Not to mention trying to move a model into the exact spot where a trail was made in the dark and have her pose perfectly for the pattern you drew all while having a great expression is pretty much impossible.

Feb 04 13 11:28 am Link

Photographer

PhillipPhotography

Posts: 2490

San Leandro, California, US

Brooklyn Bridge Images wrote:
The light painter is not normally visible in these type shots
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWeXdZj5QT4

Cool

Feb 04 13 06:41 pm Link

Photographer

Marin Photography NYC

Posts: 7248

New York, New York, US

Very creative technique however it was done...

Feb 04 13 06:57 pm Link

Photographer

Atton Conrad

Posts: 2

London, England, United Kingdom

its not a one shot image guys. Im no purist and believe the image is more important than the technique. The trails a real and were painted in situ with the model out of frame. Thanks for the interest in the shots smile

Feb 05 13 12:31 am Link

Photographer

Chuckarelei

Posts: 9562

Seattle, Washington, US

Light painting technique has been around for at least 30 years (that I know of). Why make a big deal of an old technique when modern computers/softwares can do a much better job in a much easier way? As someone already pointed out in the samples.

Feb 05 13 12:38 am Link

Photographer

Brooklyn Bridge Images

Posts: 9759

Brooklyn, New York, US

Glad its not an out of the camera photo I can sleep easier now...

Feb 05 13 12:47 am Link

guide forum

Model

Damianne

Posts: 15975

Austin, Texas, US

This is awesome
Edit:
holy shit he's just like... been here... chillin.

Feb 05 13 12:55 am Link