Forums > Photography Talk > How was this shot?

Photographer

Lee Barnes 2

Posts: 20

Atlanta, Georgia, US

How was this shot? Bare bulb? I would like the beautiful shadows and also the skin tone.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-UvigLQ7H3P8/UL1UsKCLP3I/AAAAAAAABmY/8Fkop6d2aMs/s1600/jeneil-williams+jimmy-choos-cruise-2013+.jpg

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTF4P4Ox_Flb0m2Y9dGi4KYGC6R_wvmjbIdYNemqUxatZudx3qnmA

Feb 14 13 12:25 am Link

Photographer

Schlake

Posts: 2598

Socorro, New Mexico, US

You might want to check the help on BB posting tags.

http://www.bbcode.org/examples/?id=10

Feb 14 13 12:35 am Link

Photographer

Lee Barnes 2

Posts: 20

Atlanta, Georgia, US

Thank you smile

Feb 14 13 12:50 am Link

Photographer

Lee Barnes 2

Posts: 20

Atlanta, Georgia, US

anyone?

Feb 14 13 01:29 am Link

Photographer

pellepiano

Posts: 2282

Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden

Top one looks like a large softbox ( shadows are soft though she is close to the wall and the highlights on skin are big and soft )
Lower image, a bare flash imitating sun .

Feb 14 13 01:49 am Link

Photographer

Jay Strange

Posts: 127

Tampa, Florida, US

I think it was a single light source.
Prob a 6 foot parabolic just next to the photographers right shoulder.
The shadow to the models left is too soft to have been a small
light...like a beauty dish.
The stylists used some oil on her skin to create those nice specular
highlights.
I'm also kinda' sure the reflections on the sunglass lenses were removed in post.
Nicely done!

Feb 14 13 07:31 am Link

Photographer

Dan Brady

Posts: 610

Perth, Western Australia, Australia

email the tog


ask him

Feb 14 13 07:36 am Link

Photographer

BrennanOB

Posts: 10

Walnut Creek, California, US

I would agree with Jay; big-ish octobox on a pole. I do hate it when they PP out the reflections in the glasses, but you can see most of what you need to figure it out by the gleam in the silver of her shoes.

Feb 14 13 12:18 pm Link

Photographer

robert christopher

Posts: 2680

Snohomish, Washington, US

i was thinking a small reflector, the shadow from the purse is pretty sharp but a softbox makes more sense, i do think a second fill was used, a ringflash perhaps, those shoes and  lower legs are just too well lit.

Feb 14 13 06:50 pm Link

Photographer

AVD AlphaDuctions

Posts: 10555

Gatineau, Quebec, Canada

BrennanOB wrote:
I would agree with Jay; big-ish octobox on a pole. I do hate it when they PP out the reflections in the glasses, but you can see most of what you need to figure it out by the gleam in the silver of her shoes.

for $995 a pair you can bet they put a bit of separate lighting on the shoes. and added a bit of selective sharpening you wont see in the actual shoes (or in the catalog image of them).

Feb 14 13 06:59 pm Link

Photographer

AVD AlphaDuctions

Posts: 10555

Gatineau, Quebec, Canada

this is an intentional double post so my real post will show up

Feb 14 13 07:05 pm Link

Photographer

Mask Photo

Posts: 1404

Fremont, California, US

BrennanOB wrote:
I do hate it when they PP out the reflections in the glasses,

that's funny; when I see high-fashion images with a giant softbox in the glasses, I start to wonder if it's an ad for light modifiers.

Feb 14 13 08:16 pm Link

Photographer

Daniel DeArco

Posts: 89

San Francisco, California, US

Single light source sounds pretty accurate. Soft shadows, full body lit, speculation in the middle, fall off on the sides.

Yeah I would say something like a huge strip softbox (or any kind of box) used or possibly a para. I don't think the specularity would be as obvious if she didn't have the oil on her. Different modifiers can have similar effects so you'd have to ask the photographer to know for sure

Feb 15 13 09:43 am Link

Photographer

Winternetmedia

Posts: 6

Bristol, England, United Kingdom

+1 for mahoosive stripbox

Feb 15 13 07:49 pm Link

Photographer

Lee Barnes 2

Posts: 20

Atlanta, Georgia, US

Thanks guys!! This helped a lot!!

Feb 16 13 06:27 am Link