JCB522 wrote:


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.

JCB522 wrote:


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.

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 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.

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.

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?

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.

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 https://www.modelmayhem.com/1119795 is on MM

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.

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.

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.

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?

MKPhoto wrote:


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 .  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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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!!:-))

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.

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

The hands give it away.

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

Cool