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
I'm also kinda' sure the reflections on the sunglass lenses were removed in post.
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.
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.
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).
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