Excellent group portrait - and how it was taken

Thanks for posting. Enjoyed that very much. Lots to think about there for sure.
Great results too.

Gaz
 
It's the same technique commonly used in high-end real estate photography (lots of YouTube vids on that*) which often includes very bright and very dark areas and generally poor quality light. So the scene is divided up into multiple smaller zones, each one separately lit and then blended together (or 'composited') as one in Photoshop.

It allows you to do things that would be impossible in one take, and can also be used to create a 'real' scene that doesn't actually exist, as here, with total control. In principle it's very simple but in practise it takes great creative vision and a full range of technical skills in just about every discipline.

I've only tinkered with this, opting instead for a more conventional approach with multiple flash units hidden all over the place. But that is arguably more difficult, more limited, and the final result can't hold a candle (haha) to this comping method.

*Mike Kelly (of fstoppers.com) has posted numerous videos on how he comps real estate jobs. In just a few years he's carved out a lucrative career, from quite modest beginnings I think, getting flown all over the place to shoot luxury homes and posh hotels. Sweet (y)
https://fstoppers.com/product/mike-kelleys-where-art-meets-architecture-1
 
Last edited:
Sorry to go on... :D

Once you're aware of this technique, it can be spotted being used not just for real estate but increasingly for corporate group and band shots, environmental portraits, and weddings. The tell-tales signs for me are images that immediately stand out, quickly followed by 'how the heck did they do that?'

It's a great way for professionals to both raise their game and differentiate at the same time - you just can't do this stuff without good knowledge and a level of skill not possessed by the average hobbyist or iPhonographer. It can't be done with video either ;)

You don't need a ton of fancy lighting equipment. While Robert Hall has at least 22 flash units active in his shot, he actually only used two.
 
I've seen it used a few times with Wedding shots now, for me its clever but oh so contrived as to be just odd sat in amongst the rest of the typical Wedding images; a bit like using a false veil and smoke bombs looks a bit too daft to me

I was actually planning to use this same technic with a local band a couple of years ago, but they cba in the end so it didn't happen - they split a few months later too

And thanks for the reminder about Kelley too - I actually have his full videos from 2015 and never watched them as yet !!! Pillock lol

Dave
 
Thanks Richard
I enjoyed this and generous of the guy to share his technique.
 
DG Phototraining said:
I've seen it used a few times with Wedding shots now, for me its clever but oh so contrived as to be just odd sat in amongst the rest of the typical Wedding images; a bit like using a false veil and smoke bombs looks a bit too daft to me

I was actually planning to use this same technic with a local band a couple of years ago, but they cba in the end so it didn't happen - they split a few months later too

And thanks for the reminder about Kelley too - I actually have his full videos from 2015 and never watched them as yet !!! Pillock lol

Dave
Click to expand...

Yes, it can look contrived if you're not careful with some subjects looking like they've just been beamed down from mars, but I think that's part of the photographer's skill and pre-vision. I was looking at a commercial group shot the other day where the boss was out front and nicely lit, but then while his colleagues were also nicely lit individually, some had the light coming from the left and others from the right, and the shadows just didn't match.

So you've got to be careful. In Robert Hall's example I think he's done that with the key light on the left, plus hair-light on the right for everyone. In the video, he also talks about adding four bright bare lights on the right which not only works compositionally but also gives a visual cue for the hair-lights. If viewers say 'great shot, but it looks Photoshopped' then it's failed.

Another example of the same basic principle that's common in wedding photography is swapping heads around in a group shot. Same idea really. Or maybe an outdoor portrait of the bride where you want to show plenty of the location, but also to light the subject with a softbox which has to be positioned close. So just take another shot without the subject in place (from exactly the same position) and comp that in over the softbox and stand. Robert Hall's shot is exactly that x9.
 
HoppyUK said:
Another example of the same basic principle that's common in wedding photography is swapping heads around in a group shot. Same idea really. Or maybe an outdoor portrait of the bride where you want to show plenty of the location, but also to light the subject with a softbox which has to be positioned close. So just take another shot without the subject in place (from exactly the same position) and comp that in over the softbox and stand. Robert Hall's shot is exactly that x9.
Click to expand...

I'm not a head swapper - never have been - never will lol

And unless you have an assistant light stand mover, I find its easier to place the stand in a decent spot relative to the background and just remove it later in PS - which is what I did here. The stand & BD took literally seconds to remove, but would have taken much longer to run down and actually move it - and I'm lazy lol

EDIT - TP won't upload my shot even though its only 900px and under 180kb - so you'll just have to believe me :D


Dave
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top