Beginner How this is lit

Jim_Tod

Jim_Tod

Messages
1,783
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi there

I came across this portrait of Michael Apted which i find captivating.


https://static01.nyt.com/images/201...-portrait-superJumbo.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp

I’ve tried analysing the lighting and would appreciate someone with a bit more knowledge advising if they think i’m close or if there are tells indicating a different set up

I think it’s

1 main light high right (photographers position), rect softbox
1 secondary light (circular/ octo softbox) or circular reflector straight onto subject for fill in
1 light on background for separation
 
You've pretty much nailed it if what you're describing in line 1 is the keylight at camera right.

It's fairly classic short lighting, the only point I'd add is that there's fairly obvious burning in to brighten the ear that's in shadow and possibly some burning in down the subjects left cheek / ear (though that could have been a carefully feathered (or flagged) light I suspect not.

It's a great pic though and I'm sounding a bit 'Monday morning quarterback' as it's possibly better than anything I've ever produced.
 
I'm with Phil here - except this bit

Phil V said:
obvious burning in to brighten the ear
Click to expand...

Don't you mean dodging rather than burning? If you're wrong best to let the OP know (and anyone reading this) to not get their wires crossed :)

If you're wrong @Phil V just amend it and I'll delete this, and of course if I'm wrong, I'll just delete this later so I don't look daft lol

Dave
 
Thanks for confirmation. Always useful to have my take on lighting confirmed. I’ve looked up key lighting and that’s what I mean by main light
 
Possible that it was just the 2 lights. Looks like a heavy vignette has been applied, the hand holding the photo is defo in the light but largely toned back. Background light may just have been incidental. From the catch light in the eyes you can see one main light high right and one fill as OP suggested. :)
 
DG Phototraining said:
I'm with Phil here - except this bit



Don't you mean dodging rather than burning? If you're wrong best to let the OP know (and anyone reading this) to not get their wires crossed :)

If you're wrong @Phil V just amend it and I'll delete this, and of course if I'm wrong, I'll just delete this later so I don't look daft lol

Dave
Click to expand...
One of us is right; I googled but im still not 100% certain
 
DemiLion said:
It's absolutely classic 'Rembrandt lighting'.
Click to expand...

Plus on-axis fill-in.

Not sure anything significant has been done to the ear, just the fill light doing its job.
 
Graham W said:
"Dodge" to lighten, "Burn" to darken...I vote "Dodge" (If anything. :))

PS We are talking darkroom terms here aren't we?
Click to expand...

Yes, darkroom is negative (to positive) so more exposure = darker
 
DG Phototraining said:
I'm with Phil here - except this bit



Don't you mean dodging rather than burning? If you're wrong best to let the OP know (and anyone reading this) to not get their wires crossed :)

If you're wrong @Phil V just amend it and I'll delete this, and of course if I'm wrong, I'll just delete this later so I don't look daft lol

Dave
Click to expand...


Burning is correct

It refers to burning in, as in Bromide print making... it makes things darker
 
From the catch lights in the eyes, It indicates that the fill light was very close to the camera indeed and rather smaller than one might expect.
The folds in the ear are clearly casting shadow, this could not have come from the fill light or they would show as mere rims as it was so close to the lens.
Therefor the ear must have been burned in to lower the highlights on the folds.
What is unusual, is the dark rim down the left side of his face (our right) including a small portion of his left ear. as this is a hard edge rather than feathered I suspect the main light was a small flagged spotlight.
 
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic said:
From the catch lights in the eyes, It indicates that the fill light was very close to the camera indeed and rather smaller than one might expect.
The folds in the ear are clearly casting shadow, this could not have come from the fill light or they would show as mere rims as it was so close to the lens.
Therefor the ear must have been burned in to lower the highlights on the folds.
What is unusual, is the dark rim down the left side of his face (our right) including a small portion of his left ear. as this is a hard edge rather than feathered I suspect the main light was a small flagged spotlight.
Click to expand...

I think the fill light is larger, or effectively larger, ie closer. Its effect is clearly visible on the double neck shadow and everything else fits with that. Not saying there hasn't been a bit of local tweaking going on as well.

His left ear is odd, suggesting that the background, and his left ear, have been cut out and darkened in post. The slight halo around the shoulders is indicative of that.

With post processing these days, it's pretty much impossible to disassemble lighting as accurately as we used to ;)
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Burning is correct

It refers to burning in, as in Bromide print making... it makes things darker
Click to expand...


Actually Phil said burning was to lighten not darken - so if burning makes things darker then dodging is the correct term

I just opened a photo in Photoshop and used the Burn tool - it makes things darker @Phil V soz :)

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
Actually Phil said burning was to lighten not darken - so if burning makes things darker then dodging is the correct term

I just opened a photo in Photoshop and used the Burn tool - it makes things darker @Phil V soz :)

Dave
Click to expand...
I’m not arguing Dave. I never know which is which.

I think the more important point is that there’s almost certainly work done on that image.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top