How was this photo lit?

C

commjo

Messages
800
Name
Umar
Edit My Images
Yes
Perhaps this isn't the most appropriate forum, but I am intrigued as to how this photo was lit.

There doesn't seem to be any "forward" light, but she is well exposed, and there is an obvious strong light from the rear - Sun? - and the background is well exposed, so why is she not in silhouette?

Is a reflector being used, or a very soft light?

Thoughts?

http://m.vk.com/photo100326363_269045520?list=photos100326363
 
hmmm....look at the sky, its blown out....and the backlight isn't mega strong, looks more 'angled' looking at the shadows on the trees beyond.... might be a reflector but can't see anything in the eyes to indicate a forward light source of any kind at that small size of image. I would guess its just generally well exposed and some good pp work perhaps. I would suggest asking the photographer, but looks like you might have a language barrier ;)
 
Yv said:
hmmm....look at the sky, its blown out....and the backlight isn't mega strong, looks more 'angled' looking at the shadows on the trees beyond.... might be a reflector but can't see anything in the eyes to indicate a forward light source of any kind at that small size of image. I would guess its just generally well exposed and some good pp work perhaps. I would suggest asking the photographer, but looks like you might have a language barrier ;)
Click to expand...

Thanks Yv - I noticed the blown out sky just after I posted this - doh!

I agree with the language barrier - but there is always Google translate - lol!
 
Matt989 said:
Doesn't look lit at all, its shot on a sunny day but under shadow.

No obvious signs of any artificial light.
Click to expand...

Ok, I can see now - she is stretching into the light - but the transition from shadow to light is so smooth - hence perhaps Jonathan's comment "LOT of retouch......"
 
Yv said:
:LOL: If you manage to get an answer via GT, please do let me know (y)
Click to expand...

This is the reply I received.

"Hey! The lighting was - the sunlight.
Correction in Camera Raw
Nothing else was not.
That is, a beautiful girl and beautiful perspective, no more secrets :)"

So none the wiser really...
 
I'm going to hazard an overcast but bright day, metered carefully for her face, mid tones boosted in raw converter.
Her hair isn't blown out by sunlight suggesting a bright sky with lots of high level cloud.
Of course I am not as good at this as most but that's my thoughts....
 
Al Brum said:
I'm going to hazard an overcast but bright day, metered carefully for her face, mid tones boosted in raw converter.
Her hair isn't blown out by sunlight suggesting a bright sky with lots of high level cloud.
Of course I am not as good at this as most but that's my thoughts....
Click to expand...

Thank you Al. The weather is just not up to it, to try and recreate something like this, but it's one to think about if we get some consistent decent weather.
 
It also looks like it was taken in Autumn judging by those trees in the background, early light at that time of year is very special...
 
JonathanRyan said:
Excellent skin considering the lack of editing. Almost doll like.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was thinking that too...
 
Maybe the model is a Hamlet fan and had very heavy makeup...
Now get you to my lady's chamber, and tell her, let
her paint an inch thick, to this favour she must
come;
Click to expand...
Or, more likely, it isn't true and it's heavily retouched, which makes this type of question hard to answer
 
arad85 said:
Have a look here: http://twistedsifter.com/2011/09/incredible-fashion-photography-retouching-by-m-seth-jones/ as to what can be achieved through retouching. The person who did the work had a wonderful rollover page that showed all these images before and after, but it appears to have gone offline....
Click to expand...

I know what can be achieved through retouching and I'm not in the least critical of it. The point I'm trying to make is that retouching often makes it difficult to see how things have been lit.
 
Garry Edwards said:
I know what can be achieved through retouching and I'm not in the least critical of it. The point I'm trying to make is that retouching often makes it difficult to see how things have been lit.
Click to expand...
Sorry Garry, I meant for the OP to look there - the comment wasn't aimed at you (but I can see how it would read that way) I was making the point that if you know what you're doing, retouching can make a photo look completely different and yet still natural. In any of those I linked to, I'd be saying how good the models skin is - I'm truly in awe of people who have the skill to do that to a photo.
 
I have achieved a similar effect by placing my model under a VERY large bed sheet on a sunny day, with reflectors on the ground. The size of the top light eliminated most of the shadows. I can see some similarities here.
I think he might be telling the truth
 
arad85 said:
Sorry Garry, I meant for the OP to look there - the comment wasn't aimed at you (but I can see how it would read that way) I was making the point that if you know what you're doing, retouching can make a photo look completely different and yet still natural. In any of those I linked to, I'd be saying how good the models skin is - I'm truly in awe of people who have the skill to do that to a photo.
Click to expand...

Thanks - I will take a look.
 
looking at the photographers whole set, he uses a lot of back lit shots. looking at the colour temp of the lighting, this is often flash, even outside. He also appears to just let the sun backlight a lot of shots, and pop the front.

Indoors he seems to always use flash, and make it look natural, Outdoors, I hazard a guess and say he flips between no flash and flash, as the work is fairly inconsistent, depending where he is. Yes there is lot of retouching, but his best work isnt naturally lit. seems to be a lot of small square softbox's and gridded reflectors
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top