Ramucci Studios wrote:
Gary,

Wouldn't you say the light coming in from the sides is a bit harsh?  I thought with barndoors you would get that blown out look because the light is harsher and you can specifically highlight your areas....ya know...edge it in rather than the grid that gives a rounder light?

S

The blown out look comes from the light being stronger, not being soft or harsh.  Harsh light comes from a small source, and when placed off to the sides like that, creates sharp edge transitions and brings out details in the texture.  The barn doors don't change the size or shape of the source they only block it from hitting certain areas.  A point source with barn doors is still a point source.

Yes, the light does look harsh, at least in the front to back direction.  But notice it covers top to botom pretty evenly.  A point source with barn doors placed fairly close would show some drop off vertically.  Moving it further away would minimize the effect.  A strip dome placed vertically, would light the whole edge evenly top to bottom due to the long width, and still create a sharper edge transition front to back than a regular soft box due to the narrow width.

Barn doors IMO aren't very effective for highlighting specific areas of the subject.  They're more for reducing spill onto other areas of the set.  To focus on a specific area of the subject, I find grid and snoots much more effect.  In the photos you're refering to however, the light isn't really that focused, you just want to minimize the spill.  I've had good luck just using wider grids and moving the light back to get the coverage I want.  Barn doors are nice in that you can adjust them, but it's a rather coarse control over a broader area.

Ramucci Studios wrote:
Lachapelle seems to use this same technique..

David has a fantastic photo manipulator named Tracy Bayne.  So do not assume anything you see is close to what was on set.  I've seen the before and after, so don't try to guess.

Studio 3-1-oh wrote:
David has a fantastic photo manipulator named Tracy Bayne.  So do not assume anything you see is close to what was on set.  I've seen the before and after, so don't try to guess.

Bang on the money.  The final look of the image is all Photoshop.  It is so difficult to disect lighting from these final images simply because catchlights can be removed/added, shadows and highlights can be manipulated.  Areas can be darkened and lightened to the point the image isn't even remotely close to the one out of the camera.  I will bet you five bucks and a pinch of coon shot that many of those images from the camera don't even look close to the final image.  This is where I get right rubbed.  I have all the equipment and a bit of the skill to make shots similar to those but I really lack the Photoshop skills and artistic vision to create the final image.  Look at the vast majority of people's work on here and you will find it is all heavily manipulated in Photoshop.  I would really love to see some more posts showing the original image and the final image.  I think a lot of people are to scared to post originals for fear of others thinking their photographic skills are subpar.  I think we need to quit hiding the fact that the images we see today are a combination of photography and digital manipulation.  I have never seen a Dean Collins shot look remotely close to some of the stuff that is posted on here.  Why?  Because it came out of the camera--end of story.

Mac Swift wrote:

Bang on the money.  The final look of the image is all Photoshop.  It is so difficult to disect lighting from these final images simply because catchlights can be removed/added, shadows and highlights can be manipulated.  Areas can be darkened and lightened to the point the image isn't even remotely close to the one out of the camera.  I will bet you five bucks and a pinch of coon shot that many of those images from the camera don't even look close to the final image.  This is where I get right rubbed.  I have all the equipment and a bit of the skill to make shots similar to those but I really lack the Photoshop skills and artistic vision to create the final image.  Look at the vast majority of people's work on here and you will find it is all heavily manipulated in Photoshop.  I would really love to see some more posts showing the original image and the final image.  I think a lot of people are to scared to post originals for fear of others thinking their photographic skills are subpar.  I think we need to quit hiding the fact that the images we see today are a combination of photography and digital manipulation.  I have never seen a Dean Collins shot look remotely close to some of the stuff that is posted on here.  Why?  Because it came out of the camera--end of story.

so basically you are saying that you are embittered because "i have ALL the equipment and a BIT of skill and i REALLY LACK the photoshop skills and artistic vision to create the final image" and yet you say that a lot of the images you would like to imitate are made by photographers who are scared of their lack of photographic skills, or as you say, "subpar".

how about you improve your OWN skills and artistic vision before deciding that other people are subpar photographers rescuing their images in photoshop?

Sean Armenta wrote:
so basically you are saying that you are embittered because "i have ALL the equipment and a BIT of skill and i REALLY LACK the photoshop skills and artistic vision to create the final image" and yet you say that a lot of the images you would like to imitate are made by photographers who are scared of their lack of photographic skills, or as you say, "subpar".

how about you improve your OWN skills and artistic vision before deciding that other people are subpar photographers rescuing their images in photoshop?

Whoa there buckaroo.  I didn't mean "rescuing" bad images.  A bad shot is a bad shot.  I meant the final images are not what comes out of the camera in many of the shots we see today but a product of good photography and fantastic digital manipulation.  Without the post work in Photoshop many of the images wouldn't look like they do.  You have great work but many of those shots did not come out of the camera like that or I'll eat mine.  Why don't you just post them as they come out of the camera if Photoshop enhancing isn't a vital component of your images?

Mac Swift wrote:
Whoa there buckaroo.  I didn't mean "rescuing" bad images.  A bad shot is a bad shot.  I meant the final images are not what comes out of the camera in many of the shots we see today but a product of good photography and fantastic digital manipulation.  Without the post work in Photoshop many of the images wouldn't look like they do.  You have great work but many of those shots did not come out of the camera like that or I'll eat mine.  Why don't you just post them as they come out of the camera if Photoshop enhancing isn't a vital component of your images?

Nobody is claiming that the shots are straight out of the camera.  That's ludicrous.  But claiming it's all photoshop (or heavy photoshop), is the opposite extreme and equally ludicrous.  Obviously the answer lies somewhere in between.

Gary Davis wrote:
Nobody is claiming that the shots are straight out of the camera.  That's ludicrous.  But some are claiming it's all photoshop (or heavy photoshop), which is the opposite extreme and equally ludicrous.  Obviously the answer lies somewhere in between.

Stolen from the "Do you want me to trash your work" thread:

Christopher Ambler wrote:
Ha! Fooled you, Skippy, the entire picture was done in photoshop using a USB cable plugged directly into my ass!

Shows what you know!

So, THERE!  You stand corrected... Some people can do it with just one or the other!

-Major
(Sorry, I couldn't resist...)

Mac Swift wrote:
Look at the vast majority of people's work on here and you will find it is all heavily manipulated in Photoshop.  I would really love to see some more posts showing the original image and the final image.  I think a lot of people are to scared to post originals for fear of others thinking their photographic skills are subpar.

A lot of people seem to think I'm some sort of photoshop wizard and that my images are heavily manipulated.  I really don't get it.  Not that my work is on par with the amazing photographers that we talk about and who sometimes participate here, but if you're interested....

Mac Swift wrote:

Whoa there buckaroo.  I didn't mean "rescuing" bad images.  A bad shot is a bad shot.  I meant the final images are not what comes out of the camera in many of the shots we see today but a product of good photography and fantastic digital manipulation.  Without the post work in Photoshop many of the images wouldn't look like they do.  You have great work but many of those shots did not come out of the camera like that or I'll eat mine.  Why don't you just post them as they come out of the camera if Photoshop enhancing isn't a vital component of your images?

okay, let's take your argument..

without traditional darkroom dodging and burning, many of the iconic images we are familiar with would not look like they do because they certainly did not look like that coming out of the camera.  you must agree with this statement in order for your argument to be successful. 

why don't we see these negs or straight prints floating around?  why do we only see the darkroom manipulated prints displayed by the artist/photographer?

because to them, the original was simply a platform to further their creativity.  the original to them, to me, is an unfinished product.  it is again, the final image that matters - nothing else!

and photoshop is indeed a great part of the work i produce.  i never said it wasn't.  i don't claim to NOT use photoshop.  it's painfully obvious.  but does it matter?  and why should it matter?

the funny part is this argument is ALWAYS one-sided.  what if you were told that your work is the way it is because you can only produce work in-camera.  that's all you can do because you don't know how to do any post production.  sounds silly, doesn't it?

Sean Armenta wrote:

Mac Swift wrote:

Whoa there buckaroo.  I didn't mean "rescuing" bad images.  A bad shot is a bad shot.  I meant the final images are not what comes out of the camera in many of the shots we see today but a product of good photography and fantastic digital manipulation.  Without the post work in Photoshop many of the images wouldn't look like they do.  You have great work but many of those shots did not come out of the camera like that or I'll eat mine.  Why don't you just post them as they come out of the camera if Photoshop enhancing isn't a vital component of your images?

okay, let's take your argument..

without traditional darkroom dodging and burning, many of the iconic images we are familiar with would not look like they do because they certainly did not look like that coming out of the camera.  you must agree with this statement in order for your argument to be successful. 

why don't we see these negs or straight prints floating around?  why do we only see the darkroom manipulated prints displayed by the artist/photographer?

because to them, the original was simply a platform to further their creativity.  the original to them, to me, is an unfinished product.  it is again, the final image that matters - nothing else!

and photoshop is indeed a great part of the work i produce.  i never said it wasn't.  i don't claim to NOT use photoshop.  it's painfully obvious.  but does it matter?  and why should it matter?

the funny part is this argument is ALWAYS one-sided.  what if you were told that your work is the way it is because you can only produce work in-camera.  that's all you can do because you don't know how to do any post production.  sounds silly, doesn't it?

Ok.  Maybe I am not being clear.  I am not saying that darkroom manipulation didn't occur.  Of course it did/does.  Show me an image from the 60's-80's that looks like the stuff that is being produced today.  I am syaing that images are manipulated today in a way that produces entirely different results than darkroom manipulations that trying to discern lighting setups from final images is all but futile.  Images can be created/altered today in ways that were all but impossible in days gone by.  If people want to discuss the effects of lighting setups they need to be doing it on images fresh from the camera.  There is generally a much larger difference between finished product vs raw image nowadays than when tweaked in the darkroom.  No?

Brandon Ching wrote:

See what I am saying??  I can produce the orignal image without blinking an eye.  Can I produce the final image?  Not a hope in hell.  Is this because I lack photographic and lighting skills?  No.  It is beacuse I lack the vision and post poduction skill to create this image.  So as a photographer I will never be able to produce images like this not because I lack the skills with the camera it is purely because I lack the skills required in the post work.  Back to the OP trying to figure out how an image was "lit" is completely pointless as is trying to discern lighting from the vast majority of images today.  What you are seeing is most likely not what it seems.

Mac Swift wrote:

See what I am saying??  I can produce the orignal image without blinking an eye.  Can I produce the final image?  Not a hope in hell.  Is this because I lack photographic and lighting skills?  No.  It is beacuse I lack the vision and post poduction skill to create this image.  So as a photographer I will never be able to produce images like this not because I lack the skills with the camera it is purely because I lack the skills required in the post work.  Back to the OP trying to figure out how an image was "lit" is completely pointless as is trying to discern lighting from the vast majority of images today.  What you are seeing is most likely not what it seems.

I think imagination plays a major role here.

Mac Swift wrote:
Ok.  Maybe I am not being clear.  I am not saying that darkroom manipulation didn't occur.  Of course it did/does.  Show me an image from the 60's-80's that looks like the stuff that is being produced today.  I am syaing that images are manipulated today in a way that produces entirely different results than darkroom manipulations that trying to discern lighting setups from final images is all but futile.  Images can be created/altered today in ways that were all but impossible in days gone by.  If people want to discuss the effects of lighting setups they need to be doing it on images fresh from the camera.  There is generally a much larger difference between finished product vs raw image nowadays than when tweaked in the darkroom.  No?

While the potential is there and more accessible to do more manipulation than in the past, I think a lot of people these days assume it plays a bigger role than it does.

To get back to the original question, the OP asked what lighting was used in the photos.  To claim that it's "all photoshop" without any discussion of the lighting seems to imply that it could have been shot with nothing more than on-camera flash and then been manipulated to what you see with photoshop.  I think that's ridiculous.  The question was how to do the lighting, and the lighting is done with lights, not PS.

Gary Davis wrote:
A lot of people seem to think I'm some sort of photoshop wizard and that my images are heavily manipulated.  I really don't get it.  Not that my work is on par with the amazing photographers that we talk about and who sometimes participate here, but if you're interested....

I never said all images are heavily manipulated.  Most, if not all, of my work has about as much post work as you are showing here.  Would I like to do more?  Perhaps.  It depends on the image.  But right now I simply don't have the vision and/or skills in Photoshop to do it.  I am limited in the types of images I can create not because of my skills with a camera but because of my lack of skills with the all powerful Photoshop.  It is another ball game to create some of the images that are around here than just straight photographic skills.

Gary Davis wrote:
While the potential is there and more accessible to do more manipulation than in the past, I think a lot of people these days assume it plays a bigger role than it does.

To get back to the original question, the OP asked what lighting was used in the photos.  To claim that it's "all photoshop" without any discussion of the lighting seems to imply that it could have been shot with nothing more than on-camera flash and then been manipulated to what you see with photoshop.  I think that's ridiculous.  The question was how to do the lighting, and the lighting is done with lights, not PS.

I agree--but that depends on what image we are looking at.  The images he was refering to are a lot more involved than your own images.  Your own images are very simple compared to the OP's samples.  Many of the images he was showing are heavily manipulated and trying to "guess" the lighting used is akin to clapping with one hand.  Your shots...a lot easier to potentially figure out due to less digital manipulating.  The poor guy could take your advice and light until the cows come home and NEVER achieve those images because you would have forgotten to inform him of the post work that was involved.  It is a disservice to try and help someone figure out how to emulate a particular image by disecting the lighting whilst ignoring the skilled post work responsible for the particular look of many of the images people are mistakenly lead to believe is all about lighting.  Give that image you posted to Amy Dresser and you will end up with something that you could never produce.  Why?  Because you don't have the digital editing skills to be able to create the image (I am assuming here) not because of your lack of photographic skills.  In fact, take a peek at her site and tell me if the final images are due to photographic skills or her post work.  Some of the original shots are terrible and if it wasn't for her ability to "fix" the images the shots woudl be usless.   And to try and guess what the original shots looked like based on her final work is next to impossible.

Chan Studio wrote:
Talk about computer manipulation.  I just downloaded GIMP and it is pretty good.  Anyone use GIMP instead of Photoshop?

Last time I checked (some time ago, admittedly) the GIMP didn't have color management. That disqualifies it, for me, for serious work.

There are other cheap photoeditors that have a decent feature set. You might want to take a look at Ulead photoimpact 12. I use Ulead video studio because I don't want to sink the $$ into Premiere. It's nowhere near as powerful as the Adobe product but most of Ulead's stuff is around 1/10 the price. Photoimpact has a lot of cool features and if I hadn't already sunk the $$ for photoshop I would be using photoimpact instead.

Gary Davis wrote:
The blown out edge lighting?  Just strobes one either side and slightly behind the model, set about 1 stop over.  You can use barn doors, grids, umbrellas, strip domes, whatever.  Barn doors will be harsher because it's a point light source.  Grids are still a bit harsh but will focus the light a little more.  Umbrellas and strip domes are obviously softer, you'll probably want flags to block the light from hitting the lens directly.

and by the way, this is about right, in terms of the inital technical question. Well done Gary

fstopblues wrote:
I'll tell you all the truth. I've met her and asked her the same question. The truth is she has great lighting skill and all the lighting is done in camera. She does post production but mostly for retouching not lighting manipulation. Anyone who thinks this is all done in post just doesnt know lighting and is likely afraid to believe that anything other than trying to fake it in photoshop exists. Well it does and thats why she makes around 30k per shoot.

I don't buy it.  Show me images from 60's-80's i.e. pre-digital age that look like this.  Are her lights different?  Better?  Faster?  Taller?  If it is all about lighting then there should be images from back in the day that look like some of these.  I haven't seen them if they exist.

Mac Swift wrote:
I agree--but that depends on what image we are looking at.  The images he was refering to are a lot more involved than your own images.  Your own images are very simple compared to the OP's samples.  Many of the images he was showing are heavily manipulated and trying to "guess" the lighting used is akin to clapping with one hand.  Your shots...a lot easier to potentially figure out due to less digital manipulating.  The poor guy could take your advice and light until the cows come home and NEVER achieve those images because you would have forgotten to inform him of the post work that was involved.  It is a disservice to try and help someone figure out how to emulate a particular image by disecting the lighting whilst ignoring the skilled post work responsible for the particular look of many of the images people are mistakenly lead to believe is all about lighting.  Give that image you posted to Amy Dresser and you will end up with something that you could never produce.  Why?  Because you don't have the digital editing skills to be able to create the image (I am assuming here) not because of your lack of photographic skills.

The OP didn't ask how to recreate the image, he asked about the lighting, specifically the rim highlights from what I gathered.  That wasn't created with photoshop.  Your argument is off topic.  I never suggested it's all about lighting.  You, however, have specifically stated it's all about photoshop.  Is telling him that it's all photoshop without offering one single suggestion of how to do the photoshoping helpfull?  If anyone is doing a disservice, in my opinion it's you.  The poor guy could take my advice and possibly get the rim lighting effect that he seems to want and is currently missing from the photos in his profile.  Of course by now the poor guy is probably so confused he's given up.

Gary Davis wrote:

The OP didn't ask how to recreate the image, he asked about the lighting, specifically the rim highlights from what I gathered.  That wasn't created with photoshop.  Your argument is off topic.  I never suggested it's all about lighting.  You, however, have specifically stated it's all about photoshop.  Is telling him that it's all photoshop without offering one single suggestion of how to do the photoshoping helpfull?  If anyone is doing a disservice, in my opinion it's you.  The poor guy could take my advice and possibly get the rim lighting effect that he seems to want and is currently missing from the photos in his profile.  Of course by now the poor guy is probably so confused he's given up.

Sorry.   Misread the OP.  I'll go fall on my sword now.

Mac Swift wrote:

I don't buy it.  Show me images from 60's-80's i.e. pre-digital age that look like this.  Are her lights different?  Better?  Faster?  Taller?  If it is all about lighting then there should be images from back in the day that look like some of these.  I haven't seen them if they exist.

Styles change.