Any idea how this was shot?

It was in the comments to one of her other pictures...many had asked how she was getting her lighting effect, then someone figured it out and asked "is this...how you do it?", and she responded "yes..."
I believe it was intended to mean that it was the method she used in all or most cases.

I´ll try to find it again later...
 
Hmm, and now, to bring up a totally different issue ... actually I do not like the image ;)

looks to studio like for an outdoor shot for my taste. And in a way the two humans seem to not really fit into the scene naturally.

But this is just my personal feeling towards it. Taste is subjective ;)
 
The fan who cracked it was kindalight who asked
my guess to the lighting mystery: you kept one close to you - in the frame - then took a second photo of the composition and photoshopped the light source out the way you would for multiplicity shots? okay that's my thought. am I right? beautiful effect.
Link is http://www.flickr.com/photos/rebba/144269006/


She, rebekka, says
for those curious, the lighting arrangement was as follows:
I positioned a light stand with flash on the road right next to where i'm standing, took one shot of me lit with the flash, took another identical shot of only the background, and used part of that photo to clone out the lightstand. I'm not superimposed on the background, as someone wondered.
Really, it would be much more bother to take some picture of me somewhere else and putting it into some scene. I would never do that.
Half -way down this page http://www.flickr.com/photos/rebba/167146642/in/set-72157594157565155/
 
It´s "a trick of the light"...
A flash close to herself - in the frame - then takes a second photo of the composition and photoshops the light source out - the way you would for multiplicity shots.
She says this somewhere in a comments section.

Is this trick of the light thing the same thing quoted above this post?
 
"Trick of the light" is just an old expression.

It was often used in reference to images...not only photos, but often to the optical illusions used by performing magicians...where things had surprising proportions or perspectives, and disappeared or were not what they appeared to be.
 
Wait you used a quote from another image's method to explain this image? That makes no sense, the other image's lighting looks completely different.

It may be a trick for her to use this lighting effect in a lot of her shots but still every photo is different, even in her collection and the light must be adjusted for each.

In the frame above there is no side lighting. The light comes from in front. And the fact that the very bottom of the frame fades from flash foreground to natural background (look at her shadow) means that the flash was not in the frame combining the image of multiple exposures.
 
all that work, all she needed was to shoot with the 10 second timer and use the flash. Still nice shots.
 
Most certainly odd to do it this way in my opinion too. Reading thru comments attached to her 150 uploaded images is about as much hard work as she seems to put into her lighting. Still...quite fascinating.

The fact that she´s not bad looking doesn´t seem to have done her fan base any harm either :wink:
 
The fact that she´s not bad looking doesn´t seem to have done her fan base any harm either :wink:

what helped her most was a recent struggle with some UK-based "agency" selling images of hers without having the copyright... caused a major uproar and lots of discussions.
 
Now this is the type of situation where you would sue just for the media coverage. "Lone amature photographer sues multimillion dollar corporation over her image" That would make anyone want to see what the fuss is all about :)
 
we had a thread on her case on this very forum a couple of weeks ago... she really got popular through this story in the media ;)
 

Most reactions

Back
Top