Help recreating a photo of the lovely Zooey Deschanel?

[thenewdancecraze]

InTempus, would you mind detailing your lighting for that portrait? I've got my suspicions but I can't see the catchlights in enough detail on my monitor to tell.

I think these are excellent exercises.

For that shot I used two large softboxes (36x40") on B800 lights. I had the modeling lights turned up to max output. I put the softboxes next to each other at slight angles. I also used a B400 camera right just for grins. You can see the light on the right side of his face/hair.

I shot it with an 85mm lens at f/1.6 and ISO 800.

The setup looked something like this:

oh my god could you make one of these for what the original person described?

I'm like my mom: utterly retarded when it comes to reading and then picturing in my head.
So I tried the little set up that my original answerer provided, but it turns out I'm an absolute idiot in reading and visualizing.
Sad huh?

 

[Iron Flatline]

We had an agreement in the Subscribers forum a while back that we were going to ok posts with images for the purposes of artistic discussion. I think we ought to do the same for image deconstruction... but I don't own the site, and am subsequently not the one incurring the risk. Having said that, I bet the risk is a "Cease and Desist" letter, if any...

 

[Shelly1204]

We had an agreement in the Subscribers forum a while back that we were going to ok posts with images for the purposes of artistic discussion. I think we ought to do the same for image deconstruction... but I don't own the site, and am subsequently not the one incurring the risk. Having said that, I bet the risk is a "Cease and Desist" letter, if any...

Yeah, every other site allows it. It seems silly that this one doesn't.

 

[Big Mike]

oh my god could you make one of these for what the original person described?

I gave it a try.

As you can see, an overhead view isn't idea for this set up...so I made up a quick side view sketch.

As you can see, the umbrella is above the model and just slightly to the side (see the nose shadow). And there are two light sources below her face, probably reflectors.

 

[thenewdancecraze]

...As you can see, the umbrella is above the model and just slightly to the side (see the nose shadow). And there are two light sources below her face, probably reflectors.

Wow...I set up something quite different.
I really am amateur eh?
But thanks for the sketch!
Much appreciated

 

[Derrel]

Here is that same basic lighting style, from the pre-Internet days that KmH so cleverly referred to. This is using a slightly larger umbrella than I suggested: this was shot with a single 45-inch umbrella, which makes the under-nose shadow softer and more-diffused. I suggested a 30 to 32 inch umbrella for a tight headshot, like they used on Zoey. This photo I took was shot in 1992. At that time, I was using an under-chin reflector made of flat, white-painted stainless steel that I mounted on top of a small tripod; as you can see, it adds only one lower-eye catchlight: the Zoey photo has two, distinct,separated catchlights, showing that there were two under-chin reflectors, not just one.

If one wants a crisper, harder-edged shadow AND wants to be able to "catch the bounce" of the under-chin reflectors, a smaller umbrella positioned a bit closer to the subject would be needed than the 45 inch brolly that I used. For crisper lighting, the smaller, 30 to 32 inch umbrellas are much better at creating the under-nose shadow,and I'm pretty confident on how the shot of Zoey D was done--it's an old, very popular lighting approach. As you can see on this woman, my overhead umbrella casts a very slight, subtle shadow below her lower lip, which adds a dimensional "clue" which while slight,is noticeable to the eye.

 

[thoughtcryme]

I just want to add that besides the lighting that's been discussed, that photo of Zooey looks like it's been either bleach bypassed or cross processed.
That's what the "weird color effect" is and why the photo has that warm copper tone to it.
Well, actually it's been treated to simulate one of those processing techniques digitally I'm sure.
Which is done using a curves adjustment layer in photoshop.
Not sure about elements as I've never used it.
But aside from applying an aggressive curves layer, you'll also want to create a solid layer and fill it with black or dark gray, then use either 'hue' or 'saturation' as the blend mode then play with the layers opacity to your liking.
It definitely has a constrained color pallet.
You can also do the shallow depth of field in post.
Paint a grayscale depth mask, then apply the lens blur filter and use the mask you just painted to control the blur.

 

[Big Mike]

We had an agreement in the Subscribers forum a while back that we were going to ok posts with images for the purposes of artistic discussion. I think we ought to do the same for image deconstruction... but I don't own the site, and am subsequently not the one incurring the risk. Having said that, I bet the risk is a "Cease and Desist" letter, if any...

:thumbup:

 

[inTempus]

We had an agreement in the Subscribers forum a while back that we were going to ok posts with images for the purposes of artistic discussion. I think we ought to do the same for image deconstruction... but I don't own the site, and am subsequently not the one incurring the risk. Having said that, I bet the risk is a "Cease and Desist" letter, if any...

Yup... rules are rules.

While it's highly unlikely that someone who has posted a public image on the internet has much of a case for copy right infringement if someone reposts it to a forum (linking to the original source), we as the users aren't the ones that have to fight it should someone file suit. You can sue for anything, winning or losing isn't usually the real problem... it's the fact you have to incur the cost of mounting a legal defense that's the problem most of the time.

So if the powers that be here don't want us posting pics, we don't post pics... I have no problem with it. A link is just as easy to work with IMHO.

Ironically a link legally isn't any different than an image tag most likely... you're still linking to the same resource and you're still generating traffic (if the concern is bandwidth leeching). If the owners here really wanted to protect themselves, they wouldn't allow links of any sort to materials not owned by the poster.

Oh no! I just opened a whole new can of worms.

 

[Garbz]

This is exactly the kind of stuff I'm unable to decipher!

Tip for free. Look very very closely at her eyes. The entire lighting setup is right there infront of you visible in the frame. You just have to look.