How do you achieve a heavily edited portrait like this?

PeK77 · Dec 16, 2013

I've been curious about how to achieve this photo effect for some time. It looks very sharp, high contrast and almost cartoonish.

Girl Portraits (5) | Amazing Photographs

Derrel · Dec 16, 2013

It's the old Joel Grimes, 3-light look. Google his name and take a look. It's a formula. The Google search results will show you the lighting setup to achieve the starting point. The, PS the $hi+ out of it. Boom. There you go. You can look up on-line tutorials for how to render the skin.

PeK77 · Dec 16, 2013

Thank you for the reference, Derrel!

kathyt · Dec 16, 2013

I think it is very pretty. Joel was just on Creative Live too. They will probably be re-broadcasting his stuff soon. creativeLIVE: Free Live Video Tutorials & Online Training Courses

vipgraphx · Dec 17, 2013

look at jillgreenberg.com she does this style as well.

PeK77 · Dec 17, 2013

kathythorson said:
I think it is very pretty. Joel was just on Creative Live too. They will probably be re-broadcasting his stuff soon. creativeLIVE: Free Live Video Tutorials & Online Training Courses

Ive started watching some of their training and that website is a tremendous resource.

Braineack · Dec 17, 2013

Looking at all Ruadh's other shots here: Artistic Children Photo Manipulation in Photography | AnimHuT

It appears he uses one HUGE softbox directly in front and above the subject and one or two rim lights on either side to get the highlights/separation on the arms. The catchlight on the OP's link is very distracting, but also a big giveaway.

I think if you set up the shot like Derell suggested and mimic Joel Grime's lighting setup, with one main key light (beauty dish) in front and two gridded softboxes behind at 45° inward you should get a similar result.

PeK77 · Dec 17, 2013

Braineack said:
Looking at all Ruadh's other shots here: Artistic Children Photo Manipulation in Photography | AnimHuT

It appears he uses one HUGE softbox directly in front and above the subject and one or two rim lights on either side to get the highlights/separation on the arms. The catchlight on the OP's link is very distracting, but also a big giveaway.

I think if you set up the shot like Derell suggested and mimic Joel Grime's lighting setup, with one main key light (beauty dish) in front and two gridded softboxes behind at 45° inward you should get a similar result.

Thanks for the link, Braineack! It doesn't look like they're far from the background. I'm guessing the softbox fills in the light around the subject?

Thanks, everybody! I truly enjoy this forum and appreciate everybody's willingness to provide info.

PeK77 · Dec 17, 2013

Braineack said:
Looking at all Ruadh's other shots here: Artistic Children Photo Manipulation in Photography | AnimHuT

It appears he uses one HUGE softbox directly in front and above the subject and one or two rim lights on either side to get the highlights/separation on the arms. The catchlight on the OP's link is very distracting, but also a big giveaway.

I think if you set up the shot like Derell suggested and mimic Joel Grime's lighting setup, with one main key light (beauty dish) in front and two gridded softboxes behind at 45° inward you should get a similar result.

I think where I'm having some trouble is getting the sharp focus of the whole subject. I'm guessing because I've been using a shallow DOP like 2.2. The subjects in those shots have such detail in all parts of the face and their outline.

Braineack · Dec 17, 2013

PeK77 said:
Thanks for the link, Braineack! It doesn't look like they're far from the background. I'm guessing the softbox fills in the light around the subject?

Yeah, in the picture you linked in the OP, notice the highlights on the either side of the cheeks? That's the two lights coming in from behind on an angle to provide those highlights. And look how she's turned, so frame left the light is just giving you separation on her shoulder and on frame right her entire shoulder/arm and collarbone are bright.

Then in the eyes you can see the HUGE softbox used. It's not a brilliant catchlight, and since there's no real highlights on her forehead/nose, you can tell the two rear lights are set to a much higher power.

If I had to guess, in that shot, the softbox was probably just above the camera lens and a few degrees to the left and VERY close to the subject...like inches.

It's hard to tell how far from the BG they are, it's also possible the BGs are photoshopped in. But I'd be willing to guess they are shot using at least 100mm focal length, maybe even closer to 200mm.

PeK77 said:
I think where I'm having some trouble is getting the sharp focus of the whole subject. I'm guessing because I've been using a shallow DOP like 2.2. The subjects in those shots have such detail in all parts of the face and their outline.

I'd be fooling around with a DOF calculator here, but in your linked image, you can see her left shoulder is falling out of focus. Given my guess at focal range, I'd be willing to guess it was shot closer to f/5.6 or above; enough to keep the majority of the subject in focus (assuming shooting at 125mm and 15ft. from the subject, that would only give you a 1.5ft window for focus). F/2.2 is really shallow, especially when in close quarters using a shorter lens. I shot this of myself at f/2.0 and only my face is in focus: http://www.flickr.com/photos/80607199@N08/10776531416/ even this one at the same focal length and f/4.0, my shoulders just behind my ears are dropping out of focus: http://www.flickr.com/photos/80607199@N08/10895523054/

A few of his shots appear to have short DOF, but I think it's photoshop work again...as things on the same focal plane are dropping out of focus, like it in this shot: http://cdn1.animhut.com/wp-content/uploads//2013/03/Girl-Portraits-3.jpg. You can see she's straight on to the camera but the left and right frames are blurred. I think that's post work.

PeK77 · Dec 17, 2013

Braineack said:
PeK77 said:

Thanks for the link, Braineack! It doesn't look like they're far from the background. I'm guessing the softbox fills in the light around the subject?

Click to expand...

Yeah, in the picture you linked in the OP, notice the highlights on the either side of the cheeks? That's the two lights coming in from behind on an angle to provide those highlights. And look how she's turned, so frame left the light is just giving you separation on her shoulder and on frame right her entire shoulder/arm and collarbone are bright.

Then in the eyes you can see the HUGE softbox used. It's not a brilliant catchlight, and since there's no real highlights on her forehead/nose, you can tell the two rear lights are set to a much higher power.

If I had to guess, in that shot, the softbox was probably just above the camera lens and a few degrees to the left and VERY close to the subject...like inches.

It's hard to tell how far from the BG they are, it's also possible the BGs are photoshopped in. But I'd be willing to guess they are shot using at least 100mm focal length, maybe even closer to 200mm.

PeK77 said:

I think where I'm having some trouble is getting the sharp focus of the whole subject. I'm guessing because I've been using a shallow DOP like 2.2. The subjects in those shots have such detail in all parts of the face and their outline.

Click to expand...

I'd be fooling around with a DOF calculator here, but in your linked image, you can see her left shoulder is falling out of focus. Given my guess at focal range, I'd be willing to guess it was shot closer to f/5.6 or above; enough to keep the majority of the subject in focus (assuming shooting at 125mm and 15ft. from the subject, that would only give you a 1.5ft window for focus). F/2.2 is really shallow, especially when in close quarters using a shorter lens. I shot this of myself at f/2.0 and only my face is in focus: Selfie 2 | Flickr - Photo Sharing! even this one at the same focal length and f/4.0, my shoulders just behind my ears are dropping out of focus: Selfie 5 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

A few of his shots appear to have short DOF, but I think it's photoshop work again...as things on the same focal plane are dropping out of focus, like it in this shot: http://cdn1.animhut.com/wp-content/uploads//2013/03/Girl-Portraits-3.jpg. You can see she's straight on to the camera but the left and right frames are blurred. I think that's post work.

I'm currently shooting portraits with a 50mm or an 18-55mm lens kit. I'll have to work on practices with those lenses for the time being. I think a nice zoom lens is something I do need to invest in eventually. I'm going to have to "wing" backgrouns for now but may also be able to use photoshop, as you said. I also have to look into this DOF calculator you were referencing.

All of this information is great.

Braineack · Dec 17, 2013

I shot this one at 135mm and f/6.3. I'm still not entire in focus, but I think this is closer to what the first was shot at. Selfie 4 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Also, notice how small the catchlights are? The main 20x20" softbox was maybe 4-5 feet away from me--out of arm's reach. The second smaller light was a shoot-through umbrella just off the camera. So that gives you an idea how close he has that main light on the subjects.

If you go back and look at selfie 5 I linked. The catchlight of the umbrella is similar in position but still quite small in comparison to the OP. I had it directly above the camera, shot at 70mm, where the lens was touching the bottom edge of it. I probably could have reached up and touched the umbrella, but could have still been closer and still out of frame. I think he's using maybe a 48x36" softbox or so.

Anyways, I just like to look at these shots and try to analyze them the best I can so I could also one day replicate. I guess it's part of the fun.

PeK77 · Dec 17, 2013

Braineack said:
I shot this one at 135mm and f/6.3. I'm still not entire in focus, but I think this is closer to what the first was shot at. Selfie 4 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Also, notice how small the catchlights are? The main 20x20" softbox was maybe 4-5 feet away from me--out of arm's reach. The second smaller light was a shoot-through umbrella just off the camera. So that gives you an idea how close he has that main light on the subjects.

If you go back and look at selfie 5 I linked. The catchlight of the umbrella is similar in position but still quite small in comparison to the OP. I had it directly above the camera, shot at 70mm, where the lens was touching the bottom edge of it. I probably could have reached up and touched the umbrella, but could have still been closer and still out of frame. I think he's using maybe a 48x36" softbox or so. The one thing that may be clear is that they're being shot with a tremendous amount of zoom. I'm going to try with my 55mm to see what I can get. Maybe extremely shallow DOF to see the result.

Anyways, I just like to look at these shots and try to analyze them the best I can so I could also one day replicate. I guess it's part of the fun.

It does give a great perspective on how close the box must have been to their subject. It's interesting how hard the light is on the OP of the photo. I'm going to do some experimenting to see if I can achieve something similar. This IS all great stuff and IS definitely part of the fun!

I was trying to shoot at the "sharpest" spot for the lens (working for 2-3 stops above the lowest) but realize now I may have to work with f5.6 or through the f11 range to achieve greater sharpness throughout the image.