Lighting a Fashion Shoot

[tevo]

I have been tasked with shooting a few models for the endorsement of a fashion show tomorrow. I plan on using a white seamless drop indoor. I have strobes and umbrellas, as well as daylight continuous lights with softboxes. I'm envisioning full body portraits as well as some medium close ups. I am confident lighting the close ups (remembrandt or butterfly, as well as broad/short side depending on the stature of the model), but I am not 100% on lighting a full body portrait. What would be the best way to light this?

(Someone turn on the e.rose signal!)

 

[tirediron]

Big modifier; say 36x48 SB, or 60" brolly-box, something like that just off-axis and a BD above.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

+1, BIG modifiers. In the studio I have had the opportunity to frequent we use 5' profoto Octabox as main modifier for full body shots and sometimes 2 profoto 5 footer Octaboxes for my motorcycle/scooter/model shots. Thats in additon to beauty dish and other modifiers

 

[pjwarneka]

Tevo,

Just take the same theory behind your close up shots and apply it for their full length shots. don't panic. Big modifiers will do it. 60-70 inch Umbrellas. A nice key light that will throw a nice even, wide light will do. Do you have large umbrellas?

 

[Derrel]

Use what you have. Not everything should be lighted with big, soft-shadow, flat-lighting uber-sized light modifiers. Use some judgement. Gigantic modifiers are as trendy now as Instagram filters are. You could elect to kick it old-school and actually have some shadows in the pictures. You know, maybe show some shapes, reveal some texture, highlight some line, and maybe hide a little bit of boring in order to reveal a bit of daring?

I have seen some nice fashion shot with point-source lighting,like, oh....the SUN. Or parabolic reflectors. Or even those old-fashioned, normal-sized umbrellas.

You have a white seamless right? Well...that was the starting point for some of the most interesting fashion work of the 1960's and 1970's, before the mondo, 5-foot-Octabox became the trendy light...

Step outside the box. SEE what shows UP at the session. Be ready to figure out a plan then, and work with it. we have no idea what the models look like, or the clothes, or what exactly you have to work with. ANd obviously, if you do not have a 5-foot Octa, you will HAVE TO use something "else".

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Use what you have. Not everything should be lighted with big, soft-shadow, flat-lighting uber-sized light modifiers. Use some judgement. Gigantic modifiers are as trendy now as Instagram filters are. You could elect to kick it old-school and actually have some shadows in the pictures. You know, maybe show some shapes, reveal some texture, highlight some line, and maybe hide a little bit of boring in order to reveal a bit of daring?

I have seen some nice fashion shot with point-source lighting,like, oh....the SUN. Or parabolic reflectors. Or even those old-fashioned, normal-sized umbrellas.

You have a white seamless right? Well...that was the starting point for some of the most interesting fashion work of the 1960's and 1970's, before the mondo, 5-foot-Octabox became the trendy light...

Step outside the box. SEE what shows UP at the session. Be ready to figure out a plan then, and work with it. we have no idea what the models look like, or the clothes, or what exactly you have to work with. ANd obviously, if you do not have a 5-foot Octa, you will HAVE TO use something "else".

Derrel are you implying I was suggesting "go out and pick up a couple of profoto Octaboxes on your way home" or such, if so and I sounded like that guys please forgive me i meant "yeah +1 on the big modifiers"

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Also i'm surprised no one suggested the option of normal size softboxes or modifiers one above the other for even lighting

 

[e.rose]

(Someone turn on the e.rose signal!)

K, well... if you're calling me specifically cause you like what it is that I do....... It's nothing special, I promise.

I use an Apollo soft box for most of what I do. I think it's something like 2.5ft x 2.5ft.

For this one:

I had an off camera flash through the softbox camera left. The softbox was placed above her height and pointed down at her. And then camera right, I had an umbrella... I don't even really know what size it is... I think maybe 40"? Shoot through, pulled back much farther and the flash on that one set to a low power. My goal with that was just to fill in the shadows *just* a bit. It obviously wasn't super high powered because she still has shadow on the right side, but with the small pop from the flash through the umbrella it made the shadows just a hair lighter than they were without the umbrella.

For THIS one:

It was basically the exact same thing, without the fill umbrella.

There is obviously light fall-off in both of them, but I didn't mind it. I think there's more on the second one... but if I recall correctly I had the softbox slightly feathered away from her. Not a whole lot, but more than I did for the first one, so that may account for more of the fall off on that one.

Nothing fancy.

I wish I could give you some mind-blowing secret, but... I haven't ever done anything mind blowing

When I do though, I'll let you know.

 

[e.rose]

Oh, and I guess I should mention that the umbrella camera right in the first one, was about her level pointing straight at her. Not placed above liek the softbox.

 

[hirejn]

I can't think of a specific reason why lighting a full-length would be different for me than a head shot or 3/4. Light is light. Something that illuminates the whole subject is one possibility, and that typically calls for a large modifier, but you don't necessarily need high-key full body wash for fashion. There's no one way to answer this. The correct style is the one that pleases the client and you. Technically you need only one light for great images, but with three you could do butterfly plus two kickers on the sides. With one you could be very directional. At this point you probably understand lighting. There's a tendency to over-think a shoot. As Joe McNally says, start somewhere. Another saying is you never know, you just have to feel it out. Throw a dart at the wall. Then get in there and play and work toward a better image.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

I can't think of a specific reason why lighting a full-length would be different for me than a head shot or 3/4. Light is light. Something that illuminates the whole subject is one possibility, and that typically calls for a large modifier, but you don't necessarily need high-key full body wash for fashion. There's no one way to answer this. The correct style is the one that pleases the client and you. Technically you need only one light for great images, but with three you could do butterfly plus two kickers on the sides. With one you could be very directional. At this point you probably understand lighting. There's a tendency to over-think a shoot. As Joe McNally says, start somewhere. Another saying is you never know, you just have to feel it out. Throw a dart at the wall. Then get in there and play and work toward a better image.

The thing about the smaller modifiers is we either have to deal with falloff, or back the light up and deal with harsher light (not saying either is taboo) but the bigger modifiers, or stacked modifiers offer a way around it.

 

[gsgary]

6' polystyrene board to bounce off, 1 flash above the other there are lots of different ways to make your lights bigger

 

[KmH]

You only need big modifiers if you want the light to 'wrap' (soft shadow edges).

However you did say it was a fashion shoot which usually entails using soft light, not the dramatic, little if any 'wrap', sharper edged shadows light small modifiers would deliver.

 

[IByte]

Grids, snoots and a beauty dish.

 

[Derrel]

You only need big modifiers if you want the light to 'wrap' (soft shadow edges).

However you did say it was a fashion shoot which usually entails using soft light, not the dramatic, little if any 'wrap', sharper edged shadows light small modifiers would deliver.

Not sure where this is coming from....TONS of fashion work has been lighted with hard light, for decades...

Take a look at Italian Vogue, March 2013...the light is decidedly HARD, directional, and CLASSIC...

http://www.vogue.it/en/magazine/vog...-couture-by-paolo-roversi-and-peter-lindbergh