Lookbook photo style

[jenesaispas]

Hi folks,

I'm doing a photoshoot for a lookbook soon and I have a particular simple style in mind that i'd like to copy somehow. I would like your thoughts on 1. light setup 2. hardware 3. settings and 4. post processing.

The lookbook style i'm trying to recreate is the one light setup of Terry Richardson. Also the brand Supreme does a good job on it's lookbook and I want to know how their setup is. The photos look slightly like analog and i'm wondering how. Below some links to the styles I mentioned.

Terry Richardson Shoots Barack Obama | Leveled Magazine

Supreme fall/winter 2014 lookbook 1/26

Thanks a lot for any thoughts!

Cheers,
Saro

 

[sscarmack]

On camera flash, full power.

 

[D-B-J]

I still have yet to understand why this style is chosen... It's not flattering. It's just.. Harsh and ugly,

 

[Derrel]

The urban fashion shots look like a large panel, about a 3.5 x 7 foot tall panel, at minimum, was set up camera left, and two flash head aimed through the fabric. One overhead light appears to have been set up also. The MAIN light is from the left side, and is a big source that is not all that close. The background was white, and it has a little bit of fall-off, which is what gives it that very slightly dingy, dull, not-quite-white tone. Looks like the lighting remained exactly the same for the entire shoot.

If by "analog" you mean flat, crappy, uninspired lighting, the fashion stuff is indeed "analog".

 

[Braineack]

bolt on a 50mm lens. tape your flash directly onto your lens. turn up the power. have your subject stand in directly against a white wall. disregard any skill ever acquired.

 

[vintagesnaps]

Usually I see the term analog used to refer to film; however since I shoot film I don't think a lot of what is supposed to look like film today, actually does. To me it seems to look more like old photographs that have been in a shoebox in somebody's closet or basement for years! What I shoot with fresh film can look comparable to what I shoot digitally, different in quality in prints but can be equally good.

I'd describe this style as being more stark, and sometimes it can work but I think a lot of more specialized looks can be tricky to do well and can easily be overdone. I think this is more about the lighting, and not doing studio work the only resource I could suggest might be the Photo District News, each issue covers a different specialty like fashion, commercial/advertising, etc. so you might take a look at their site and see what you find.

If you intend to do a lookbook and need to know about lighting, hardware, settings etc. it seems like you'll need to do some research into lighting and studio work because you'll need to know that before you get into doing a shoot.

 

[jenesaispas]

Thank you guys, that was somehow helpful and demeaning at the same time

I still have yet to understand why this style is chosen... It's not flattering. It's just.. Harsh and ugly,

Both Supreme and Terry are one of the biggest leaders in their markets so i'm sure someone likes it, including me. I know its not really conventional, left alone technically challenging, but hey, a lot of people like it, and i'm guessing because it gives a raw and authentic look.

If by "analog" you mean flat, crappy, uninspired lighting, the fashion stuff is indeed "analog".

There is also some grain and fading in the photos that gives it that analog look. Any ideas how to acquire this? Do you think they do it on a full white background and post process it to get the background to be slightly consistently grey?

If you intend to do a lookbook and need to know about lighting, hardware, settings etc. it seems like you'll need to do some research into lighting and studio work because you'll need to know that before you get into doing a shoot.

I plan on doing some research, asking this question is part of it. I do have some idea on how to get these results, but was curious on your thoughts. Especially in hardware and post processing, since I have limited hardware available. ( one external flash, no lens, softbox). Also when I referred to analog, I mean the fade and noise that is very analog specific.

 

[vintagesnaps]

With film there is actual grain in the emulsion, and usually faster more high 'speed' films have more grain. You wouldn't get a faded look or grain just byusing film, you might see it in old photos depending how they were exposed and were or weren't preserved. With film I see more grain in low light with lower speed film, basically using film that isn't light sensitive enough for how dark it is.

Shooting digitally I start to get noise when it's late day and I'm losing light, raising the ISO (light sensitivity) and pushing the limits of what the camera can do. I'd look up some photographers who do this type look; the more harsh shadows would be from the lighting and chances are they're adding noise and adjusting to lighten or 'fade' the color etc. in post.

 

[jenesaispas]

@vintagesnaps

The noise you see is significantly different to the grain on analog photos. Now I look at it, the supreme lookphotos look very similar to the VSCO photo filters.

 

[SCraig]

LOOK at the first photograph you provided a link to. Really LOOK at it. The back of the subject's head is about an inch from a white wall. The shadows are harsh and sharp enough to cut steel and are exactly where they should be for a speedlight mounted directly on the camera. The highlights on the forehead and nose are blown and the teeth are so blown that the line between them is hard to see in one place. The only thing missing is red-eye and that was probably fixed in post processing.

I disagree that it is "Technically Challenging" at all, and agree that the simplest way to reproduce this "Style" is simply bore straight ahead with the most powerful speedlight you can find.

 

[Braineack]

flash needs to go just off the lens: http://www.wreckthetapedeck.com/wp-...ichardson-director-video-odd-future-oldie.jpg

http://www.custombrackets.com/media...525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/c/b/cb-mini-rc-cam.png

 

[Derrel]

Braineack brings up a good point: Richardson is using the "side bracket" type of bracket to mount his on-camera flash realllllllllllly close to the lens axis. This is a fairly new trend that he has popularized. A coupe years ago, Strobist mentioned ways to make on-axcis flash look better, including actually taping the flash RIGHT ONT TOP OF THE LENS barrel!!! Strobist: On Assignment: On Camera, On Axis, On Budget

As far as the ghetto lighting look used in the other look book: that is supposed to look like "authentic", low-budget, we-be-fo-realz type lighting, indicating a company that cannot even afford to hire a fashion photographer. It's a deliberate way to shoot with chitty lighting as a way to gain street cred. If you look at the images, they are AMAZINGLY consistent. It's a case of shooting in a lame style to look "street". Whoever did it is good, but the art director is the genius, not the photographer, who was probably beside himself at how crappy the clothes look, but the message is about the brand and how buying it makes you "urban street cool".

 

[jenesaispas]

I disagree that it is "Technically Challenging" at all, and agree that the simplest way to reproduce this "Style" is simply bore straight ahead with the most powerful speedlight you can find.

I said it's not

flash needs to go just off the lens: http://www.wreckthetapedeck.com/wp-...ichardson-director-video-odd-future-oldie.jpg

http://www.custombrackets.com/media...525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/c/b/cb-mini-rc-cam.png

That's helpful. You think 50 mm is the best for this job? Any thoughts on post-processing for the grain and fade?

As far as the ghetto lighting look used in the other look book: that is supposed to look like "authentic", low-budget, we-be-fo-realz type lighting, indicating a company that cannot even afford to hire a fashion photographer. It's a deliberate way to shoot with chitty lighting as a way to gain street cred. If you look at the images, they are AMAZINGLY consistent. It's a case of shooting in a lame style to look "street". Whoever did it is good, but the art director is the genius, not the photographer, who was probably beside himself at how crappy the clothes look, but the message is about the brand and how buying it makes you "urban street cool".

Are you done? I didn't ask you to like it.

 

[Derrel]

You just don't quite seem to understand honesty in evaluating advertising campaign approaches, and seem to be confusing personal opinion with analysis of an ad campaign's subliminal appeal or tactics. I used to subscribe to Ad Week magazine. It might do you some good to get a subscription and start learning how and what advertising campaigns are all about. What the second company's look book is emulating is quartz-halogen WORK LIGHTS shot through shower curtains, if you really want to know.

Make sure to clone out ALL eye catchlights, so you have "dead eyes", to complete the deliberately inept photographer look. Again, their look is deliberately sub-par, a sort of anti-look look.

Ad Week magazine.

 

[waday]

@jenesaispas, I love your profile picture.

Pretty much agree with everyone on here. I can understand the look, but I don't agree with it.

As far as the ghetto lighting look used in the other look book: that is supposed to look like "authentic", low-budget, we-be-fo-realz

Not to get off topic, but... walking a thin line of racism.