That glowing skin effect...

[AlejandroHernandez]

1) Ditch the Digital GEM. It's a very bad way to smooth skin.

I use it because it's easy but the results always look plastic

 

[Alpha]

1) Ditch the Digital GEM. It's a very bad way to smooth skin.

I use it because it's easy but the results always look plastic

Exactly. Learn how to do it well by hand and it won't look so plastic. A hint: blur should not be part of your skin-smoothing workflow.

 

[JerryPH]

Like this photo. The photographer obviously used a lot of light and there's something in the model's skin that i really like.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1019/1487175988_b0fbdb6540.jpg?v=0

Or this one:
http://flickr.com/photos/vitorshalom/2088423546/

They discussed how to do this in http://strobist.blogspot.com ... thats a single umbrella from the front. One of the easiest effects to do in real life, but the only point has to be that the rear wall has to be specular (reflective) to work.

http://strobist.blogspot.com/2007/03/seminar-attendees-shot-in-rhode-island.html

Look about half way down.

Kudos to that site for their Lighting 101 and 102 courses. I do not think that a better resource for lighting info exists anywhere on the net. I went through the content from 101 as "course" info, testing it all out. Lighting 102 even has assignments and things to test out... an awesome way to learn a lot about lighting!

 

[Alpha]

They discussed how to do this in http://strobist.blogspot.com ... thats a single umbrella from the front. One of the easiest effects to do in real life, but the only point has to be that the rear wall has to be specular (reflective) to work.

http://strobist.blogspot.com/2007/03/seminar-attendees-shot-in-rhode-island.html

Look about half way down.

Kudos to that site for their Lighting 101 and 102 courses. I do not think that a better resource for lighting info exists anywhere on the net. I went through the content from 101 as "course" info, testing it all out. Lighting 102 even has assignments and things to test out... an awesome way to learn a lot about lighting!

I'm sorry but that is incorrect. These two shots were done using studio strobes, not portable flashes. I repeat-- check the sunglasses if you don't believe me.

The strobist stuff is interesting. It is rarely an acceptable substitute for studio equipment when working in a studio.

 

[bango707]

This is no special effect. It's just light.

The first shot is simply a single dead-on softbox from above and angled slightly down. There's a gray background lit with an orange gel and a spot aimed behind the subject.

Something just doesn't seem right about the soft overhead lighting being his only source.
I would say that the bounce seen in his glasses was angled up from in front of him and used as a fill. Angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection. His glasses are angled down so to get a reflection straight into camera the source would have to be angled up.
There is a lot of shadow in the camera right of the subject which is why I would say that the soft source is coming from high above camera left.

I guess the best way to put it is that there are infinite ways to light a shot. What works for one person doesn't work for another.

 

[JerryPH]

I'm sorry but that is incorrect. These two shots were done using studio strobes, not portable flashes. I repeat-- check the sunglasses if you don't believe me.

The strobist stuff is interesting. It is rarely an acceptable substitute for studio equipment when working in a studio.

It looks like a simple softbox (looks square, not round like an umbrella would make as an effect in his glasses).

If I put an SB-800 or one of my $600 studio strobes into a softbox, then take pics and look at the reflection they make in sunglasses on the pictures, no one could tell the difference. At least I cannot, and I have tried (but with umbrellas, not softboxes).

Light is light. If the stength of output and temperature is the same, it makes no difference in that one picture, what the source is. It will look the same on the print or digital picture.

Now if you want to talk taking 500 pics in rapid sucession, yes studio strobes are well ahead of the game... but I am not at that level, nor can I easily carry the studio strobes out from Montreal to Flroida conveniently with me... lol.

For a studio professional, I see no other recourse other than a full and powerful setup, however the vast majority of us here are not in that class, but that doesn't mean we cannot recreate some very nice effects like the "halo" with only high end studio strobes.

 

[Alpha]

Something just doesn't seem right about the soft overhead lighting being his only source.
I would say that the bounce seen in his glasses was angled up from in front of him and used as a fill. Angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection. His glasses are angled down so to get a reflection straight into camera the source would have to be angled up.
There is a lot of shadow in the camera right of the subject which is why I would say that the soft source is coming from high above camera left.

I guess the best way to put it is that there are infinite ways to light a shot. What works for one person doesn't work for another.

It's a single source at the front, but two other sources as I mentioned...a strobe with an orange gel fired at the background and a spot or snoot aimed directly behind the subject.

The softbox is dead on in the glasses. Perhaps it's level with his upper body. If it were angled up, the forearms would be casting a shadow onto his chest.

 

[Alpha]

It looks like a simple softbox (looks square, not round like an umbrella would make as an effect in his glasses).

If I put an SB-800 or one of my $600 studio strobes into a softbox, then take pics and look at the reflection they make in sunglasses on the pictures, no one could tell the difference. At least I cannot, and I have tried (but with umbrellas, not softboxes).

With brollies you're right. But with boxes I don't believe so. Especially if there's an internal baffle, anything bigger than a hairlight won't do much of anything. I've tried using some of my bigger boxes with my Sunpak 544, and even it struggles sometimes when it's double-baffled.

 

[Mike_E]

The first shot is three lights I think. One 2'x6' box below the camera and turned down low and one most likely the same size above the camera used as a main and the third is a spot used as a kicker on the backdrop for separation.

There is a good chance that there is another spot directly above him to help with the definition in his forearms.

The second shot is most likely a straight forward usage of softboxes.

 

[Alpha]

The first shot is three lights I think. One 2'x6' box below the camera and turned down low and one most likely the same size above the camera used as a main and the third is a spot used as a kicker on the backdrop for separation.

There is a good chance that there is another spot directly above him to help with the definition in his forearms.

The second shot is most likely a straight forward usage of softboxes.

The first shot can't possibly have a 2'x6' box. The entire width of the box is visible in the shades and it's oriented horizontally. It would have to be really really far away for a box that big to be fully visible like that. Doubtful.

I don't see why you'd say boxes in the second shot. I find cycloramas to be much easier to light evenly with brollies, and I think most would agree.

 

[Mike_E]

Hi Max, you may be right on the first. I was thinking 6' because there is very little light reaching the subject (meaning a good distance away) yet it's still bright enough to have the effect shown in the glasses.

On the second, I was looking at how even the light was along her arms and how soft the shadow is on her left inner thigh. But in any case there are several ways to get it done, as you say.

Happy New Year!!