trying to achieve this look

[iwander]

spring break is here and I've got a few weeks to really get down to it and learn a workflow that will let me achieve this look.

Aside from being a very gifted headshot photographer, I really enjoy this photographers style and would love to learn exactly how to achieve this look - then play around with it.

I've got 2 weeks and loads of coffee. I'm big on lightroom, but can use photoshop and also own all of topaz's plugins (such as topaz detail and clean) Also have a Beauty Dish and Large Octabox with 3 strobelights for lighting, shooting on an 85mm 1.8


[urlhttp://www.davidnoles.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/madison-261-new-york-city-headshots-nyc.jpg[/URL]

http://www.davidnoles.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/headshots-nyc-new-york-city_dan-218.jpg

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/...KMrWC_WsfViYF2exGleHLuWwnt284aEOWS8VNdG2CQo4S


So..where do I start?

 

[tirediron]

So..where do I start?

Did you try contacting the photographer and asking him/her?

 

[iwander]

So..where do I start?

Did you try contacting the photographer and asking him/her?

yes, but no reply. expected that though, no magician will reveal his tricks so easily

 

[Ysarex]

So..where do I start?

Did you try contacting the photographer and asking him/her?

yes, but no reply. expected that though, no magician will reveal his tricks so easily

No magic tricks. Even front light from a very low contrast source -- like a huge softbox or two huge softboxes either side of the camera -- equal power.

Post processing: major clip the red channel, shift the WB so the photo has a strong magenta color cast and adjust the tone response so the photo doesn't get remotely near black.

Joe

 

[iwander]

So..where do I start?

Did you try contacting the photographer and asking him/her?

yes, but no reply. expected that though, no magician will reveal his tricks so easily

No magic tricks. Even front light from a very low contrast source -- like a huge softbox or two huge softboxes either side of the camera -- equal power.

Post processing: major clip the red channel, shift the WB so the photo has a strong magenta color cast and adjust the tone response so the photo doesn't get remotely near black.

Joe

what do you mean by major clip in the red channel, adjusting tone response?
I understand the lighting setup you are talking about and shifting the WB for the color cast, but I'm not entirely sure by what you mean about the other things.

I'm still learning about global and local contrast and trying to figure out how it's used in these images.

 

[Designer]

Aside from being a very gifted headshot photographer, I really enjoy this photographers style and would love to learn exactly how to achieve this look - then play around with it.

So..where do I start?

He's not "gifted".

The first link didn't work.

The second example is very even lighting, which is not exactly ideal, IMO. It looks as if he accomplished it with two softboxes, one on each side, balanced to equal amounts of light.

 

[Derrel]

I looked at a bunch of the images on his site...I think the light source is actually a very wide wall's worth of windows, like what would be found in many older buildings in NYC...think "stereotypical old factory space"...later "converted to ballet studio space"...something where the windows are fairly tall...ALMOST floor-to-ceiling, but not quite...that is what I think the large, soft open source light is. I also see that the photographer stands close to the subject, so that his outline breaks up the catchlight forming two sections, with the dark human figure in the center. On about one of every 10 subjects, he BLASTS a very hot, harsh rim light in from the side, blowing out the skin. The processing is the hook that makes them allll the same, more or less.

The light source is quite a big light source...and it gives almost no modeling or shape to the faces...none, basically. The look is almost entirely from the attractiveness of the people...the men look soft and effeminate...the women look soft and feminine...almost everybody here is under 30 years old, with fresh, non-wrinkled skin and good, bleached-white actor teeth.

You could get a somewhat similar look by using a BIG light source that aims directly straight forward at the face, and then you need to stand right in the middle of the light, to block it. HIS reflection is so big because he is close to the subject, but the wall of lights is maybe 20 feet behind him, maybe even more. The light does not go down to the bottom of the eye because the windows are up 4 feet or so from the floor. That's my take on how he is shooting.

 

[iwander]

The processing is the hook that makes them allll the same, more or less

Any ideas on how the processing is done?

 

[Ray Hines]

Really Derrel, you get all that from a few head shots? I'm really missing something

 

[480sparky]

Really Derrel, you get all that from a few head shots? I'm really missing something

The reflections in the eyes is a HUGE clue.

 

[Derrel]

Really Derrel, you get all that from a few head shots? I'm really missing something

Yeah...I think that's what the shooting situation is, based on my analysis of about 25 of the images. The light source is outside of the depth of field, but the photographer's reflection is close to being within acceptable DOF...that's why the window panes do not show up--the window is quite far back. And why the photographer's profile is so prominent. The window is FAR ENOUGH behind him that he gets NO "wrap around" lighting effect! And the wall of windows is BIG, relative to the subject, which give the light that really flat, omni-directional look. and again..see how the bottom edge of the eyeball is dark...the light source has a defined"bottom edge" to it. This is actually a pretty common type of space, even here, in old downtown Portland buildings. Many photo studios are in places like this, where one wall has a wide expanse of windows, and there is a lot of light coming in from that wall.

 

[ronlane]

I see what Derrel is getting at with this, I see it too.

My first reaction was that he is using two huge (think 72") softboxes on either side of the camera. This would give a very similar effect as well.

But either case, it's a REALLY BIG light source from looking at the catch lights in the eyes.

 

[nycphotography]

I agree very large light source... I disagree that is it far from the subject. I think the light source is very close to the subject... other wise you won't get the large catch lights. The curve of the eye makes reflected objects get very small very fast.

Also, I think the background is relatively far, lots of light falloff.

 

[iwander]

as far as softboxes go, i'm going to have to work with a beauty dish and 47" octabox. again, very interested in the processing workflow of these photos

 

[Derrel]

If you want those big, eyeball-spanning catchlights, you're going to need a MUCH bigger light source than even a 47 inch octa....and also, his catchlights are not rounded, like a beauty dish or octa...maybe try creating a wall of light by setting two flash heads so they bounce off of an entire wall/ceiling in your shooting area. Or build a big panel by stretching a cheap, low thread count, white, king sized bedsheet on a frame, and firing two flash heads through that, so you get a nice, even, soft light.

Terms like "near" and "far" in this kind of lighting are relative to the size of the light source; people are ALL basically the same size. Look at some of the studios in this New York Google search: some of these windows walls are 20 feet tall..and some of the lofts have 60 foot widths...New York daylight photo studio photo of interior - Google Search

You're going to have to work with what your shooting area can accommodate....but like an apartment living room with two monolights aimed at the living room walls and bouncing back to a person on the short side of the living room could easily be lighted up by a floor-to-ceiling light that's say 8 feet high by 15 feet wide, or a 17,289 square inch light source; compare that against a a 47 inch round source, at 1,734 square inches.