What do u experts think her set up is?

[Mamarazzi514]

you can take her mentoring class and she does give info on her lighting set-up (I read the mentoring section of her webpage). 2 classes $1,200.

Seems a bit steep if you're only going to learn a simple one light setup. All her shots are more or less the same lighting setup, just with different props... And she makes it out to seem like she'll teach you how to use actions in photoshop. Maybe like a $200 course... Not $1,200. Not even 1,200 in Canadian currency. (which is where she is from)

This is why want to find out what u pros think. I don't need to take her class I already know how to shoot haha I just love her lighting, so I'm trying to find out as much as I can.

 

[thereyougo!]

Seems a bit steep if you're only going to learn a simple one light setup. All her shots are more or less the same lighting setup, just with different props... And she makes it out to seem like she'll teach you how to use actions in photoshop.

Maybe like a $200 course... Not $1,200. Not even 1,200 in Canadian currency. (which is where she is from)

I know it's not a popular notion in the US, but last time I looked there was more or less no difference in the two currencies....(dons hard hat!)

I know The last part was mostly a joke.

I sometimes do business in Canada, mainly Ontario, and the Canadians enjoy it....

 

[ph0enix]

Looks pretty much like a one light setup through a shoot through umbrella maybe between 4 and 7 feet from the subject, mounted high on the facing down on the child. That would be my guess anyway. Big soft light.Also with a 5D Mark II, and 85mm prime lens.

Woah how do u know down to the camera and lense?

An EXIF reader is your friend:
File name: millie91.jpg
File size: 633177 bytes (3744x5616, 0.2bpp, 100x)
EXIF Summary: 1/125s f/8.0 ISO100 85mm

Camera-Specific Properties:

Equipment Make: Canon
Camera Model: Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Camera Software: Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh
Maximum Lens Aperture: f/1.8

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Width: 3744
Image Height: 5616
Number of Bits Per Component: 8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition: RGB
Image Orientation: Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution: 72 dpi
Vertical Resolution: 72 dpi
Image Created: 2011:11:24 02:34:20
Exposure Time: 1/125 sec
F-Number: f/8.0
Exposure Program: Manual
ISO Speed Rating: 100
Lens Aperture: f/8.0
Exposure Bias: 0 EV
Subject Distance: 2.14 m
Metering Mode: Pattern
Flash: Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length: 85.00 mm
Color Space Information: sRGB
Image Width: 533
Image Height: 800
Rendering: Normal
Exposure Mode: Manual
White Balance: Manual
Scene Capture Type: Standard

Other Properties:

Number of Components: 3
Resolution Unit: i
Chrominance Comp Positioning: Co-Sited
Exif IFD Pointer: 308
Compression Scheme: JPEG Compression (Thumbnail)
Horizontal Resolution: 72 dpi
Vertical Resolution: 72 dpi
Resolution Unit: i
Offset to JPEG SOI: 1230
Bytes of JPEG Data: 10490
Exif Version: 2.21
Image Generated: 2011:11:18 10:46:28
Image Digitized: 2011:11:18 10:46:28
Meaning of Each Comp: Unknown
Shutter Speed: 1/128 sec
DateTime Second Fraction: 05
DateTimeOriginal Second Fraction: 05
DateTimeDigitized Second Fraction: 05
Focal Plane Horiz Resolution: 3849 dpi
Focal Plane Vert Resolution: 3908 dpi
Focal Plane Res Unit: i
GPS Info Version: 2.2.0.0

 

[Rephargotohp]

She's not using much of a "Style" at all and I am not saying that in a derogatory sense, Just that she isn't using much shadow at all in a highly modeled or stylized textural way. Because of what the subject is, Babies and toddlers. You just see a slight soft shadow on the side opposite where her light is.

She is shooting babies almost the same way you would do a Makeup Ad face. It's flat and soft because you don't want to show any imperfection in the models face. so it's pretty straight on. And we expect babies to looks soft smooth and cuddly so we don't want to see the little bumps that babies skin can have. The farther to the side you go the more textural the light becomes, the more on camera you go the less texture the more tonal the light is. Baby looks soft and cuddly.

That's my take on it anyway

This is someone I know that works in a similar style and you can see her studio setup on her blog
J. Otte Photography – Baltimore Portrait Studio | Newborn, baby, child, maternity » Jodie Otte, Baltimore Maryland Child and Baby Photographer

 

[Derrel]

I looked and virtually all of the indoor kid portraits were shot with an almost totally, 100% identical setup. One BIG round umbrella camera left. I do not think it is a shoot-through though. It throws a very soft shadow and the lighting looks a bit crisper than many shoot-throughs yield. I suspect it is a large, 60 inch diameter or bigger, round light, and it looks like she typically stands in front of it...her head takes a small "chunk" out of the highlights on many shots, down at the 5 o'clock position. Could be an octabox, or maybe something even a bit MORE-rounded, like a 10-rib design, or maybe even one of the new Paul C. Buff PLMs.Perhaps she would tell you? Does she have a blog that references her equipment?

She stands in front? I don't think so, cause shouldn't her light be 45degress from her camera?

I can SEE her head blocking some of the light in quite a few shots. The light is nowhere near 45 degrees off-axis. And for your second question, no, a 36 inch light is not going to be nearly as soft-shadowed as what she is shooting with--her light source is BIG, compared to the children. Think of a "five-foot" umbrella or octabox.

 

[ababysean]

I love Skye! She is very sweet too. I think she is so popular because she is very good at styling her sessions, meaning she tells people what to wear to get a specific look. I wish my clients wold listen to me in that manner.

 

[ababysean]

and 1200 is not really that much if she is going to teach you what she learned herself over YEARS of practice. time is money, so you could go and do it yourself and take a few years or you can take two days and learn her tricks and tips, she has to make it worth it to basically train her competition?