What is used to achieve this??

[Eventer]

Probably quite a simple answer but what is it and where can I buy one! Ive done long exposure shoots with sparklers but I feel that's getting a bit cliche, i quite like this idea, and different colours would be awesome to play with!

Please do not post images to which you do not hold rights. You may post a link to the image.

Photo credit to Philadelphia Wedding Photographers Allebach Photography who has fabulous work!!

 

[480sparky]

Probably a simple LED flashlight.

And you'll need to remove the photo per the forums' TOS and replace it with a link.

 

[dennybeall]

Could have been two led lights or could have been done in post-process.

 

[TheStunch]

the brighter the flashlight, the closer you'll get to that effect, the colors could have been a filter on the light but in all likelihood were indeed modified in post. i have done this effect before, and it was color modified in post. I have used colored lights as well, and leds are good for this because they are highly directional, but can cast a strange colored glow on the subject, unless creative lighting is used to mitigate that effect, or shooting and stacking multiple shots for a composite works well also.

 

[bratkinson]

I'm going to take a 'wild shot' at this, as I've only done a couple of feeble attempts at similar situations...

I have my doubts that the couple was so fully and evenly illuminated by the LED lights or whatever. So, what I think was done is with camera on a tripod, shutter speed of perhaps 30 seconds (long enough to make the light trails), and then a last curtain or manually triggered flash used for the fill lighting necessary to illuminate the couple.

I've done similar things with long exposures of downtown city lights and at the end, have someone step into the frame, manually trigger the flash, and they step out quickly. Their moving into and out of the frame quickly doesn't 'register' on the sensor due to a low ISO speed and loooonnnnggg shutter speed.

 

[Village Idiot]

This could be done in one shot, but personally I wouldn’t as I wouldn’t want to rush the couple in and out of the frame in the name of getting it done all at once, especially if it’s a paying client.

First things first: Camera on tripod. Frame the scene then take the photo of the couple. Flash, no flash whatever. Then remove them, change the exposure to work for a long exposure with the scene, and do your thing with the light.

In post, as long as the camera was stationary on a steady tripod, it will be easy to put them together in a program light photoshop.

 

[Buckster]

There's no need to move the couple in or out of the scene during the making of the photo. They're in a good position to be able to sit still and keep their position long enough to quickly light-paint around them and then remote fire a flash to light them up.

As to what was used to paint the light, it could be literally anything that makes light from a flashlight and some paper to a couple of cell phones taped to a stick.

 

[astroNikon]

Yup, I've done stuff like this. I'ts quite fun.
Basically the setup

flashlight (or similar light source) - and you can use color covers /gels, etc for it.

The setup like they have, the people would be posed before this started.
A flash system to take a photo of the people - you would set this up and test it before hand. The Flash is set up as a Rear Curtain Sync Flash, which is taken just before the shutter closes during a long exposure.

Then the room is darkened, preferably pitch black.
The camera is triggered, and the shutter opens for a long exposure (with rear flash)
one moves around with the light making neat swirls and stuff - always keeping the light in front of the person holding it - you don't want to get light on that person moving around.
Then one triggers the camera to stop at which time the flash(es) flash and gets the pose.

They probably held two flashlights. at the top right they stopped (or started ) it there and held it for a second.
It's quite fun.

 

[Village Idiot]

There's no need to move the couple in or out of the scene during the making of the photo. They're in a good position to be able to sit still and keep their position long enough to quickly light-paint around them and then remote fire a flash to light them up.

As to what was used to paint the light, it could be literally anything that makes light from a flashlight and some paper to a couple of cell phones taped to a stick.

Good reason: Light bleed from LED

 

[Buckster]

There's no need to move the couple in or out of the scene during the making of the photo. They're in a good position to be able to sit still and keep their position long enough to quickly light-paint around them and then remote fire a flash to light them up.

As to what was used to paint the light, it could be literally anything that makes light from a flashlight and some paper to a couple of cell phones taped to a stick.

Good reason: Light bleed from LED

Sorry, wrong. You xxcanxx COULD see the light bleed from the LED on the edges of the subjects because they got hit with it from behind/to the side, which looks great because it makes for a nice rim lighting effect. They're not hit from the front because you don't point it at them.

 

[Village Idiot]

There's no need to move the couple in or out of the scene during the making of the photo. They're in a good position to be able to sit still and keep their position long enough to quickly light-paint around them and then remote fire a flash to light them up.

As to what was used to paint the light, it could be literally anything that makes light from a flashlight and some paper to a couple of cell phones taped to a stick.

Good reason: Light bleed from LED

Sorry, wrong. You xxcanxx COULD see the light bleed from the LED on the edges of the subjects because they got hit with it from behind/to the side, which looks great because it makes for a nice rim lighting effect. They're not hit from the front because you don't point it at them.

Sorry, wrong. Just because you'll settle for delivering whatever you end up with and not a quality image to your clients doesn't mean everyone's standards are that low. I would deliver a cleaner higher quality image. So yes, there is a reason to remove the couple from the scene.

 

[Braineack]

can someone link back to the actual photo in question?

 

[Buckster]

There's no need to move the couple in or out of the scene during the making of the photo. They're in a good position to be able to sit still and keep their position long enough to quickly light-paint around them and then remote fire a flash to light them up.

As to what was used to paint the light, it could be literally anything that makes light from a flashlight and some paper to a couple of cell phones taped to a stick.

Good reason: Light bleed from LED

Sorry, wrong. You xxcanxx COULD see the light bleed from the LED on the edges of the subjects because they got hit with it from behind/to the side, which looks great because it makes for a nice rim lighting effect. They're not hit from the front because you don't point it at them.

Sorry, wrong.

No, I'm actually quite correct, and that can be verified by simply looking at the photo in question. Further verification can be made by actually doing some light painting photography, as I have, instead of just speculating about it, as you obviously are.

Just because you'll settle for delivering whatever you end up with and not a quality image to your clients

That's an outright lie and a demeaning insult that's completely uncalled for.

doesn't mean everyone's standards are that low.

Shooting light painted images with subjects in the manner I described is quite common and does not at all result in a "low standard" due to shooting with that method. Having a rim light effect doesn't indicate a "low standard" either.

I would deliver a cleaner higher quality image.

Your speculation is noted, though not substantiated. You also now seem to be in the mood to insult and demean the photographer of the image in question. Looking at his web site, I'd say you have very little reason to do so.

So yes, there is a reason to remove the couple from the scene.

No sir, there is not, which is why few photographers who do this sort of work remove them, and why they weren't removed in the photo in question, as the rim light made by the LED indicates.

 

[Braineack]

No, I'm actually quite correct, and that can be verified by simply looking at the photo in question.

I wish I could...

 

[Buckster]

No, I'm actually quite correct, and that can be verified by simply looking at the photo in question.

I wish I could...

Yeah, it'd be great if the staff here would just change the img tags to url tags when possible, but we don't live in that universe. I followed the link above, but had no desire to go through the guy's web site looking for that one image again. With luck the OP will come up with a link to it.