File :-(, x, )
Photo Lighting Anonymous
There's a mini debate going on in CGL about how this photo was lit. So instead of hearing cosplayers guess, I figured I would ask some people who might actually know. How do you think this photo was lit. And do you like it?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
At least two lights, one on the left of the camera (which is why their faces are lit on that side) and one on the right (note the shadow on her back by the bit of wing there, and the fact that her back isn't entirely in shadow). Presumably diffused through a softbox or bounced off an umbrella.

Also, do want hot girls.
>> Anonymous
I'm sorry... but in this case it's actually DO NOT WANT
>> PhotoDude
We're not critiquing the models here. OP asked about lighting.

I would say 2 lights. Main light on camera right, fill on camera left. Main light seems a little too bright, as there are some overblown highlights. Fill could use some more power, in my opinion, the shadows are a little harsh.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
One of the coolest things I've been taught about identifying lighting is very Minsc-esque... go for the eyes, Boo! This really only works if you've got a high enough resolution print/digital image to look at, but if you look at a model's eyes, you can often see EXACTLY what the lighting situation was. Whether it was a softbox, how many lights, strip lighting, floor lighting, umbrellas, strobes, they all show up and leave unique, very recognizable signatures in the eyes. This is particularly noticeable in fashion shoots. Next time you've got a Vogue or something on hand, take a look at the closeup face shots, and see if you can't tell exactly what kind of lighting was used. The results may surprise you!

On this shot, to stay perfectly on topic, I'd guess one softbox light at camera left, and a bounce fill at camera right. There might also be some soft overhead lighting to even things out, as well as lighten the background.
>> PhotoDude
Background either needs more light, or the models need to be farther away from the paper. The shadow on the paper is distracting.
>> pskaught
one strobe, the fill is from it bouncing off the wall.
booyaka!
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>55654
Everything is strobes with you! But you're probably right.
>> Anonymous
One strobe, high left side pointing down/forwards. Most likely softboxed, or shoot-though umbrella'd the light is to focused for a bounced umbrella. The lit area is so small I'm wondering whether it's a fullsize strobe or an off-camera hotshoe flash.
>> pskaught
>>55669
This shot is like an 11 to 22, nothing is out of focus in this picture, it must be strobes, but yes.. I do love my strobes...
>> Anonymous
>>55669
what is a strobe
>> gtfo Anonymous
>>55787
google.
>> Anonymous
>>55788
Here's an idea, how about you eat my ass.

Once again: anyone care to explain what a strobe is?
>> Anonymous
>>55795
jfgi
>> Anonymous
>>55797
That's better.
>> Anonymous
>>55645
There are 'shades' you can put just in front of your lamps now - designs so you can alter that reflected light in the eye.. from stars to moons to... whatever. Isn't going to be nearly as easy anymore.
>> Anonymous
>>55795
Strobe is just another word for flash. I think the origin lies in british vs american english. Could also be related to strobes being very fast and capturing just a moment in time with very little blur.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>55846
Way cool!
>> Anonymous
>>55950
Thanks Anon
>> Anonymous
They're right I suppose.

The lighting doesn't fill enough. Or it's not dramatic enough.
It's like this photo's hanging in the middle.

I'd probably go for a more filled look with this kind of photo though, since people would probably like to see what they're looking at.
I also agree with what someone said earlier about the girls casting shadow on the background, that's a bad thing in this case :]
>> Optical
>>55615

I'm gonna go with something different and say its a whale tail on a flash. shits&giggles.
>> Anonymous
For more info on strobes, look up harold edgerton
>> Anonymous
>>55645
Could you pass along your learning?