how is this type of image made?

dbov22 · 28 Feb 2011 at 20:08

I really like this photographers pics...

I like similar pics but as a beginner i don't know how to acheive this type of image...

Can you tell me from start to finish how this image is likely to have been made, any words i don't undertand i'll google, but try and keep it simple..

http://www.danaziz.biz/

just the opening photograph of a rugby player...

Thanks

oh - have the following;

nikon d90
nikon 18-105 lens
tamron 18-200 lens
tripod
remote control

what would i need to buy for this style photgraphy?

SteveOBHave · 28 Feb 2011 at 20:13

LOTS of light and from multiple sources normally big flash units. It's a result of having more light on the subject than the background can get into the lens - end result is a nice bright subject and a dark background.

You can likely get away with a flash gun and a head and shoulders shot with the flash cranked but you'd struggle with a full body length shot.

mhk1058 · 28 Feb 2011 at 20:31

Looks like it's a HDR image, at least a composite of several. I'd say that the sky has been added in afterwards for sure as have the rays of light appearing from behind the stand. It's a mono shot of the sky, that's what gives it the most impact, the rest is just strong lighting from the left (Probably shot at night with the left side stadium floodlights on.) and slightly above (you can see the shadows) with some similary strong lighting from low down from the right - no shadows on the ground and inside right arm, outside left arm are lit, under chin is lit etc etc.

Face has been worked on in photoshop to soften/smooth.

Decent camera, good lights, copy of Photoshop, some decent sky images and a friendly rugby ground owner.

Raikiri · 28 Feb 2011 at 20:32

I would probably use multiple flashes:

One to the left and slightly above at full power with a softbox or umbrella, one to the right and lower at half power again with a softbox and one behind at 1/8 or 1/16th for rim lighting.

Expose for the sky and let the flashes light your subject.

Willis · 28 Feb 2011 at 20:44

mhk1058 said:
Looks like it's a HDR image, at least a composite of several. I'd say that the sky has been added in afterwards for sure as have the rays of light appearing from behind the stand. It's a mono shot of the sky, that's what gives it the most impact, the rest is just strong lighting from the left (Probably shot at night with the left side stadium floodlights on.) and slightly above (you can see the shadows) with some similary strong lighting from low down from the right - no shadows on the ground and inside right arm, outside left arm are lit, under chin is lit etc etc.

Face has been worked on in photoshop to soften/smooth.

Decent camera, good lights, copy of Photoshop, some decent sky images and a friendly rugby ground owner.

+1

I would say this is spot on.

MacX · 28 Feb 2011 at 23:04

As SteveOBHave says, this is not HDR but lights, along with some PP.

Looking through his portfolio confirms he is a fan of the 'gritty desaturated' look so I expect some use of heads with reflectors and a beauty dish to act as the key for his post processing technique.

It is quite feasible that the sky is real and not added afterwards. Fifty/fifty IMO. Either way it's a simple job. If it's real then the image looks like he has exposed for the sky which drags the detail back in, with the subject and the grandstand a stop or more under. Flash heads are then used to expose the subject correctly, just as Raikiri says. Popping a head with reflector from camera left and behind the subject gives the strong, sharp and high contrast shadows being thrown to camera right. Looking at the shadow on the left leg below the shorts, and the lack of obvious second shadow, a beauty dish is high up above the subject and on a boom right of camera. He then gets the subject to look up so the whole face is lit and also so there are no shadows under the eyes.

The whole image gets the desaturated/gritty/contrasty treatment in post, and the sky is masked and has most of the remaining colour removed.

Again, SteveOBHave makes a good point regarding the power of flashguns if you're trying a full length image with space around the subject. It can be done but you need to have the camera on a tripod, take one shot with the flash in real close to maximise its power. This will appear in the image, but then take a second one without the flash in the image and use Photoshop to combine both. The example image was most likely done with a few more joules of power than available with standard hotshoe flashes and with no multiple exposures.

To make life easy for you when doing this you would buy two or more portable battery pack and heads, maybe of 600 joules power or more, and throw in some light formers as well. That'll cost a wee bit more than a couple of SB900s. BUT WAIT!! You can actually do a huge amount with a couple of speedlights and it's great fun. :cool:

Adrianr · 1 Mar 2011 at 01:39

Well for his splash page image he's not done it by using lots of powerful lights to overpower the ambient, he's just dropped in the sky from a different shot. You could do that whole shot with one speed light and a bit of Photoshop. He's sandwiched the model between two light sources facing one another, one being the sun. Filled the dark side in with flash, bobs your uncle, fannys your aunt.

MacX · 1 Mar 2011 at 09:27

Adrianr said:
Well for his splash page image he's not done it by using lots of powerful lights to overpower the ambient, he's just dropped in the sky from a different shot. You could do that whole shot with one speed light and a bit of Photoshop. He's sandwiched the model between two light sources facing one another, one being the sun. Filled the dark side in with flash, bobs your uncle, fannys your aunt.

Let me disagree and dissect your use of one speedlight and the sun.

Oh, and 600 joule lights aren't that powerful.

As you don't tell me the relative positions of lights with your theory I'm going to consider two set-ups.

Sun to left:
If we say the sun is camera left, then to cast those shadows it is going to have to be low in the sky. Due to the contrast it also means no cloud cover. Granted, a bare speedlight held over his head could be used on the main subject but the softness around on the shadow around the chin makes me believe a light former of some kind was used which would sap the output of light from any speedlight. Especially compare it with the harsh shadow thrown by his ear. Finally, the lighting on the grandstand in the background is inconsistent with this theory as it is much softer and indicates cloud cover to some extent.

Sun to right:
If the sun is camera right and used to light the subject then it's going to be high based on the shading around the chin and very short shadow being cast that we can't really see. Just like at high noon when our shadows almost disappear under our feet.

Under these conditions the light on the left is going to be pumping a few joules of power out just to throw those nice sharp shadows across to the right. Then we consider the grandstand again and we also find the light doesn't match this scenario.

Willis · 1 Mar 2011 at 09:49

Serious I have got some good results from 1 SB900 and a softbox that some would say was multiple flashes. When I first got into photography I was using all the different light modifiers and multiple flash set ups and came to the conclusion that 90% of the time you just need a 1 light set up.

Below is a shot I did for a Magazine (tear sheet) with 1 light with a similar HDR feel to the image you are talking about, all I would need to do is Photoshop a sky in if it was out side.

dbov22 · 1 Mar 2011 at 11:31

thanks guys, interesting comments here...gonna get onto trying these techniques!!

Adrianr · 1 Mar 2011 at 12:13

MacX said:
Let me disagree and dissect your use of one speedlight and the sun. Oh, and 600 joule lights aren't that powerful.

As you don't tell me the relative positions of lights with your theory I'm going to consider two set-ups.

Sun to left:
If we say the sun is camera left, then to cast those shadows it is going to have to be low in the sky. Due to the contrast it also means no cloud cover. Granted, a bare speedlight held over his head could be used on the main subject but the softness around on the shadow around the chin makes me believe a light former of some kind was used which would sap the output of light from any speedlight. Especially compare it with the harsh shadow thrown by his ear. Finally, the lighting on the grandstand in the background is inconsistent with this theory as it is much softer and indicates cloud cover to some extent.

Sun to right:
If the sun is camera right and used to light the subject then it's going to be high based on the shading around the chin and very short shadow being cast that we can't really see. Just like at high noon when our shadows almost disappear under our feet. Under these conditions the light on the left is going to be pumping a few joules of power out just to throw those nice sharp shadows across to the right. Then we consider the grandstand again and we also find the light doesn't match this scenario.

Good points, but he's still not done all that in one shot using lights and exposing for the sky. If you were to make an amendment to my theory just drop another light in model right (instead of the sun - I did originally write 2 speedlights, but at nearly 2am saw no reason it couldn't be the sun

), assume sun was overcast day. Drop in sky, voila.

In fact, going by the PP in that shot I wouldn't be surprised if he's even dropped in the head from a different picture. I don't see how he has a jaw shadow when there is quite clearly a thomping great light source blasting that side. Heck, maybe all of him has been comped in. Worked on harder things!

Rojin · 1 Mar 2011 at 12:52

I'm pretty sure that's the West stand behind him, so the sun could be setting there. I can't remember the placement of the flood lights, but they may also be in play here?

MacX · 1 Mar 2011 at 13:00

Adrianr said:
Good points, but he's still not done all that in one shot using lights and exposing for the sky. If you were to make an amendment to my theory just drop another light in model right (instead of the sun - I did originally write 2 speedlights, but at nearly 2am saw no reason it couldn't be the sun ), assume sun was overcast day. Drop in sky, voila.

In fact, going by the PP in that shot I wouldn't be surprised if he's even dropped in the head from a different picture. I don't see how he has a jaw shadow when there is quite clearly a thomping great light source blasting that side. Heck, maybe all of him has been comped in. Worked on harder things!

**A slight edit as I might have misunderstood when you mentioned two speedlights. I assume it was something you were going to write rather than what you actually wrote, because you didn't mention 2 speedlights, just the one.

You could do that whole shot with one speed light and a bit of Photoshop. He's sandwiched the model between two light sources facing one another, one being the sun.

As you rightly suggest, if there was no contrast in the jawline you wouldn't be able to see his jaw at all and it is clearly well defined. As it should be for a rugby player.

At least you agree there is a thumping great light source on the left, but it will not obliterate the jawline because it is slightly behind the subject and he has turned his head away. Just look at the shadows on the floor and his right ear. Look at their direction.

And I don't understand why do you think this image couldn't be done in one shot? It can be done in one shot. :confused:

Whether a sky has been dropped in later doesn't make the fact you can do it in one go irrelevant.

And all that about comping his head or all of him in.. All I'll say is occam's razor. Looking at the guys portfolio that seems the most unlikely scenario.

MacX · 1 Mar 2011 at 13:05

Willis said:
Serious I have got some good results from 1 SB900 and a softbox that some would say was multiple flashes. When I first got into photography I was using all the different light modifiers and multiple flash set ups and came to the conclusion that 90% of the time you just need a 1 light set up.

Below is a shot I did for a Magazine (tear sheet) with 1 light with a similar HDR feel to the image you are talking about, all I would need to do is Photoshop a sky in if it was out side.

Nice shot there.

**edit*** and nice portfolio that fills me with jealousy and bitterness.

I'll agree that you can do a hell of a lot with a single flash set up. It's 50/50 whether I do more one or two flash sets, but I definitely only do a few three or more light sets for location work.

I still think, unless you're working in the shade, which the image posted by the OP wasn't, you'd be struggling to get the nice contrasty shadows with a single speedlight as the ambient is so much higher.

MacX · 1 Mar 2011 at 13:08

Rojin said:
I'm pretty sure that's the West stand behind him, so the sun could be setting there. I can't remember the placement of the flood lights, but they may also be in play here?

I considered that, but I'd expect to see multiple shadows on the main subject.

Also I can see daylight peaking through the back of the stadium.

Which adds a little weight to the fact the sun could have been setting there.

dbov22 said:
thanks guys, interesting comments here...gonna get onto trying these techniques!!

Thank you. I haven't formally deconstructed a lighting set-up for ages. Twas fun.

dbov22 · 1 Mar 2011 at 13:24

i expected a few comments basically just ranting at how poor the p[icture was and how there was "no skill"

thanks for the debate and answering the questions¬!!!!

An Exception · 1 Mar 2011 at 17:20

90% sure the sky is a composite, the rest could be a standard strobist type of shot.
Could have easily been done with speedlights just outside the frame, even inside the frame is possible.

The guy has a nice portfolio, and shoots in a similar style I like...

An Exception · 1 Mar 2011 at 17:48

MacX said:
Also I can see daylight peaking through the back of the stadium. Which adds a little weight to the fact the sun could have been setting there.

I considered that, but the subjects hair doesn't look backlit.

Adrianr · 1 Mar 2011 at 18:22

MacX said:
Sorry Adrianr, you didn't mention two speedlights. You in fact said:

I'm sorry again, but if there was no contrast in the jawline you wouldn't be able to see his jaw at all and it is clearly well defined. As it should be for a rugby player. At least you agree there is a thumping great light source on the left, but it will not obliterate the jawline because it is slightly behind the subject. Just look at the shadows on the floor and his right ear. Look at their direction.

And I don't understand why do you think this image couldn't be done in one shot? It can be done in one shot. It can also be done in one shot and replace sky later. Still one shot.

And all that about comping his head or all of him in.. All I'll say is occam's razor. Looking at the guys portfolio that seems the most unlikely scenario.

I originally typed two speedlights in my first reply, I edited it to 1 and the sun

The light source to the left (judging by shadows on the floor) is ever so slightly behind him, but not by much. It should be removing that jaw shadow.

You only have to look at the right side of his face to know this is a comp, and not a very good one. Once you've noticed one rogue element you question the integrity of the whole image.

Understand I'm not saying it couldn't be done in one shot, it certainly could. I'm saying this wasn't done in one shot.

MacX · 1 Mar 2011 at 21:02

Adrianr said:
I originally typed two speedlights in my first reply, I edited it to 1 and the sun The light source to the left (judging by shadows on the floor) is ever so slightly behind him, but not by much. It should be removing that jaw shadow.

You only have to look at the right side of his face to know this is a comp, and not a very good one. Once you've noticed one rogue element you question the integrity of the whole image.

We'll have to disagree because the strong but softer light above his head adds the contrast under the chin and provides the shading we can see that defines the chin shape. The ear shadow clearly confirms a light is behind and over the shoulder, and with his head turned the light will not magically bend around his face and reduce the contrast to such an extent that it wipes the shadow out. Finally, any subsequent post-processing that increases contrast will emphasise any shadow already there.

For those of us with an interest in this sort of thing, as this thread is fun and educational,

and you have intimated that this is a speciality of yours because you say you have worked on harder things, please explain to us all exactly what details on this poor chaps face makes you think they comped another head on so we can spot them ourselves. You said there is a rogue element but haven't explained it yet. Thank you.