I will be doing a commerical shooting on the dvx-100 24p and
I'm looking to pull off this kind of lighting look... I have my own idea of how to get this... but! ... I'd like to hear some ideas from the group if possible.

http://www.madguyproductions.com/uploads/mol.jpg


Thank You!

Chris

Photoshop

(sorry... couldn't resist. That's as likely as not, what was used to generate that still)

The color work is going to be done in post. So you need to have a good color correction tool in your arsenal.

<<<-- Originally posted by Richard Alvarez : Photoshop

(sorry... couldn't resist. That's as likely as not, what was used to generate that still)

The color work is going to be done in post. So you need to have a good color correction tool in your arsenal. -->>>


Right!, I was thinking of using gels to create the "effect" and then using the color correction to greatly enhance the colors.

Or should i not even bother with the gels and handle everything in post.?

Thanks,

Chris

Look at the reflections in the bubbles. They used at least 3 different softboxes each with a different color of light. A "red" a "blue" and a "white". It looks like the key light is a big white box, the fill is blue. Red is bigger but further back. Also figure in the hair lights, looks like at least 1-2 white and a blue (maybe 2), or it could be that the blue is almost directly overhead and being bounced to add fill while hitting the hair (you can see blue under her hand as well).

All told it looks like it took maybe 5 lights and a few reflectors none of which were in front of her at least very close (look at the eyes, the reflection looks like it's from a bounce down low in front of her which would explain the under side of the hand being lit with blue).

If I had to guess it would look something like this:
Big white softbox as the key light, close in, 45 degrees up and to the right (casts shadow on side of face)
Bigger red softbox behind the camera and but not so far off to the right and 1/2-1 1/2 stops darker (you can see an even red hue covering her with a hint of it past the bridge of the nose)
Blue softbox almost directly overhead but slightly behind her and 1-1 1/2 stops brighter (look at the very side her face and arm, it's over exposed)
White reflector between her and the camera pointing at the blue light above (it might even be laying on the table, the reflection in her eyes says something is very low but not pointing in her eyes yet she has a nice blue fill under her chin hands and the "low" side of her face)
There is a hot white light coming from behind her on the right (you can see it in her hair and her cheek) maybe a full stop brighter than the key or more and it's not diffused, it just barely strikes her.
There is a big reflector on the left bouncing the blue light at her side
And maybe one more white light on the left hitting her back and arm.

It's a pretty complicated setup and uses a lot of gels and a lot of lights. I could see a few different ways to set this up but none of them would be easy. Also keep in mind this might not bode well for video because as the subject moves the lighting is going to change and probably not for the better. I would guess it could take a couple of hours to light this shot perfectly until you got it figured out. Good Luck!


edit: you could do something in post but it wouldn't look as good, it's probably not how this was done and it would be much more difficult.

This look was created in a very controlled environment on a very small scale. I assume you are doing the same thing? Some sort of intimate shot? The gels on the lights will help a lot with what you want to accomplish but count on some post work as well.

Hey, in trying to find out more on that shot I discovered it was done by Matthew Rolston (http://www.matthewrolston.com/home.htm), a noted fashion photographer and film/video director (check his film site (http://www.hsiproductions.com/) too), so I'm betting it was all done with lights and not in post. You don't get handed big budget photoshoots like that so someone can hack it up in post, and a talented photographer wouldn't need to, unless to hide a freckle or something simple like that. It's a really nice piece of work, he probably made some serious bank on that series!

<<<-- Originally posted by Rhett Allen : Hey, in trying to find out more on that shot I discovered it was done by Matthew Rolston (http://www.matthewrolston.com/home.htm), a noted fashion photographer and film/video director (check his film site (http://www.hsiproductions.com/) too), so I'm betting it was all done with lights and not in post. You don't get handed big budget photoshoots like that so someone can hack it up in post, and a talented photographer wouldn't need to, unless to hide a freckle or something simple like that. It's a really nice piece of work, he probably made some serious bank on that series! -->>>


Yeah I'm sure he's doing well with work like that! I'm just trying to capure a fraction of the sexiness of that photo...
It's a great series...

Thank you everyone for the replies! and Thanks for confirming the Gels Rhett... Thats really what i was thinking originally but i sure dont know it all by ANY means hahah... so i figured i'd check with my brethern..


peace,

chris

Blue hair light
Blue fill light
Red/Pink key light

Make sure the key light is more pink and background is lit very red.....

I think you can get real close....


I agree with the others by the way...........this is a still......

photoshop galore.



Scott

My guess:

1) There is a pink soft box (Lee 35?) that is positioned to the right,
above and slightly in front of the model. It is casts a shadow under the chin.
Look at the shadow on the model's nose to see the high angle of it.

2) A blue soft box placed almost directly in front of and level with the model.
The shadow cast by #1 is filled by the blue light. The rest of the blue is
washed away by the power of #1.

3) A light way off to the left side of the model that has a blue gel clipped to
it that doesn't completely cover the light. You can see it in the bubble
reflections.

4) Another ungelled light even further out of the picture to her left that puts
rim light on her shoulder and the white on her left cheek.

5) A deeper pink (L 292) soft box above the main pink key soft box. Looks like
a deva or similar florescent by its shape.

6) A ungelled light to the far right of the model that makes the white rim
on her right shoulder

7) A dark blue back light.

8) I'm guess a bit here, but I think there is also a blue EYE llght who's reflection
has been removed (photoshop) in the four main bubbles. The other bubbles
has it as do her eyes.

I think the bubble just above her hand has been flown in too as its reflections
don't match ;)

Daddy Bass thinks he sees something he hasn't seen mentioned yet: The blue light on her neck/chin looks weird, like, fake. There are several sharp cutoffs that don't look right at all unless they were painted in. Look at her left hand: what's with the weird pattern. Look how it cuts off sharply on her neck-al aera, and the jawline.

<<<-- Originally posted by Josh Bass : Daddy Bass thinks he sees something he hasn't seen mentioned yet: The blue light on her neck/chin looks weird, like, fake. There are several sharp cutoffs that don't look right at all unless they were painted in. Look at her left hand: what's with the weird pattern. Look how it cuts off sharply on her neck-al aera, and the jawline. -->>>


I'm 99.9% sure they photoshopped the image ..BUT! I think
the colors were actually there..just not as strong.. So I'm thinking Gell'd with Photoshop help.

I kinda looks like a (Lee) 161 slate blue was used also..
Maybe a rose Pink also... But I think I got it..we'll see! I'll let everyone know how the shoot goes! It's April 16th ...

Thanks,

Chris

The reason it looks weird (or arty) is because of the high angle of the
pink softbox that cuts
an odd looking shadow and the light from the blue softbox directly in front
of her (which is lighting her pretty evenly) fills in that odd cast shadow.
Add all the other light sources and you can most likely account for
the other detail.

What you cannot account for is the bottle which shows
none of the bubble's reflections and the glass which has yet another lighting
set up and is not part of the model shoot.

Here's is your problem. You're assuming this was lit and the effect you see was done by colored lights. It was not. The giveaway is clear, while the bubbles use reflections of blue and pink, not all the bubbles have matching reflections. Most all have a pink box at 1pm and 7pm and blue at 11:30 and 5:30 but not all do. That is physically impossible. The bubbles are superimposed and the light reflections are false in the bubbles. The colors on her face are clearly added later. As was the glass reflections (the white would not be there because her hand would shadow the white you see). Also the way the light wraps her face makes it clear to me that this was false coloring. you can do such a thing in the field but you will not get this look the way it is presented her. The bottle was also added later.


Walter Graff
BlueSky Media, Inc.
888.435.5428 ext 31
Cell 917.217.9766
walter@bluesky-web.com
www.bluesky-web.com
Offices in NYC and Amherst Mass.

Hell yeah! Schooled by the Graff, sorta schooled by the BAss! Hell yeah! Woot woot! Bling bling in da hizzie! Whack dope, yo shorty! It's so def it ain't even fresh anymore!

<<<-- Originally posted by Walter Graff : Here's is your problem. You're assuming this was lit and the effect you see was done by colored lights. It was not. The giveaway is clear, while the bubbles use reflections of blue and pink, not all the bubbles have matching reflections. >

I hate to challenge you Walter, but I think it was colored lights as I said.
If you read both of my posts, I explain the details of why _some_ of the bubbles
have the wrong reflections. Most have the right reflections. The bottle
and glass were obviously flown in after the fact as their reflections are
completely different.

There is a lot of photoshop work, but most of the coloring
comes from gelled lights imo.
The only way to really solve it is to ask the photographer(s)/artist(s) . . .
which would be cool!

Not saying no colored lights were not used but so much color was added and physically impossible light that it's clearly a photoshop job. Point is you could not reproduce this with lights only.

The bubble size and distribution are are too even for the photo to be "real", I think. The bubbles nearly exactly frame her face and are a regular distance apart. Has anyone ever seen bubbles do such a thing? (consider bubbles do not last very long.)

I suppose it's possible he blew bubbles all day till he got the halo effect. Unlikley.

Photoshop composition.

And not just the bubbles but the light on her. For instance the underside of the right hand has blue light, and that came from where? And her left hand also has blue light that would be coming from the left but would also hit her face or her hand would shadow her face. It does not. And then the face. THere are a bunch of giveaways such as the blue light wraps around her face and clearly shows that it comes from two angels in one spot. Its a blatant photoshop. Ask the photographer, he'll tell you the same thing. I do lots of fashion stuff and most of it today is all done in post.

Lighting is not my strong point, but I have worked with 3D imaging and animation over 14 years. It’s a lot easier adding 3D bubbles than it would be to try and control actual blown ones (size variation, sticky messy, etc.). The problem with 3D compositing is that it can be done so well that it's nearly imposable to tell what is real and what is 3D anymore. Caustics, depth of field and refraction in 3D compositing are an extremely simple addition now. So unless you can verify it's real or 3D, all that anyone can do is make an educated "guess". Regardless, per the bubbles look, positioning and highlighting, I'm with Graff and Wiley on this as to them being 3D composite.

As for the lighting, it does look Photoshop “enhanced”, but it's all speculation until confirmed.

Hi All,

Here are the Undoctored results... Let me know what you think! ... These are grabs from QuickTime rendered version (little blurry)... I didn't have time to get actual grabs from premiere this morning! .. I can put the direct grabs up tomorrow

Well I decided against using the heavy blue because if you look at the Mol.jpg image closely, I noticed the Blue was dodged in or overlayed in later! .. look closely.. Plus this girl have a different look to her.. But I like the result let me know what you think..

This was shot on the DVX-100a

I have attached some other shots also...

http://www.madguyproductions.com/uploads/dana-far.jpg
http://www.madguyproductions.com/uploads/dana-close.jpg

- Little Darker than they really are..
http://www.madguyproductions.com/uploads/d-martini.jpg
http://www.madguyproductions.com/uploads/Hillary.jpg

Hey, what kind of gels did you use to get the color on her? Just kidding but look at your photo on my website:

http://www.bluesky-web.com/dana2.jpg

Look what literally 3 minutes of photoshop can do. Now imagine if I was trying to make the ad the way they did in the original photo posted here?

Hey, what kind of gels did you use to get the color on her? Just kidding but look at your photo on my website:

http://www.bluesky-web.com/dana2.jpg

Look what literally 3 minutes of photoshop can do. Now imagine if I was trying to make the ad the way they did in the original photo posted here?


Hahah :)

I actually used 4 different colors here... the front left is a 375w w/ light pink gel (rose) , the curtain is actually lit with 750w and quarter Blue gel (cant remember the gel #) and the backlighting is a 375w white. I have a light blue on the front right. I could have tryed to use darker gels but with her skin tone and hair coloring .. i believe it would have turned muddy (Reds, Blues).


I did the same thing with the still walter just to see if i could.. and it looked pretty close ..with some exceptions.

Thanks,

Chris

Yes Chris, I think you did a good job shooting the shot. Nice work!