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.

Update!!!
 

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?

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!