Can somebody give some suggestions about this look?

http://www.andreamassari.com/portfolio/adv_massari.jpg

My guess is the photo is shot with flash light douring the day. the sky might be edited in from another photo. Then alot of doge and burn. and samples of the image in difrent blending modes.

Hope this helps.

Could you provide a bigger image than this?

From that size I conclude it's either a picture with the light from the top in a studio (shadows underneath her hair and on the inside of her legs) and then heavily airbrushed, or a 3D artificial girl. Latter seems closer as much as I could see.

If thats 3d, its bloddy good work. I would have to see a mesh(?) before really belive in that option.
i did think a bit about the studio option too, but i still think its a location shoot.

A larger image definatly would make the guessing about it all easyer :)

/Lasse

Lasse,

of course I was referring to the girl to be 3D, not the environment ;)

larger version here:
http://www.andreamassari.com/adv_massari_big.jpg

I would say its a comp of at least 3 different photos and a bit of stylised smoothing on the girl for an almost illustrated look.
The lighting and shadow on her is certainly 'interesting', she has light hitting her right side (left on the photo) of her body but the right side of her face is in shadow she also has light on her left leg and arm and shadow between her legs (although the cat is brightly lit down there ;) ) but she has only 1 shadow on the grass.

The lighting and shadow on her is certainly 'interesting'.....Ah, the English Art of understatement.
(I've been away so long, but I can still appreciate it)

If someone posted this image asking for a critique they would quickly get shot down for such shoddy attention to lighting. It's just plain wrong - well, unless somebody has invented spiral light beams.

Rô

Guys,

may I politely ask what keeps you from condering the light to come from the top?

Patrick,

Light coming from the top would solve some of the "problems", such as the dark area between her legs and the lighter parts outside.

But there are many other areas that don't fit in with that. For example, a bright light from above, sufficient to illuminate her legs to white-out would certainly burn out the shoulders - but no, they are a nice shade of grey.
The creases in her blouse would be casting black shadows onto everything below, as would the thighs and kneecaps.

Anybody want some homework? How about drawing some arrows with the light source(s) for the various parts of the image?

Rô

It's not that complicated. There are two light sources. One upper right and one upper left (for the girl). The rest of the elements may or may not be composited but with any dodge/burn it is easy to distort the effects of the light sources and make any concrete source less distinct (pools of light).

The rest of the elements may or may not be composited but with any dodge/burn it is easy to distort the effects of the light sources and make any concrete source less distinct (pools of light).

Totally agree. I guess some of us have already used the dodge and burn tools ;)

larger version here:
http://www.andreamassari.com/adv_massari_big.jpg

...she has light hitting her right side (left on the photo) of her body but the right side of her face is in shadow...

Actually if you look closely she doesn't have a shadow on the right side of her face (left side photo) She is looking in that direction and there is a clear blown out highlight on her cheek and chin. There is a shadow under her eyes but that can be attributed to her bangs. The shadow under her cheek is due to her nose and the shadow under her mouth is due to her lips.

Patrick,

Anybody want some homework? How about drawing some arrows with the light source(s) for the various parts of the image?

Rô

I think that pretty much solves it.

I think that pretty much solves it.
2 light sources means 2 shadows... she has only 1.

2 light sources means 2 shadows... she has only 1.

This applies for a "normal" shot. Since she was placed into that environment I'd rather call it an error but a hint on the light-source.

Just look at the cat which was totally screwed up in this image: It doesn't cast a shadow at all. Even more, the shadow on it's chest is totally wrong anyway 'cause it's totally different than the position of the girl's leg.

What a interesting set of observations. To my eye it certainly looks odd. I tried looking at in photoshop then using sort of cone shaped overlays to mimic where each highlight vs shadow would be coming from.
I certainly got confused.

The clouds indicate the sun is almost straight above. If I were standing in the field with her, standing sort of right in front of her,


oh never mind, lol, too complicated for me to try and explain my thoughts.

I suppose all the different light directions could not be explained by the use of photographers bounced light reflectors. The light is too intense in certain areas for that explanation.

The cat is definitely an addtion, In reality, it's paw on her leg would not be so distinct.

The entire image looks to my untrained eye to be a compilation of several elements, both natural and computer generated or very much computer "worked on " elements. I don't think it is the original sky either. The light sorce there looks like it is coming from more then one location.

Sorry for the lack of technical terminology.

That shot is not as Complicated as you all try and make it..
It is a Light source ,above her slightly, (picture left) and a flash to camera right. The first (left)Picture) is either sun or Open light source to mimic sun. I think it is Sun for sure and the other is A rim light, most likely flash.
It is all the Post that thows you off or makes the Picture "look" surreal.
The lighting is actually not that technically good. Heavt shadows and Burn Hightlights. But who cares it's "Art"...:+}
Snook

2 light sources means 2 shadows... she has only 1.

I think in this photo, trying to find a natural explanation to the lighting/shadows across the entire photo is like trying to figure out how the gardener was able to perfectly mow DIESEL into the grass and where they were able to find such a tiny lawn mower. :)

It is obvious the photo has been worked on out of camera. My point is the girl was lit predominantly from two light sources (and then heavily retouched).

hehehe, gotta love an image, and consequent discussion about it, like this. i can actually find 4 separate light sources on this image, so artificial lighting just doesnt account for all of it. look closely at the 'sun' light source, then at the angle she's standing, then at the cat, and then at her left side (camera right). it just doesnt add up :)

but, oddly, it's still an interesting image.

craig

edit: oh, and if you look REAL closely, you may even find a fifth source.

First, the girl was shot alone. The lighting almost reminds me of Philip-Lorca diCorcia, (but not quite). He was known for ambushing the public with light. If you haven't heard of him, Google him and check it out.

I think the girl had 2 light sources... probably strobe, but it's hard to tell because she was composited into another image, where the lighting is very diffused. She could have been lit with natural light and a reflector. Now that I'm really looking at it, there was a shot of a winter or fall landscape where the grass was either colorized, or was stripped in from another shot. The sky could also be from a separate image, where the clouds may have been embelished as well.

The cat... who knows? In today's digital world, who would ever believe that the cat happened to pose like that when they shot the girl?

Hi guys and gals... I'm a reader... been a FM guy for a while and just really got into the forum thing recently (what an awesome idea for the web)... anyway... there's a photographer on FredMiranda... Marcellus... gets the same results... he exposes the background for -2 to -6 stops... adds fill flash... softbox camera right and bounce camera left...

Then, as all sweet post processing goes these days (so it seems - w/ Fiscus et al) the take a highlights-based Alpha mask on a Curves Adjustment layer. Tighten up that curve, and viola.

Here is how it is done

Dragan Effect (by Pam Dragan) (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1006&message=14223429)

Butch

Here is how it is done

Dragan Effect (by Pam Dragan) (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1006&message=14223429)

Butch

MERCI! Thanks Butch!

About the lighting I think that's quite simple.....

An alternate method is to duplicate the layer and set the mode to multiply. The ad a layer mask and paint in the highlights. This works particularly well because both layers contain the same image so there is no way to screw up. If multiply doesn't get the image dark enough for your taste you can always go to your curves or levels and darken even more. Once you mask the highlights back in you'll achieve a balance again. Of course there is also the color tweaking and possible lighting effects that will help complete the look.

this seems like simple hdr to me

I think you can skip most of these:)

Photomatix - http://www.hdrsoft.com/


Actually, if you think about it hdr uses the same principles we've been discussing, the differnce being you get much less control. Besides, when there are people or moving objects you're pretty much out of luck.

My guess is that the girl was shot in a studio, but maybe not.

The girl is keyed from camera left. If you zoom into the pastoral background, between the two dead trees, the trees in the background have shadows about the same angle as the key. The clouds seem consistant with this also.

The light on her left cheek and leg is either a fill-flash from a soft box or a light or flash through a silk. This fill softens the shadow from the key which should be harder. It would appear that the fill softens any other clothes or the shadows beneath her.

I dont' believe she is 3D. Over smoothed, plasticised skin.

The cat; well, what can I say.

K

Actually, if you think about it hdr uses the same principles we've been discussing, the differnce being you get much less control. Besides, when there are people or moving objects you're pretty much out of luck.

the trick is taking a picture in raw and exporting various exposures out of it, at reasonable iso without any obvious quality loss. but it´s a bit off topic anyway, I know:)