Portrait Question

[toastboy]

I've seen a few portraits in the style of this recently and wondered what techniques have been used to get this effect. Is it Photoshop?

[megy]

Looking at the catclights it looks like it may be a ringflash to light the face and then either the background lit so it gradiates the way it does, or changed/added in photoshop.

I am however more than likely wrong on both counts and someone else will be correct

[Andy M]

I think this is a shot from Martin Schoeller's 'Close Up' series - the book is excellent by the way - what specifically are you asking is Photoshopped?

[Andy M]

megy said:

Looking at the catclights it looks like it may be a ringflash to light the face and then either the background lit so it gradiates the way it does, or changed/added in photoshop.

I am however more than likely wrong on both counts and someone else will be correct

I think you may be wrong

"Martin is a loyal believer in film based cameras, and thinks that he’ll go digital, only when the film disappears entirely. He believes that the look and longevity of film is better, and the images, when enlarged, fare far better with film.

Equipment:
Mamiya RZ 6x7
Fuji 6x9, which is especially good for larger spread shots
Kino Flo light source
Profoto strobe"

http://www.takegreatpictures.com/HOME/Columns/Phot...

[toastboy]

Andy M said:

I think this is a shot from Martin Schoeller's 'Close Up' series - the book is excellent by the way - what specifically are you asking is Photoshopped?

Thanks, I found some of the series on a website.

I thought the photo may have been an HDR shot as the skin tones looked so unnatural.

[Simpo Two]

I guess you have to seperate lighting from processing. Personally the shot makes me feel sick so I'm not going to waste time wondering further.

[Scho]

stunning photograph!

you can see two strips of light in the catchlights,

i'd hazard a guess this is shot with two rectangle softboxes , most likely kinoflows: http://www.evl.uic.edu/ralph/508F98/gif/kino.gif

both lights coming in from the side at 15ish deg a above chris to create the shadow under the cheek bones.

possibly shot on slide and then push processed to increase the contrast?

do i win?

Edited by Scho on Thursday 10th July 10:10

Edited by Scho on Thursday 10th July 10:10

Edited by Scho on Thursday 10th July 10:32

[Tuna]

If it's film I guess it's been cross processed, catchlights suggest ringflash which gives a rather unnatural flat lighting to the face.

[Andy M]

Scho said:

stunning photograph!

you can see two strips of light in the catchlights,

i'd hazard a guess this is shot with two rectangle softboxes , most likely kinoflows: http://www.evl.uic.edu/ralph/508F98/gif/kino.gif

both lights coming in from the side at 15ish deg a above chris to create the shadow under the cheek bones.

possibly shot on slide and then push processed to increase the contrast?

do i win?

I reckon that's about it, except he's well known for shooting neg film, not slide. Definitely not ringflash IMHO

[stigmundfreud]

also pushing slide will take it out of the colour range unlike neg.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Martin-Schoeller-Close-Por...

680 quid?! I thought I got ripped off when I bought Hotel LaChappelle and I was, I paid 40 quid at the Tate, its 20 on Amazon.

Back to original, I like the shot but regardless of what is or is not said it does look quite processed, almost American Flickrist

[Andy M]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Close-Up-Martin-Schoeller/...

[stigmundfreud]

Andy M said:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Close-Up-Martin-Schoeller/...

thats a bit of a saving over the verison I found

[EmmaP]

Simpo Two said:

I guess you have to seperate lighting from processing. Personally the shot makes me feel sick so I'm not going to waste time wondering further.

You've got a very delicate disposition haven't you?

[EmmaP]

Great shot! Something out of the ordinary to grab your attention and make you stop and think unlike a lot of 'stuff' you see these days.

I'd hazard a guess at two rectangular soft boxes too as it does not have the quality of ring flash nor are the catch lights that of a ring.

That aside, the colour is in no doubt a result of film stock and lighting. A slight fluorescent tinge. I read about a fashion photographer years ago using fluorescent (I'm sure it was) as it was cooler to work with. Was many years ago so recollection is vague though shots had a definite green hue, but then that could have been the print ink. So many variables!

This shot reminds me how much I love film and miss it so much. You just can't get the same quality with digital.

[Tuna]

Point taken about lighting, still think it's cross processed

http://planetneil.com/tangents/2008/03/23/cross-pr...

http://blog.epicedits.com/2008/05/23/ten-reasons-t...

[EmmaP]

Could be!

[stigmundfreud]

Tuna said:

Point taken about lighting, still think it's cross processed

http://planetneil.com/tangents/2008/03/23/cross-pr...

http://blog.epicedits.com/2008/05/23/ten-reasons-t...

cross processed would surely have a greater effect and lose any of the original colouration tones.

Prob used a couple of slightly off colour balanced gels, one over the lens poss blue and a red/orange on lights

[Scho]

stigmundfreud said:

Tuna said:

Point taken about lighting, still think it's cross processed

http://planetneil.com/tangents/2008/03/23/cross-pr...

http://blog.epicedits.com/2008/05/23/ten-reasons-t...

cross processed would surely have a greater effect and lose any of the original colouration tones.

Prob used a couple of slightly off colour balanced gels, one over the lens poss blue and a red/orange on lights

could be daylight film, push processed quite a bit to bring out the contrast causing a very slight colour shift?

[stigmundfreud]

I love the smell of speculation in the morning

[Scho]

stigmundfreud said:

I love the smell of speculation in the morning

PH heads speculation comp chit chat thread?