How is the lighting in these (street) portraits done?

T

Tijmendal

Young photog
Local time
4:34 PM
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Messages
507
Hi,

A while ago I was linked to this article and it has been open in my browser for a week now or so. Today I finally got around to look at it. I *think* the portraits are done by Bruce Gilden (I think that's what triggered me to look at it) and I'm wondering what kind of lighting is used. Obviously he used flash, but the complete lack of shadows is interesting (in harsh contrast with the work he's famous for). Absence of shadows isn't anything special with a 'normal' portrait, but my guess is all these are shot with a 24mm (or maybe even wider) and VERY close to the subject. How do you go about lighting something when you're about a foot away?

EDIT:
Now wíth link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/m...next-mayor-of-new-york.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Thanks!
 
Not sure which Gilden pictures you mean exactly either. Were I to hazard a guess for strobes used point blank I'd say manual flash (non-auto, non-ttl) is the way to go. Or maybe ring flash (what Parr used). I could be wrong, it will help if we see the pictures.

.
 
Well, I don't see any photos in which it is "obvious" a flash is used. Not in the batch I pulled up here. A real photographer looks at the light and uses it.
 
All I know about flash is from wildlife but the principles still apply. At a distance flash is a point of light and shadows are harsh. When you move close the flash stops acting as a point of light and shadows are reduced.
 
I think he used a dual flash. One bounced off the ceiling (check the bright spot on the top of the bald heads, especially in the first row), and one just above the lens - with a wide diffuser - to give the abbreviated butterfly shadow under the nose.
 
I don't see anything extraordinary here. Looks like a flash with a diffuser and natural sunlight doing the rest.
 
This is just a straight flash with diffuser mounted close to the lens, on top of the camera. A rather ugly effect, and probably a desired one.
 
Direct flash, possibly un-diffused, directly above the lens and fairly close to the lens, just high enough so there aren't catch-lights in the eyes. You can get away with a lot with that lighting, which is a crude version of a traditional studio lighting technique from the 30s or so (run a google image search for "butterfly lighting") . Look particularly at the little shadows under the nose--that's the clue for this type of lighting.

It was used a lot in movie glamor photos from the 30s and 40s (you'll see a few in the google search) because it's universally flattering on most people and reveals just enough face shape and structure without bringing out bad skin texture.

http://digital-photography-school.com/how-to-achieve-perfect-butterfly-lighting
 
Apart from the lighting, these are pretty unflattering portraits (I guess mug shots will describe them better). Most likely intentionally by Mr. Gilden.

Just pretending to know nothing about any of the candidates, I would guess these pictures will be pulled out after one of these faces stumbles over the first big scandal after being elected mayor of NYC.
Then all will be pointing at the picture and say: "Yeah, no surprise how could anybody not see this coming?!" I hope I'll be wrong;).
 
It looks like he held the flash above and in front of their faces and fired. Likely set the flash on manual andset his exposure, no fuss. If you really want to know, ask one of the candidates.
 
In portraiture, look at the catchlights reflected in the eyes, that is the giveaway. I see one catchlight, right below the upper lid.

So, he used one flash straight-on, probably diffused.
 
Ok thanks a lot everyone! I don't know jack about flash/portraiture; apparently it's a lot easier than I thought. I just figured it would be kind of a different set-up because the lens are taken with a wide-angle.

Can anyone comment on what focal length is used? The big noses make me guess somewhere in the 20-24mm range...
 
"The most progressive city west of Amsterdam" is a bit of an exaggeration really.
I like how the portraits are almost caricatural in a way :rolleyes:
 
my guess

my guess

Lighting at 45° from above creates butterfly effect.So maybe handheld or off camera flash arm with defuser?
 
These are easy and ugly. Typical one speed light over the camera about 4 inches. A few have a hair light from the Sun. This gets a pseudo butterfly shadow under the nose. Pretty much what 95% of the people get normally using an on camera flash only this was raised a bit more probably by a grip mounted flash.
 
A real photographer looks at the light and uses it.
Click to expand...

or...

A real photographer looks at the light and changes it
A real photographer looks at the light and ignores it
A real photographer just points the camera and presses the button
A real photographer just leaves the camera somewhere and lets the subject take the picture

and even...
A real photographer can't see the subject

Generalisations are so last century. :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom