View Single Post
Glam lighting vs: Portrait lighting?
Old 11-26-2006, 08:34 PM   #1 (permalink)
nakins
Free Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Member GG#: 55362
Location: Benton
Posts: 241
Comments: 0

nakins is offline IP: 70.232.104.127
  Reply With Quote

I'm not sure about how to ask this question, but here goes. I'm aware of four major types of classic portrait lighting, short, broad, butterfly/paramount, and Rembrandt. And, for a classic portrait, one would possibley use a key, fill, background, and accent (hair mostly) as lighting setup. Now modern glamour lighting (aka Playboy) will use a ton of lights, Well, more than 4 or 5, more like 7 or more (way more) for the typicial glitzy, sparkley indoor shot. (rim lights, snoots, kickers, etc; etc. ) But, I've seen a few photos where the light is even throughout the photo and doesn't really look like it was changed from pose to pose. I've seen this in Playboy (a Merrit Kabal series comes to mind) and other glamour/lingerie/whatever. Is this being done with a boat load of natural light with some kind of fill flash, or are they throwing up a lot of light with big boxes? In the Merritt Kabal series that I'm thinking of there was a lot of natural light, but some type of flash used as you can see a small catch light (a ring flash I guess). The reason I ask this is that I seem to be having a problem with lighting a full body shot, either seated, standing, reclining...) and I'm wondering if once you go to a half or full body shot, if the four portrait lighting techniques still apply, or is there other techniqies that apply?

Btw, does anyone think the clapping hands thingy is a little bizzar looking?
  View Public Profile Send a private message to nakins Find More Posts by nakins