Martin Schoeller's Catch lights - Anyone know what lighting setup was used?

[dital]

Hi all, I'm curious to know what lighting setup/configuration would be used to create catch lights like the ones created by Martin Schoeller in this video?

http://mediastorm.org/0002.htm

Thanks,

Steve. ;)

[shutterfiend]

Photoshop is a wonderful tool.

[SnlpeR]

prolly standing in front of an octobox or big umbrella

[TMR Design]

I wouldn't be so quick to say that is Photoshopped. To me it looks very much like a large rectangular diffusion panel or white reflector on each side of the subject.

[Dermit]

Looks to me like two big rectangular softboxes on camera left and camera right orientated vertically.

[dital]

Looks to me like two big rectangular softboxes on camera left and camera right orientated vertically.

That's the setup that I would have guessed at also. I think PS is a big no no in these shots.

[Wilt]

Same as what Dermit said...pair of large vertical softboxes to either side of camera position (camera in the dark space in between)

[dital]

Correct. I've found a video for anyone wanting to see: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZTGXhWjAf4

[Gentleman Villain]

I really like Martin Shoeller, but I've never thought that there is much mystery to his technique. He has an honest and straight-forward classic approach to photography and he gets ALL of the elements right. It's very refreshing to know that he has made a great career and newbies are being influenced by him. He is a great example of how a photographer doesn't need to rely on gimmicks & tricks. He's made a name for himself simply by being technically proficient in the classic sense.

I'll wager a guess at what he's doing....and could be a little off but the basic idea is probably there...

He's using two large strips-banks on both sides of the subject for fill and that's what makes the catchlights. But he's not just using DIY strips or flourescent light bulbs from Home Depot. He's using a very even high quality light source and putting it extremely close to the subject. It could even be continuous light? That would work ...I dunno.... Or it could be some of the higher end strip tube lighting that costs in the many thousands of dollars. This type of fill lighting is very flat so the key to preventing it from looking dull is to place it extremely close to the subject and enhance the micro-contrast. But the light source itself must be extremely even and consistent in order to be placed so close to the subject without making obnoxious hotspots on the skin or slight alterations in color temperature. Basically, he's probably using some pretty nice gear and has fiddled it for awhile to get it extremely even and prevent skintones from becoming "patchy" and "spotty."

The two strip lights alone would be too flat and wouldn't provide a sense of direction. Next, he's probably adding a beauty dish and placing it extremely close to the subject in order to provide a directional quality to the light. This is actually a classic glamour lighting setup for fashion. I first learned how to do it when I was a student in the early 90s. A small softbox probably wouldn't provide enough direction and a regular grid (with no diffusion) would probably be too contrasty for pleasing skin tones. So a beauty dish works perfect. It's just crisp enough to provide direction but soft enough to make pleasing skin tones.

Notice that there is a very smooth and gradual transition between light and dark from the front of the subject's face to the back of the subject's body. These subtle micro-tonal transitions can only be achieved by placing lights very close to the subject. If the lights are too far from the subject, than all of those subtle qualities will simply disappear.

He's got a nice directional quality to his lighting and is heavily dependent on an even fill to give his subjects a more pleasing skintones. So it looks to me like he's allow light to bounce all over the studio for fill. I might be wrong, but it looks like he's spilling excess light all over the place and that's a good thing IMHO

Finally, he ain't shootin' no mickey mouse CMOS sensor 35mm camera. He's shooting on 8x10. His choice of format helps to bring out all of the subtle detail and micro-transitions in contrast/ tone to the final image. The huge dynamic range and resolution of 8x10 film brings a life-like quality to the images tha can't really be emulated in 35mm. My guess is that he's spent a lot of time experimenting with different film types and lens combinations in order to get just the right tint for a pleasing skin tone.

Anyhow, there's not much mystery to his technique but all of the elements have to be perfectly in place in order to achieve his "look." He doesn't cut any corners or take shortcuts. He's really got a grip on the craft and it shows. He's achieved what I like to call "synthesis"....all of the elements work together and are necessary to produce the final image. If one element to his design is off just a bit then the whole image would probably fall apart.

I like Martin Shoeller....it's great to know there are photographers like him out there :)

[Gentleman Villain]

Correct. I've found a video for anyone wanting to see: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZTGXhWjAf4

Thanks for the vid!

He had a bunch of white paper behind the camera and some heads going in that direction...so I wonder if he's using that as a broad fill? Who knows?..He's also using what almost looks like a large standard reflector instead of a beauty dish...but pretty close to the same idea....and got some gels on the mainlight (probably NDs) but who knows

It's always fun to watch..thanks for the vid

[PacAce]

If you look through the whole video, you'll see that he's got at least two different set ups, one using two rectangular light sources like softboxes (the first shot) and another using a huge circular light source behind him (most of the other of the images in the video). Or, maybe not. ;)

[Gentleman Villain]

Now is see something that I didn't see before...hahaha...but I'm not telling anybody what it is :lol: There's always a danger to posting about what I think somebody is doing with their lighting...because always always always...there are a few things that I miss

[ronxp2000]

It's been two years now, time to tell! lol


Now is see something that I didn't see before...hahaha...but I'm not telling anybody what it is :lol: There's always a danger to posting about what I think somebody is doing with their lighting...because always always always...there are a few things that I miss

[Wilt]

Two strip light banks, flanking either side of the subject. One light about 1' higher than subject's head, centrally positioned (in line with lens), another light about chest level and centrally positioned, one backlight visible to camera right (and probably another one to camera left, too).

[symbolphoto]

What about the DOF. I second continuous lighting. Flash would have to be real low to get that, unless heavy use of ND's.

[spesmeadeus]

I was thinking some strip boxes, and ya DOF must have been hard to get.

[elliot_n]

The shallow DOF is a result of shooting 8"x10" film. Shot with flash, at about f22, I reckon.

[symbolphoto]

If that's F22 on an 8x10, i've got some things to learn :)


(Wouldn't be surprised though, i've only used DSLR's)

[elliot_n]

If that's F22 on an 8x10, i've got some things to learn :)


Well, the DOF at f22 on 8x10 is about the same as the DOF at f2 on a full frame Nikon/Canon.

[symbolphoto]

Well, the DOF at f22 on 8x10 is about the same as the DOF at f2 on a full frame Nikon/Canon.

Right, i gotcha. Just unfamiliar to me... what the hell are those lenses cosidered wide open? F16?

[Alejandro Sandoval]

He shoots whit a 4x5 camera...and that guys is a trooper ! whe chity chat while shooting a 4x5

[Alejandro Sandoval]

The shallow DOF is a result of shooting 8"x10" film. Shot with flash, at about f22, I reckon.


yeah you are right not a 4x5...he shoots 8x10

[Brett]

What surprises me is he's using continuous lighting for the two strip lights in the video. His model is so obviously uncomfortable with the hot lights blaring on her, he ends up giving her a fan. Wouldn't he (and his models) be better-served with strobes?

[ronxp2000]

Thanks for all the new information everyone.

Interesting, I never know how DOF was on a 8x10 camera of that type.

[Hermes]

Thanks for all the new information everyone.

Interesting, I never know how DOF was on a 8x10 camera of that type.

You'll probably find that you can acheive roughly the same depth of field on any film/sensor format. As the size of the negative/sensor goes up, the max apertures of lenses produced for it go down in quite a symmetrical way (although the popularity and profitability of 35mm makes 35mm lenses buck the trend slightly).

On another note, did the blown highlights with a yellowish cast on some of the the subjects' cheekbones jump out at anyone else? It could just be the characteristics of the film used but it does look awfully like what you'd expect from using the dodge tool in PS set to highlights.

[dmdctusa]

Check out this Smithsonian Blog. He says here that the lights are Kino Flos. The link:
http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/aroundthemall/2009/09/the-technique-behind-martin-schoellers-photography/

[Wilt]

You'll probably find that you can acheive roughly the same depth of field on any film/sensor format. As the size of the negative/sensor goes up, the max apertures of lenses produced for it go down in quite a symmetrical way (although the popularity and profitability of 35mm makes 35mm lenses buck the trend slightly)..

Within limitations, this is true. Assuming 10' camera to subject...

APS-C format with 30mm f/1.4 lens = DOF zone 1.5'
135 format with 50mm f/1.4 lens = DOF zone 0.84'
4x5 format with 150mm f/4 lens = DOF zone 0.97'
8x10 format with 300mm f/8 lens = DOF zone 0.92'

[Damian75]

I believe he is shooting as stated earlier an 8x10 and using 2 Broncolor 120 strip lights which are 6400 ws each. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/71112-REG/Broncolor_32_303_07.html

[symbolphoto]

Those Bron strips are sweet as hell (And expensive as hell). I had the chance to use them at an event in NYC. The Kino Flo's are surprisingly affordable, relatively - that is. I mean, in the continuous lighting world they are expensive.

But they look like a well made kit that is easily transportable.

Funny, my response above about DOF. Now that i own a MF, i know the difference in DOF. It's rather interesting actually. I'd love to shoot LF just once.