How would you re-create this shot?

For my final portraiture assignment I have to create a portrait that resembles someone famous. I chose Michael Jackson.

Looking for a little help on how I would replicate the "stage" type lighting.
I have 2 B800's, one 430eX II, and one 580EX II available.

Any help?

Here are a few examples I am drawing inspiration from:


http://img844.imagesha​ck.us …reenshot2011053​0at124.png

http://img696.imagesha​ck.us …reenshot2011053​0at124.png

Snooted strobes and a fog machine. It really shouldnt be that hard

Do you need to use strobes? Why not go to the school's auditorium or stage and use the real lighting? fog machine, smoke, incense... for the effect.

i dont see a portrait by him? I also completely disagree with pretty much everything you just said. A photographer should try his/her BEST to NOT have to use any editing software to get a "look" Do your complete best to get it right IN CAMERA then if you MUST, do a few touch ups in post processing.

Telling him to create lighting through special editing effects has to be the absolute worst advice ive ever heard.

Thanks for the advice all.

Here's a first attempt. Didn't really work out as well as I anticipated. Definitely going to try getting into the theater to use the real stage lighting...

dezl_dub wrote in post #12507791
Thanks for the advice all.

Here's a first attempt. Didn't really work out as well as I anticipated. Definitely going to try getting into the theater to use the real stage lighting...

Couple of things:

You can't show images here that are not yours. I've converted the images in your first post to links, I suggest you find and give proper credit to them.


And, your first attempt has worked better than you might think.

Your examples show spot lights coming from high and back angles.
You've got the spots working, you've got the back angles, all you need is to get one of them really high, above your subject.
Working in the school theater isn't necessarily going to help, and since they use hot lights, may cause other problems.

The biggest thing your missing, that is in your examples, is smoke.
Get a smoke machine and try it again, you might be surprised at the difference it makes.

However, this is not what I would call traditional portraiture. Your examples are photos from his shows, and serve better as examples of performance photography.

i agree with the above poster. Though it does look like you did some funky editing around the lights and at the bottom. May we see the original of your image?

OneEyedJack wrote in post #12507311
i dont see a portrait by him? I also completely disagree with pretty much everything you just said. A photographer should try his/her BEST to NOT have to use any editing software to get a "look" Do your complete best to get it right IN CAMERA then if you MUST, do a few touch ups in post processing.

Telling him to create lighting through special editing effects has to be the absolute worst advice ive ever heard.

Says who?

John Schell wrote in post #12509196
Says who?

Says every single validated photographer i have ever heard speak.

Dave Hill
Chase Jarvis
Zack Arias
Annie Leibovitz

Shall i keep going?

No point in being a photographer if you rely on photoshop. Might look into graphic design.

OneEyedJack wrote in post #12509374
Says every single validated photographer i have ever heard speak.

Dave Hill
Chase Jarvis
Zack Arias
Annie Leibovitz

Shall i keep going?

No point in being a photographer if you rely on photoshop. Might look into graphic design.

Please provide links to their quotes. I think it absolutely ridiculous to rule out anything which helps you reach you artistic goals.

By your definition, why even use a camera? Why not paper and a lump of coal?

OneEyedJack wrote in post #12507311
i dont see a portrait by him? I also completely disagree with pretty much everything you just said. A photographer should try his/her BEST to NOT have to use any editing software to get a "look" Do your complete best to get it right IN CAMERA then if you MUST, do a few touch ups in post processing.

Telling him to create lighting through special editing effects has to be the absolute worst advice ive ever heard.

I would bet the OP has some rules in his syllabus about what he can and can't do in post. He asked for some suggestions, and he got some. These threads become really hard to read for everybody when we start talking over each others suggestions.

Can we keep it positive for the OP?

Thanks!


TO THE OP....

I agree with Moppie on his analysis. A fog machine, and maybe a big fill card camera left to catch some of the spotlight and toss it back on your model. I think you need a LITTLE more light on the subject, but not a direct source .

John Schell wrote in post #12509621
Please provide links to their quotes. I think it absolutely ridiculous to rule out anything which helps you reach you artistic goals.

By your definition, why even use a camera? Why not paper and a lump of coal?

Im pretty sure i said "heard speak" which means seminars and interviews. Im not going to bother digging through the internet trying to prove my point to you. If you dont understand the value of getting the image as close to perfect in camera, then thats not at all my problem.

mattograph wrote in post #12509662
I would bet the OP has some rules in his syllabus about what he can and can't do in post. He asked for some suggestions, and he got some. These threads become really hard to read for everybody when we start talking over each others suggestions.

Can we keep it positive for the OP?

Thanks!


TO THE OP....

I agree with Moppie on his analysis. A fog machine, and maybe a big fill card camera left to catch some of the spotlight and toss it back on your model. I think you need a LITTLE more light on the subject, but not a direct source .

I agree, but its going a bit far when you tell someone to "just create it in photoshop" Thats beyond ridiculous advice and i think the OP should be aware of it, if he isnt already. Photographers should strive to create a great Photo, not a great piece of digitally rendered art (unless, like i said, they're taking up graphic design).

OneEyedJack wrote in post #12507311
i dont see a portrait by him? I also completely disagree with pretty much everything you just said. A photographer should try his/her BEST to NOT have to use any editing software to get a "look" Do your complete best to get it right IN CAMERA then if you MUST, do a few touch ups in post processing.

Telling him to create lighting through special editing effects has to be the absolute worst advice ive ever heard.

This is ridiculous. If you get the results you want who's to say you can't use photoshop, crayons, or or a pencil. A camera is a tool, if you think technology is cheating then why don't you grab a brush and some oil paints to do your portraits. Make sure you make the brush and mix the paints yourself, or you aren't a purist.

That being said, telling someone to go do something in photoshop might not be a helpful answer if that person is seeking in-camera advice--as often more natural effects are created...naturally.

OneEyedJack wrote in post #12509374
Says every single validated photographer i have ever heard speak.

Dave Hill
Chase Jarvis
Zack Arias
Annie Leibovitz

Shall i keep going?

No point in being a photographer if you rely on photoshop. Might look into graphic design.

Exactly. There's nothing wrong using PS to enhance a photo, but using it to create a photo (because of a photographer's inadequacies) is another.

Thank you! Im glad someone agrees!