Lighting setup in baby picture

Hi all,

I was provided this picture from a family member showing a style of picture she really likes. Obviously the background lighting is all time of day but I'm curious what you guys thought was lighting the baby? There are no harsh shadows so I was wondering if it's multiple speed lights or soft box?

Heya,

If I had to guess:

Looking at the catchlights, it could be natural light, the sky reflecting in the eyes is broad and takes up the whole eye, no small catchlights indicating a little lighting setup. The little thing in the middle looks to be the photographer or mom to get the baby's attention. If natural light, they're simply in the shade, exposing up, which is why the background foliage in direct sunlight is overexposed. And to hide the overexposure, it looks like a flare was added in post since it's so spherical and not in line with the natural light. Then use D/B on the baby to bring up the skin and shadows. I don't think lighting was used here.

If I were to do it, and I do a lot of baby shoots, I'd use a big 47~48" modifier with a light and drop ambient more, and expose up with the light.

Very best,

I would tend to agree with MalVeauX. It looks like natural light in a shaded area.

The neck shadow makes me think a softbox was used. Maybe with a flash not powerful enough to do much.

The fact that the subject is sitting on a large white quilt that acts like a large reflector is probably having an effect on the lighting too.

I'm going to stick my neck out and suggest that this is either a composite or a backdrop was used. The baby/blanket was photographed under a light, grey sky with no direct sun. I don't think the white balance matches the background. Just a thought!

AnnieMacD wrote in post #18071269
I'm going to stick my neck out and suggest that this is either a composite or a backdrop was used. The baby/blanket was photographed under a light, grey sky with no direct sun. I don't think the white balance matches the background. Just a thought!

That's what I was thinking too!

AnnieMacD wrote in post #18071269
I don't think the white balance matches the background. Just a thought!

I agree 100%. The photo looks like it's an obvious fake because of that. There's another problem which sticks out like a sore thumb, and that's the overexposure of the foreground (and, of course, the subject).