Gentle lighting

I've been looking at a lot of Joey L's work. In a lot of his more recent work – particular the 2016 Lavazza Calendar – I've noticed a very gentle use of strobe lighting. The light doesn't reflect off of his subjects***, as much as it sinks into their skin and pores; he isn't blasting his subjects with light. It's almost as if he's using strobes and reflectors just to draw a subtle emphasis to his subjects.

This is something I'd like to mimic. But what I can't wrap my head around is the technique. No matter how dimly I set my strobe and balance it with the ambient light, no matter how I set my camera sync speeds, I just can't seem to mimic the light response.

Having looked quite deeply into his kit, I'm not convinced that it's necessarily gear at play hear as much as technique.

Anyone have any clues? Inside knowledge?

***Yes, I know all light reflects off a subject – that's how light works, but it's the best way I can describe it. What I mean is that the quality of it is very gentle and subtle, almost as if it sinks into the skin.

69" octa close to the subject, balanced as fill or kicker.
The calendar images are all with indirect natural light. That means the fill has to be from a large light, diffused light source as well.

It's hard to mimic the natural lighting in those images. Even a large source would have the fall off much to rapid if to close. It's a good project to try though, I got close, but the fall off was a give away. Feathering is your friend using a modifier with a lip to get a decent gradient across the subject.

Here's what I noticed from the videos of his shoots--the light was definitely not close to the subjects at all. Sometimes it was 5-10 feet. I'd imagine the inverse square rule came into play for some of those shots.

He is also using high power strobes. And yes, it's gear as well as technique. As one photographer said once, 'we're only as good as our tools'.

If you go to his website and click on the ON SET link it will take you to some videos of behind the scenes shooting the calendar images. He used natural light, reflectors, flash, smoke, a large crew, etc and a ton of talent to get those gorgeous images.

I haven't watched his DVDs, but here're a couple of images that are quite telling:

https://www.learnfromj​oeyl.com/img/thumbs/13​-p.jpg

There you can see the modifier he's using, his distance, the subject, and –most importantly– the light's fall-off. Note how he places his subjects in the light's tail. That particular photo shews the subject placed where the tail begins. In terms of the Inverse Square Law, I'd say the subject is located where the light has already fallen off by a square.

Another example of the same situation, sans the light:

https://d1w5usc88actyi​.cloudfront.net …6/debre_damo_et​hiopia.jpg

Finally, this is another photo –a large group!– that he lit with a single Profoto head powered by a Profoto Pro-7b and a Rotalux Octa:

http://designrfix.com …phy-website-design-21.jpg

One more thing: you need to keep in mind that he usually shoots medium format (PhaseOne); thus, he can get away with less power from the strobes because he uses larger aperture values. I can't do the same things he does when I'm using 35mm full-frame and need to shoot at f/8 or f/11 for a group shot with a 500J monolight.

bpalermini wrote in post #18163888
If you go to his website and click on the ON SET link it will take you to some videos of behind the scenes shooting the calendar images. He used natural light, reflectors, flash, smoke, a large crew, etc and a ton of talent to get those gorgeous images.

That's what I was watching. You're right, there are certain factors that no one will be able to duplicate––namely, the fact that he is the only Joey L., and his work is unique to him. As for the "gentle lighting" look, that takes time.

Alveric wrote in post #18163880
He is also using high power strobes. And yes, it's gear as well as technique. As one photographer said once, 'we're only as good as our tools'.

Gear helps a lot, but gear won't make a bad photographer into a good one. Good gear will make a good photographer better.

Alveric wrote in post #18163905
I haven't watched his DVDs, but here're a couple of images that are quite telling:

https://www.learnfromj​oeyl.com/img/thumbs/13​-p.jpg

There you can see the modifier he's using, his distance, the subject, and –most importantly– the light's fall-off. Note how he places his subjects in the light's tail. That particular photo shews the subject placed where the tail begins. In terms of the Inverse Square Law, I'd say the subject is located where the light has already fallen off by a square.

Another example of the same situation, sans the light:

https://d1w5usc88actyi​.cloudfront.net …6/debre_damo_et​hiopia.jpg

Finally, this is another photo –a large group!– that he lit with a single Profoto head powered by a Profoto Pro-7b and a Rotalux Octa:

http://designrfix.com …phy-website-design-21.jpg

One more thing: you need to keep in mind that he usually shoots medium format (PhaseOne); thus, he can get away with less power from the strobes because he uses larger aperture values. I can't do the same things he does when I'm using 35mm full-frame and need to shoot at f/8 or f/11 for a group shot with a 500J monolight.

Medium format helps a lot with that. Profotos are some pretty strong lights. He also uses 1200W broncolors at times too, so he has tons of power. But the Profoto B1 goes to 500w/s, and an Einstein goes to 640w/s. Technically, the Einstein is more powerful than the B1.

I'd say it's technique more than gear. I'm just trying to figure out what that technique is. In the examples you linked, his older style is more along the lines of "blast the subject with light" – but his newer stuff is much more subtle.

This photo was shot with a 5D3. https://joeyl.com …rom_Father_to_S​on_001.JPG – Can't tell it from the rest.

It seems that these are all early morning shots and he's balancing light ratios with fill flash. They are definitely gorgeous images, that's for sure.
It's also nice to see that the EXIF info is intact for all those images. Useful info there. I think the key to getting that soft, diffused light is to shoot in the early morning light.

I completely disregarded the time factor. That's a really, really good point.

quadwing wrote in post #18163914
That's what I was watching. You're right, there are certain factors that no one will be able to duplicate––namely, the fact that he is the only Joey L., and his work is unique to him. As for the "gentle lighting" look, that takes time.

Gear helps a lot, but gear won't make a bad photographer into a good one. Good gear will make a good photographer better.

Medium format helps a lot with that. Profotos are some pretty strong lights. He also uses 1200W broncolors at times too, so he has tons of power. But the Profoto B1 goes to 500w/s, and an Einstein goes to 640w/s. Technically, the Einstein is more powerful than the B1.

I'd say it's technique more than gear. I'm just trying to figure out what that technique is. In the examples you linked, his older style is more along the lines of "blast the subject with light" – but his newer stuff is much more subtle.

This photo was shot with a 5D3. https://joeyl.com …rom_Father_to_S​on_001.JPG – Can't tell it from the rest.

Not wanting to top it the standoffish bloke here, nor do I want this discussion to degrade into a my dog is bigger than your dog squabble; but, as much as we need to stop believing the manufacturers marketing about gear turning us all into photo masters, we also need to stop listening to the cheap ninnies who state that we could take award-winning images with an iPhone because 'it's all in the guy behind the lens'.

Your comparison of the B1 versus the Einstein sustains my point: the Einstein is not really that much more powerful than the B1: it's only ~1/3 of a stop more powerful. Thus, the Einstein would allow me to shoot at f/9 whereas the B1 maxes out at f/8 –as much as I am trying not to be snarky, all I can say is 'whoa, that's a hell of a difference!' . What matters here is not just power but efficiency, and that's determined by your light formers. Some modifiers will give you 'more light' than others. Also, certain modifiers suit a particular situation better than others, and a good photographer will know which one to use in every situation, and/or for the effect he wants to obtain. Even the same modifier will give you different effects when used, well, differently.

It's both gear and technique and the knowledge to combine both.

I agree. Actually, that was pretty much exactly my point. Light is light, gear is gear. I'm don't exactly buy the "I can use 30 year old equipment and get the same image because it's the dude behind the camera" thing either -- but nor do I buy the inverse of that.

My take on it is a bad photographer with amazing gear won't be amazing. But a great photographer with crap gear will only be able to go so far. You're right; it's a mix of both. But I feel in the case of Joey's photos, obviously he has great gear, but I think it's a matter of more technique than gear.

^ for the record, I regularly use equipment that is 30 years old. Some of it is even older. I've yet to hear a complaint!

Dear QWADWING,

Pssst, I’ll gladly and openly share one possible explanation for you…

Position your large diffused light modifier from the same general direction as the main natural/ambient light source.
Then judiciously feather the large relative-to-subject light-modifier until you have your desired creative effect.
(such as to effectively wrap around part, or all of the short side of the subject, or subject’s face, or desired feature area you wish to direct the viewer’s attention to.)

The result is: soft & pleasant, flattering images that are consistently well received by discerning clients.
[It is a technique that with practice, practice & more practice, has successfully worked for my assistant & I for quite a few years.]

The technique works with almost any lighting gear.
For on-location portraits applications:
I use Profoto B1’s with a variety of Profoto softboxes (my go to is the 3ft Profoto Octa RFI or 1ftx3ft Profoto Stripbox RFI), or Canon 600EX-RT’s on the sturdy Lastolite Tri-Flash bracket; worked years ago with Canon 580EX-II’s, or even with a Latolite Tri-Flip, or Westcott 6-in-1 reflector, etc.
For in studio applications:
I use Profoto D1-Air 500’s when combined with natural light.


Here are a few videos that articulate/explain the technique better then I can.

The Slanted Lens/JP Morgan’s-
Learning How to Feather Soft Boxes - Lighting Tutorial:
https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=HUaIUubgLcM (8:29 minute video)

Natural Light & Strobes on Location - A Lighting Tutorial:
https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=JuK_erfYaW0 (4:34 minute video)

Jared Platt’s-
Recorded Profoto Webinar on How to Create a Beautiful Light in Harsh Conditions:
https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=XYTIWgKGb2I (59:22 minute video)
-specifically see the 22:35 – 30:40 minute period of this video.

Its all about the light, in combinations with technique AND yes quality gear helps differentiate too; as does consistency – the hallmark of a true “professional” (often overused word these days).

Hope this helps, to shed some light (pun intended)
Good luck in your analysis and techniques. Happy shooting!

Just on view…

Mary

P.S.
Given that you have been reviewing & enjoying Joey L’s images & videos…
Replay the videos and look carefully at the natural/ambient light source relative to the strobes, such as-
Dudes with Cameras: Lavazza Calendar - Part 1 of 4: :
https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=jlPTY_GOqek (7:29 minute video)
-for example, look at the 6:43 minute point of this video. BINGO - then I think, that will help you to see the light/(technique)!!

Nobody has mentioned retouching yet. Although he tries to get things as close as he can in camera, don't think that there's no dodging & burning and color grading involved. He uses good retouchers.