Extreme light control

[Rolfe Klement]

Some of my friends in the editorial still world recommended this guy as a one of the few people who actually knows how to control light - and is pushing boundaries. Check his portfolio out at A+C for more stunning examples.

 

I post this as an example of some of his work.

 

I assume the best lighting solution (in a motion world to achieve this level of control on the face) would be a dedolight 200 with DP-2 and an 85 dedo Lens. I assume an ETC S4 would be too cumbersome.

 

Or is there another way?

 

 

http://www.artandcommerce.com/AAC/burbridge

 

thanks

 

Rolfe

[Adrian Sierkowski]

I'm not going to pretend he's good; however, given what he work in one has to wonder how much photo shopping is going on; ya know? I have seen a lot of this type of photography, and it all looks rather similar at least to me.

I would assume the lighting in that photo is from flashes, not from a constant source, but there are plenty of ways with stills to achieve that light; and don't forget how important make-up is in this photography. She's just very whited out on her face.

 

Of course I could also be totally wrong.

[Michael Nash]

I don't see anything too out-of-the-ordinary going on with the lighting. The pic you posted does have sharp shadows, which can be achieved with the units you mentioned or even a fresnel far enough away. Other shots on his portfolio have soft shadows, so I don't think it's all about the unit.

 

What is unique here is the contrast. The face is a little overexposed yet the chin/neck is completely black. You'd expect to see a little return on her jaw from the hotspot on her left shoulder, yet there is none. I suspect they've done something with the film or post.

[Mitch Lusas]

He definitely has some great photos and concepts. I agree with Michael, though, the lighting setup is actually quite familiar in fashion photography. There is definitely a lot of post work and make up work. Being a photographer myself, I have learned that you cannot equate a photographer/editor with a cinematographer/gaffer for three reasons.

 

1. Photography is a medium focused on one frame, one pose, one lighting setup. Cinematography is focused on multiple frames, many moving parts, and complex lighting setups made to match together.

2. Editing. Photographers know how to edit a shot. It's crazy what can be done; I've replaced skin, changed lighting, added shadows, made the skin more three-dimensional with burning/dodging, etc. While there is editing in bigger films, they do not go to the same extent as photographers do/can.

3. The lighting units. This is more in response to strobe lights. They are smaller, more powerful and more versatile than continuous lights. You can really achieve any f/stop, shutter speed, or color you want with very little changes.

 

Saying that, I believe working on photography, especially with strobes (which you have to imagine how the light will look) massively helps cinematographers/gaffers.

 

Thanks for posting his site, it was great to seeing his work. He has very interesting concepts.