# Beauty Shoot for "Citizen K" Magazine "How Did I Do It?"



## benjikan (Nov 22, 2009)

Beauty Shoot for "Citizen K" Magazine "How Did I Do It?"

Recently, I received an e-mail from someone who saw my image on my introduction page of my blog, asking "...how did you do it?"  I will not include what he speculated, which was actually quite close.

For those of you wishing to participate, I would like you to tell me, what you think I did.  I will eventually tell you all the technique I employed for this particular beauty story shot for "Citizen K International".

So, go ahead and tell me what your impressions are.  Post your answer on the Forum and on my Blog. That way, everyone who has participated can see all of the responses.

Thanks
Ben

http://www.benjaminkanarekblog.com/2009/12/04/beauty-shoot-for-citizen-k-magazine-asked-how-did-i-do-it/


----------



## craig (Nov 22, 2009)

Excellent shot! 

Love & Bass


----------



## Weaving Wax (Nov 22, 2009)

Beautiful work.


----------



## gsgary (Nov 22, 2009)

Nice shot
I would say 3 lights 1 from each side with reflectors and a soft box from above giving the shadows to her eyes ?


----------



## camz (Nov 22, 2009)

Very interesting incorporating the grain in there.  I also like the hairstyle that you model has.


----------



## benjikan (Nov 22, 2009)

gsgary said:


> Nice shot
> I would say 3 lights 1 from each side with reflectors and a soft box from above giving the shadows to her eyes ?



Interesting analysis. Will post my answer next week.


----------



## smn_xps (Nov 22, 2009)

I think the face is too symmetrical to be "real"

so I think you took the shot, used one half mirrored to make the other half. 

beyond that seems to be light above and slighty in front of the subject judging by the shadow of her (his?) chin right at the top of the sternum.

cheers
jerry


----------



## bango707 (Nov 22, 2009)

two hard hair lights, one on either side.  Id say the key light is a beauty dish positioned slightly in front of the models face and from above.


----------



## imenevichian (Nov 23, 2009)

i'd say a hard light on each side (slightly from behind of the model and just a few inches above her hear), a soft box on top and a white reflector on the bottom...


----------



## ZBob (Nov 24, 2009)

I bet on the beauty dish above and two hard lights as rim. I don't think there was a reflector behind, because there's shadow in the eyes.


----------



## kkamin (Nov 26, 2009)

A soft box pointing almost straight down on her.  Two rim lights.  And a white reflector angled up at her just out of view


----------



## kkamin (Nov 26, 2009)

This is a good idea.  I think more people should do, 'How did I do it?" posts.  Great critical and creative thinking exercise.


----------



## benjikan (Dec 3, 2009)

So, here is the lighting set up for the shot.

A 4 bulb Kino Light, lit from below with a white shoot through diffusor.

An Opalight shooting down at around 60 degrees and around 1 meter above and 2 meters back from the model.

Two bare bulb heads, one on either side of the model at around 100 degrees just slightly off the 90 degree axis of the model.

Two HMI 1.2 Kilo Cinema Lights for the backdrop, shooting down to achieve the gradation.

Full Blue Gelatins on all of the flash sources and a Midnight Blue Gelatin on the HMI's using a Blue Backdrop.

Shot with a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 Lens at f25.0 at 1/8th of a second.

Converted to B&W in Photoshop.

http://www.benjaminkanarekblog.com/2009/12/04/beauty-shoot-for-citizen-k-magazine-asked-how-did-i-do-it/


----------



## lonewolfe (Dec 3, 2009)

out of curiosity as i'm trying to learn studio photography myself why such a small aperture?


----------



## OriginalPerspective (Nov 22, 2012)

I just clicked on your link and it came up with a 404 error.  You may want to check into it...


----------



## table1349 (Nov 22, 2012)

OriginalPerspective said:


> I just clicked on your link and it came up with a 404 error.  You may want to check into it...


The thread is from 2009 by a banned poster.  Next time you respond to a thread you may want to check into it.......first.   :lmao::lmao::mrgreen:


----------



## dbvirago (Nov 22, 2012)

Well......it's from 3 years ago, so.....


----------



## TCampbell (Nov 23, 2012)

That's because you revived a thread from 2009.  The article referenced is long gone by now.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 23, 2012)

I was unaware that benjikan had been banned...


----------



## table1349 (Nov 23, 2012)

Derrel said:


> I was unaware that benjikan had been banned...



Well now you know.  Your welcome.


----------



## Tuffythepug (Nov 23, 2012)

OriginalPerspective said:


> I just clicked on your link and it came up with a 404 error.  You may want to check into it...




Note that this thread is 3 years old.  No wonder it's gone


----------



## Tee (Nov 23, 2012)

Derrel said:
			
		

> I was unaware that benjikan had been banned...



Apparently TPF doesn't like when working professional fashion photographers post on websites. Puppies and out of focus children with cupcake crumbs on their faces are much more appealing.

1 guess who dropped the ban hammer?


----------



## ghache (Nov 23, 2012)

why the **** this guy was banned? this guy is probably one of the best photographer who ever posted on this forum...i am following his work for a long time and i was not even aware he was here.. lol


----------



## ghache (Nov 23, 2012)

Tee said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




main reason why i follow fredmiranda alot more.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 23, 2012)

ghache said:


> why the **** this guy was banned? this guy is probably one of the best photographer who ever posted on this forum...i am following his work for a long time and i was not even aware he was here...the admin who banned him should be fired lol



he was probably being rude and arrogant.

the real question should be, why am I not banned?


----------



## Tee (Nov 23, 2012)

unpopular said:
			
		

> he was probably being rude and arrogant.



Nah. I follow him on other forums.  I've seen him keep pretty cool under fire.

I'd wager the public reason is he pushed his website too much. The irony is this isn't some newb looking for an SEO bump.  He shoots for every major publication like on a monthly basis. He wasn't a 1 post and run, either. 

 I'm beginning to think the admin loves keeping this place as a beginners site as it keeps the site at the top of Le Google. Let the frosting covered faces and flower shots rain from the sky!

Meanwhile, we have cutters and blatant spammers running amok in this place. Lol.


----------



## KmH (Nov 23, 2012)

Yes. He pushed his web site to much.

7 months ago, after a senior moderator reported a renewal of complaints from members that the OP's posts were SPAM, Admin/Staff discussed the OP's status over a 7 week period.
According to other senior moderators, questions regarding the OP's status had been raised by members/mods/staff previously.
The length of the discussion (7 weeks) was in large part due to the infrequent posting habits of the OP.

During that 7 week period TPF administration (not mods) removed a couple of the OP's threads, and attempted to open a dialog by PM with the OP regarding the issue. The OP never responded to the administrations actions or queries, though the OP was active on the forums during that period and had the opportunity to respond.


----------



## Overread (Nov 24, 2012)

Tee said:


> Meanwhile, we have cutters and blatant spammers running amok in this place. Lol.



I was unaware that this was the case. In fact spam generally spends a very short time on the site when it gets past the filters. The combination of the moderation team and the input of users reporting spam means that its normally removed very quickly. We also take steps to reduce certain kinds of spam including locking of threads which often attract extra spam attention (a specific example being threads talking about data recovery). 


As for the other comments, KmH has already answered that the reason for this members removal was an inability to come to an arrangement with the site administration with regard to the actions of the member being primarily to promote his own website on the forums.


The comments on the "skill level" of the site and on some random statment that we try to remove members of a certain skill level are, honestly, insulting. The forums have always been geared toward education and helping of new photographers right from the early days of its creation. This is why the site ranks so well on Google and also why we take action to try and promote and encourage the education and advance of fellow photographers (be they hobbyists, aspiring pros or anything else). It's also why we have multiple skilled and experienced photographers (again some are hobbyists and some are current or ex-professionals) who are willing to take hours of their day to reply to the queries and questions of fellow members. 

We are also always willing to try and accommodate photographers of all skill levels through the site and the Feedback section is always there for users to suggest their own ideas as to how we can better serve the community.


----------

