# Lighting in the new MAXIM



## FourAcesPhotography (Oct 22, 2009)

Have you guys seen the new Maxim issue?

http://www.caprica-city.de/bilder/aktuelles/maxim_cylons.jpghttp://s11.bdbphotos.com/images/orig/y/l/yl9jaohasn1c1nh.jpg

How do they acheive that type of lighting for the background. Obvs. the the girls are lit with multiple strobes. I'm interested in the background.

Is that photoshopped? If you have the issue and look closely you notice that the background has texture too, so it doesn't look like a color filtered strobe shot through a white muslin.


----------



## Buckster (Oct 22, 2009)

Looks like a snooted strobe coming in from top right against an orange/peach seamless to me.

Of course, it could easily have been shopped.

Either way, it's not all that amazing to me, tbh.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Oct 22, 2009)

more than anything, it looks like direct flash.

_Maybe_ a ringlight above the camera, but it doesn't really look like it. 

If we could see it bigger, we could easily tell just from the catchlights. 

one thing is for certain though, no snoots were used for the key light, it would be stark obvious.


----------



## Garbz (Oct 22, 2009)

Judging by the shadow from the arm top left through the letter M, and the shadows on the chin and other body parts I'd say Direct flash with a liberal touch of photoshop.


----------



## newrmdmike (Oct 22, 2009)

ringlight off cam maybe?


----------



## newrmdmike (Oct 22, 2009)

and dang it i need to learn more about lighting techniques, i can only recognize what i've used for the most part. . . and with catchlights i can only give a rough guesstimate.


----------



## UUilliam (Oct 22, 2009)

I would have thought direct flash then a bad photoshop job using the burn tool (shaddows are far too dark)


----------



## DennyCrane (Oct 22, 2009)

What are you talking about? I don't see a background. I just see 2 girls. Is this a trick?


----------



## Buckster (Oct 22, 2009)

Sw1tchFX said:


> more than anything, it looks like direct flash.
> 
> _Maybe_ a ringlight above the camera, but it doesn't really look like it.
> 
> ...


Not talking about the light on the models, only how the background it lit.  Note the soft-edged hot spot, centered with a tail leading upper right.


----------



## inTempus (Oct 22, 2009)

I'm going with Photoshop.  Probably shot on a blue/green screen and then the background was done in post.


----------



## newrmdmike (Oct 22, 2009)

a painted wall would reflect ringlight in a similar way wouldn't it?  my ringlight does at least.


----------



## Buckster (Oct 22, 2009)

newrmdmike said:


> a painted wall would reflect ringlight in a similar way wouldn't it?  my ringlight does at least.


Well, we're all just speculating here, but wouldn't a ring light affect it more evenly?  Why would the top right be much brighter than the other three corners from a ring light use?  Isn't the whole point of a ring light to have even lighting?


----------



## FourAcesPhotography (Oct 22, 2009)

UPDATED OP with larger picture



Buckster said:


> Looks like a snooted strobe coming in from top right against an orange/peach seamless to me.
> 
> Of course, it could easily have been shopped.
> 
> Either way, it's not all that amazing to me, tbh.


 
Agreed, looks like the snooted strobe positioned directly above the subject on camera right, pointed down (like a streetlamp) aimed right behind the subjects head.

That and a combination of direct flash.





inTempus said:


> I'm going with Photoshop. Probably shot on a blue/green screen and then the background was done in post.


 
Almost wanted to agree, but I opened the cover and noticed that alot of the shots inside the cover (using the same background) are lit differently.



Buckster said:


> newrmdmike said:
> 
> 
> > a painted wall would reflect ringlight in a similar way wouldn't it? my ringlight does at least.
> ...


 
Agreed. And create a soft halo around the subject..  The shadows don't indicate ring light.. i could be wrong though.  Esp. how ring light is very popular in this industry.


----------



## GeneralBenson (Oct 22, 2009)

My vote is most certainly going for ring light and a fairly reflective wall, or a beauty dish that is slightly above and slightly left of the camera.  The girl on the left is 'hotter' in both ways, than the girl on the right, and granted the girl on the left is asian, so the darker skin tone could just be reflecting less.  Plus the shadows seem to have a slight downward cast to them, like the light is slightly above the camera.  But hte way that all of their body parts fade to shadow right at the edges is very charateristic of ring light.    The light source seems pretty soft if you look at their eatures, but the harsh shadows on the wall are just cause by how close to the wall they are.  Interesting peicture, hard to disect.  I'dlove to see a lighting diagram of how it was done.


----------



## AyyyDubsss (Oct 23, 2009)

it takes some dedicated photographers to look past these ladies and wonder how they did the lighting.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 23, 2009)

Looking at the hard-edged shadow and the large area on the wall where there's a specular highlight the size of a basketball is a clue that it's not a snooted strobe, but a much larger light source. otherwise, the specular highlight, the bright,shiny area where the orange paint goes to a burned-out white color--that alone tells me the light source is big.

My guess? A 20 to 22 inch beauty dish is almost certainly the main light. That's why the shadows are so crisp and black...the dish has been pulled back far enough to make it a hard light source,and the 20 to 22 inch diameter of the dish makes a large, white,bright source,and the light coming from the large-ish,white, bright beauty dish hit the wall between them and bounced straight back to the camera, causing the specular highlight on the wall.

As with all Maxim covers, there's plenty of post work done too; both those gals weigh another 40-50 pounds IRL!


----------



## Buckster (Oct 23, 2009)

Derrel said:


> Looking at the hard-edged shadow and the large area on the wall where there's a specular highlight the size of a basketball is a clue that it's not a snooted strobe, but a much larger light source. otherwise, the specular highlight, the bright,shiny area where the orange paint goes to a burned-out white color--that alone tells me the light source is big.
> 
> My guess? A 20 to 22 inch beauty dish is almost certainly the main light. That's why the shadows are so crisp and black...the dish has been pulled back far enough to make it a hard light source,and the 20 to 22 inch diameter of the dish makes a large, white,bright source,and the light coming from the large-ish,white, bright beauty dish hit the wall between them and bounced straight back to the camera, causing the specular highlight on the wall.
> 
> As with all Maxim covers, there's plenty of post work done too; both those gals weigh another 40-50 pounds IRL!


Now that the large one is posted so we can see the detail in it, and having some idea of your level of skill and knowledge from your postings, I'd have to agree.

I find myself reverse engineering the light on just about every shot I look at (not that I always get it right - but it's good mental exercise nonetheless, I think).  I suppose that's a common thing with folks that are into this sort of thing, eh?

Do most of you folks find yourself doing that a lot?


----------



## GeneralBenson (Oct 24, 2009)

AyyyDubsss said:


> it takes some dedicated photographers to look past these ladies and wonder how they did the lighting.


  There were laies in that picture?  All I saw was sexy, sexy photons...


----------



## GeneralBenson (Oct 24, 2009)

Buckster said:


> Do most of you folks find yourself doing that a lot?



Yes, all the time!  Everywhere I go.  I'll be in target, then realize that I'm staring at the poster of some 13 yr old girl for 2 minutes, and no one but me know that I'm deconstructing the light in my head.  Hahaha.  I can't walk by an ad shot without working out the light in my head, or at least trying.


----------



## epp_b (Oct 24, 2009)

Do you realize that you just admitted to reading Maxim?


----------



## GeneralBenson (Oct 24, 2009)

epp_b said:


> Do you realize that you just admitted to reading Maxim?



Who did?


----------



## epp_b (Oct 24, 2009)

OP


----------



## GeneralBenson (Oct 24, 2009)

Oh, hahaha.  Yeah, you loser, I can't believe you read Maxim!  To be truthful, does anyone actually read Maxim?  I mean, I've been known to "read" it from time to time, but that's it.


----------



## DennyCrane (Oct 24, 2009)

Maxim is the best magazine in the entire history of mankind.


----------



## GeneralBenson (Oct 24, 2009)

DennyCrane said:


> Maxim is the best magazine in the entire history of mankind.



Sounds like something Denny Crane would say!  ;-)


----------

