How can I take a picture like this

[David1961]

The OP took these with an iPhone, they've fooled us all.

That's possible. It's the setup and lighting that's critical, not the camera.

I totally agree. With good lighting many of the latest smartphone cameras can take a really nice photo.

But the flip side is, if I was paying a professional photographer to photograph/document a very important family event and he/she turned up with just a smartphone camera in hand I wouldn't be too happy ;-)

No one would.

Exactly the point I was trying to make subliminally

When people who have been overly excited by the high quality of their smartphone photos try to convince me that the days of the DSLR and the like are limited, if not over, apart from the usual arguments of much greater creative control with a DSLR etc, I ask them the hypothetical same question if they hired a professional photographer to photograph/document a very important family event and he/she turned up with just a smartphone camera would they be happy? Most of them pause for a couple of seconds before finally saying no.

I usually reply - I rest my case your honour

 

[Dougie7]

Thanks guys I will try When I go back to studio and see how it goes.

 

[Tony10]

Lighting wise I'd say the major light source was forward and to the models right and could have been a large Octa or strip light, (maybe even a parabolic but they tend to be to the front). You can see rim lighting on the models left side of the face which appears to be at the same output as the main light, this is probably from a gridded strip light, (this helps concentrate the light in a certain area).

As for the background this is evenly lit and there were probably two lights used here, also worth pointing out that the lighting in the background was probably a stop or two down from those lighting the model, it goes without saying setting this shoot up require the use of a flash meter.

Camera wise take your pick but what governs this is where the images are to be used.

 

[D Cox]

Your examples are much better than the ones shown by the OP. But the studio lighting is much the same.

The difference is the posing and the excellent model, I think.

 

[tbcass]

Unfortunately there is no strict rule for what constitutes Medium Frame.

Did I stutter? Larger than 35 and smaller than 4x5

I was replying to AOC, not you. Read his post above mine and you should understand what I meant.

"But let's not derail this thread with more posts on the decidedly pseudo MF GFX cameras. I encourage you to create a poll to evaluate whether the Fuji is deserving of the moniker "medium format." I am confident its results would have you reassessing your position in short order."

That said a range of sizes is a reflection of the fact that there is no "strict" rule but involves a range of sizes.

 

[The Davinator]

Unfortunately there is no strict rule for what constitutes Medium Frame.

Did I stutter? Larger than 35 and smaller than 4x5

I was replying to AOC, not you. Read his post above mine and you should understand what I meant.

"But let's not derail this thread with more posts on the decidedly pseudo MF GFX cameras. I encourage you to create a poll to evaluate whether the Fuji is deserving of the moniker "medium format." I am confident its results would have you reassessing your position in short order."

That said a range of sizes is a reflection of the fact that there is no "strict" rule but involves a range of sizes.

--
Closing in...no...more like closed in. Famous words indeed

 

[abiquiuense]

Notice how there is no shadow at all on the backdrop, and a perfectly plain background.

So you need a curved backdrop that covers the wall and the floor seamlessly, and a lot of lighting.

I'd guess you need a good deal of space too, to shoot a full-body portrait with no perspective distortion.

. . . a "PC-NIKKOR; 35mm, f3.5."

 

[Jeff]

These are not great shots, imo. They're underexposed, blah, and lack texture detail in the dark areas. I particularly dislike the second shot. Having said that, from looking at the GANNI web site, the style does appear to be a deliberate choice .... https://www.ganni.com/

As far as the seamless background goes, here is a decent 'how-to': https://savageuniversal.com/blog/how-to-hang-seamless-paper-backgrounds/

Here's a guy who shows how to shoot this type of image with just one light ...

As others have said, a couple of extra lights would help and give more control. The Strobist is an excellent web site with many tips on how to get started with studio lighting ... https://strobist.blogspot.com/

If you're serious about this, you'll need a space (it doesn't have to be huge), a couple of flashes (plus stands and either umbrellas or softboxes), and a seamless paper background would be enough to get going. Adorama sells some very nice kits under their 'flashpoint' brand. Here's a nice piece on how to set up a garage studio ... https://www.myclickmagazine.com/how-to-set-up-a-garage-photo-studio-in-7-easy-steps/

 

[techjedi]

Your examples are much better than the ones shown by the OP. But the studio lighting is much the same.

The difference is the posing and the excellent model, I think.

Thank you for saying. I think the models in the OP's post were probably instructed to pose that way. For some, it seems to be a creative goal for models to appear distant and cold.

 

[The Davinator]

Unfortunately there is no strict rule for what constitutes Medium Frame.

It's a real shame. The way things currently are, someone could create a 36.1x24.1mm sensor and call it medium format.

But they didn't...it's basically 1.7X the size of so called full frame.

When the very slow and sluggish GFX 50 first came out some years back, people immediately caught on to just how relatively small the sensor was. As one top-rated comment on Petapixel noted at the time:

My 50r isn't slow or sluggish. Top rated...LoL...like your fake polls.

To call the micro-MF/ pseudo-MF Fuji GFX cameras true medium format bodies is to put lipstick on a pig.

--
Closing in...no...more like closed in. Famous words indeed

 

[tbcass]

For some, it seems to be a creative goal for models to appear distant and cold.

Yes it does and I hate those impersonal cold and bored looking poses. What do they say to the model "try to look totally disinterested and you can't wait for the shoot to be over"? Nothing beats a smile IMO.

 

[tbcass]

Of the ones you posted this is the only one I like. Why? Because it looks natural and unposed.

--
Tom

 

[The Davinator]

For some, it seems to be a creative goal for models to appear distant and cold.

Yes it does and I hate those impersonal cold and bored looking poses. What do they say to the model "try to look totally disinterested and you can't wait for the shoot to be over"? Nothing beats a smile IMO.

Simple really....if you understand what photography is about.

The photos are of the clothes...not the model. By removing emotion, the focus moves away from a silly smile, to the actual subject matter...the clothes.

 

[tbcass]

For some, it seems to be a creative goal for models to appear distant and cold.

Yes it does and I hate those impersonal cold and bored looking poses. What do they say to the model "try to look totally disinterested and you can't wait for the shoot to be over"? Nothing beats a smile IMO.

Simple really....if you understand what photography is about.

The photos are of the clothes...not the model. By removing emotion, the focus moves away from a silly smile, to the actual subject matter...the clothes.

Well that's one way to look at it. They might just as well use mannequins.

--
Tom

 

[mamallama]

First, you get some stiff models and ….

 

[The Davinator]

For some, it seems to be a creative goal for models to appear distant and cold.

Yes it does and I hate those impersonal cold and bored looking poses. What do they say to the model "try to look totally disinterested and you can't wait for the shoot to be over"? Nothing beats a smile IMO.

Simple really....if you understand what photography is about.

The photos are of the clothes...not the model. By removing emotion, the focus moves away from a silly smile, to the actual subject matter...the clothes.

Well that's one way to look at it. They might just as well use mannequins.

Seems your lack of knowledge is rather pronounced.

 

[tbcass]

Well that's one way to look at it. They might just as well use mannequins.

Seems your lack of knowledge is rather pronounced.

Well I'm not a fashion photographer but I do have my own opinions developed over 50+ years on what makes a good photograph of a person and most commercial fashion photographs fall short in this regard. As a former wedding photographer you certainly wouldn't have asked the bride to pose this way. I also find your personal insult rude and uncalled for because I never claimed to be an expert. Please clue me in. What advantage does using a person posing like a mannequin have over a far less expensive mannequin.

--
Tom

 

[AOC]

Unfortunately there is no strict rule for what constitutes Medium Frame.

It's a real shame. The way things currently are, someone could create a 36.1x24.1mm sensor and call it medium format.

But they didn't...it's basically 1.7X the size of so called full frame.

When the very slow and sluggish GFX 50 first came out some years back, people immediately caught on to just how relatively small the sensor was. As one top-rated comment on Petapixel noted at the time:

My 50r

You own one--with 11 fewer MP and 7 fewer FPS than the Sony A7R IV?

My condolences.

isn't slow or sluggish.

Uh huh.

"My [child, pet, car] is the [bestest, fastest, smartest, prettiest]."

 

[techjedi]

For some, it seems to be a creative goal for models to appear distant and cold.

Yes it does and I hate those impersonal cold and bored looking poses. What do they say to the model "try to look totally disinterested and you can't wait for the shoot to be over"? Nothing beats a smile IMO.

Simple really....if you understand what photography is about.

Did you mean this to be really condescending? Because this issue has nothing to do with understanding photography, its a creative choice. I have done catalog work with a lot of models and I think I understand photography as well. This comment seems a little over the top, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you were being playful.

The photos are of the clothes...not the model. By removing emotion, the focus moves away from a silly smile, to the actual subject matter...the clothes.

This is a reasonable concept, but there is plenty of clothing photography where models have a pleasant facial expression that complements the clothing worn. Its perfectly reasonable to have an appreciation for one aesthetic over another and still understand photography quite well.

--
http://www.instagram.com/foundry412

 

[techjedi]

Of the ones you posted this is the only one I like. Why? Because it looks natural and unposed.

The ironic part is that she did all her own posing for almost all the shots as most models with experience do. This is the one shot sequence where I asked her to smile more.

--

http://www.instagram.com/foundry412