Spring 2012

Spring 2012
by ani

Submit your Photo
Hall of Fame

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Photography Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional, enthusiast and amateur photographers. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Today, I ended up in a site showing famous people faces in a very first plane. I just got impressed by the quality those photos had.

What do you think are the factors you have to tweak to reach that quality?

In this case, I think they've used a high quality prime lens with a very big aperture. The camera body must be also a important factor. But is there anything else?

What about the lighting in those photos?

This is the link: http://community.livejournal.com/everyday_i_show/106914.html


share|improve this question
Look closely at the eyes: you can see the light box. – whuber Mar 4 '11 at 4:56
Thank you for the link. What amazing images! They make me want to rush out and buy a large-format camera! (must sell house first). – AJ Finch Mar 4 '11 at 10:19
Hmmm...I'm left wondering whether I'm the only one who found these pictures exceptionally ugly and unimaginative. When you get down to it, "pictures" is almost a falsehood though -- we don't really have multiple pictures -- we just have one picture repeated dozens of times, with different people parked in front of the camera. It's one thing to show a distinctive style -- quite another to show a total lack of imagination, with no style at all. – Jerry Coffin Mar 4 '11 at 15:41
@Jerry: No, you're not the only one. They feel intrusively close to the subjects and because of that it makes me uncomfortable to look at them. There's far more detail than I want to see, and the subjects flaws are almost emphasized, rather than diminished as we usually see in photos... Which, I suspect, is part of Martin Schoeller's point (though I don't know for sure). They remind me of the stark uncomfortably close tabloid photography from the early-to-mid 20th century by photographers like Weegee... – Jay Lance Photography Mar 4 '11 at 17:31
It actually reminds me of Chuck Close's superrealist painting style. The stark, hyperdetailed "warts and all" intrusiveness is part of the effect -- I don't think you can get the full effect until you see the pictures up close, in person and ten feet tall. I'm not saying I like the effect (and yes, there is but a single note playing in that song), but when you have a perspective that makes you feel you could crawl into those pores, it does kind of grab your insides a bit. – user2719 Mar 4 '11 at 17:53
up vote 22 down vote accepted

The lighting appears to be a single large roundish softbox (like the Elinchrom Octa) immediately behind the photographer/camera in most of the images. The shadow pattern is very similar to what you'd get with a ring light -- the outlines are darker than the center and there are no obvious shadows under the eyes or nose, etc. -- but softer. There is a vertical stripe "missing" from the lighting pattern, though -- and that'd be the photographer's position. The stripe is rather rectangular, though, which leads me to believe that the photographer has placed a gobo either behind -- or perhaps in front of -- the camera in order to keep the reflection out of the subjects's eyes. At least one picture, though (Paris Hilton) seems to have used a similar setup with either a large square softbox (Quadra, if we're actually in Elinchrom country) or two vertically-oriented rectangular softboxes (still huge) placed either side of the camera.

The camera is definitely a view camera, very likely an 8x10 with a 210mm lens going by the perspective -- which makes these photographs essentially macro photos. The aperture setting could actually be quite small by 35m-format standards -- f/22 or smaller wouldn't be out of the question for the depth of field we're seeing.

share|improve this answer
The photographer, Martin Schoeller, is featured in a video on YouTube, where you can see him shooting with an 8x10. – Greg Mar 4 '11 at 6:29
The 8x10 was a certainty just from looking at the images; the 210mm lens is a guess based on my own 8x10 shooting. Obama's image had me wondering about a 150, but the rest look very 210-ish. – user2719 Mar 4 '11 at 6:50
And note that there is no light from above in the vast majority of these images -- one can never extrapolate a single shoot to an artist's entire portfolio. – user2719 Mar 4 '11 at 8:04
I am impressed of all the technical details you are able to pick from just looking at the photos ! – Guillaume Mar 4 '11 at 12:35

Well, the lighting in the photos look like lights on the background, and two relatively large lights illuminating their face (you can see the catchlight in the eyes), very possibly some rim light too.

You're spot on about the large aperture, even the ears are out of focus. However, considering how sharp the photos are, its possibly stopped down a bit (but not much at all) and the lens is close to the subject to decrease depth of field. Since he's shooting 8x10 view camera, I imagine the depth of field can be pretty shallow when needed.

As far as camera goes, who knows. But you can get amazing results in a portrait studio setting because of the lighting with many, many cameras these days. Given that he's shooting that many celebs though, I would imagine he could be using something like a medium format hasselblad - but frankly who knows.

Besides all that...check out this strobist post for a behind the scenes look at this photography.

EDIT: That specific video shows the two large boxes like I said, as well as a beauty dish center and up. It looks like he's shooting with a 8x10 view camera.

share|improve this answer
Very narrow DOF: not just the ears, but the tip of the nose in all most all of them. – mattdm Mar 4 '11 at 5:07

Also, do not forget post editing. Slight sharpening, careful highpass filtering, to highlight all skin details.

share|improve this answer
Not at all necessary -- 8x10 chromes will have this sharpness and resolution without any playing around in post (softening is part of the normal process, in fact). It's easy to think "sharpening" when you're used to digital, but there's no antialiasing filter to overcome with film and if you've never worked with large format and a reasonably modern lens, you really can't appreciate the amount of contrast and detail available. – user2719 Mar 4 '11 at 9:06
Not necessary, but you can get the same look (at least when downsized to web resolution) without an expensive large format view camera by careful post processing. – Matt Grum Mar 4 '11 at 11:49
@Stan Rogers - could you post some examples of this? most of my knowledge of medium/large format cameras comes from Ansel Adams' books, i'd love seeing what kind of pictures people can get with current technology :) – JoséNunoFerreira Jun 9 '11 at 16:36

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.