From examination the lighting source appears to be 2 fluorescent panels and a light ring. How many lux/lumens/watts is he using?

What's the focal length for the field of view is he using? (35mm equivalent)

How would I go about recreating that look and soft skin?

enter image description here

Edit** here's some more pictures of the panel in question Can anyone identify what these are?

enter image description here

enter image description here

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ There is no evidence of a light ring [sic] (ring-light) according to the appearance of the catchlights reflected in the subject's eyes. There is only evidence of two lights to either side of the subject. \$\endgroup\$
    – Stan
    Jun 1, 2019 at 1:30
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ This kind of question is great for the site, but the title isn't very descriptive — can you edit it to be more specific to this particular image? \$\endgroup\$
    – mattdm
    Jun 1, 2019 at 1:32
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ But what is this? Imagine how many completely different images could have this same title. \$\endgroup\$
    – mattdm
    Jun 1, 2019 at 2:26
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ If you have a high-res image, you might be able to see the camera reflected in her eyes. \$\endgroup\$
    – xiota
    Jun 1, 2019 at 6:14
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Is it me ( and it frequently is ) or is this photo just not good, ( badly focused. ) \$\endgroup\$
    – Alaska Man
    Jun 2, 2019 at 18:28

1 Answer 1


The lighting looks like a copy of the classic "Kino Flo 4' 4-bank" [except it's got 5 tubes].
Mainly used for video, as it is constant lighting, is it essentially a set of fluorescent tubes fixed to a board, wrapped in soft material [reflective or black] surrounded by a wire frame. This lets the operator open or close like barn doors to permit more or less light through. That particular version has a white interior, to further diffuse the light when opened.

Original Kino Flo...

Pic: Adorama

You don't see them on set so much these days as they've mainly been replaced by LED versions.

enter image description here

Pic: BHPhoto

The major downside of using these so close to your model is they're really bright & blinding. If they're adjustable, you can turn them down, but by the time you're reaching comfortable for the model, you're getting too dim for the photographer.
Better would be softboxes with speedlights [flash]

enter image description here

Pic & tutorial - ImprovePhototography

You can get these with modelling lights, bright enough that you can see your setup, dim enough to not blind the model.

Setting these lights close to the model & at approx 45° each side will flatten the light a lot - removing most facial shadows. I see no hint of a ring light in her eyes, just those two.

As to which lens - I'm not sure; something quite wide, maybe 18-24mm. Personally I think it's far too wide for 'fashion' photography, it looks very much like a selfie - big nose, little ears.
The depth of field is distracting, though it's not quite sharp even at the eyes, it doesn't get soft enough to the background. The lighting reflecting in the TV should have been spotted earlier & corrected.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was taken on a phone.

The white balance looks like it's been corrected afterwards, to emphasise pink/purple, compared to the setup shots.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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