1
\$\begingroup\$

Picture of moonlit figures at beach.

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/540352_10152366764920176_412187176_n.jpg

Improve this question
\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ Linked photo is gone. Do you have an updated link? \$\endgroup\$
    – mattdm
    Commented Apr 17, 2015 at 14:49

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
4
\$\begingroup\$

Shoot it in the studio, add a composite background and do a LOT of post processing.

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
3
  • \$\begingroup\$ Thanks I agree but how much do you think was done in camera? Was it an underexposed shot lit with a specular light source? The shadows are fairly hard. \$\endgroup\$
    – Luke Blair
    Commented Mar 28, 2013 at 2:18
  • \$\begingroup\$ The hard light was to the left above camera. I think it was overexposed enough to blow out the specular highlights. Look at the female model's cheek and forehead, or the knee of the reclining male model on the right. Even the reflection of the knee in the water is blown out. The entire water reflection appears to have been manipulated in from a different shot, the reflection of the male model seated on the left doesn't match the pose in this shot, especially his right boot and the shadows cast by his hands. I think the in-camera shot would be barely recognizable compared to the result. \$\endgroup\$
    – Michael C
    Commented Mar 28, 2013 at 13:47
  • \$\begingroup\$ Back in the film days you could shoot in daylight with a blue filter and underexpose a couple of stops to make it look like a night scene. The term was nuit américaine ("American night"), but you wouldn't normally get blown specular highlights doing it that way. \$\endgroup\$
    – Michael C
    Commented Mar 28, 2013 at 14:06

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