Intensity

I know very little about electronic cameras, but I do know when I see something that is extremely well done; this is extremely well done. I have been looking at this portrait every time I log into Photrio since it has been posted.

If this was done on a 135 film camera, I would think it was done using a focal length of either 85mm or 105mm, tending towards 85mm focal length is my actual guess.

Mick.

@Mick Fagan Thanks. The Canon EOS RP is a full frame camera, and Canon's new RF mount 70-200 f/2.8 lens is spectacular, and that's a total and complete under statement. I shot this portrait at 135mm and f/2.8. The EOS RP also has eye autofocus that never fails. Just push the focus button on the back of the camera and it detects and focuses on the closest eye in the frame. I've shot many thousands of images with that camera and it has never let me down in the AF department.

All that aside, what makes the photo (besides the subject) is the lighting. If you look at the subject's eyes, you can see some of the lights, but not all of them. Behind the camera, there is a 12x16 foot white wall with white that wraps around the sides of the room about 4 feet. The rest of the room is black. The subject is sitting about 7 feet from that wall. In short, a massive light source. I have two 5600K LED video lights mounted on the ceiling pointed at the white wall. Those lights serve as a base fill and are set so that they sit at f/1.0 at ISO 100 and 1/160 shutter. From there, I placed a strobe below the camera on camera axis with a 1x3 foot strip box. Its power was set so that it metered at f/1.4. Above the camera, on axis, is another strobe, my key light. It has an 18 inch deep octabox and its power is set so that it meters at f/2.8.

That alone would make for a pretty good portrait, but does not take color into account. The Canon EOS RP has a native white balance of 4300K (shooting a digital camera at it's native white balance gives the most dynamic range and color accuracy) and since all the other lights are 5500-5600K, I left the giant fill at 5600K, but gelled my Key light with a Rosco full CTO gel which turns 5500K into 3200K, or relative to 4300K, a nice golden tone. From there, to control magenta contamination in the shadow transition areas, I placed 15 units of cyan gel (from Rosco's cal color gel pack) in the secondary fill light under the camera. Had I not done that, you would see magenta contamination in the shadow transition areas because there's a very warm light and a very cool light at different power levels hitting the subject, so one of the shadow fills has just a kiss of cyan to it, which lets the transition to shadow just go from bright and warm to dark and cool.

It's the subtle stuff like that, that makes an image (besides having a really good subject).

Aha, interesting details. Originally I surmised that the cyan area on the neck area were mostly coming from the shirt, when it would seem that the majority of that is coming from your under the camera fill light; I get that now.

My guess at focal length appears to be out and I now understand that you have in fact used a longer focal length position but with a wider aperture, whereas I myself, if using a 135mm lens, would almost have certainly used f/4 or possibly f/4½. Please understand I work in half stops with my reasonably old Nikkor lenses.
I wondered how you got the ever so lightly mottled background effect, now I know. Great idea in using your back wall as a huge soft box, certainly worked well at around 3½ stops difference, at least that is what I think it is.

I certainly think the Octabox being 3200K is the icing on the cake, it has given a wonderful glow to the skin, in this instance. Similar to a warming filter if shooting chrome film 30 years ago, but in this instance targeted specifically to one aspect of the subject; you've been doing this for a while I surmise?

As for full frame, all cameras are full frame, your sensor size is 36mm x 24mm, which is what I needed to know.

That eye focus feature on the camera is something I could do with at times, but I'll probably never need it as portraiture is not one of my current passions.

The attention to detail is what has made this a superb portrait, as opposed to a pretty good portrait.

@Mick Fagan if you click on the Information tab, the camera meta data is there, at least it generally is for photos from me that I shot digitally.

for the cyan gel, I shot a few with 7.5 units, but it just wasn’t enough, so 15 units it was. I could have probably dialed that light power down by a couple tenths to tone down under the chin, but it’s not egregious, so I let it sit where it was.

>> you've been doing this for a while I surmise?

lol, yes. I’m a lifer. I’m very much a student/studier of light. I used to shoot 110 film as a kid, then left film and went digital in 1999 with a Kodak digital camera that had a whopping 1 megapixel. I never quit digital, but did circle back around to film a number of years ago. Nowadays, I don’t really shoot film for paid work as it’s just not a good fit unless the client demands it, but do shoot quite a bit for personal stuff.

I wouldn’t call myself awesome, but I’m not a slouch when it comes to taking pictures.