Single light portraits?

Hello all I've been trying to figure out how these portraits are lit:

Dead Link Removed
Dead Link Removed
Dead Link Removed
Dead Link Removed

I'm guessing single light? Also does anyone know what this type of lighting is called? Is it 'Chiaroscuro'? It's as if the faces are floating in space. How is this done? I'd really like to learn more. Please, If anyone can point me in the right direction regarding this lighting "technique". Thanks in advance.
By the way, the above pictures are all taken by the Great portraitist Steve Pyke.

If there are reflections of the light source(s) in the eyes of the subjects, you can tell a lot what the lighting was. Otherwise just look at how the shadows fall across the face to extrapolate where the light(s) is placed.

I took a quick look at the philosopher series and found a variety of lighting types rather than a single type. Probably these are made using available light rather than artificial light. As Frank says in some shots the light source is visible reflected in the eye of the sitter as a bright rectangle, probably a window. Possible set-ups might be in a room having a window open to daylight and all other light sources obscured. The choices then are how close to the window and what angle the face makes with the direction of the window light, there are wide differences in what is possible with this simple set-up.

PS the "floating in space" quality may arise from two things, choice of background (featureless) and suppression of the visibility of the sitter's neck and shoulders by careful framing, possibly augmented by deliberate manipulation of the image to darken unwanted areas so they "disappear".

The one thing I see in common (lighting-wise) in those examples is a semi-soft and small-ish light source in a dark setting. Look at the "Astronauts" pic - specifically the shadow his nose casts. There's one light that's really very high up and not a standard portrait choice. The catch-light in the eyes looks rectangular (hard to tell in the small pic). If I were imitating that look, I'd probably use an extra-small softbox, like a 12"x16", and I'd try it without the diffusion, too. I did a lot of fashion and beauty work where my main light was an 11" Speedotron reflector, with a circle of mylar diffusion behind a grid insert - gave a similar look with a touch of softness yet still very directional. Fresnel lights are also good at that "hard but not too hard" look.

Stylistically, most of those seem motion-blurred and perhaps something a little alt-process-ish. There's somethibg very "early days of photography" in the contrast, softness, and what seems to be motion blur.

WOW alot of informative and thoughtful answers. Thanks guys for your feedback and taking the time out to look at the links. I'm also leaning more towards "natural lighting" in the above examples. Looks like I've got experimenting to do... Again, thanks all for the suggestions.

Hi, I pretty much agree with the other posters, especially tedr1. I have a feeling that the photographer seeks out an interesting ambient light and works largely with this. When you see, reflected in the subject's eyes, a horizontal row of lights, I'd guess that these are are a row of windows behind the photographer. Sometimes the light seems pretty harsh, perhaps there is a lamp in the room and he is using this. It's curious that the background is so dark in many of the photos, which doesn't generally happen in real places, at least without a couple of light-colored or shiny things showing up, so I'd guess he is "burning in" the background when printing. It's possible that he sets up a black background, but I'm doubtful - if I were going to that much trouble I'd probably also light it myself (with flash); clearly when he has motion blur a flash was not used.

A couple of things that stand out to me - the tight head shots are taken from a fairly close distance giving the sort of odd perspective, and many of the b&w images seem printed with a higher than normal contrast. Im judging contrast by the darkness of shadows on the face; in typical available light they won't go so dark (although this would be easy to do if you supply your own lighting). Higher contrast would help get the floating head look, as a black shirt would drop out to a much darker shade.

Mr Bill said:

Hi, I pretty much agree with the other posters, especially tedr1. I have a feeling that the photographer seeks out an interesting ambient light and works largely with this...

Click to expand...

I can't think of many places I've seen that have one nice ambient light in a big empty room with no other light sources. Those BG's don't appear burned in to me, they appear black.

Of course nobody can be sure but the shooter - my path would be use lights in a dark studio, but I might not have thought of, say, that high-angle light on the astronaut image unless he happened to walk under some fixture.

M Carter said:

Those BG's don't appear burned in to me, they appear black.

Click to expand...

Hi, I meant "burning in" in the sense of perhaps masking out the subject and then possibly using another light to obliterate any shiny/light-colored objects in the background.

Since I posted I came across a couple of video clips from "Moonbug" showing Pyke at work with some astronauts. They show him shooting under what looks like "normal" (whatever that means) ambient lighting, as well as a handheld black background. Clearly the b&w photos linked show much harsher shadows than the video, so one might presume (I do) that the b&w images are printed with much higher contrast than would be considered "normal."

This one shows Steve Pyke photographing astronaut Buzz Aldrin, using a tripod-mounted Rolleiflex. Rollei users will immediately see that he is closer than the normal minimum-focus distance, so he is presumably using the closeup attachments. See
A second video with another astronaut shows an assistant holding a black fabric, similar to a focussing cloth (for view camera), immediately behind the subject while Pyke photographs from a tripod-mounted Rolleiflex. See.