How can I take a photo with this exact same kind of lighting

>>3118418
Don't, that looks shitty

i can't believe vanity fair even bothered putting a mark on that

>>3118418
shoot 2 stops underexposed surrounded by white marble so that the little light you have is bouncing everywhere. spritz down your model for the extra glow

>>3118418

a. Walk-in shower w/skylight providing backlight

b. Dude with a reflector/box on camera-right, 3' high, shootin' photons @ her sinful fleshy bits

>>3118418
Find a place with that exact same lighting and coloring. Or just try to fake it in post

miss focus

File: ss05-demi-lovato-patrick-ecclesine-vf.jpg (124KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1200x800px

You bunch of fuckytards don't even get the theme of the shoot. She said in an interview she wanted the shoot to look natural, no Photoshop, no makeup, and no flattering lighting that will make her look better that what she does.

>>3118900
Flattering light isn't the same thing as shitty light. And the most idiotic part is that the shitty light used is flattering light because soft light is the flattering light. The least flattering light is hard as fuck light orthogonal to the camera which can maximize imperfections in the skin. The shots are also dark which helps mask discoloration.

These are just shitty pictures. You can easily do the whole "realistic me" photo thing and take good pictures.

>>3118900
that's cool my man, having a 'concept' doesn't make the pictures any more pleasing or aesthetically pleasant

>>3118913
wow, this is a retarded thread but you nailed that reply.

I was about to say I liked this shot >>3118900 until I realized I was just thinking with my dick

>>3118900
Lol, they're still bad pictures

>>3118900
yeah, pretty cool she wants to do a "real shoot", but that photog is lousy as fuck, he doesnt know what to do with available light, that untalented shitter.

>>3118900
>look natural
>no flattering lighting
These do not go together. Natural lighting can be flattering as fuck, especially in these pics where everything's just under-exposed as fuck.
I hate how women do this artsy "lol no filter" shit and still manipulate the shots to make themselves look pretty

>>3118913
Upvote to this fucking leg end, OP you fucking moron, what you've demonstrated is your utter lack of knowledge in photography. the two examples you've shown are actually revolting to my eyes. Before you start bashing people for helping you, stop and listen because you're clearly a clueless pleb that got a camera last christmas.

>>3119029
Exactly. Also, how is being in bed with sweat all over your body natural? Or having blue lights shining on you lol.

>>3118418
F/8 and be there

>>3118900
pretending it's easy to get this style

>>3119935
Another good point right here. It probably took more time setting up this "natural" shoot.

>>3118900

sounuds like he just wanted to be alone in a hotel room with demi :)

>>3118418

shoot without IS and make sure you jerk the camera a bit when you squeeze the trigger.

OH! and ratchet that ISO right up. Bitches love noise.

>>3118418
I like natural look as I shoot pretty raw pictures of ladies myself, but these are just dogshit.

File: hes right.gif (284KB, 245x182px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 245x182px

>>3118913
Nailed it.

>>3118418
shit composition
leading lines are crooked
shit lighting on subject
background lighter than subject
missed focus

it's fucking trash

>>3118900
both photos look amateurish, you can't talk your way out of this shit. laypeople cannot tell the difference between natural light and a huge softbox for example under the right conditions, especially if there's only a single light source

>>3118917
I used to like this shoot and then your comment made me realize why. I don't even have a dick but the statement still reigns true. Thanks for that

>>3119937
>>3119935
the results are shit. that's the only thing that matters

>>3120080

>I don't even have a dick

You should see about getting one, they are pretty cool.