For one thing, this is a composite, The image of him is an isolated layer.
the lighting confused me bc its impossible
I just assumed, because it would be a lot easier and cheaper to produce an identical effect in post. It actually looks like an HDR shot to me, which if done the way you are saying, would be a very complex flash timing rig indeed, requiring cascading calibrated flashes chain firing at high speed. You can do it though, if you've got 20 grand in setup to pay for a still.No, not impossible in/for a static image. A careful use of longer-than-average focal lengths would allow Mr. C to be positioned sufficiently far forward of the background to allow for two different planes of lighting, with snoots and barn doors to keep spill between the two to a minimum.
And, without wishing to pick a fight with @Nate North I am inclined to believe that this not a composite, but a "live" photo taken by Dan Winters in a purpose-built set.
Complex, yes, but not (necessarily) expensive. Reliable optical slaves are about 10$ a piece, reliable calibratable flashes 50$ a piece. After that, you can multiply the bangs for your bucks using mirrors and other reflective surfaces and a few dozen C-stands and other simple supports. I've done something similar myself and it quite literally needs only one single flash (e.g. the pathetic on-camera flash) to fire all the serious lumens at the same time.if done the way you are saying, would be a very complex flash timing rig indeed, requiring cascading calibrated flashes chain firing at high speed. You can do it though, if you've got 20 grand in setup to pay for a still.
I presume you're referring to the ring-flash, mounted on/around the lens? It's primary purpose will have been to create that harsh light on the centre of BC's face, without excessively lighting the background. Can't say from what's shown in the video, but the ring flash may also be triggering other flashes (e.g. whatever lights are responsible for the reflected highlights on the lightbulbs and shiny knobs on the set).
Although it's common to think of flashes creating the kind of harsh shadows you see in family snapshots, that's really only an effect of using a single flash in a lighting arrangement - mainly because none of your family want to waste party time while you spend six hours setting up the additional lighting! But whereas a movie crew fires up a collection of megawatts and floods the set for as long as it takes to shoot the scene, a portrait photographer only needs that kind of light for a fraction of a second.
You can rig up a whole set of auxillary lights, each with their own adjustable output, and fit each one with an optical slave that fires when the main flash fires. That gives you the intensity of light needed for a high shutter speed and fast film, but only for that fraction of a second - much more comfortable for the subject to work with. In this case, it's probably more important than for an average photoshoot, as the photographer would have wanted a good depth of field to keep all that foreground and background detail in focus as well as the subject.
You can, but you'd need to keep the lights on for ages, burning through the bulbs, your retinas and your local fossil fuel supply!why can't you do this same effect with steady light instead of flash
And at @celtic, did you hear that, I guess real photographers are using more than one light.