Can I Recreate this Famous Portrait? (Michelle Pfeiffer by Terry O'Neill) 

Oh, Sean. You have no idea how much I appreciate your videos. I’ve been watching for years and learned so much. The last one from this series I was definitely there commenting on how much I appreciated it and wanted more. Thank you one more time for a second video on this series!

absolutely love these kind of videos. please do continue to post such tutorials.

Brilliant work, really interesting seeing how to replicate a lightning set-up 👍🏻 great work, thanks very much. Ryan.

It is really very instructive, and following you destructuring and analysing is a real pleasure. Please continue.

I think the background is lit by an umbrella positioned behind her so the light spread well but not flat as pointing a octabox like you did.

Wonderful work and demonstration!

Thank you Sean for this fantastic tutorial! Love your style of teaching and your creativity!

Fantastic tutorial, learned alot. Please keep doing these!

I think that O'Neill used 21/4" Hasselblad film camera hence the square format. He did use a lot of constant lighting which as you say gives the smaller pupils. A great photograph copy you have produced and from what I have seen in previous you tube the Godox flash are excellent.

I want to see more, I love the concept

Love these lighting videos! FYI: The blog, "Guess the Lighting," that Sean mentions can be found on the Internet Archive.

Thanks, Sean. I really like the way you explain the lighting.

I really loved this video. It makes me want to try more portraiture 👍

Great breakdown of the lighting. Love your straightforward explanation of your process for lighting and editing.

Great job! I learned a couple of things, thank you.

Really like how you explain things.

Great video, thank you

Great video btw, just wanted to add that using a strobe with a modeling lamp like the AD400pro could also help give the pupil constriction. and it also looks like the original image was taken with a telephoto lens with the compression on the face. Great shot, learned a lot.

Hi seanjust came across you Chanel a few weeks ago . Love your videos and how you give an honest opinion on things and the pace you do your videos, thanks

Fantastic.. I’d love to see more of these. 😊

Grate one! Looking foreword for the next one!

I absolutely loved it! I’m going to try and recreate it. Thank you so much for awesome video

Hi Sean perfect video.. I like the style of Yusuf Karsh. Your layout look like his work. Thanks.. Greets Herman from Holland

Amazing as always! We learn about posing, composing, lighting, and editing. It’s an outstanding series and you are a great teacher. Thanks!

Fantastic video, would love to see more

this is bloody great!

This video was fantastic! PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do this again! Doing Platon image next would be very interested!!!

Wonderful, good job, well explained.

thanks Sean

Excellent work! Thank you!

Thank you for this!

This is awesome. You nailed it. Please keep these coming!

Thanks Sean - I really value just seeing the task of thinking through an image like this. I'm not a portrait photographer by any means, but find myself learning from other lesser known to me spaces of photography.

That was great Sean, learned a lot from that. How about doing another based on the classic Queen II album cover.

I didn’t think I would be that interested but it was fascinating. I also learned some photoshop stuff I can use for work ☺️.

thank you very much! that was so helpful!

Very informative. I think you definitely accomplished what you set out to do. Well done.

Well done, and so informative - thanks, Sean!

I was pretty sure O'Neill would have used medium format rather than 35mm for that portrait, and was also fairly sure it would have been a Hasselblad. Did a quick search and it turns out that he only owned two cameras, a Hasselblad and a Leica CL, and rented the rest. The square aspect ratio also points to a 6x6. If it were the 80mm Planar lens on a Hasselblad, it would have been the equivalent of a 35mm lens on full frame.

This is very instructive. Thanks lot. I will try this with my next model. Why didn’t you go with two stripe lights on the background with two flags covering the bouncing light? Maybe I will find out next Thursday.

Close! But I think his is more specular. I’d use a para by broncolor.

How about the portrait of Robert Mapplethorpe from Isabella Rosselini? Maybe a vertical clamshell with a accent on the top hair. But how did he managed to keep background and dress so black and even?

This is fantastic. Would love to see more. Maybe a Platon recreation of his Bill Clinton shot where you see the distortion in the hands and knees compared to face.

Wow loving this series. Reverse engineering can really help you learn. Would you checkout Joey L's portrait of Jennifer Lawrence. I think that would be a very interesting one to take on. Keep creating Sean and like always thanks for teaching us.

Hi Sean, This is an amazing video to get us novice portrait photographers thinking. I like the idea of practising on a mannequin! One question: how do you get the mannequin head to fix onto your light stand? Many thanks

Great video as usual Sean! On closer inspection of the two photos (14:47) it looks like the O'Neill photo has Michelle posing her torso off to a slight diagonal with her head & neck facing straight on - which seems to make the head look a bit bigger than the torso. Because of the head/body size difference you opted for a 35mm but shot your model straight on (both head/torso). If O'Neill did in fact pose Michelle in this way - do you think it would have made much difference and could you have used a 50mm? I'm not trying to split hairs here just for the sake of it but for the purposes of reverse engineering such a classic shot!

Feeling inspired. Great work, Sean! I love clamshell lighting, but have yet to use a beauty dish or something a bit more powerful than the Godox Vii. Hoping to give this a try for future profile work :)

Fantastic video! I think with this reference it might have been interesting to mention hair and makeup - imo some of the choices made in those areas really make O'Neill's photo stand out

Great video. Very insightful. If I may add my .02, I’m thinking more of a focal length around 50mm, if not longer. The reasoning - at a 1x1 crop, at 35mm, you’d really only see the distortion 3/4 to the outer rim of the 35mm 2x3 ratio, not really in the center. Maybe shooting at 21/24 mm would you see noticeable barrel. When comparing the two images, the original has a more flattened appearance where your final image has a more roundish look. I do lots of wide-angle portraiture work and am used to having to setup keystones in order to artificially flatten and straighten images, so…it’s easy to spot wide angle lenses used in other images. And I agree with the silver vs. white beauty dish. The original appears to have a very strong and crisp look to it, where your image shows a flatter look across the face. I feel like the beauty dish could be lowered ever so slightly. Also the black flags need to come in closer to her face. And if this was done commercially, instead of in some studio, chances are she’s have a white sweep, which would would need to be evenly lit from both sides or a single light behind her. But either way, she’s most likely pulled out further away the background as the background is not stark white, but more of a cream look, which you’d may not get from a scrim. The bottom reflector from the clam shell appears to have a more roundish look in the original instead of your teardrop…plus it has a soft reflect, which indicates a white reflector instead of silver. Not sure about the 2.8 aperture…I’m thinking f4/F5.6. 5.6 is a common studio setting. It would be easier to create the softening effect from the eyes to the hair using a longer focal length then using a 35mm up close. For anyone reading this, this is not a dig at the photographer. This was an excellent tutorial and I wish more photographers tried recreate images as it’s a masterclass in learning how to recreate images everytime. One last thing…your white balance is off. It’s too warm. I’m thinking the original is around 5400-5600k where yours looks like 5800-6000k. I too shoot with godox ad200’s for on the go shoots and find they shoot a bit warmer then I like.

I'm confused about why you used the 35mm and cropped. Why not use a 50mm or even a 70mm? You could use the same shooting spot, avoid cropping and yet achieve the same depth of field and a better pixel density. So why not use the longer lens options?

Michelle Pfeiffer's pupils are smaller than your model's because a studio strobe that has a 250 watt modeling light was used.

Beautifully done, Sean. A quick note on Michelle’s pupils/iris size; the lighting may have been strobes too, I’m able to achieve her look with the modeling lamps constricting pupils too

In the nineties…hardly anyone would shoot into a softbox as a white background. SOP was white seamless tech white one stop down from Combined front light exposure. Black foamcore Vflats on the sides . The camera was probably a hasselblad with 150mm lens the light was probably a profoto beauty dish ..3 ft away from the subjects face above the lens. Fill was probably a flex fill soft silver or white. Don’t kid yourself color was intentional. Tons of photographers used wratten filters and color meters to tune film color to their liking. Heh..I actually worked with terry O’Neil as an assistant on a few jobs back in the nineties. You would have a hard time doing this with hot lights or LED , the working apertures for film were typically 16-22.5 to ensure enough DOF so the whole head was sharp.

PLEASE DO MORE VIDEOS LIKE THIS ONE. IF POSSIBLE TRY TO DO A MARCO GROB /LEO DICAPRIO RECREATION.

Beautiful portraits, both. And great tutorial! Thank you!

Wonderful portrait! The break down from light setups to editing is excellent. Thank you!

I don’t do any portraiture ….but I found this video absolutely fascinating to experience…with a truly stunning result ! It was almost like watching a meticulous forensic scientist examining a scene for clues. It really made me appreciate how much can go into great photographic art. ( for what its worth Sean, I preferred your result!) couple of ideas..Che Guevara by Rene Burri (1963) , Thomas Hoepker Muhammad Ali ‘s fist (1966) both seen in “Magnum contact sheets”..

Thank you for a very educative video! Would be cool to see your approach on Plato style.

Thanks for the great video! My gut feeling is that the Michelle Pfeiffer picture was done with an even wider lens, something in the 24mm to 28 mm range. Michelle doesn´t have an unusually narrow face, if you look at other pictures of her. Everything else you did was magic! You got everything right! Well done. Additional information: Terry O´Neill states that his favorite lens was a 50 mm distagon lens on his Hasselblad camera. That would be 28mm in full frame.

The square format tells me it's probably a Hasselblad image. I think the 80mm lens was the standard normal lens back in the day. I know that wide-angle lens for portraits is a relatively modern approach but, my impression is, that in the 90s they all wanted longer lenses to make the face more flattering. I bet this is shot on an 80mm or 120mm prime mounted on a 6x6 Hassi and the fact that you needed to crop that much to match the framing I think supports that assumption. Other than that, I agree with all that you've said Sean and I really enjoyed your video.

Thanks for sharing this tutorial. I like your version over the original. Knowing exactly how far to push the image without spoiling it. Superb !

Thoroughly enjoyed this video. Everything is communicated well. Thank you.

one of the portraits of richard avedon series in the american west would be interesting to see

Helpful video- thanks Sean. That Silver head is really handy for composing a shot- Is that a thing photographic stores sell???

Great video. Honestly I am not a fan of the colour balance of the original portrait, I think yours has a far more pleasing look. Your model was perfect.

Excellent video, Sean 👍

🇨🇦/🇺🇸... Sean... Although I think you did an excellent job, I believe, however, that Pfiffer's portrait was with a longer "traditional" length... probably a 85mm or so. Traditional portraiture lengths slim the face. Also, people with larger noses appreciate it. You young folk like wider angle lenses but "Intimacy" is the result of filling the frame, not how close the photographer is to the subject. Nikon 85mm, 105mm and 135mm are classic portrait lengths... all GORGEOUS lenses.

Thanks Sean! I thoroughly enjoyed this video and I'll check out the other "dissection". MORE PLEASE!! Cheers.

Thanks so much for this video. This really helps me push myself into new territories in portraiture. The whole idea of guessing, arguing, trial-and-erroring the lighting of a great portrait (photography *and* painting perhaps!) is just very educational and fun. Still, there's something I miss here. If the assignment is 'recreating a portrait', than recreating the mood and expression is also important. *Very* important I think. So I would have loved to see bits of the actual shooting session and hear how you direct your model. What I see is that the expression of Pfeiffer is strong, whereas you models expression is softer, and perhaps a tiny bit sad, but that's my interpretation. Btw, I love her natural expression and look. The angle of the head and the vertical position of the camera is also important here, I guess. Wrt to pupil size: the AD200 doesn't have a modelling light. Would that have helped? I also saw a photographer shine the flashlight of an iPhone in his model's eyes seconds before taking the picture. I'm not sure if that would work for me, because it would disrupt the communication I have with my model. Again, thanks for this, and I'll look out for more video's like these!

If you can run a strobe that has a modeling light, it will help constrict the pupil iris. The 300/400/600 & 1200 Pro all have modeling lights which will help as the main light. Delightful presentation Sean! Cheers!

This is amazing -- well done, mate! Would we be able to get the same effect by having the modelling lamp on (rear Godox) instead of firing it in conjunction w/the key? Just curious. Also - would love to know if you've tried the new Ps. Although I'm still working it out, the ability to select the eyes (or basically any feature) seems to be somewhat of a timesaver (if I can master it). I think you've done a masterful job here, Sean - thank you. Looking forward to your next -- cheers.

This was an absolute joy to watch, Sean. Yes, I like these 'recreate' videos - fascinating. And I prefer your photo to O'Neill's, too. Why a black, rather than skin-coloured mannequin?

Blinking highlights mean that you've overexposed and It's clipping. ISO 50 on A7RIV makes no sense, either go for 100 or 320.

I don't think this portrait was shot on 35mm at f2,8 but much more likely on 6x6 Hasselblad with the Planar 100/110mm at f-stop 8-11. And the reflector below was white, not silver.

Excellent advice. Only question is at final image at 24.05 the clear difference is in “White” of backgrounds. Yours look little gray/bluish whereas the old image is clean white. What is it due to? Thanks and regards

Great analyze of the lightning, but I don´t believe the photo was shot on a 35 mm lens but rather a 85 mm lens. To be honest i believe the camera used was a Hasselblad 6x6 format. The photographer probably used a 120 mm Zeiss lens /medium format. As a former professional photographer I used this lens for 15 years in the period 1985-2000. Kind regards from Denmark.😇 After seeing the last part of the video I must admit I maybe was wrong regarding the lens. I see it could have been a 35 mm lens.

Amazing video. Really learned a ton. I would love maybe a black and white fashion icon like Peter Lindbergh.

In the photo of Michelle, I see a subtle blue tinge. That blue and green on white was such a common effect in the Y2K era (think Tommy ads, P Diddy or Lenny Kravitz music videos), and I never know if it was editing or in camera. I’d love to know how it’s achieved.

Excellent! Hey, hold option while resizing that reference pic and you won't have to go corner by corner. Center the reference, cmd-T, then hold option while you drag ONE corner and it will resize from the center out. Fast!

To anyone saying you can't shoot portraits on a 35mm lens, just show them this video. I also don't believe that Terry lit the background this way. Michelle Pfeiffer was also a beautiful woman. Loved here in dangerous minds. Sorry, but the end result is miles off. Nothing like the original. Michelle's image is glowing with presence and very soft and has depth. Yours is dull and flat.

Hi Sean, you took a slightly different perspective compared to Terry O'Neill. He was directing his camera almost a little bottom-up while you are looking down onto the model. For me the difference of the two angles makes a big difference. Psychologically ,Terry O'Neill made his model greater. You made yours smaller.

👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

Excellent job your an ACE Photographer. Im going to replicate this with my girlfriend the weekend, I’m a complete beginner when it comes to Portraits, thanks for the advice and great tutorial.

im fairly certain terry oneil was shooting a hasselblad camera hence the square frame. he was not shooting 35 mm and cropping to a square in 1990 . maybe an 80 or 60 mm ( but i think 80mm lens ) if he was shooting 6x7 i feel it would havee been more rectangular..great video!

Very cool video! I often play guess the lighting when watching TV. This is very close. I feel like perhaps the original shot had the lighting and camera slightly higher - not by much, maybe 6-12 inches higher, but that would have added to the distortion that reduced the width of her shoulders (or maybe she just leaned forward slightly and lifted her chin a little.. Also Michelle's iris's look a little more central, whereas Ailona's are only cut off by the top eyelid, not the bottom. I think the major difference though, is what you pointed out with regards to the pupils. The constant lighting and smaller pupils really change the look of the photo. I find smaller pupils feel somewhat hostile, cold, or predatory? I'm not really sure how to describe it, but in the same way that huge pupils give that sense of friendliness and cuteness, small pupils do the opposite. Given the quite confrontational square-on pose and harsh lighting, the smaller pupils really make the difference here to me. I always enjoy watching you edit. It's amazing just how little each adjustment is, but the overall difference is huge. I really like that technique with the black and white layer dropping the reds and boosting the yellows!

Very nice. More than that, I would've gone on portrait with the camera and get even closer to the subject, so the face "sphereness" would get more prominent. You can see the difference when you toggle between layers. It's true though, that Michelle has a small nose that will visually "permit" a short distance portrait... (the nose will not look big) What do you think?

Excellent video! I'm still not sure if 35 mm is the right lens, maybe 50mm? I think the pupils are tiny because of the modelling lamp.

OMHO In the original image model make-up plays also in the rendering, having darker skin tones on both sides of the jaws. It's very important that the make-up artist does not follow his her own ideas, but collaborates with the photographer

Really Great... I am so pleased that your thought process was so familiar to mine in reverse engineer photos.... going to have to look up "Guess the Lighting". Thanks!

Well done! It's kind of funny that you found "White Gold", (acording to Bruno Mars' song Uptown Funk), in one of your own sessions.

Looks like an 85mm lens to me. Also, looks like a white background is lit with a single strobe, low behind subject. Probably with a 1/8 green gel.

I used to have my interns from ASU guess the lighting from stills and movies before I would sign their completion form. Good times, great video.

I guess the modelling light contracted her pupils.. Great video!! 👏👏👍

I’d love it if you did the Annie Leibovitz portrait of Cate Blanchett, with Ms Blanchett in an orange top and black skirt. I guess the key light is slightly behind Ms Blanchett on the left but I’m not sure what else is going on!

Very nice Sean. I do like these videos when you recreate light and style of classics. If I can make a request and a wish for the next one, maybe you could do something in Peter Lindbergh Style? Create his iconic look with both lights and edits. Would that be something that you would like to do?

Really great video, I enjoyed it and will try it myself. Love the end result. I don't use Photoshop often. Do you think you could get a similar result editing in Lightroom? I think the shot would be even better if the shoulders were totally symmetrical. What is your view on using liquify to achieve that?

Really nice. I'm curious - the sweater on Michelle is semetrical - while it's clearly offset on Ailona - is that an artifact of camera position, head position, or something with the sweater (tighter on one side, not quite centered, ... ?) - Aside from the pupel size (which I agree - it was either constant light or a much brighter room) and color balance - it's almost dead on. Beautiful.

Great video one of the best channels for learning photography on RU-vid appreciate so much that you are one of the few photographers that actually give us real information to let us grow instead of just doing self advertisement like so many others do here. I would really love to see more of that how to series ❤

Lovely simple setup. Thanks for sharing. I reckon he shot on a 200mm though.

I think this shot was taken with a medium format camera. That's where the perspective distortion from the lens comes from, it's close enough but distorted. And the square format can also be like that from the beginning. Thanks for the video!