[sjwoo]

Check out the author photo below (Chang-Rae Lee), from the New York Times:



If a flash was used, it certainly doesn't look like it. Is this a case where something like an umbrella was used? The depth of field isn't too shallow, just shallow enough to capture the author. 85mm? 135mm? What do you guess the settings used might have been?

I really like this composition -- as a beginning SLR user, I'm sort of in love with depth of field. I never had much of it with my digicam...

- Sung

[RioRico]

Great shot. Nice library. I'd almost guess that a tilt+shift lens was used, and certainly no flash. But rather than searching for evidence in various photos, I'd suggest looking at books that show HOW specific shots are made. My bibles here include the 1974 Petersen MASTERS OF CONTEMPORARY PHOTOGRAPHY series. And there are various guides (not necessarily good) to figure and portrait photography. Look for those showing camera and lighting setups. Metaphor: Instead of reverse-engineering the wheel, why not just study the blueprints?

[pop4]

My guess is that there was a flash or some other lighting unit, fitted with some sort of modifier to diffuse the light, located on camera right, probably high camera right, at about the height of the subjects head.

The clue to this is the light reflection at the right (his left) third of his forehead, and the general pattern of shadows on his left, e.g. left of his nose, look at the shirt collar,

Or, he was photoshopped in.

[Nass]

No, I don't think so - the shadow from the guy on the floor is about the same as the shadow from the tables and the focus plane is consistent on the bookshelves too - although it took me a little while to work out what's going on in the top one. If it was flash it was just for a tiny additional bit of fill in - there's no dramatic fall off that you'd expect otherwise. Also the light falling on the middle shelf is fairly consistent all the way to the back - ie no added intensity nearby due to some umbrella or additional source. I'd say this is shot using the lighting there - and looking at his forehead that there's another one of the hanging lights that you can see in the background just to the photographer's right, perhaps a foot or so behind him/her, in addition to the middle one that's not in the image (but which is responsible for the perpendicular table shadows I think)

[sjwoo]

FYI, I'm fairly certain this was taken at the reading room at the New York Public Library. I recognize those lamps. This photo accurately captures the light of the room for sure.

[Nass]

FYI, I'm fairly certain this was taken at the reading room at the New York Public Library. I recognize those lamps. This photo accurately captures the light of the room for sure.

Yes, you're right, the clue is in the tiles and lamps. See this shot.

[tokyoso]

FYI, I'm fairly certain this was taken at the reading room at the New York Public Library. I recognize those lamps. This photo accurately captures the light of the room for sure.

there's some optical illusion going on here...

+1 to Damn Brit's photoshop comment...

either he was photoshopped in, or the books were photoshopped to have the tilt shift look

[Nass]

Dunno, curious, what's the shift-tilt element you're seeing? He does look a little small but on that other link there are also people at the same height. I think it's just a very narrow depth of field? The thing I really found odd about the photo was that one shelf which seems to be out of focus but the rest are not. But the second link proved what I thought was the answer, the books are recessed and it's taken at exactly that shelf height.

Cool shot though

[tokyoso]

Dunno, curious, what's the shift-tilt element you're seeing? He does look a little small but on that other link there are also people at the same height. I think it's just a very narrow depth of field? The thing I really found odd about the photo was that one shelf which seems to be out of focus but the rest are not. But the second link proved what I thought was the answer, the books are recessed and it's taken at exactly that shelf height.

Cool shot though

I only see one picture with one person in it, are you seeing another ?

Edit-*
ah, gotcha, you mean the flickr link you provided. Hmmmm.. interesting

found another pic :
New York Library on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

there's still something geometrically awkward to me about that shelf in the OP...

[Ira]

They let him in the library with no shoes?

Authors have all the fun.

[aleonx3]

Check out the author photo below (Chang-Rae Lee), from the New York Times:

If a flash was used, it certainly doesn't look like it. Is this a case where something like an umbrella was used? The depth of field isn't too shallow, just shallow enough to capture the author. 85mm? 135mm? What do you guess the settings used might have been?

I really like this composition -- as a beginning SLR user, I'm sort of in love with depth of field. I never had much of it with my digicam...

- Sung

Sung, I don't really get your question; without the EXIF, it is hard to know what is used, however, based on what is shown in the picture, I venture to think that the focal length is between 24-35mm using bounce flash and a shallow DOF to create the effect. Also, there is a lot to do with the lens characteristic (and I have one just like that).