p.2 #1 · First time with White Seamless - c & c requested
Hey Brian,
Thanks for the input. I'm hoping to just use my Nikon speedlights to light the background as I don't want to spend more $$ on additional strobes. The modifiers will be for my main & fill lights (Einsteins) so perhaps I go with the beauty dish, with a boom arm, a strip box & a PLM.
p.2 #2 · First time with White Seamless - c & c requested
Hockey_Nut wrote:
...The modifiers will be for my main & fill lights (Einsteins) so perhaps I go with the beauty dish, with a boom arm, a strip box & a PLM.
One of the classic lighting setups is Butterfly Lighting, also known as Paramount Lighting and Glamor Lighting. One way of doing it is with a beauty dish for the key and a soft box for the fill, set in an over/under arrangement. In consideration of the versatility of that setup, you might want to consider a square softbox instead of either the strip box or the PLM. (Given your small space, I'd skip the PLM for now.)
Zack's blog at that site was getting hacked, so he moved to a new address as given in my earlier post. Yours will still lead there via a redirect for now, but here's the updated address again, in case you want to save it for future reference:
p.2 #4 · First time with White Seamless - c & c requested
Hey Brian,
I've been following Zack's blog for a bit now ... very helpful stuff.
One question for you - should I be using reflectors with the Einsteins when using a softbox? I know the ABs come with a reflector but the Einseins don't ... can I use them without reflectors
p.2 #5 · First time with White Seamless - c & c requested
Hockey_Nut wrote:
Hey Brian,
I've been following Zack's blog for a bit now ... very helpful stuff.
One question for you - should I be using reflectors with the Einsteins when using a softbox? I know the ABs come with a reflector but the Einseins don't ... can I use them without reflectors
Thanks again,
Brent
Inside a softbox, you do not want to use the reflector. You want bare bulb.
p.2 #6 · First time with White Seamless - c & c requested
BrianO wrote:
Zack's blog at that site was getting hacked, so he moved to a new address as given in my earlier post.
Sorry about the redundant and out-dated link to Zack, Brian. I usually read through the threads pretty well to avoid repeat commenting but I missed your link/recommendation somehow this time. It is such a thorough tutorial that I was surprised that someone hadn't already mentioned it.
p.2 #7 · First time with White Seamless - c & c requested
Eyeball wrote:
Sorry about the redundant and out-dated link to Zack, Brian.
Oh, no problem. I just wanted to make sure that the new site had prominence for future visitors to this thread, in case he shuts down the old site completely. He originally said he was going to do just that, but it's still there...it just automatically redirects.
You're 100% right about how thorough a job he did. I've seen less-instructive material being sold for profit, yet he just gives it away. It's the exception to the "you get what you pay for" doctrine.
p.2 #8 · First time with White Seamless - c & c requested
Hockey_Nut wrote:
… should I be using reflectors with the Einsteins when using a softbox?
No, usually quite the opposite. You want as close to a 180° spread from the light in the box, bouncing light off the walls before it is put out the front. You could think of the soft box walls as forming a large curved reflector, and there would be little point in them being there if you use standard reflector to prevent the light hitting them.
With an umbrella, or any modifier where the light is facing backwards, you would normally want a reflector to limit the light from spilling over the edges of the brolly.
p.2 #9 · First time with White Seamless - c & c requested
Perceptually I don't think the degree of whiteness in the range of 255 vs. 245 makes that much difference except on white background pages because the brain tunes out the background anyway almost immediately and concentrates on the foreground. That's the whole point of using a seamless background, to get the viewer to ignore it and concentrate in the more important stuff in the foreground.
Contrast is a relative thing. If the stuff in the foreground is dark in tone then it will contrast well regardless of whether the background is 255 or 245. When the holistic relationship of background and foreground whites becomes more critical is when photographing white objects on a white background. That's when a 255 background will make anything in rendered a darker shade of white seem dull by comparison and you might want to rethink blowing out the background to 255 or even using a white background for that content if you want it to appear clean and bright by comparison with the background.
With white on white the question becomes what is more important? A whiter white background or whiter white dress
p.2 #10 · First time with White Seamless - c & c requested
cgardner wrote:
Perceptually I don't think the degree of whiteness in the range of 255 vs. 245 makes that much difference except on white background pages because the brain tunes out the background anyway almost immediately and concentrates on the foreground. That's the whole point of using a seamless background, to get the viewer to ignore it and concentrate in the more important stuff in the foreground.
Contrast is a relative thing. If the stuff in the foreground is dark in tone then it will contrast well regardless of whether the background is 255 or 245. When the holistic relationship of background and foreground whites becomes more critical is when photographing white objects on a white background. That's when a 255 background will make anything in rendered a darker shade of white seem dull by comparison and you might want to rethink blowing out the background to 255 or even using a white background for that content if you want it to appear clean and bright by comparison with the background.
With white on white the question becomes what is more important? A whiter white background or whiter white dress
p.2 #11 · First time with White Seamless - c & c requested
cgardner wrote:
Perceptually I don't think the degree of whiteness in the range of 255 vs. 245 makes that much difference except on white background pages because the brain tunes out the background anyway almost immediately and concentrates on the foreground. ...With white on white the question becomes what is more important? A whiter white background or whiter white dress.
Since the brain will call the white dress white even if it's not the brightest thing on the page, the question becomes one of why a white BG is being used in the first place. It may be simply for a white BG, or it may be to use in a manipulated image.
In the latter case, a completely knocked out background makes things a bit easier.
If one uses shadows on the dress to one's advantage, the eye/brain will see the subject contrast, and will assign the correct perceptual tone to the white dress, even when it's not truly white and is "less white" than the BG.
p.2 #13 · First time with White Seamless - c & c requested
Thanks guys for all the information ... I've been playing around with the location of the lights etc and things seem to be coming together nicely. Just need to get some real modifiers.
p.2 #14 · First time with White Seamless - c & c requested
BrianO wrote:
Since the brain will call the white dress white even if it's not the brightest thing on the page, the question becomes one of why a white BG is being used in the first place. It may be simply for a white BG, or it may be to use in a manipulated image.
In the latter case, a completely knocked out background makes things a bit easier.
If one uses shadows on the dress to one's advantage, the eye/brain will see the subject contrast, and will assign the correct perceptual tone to the white dress, even when it's not truly white and is "less white" than the BG....Show more →
The brain will "call" the white dress white on a 255 but wonder why the photographer washed the background with Tide and the dress with the old dishwater because the dress will look darker by comparison.
For magazine production when we wanted to uniformly knock-out images on a white page we masked them. When there is a uniform background that contrasts with the subject masking as with a green screen isn't very difficult, especially in CS5 which added new masking controls. There are plug-ins for photoshop that do masking more or less automatically.
p.2 #15 · First time with White Seamless - c & c requested
cgardner wrote:
...The brain will "call" the white dress white on a 255 but wonder why the photographer washed the background with Tide and the dress with the old dishwater because the dress will look darker by comparison.
For most people (except those with brain dysfunctions?) it doesn't work that way, just as when looking at white paper under a flourescent light they don't wonder why someone soaked the paper in lime juice; it's all processed unconsciously, and in both cases they see the white as white.
p.2 #16 · First time with White Seamless - c & c requested
BrianO wrote:
For most people (except those with brain dysfunctions?) it doesn't work that way, just as when looking at white paper under a flourescent light they don't wonder why someone soaked the paper in lime juice; it's all processed unconsciously, and in both cases they see the white as white.
Tell that to a bride whose dress looks like dishwater on a 255 background.
But then it would be rather foolish to photographer her on one unless you wanted the dress to: A) look "pure" white (as you like to call it) and disappear into the background, or; B) contrast well but look darker compared the background.
Again its all a matter of RELATIVE brightness and deciding which you want to be brighter by comparison with the other. I opt for the foreground whites, YMMV. Simple as that.
p.2 #17 · First time with White Seamless - c & c requested
I would agree with Chuck if you're looking at a picture in an isolated room that's completely black and the only thing lit is the picture. Then how "white" the background is doesn't matter.
But most of the time, there's probably a white reference nearby that can make your "almost white" look a little dirty by comparison. At my desk right now, I've got a box of white tissues, a calendar with white boxes, and a couple business cards. My shirt is blue and white. If your picture is in a magazine, there could be a page right next to it with pure white backgrounds. So in general, I also prefer "255" white myself to avoid looking off.
But that's just what I'm used to. Foreground looking relatively more white is sound logic too. I'd say if you don't know where the image is going, use pure white. If you have control of where the image is being used- a gallery exhibition, or maybe an album you're designing, then you could avoid non-255-white looking a bit off. YMMV.
