RDKirk wrote: but if you are taking the photo of a black cat on coal, as you say, I challenge you to throw in that white towel and get it right.
Actually, I do and I do.
I don\'t use a white towel, I use a sheet of textured white plastic cut to the size of my gray card and mounted in a folder with that card (opens like a book to reveal both in the same test image). But I also shoot mostly low key, including dark-skinned subjects in low key. I put the white card under my main light+fill (thus being a \"highlighted, textured white--Zone 8) and expose to place the textured white card right at the top of the jpeg dynamic range. In other words, I give the card enough exposure to just show the texture--about a third stop below \"blinking.\"
That actually gives me the very best exposure for a very dark-skinned subject in a a low-key environment. It may show that I need to fill the shadows more, but blowing the Zone 8 highlights to gain shadow detail is almost always pictorially uglier than getting the highlights right and losing the shadows.
I would say, given your low key approach maybe that\'s fine, but my question would be, if that zone 8 white is no where to be seen in the photo (ie. nothing as reflective as that white plastic), then why not expose to the right without the card till you do see *actual* subject clipping (just under), shoot, and then in post pull back your brightness (or up the exposure end point?) to get your desired low key, or accurate, or pleasing rendition of the dark skinned subject. You could even use the white card in a test photo, but rather than using it for clipping, use it to set zone 8 when you pull back the middle slider (or pull back data from the right end point) to get your low key result (not sure exactly if/how this would work if the card is clipped out originally though, I suppose. Just a thought). The aim would be to shift fully right for *capture* primarily, to max out your camera\'s dynamic range, and to avoid as much noise in the shadows as possible. I believe this approach gives you the most data as is possible to work with, which should be the aim with the understanding that all will taken care of in post processing.
I understand what you are saying as far as your ultimate aim, however.
RDKirk wrote: but if you are taking the photo of a black cat on coal, as you say, I challenge you to throw in that white towel and get it right.
Actually, I do and I do.
I don\'t use a white towel, I use a sheet of textured white plastic cut to the size of my gray card and mounted in a folder with that card (opens like a book to reveal both in the same test image). But I also shoot mostly low key, including dark-skinned subjects in low key. I put the white card under my main light+fill (thus being a \"highlighted, textured white--Zone 8) and expose to place the textured white card right at the top of the jpeg dynamic range. In other words, I give the card enough exposure to just show the texture--about a third stop below \"blinking.\"
That actually gives me the very best exposure for a very dark-skinned subject in a a low-key environment. It may show that I need to fill the shadows more, but blowing the Zone 8 highlights to gain shadow detail is almost always pictorially uglier than getting the highlights right and losing the shadows.
I would say, given your low key approach maybe that\'s fine, but my question would be, if that zone 8 white is no where to be seen in the photo (ie. nothing as reflective as that white plastic), then why not expose to the right without the card till you do see *actual* subject clipping (just under), shoot, and then in post pull back your brightness (or up the exposure end point?) to get your desired low key, or accurate, or pleasing rendition of the dark skinned subject. You could even use the white card in a test photo, but rather than using it for clipping, use it to set zone 8 when you pull back the middle slider to get your low key result (not sure exactly if/how this would work if the card is clipped out though, I suppose. Just a thought). The aim would be to shift fully right for *capture* primarily, to max out your camera\'s dynamic range, and to avoid as much noise in the shadows as possible. I believe this approach gives you the most data as is possible to work with, which should be the aim with the understanding that all will taken care of in post processing.
I understand what you are saying as far as your ultimate aim, however.
RDKirk wrote: but if you are taking the photo of a black cat on coal, as you say, I challenge you to throw in that white towel and get it right.
Actually, I do and I do.
I don\'t use a white towel, I use a sheet of textured white plastic cut to the size of my gray card and mounted in a folder with that card (opens like a book to reveal both in the same test image). But I also shoot mostly low key, including dark-skinned subjects in low key. I put the white card under my main light+fill (thus being a \"highlighted, textured white--Zone 8) and expose to place the textured white card right at the top of the jpeg dynamic range. In other words, I give the card enough exposure to just show the texture--about a third stop below \"blinking.\"
That actually gives me the very best exposure for a very dark-skinned subject in a a low-key environment. It may show that I need to fill the shadows more, but blowing the Zone 8 highlights to gain shadow detail is almost always pictorially uglier than getting the highlights right and losing the shadows.
I would say, given your low key approach maybe that\'s fine, but my question would be, if that zone 8 white is no where to be seen in the photo (ie. nothing as reflective as that white plastic), then why not expose to the right without the card till you do see *actual* subject clipping (just under), shoot, and then in post pull back your exposure to get your desired low key, or accurate, or pleasing rendition of the dark skinned subject. You could even use the white card in a test photo, but rather than using it for clipping, use it to set zone 8 when you pull back the middle slider to get your low key result (not sure exactly if/how this would work if the card is clipped out though, I suppose. Just a thought). The aim would be to shift fully right for *capture* primarily, to max out your camera\'s dynamic range, and to avoid as much noise in the shadows as possible. I believe this approach gives you the most data as is possible to work with, which should be the aim with the understanding that all will taken care of in post processing.
I understand what you are saying as far as your ultimate aim, however.
RDKirk wrote: but if you are taking the photo of a black cat on coal, as you say, I challenge you to throw in that white towel and get it right.
Actually, I do and I do.
I don\'t use a white towel, I use a sheet of textured white plastic cut to the size of my gray card and mounted in a folder with that card (opens like a book to reveal both in the same test image). But I also shoot mostly low key, including dark-skinned subjects in low key. I put the white card under my main light+fill (thus being a \"highlighted, textured white--Zone 8) and expose to place the textured white card right at the top of the jpeg dynamic range. In other words, I give the card enough exposure to just show the texture--about a third stop below \"blinking.\"
That actually gives me the very best exposure for a very dark-skinned subject in a a low-key environment. It may show that I need to fill the shadows more, but blowing the Zone 8 highlights to gain shadow detail is almost always pictorially uglier than getting the highlights right and losing the shadows.
I would say, given your low key approach maybe that\'s fine, but my question would be, if that zone 8 white is no where to be seen in the photo (ie. nothing as reflective as that white plastic), then why not expose to the right without the card till you do see *actual* subject clipping (just under), shoot, and then in post pull back your exposure to get your desired low key, or accurate, or pleasing rendition of the dark skinned subject. You could even use the white card in a test photo, but rather than using it for clipping, use it to set zone 8 when you pull back the middle slider to get your low key result. The aim would be to shift fully right for capture, to max out your camera\'s dynamic range, and to avoid as much noise in the shadows as possible. I believe that approach gives you the most data as is possible to work with, which should be the aim with the understanding that all will taken care of in post processing.
I understand what you are saying as far as your ultimate aim, however.
RDKirk wrote: but if you are taking the photo of a black cat on coal, as you say, I challenge you to throw in that white towel and get it right.
Actually, I do and I do.
I don\'t use a white towel, I use a sheet of textured white plastic cut to the size of my gray card and mounted in a folder with that card (opens like a book to reveal both in the same test image). But I also shoot mostly low key, including dark-skinned subjects in low key. I put the white card under my main light+fill (thus being a \"highlighted, textured white--Zone 8) and expose to place the textured white card right at the top of the jpeg dynamic range. In other words, I give the card enough exposure to just show the texture--about a third stop below \"blinking.\"
That actually gives me the very best exposure for a very dark-skinned subject in a a low-key environment. It may show that I need to fill the shadows more, but blowing the Zone 8 highlights to gain shadow detail is almost always pictorially uglier than getting the highlights right and losing the shadows.
I would say, given your low key approach maybe that\'s fine, but my question would be, if that zone 8 white is no where to be seen in the photo (ie. nothing as reflective as that white plastic), then why not expose to the right without the card till you do see *actual* subject clipping (just under), shoot, and then in post pull back your exposure to get your desired low key, or accurate, or pleasing rendition of the dark skinned subject. You could even use the white card in a test photo, but rather than using it for clipping, use it to set zone 8 when you pull back the middle slider to get your low key result. The aim would be to shift fully right for capture, max out your camera\'s dynamic range, and to avoid as much noise in the shadows as possible. I believe that approach gives you the most data as is possible to work with, which should be the aim with the understanding that all will taken care of in post processing.
I understand what you are saying as far as your ultimate aim, however.
RDKirk wrote: but if you are taking the photo of a black cat on coal, as you say, I challenge you to throw in that white towel and get it right.
Actually, I do and I do.
I don\'t use a white towel, I use a sheet of textured white plastic cut to the size of my gray card and mounted in a folder with that card (opens like a book to reveal both in the same test image). But I also shoot mostly low key, including dark-skinned subjects in low key. I put the white card under my main light+fill (thus being a \"highlighted, textured white--Zone 8) and expose to place the textured white card right at the top of the jpeg dynamic range. In other words, I give the card enough exposure to just show the texture--about a third stop below \"blinking.\"
That actually gives me the very best exposure for a very dark-skinned subject in a a low-key environment. It may show that I need to fill the shadows more, but blowing the Zone 8 highlights to gain shadow detail is almost always pictorially uglier than getting the highlights right and losing the shadows.
I would say, given your low key approach maybe that\'s fine, but my question would be, if that zone 8 white is no where to be seen in the photo (ie. nothing as reflective as that white plastic), then why not expose to the right till you do see *actual* clipping (just under), shoot, and then in post pull back your exposure to get your desired low key, or accurate, or pleasing rendition of the dark skinned subject. You could even use the white card in a test photo, but rather using it for clipping, use it to set zone 8 when you pull back the middle slider to get your low key result. The aim would be to shift fully right, max out your camera\'s dynamic range, and to avoid as much noise in the shadows as possible.
I understand what you are saying as far as your ultimate aim, however.
RDKirk wrote: but if you are taking the photo of a black cat on coal, as you say, I challenge you to throw in that white towel and get it right.
Actually, I do and I do.
I don\'t use a white towel, I use a sheet of textured white plastic cut to the size of my gray card and mounted in a folder with that card (opens like a book to reveal both in the same test image). But I also shoot mostly low key, including dark-skinned subjects in low key. I put the white card under my main light+fill (thus being a \"highlighted, textured white--Zone 8) and expose to place the textured white card right at the top of the jpeg dynamic range. In other words, I give the card enough exposure to just show the texture--about a third stop below \"blinking.\"
That actually gives me the very best exposure for a very dark-skinned subject in a a low-key environment. It may show that I need to fill the shadows more, but blowing the Zone 8 highlights to gain shadow detail is almost always pictorially uglier than getting the highlights right and losing the shadows.
I would say, given your low key approach maybe that\'s fine, but my question would be, if that zone 8 white is no where to be seen in the photo (ie. nothing as reflective as that white plastic), then why not expose to the right till you do see *actual* clipping and then pull back your exposure to get your desired low key, or accurate, or pleasing rendition of the dark skinned subject. You could even use the white card in a test photo, but rather using it for clipping, use it to set zone 8 when you pull back the middle slider to get your low key result. The aim would be to shift fully right, max out your camera\'s dynamic range, and to avoid as much noise in the shadows as possible.
I understand what you are saying as far as your ultimate aim, however.
Jan 21, 2012 at 01:17 PM
Previous versions of erichard's message #10267650 « Strobist »
