Studio Lighting - getting in right in camera

donkeymusic

donkeymusic

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,524
Name
Carlo
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello,
A lot of my work comes from families wanting the white background, i know a lot of you are not big fans of this but it still sells and what the customer want, the customer gets.

As a result i have done a lot of shoots with white background, however im not entirely happy and sure i have the setup as it should be. Ideally i would like to get this close to perfect in the camera to reduce the amount of PP i am doing.

So i have a few queries, firstly, straight in there, how do you have your studio setup to create a perfect white with minimal PP?

Secondly, I have a four light set up with two lights dedicated to the lighting the backdrop, I also have available, white reflective umbrellas, standard reflectors and background reflectors. I have two lights but for this test i was using 1 light with a 140 cm octa softbox

The studio space is approx 6 metres wide with a 3.56 metre roll of paper.

I have tested each modifier today and get very different results, for all test i use F8 on the subject, f11 on the background and shutter speed of 1/125th with an iso of 200.

What i found was the majority of the time i was getting a lot of wrap from the background, even though it measured an only f8 on the back of the subject. As well the background was not being lit evenly, even though both light were set identical.

Photo One: This is shot using umbrellas, and using some boards to block off the lighting, but you can see where the light is stopped and leaves a grey section to the front thats needs photoshopping and still some wrap from the background. Background also doesnt appear to be perfect white.
umbrella copy by Carlo Mullen, on Flickr

Photo Two, done with background reflectors, doesnt appear to be perfect white either on the background and a lot of light spill as well the foreground isnt being lit.
background reflector copy by Carlo Mullen, on Flickr

Photo Three, standard reflector, background being lit white if a little uneven and again lot of spill on subject and foreground isnt being lit
standard reflector copy by Carlo Mullen, on Flickr



ANy advice on the above would be much appreciated, thanks
 
Basically when space is limited, your lighting needs to follow the Goldilocks principle - not too little, not too much.

Too much will create flare and damage to edge definition, too little will create extra PP work. What you (and many other people) seem to do is to worry a bit too much about getting the background pure white and worry too little about the flare that results from overexposure, jacking up the contrast in a doomed attempt to compensate for this...

I would say that the exposure in your first example is a bit too much. It really doesn't matter if the background isn't absolutely pure white because it's so easy to correct this in PP. What does matter is that you don't ruin the shot with over exposure.

Wrap, which is light spilled onto the sides of the subject, results from having the subject too close to the background and from having too wide a background, allowing light from the extreme sides to reach your subject. The answer to this is to mask off those areas of the background that aren't actually needed - it's so easy and quick to put the white back in PP that even my cat can do it, and I haven't even got a cat...
 
+1 to +1.3 should not give you too much flare.

If the bg light is set at the correct amount (it is just showing red in LR), and you are still getting flare, then there isn't much else you can do about it. PP is probably the only possibility, but not if you are conveyor belting them in, like in schools.

White umbrellas can help over reflectors. Flag the head, rather than using v-flats, which will cause a softer shadow on the floor. Angle the heads so light crosses, reducing the angle of incidence and hot spots. BG reflectors are for gradating backgrounds normally, not for high key.

Lens used?

Some (usually cheap) lenses flare badly, other (more expensive) lenses don't, or at least not so much, and have better contrast. Contrast is one thing you pay for in a lens that is not on the spec sheet. Try a different lens.

Filter?

If using, take it off.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Basically when space is limited, your lighting needs to follow the Goldilocks principle - not too little, not too much.

Too much will create flare and damage to edge definition, too little will create extra PP work. What you (and many other people) seem to do is to worry a bit too much about getting the background pure white and worry too little about the flare that results from overexposure, jacking up the contrast in a doomed attempt to compensate for this...

I would say that the exposure in your first example is a bit too much. It really doesn't matter if the background isn't absolutely pure white because it's so easy to correct this in PP. What does matter is that you don't ruin the shot with over exposure.

Wrap, which is light spilled onto the sides of the subject, results from having the subject too close to the background and from having too wide a background, allowing light from the extreme sides to reach your subject. The answer to this is to mask off those areas of the background that aren't actually needed - it's so easy and quick to put the white back in PP that even my cat can do it, and I haven't even got a cat...
Click to expand...

Can i please ask how you go about correcting the white background in PP?
 
jambosam said:
Can i please ask how you go about correcting the white background in PP?
Click to expand...

If you search for "grey mopping" you'll find lots of threads about it.
Another method is to do a very rough selection a bit inside the subject, inverse the selection, go to Image>adjustments>selective color>white and then just move the bottom slider until you're happy with the result.

If some of the 'white' areas are seriously grey you may also need to do with with neutrals (as well as with white)
 
In lightroom, select the adjustment brush and select a +1 exposure. Make sure Auto Mask is selected. Get a good sized brush and make it feathered. Now keep the + on the areas you want adjusted and just brush away making sure the + (crosshair) doesn't touch the subject.

10-15 seconds should give you a nice even white without affecting your subject.
You can then also adjust the exposure back down or up to get the final amount correct.

This is how I get my grey floor white. Is quick and easy and leaves a nice shadow to ground your subject too.
 
EOS_JD said:
In lightroom, select the adjustment brush and select a +1 exposure. Make sure Auto Mask is selected. Get a good sized brush and make it feathered. Now keep the + on the areas you want adjusted and just brush away making sure the + (crosshair) doesn't touch the subject.

10-15 seconds should give you a nice even white without affecting your subject.
You can then also adjust the exposure back down or up to get the final amount correct.

This is how I get my grey floor white. Is quick and easy and leaves a nice shadow to ground your subject too.
Click to expand...

i used this method but preferred the dodge tool in Photoshop, felt it gave better results.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Basically when space is limited, your lighting needs to follow the Goldilocks principle - not too little, not too much.

Too much will create flare and damage to edge definition, too little will create extra PP work. What you (and many other people) seem to do is to worry a bit too much about getting the background pure white and worry too little about the flare that results from overexposure, jacking up the contrast in a doomed attempt to compensate for this...

I would say that the exposure in your first example is a bit too much. It really doesn't matter if the background isn't absolutely pure white because it's so easy to correct this in PP. What does matter is that you don't ruin the shot with over exposure.

Wrap, which is light spilled onto the sides of the subject, results from having the subject too close to the background and from having too wide a background, allowing light from the extreme sides to reach your subject. The answer to this is to mask off those areas of the background that aren't actually needed - it's so easy and quick to put the white back in PP that even my cat can do it, and I haven't even got a cat...
Click to expand...

Thanks Gary, Space isnt that limited although width of paper is only 3.56 metres, i could move the subject further away to get stop the spill, but this would mean that the angle i have to shoot the subject would reduce the chance of getting them in front of the paper, do you know how i mean? Also i shoot a lot of children so having the wide paper gives me more scope to catch them moving around. However if i could overcome this problem i could move the subject further way.

I think i do worry about getting the white background correct in camera and ideally would like to reduce the amount of PP, i also feel that having to edit the background and floor, i miss out on shadows and the majority of the time the subject looks to be floating.

I dont have a reflective floor, i wanted to go for the shadow on the paper, so i need to light the floor, would the use of a boom arm with overhead light be of use?

How would a studio like venture who appear to have a large backdrop succeed in lighting the background evenly?
 
Kris said:
+1 to +1.3 should not give you too much flare.

If the bg light is set at the correct amount (it is just showing red in LR), and you are still getting flare, then there isn't much else you can do about it. PP is probably the only possibility, but not if you are conveyor belting them in, like in schools.

White umbrellas can help over reflectors. Flag the head, rather than using v-flats, which will cause a softer shadow on the floor. Angle the heads so light crosses, reducing the angle of incidence and hot spots. BG reflectors are for gradating backgrounds normally, not for high key.

Lens used?

Some (usually cheap) lenses flare badly, other (more expensive) lenses don't, or at least not so much, and have better contrast. Contrast is one thing you pay for in a lens that is not on the spec sheet. Try a different lens.

Filter?

If using, take it off.
Click to expand...

any idea where to get flags from or double ended clips to hold card in place?

Wondering if i should have the background lights up high and angle them downwards

Lenses are Sony 50mm, and Sigma 35- 125mm, get same results with both lenses
 
Flags:
black coroplast, cardboard, anything really.

Clips:
http://www.calumetphoto.co.uk/eng/product/manfrotto_multiclip/mn375

though two small bulldog clips screwed back to back in different directions work just as well.

I just use a sheet and 'A' clamp it to the flash handle or use another stand and 'A' clamp to the top of that. More important with umbrellas rather than bare reflectors. You could also use barn doors.

Haven't got a clue about those lenses whatsoever. Might be the source of your problem, especially the superzoom.
 
donkeymusic said:
i used this method but preferred the dodge tool in Photoshop, felt it gave better results.
Click to expand...

Similar when used with the right blending mode
 
went back to studio tonight to have another play, went back to using the brollies..

here are two shots


Screen Shot 2012-10-31 at 23.14.16 copy by Carlo Mullen, on Flickr

and


Screen Shot 2012-10-31 at 23.14.25 copy by Carlo Mullen, on Flickr

How does the exposure look on these? the first one shows the wide angle, the backdrop is metered to f11 whilst the subject is f8, with the models lights on i could see where any light spill would hit and also gives me a marker for where the subject should not go beyond, however there is a clear line between the back and floor of the paper, which i feel that if i start to edit i will loose shadow from the teddy, although again something i will need to play with.

The brollies are facing sligthly away from the background as this seemed to light it better and is only about two feet away, this offered me more space between the backdrop and the end of the paper roll for shooting in, approx.4 metres

Hows does they look to you?

Also, i always shoot with my 18-125 lens, and find i am always around the 35mm mark, which im sure isnt suitable for studio work? if i swap to my 50mm then i m a good 10 feet back, so not sure which is best for using? any suggestions? thanks
 
Last edited:
Kris said:
Flags:
black coroplast, cardboard, anything really.

Clips:
http://www.calumetphoto.co.uk/eng/product/manfrotto_multiclip/mn375

though two small bulldog clips screwed back to back in different directions work just as well.

I just use a sheet and 'A' clamp it to the flash handle or use another stand and 'A' clamp to the top of that. More important with umbrellas rather than bare reflectors. You could also use barn doors.

Haven't got a clue about those lenses whatsoever. Might be the source of your problem, especially the superzoom.
Click to expand...

thanks will have a look
 
donkeymusic said:
went back to studio tonight to have another play, went back to using the brollies..

here are two shots


Screen Shot 2012-10-31 at 23.14.16 copy by Carlo Mullen, on Flickr

and


Screen Shot 2012-10-31 at 23.14.25 copy by Carlo Mullen, on Flickr

How does the exposure look on these? the first one shows the wide angle, the backdrop is metered to f11 whilst the subject is f8, with the models lights on i could see where any light spill would hit and also gives me a marker for where the subject should not go beyond, however there is a clear line between the back and floor of the paper, which i feel that if i start to edit i will loose shadow from the teddy, although again something i will need to play with.

The brollies are facing sligthly away from the background as this seemed to light it better and is only about two feet away, this offered me more space between the backdrop and the end of the paper roll for shooting in, approx.4 metres

Hows does they look to you?

Also, i always shoot with my 18-125 lens, and find i am always around the 35mm mark, which im sure isnt suitable for studio work? if i swap to my 50mm then i m a good 10 feet back, so not sure which is best for using? any suggestions? thanks
Click to expand...

In photoshop look at the info tool and run it over the white in the background. You'l;l see that it's pretty uneven. Are you metering the background at various points across it? Is brighter on the right than the left as you look at the bear.

Is there some flare too as the bear lacks contrast
 
Last edited:
>> The studio space is approx 6 metres wide with a 3.56 metre roll of paper.

How long is it? Space is your friend - it sorts the light out for you.

I've posted before a video of shooting white dresses on a white b/g and get them good enough on screen for the client. I used a massive studio.

6m is good for length.
 
EOS_JD said:
In photoshop look at the info tool and run it over the white in the background. You'l;l see that it's pretty uneven. Are you metering the background at various points across it? Is brighter on the right than the left as you look at the bear.

Is there some flare too as the bear lacks contrast
Click to expand...

Oh i can see the background isnt even, i looked at it through my iphone and it would show the unevenness. However using brollies i was unable to get it even. as for readings starting from the left to right it went

f11 f8 f5.4 f8 f11

so i knew it was wrong.

not bear, was quite far forward so not light should have been hitting it
 
JonathanRyan said:
>> The studio space is approx 6 metres wide with a 3.56 metre roll of paper.

How long is it? Space is your friend - it sorts the light out for you.

I've posted before a video of shooting white dresses on a white b/g and get them good enough on screen for the client. I used a massive studio.

6m is good for length.
Click to expand...

There is plenty of length, i would need to l;ay some more hardboard as the floor but the space is there

do you have a link to that video?

what i m concerned is that if i extend the length is that i will loose the angel of the backdrop when the kids moves around, if thats makes sense??
 
donkeymusic said:
Oh i can see the background isnt even, i looked at it through my iphone and it would show the unevenness. However using brollies i was unable to get it even. as for readings starting from the left to right it went

f11 f8 f5.4 f8 f11

so i knew it was wrong.

not bear, was quite far forward so not light should have been hitting it
Click to expand...

Why don't you just angle the lights as I suggest in my videos?
Left one points to the right side of the background, you can guess where the right one needs to point:)
The lighting will then be much more even.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Why don't you just angle the lights as I suggest in my videos?
Left one points to the right side of the background, you can guess where the right one needs to point:)
The lighting will then be much more even.
Click to expand...

which videos Garry?
 
Garry Edwards said:
Part 1


Part 2
Click to expand...

Thanks Garry, will have a proper look in a bit.

at a quick glance, thats a narrow width of background which is doable but as i have children in the studio i need to be able to light a wider background evenly.

which i think i can do but ill need to move the subject further away, but this reduces the angle of the paper behind the subject.
 
JonathanRyan said:
150 on medium format for full length.
Click to expand...

i am struggling to get my head around the subject being further away from the background.

if from me to the each side of the background there were imaginary lines that created a triangle. AS the subject comes closer to me the change of them being covered with the background is reduced, or am i missing something?
 
You're not missing anything, other than an appreciation of the fact that unless you're willing to accept flare, edge degradation and wrap, it's vital to move the main subject far enough away from the background.

Years ago, white background work was only produced in large studios with large backgrounds and lots of lights. It's still done that way by some, but a lot of people seem to think that it can be done in small studios without a trade off in terms of both image quality and unwanted light spill (wrap). It can't.
 
donkeymusic said:
i am struggling to get my head around the subject being further away from the background.
Click to expand...

Basically......

Any light you put on the b/g will also come forwards and cause backlighting/edge lighting/edge degradation depending on how much there is (and what you choose to call it). The further the b/g is from the subject the less light will strike the subject - just like moving a front light further back.

That means you can safely put a little more light onto the b/g without worrying too much about ruining the edges.

If your b/g is relatively close then you are going to have to be very precise with your lighting and use the absolute bare minimum. This will make it far more likely that you get uneven lighting as it's easy to end up with one side just enough and one not quite.

Note that I'm also lighting the floor separately. With white dresses that have important detail I was actually happy to leave the floor slightly grey and retouch.

Here's a BTS that shows the approximate distances and the floor lighting.

2012-11-02_001.jpg


BTW just double checked and I was using the 80mm for full length (let's pretend that's similar to 50mm on "full frame"). 150 for details.
 
JonathanRyan said:
Basically......

Any light you put on the b/g will also come forwards and cause backlighting/edge lighting/edge degradation depending on how much there is (and what you choose to call it). The further the b/g is from the subject the less light will strike the subject - just like moving a front light further back.

That means you can safely put a little more light onto the b/g without worrying too much about ruining the edges.

If your b/g is relatively close then you are going to have to be very precise with your lighting and use the absolute bare minimum. This will make it far more likely that you get uneven lighting as it's easy to end up with one side just enough and one not quite.

Note that I'm also lighting the floor separately. With white dresses that have important detail I was actually happy to leave the floor slightly grey and retouch.

Here's a BTS that shows the approximate distances and the floor lighting.

2012-11-02_001.jpg


BTW just double checked and I was using the 80mm for full length (let's pretend that's similar to 50mm on "full frame"). 150 for details.
Click to expand...

Okay, if i was to extend my shooting range from 3.6 metres to 6 metress

I can use two lights to light the background. one for the subject and also could use a 4th light to the light the foreground flooring, what attachment would you suggest would be best?
 
Garry Edwards said:
You're not missing anything, other than an appreciation of the fact that unless you're willing to accept flare, edge degradation and wrap, it's vital to move the main subject far enough away from the background.

Years ago, white background work was only produced in large studios with large backgrounds and lots of lights. It's still done that way by some, but a lot of people seem to think that it can be done in small studios without a trade off in terms of both image quality and unwanted light spill (wrap). It can't.
Click to expand...

I do understand the relevance of the distance between background and subject, what i am just trying to get my head round is how this would be suited for shoots with children running around. i dont want them moving too far to the left and right so that they are cut in half by the edge of the paper, i guess this is something that i will need to test.
 
To light the flooring? I'm using background reflectors. I'll bet Garry will happily sell you some although other brands are available.

I'd use 2 for the floor though for the same reasons you use 2 on the b/g. Pretty sure I was using 7 lights most of the day on that shoot - smallest was 1,000 w/s.

You can also try a single light firing upwards into a white ceiling with a high performance reflector. But this will only ever boost the floor rather than giving pure white - for exactly the same reasons that you light the b/g separately.
 
JonathanRyan said:
To light the flooring? I'm using background reflectors. I'll bet Garry will happily sell you some although other brands are available.

I'd use 2 for the floor though for the same reasons you use 2 on the b/g. Pretty sure I was using 7 lights most of the day on that shoot - smallest was 1,000 w/s.

You can also try a single light firing upwards into a white ceiling with a high performance reflector. But this will only ever boost the floor rather than giving pure white - for exactly the same reasons that you light the b/g separately.
Click to expand...

I have the Lencarta Background reflectors, buy at the moment cant afford a fifth light so we need to work out best position for a the 4 light to light the floor
 
In the middle at the front. As high as you can get it and still shoot over it.
 
donkeymusic said:
so have the light in front of me? sorry i dont get what you mean
Click to expand...

Yes.

Imagine the room is empty and you just want to light the floor evenly. You'd put the light at the shooting end in the middle. That would light it evenly side to side but not front to back (it would fall off as you got to the back wall).

The further away the light is the less the fall off so you want it far back and high up (<cough> "inverse square law").

Now when you turn the b/g lights on their falloff gradient should roughly match the floor light (if you're lucky). The reflectors mean that the lights are basically lighting what they should light and little else directly.

Then you need to actually take pics so you start to compromise. The floor light can't go behind or above you or it will cast your shadow so just in front of you and as high as you can stand.

If you want to shoot at f/8 I'd meter the whole room and hope to get between f/8.5 and f/8.8 ish all over the white surface. Then I'd turn off those lights and light the subject space to about f/5.6.7. Turn them all on and if you're really REALLY lucky you can shoot at f/8.

Simples.
 
donkeymusic said:
I do understand the relevance of the distance between background and subject, what i am just trying to get my head round is how this would be suited for shoots with children running around. i dont want them moving too far to the left and right so that they are cut in half by the edge of the paper, i guess this is something that i will need to test.
Click to expand...

Increasing the subject distance from the background does two things (but not quite as I understood Jonathan).

1) It gives you a lot more control, because there is plenty of space to put light where you want it without spill and reflection affecting other areas. And with greater distance from the lights to background, the inverse square law reduces fall-off so it's easier to get even coverage.

2) It reduces wrap, ie light from the sides of the background reflecting of the sides of the subject, cheeks etc. It just makes the background effectively less wide in terms of the angles invloved. Think about it ;)

What increasing distance does not do is reduce the background exposure level. Wrap, and subject outline bleaching/degradation, can often look like the same thing, but they're not.

BTW, if you want more effective space for kids etc to move around without falling off the background so to speak, then a longer lens from a greater distance will make that easier. The narrower angle of view effectively makes the background wider, relative to the subject. Again, think about the angles invloved.
 
Last edited:
JonathanRyan said:
Yes.

The further away the light is the less the fall off so you want it far back and high up (<cough> "inverse square law").

.
Click to expand...


just getting my head round this as i read, if the light is up high and aimed towards the floor, then i would need possibly a brolly attachment? would this work in the same way as a fill light?

i would be stood in front of this light, would i cast any shadow or would it be minimal due to the height and distance?
 
HoppyUK said:
BTW, if you want more effective space for kids etc to move around without falling off the background so to speak, then a longer lens from a greater distance will make that easier. The narrower angle of view effectively makes the background wider, relative to the subject. Again, think about the angles invloved.
Click to expand...
this is what i wanted to know
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top