White Backdrop - flash is always to bright or too dark

A

andantesash

Suspended / Banned
Messages
28
Edit My Images
No
Hi there - I was trying to do some photos of my brothers and they always come out too bright or too dark on the white backdrop.

I am using a canon 350D and a Flashgun from Jessops (was about £180 - dont know the model).

Can anyone suggest what settings to using and how to positiion the flashgun and the lights? I have two lights (with umbrellas attached).

Thanks in advance
 
Ok, lets rephrase that then: Zack Arias + a little less light + your subjects slight further from the b/g!!;)
 
What is too bright or too dark? The whole photo, or just the background?

If it's the whole photo, adjust the power, f/number or ISO. If it's just the background, adjust the power of the background flash/es either by turning them up or down, or by moving it/them closer or further away.

Ideally, you should have two lights on the background to make it as evenly lit as possible, both at 45 degrees to the background. Use them naked, without any umbrella. With just one flash, you cannot get even coverage - one side will always be brighter than the other - so you have to find a compromise position. Positioning the flash as far away as possible will minimise fall-off, as will moving it nearer to the front, but getting a good result without side-effects over a decent size area is very difficult. You should be able to do head and shoulders okay though.

Use one brolly for the main front light, which should be set for fractionally less exposure than the background to ensure it blows to clear white, but don't blitz it. If you aim for half a stop under, you should be okay even if parts of the background are a little higher. The usual problem with white backgrounds is having too much light, which bleaches the outline of the subject, creates flare and loss of contrast.
 
You may be able to get an evenly lit background with just one flash fired at an angle to the background. The idea of feathering the light, as I understand it, is to have the edge of the beam of light close enough to the background to light it with the same intensity of light as the more powerful centre of the beam hitting the the part of the background further away.

An example of feathering the light can be seen here.
 
EdinburghGary said:
Curious, what is it about ZA you dislike? I have used a few of his tutorials to what I consider great effect.

Gary.
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan. If it works, then you can't really knock it. But I don't care much for some of the ways he works, or his explanations of what's actually happening or how it should be done. He's okay, and that's cool, just no guru.

DigitalRelish said:
You may be able to get an evenly lit background with just one flash fired at an angle to the background. The idea of feathering the light, as I understand it, is to have the edge of the beam of light close enough to the background to light it with the same intensity of light as the more powerful centre of the beam hitting the the part of the background further away.

An example of feathering the light can be seen here.
Click to expand...

Not possible in practise. No amount of feathering can properly compensate for the fall-off across a normal size background.
 
another option is to go with the uneveness and grid the bg light then the fall off will be soft, good for nice smooth paper terrible for crinkly material
 
david1701 said:
another option is to go with the uneveness and grid the bg light then the fall off will be soft, good for nice smooth paper terrible for crinkly material
Click to expand...

Fall-off is fall-off. Inverse square law says so.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Edwards View Post
Three words: Avoid Zack Arias.
Curious, what is it about ZA you dislike? I have used a few of his tutorials to what I consider great effect.

Gary.
Click to expand...

He teaches how to get the background pure white with a minimum of lighting, which would be good if it worked - but IMO it doesn't and his examples are terrible, with flare, reduced contrast the fine edge detail destroyed by too much light too close to the main subject and light spill on the subject.
 
EdinburghGary said:
Curious, what is it about ZA you dislike? I have used a few of his tutorials to what I consider great effect.

Gary.
Click to expand...

It's because he's good, very successful and a 'child of the digital age who does not know he's born'. ;)
 
Garry Edwards said:
He teaches how to get the background pure white with a minimum of lighting, which would be good if it worked - but IMO it doesn't and his examples are terrible, with flare, reduced contrast the fine edge detail destroyed by too much light too close to the main subject and light spill on the subject.
Click to expand...

It's just different to your methods Garry and your attitude at trying to ward folk away from his approach is simply not on. :thumbsdown:

It's clear you don't like his work, you can't help but state it at any given opportunity but just take a second and look at what the guy actually does.

Look, your probably thinking that I'm not your best friend here, I've pulled you up on a few points in the past, but on the contrary I find your information helpful, your write ups are thorough and you are always at the ready to help newbies with their first studio lighting enquiries (even if it is Lencarta biased).

The one thing that completely stumps me is this bitter attitude toward alternative/contemporary/unconventional technique, it does you no favours at all.
 
I have seen a lot of his examples and thought they were excellent, and people rave about his lighting DVD's etc. I was under the impression he has done very well, and seems happy to share his knowledge?

What do I know :D

Gary.
 
Tomas Whitehouse said:
It's just different to your methods Garry and your attitude at trying to ward folk away from his approach is simply not on. :thumbsdown:

It's clear you don't like his work, you can't help but state it at any given opportunity but just take a second and look at what the guy actually does.

Look, your probably thinking that I'm not your best friend here, I've pulled you up on a few points in the past, but on the contrary I find your information helpful, your write ups are thorough and you are always at the ready to help newbies with their first studio lighting enquiries (even if it is Lencarta biased).

The one thing that completely stumps me is this bitter attitude toward alternative/contemporary/unconventional technique, it does you no favours at all.
Click to expand...
You haven't 'pulled me up on a few points in the past' - what you've actually done is to disagree with me, which is fine.
I don't think that I have any kind of attitude towards alternative/contemporary/unconventional technique, if you read my posts and articles you'll see that I'm constantly encouraging people to experiment, try something new, ignore books on posing techniques, lighting techniques and so on.

What I'm against is people teaching bad technique, and my view of the Zack Arias techniques in the tutorials I've seen is that he is teaching people how NOT to light backgrounds well, and how NOT to control the lighting.

But I accept that I'm just a lone voice, people post what I consider to be awful examples of white background shots on forums all the time, no doubt based on his teachings, and other people praise them to the heavens:'(
 
Garry Edwards said:
...I don't think that I have any kind of attitude towards alternative/contemporary/unconventional technique, if you read my posts and articles you'll see that I'm constantly encouraging people to experiment, try something new, ignore books on posing techniques, lighting techniques and so on.
Click to expand...

I think thats the issue, you don't see that you do have an attitude and I have called you out on it before.

I do read your posts, in fact when I first joined this forum I remembered your name the more I saw it, watched your youtube videos and paid attention to what yo had to say.

I base my opinion on exactly what you post and I'm afraid you don't encourage folk as much as you'd like to think.

I really don't want to argue and frankly I'm not going to.

There's a lot to be learned from both Mr Edwards and Mr Arias.
Both resources offer helpful info, tips and technique.

Neither one is the pinnacle nor the definitive.

Keep an open mind folks. :thumbs:
 
dean collins is your answer. if you can get and understand the basics of lighting then everything else seems to fall into place. (imo)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top