Super White & Arctic White, different how?

[JEM3]

Hi,
I'm completely new to studio setup and I'm currently setting up my first small studio for filming. I'm aiming for a seamless paper background that is as white as possible and I'm choosing between a Super White paper background from Colorama and a Arctic White paper background also from Colorama (both backgrounds available locally where I live, and I will have a GVM 1500d light shining directly at the background to make the white background brighter).
I'm leaning toward the Super White background, but I'm a little worried that it will be a tad too white and will reflect some of the white back on the subject and outshine the contours of the face (I guess I'm not that interested in High Key if I understand the term correctly, as I want some contrast on the subject's face, though still with as white background as possible.) On the other hand, I've read that Arctic White could be a little blue and in some cases reflect back a slightly blue tinge on the subject.

What do you think would be best for my setup, Super White or Arctic White?

Thanks for the help!

/Jonas

 

[Garry Edwards]

Either, there's no real-word difference.

If you're worried about unwanted reflected light causing problems (which is a valid concern) just make sure that there's plenty of space between background and subject.

 

[JEM3]

Either, there's no real-word difference.

If you're worried about unwanted reflected light causing problems (which is a valid concern) just make sure that there's plenty of space between background and subject.

Thanks for the reply. Are there any scenarios at all where one would wish to use a Super White over Arctic White or vice versa?

I'll try to make sure to have some space between the background and subject, though I can't have too much space since my studio will be rather small and I also intend to have the subject sitting on the white background itself to make it appear (if possible) as if the subject is sitting in something of an abstract space of white all around.

 

[bdslr]

Thanks for the reply. Are there any scenarios at all where one would wish to use a Super White over Arctic White or vice versa?

I'll try to make sure to have some space between the background and subject, though I can't have too much space since my studio will be rather small and I also intend to have the subject sitting on the white background itself to make it appear (if possible) as if the subject is sitting in something of an abstract space of white all around.

What Garry said. No difference. Grey backgrounds can be made white with the right application of light but as a beginner you will find either white will be fine for you.

And the space is all important for the reflected light. If you are relatively new to lighting in a studio space, my advice would be to rent a studio and play with it. A friend albeit patient one would do as your model.

 

[Phil V]

As above, of all the variables you’ve got to consider, a barely perceivable colour difference in the BG is about the least important*.
Broadly though I’d not choose a blue-white, why pick one you think might hold a problem (colour cast rather than being over reflective).

*a 6 inch difference in the placement of the BG light, or subject to BG distance can be significant for this type of thing.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Thanks for the reply. Are there any scenarios at all where one would wish to use a Super White over Arctic White or vice versa?

I'll try to make sure to have some space between the background and subject, though I can't have too much space since my studio will be rather small and I also intend to have the subject sitting on the white background itself to make it appear (if possible) as if the subject is sitting in something of an abstract space of white all around.

My guess is that manufacturers offer a wide range of different colours/shades for marketing reasons, i.e. to sell more products.

But, if we go back many years when we were all shooting on film and couldn’t edit in Photoshop then – possibly – there may have been some kind of reason for having slight differences in backgrounds. Even then though, skilled photographers would create/remove those differences by good lighting.

Back then, a good pro portrait on a white background would typically use 4 flashes (with reflective umbrellas) to light the vertical part of the background very evenly, and if the shot included the subjects’ feet there would be a couple more lights, lighting the floor too.

But, even with 4 or 6 lights on the background, there would be “hot spots”, so the exposure for the background would typically be overexposed by a factor of 4 (2 stops) to even it out. Even with the lighting arranged at the correct angles, a lot of light would travel back toward the lens, so we would use the Inverse Square Law to prevent the bright light from degrading the edges of the subject (especially areas of light clothing and hair) and this involved placing the subject no closer than 3m from the background, although more space made things easier.

But digital photography (and especially editing) has changed all that. 2 lights on the background are generally fine and many people only use one. The lighting on the background doesn’t need to be even, it just needs to be bright enough to make the background pure white in the area immediately around the subject, the rest can be made white in Photoshop.

And the background doesn’t need 2 stops of over-exposure either, 0.7 of a stop is about right, and this lower level of light on the background means that we don’t need as much separation either, although more space still makes life easier.

What Garry said. No difference. Grey backgrounds can be made white with the right application of light but as a beginner you will find either white will be fine for you.

And the space is all important for the reflected light. If you are relatively new to lighting in a studio space, my advice would be to rent a studio and play with it. A friend albeit patient one would do as your model.

Or you could/should just practice in the space you have. Your "model" could be an item of clothing, or a vase with flowers, or anything else. It really is all about the lighting, and there's a lot more to learn than most people seem to think.

Here's one of my very old tutorials, hope it helps

 

[JEM3]

What Garry said. No difference. Grey backgrounds can be made white with the right application of light but as a beginner you will find either white will be fine for you.

And the space is all important for the reflected light. If you are relatively new to lighting in a studio space, my advice would be to rent a studio and play with it. A friend albeit patient one would do as your model.

Both of the white backgrounds are relatively similar in price, so I suppose I'll go with the Super White even though I gather from your reply it would not be that different from the Arctic White. I'm completely new to lighting in studio space and I'll take your advice and practice as much as possible before actually doing a real shoot. I intend to build my own small studio where I live and will possibly try to find a patient one - or otherwise I'll just use myself as patient number one (I'll mainly record videos so practicing on myself wouldn't be too cumbersome).

As above, of all the variables you’ve got to consider, a barely perceivable colour difference in the BG is about the least important*.
Broadly though I’d not choose a blue-white, why pick one you think might hold a problem (colour cast rather than being over reflective).

*a 6 inch difference in the placement of the BG light, or subject to BG distance can be significant for this type of thing.

Yes I'll pick the one which is not a slightly blue-white, even though the difference might barely be perceivable. I'll be sure to test out different placements of background light and subject's distance to background to see which will produce the most white with the least amount of shadows cast.

My guess is that manufacturers offer a wide range of different colours/shades for marketing reasons, i.e. to sell more products.

But, if we go back many years when we were all shooting on film and couldn’t edit in Photoshop then – possibly – there may have been some kind of reason for having slight differences in backgrounds. Even then though, skilled photographers would create/remove those differences by good lighting.

Back then, a good pro portrait on a white background would typically use 4 flashes (with reflective umbrellas) to light the vertical part of the background very evenly, and if the shot included the subjects’ feet there would be a couple more lights, lighting the floor too.

But, even with 4 or 6 lights on the background, there would be “hot spots”, so the exposure for the background would typically be overexposed by a factor of 4 (2 stops) to even it out. Even with the lighting arranged at the correct angles, a lot of light would travel back toward the lens, so we would use the Inverse Square Law to prevent the bright light from degrading the edges of the subject (especially areas of light clothing and hair) and this involved placing the subject no closer than 3m from the background, although more space made things easier.

But digital photography (and especially editing) has changed all that. 2 lights on the background are generally fine and many people only use one. The lighting on the background doesn’t need to be even, it just needs to be bright enough to make the background pure white in the area immediately around the subject, the rest can be made white in Photoshop.

And the background doesn’t need 2 stops of over-exposure either, 0.7 of a stop is about right, and this lower level of light on the background means that we don’t need as much separation either, although more space still makes life easier.

Or you could/should just practice in the space you have. Your "model" could be an item of clothing, or a vase with flowers, or anything else. It really is all about the lighting, and there's a lot more to learn than most people seem to think.

Here's one of my very old tutorials, hope it helps

I will try to have the subject (myself) no closer than 3m from the background, though I will have a small studio with not so much space so it might not always be possible. My plan is to record videos where I sit on a white background - trying to create the impression of me floating around in an abstract space of whiteness. Since I will mainly record videos and not take images, it will probably be a little trickier to use an editing software to make the background more evenly white afterwards.
I have three GVM 1500d led lights, which I will use when filming. Before watching your tutorial I had intended to have two 1500d led lights in front of me on different sides (to even out shadows) and have the last led light shining directly on the background (with a higher effect than those two in front). Though now I'm thinking about maybe having just one light shining on me from the front (with possibly the use of a reflector on the other side to even out shadows), and having my remaining two lights both shining directly at the background - though with not so high effect, in order to avoid destroying the edge details as explained in your tutorial (a very good and helpful tutorial I must add, thank you).

 

[Garry Edwards]

Ahh . . . you've now told us that you're shooting video, which changes everything.

You don't need a white background at all. A much better option for your needs is probably a Chromakey background.
Chromakey backgrounds are typically either green or blue, the actual colour doesn't matter. All that matters is that the subject doesn't have the same or similar colours to the background, so if you're wearing a green shirt or have green hair then use a blue background, and so on.

Your video editing software will then automatically remove the background and substitute pure white (or anything else). Job done. We see this all the time on TV where, for example, the weather presenter appears to have a map behind them but in fact has a chromakey background.

Chromakey works for still photography too, but odd faults can creep in that can ruin the shot. With video, nobody notices.

The Chromakey background needs to be fairly evenly lit, but not as precisely as a non-chromakey background.

 

[JEM3]

Ahh . . . you've now told us that you're shooting video, which changes everything.

You don't need a white background at all. A much better option for your needs is probably a Chromakey background.
Chromakey backgrounds are typically either green or blue, the actual colour doesn't matter. All that matters is that the subject doesn't have the same or similar colours to the background, so if you're wearing a green shirt or have green hair then use a blue background, and so on.

Your video editing software will then automatically remove the background and substitute pure white (or anything else). Job done. We see this all the time on TV where, for example, the weather presenter appears to have a map behind them but in fact has a chromakey background.

Chromakey works for still photography too, but odd faults can creep in that can ruin the shot. With video, nobody notices.

The Chromakey background needs to be fairly evenly lit, but not as precisely as a non-chromakey background.

Sorry, I should've mentioned straight away that I was going to use the background for shooting video. I will look into chromakey, it seems like a good solution for me to get that abstract look of the subject floating in a white space. It also sounds good that it doesn't need to be as precisely lit as a non-chromakey background, that way I might get away with just using 1 or 2 led lights to light it. I will be using Davinci Resolve for video editing and hopefully this video editing software will have a good capability to remove the chromakey background and substitute it with pure white.
By the way, do you have a tutorial similar to the one of "Lighting a white background tutorial" but for chromakey background instead?
Thanks again!

 

[TimHughes]

Youtube is your friend for chromakey tutorials. It's a lot easier if the background is evenly lit, especially all the background immediately surrounding you. I usually use a green screen lit with 2 green fluorescent tubes in cheap light fittings mounted vertically on light stands for that. As with photos, unwanted reflected light can be an issue and distance, 3m or more separation from the background, helps a lot. If you have fine fair hair, then a rim light with "anti-green" gel helps too.

 

[JEM3]

Youtube is your friend for chromakey tutorials. It's a lot easier if the background is evenly lit, especially all the background immediately surrounding you. I usually use a green screen lit with 2 green fluorescent tubes in cheap light fittings mounted vertically on light stands for that. As with photos, unwanted reflected light can be an issue and distance, 3m or more separation from the background, helps a lot. If you have fine fair hair, then a rim light with "anti-green" gel helps too.

Thanks, I'll try to keep a 3m separation from the chromakey background and light it as evenly as possible. Maybe it would be a good idea to have my led lights set to green light in a similar way as you're using fluorescent tubes that are green. I'll play around and experiment to see what yields the best results in my rather small space.

 

[TimHughes]

Maybe it would be a good idea to have my led lights set to green light in a similar way as you're using fluorescent tubes that are green.

Might be lacking a bit of power though 75W LEDs, only one channel with green? Might be better with white and full power. Definitely worth experimenting.

 

[JEM3]

Might be lacking a bit of power though 75W LEDs, only one channel with green? Might be better with white and full power. Definitely worth experimenting.

Yes you are probably right, the green might not be as strong (at least if using just one of the 1500ds) and it could be better to just have it at white with full power directed at the chromakey. I will definitely experiment and see what works best once the chromakey background has arrived to me.