How to achieve a white WHITE background.. please help!

S

stellajane80

Messages
7
Name
Stella
Edit My Images
No
I have a white paper backdrop and a white fabric backdrop, when i take studio photos the white always turns out an off-white or grey...

What can i use so the background is white WHITE?

I've heard of photographers using a 'white screen'? What is this and where can you buy them? I've also heard of using a projector? can someone please tell me more about this...

And also, the photo attached of britney spears laying down in red, the background is white and the floor and white and shiney and shows a slight reflection, does anyone know what this floor is made out of? i would like to have it in my photography studio.

MatthewRolstonSet4-06red.jpg


and here are some of examples of the white background that i am trying to achieve...

FashionMagpic01.jpg


carolyn-murphy5.jpg
 
The background needs to be overexposed, pure and simple. To achieve this, you need to recognise that the person and the background are 2 different subjects and need to be lit independently, which means that you need enough distance between subject and background.
Also, you need distance to prevent too much light from bouncing off of the background on to your subject, which degrades the fine detail (hair etc) - a very common fault with white background photos.

If you can get the background very evenly lit then a 1/2 stop of overexposure will be fine. If you can't get even lighting then the level of overexposure will need to be higher, and the distance between subject and background will of course need to be greater.

The semi-reflection can be achieved in various ways, most common is simply a reflective surface such as acrylic or even vinyl then a bit of retouching to hide the joins. Other people do the whole thing on computer which seems to me like a very time-consuming way of making an easy job complicated - but then there are some people who think that the background should be made white on the computer too, when all it actually requires is a basic understanding of lighting.
 
I saw quite an interesting video on Youtube where the backdrop was lit from behind with a strobe and softbox.... The resulting pictures looked pretty smart....

Not sure how well that would work in reality though?

Might end up with a nice white background and a dirty looking floor... Anyone tried backlighting their backdrop?
 
I think you'll find most of your answers here :-

http://www.zarias.com/?p=71

I'm not sure if it's covered there, but avoid battering the BG with too much light as it becomes a light source of its own and starts to create problems.
I think 1-2 stops over exposed is the preferred amount.
 
cyclone said:
I think you'll find most of your answers here :-

http://www.zarias.com/?p=71

I'm not sure if it's covered there, but avoid battering the BG with too much light as it becomes a light source of its own and starts to create problems.
I think 1-2 stops over exposed is the preferred amount.
Click to expand...

I think that's a useful article but it needs a lot more info on the space requirements.
I was talking with a friend of mine yesterday, a very famous photographer. Like me he hates white backgrounds. He says that 16' between subject and background is the absolute minimum for perfect results and that 12' is the minimum for reasonable results. I'm not sure I agree with that, I can manage with 8' if I really have to but I prefer to have much more. Of course, if you're happy with the kind of damage to the hair/shoulders in that example picture then you can manage with less than that.

And I know that people who shoot with white backgrounds all the time have learned to manage in really small spaces, but being lazy I like to have enough space for the job to be easy and to not require any PP work
 
Garry Edwards said:
The background needs to be overexposed, pure and simple. To achieve this, you need to recognise that the person and the background are 2 different subjects and need to be lit independently, which means that you need enough distance between subject and background.
Also, you need distance to prevent too much light from bouncing off of the background on to your subject, which degrades the fine detail (hair etc) - a very common fault with white background photos.

If you can get the background very evenly lit then a 1/2 stop of overexposure will be fine. If you can't get even lighting then the level of overexposure will need to be higher, and the distance between subject and background will of course need to be greater.

The semi-reflection can be achieved in various ways, most common is simply a reflective surface such as acrylic or even vinyl then a bit of retouching to hide the joins. Other people do the whole thing on computer which seems to me like a very time-consuming way of making an easy job complicated - but then there are some people who think that the background should be made white on the computer too, when all it actually requires is a basic understanding of lighting.
Click to expand...


thanks for that, it was helpful :)

so i obviously need some more lights to light the backdrop, if i got a continuous light kit, what types of lights would u recommend? daylight, trungsten? or something else?
 
I did a load of pure white backgrounds on my magnolia wall at home just my positioning the subject about 5-6 foot away from the wall, and nuking it with two flashes to get a nice spread of light. One flash with a stofen can work but the light falls off pretty quick.
 
stellajane80 said:
thanks for that, it was helpful :)

so i obviously need some more lights to light the backdrop, if i got a continuous light kit, what types of lights would u recommend? daylight, trungsten? or something else?
Click to expand...

You can use any kind of light for this, but if possible it should be the same type of light as the light you use for the main subject, so if you're using flash for the subject then you should use flash for the background too, to get the same colour of light.

Flash is the most powerful and the easiest to control
 
stellajane80 said:
thanks for that, it was helpful :)

so i obviously need some more lights to light the backdrop, if i got a continuous light kit, what types of lights would u recommend? daylight, trungsten? or something else?
Click to expand...

All the lights in your set up need to be the same colour temperature! So you either use all flash or all tungsten! For people flash is much better - easier to freeze the people and more powerful and more easily controlled. You'll need to over expose the b/g by 2 stops to keep it pure white - although there is a lot you can do in PS afterwards.
 
awp said:
All the lights in your set up need to be the same colour temperature! So you either use all flash or all tungsten! For people flash is much better - easier to freeze the people and more powerful and more easily controlled. You'll need to over expose the b/g by 2 stops to keep it pure white - although there is a lot you can do in PS afterwards.
Click to expand...

My background is usually 1 stop at most over the subject exposure. It is white after all so overexposing just a bit should make it totally white anyway

2 stops over in a smaller room and you're in real danger of getting lots of spill coming back onto your subject and causing problems. Effectively, you're lighting the subject from behind too in this case. Hence Garry's comment on spacing between subject and background

Shooting it right means there's no PP work to do on the background = saved time = saved money (if you're charging that is)

:)

DD
 
I do agree that the size of the room/studio matters too - you need to experiment - and it's always better to get it right at the shoot of course.(y)
 
kiasdad said:
This might help...High key lighting.

Cheers


Mark
Click to expand...
Actually that article isn't about high key lighting, it's about how to get a white background.

I 'like' this quote "The background needs to be between 3 and 4 f stops overexposed when compared with the subject. So a meter reading that gives an aperture of f32 or preferably f45 will ensure this" which is total nonsense, as his example pic demonstrates
 
Garry Edwards said:
Actually that article isn't about high key lighting, it's about how to get a white background.

I 'like' this quote "The background needs to be between 3 and 4 f stops overexposed when compared with the subject. So a meter reading that gives an aperture of f32 or preferably f45 will ensure this" which is total nonsense, as his example pic demonstrates
Click to expand...

:agree:

He's not often wrong on this lighting stuff is old Garry ;)

:LOL:

DD
 
Garry Edwards said:
Actually that article isn't about high key lighting, it's about how to get a white background.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

I 'like' this quote "The background needs to be between 3 and 4 f stops overexposed when compared with the subject. So a meter reading that gives an aperture of f32 or preferably f45 will ensure this" which is total nonsense, as his example pic demonstrates
Click to expand...

No it's not, you've taken it out of context.:nono: A little further up the article, it says "For the sake of argument, we will assume that an aperture of f11 will give the correct exposure." + 3 stops from f11 is f32. +4 stops is f45 (assuming you're metering off the background).

Not quite sure what the pic 'clearly demonstrates' in this case.
 
kiasdad said:
Fair enough.



No it's not, you've taken it out of context.:nono: A little further up the article, it says "For the sake of argument, we will assume that an aperture of f11 will give the correct exposure." + 3 stops from f11 is f32. +4 stops is f45 (assuming you're metering off the background).

Not quite sure what the pic 'clearly demonstrates' in this case.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you think I've taken that statement out of context. He is clearly stating that the background should be overexposed by at least 3 stops, preferably 4, and he illustates this by stating that if f/11 will give the correct exposure (for the subject) then the background should meter at f/45. At least he's got his maths right if nothing else.

And, as his picture is IMO a very good example of a background so grossly overexposed that it has totally damaged the edge detail on the subject, I think that it clearly demonstrates that the article is written by someone who doesn't understand the basics.

It isn't rocket science, the background just needs to be lit evenly, slightly brighter than the subject, and the subject needs to be far enough away for the reflected light not to damage the subject.

Of course, if you think that that example photo is OK then that's fair enough.
 
In my opinion the background doesn't need to be overlit, after all it's white to start with, if it's correctly evenly lit and the exposure is right it'll be white. The trick is to ballance your subjects lighting for the correctly exposed background, then you won't get the blowback you'll sometimes get from an overlit background. Wayne
 
Even on my rubbish laptop screen I can tell that photo is pants! 3-4 stops overexposure would cause a loss of edge detail (assuming your background is actually white, not 'forcing' a different colour white)

I'd listen to Garry on pretty much anything flash related - he is right and everyone else is wrong
 
Rolls around laughing :D

After all, it's not like you have ever used a white background is it? :naughty:
 
A slight misunderstanding?

Dave's only crime was to call me old.:crying:
It wasn't he who said that I was wrong - although I'm sure he will if he thinks I am - which everyone is entitled to do.
 
Garry Edwards said:
A slight misunderstanding?

Dave's only crime was to call me old.:crying:
It wasn't he who said that I was wrong - although I'm sure he will if he thinks I am - which everyone is entitled to do.
Click to expand...

Garry has only ever said one thing I didn't agree with - and he then agreed with me too that he'd made a minor error :D

I call Garry the 'Oracle' of all flashy things for a good reason, he's been at it longer than I've been alive (hence the OLD comments :LOL: and I'm hardly a spring chicken)

He imparts his knowledge freely, and seems to keep answering the same questions on here time & time again without showing he's bored of it all

:clap::clap::clap: at Mr Flashy himself ;)

DD
 
Just pulling you leg Rick and any excuse I get to pull DD'd leg just HAS to be taken, it's the law ;)

And I'll agree with DD on the Venerable Mr Edwards. I've not seem him be wrong and learned a heck of a lot in the process. I'd take my hat off..............but I'm not wearing one ;)
 
AliB said:
Just pulling you leg Rick and any excuse I get to pull DD'd leg just HAS to be taken, it's the law ;)

And I'll agree with DD on the Venerable Mr Edwards. I've not seem him be wrong and learned a heck of a lot in the process. I'd take my hat off..............but I'm not wearing one ;)
Click to expand...

All this leg pulling isn't working Ali - I'm still a short-arse :D

Keep it up though - it's funny if not overly effective height-wise (y)

DD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top