Beginner Silhouette with AE-L

[JonnyH89]

A bit bored today and its crap weather to go out so having a play with my camera in the house. I want to try silhouette shots sometime so thought I'd see if its possible indoors and I have an LED table which I thought I could use as the backlight and a random thing (Brian) as the subject. I'm using spot-metering and single-point AF.

SubjectExposure.jpg - taken with the AF spot over the subject to expose for that.
BackgroundExposure.jpg - I moved the AF spot over a bright part of the background and held the AE-L while moving the AF spot back to the subject and taking the shot.

The results are kinda what I expected but no where near the silhouette I was hoping for. Am I doing something wrong or is my backlight not bright enough?

 

[pjm1]

You have too big a light source for the subject you're trying to silhouette which means the light is reflecting off its sides and preventing it from being a true silhouette. The sun is effectively a point light source, so if you want to replicate that effect, you need a single (reasonably powerful) light a decent distance from the subject you're trying to silhouette.

Typed quickly so not sure if that makes sense? tl;dr - move the suject a lot closer to camera so that the light source is smaller in comparison within the frame...

 

[Phil-D]

Hi Jonny, as Paul has said, it not a very bright light source. I think your over complicating things, set camera to manual, aperture wide open and keep upping the shutter speed until 'Brian' is a silhouette. If that fails you may need a brighter light

 

[JonnyH89]

Thanks, both methods seem to work. While using AE-L moving the subject closer gives a much better silhouette. Using manual instead of AE-L is easier although results in a less exposed background, i'm sure that's something you could fix in PP though.

Is there any time you would choose one method over the other or is it just personal preference?

 

[Phil-D]

It's just personal choice for me, very rarely use the AE-L button.

 

[JonnyH89]

I'll get out the next decent day and try both, probably end up sticking with manual method. I don't like holding the AE-L button and would probably forget to disable it if I used it in lock mode.

Now I want to go and try some night shots after looking at your Flickr. Love your shot of the light painted rocks.

 

[Phil V]

Basically what Paul said, for a silhouette your light source is too close to your subject. Generally silhouettes are easy, try a day lit window and a figure.

 

[Phil-D]

@JonnyH89

I've just sat this little ornament on a box with the back of it touching the telly, paused on a screen not overly bright and shot this

1/400th, f1.8, ISO 100

I would have thought you should be able to achieve something similar with 'Brian' with the light source you have there Jonny


_D7K2763 by Phil D 245, on Flickr

 

[JonnyH89]

That's what I was hoping for. Got very close to that earlier but I had the ceiling lights on which I think would have made the background too under exposed for a complete silhouette like you have.

Only working with the 18-55 kit lens so no f1.8 for me. Have a list of gear I need to buy.

 

[Phil V]

That's what I was hoping for. Got very close to that earlier but I had the ceiling lights on which I think would have made the background too under exposed for a complete silhouette like you have.

Only working with the 18-55 kit lens so no f1.8 for me. Have a list of gear I need to buy.

Your 18-55 would have the same shot at f5.6 ISO 400 and about 1/160, the shot doesn't require the shallow DoF.

 

[JonnyH89]

I'll have another play. Just out of interest @Phil V what method do you use for silhouette?

 

[JonnyH89]

Works fine against the TV, definitely think manual mode is the way to go for silhouette.

 

[Phil V]

I'll have another play. Just out of interest @Phil V what method do you use for silhouette?

Given I shoot mostly people, my silhouettes are generally people shot against sunsets, I expose for the sunset and tweak.

I have used them during bridal prep in bright bathrooms, again, meter the window and you're just about there.

I'm not a 'fix it in post' shooter, but when you're nearly there a touch of the black point in LR will clean them up perfectly.

 

[Phil V]

Works fine against the TV, definitely think manual mode is the way to go for silhouette.

It's been discussed ad-infinitum, there's nothing you can do in manual you can't do in other modes, in fact it's nothing to do with exposure mode and everything to do with understanding your meter. Whether you use AEL exp comp or manual, it makes no difference.

 

[Phil-D]

Your 18-55 would have the same shot at f5.6 ISO 400 and about 1/160, the shot doesn't require the shallow DoF.

I was just trying to get mi head round this but its something that I'm still struggling with, 1/400, f1.8, ISO 100 is about equivalent to 1/80, f3.5, ISO 100 I think

Would you possibly be kind enough to have a link to shutter speed and aperture equivalents Phil? cheers

 

[Phil V]

I was just trying to get mi head round this but its something that I'm still struggling with, 1/400, f1.8, ISO 100 is about equivalent to 1/80, f3.5, ISO 100 I think

Would you possibly be kind enough to have a link to shutter speed and aperture equivalents Phil? cheers

Well I count em in my head. Starting with the kit lens at 50mm, being close to 5.6 wide open. Which means we need 3.5 stops (1/2 stop to f2, then 2.8, 4, 5.6)

You could do those 3.5 stops just with shutter speed, with IS it might work, but my answer gave a healthy shutter speed / ISO mix.

Your calculations were the same as mine, but you hadn't figured the kit lens would be at it's smaller max aperture, and you only moved the SS to compensate, I did 2 stops of ISO and a stop and a third of SS. (Close enough for Jazz)

 

[JonnyH89]

Ok hearing it described as 'fix in post' has kinda put me off the manual method.

For me personally I think I'd prefer to expose correctly on the camera or at least need very little PP adjustment.

Thanks all of you for your input, much appreciated.

 

[Phil-D]

wouldn't @18mm wide open be f3.5 I would have thought a shutter speed of 1/80 would be fine so I worked it out to keep the ISO the same. As I said, I'm struggling to work it in mi head ..........I'll have a google, should be able to find sumot

 

[Phil-D]

Ok hearing it described as 'fix in post' has kinda put me off the manual method.

For me personally I think I'd prefer to expose correctly on the camera or at least need very little PP adjustment.

Thanks all of you for your input, much appreciated.

Jonny, why would you need to fix it in post?,What I've just shown you there is SOOC, again, don't read too much into it

 

[JonnyH89]

Jonny, why would you need to fix it in post?, again, don't read too much into it

From my playing about indoors using the manual mode seems to leave the background under exposed each time. I would have to boost this in PP.

Whereas using AE-L to expose for the background should leave me with my background already at the correct exposure.

Have I got that wrong?

I have a habit of thinking about things too much and confusing myself.

 

[Phil V]

wouldn't @18mm wide open be f3.5 I would have thought a shutter speed of 1/80 would be fine so I worked it out to keep the ISO the same. As I said, I'm struggling to work it in mi head ..........I'll have a google, should be able to find sumot

No, the 18-55 isn't a fixed aperture zoom, it's 3.5 at 18mm and 5.6 at 55, 50mm is close enough to the long end to mean it's 5.6 (I don't have one to check, but I'll eat my hat if I'm miles out).

All stops of light are equal:
So 100ISO TO 200ISO is a stop brighter
1/400sec to 1/200sec is a stop brighter
F2.8 to F2.0 is a stop brighter

 

[Phil-D]

You could just expose for the bg in manual, but for the sunset scenario you will probably need to underexpose the scene slightly anyway from what the metre reads to stop it from being blown

 

[Phil V]

From my playing about indoors using the manual mode seems to leave the background under exposed each time. I would have to boost this in PP.

Whereas using AE-L to expose for the background should leave me with my background already at the correct exposure.

Have I got that wrong?

I have a habit of thinking about things too much and confusing myself.

Using the same metering method of the same scene, whether you use AEL or M will get you the same exposure. The only way it'll be different is if the method is inconsistent.

 

[Phil-D]

No, the 18-55 isn't a fixed aperture zoom, it's 3.5 at 18mm and 5.6 at 55, 50mm is close enough to the long end to mean it's 5.6 (I don't have one to check, but I'll eat my hat if I'm miles out).

All stops of light are equal:
So 100ISO TO 200ISO is a stop brighter
1/400sec to 1/200sec is a stop brighter
F2.8 to F2.0 is a stop brighter

I was thinking he would shoot at 18mm rather than 50mm so @f3.5.
Your knowledge is far greater than mine probably ever will be Phil when it come to photography, don't be thinking I'm trying to disagree with anything you say

 

[Phil V]

I was thinking he would shoot at 18mm rather than 50mm so @f3.5.
Your knowledge is far greater than mine probably ever will be Phil when it come to photography, don't be thinking I'm trying to disagree with anything you say

My logic was just if we're comparing to the shot with the 50mm prime, surely we'd shoot at 50mm on the zoom Otherwise the shot would be vastly different.

I don't think this is an argument I thought I was helping the understanding.

 

[JonnyH89]

Ok so both methods can achieve the same exposure.

I think it would be easier for me to use for example aperture priority with AE-L and let the camera adjust shutter speed for the exposure.

If I had more experience and understood how to calculate or get close to the correct exposure in manual I could go that route.

At the minute in manual mode I'd be making a stab in the dark at the settings.

 

[JonnyH89]

I don't think this is an argument I thought I was helping the understanding.

It's all helping, and you were correct about the aperture at 50mm so your hat is safe.

 

[Phil-D]

My logic was just if we're comparing to the shot with the 50mm prime, surely we'd shoot at 50mm on the zoom Otherwise the shot would be vastly different.

I don't think this is an argument I thought I was helping the understanding.

Right, I see the misunderstanding, it's a 35mm prime I used, I was thinking at 18mm he would be able to focus a lot nearer the subject to get a similar POV to my shot

 

[Phil V]

Ok so both methods can achieve the same exposure.

I think it would be easier for me to use for example aperture priority with AE-L and let the camera adjust shutter speed for the exposure.

If I had more experience and understood how to calculate or get close to the correct exposure in manual I could go that route.

At the minute in manual mode I'd be making a stab in the dark at the settings.

In manual, you'd do exactly the same thing, but you wouldn't have to keep re-measuring your light. you can frame the shot in AV, at the point you'd lock your exposure, make a note of the SS And Aperture, then turn the camera to M and use those settings.

 

[Phil V]

Right, I see the misunderstanding, it's a 35mm prime I used, I was thinking at 18mm he would be able to focus a lot nearer the subject to get a similar POV to my shot

Aah, there you have it, my stupid assumption (although the zoom would probably be 4.5 or 5 at 35mm). If you were on FF he'd need about 24mm which is probably f4 or 4.5 (they close down pretty quick)

 

[sk66]

The problem is the lighting characteristics of your LED table and "wrap." Every point of light is sending out a "beam" pattern of light. Apparently the LED assemblies on the table produce very wide spreads which allows the points off to the side to wrap around the sides (light them from an angle). This is similar to standing in front of a large light modifier/source while photographing a subject... if you are close enough to it, and there is enough distance to the subject, you won't throw a shadow on the subject.
The reason the TV works better is that the LED's (or lighting characteristics) have a much narrower spread (i.e. narrower viewing angle). Because they have a narrower spread they are already past the object before they are wide enough to light it from the sides. This is similar to standing in front of a large gridded modifier... you will throw a harder shadow further.

This is essentially what Paul said. I made the distinction because it's not just about the size of the light source or it's distance. It's just as much about the characteristics of the light source. And because it working with the TV and manual mode seemed to be confusing the issue.

The discussions of exposures are kind of confusing the issue as well IMO. Changing the exposure doesn't change the light ratios or angles/characteristics, so it doesn't "create" a silhouette. It just brings the whole scene up or down.

 

[Phil V]

The problem is the lighting characteristics of your LED table and "wrap." Every point of light is sending out a "beam" pattern of light. Apparently the LED assemblies on the table produce very wide spreads which allows the points off to the side to wrap around the sides (light them from an angle). This is similar to standing in front of a large light modifier/source while photographing a subject... if you are close enough to it, and there is enough distance to the subject, you won't throw a shadow on the subject.
The reason the TV works better is that the LED's (or lighting characteristics) have a much narrower spread (i.e. narrower viewing angle). Because they have a narrower spread they are already past the object before they are wide enough to light it from the sides. This is similar to standing in front of a large gridded modifier... you will throw a harder shadow further.

This is essentially what Paul said. I made the distinction because it's not just about the size of the light source or it's distance. It's just as much about the characteristics of the light source. And because it working with the TV and manual mode seemed to be confusing the issue.

The discussions of exposures are kind of confusing the issue as well IMO. Changing the exposure doesn't change the light ratios or angles/characteristics, so it doesn't "create" a silhouette. It just brings the whole scene up or down.

It was said, but got a bit lost...

Basically what Paul said, for a silhouette your light source is too close to your subject. Generally silhouettes are easy, try a day lit window and a figure.

 

[sk66]

It was said, but got a bit lost...

Generally silhouettes are easy, try a day lit window and a figure.

Yes, but "a day lit window" can be either soft or hard... it's about the characteristics of the light coming thru the window and what the window is doing to that light (i.e. direct/indirect, frosted or sheers). Just like all lighting modifiers have different characteristics (angles/spreads) that have nothing to do with their size or distance.

Maybe I'm putting too fine of a point on it for "beginners;" I don't know. But I wish I had learned/understood this earlier on...

 

[JonnyH89]

Yes, but "a day lit window" can be either soft or hard... it's about the characteristics of the light coming thru the window and what the window is doing to that light (i.e. frosted or sheers). Just like all lighting modifiers have different characteristics (angles/spreads) that have nothing to do with their size or distance.

Maybe I'm putting too fine of a point on it for "beginners;" I don't know. But I wish I had learned/understood this earlier on...

Nope I completely understand what you're saying and it makes sense.

Particularly with my table, there is a frost film on it which is scattering the light every direction. I just never thought about it impacting my attempt at silhouette.

 

[sk66]

Nope I completely understand what you're saying and it makes sense.

Particularly with my table, there is a frost film on it which is scattering the light every direction. I just never thought about it impacting my attempt at silhouette.

Ah, so there's a lot of refraction going on as well... that makes sense. Because Phil is right; silhouettes are generally easy to create; you normally just need a decent lighting ratio. You could put Brian directly on a softbox of any size and easily get a silhouette (but the problem would probably be lens bloom reducing the contrast).

I hope you also understand that it's about the lighting ratio (brightness of the BG vs brightness of the subject) and not about the exposure as such.

 

[JonnyH89]

Ah, so there's a lot of refraction going on as well... that makes sense. Because Phil is right; silhouettes are generally easy to create; you just need a decent lighting ratio. You could put Brian directly on a softbox of any size and easily get a silhouette (but the problem would probably be lens bloom reducing the contrast).

I hope you also understand that it's about the lighting ratio (brightness of the BG vs brightness of the subject) and not about the exposure as such.

Yea I think I get the lighting ratio. Less light on subject and more in the background is going to make it easier to silhouette.

So like today being overcast, it would be more difficult to get a silhouette or rather an acceptable level of silhouette compared to a bright sunny sky.

 

[sk66]

Yea I think I get the lighting ratio. Less light on subject and more in the background is going to make it easier to silhouette.

So like today being overcast, it would be more difficult to get a silhouette or rather an acceptable level of silhouette compared to a bright sunny sky.

You've got it...
Without a descent lighting ratio you'll never get a silhouette. All you could get is a dark image.

 

[Phil V]

Yea I think I get the lighting ratio. Less light on subject and more in the background is going to make it easier to silhouette.

So like today being overcast, it would be more difficult to get a silhouette or rather an acceptable level of silhouette compared to a bright sunny sky.

And this is where my 'fix it in post' comes in for the final quality.

We don't always get 100% control of light, and when you've gone to a lot of trouble to set up and capture a silhouette, but the sky was holding just a bit more light than you'd like, do you throw away the image because it's not 'right in camera' or do you tweak the black point?

It's not about getting the exposure right (as you now understand) but even if you're working in a studio, there might be an unexpected reflection back onto the subject (less likely than when working with natural light). Post processing of the image at that point is as old as photography itself, it's not about right and wrong, it's part of the process to get a perfect image to hang on the wall.

When people see my sunset silhouettes, their first reaction is 'photoshop' the complicated truth is that there is some photoshop, but the image is 95% as it was captured.

Back to your table and figure, as I said if you put some distance between them the light source will wrap less (because it's effectively smaller). But there'll be a point where you can get no more separation and you might still have a touch of wrap, that's the point when you clean up the black point.

 

[JonnyH89]

Thank you all, understand much better now.

At the start I thought PP in photography was cheating but now I can see that it's part of it. PP is pointless if the image is useless to start with.

 

[Phil V]

... PP is pointless if the image is useless to start with.

Absolutely.

If all you want to produce is snaps, PP is a waste of time and effort, but if you're trying to produce something worth looking at, you start with a plan and finish with a polish. The creation of the final image is worth a bit of effort all the way through.