How to get the white background bright

[Derrel]

Well, when working with a background that they want to be white, the majority of people think that they need to "add more light" to the background. And quite often, that can be done. But there are many situations where one cannot add any more light to the background to make it whiter...like they have their strobes dialed all the way to maximum power, or they have fixed-output lights that cannot be turned up any brighter...and so they think, "well, I am screwed".

Bottom line--most people think only of "adding light to the background", when in reality, there *is* another option: reducing the amount of light shot onto the foreground subject. I just was trying to explain that to a person who, it seemed like, had a limited number of tools at his disposal, and who needed a simple way to make the background white. Without the need to "add more light" to the background.

I first saw this in a Collins on Basics magazine article in the old Peterson's Photographic Magazine back in 1984 I think it was, so it's been a technique I have known about and used for 27 years or so. I cut the article out of the magazine and added it to my studio lighting tech samples book. I still have it around here someplace.

 

[Buckster]

Yep, you need more light on the background to keep it white in the photo. >SNIP>

Yes, more light on the background will make it appear whiter.That is one way of accomplishing your goal.

A second way is one I use a LOT, but which many people never even think of. It's called "key-shifting".

If you keep the SAME amount of light on the background, but use LESS LIGHT on the subject than you were using, the RATIO of background-to-foreground lighting will change.

This will also require an exposure adjustment to brighten up the foreground subject; so to compensate for the LOWER light you are using on the foreground subject, you will need to open up the lens OR elevate the ISO level a click or two or three. (or a combination)

A good example would be a backdrop lighted by 2 x 100 watt lamps, and a foreground lighted by one 75-watt lamp...background is not white enough...so, you SHIFT the foreground light downward to a 40-watt lamp, and elevate the ISO two clicks....BOOM! Pure white background.

Exactly so. I find this to be the preferred method as well.

Also, this is misleading:

A medium gray background can be use to make a white or black background if the photographer has a solid understanding of exposure. Using colored gels on the background lights a gray background can also by made a wide variety of pastel colors.

Actually, a white, gray or black background can be used to achieve those effects as well, and the gray can be any shade of gray between white and black. It need not be a medium gray background to achieve those effects. As to a need to have "a solid understanding of exposure" to pull it off, see Derrel's explanation above. It does take a basic understanding, but it's not rocket science.

And this is just incorrect:

if you want good saturated colors from gelled lights you need a black background.

As above, this can be achieved with a white, black or any shade of gray between them as a background. Any of those can be used to make any shade of color there is, from pastels to deep saturations, from the lightest shades to the darkest.

 

[unpopular]

Well, when working with a background that they want to be white, the majority of people think that they need to "add more light" to the background. And quite often, that can be done. But there are many situations where one cannot add any more light to the background to make it whiter...like they have their strobes dialed all the way to maximum power, or they have fixed-output lights that cannot be turned up any brighter...and so they think, "well, I am screwed".

Of course in the end you're pretty much doing the same thing in both cases, except that your exposure reference is the subject and not the white background - so you just keep dumping more light onto the background.

People tend to think of exposure all wrong in my opinion, and this is another symptom of the larger issue at hand: that the amount of available light, rather than the amount of reflected light, determines exposure.

As KmH said, any background can be any color with enough exposure. All that exposure refers to the amount of light accumulated at the camera's sensor or film plane over a period of time. You have three ways to adjust this (aside from ISO) - increasing light available, increasing aperture or increasing time.

The only difference is that Darrel, Buckster and myself are saying to provide that exposure by adjusting the camera rather than adjusting the lights, and then lighting the subject according to the exposure settings required to get a white background. I think this is a much better approach because we already know that the background must be kept constant regardless of what how the subject is to be rendered or how much light the subject reflects. So if you meter for the subject, you'll affect not only the subject, but also the background - you'll then have to go back and adjust the background to compensate. By metering for the background, and adjusting the lighting for the subject then you only affect the exposure of the subject.

If one familiarizes themselves with the Zone System scale it becomes much easier to understand this. If your subject is Caucasian and you know that your background is at Zone IX, and the meter is reading Zone V on the model, you know you'll need to increase the amount of light at the subject by one or two stops. If your subject is Black and the meter is reading Zone XII, you know you'll need to decrease the amount of light on the subject by two to four stops depending on skin tone.

Without the darkroom end of it, the Zone System is really not all that complicated. It's essentially just exposure compensation.

The bottom line is that any tone can be rendered as any other tone - what you consider "over" or "under" exposure is kind of a misleading term. Rather, misexposure is simply a where a tonal region is "misplaced" in a darker or lighter zone than what is normally appropriate. This is why I don't use "over exposure" or "under exposure" except to describe clipping. In images which clipping does not occur, I think of it as "too dark" or "too light" - which is really an interpretation, however universal, rather than a technical fault.

 

[brothersanju]

Thanks for the lovely responses. Can you please simplify a bit more on the things that I need to cater in terms of what to buy/ where to buy / what to adjust / light.
My background is Muslin White.
Camera is ordinary digital.
Subject is mannequin to photograph clothing. Subject colour is black and a separate mannequin as white.

Now, sorry to be dumb in this ocean of professionals, my questions are:

1. Background: Should I buy background lights?
2. Background: What kind of lights should I buy (example speed lights?)
3. Background: What should be the watts of the lights?
4. Background: How many in numbers?
5. Background: Please suggest a (reasonable) link to buy?
6. Background: Should the background lights be continous?

7. Subject: Should I buy subject lights?
8. Subject: What kind of lights should I buy (example softbox?)
9. Subject: What should be the watts of the lights?
10 Subject: How many in numbers?
11. Subject: Please suggest a (reasonable) link to buy?
12. Subject: Should the subject lights be continous?

13. If I use the background and subject lights will I need any other "main" lights as I read in some posts?
14. If I use the above lights then should I use the camera flash?

Thanks a lot for your comments. Extremely useful and educative.

Well, when working with a background that they want to be white, the majority of people think that they need to "add more light" to the background. And quite often, that can be done. But there are many situations where one cannot add any more light to the background to make it whiter...like they have their strobes dialed all the way to maximum power, or they have fixed-output lights that cannot be turned up any brighter...and so they think, "well, I am screwed".

Of course in the end you're pretty much doing the same thing in both cases, except that your exposure reference is the subject and not the white background - so you just keep dumping more light onto the background.

People tend to think of exposure all wrong in my opinion, and this is another symptom of the larger issue at hand: that the amount of available light, rather than the amount of reflected light, determines exposure.

As KmH said, any background can be any color with enough exposure. All that exposure refers to the amount of light accumulated at the camera's sensor or film plane over a period of time. You have three ways to adjust this (aside from ISO) - increasing light available, increasing aperture or increasing time.

The only difference is that Darrel, Buckster and myself are saying to provide that exposure by adjusting the camera rather than adjusting the lights, and then lighting the subject according to the exposure settings required to get a white background. I think this is a much better approach because we already know that the background must be kept constant regardless of what how the subject is to be rendered or how much light the subject reflects. So if you meter for the subject, you'll affect not only the subject, but also the background - you'll then have to go back and adjust the background to compensate. By metering for the background, and adjusting the lighting for the subject then you only affect the exposure of the subject.

If one familiarizes themselves with the Zone System scale it becomes much easier to understand this. If your subject is Caucasian and you know that your background is at Zone IX, and the meter is reading Zone V on the model, you know you'll need to increase the amount of light at the subject by one or two stops. If your subject is Black and the meter is reading Zone XII, you know you'll need to decrease the amount of light on the subject by two to four stops depending on skin tone.

Without the darkroom end of it, the Zone System is really not all that complicated. It's essentially just exposure compensation.

The bottom line is that any tone can be rendered as any other tone - what you consider "over" or "under" exposure is kind of a misleading term. Rather, misexposure is simply a where a tonal region is "misplaced" in a darker or lighter zone than what is normally appropriate. This is why I don't use "over exposure" or "under exposure" except to describe clipping. In images which clipping does not occur, I think of it as "too dark" or "too light" - which is really an interpretation, however universal, rather than a technical fault.

 

[gsgary]

Thanks for the lovely responses. Can you please simplify a bit more on the things that I need to cater in terms of what to buy/ where to buy / what to adjust / light.
My background is Muslin White.
Camera is ordinary digital.
Subject is mannequin to photograph clothing. Subject colour is black and a separate mannequin as white.



Now, sorry to be dumb in this ocean of professionals, my questions are:

1. Background: Should I buy background lights?
2. Background: What kind of lights should I buy (example speed lights?)
3. Background: What should be the watts of the lights?
4. Background: How many in numbers?
5. Background: Please suggest a (reasonable) link to buy?
6. Background: Should the background lights be continous?

7. Subject: Should I buy subject lights?
8. Subject: What kind of lights should I buy (example softbox?)
9. Subject: What should be the watts of the lights?
10 Subject: How many in numbers?
11. Subject: Please suggest a (reasonable) link to buy?
12. Subject: Should the subject lights be continous?

13. If I use the background and subject lights will I need any other "main" lights as I read in some posts?
14. If I use the above lights then should I use the camera flash?

Thanks a lot for your comments. Extremely useful and educative.

Well, when working with a background that they want to be white, the majority of people think that they need to "add more light" to the background. And quite often, that can be done. But there are many situations where one cannot add any more light to the background to make it whiter...like they have their strobes dialed all the way to maximum power, or they have fixed-output lights that cannot be turned up any brighter...and so they think, "well, I am screwed".

Of course in the end you're pretty much doing the same thing in both cases, except that your exposure reference is the subject and not the white background - so you just keep dumping more light onto the background.

People tend to think of exposure all wrong in my opinion, and this is another symptom of the larger issue at hand: that the amount of available light, rather than the amount of reflected light, determines exposure.

As KmH said, any background can be any color with enough exposure. All that exposure refers to the amount of light accumulated at the camera's sensor or film plane over a period of time. You have three ways to adjust this (aside from ISO) - increasing light available, increasing aperture or increasing time.

The only difference is that Darrel, Buckster and myself are saying to provide that exposure by adjusting the camera rather than adjusting the lights, and then lighting the subject according to the exposure settings required to get a white background. I think this is a much better approach because we already know that the background must be kept constant regardless of what how the subject is to be rendered or how much light the subject reflects. So if you meter for the subject, you'll affect not only the subject, but also the background - you'll then have to go back and adjust the background to compensate. By metering for the background, and adjusting the lighting for the subject then you only affect the exposure of the subject.

If one familiarizes themselves with the Zone System scale it becomes much easier to understand this. If your subject is Caucasian and you know that your background is at Zone IX, and the meter is reading Zone V on the model, you know you'll need to increase the amount of light at the subject by one or two stops. If your subject is Black and the meter is reading Zone XII, you know you'll need to decrease the amount of light on the subject by two to four stops depending on skin tone.

Without the darkroom end of it, the Zone System is really not all that complicated. It's essentially just exposure compensation.

The bottom line is that any tone can be rendered as any other tone - what you consider "over" or "under" exposure is kind of a misleading term. Rather, misexposure is simply a where a tonal region is "misplaced" in a darker or lighter zone than what is normally appropriate. This is why I don't use "over exposure" or "under exposure" except to describe clipping. In images which clipping does not occur, I think of it as "too dark" or "too light" - which is really an interpretation, however universal, rather than a technical fault.

These beat the Elincrom D2's SmartFlash 3 Head mains powered Kit with twin softboxes - Flash Heads & flash kits - Lencarta
I have a few 300's very good value

 

[unpopular]

Now, sorry to be dumb in this ocean of professionals

Do not EVER compare me to one of *them*. LMAO.

1. Background: Should I buy background lights?

yes. Since your subject is stationary, they needn't be super powerful, but more power is always better.

2. Background: What kind of lights should I buy (example speed lights?)

It doesn't really matter. I wouldn't get speed lights. They're good for location, but if you have a power source, there is no need for the expense. If the manaquene is full-sized, you'll want more power than what simple speed lights could produce. The real important thing is that the color temp be similar. If you use incandescent, use incandescent for both the subject and teh background, if you use fluorescent, make sure use use the same type of bulb for both, if you use flash, use flash for both. I'd go with the flashpoint/mettle brand myself.

3. Background: What should be the watts of the lights?

For continuous lighting I'd use 400w or equivalent. Strobes I'd get at least 300ws. It's usually much better to have too much power than not enough. With my 300ws strobes, I very seldom feel like I don't have enough power - but I'm pretty new to lighting, at least the practical end of it.

4. Background: How many in numbers?

At least two

5. Background: Please suggest a (reasonable) link to buy?

Continuous lighting
FPCL1A Flashpoint Cool Light 1, 10.5" Reflector with One 55W Fluorescent Bulb, Equivalent to 225 watts
FPCL4 Flashpoint Cool Light 4 -16" Reflector with Four 55W Fluorescent Bulbs, 480 Watt Equivalent.
FPCL1KX2C Flashpoint Cool Kit with 2 10½" Reflectors, 2 30W Fluorescent Bulb (300W Equivelant), 2 7½" Stands, Carrying Case.

for flash:
FP620M Flashpoint II 620M, 300 Watt Second AC / DC Monolight Strobe. (D/C Operation Requires FP2PPN Battery Pack)
FP620AK Flashpoint II 620A Two Monolight Kit with Stands, Umbrellas,& Case

(these are identical to mine except they can be used with a battery. They aren't exactly 'professional' but they work well)

6. Background: Should the background lights be continous?

they can be, just make use that the foreground and background are similar in color temp. Strobes are more cost effective when you're talking lumens per dollar.

I will let someone else take on the specifics on how to light the subject, as I said, I'm pretty new to lighting.

 

[brothersanju]

 

[brothersanju]

What would you say about the image above?

 

[unpopular]

You have a LONG way to go yet

As far as the background, you need much more light. You should also iron the background, and have the subject maybe 5' minimum away.

 

[brothersanju]

I will be popular as Unpopular "after" This was the before.

You have a LONG way to go yet

As far as the background, you need much more light. You should also iron the background, and have the subject maybe 5' minimum away.

 

[unpopular]

LMAO. People don't like me! And they dislike my photographs even more.

 

[jaicatalano]

Light up the background but not so much that it wraps around your subject. Then light you subject with another light source. If you have a lot of space you will be more successful. If you have limited room it's a *****. Trust me. I do it all day long.

 

[gsgary]

LMAO. People don't like me! And they dislike my photographs even more.

I think your OK

 

[gsgary]

What would you say about the image above?

You are not allowed to post nudes on here

 

[brothersanju]

It's semi nude gsgary. That's allowed.

What would you say about the image above?

You are not allowed to post nudes on here