Perception and black backgrounds

[Tim Tucker]

I'd like to explore a theme I started with some comments I made on an image. You are all aware that if you take a picture of somebody on a sunny day and paste it on a background taken on a dull overcast day then nearly all will notice the inconsistencies (but not everybody will) and see it clearly as one image pasted on another.

So why do fewer notice when you reduce a background to pure black? A flat black is completely void of tone, texture and colour. It is very different in nature to the image displayed upon it.

It is not noticed so much because people usually just glance at things an make assumptions. We assume the black is the background and in the absence of any data that contradicts this we just fail to look at it and notice how it differs. So I'd like to look a little closer, explain a little about visual images and show you what is clear and obvious to me.

We will start with a section of one of my images, that I'll use as an example throughout. I'm going to play around with it, adjusting it and hopefully show you a little more about how images work.

Here's the image:

View attachment 124507

Flowers against a background. Or is it? It is a visual image and as such it is only 2D, it has no depth and it has no background. You cannot differentiate between foreground and background by distance as both are exactly the same distance from the eye. So we do it by interpreting other visual clues contained in the image. The flowers are complete, the background truncated, the background is consistent, the lighter brighter shades of the flowers naturally come forward against the darker red. There are many clues that connect the foreground with the background and allow us to see it as being consistent and allow the illusion that one thing is in front of another; shadows, transparency in foreground objects, light reflected on foreground objects from the background, depth of field, etc. The clues are in the relationship between the foreground and background. So what happens if we remove the clues from one part of the image, the background, how is our perception altered?

First I'll make the background a little darker and see what happens:

View attachment 124509

You will notice that as the separation between the lighting conditions is exaggerated so the connection between the two begins to get stretched. It looks less convincing in the areas that have a higher contrast in luminosity against the background, on the right where the transition is less abrupt it still convinces. There is still a connection between the foreground and background and you can still read the clues in both. It is not just the flowers saying, "I'm in front," but also the background saying, "I'm behind."

A bit darker still:

View attachment 124510

Here it is when I remove the visual clues from the background:

View attachment 124511

Before I discuss this I'd like to show you the true nature of the image, and also to remove your assumption that one is in front of another. I'll do this with the simple visual clue of overlap:

Here the flowers are in front of the background:

View attachment 124512

This is the true nature of the image, one thing is not in front of the other, the background does not extend behind the flowers, they are just assumptions you make based on the visual clues you are given.The image is just a series of tones, textures and colours on a 2D surface.

Here it is the other way around:

View attachment 124513

Here I've used a stronger visual clue that over-rides your assumption that one thing is in front of another. It's easy to convince because the background has no relationship with the flowers. We removed it by changing it to the black point, because we did this we made it ambiguous, it's just a black cut-out. It is not easy to convince when you do the same trick with the original image because the background does not have this ambiguity we can't just bring it forward to in front of the flowers. It only really works when you remove the relationship, then the background easily becomes just a cut-out:

View attachment 124514

We always make the assumption that the lighter object is in front of the black and many look no further. But if you are familiar with the effect and how you can play with it the black becomes more of a cut-out that can either be behind or in front. It is where the change in contrast is most abrupt that this ambiguity is most visible. This is what I see clearly, where the transition is most abrupt I see no visual indicators that tell me one thing is in front of another. By removing the visual clues from the background it becomes ambiguous and can be either and neither at the same time, it's floating.

Here it is again:

View attachment 124511

EDIT: This also hints at what I consider to be the most fundamental principle of visual imaging. If you look at the right side and especially the darker shoots then you will see that there is virtually no ambiguity between foreground and background. In fact it looks quite real and natural. So you must make the assumption that it is not a absolute quality of using the black point that creates this effect, otherwise it's inclusion would produce the effect over the entire image. The effect is entirely down to the relative difference between the black and what you place next to it. Visual effects are contained in relative difference between values and not their absolute quality.

 

[john.margetts]

When you see an image with a totally black background, why do you assume it is because the background has been 'reduced' to black. When I produce pictures of flowers with a black background it is done by using black velvet as a backdrop. I use a similar technique to produce a flat white background only then the velvet is white.

 

[Dikkie]

When you see an image with a totally black background, why do you assume it is because the background has been 'reduced' to black. When I produce pictures of flowers with a black background it is done by using black velvet as a backdrop. I use a similar technique to produce a flat white background only then the velvet is white.

This way it's much easier aswel. More energy efficient working.

If you don't have an option to have a black background or other flat color, try to play with 'bokeh' to have a nice dizzy background.

 

[astroNikon]

When I take photos of flowers with a black background I reduce the Aperture until there is no ambient light, then add a flash. no need for photoshop, or a black background or digging them out of the ground.

 

[john.margetts]

I like to have a good proportion of the light coming through the petals as well as frontal light - difficult to control with flash. Velvet is much, much easier.

 

[Tim Tucker]

When you see an image with a totally black background, why do you assume it is because the background has been 'reduced' to black. When I produce pictures of flowers with a black background it is done by using black velvet as a backdrop. I use a similar technique to produce a flat white background only then the velvet is white.

Why do you assume that I assume it's done in post processing?

It is the effect it has not the process of achieving it that I was exploring. With digital the effect can be the same. I think it is much better to try and achieve it in the camera but the camera still does not see the same way as the human eye, the eye will perceive more depth and detail in the background than you can achieve in camera. Strong light on a flower against a background that's totally void of any information (black or white) looks very odd to me because it is not something that I see with normal vision. Where the transition is too abrupt it can be very ambiguous as to which is in front of which. I can't tell if you've cut the flowers out and placed them on the background or placed the background on the flowers. Both options are equally possible and my eye has difficulty in deciding which is the truth. As I've said it is just something you do not see in real life, so my eye looks for the clues that define this. Which as I've indicated have been removed, so remains unresolved. I can't help this, it is honestly how I see these images.

Everything you see in the world with your eyes is loaded with information and visual clues. Clues that allow you to impose order and logic in what you see, to understand it in scale and distance. Why assume that you can remove half of this information and that everybody's eye will just make the same unquestioning assumptions that you do?

N.B. This is an effect I see mainly with digital and mostly when displayed on a monitor, especially when re-sized as this amplifies the transitions. When shot against a naturally darker background and printed this effect is reduced (but still looks odd when done with masks in post) because the transitions are naturally smoother.

 

[jcdeboever]

I don't know about much of this. I want the viewer to see the beauty, texture, color, and life of the flower. I like the way the color pops. However, being open minded, I want to explore what Tim has brought up. Need to go shopping. With the few oil or encaustic paintings I did of flowers, I never once used a black background or undertone.

 

[Tim Tucker]

I don't know about much of this. I want the viewer to see the beauty, texture, color, and life of the flower. I like the way the color pops. However, being open minded, I want to explore what Tim has brought up. Need to go shopping. With the few oil or encaustic paintings I did of flowers, I never once used a black background or undertone.

Interesting, and purely because I am interested, do you really find that the colours 'pop' more against the black background than they do against the red? I just find the contrast, or lighter parts, more pronounced.

This is the complete image as intended, it has a more balanced range:

I tend to prefer colour with colour and use greys when I'm dealing with subtle and very un-saturated colour.

 

[dennybeall]

I found the opening original post as so much gobblty-goop but the final still life is really exceptional in my non artistic left brained mind.

 

[jcdeboever]

I don't know about much of this. I want the viewer to see the beauty, texture, color, and life of the flower. I like the way the color pops. However, being open minded, I want to explore what Tim has brought up. Need to go shopping. With the few oil or encaustic paintings I did of flowers, I never once used a black background or undertone.

Interesting, and purely because I am interested, do you really find that the colours 'pop' more against the black background than they do against the red? I just find the contrast, or lighter parts, more pronounced.

View attachment 124531 View attachment 124532

This is the complete image as intended, it has a more balanced range:

View attachment 124533

I tend to prefer colour with colour and use greys when I'm dealing with subtle and very un-saturated colour.

Very nice and well done. It reminds me of a still life painting. I see what your getting at. However, it is an image I have seen a thousand times. I am going to experiment but I am looking for something unique and different in the end. I guess I am just going to continue at it and see where it ends up.

 

[AlanKlein]

It's not just the light intensity. In the first picture, if you move the background further back or open the aperture to limit DOF, that will cause the background to go out of focus causing the foreground flowers to jump out and be isolated from the background. There's too much DOF in your version. Limiting DOF to bring out the subject is nothing new in photography even if the light remains the same.

 

[weepete]

****, Tim please keep on posting these and your thoughts on this subject. Yes it is advanced and probably not to everyone's mind. But, damn, my numerous art teachers haven't explained it do well in in the depth that you do.

It does really get me thinking about the reltionships between colour and light and dark. I must admit that reading your post is a bit over my head and I am struggling to understand in this one. Though relitive differences through dark and light can be ĺost the opposite can be used for emphasis.

Eg. a lot of Orionmysteies (Kurt's) shots who does a lot of top class macro photography has a black background and that adds emphasis go a lot of his shots. Like,

BOOM! The pearlecent frogs eye with shimmer.

 

[Tim Tucker]

It's not just the light intensity. In the first picture, if you move the background further back or open the aperture to limit DOF, that will cause the background to go out of focus causing the foreground flowers to jump out and be isolated from the background. There's too much DOF in your version. Limiting DOF to bring out the subject is nothing new in photography even if the light remains the same.

Yes, definitely. But dof is only one thing you can use. But a 2D image exists entirely on one plane, so there is no focus or out of focus because everything is on the same plane when you look at the image you must see it (the image) all in focus. Therefore dof in the finished image is just gradation in tone. But so many photographers still discuss it as absolute values of focus as if the image is still the 3D subject, instead of in terms of variations in gradation and acutance which is how it's represented in the 2D image. A painter doesn't use aperture settings.
So you can use variations in gradation and acutance (dof), differences in local contrast (luminance range), the list goes on. In the image above I was experimenting, I used a backlit (mainly transmitted light) man made curtain as the background because it shows as highly saturated colour, against which I contrasted more subtle shades. I did it this way because I believed I could make it work, something different. Subtle and pastel shades on a saturated background instead of saturated colour on black.

Very nice and well done. It reminds me of a still life painting. I see what your getting at. However, it is an image I have seen a thousand times. I am going to experiment but I am looking for something unique and different in the end. I guess I am just going to continue at it and see where it ends up.

Absolutely, see something different, see where you end up, and see above. I'm not hailing these as anything great, or even interesting. I'm nearly always turning what I see on it's head and showing it the other way around. Flowers on black is nowhere near new or different either.

Here's another, not flowers and nowhere near original (I've also posted it before). It's 3 shots combined of identical exposure but slightly differing camera positions. Each apple is shot from a slightly different angle, the wine bottle and the label are slightly different angles, and if you trace the front edge of the wooden board from left to right you will again see that things don't line up.

View attachment 124594

Instead of removing the background, put all that blank canvas to good use. It doesn't have to be new or original, just explore something different.

I am struggling to understand in this one. Though relitive differences through dark and light can be ĺost the opposite can be used for emphasis.

I don't try to understand, but try and see. Look again at the 6th and 7th images in the original post. You see in the 6th image where I've reduced the background to black. I then overlapped it on top of the flowers. If you look, and although it's counter intuitive, you can see the order where the black cut-out background is in front of the flowers. Because the visual clues are removed from the black background it does become abstracted and I can give one visual clue and reverse the order. However when I try it in the 7th image where the background still retains a visual relationship with the foreground it just creates confusion. You still see the relationship between the two you will always try to see the flowers in front. I was just trying to demonstrate how a black background differs and so how your perception of it can also differ.