How To Get Those Perfecy White Backgrounds

[JohnnyGalaga]

...

[Wilt]

1. Separately illuminated background with lights that only fall on the background, at about +2EV in intensity compared to the subject.

2. Grey background, with gelled background lights

[Riff Raff]

That seems like a pretty clear answer to me...

[dekalbSTEEL]

Might I suggest a visit to your local library. They have some wonderful books on photography!

[cdifoto]

1. Separately illuminated background with lights that only fall on the background, at about +2EV in intensity compared to the subject.

2. Grey background, with gelled background lights

3. Space for everything.




First one's not perfectly white though.

[Nice Glass]

Yeah, I'm not sure what you are confused over either. The background is lighted with seperate lights than the subject.

[cdifoto]

You can also use Quick Mask Mode in Photoshop and carefully knock out the background. It's easiest if your background is plain and your subject is strongly contrasting the background...ie no blending colors. I do it when I shoot products on my table. The table is already white, but it doesn't knock out without a bunch of lights. I only have one light, so Quick Mask it is. :)

That first sample could have used the above method...

[notapro]

The ones that you linked I'm guessing were done with a lightbox, but here's my understanding of studio work with a white background (I've been preparing to have a go myself):

For a totally white background, you need to light the backdrop really well. It needs to be lit well enough that your flash/strobe/whatever on the subject is not going to cast a shadow on the background, which is what Wilt meant by having that lit at +2EV over the subject. I was recently told that combining different kinds of lighting isn't a good idea, either... e.g. using continuous light on the backdrop and flash on the subject or something.

If you're referring to the way it looks like they're "floating" it is a backdrop that hangs down and then extends down several feet on the floor as well. So there are no seams or any real floor in the shot.

Good luck with it!

[jacobsen1]

http://bermangraphics.com/images/lighting-diagram.gif
1, 2 and 4 are setup to light the person as you'd wish.
3 is bumped up to +2EV (more light/power) to "blow out" the background.

[notapro]

http://bermangraphics.com/images/lighting-diagram.gif
1, 2 and 4 are setup to light the person as you'd wish.
3 is bumped up to +2EV (more light/power) to "blow out" the background.

Is 2 meant to be a reflector?

[jacobsen1]

Is 2 meant to be a reflector?

sure?

Not my diagram so I'm not sure, but that's what I'd use there.

[Wilt]

Ignore the issue of the reflector for the topic at hand! The key points for the OP are that while lights 1 & 4 light the subject, light 3 illuminates only the background, which diagramatically illustrates my earlier comment "lights that only fall on the background" at about +2EV in intensity compared to the subject

[notapro]

Ignore the issue of the reflector for the topic at hand! The key points for the OP are that while lights 1 & 4 light the subject, light 3 illuminates only the background, which diagramatically illustrates my earlier comment "lights that only fall on the background" at about +2EV in intensity compared to the subject

yes, I thought the diagram did a great job of illustrating that. Was just curious as to what the line was intended to represent. sorry for getting off-topic.

[klynam]

Also easy (relatively speaking) to do in post processing. I do it all the time w/ my table top shots...

[Wilt]

Also easy (relatively speaking) to do in post processing. I do it all the time w/ my table top shots...

Works for still lifes, but plays hell with wisps of hair that add naturalness to portraits...not too many people have helmet hair all the time, and even still lifes can have similar features that are wispy and hard to postprocess the background to remove. In fact, looking at photo 1 at higher magnification, it does appear that it is one of the inferior versions of highkey background that results from postprocessing!!! Photo 2 clearly has wisps of hair evident, that are all missing in Photo 1.

[jacobsen1]

Works for still lifes, but plays hell with wisps of hair that add naturalness to portraits...not too many people have helmet hair all the time, and even still lifes can have similar features that are wispy and hard to postprocess the background to remove.

Agreed. Always try to get things done in camera when possible... It's much easier than using PP as a crutch. The issue is sometimes you'll be asked to do something, you'll think you can save it with PP, but when you can't you're left with nothing.

[notapro]

Also easy (relatively speaking) to do in post processing. I do it all the time w/ my table top shots...

Relative to what? You must enjoy PP much more than I do. I can't wait for the day that using anything other than Lightroom becomes a rare occurence. Too many mistakes has taught me that fixing it later is a PITA. But then some people are much faster and more gifted in PS skills than I am.

[klynam]

:-) I grew up on Photoshop, started on Aldus Digital Darkroom (8-bit grayscale only) even before PS. I'm afraid my ability to save my photos in post - even whispy hair - is more a matter of necessity than preference. Though I admit a certian sense of pride in having been able to save just about anything I've captured in camera. (And there have been some bad shots to save let me tell you!) Of course, saving images sometimes goes more the way of "artistic expression" than sheer IQ...lol