babel_fish wrote in post #14060169
I see this post has a white background, unlike the previous post.
2 feet is awefulluly close to the BG and I think what I'm seeing is your model has some "bleed" coming from the BG onto the model, which tends to wash out some finer details around the periphery of the model and will look less defined.
Just my thoughts, not asked for as usual, but nonetheless if anyone reading this and is interested in fine tuning their white backgrounds without being scoffed at by posting in the "lighting forum"
Getting a White Background with Speedlightshttp://www.lighting-essentials.com …kground-with-speedlights/
Your thoughts are gratefully welcome. You dropped off the face of the Earth in the previous discussion we had (in PM), so I thought you lost interest.
Let me organize my thoughts (I am an engineer).
1) If you can take the time, can you add a few arrows in the photo to see where you see the bleeding, so that I can try to figure out what happened.
2) I am extremely limited in space (and funds, if I want to get that 70-200L f2.8 ...this century...).
2a) I can't get background gear (seamless, stands etc) because I don't have space to store them in my Manhattan appartment.
2b) This leaves me with the option to shoot high key, or low key.
Low key (small aperture, distant background) doesn't work because the 32" umbrella spills too much light to the distant background. The fact that the whole room is white and camera left I have a white lacquer wall unit... I tried flags, but only a small circus tent would work...
I tried black foamcore background near the model, but you can see it, and I failed to remove it digitally. At the time, I didn't have very good control of the lights, so that maybe something I should try again.
High key is more promising. Initially I used the wall, which is white, but the wall to wall distance is 12 feet... not enough for 6 ft separation of model/background and separation of model/camera. I was shooting with a zoom at 30 mm cropped of course.
So I moved in the long dimension of the room and used the translucent 42" reflector as the background. Unfortunately, even for this shot, the edges of the photo are beyond the circle of the reflector, so I had to remove the edges digitally and pour color from the reflector portion.
At least the reflector part got lit evenly (I started with A:B flash power ratio 1:1 and finished dropping the flash power of the background by 2/3 f-stop (if I remember correctly).
I was pretty happy with my 'digital' background...
Maybe you don't see it, but I feel that I have seen tremendous progress and increase in my knowledge and skill.
I owe a lot to the critique I got in this thread (yours among others) that focused my effort to improve my skills in specific issues.
I put my first effort in portrait/PostProcessing here and Nick Owensby and Rivest did their take in PP. For me, this became the standard to achieve and I devoted a lot of time and research on how to do it (in Linux, let's not forget... I can't go out and buy a package of Photoshop/LR actions). And I had some success...
So believe me, I am grateful for your thoughtful and constructive comments.
I apologize for the long thread to our fellow 60Ders, but I feel there is some value in learning from other people's experiences, trial and tribulations.
Edit: I just finished reading the article you linked to. It dawned on me that flashpower ratios are wrong if I don't factor in the distance ratio as well. So, instead of 1.6:1 that I thought I had it was more 1:2 because the background flash was half the distance to the background than the umbrella to the subject.
I have to figure out how to meter this... without a lightmeter...