Which one is right

Which of these two shots is correct for a blown BG?

The first I did not push the whites all the way because of losing shadows. On the second I did push them all the way and then cloned out what little shadow was left because it looked weird. I can't decide which is correct. Any thoughts or pointers very much appreciated.

1.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Define correct. I think the one that is 'correct' is the one that's correct for you.

Having said that, I like the first one much more. Without the shadows, the second one looks like she and the chair are floating. To me, it actually looks like the second one could have been taken on a non-white BG, and composited in Photoshop onto a white background - it just doesn't look realistic/natural to me.

yeah +1.

Looks funny without shadows

I actually agree but I had posted another image a few days ago and someone pointed out the white was not totally white so that set me to wondering....

Thanks for the responses.

I wanted to play around a bit... so in literally a few minutes I was able to do this with the second one...

... which is kinda what I was referring to. You shot it on white, but changing that BG is very easy to do w/o shadows present. Certainly not a good job, but you can see what I meant above.

Northwoods Bill wrote in post #15789046
I actually agree but I had posted another image a few days ago and someone pointed out the white was not totally white so that set me to wondering....

Thanks for the responses.

Sure... I saw that thread earlier today, but hadn't seen the most recent comments. The whites might not have been TOTALLY white, so maybe the BG wasn't technically flawless... but this goes back to what I posted above. What's correct to you or your client?

Is the final output of the image to be printed? If so, and you had the image you first posted (in the other thread) printed, would you notice? Some might. I probably wouldn't. I have to draw my own pixel peeping line, and it may certainly be different than where others do.

Having said that, you can pretty easily make that adjustment in post as well. A simple levels adjustment should do it, at least it does for me

Agreed. Sometimes we can get carried away. I actually printed both of the above images in 8x10 tonight and much prefer the one with the shadows.

The image from yesterday could be fixed easily with a levels adjustment as there is no shadows. An image like the one above would be much more difficult because of the shadows. I much prefer the one with the shadows although in an odd way I don't mind your edit with the gray/green either.

drvnbysound wrote in post #15789050
I wanted to play around a bit... so in literally a few minutes I was able to do this with the second one...

... which is kinda what I was referring to. You shot it on white, but changing that BG is very easy to do w/o shadows present. Certainly not a good job, but you can see what I meant above.

easy to do with shadows present too.

photoshop

Select > Color Range (defalut settings)

Use eyedropper to select the "color" in the upper half of the image and slide the fuzziness slider until you get as much white as you can without any of the girl or chair. i think mine was around 70.

press okay, create new channel from selection.

deselect

Select > Color Range (again)

select something darker under the chair.

press okay, create new channel from selection


combine the two channels into a new channel, paint in any stray areas that are not selected properly (eyes and skin tone plus darkest shadows under chair.)

load selection.

Image > Adjustments > Curves

select a single channel (R, G or B) and move the white points to create the color. repeat for other color channels.

boom.

alternatively you could use another layer and blend mode for the last step. you could also probably use the Color Range command more efficiently.

took me less than 5 minutes to do the 'shop work.

cheers!

oh, imo, if you're going to show the person standing on the ground (or especially sitting in a chair), some shadows are necessary to make it look normal.

The reason I use tile board is to get the reflection/shadow from the subject so there is a grounding when using white background for catalog work.

The reason for the white it to make it easier for the client to incorporate the images into web pages. If its a model or other object that should be grounded I like the ease with which it can be accomplished using the tile board.

If its a product that can realistically float then the clean cutout is fine.

Either approach is correct, considering the final use.

To me both subject is way under-exposed. Are you doing white bg for cut-out or for high key kind of portraits?

High Key. and agreed on exposure, after posting this I pulled the exposure up .6 and the brightness up 10. Looks much better then the one posted here.

OK, first thing for high key, make her wear light colored clothes. 2nd don't blow the background. If you keep correct expsoures on the subject and the bg, it will look better. Also use plexiglass or tileboard like mentioned before.

Tileboard was used. So if I am using white seamless then I want my BG lights and my main to meter to the same aperture? Seems like that will result in a shade of gray, not white?

No, bg like 1 stop more than main. Don't make it 2 stops like some folks suggest unless you want totaly blown out bg and flare back at the subject. Look for Robert (TMR) old thread on how to measure if you got a light meter.