Tips for Shooting White Shirts

Well, not just shirts, but that is what gives me the biggest problem. Most of the time when I photograph someone in a white shirt, the shirt ends up overexposed. This leaves the rest of the photo under exposed. Usually with enough time spent in photoshop I can salvage the picture, but I'm tired of all the editing. What tips can you give me for photographing white? Oh, not sure if it makes a difference but this happens with or without a flash being used. Also, I'm shooting with the rebel xt.

There really isn't much you can do. The problem stems from the fact that the digital camera does not have a wide enough dynamic range to properly expose the whites and all the other tones, too.

If you want the white shirt properly exposed, then you will need to settle for the rest of the picture being underexposed, and PPing the image to correct that. And if you don't want to deal with PPing the image, then you'll need to settle for an blown out white shirt.

The new 40D and the Mark III cameras have a feature called Highlight Tone Priority. This will give you about a stop more leeway at the highlight end at the expense of possibly losing shadow details. That's another avenue you can pursue.

Thank you for your response. Not happy to find out that my options for fixing this problem are limited, but thankful to know that it isn't just me.

My "solution" is to usually expose for the whites & use a layer mask to bring the other tones in line. Or, expose for the faces (black cat in a coalbin), & bring the whites up the same way.

Exposure, car lighting, layer Masks, selecting ALL in here:
You can level out the exposure using a selection & a Layer mask. See post #9; PS Elements in Post # 14
A question about sky

Welcome to POTN!

ryleerider wrote in post #3839871
Well, not just shirts, but that is what gives me the biggest problem. Most of the time when I photograph someone in a white shirt, the shirt ends up overexposed. This leaves the rest of the photo under exposed. Usually with enough time spent in photoshop I can salvage the picture, but I'm tired of all the editing. What tips can you give me for photographing white? Oh, not sure if it makes a difference but this happens with or without a flash being used. Also, I'm shooting with the rebel xt.

The meters built into our cameras are definitely not the best tool for measuring the light in a scene where we need to be very careful about exposures. This sort of situation is where a handheld meter, used in incident mode, is a much better way to determine the best exposure settings. An incident meter measures the light falling on the subject, not the light reflected from it (as the meters in our cameras do).

You can emulate an incident meter (though not nearly as easily as with a handheld incident meter) with a standard gray card and a reflected-light meter - even the one in your camera. You would hold the gray card in the same light as the subject and at an angle to the source of light that emulates the angle of the important surfaces of the subject relative to the light source.

If done correctly, and if the subject's contrast is not too great, you should have your problem solved with an incident reading.

ryleerider wrote in post #3839871
Most of the time when I photograph someone in a white shirt, the shirt ends up overexposed. This leaves the rest of the photo under exposed.

How do you define overexposed white?

I may get flamed for this, but I figure my pictures are going to be printed on white paper. Throw any amount of ink on it and it's not white anymore. So I try to adjust my exposure so that a few small areas of the brightest white are reading 255/255/255. This avoids losing detail in white garments, makes white stuff look white, and leaves the rest of the image exposed pretty well.

Beyond this, another thing to consider is reducing the contrast.

SkipD wrote in post #3845345
The meters built into our cameras are definitely not the best tool for measuring the light in a scene where we need to be very careful about exposures. This sort of situation is where a handheld meter, used in incident mode, is a much better way to determine the best exposure settings. An incident meter measures the light falling on the subject, not the light reflected from it (as the meters in our cameras do).

You can emulate an incident meter (though not nearly as easily as with a handheld incident meter) with a standard gray card and a reflected-light meter - even the one in your camera. You would hold the gray card in the same light as the subject and at an angle to the source of light that emulates the angle of the important surfaces of the subject relative to the light source.

If done correctly, and if the subject's contrast is not too great, you should have your problem solved with an incident reading.

Since the OP's problem is the fact that the scene he's trying to photograph has too wide a dynamic range for the camera (i.e. is white are blown when the rest of the scene is OK, and when the white is OK, the rest is underexposed), I doubt that incident metering is going to help him much with that situation.

Curtis N wrote in post #3845367
How do you define overexposed white?

I may get flamed for this, but I figure my pictures are going to be printed on white paper. Throw any amount of ink on it and it's not white anymore. So I try to adjust my exposure so that a few small areas of the brightest white are reading 255/255/255. This avoids losing detail in white garments, makes white stuff look white, and leaves the rest of the image exposed pretty well.

Beyond this, another thing to consider is reducing the contrast.

http://performancephot​o.smugmug.com/photos/1​90644238-O.jpg

And the million dollar question is: How (in camera, that is)?

PacAce wrote in post #3845626
Since the OP's problem is the fact that the scene he's trying to photograph has too wide a dynamic range for the camera (i.e. is white are blown when the rest of the scene is OK, and when the white is OK, the rest is underexposed), I doubt that incident metering is going to help him much with that situation.

The OP's problem may not necessarily be one of contrast beyond the latitude of the camera (or film) but one of the in-camera meter making a decision that favors the darker portions of a subject.

A handheld meter can usually be used in either incident or reflected mode. Sometimes it is good to get an "average" exposure setting by using a handheld meter in incident mode and then measuring BOTH the brightest and the darkest portions of the subject with the meter in reflected mode.

The reflected readings can be analysed to see if there is too great a contrast for the camera's (or film's) latitude and then the photographer can make a well-informed decision about how to adjust the exposure settings derived from the incident reading to get the most important portions of the subject (and, usually, the majority of the subject) exposed in an acceptable way.

This is how a photographer learns the limitations of lighting and, possibly, how to overcome the limitations with reflectors, gobos, etc.

SkipD wrote in post #3845697
The OP's problem may not necessarily be one of contrast beyond the latitude of the camera (or film) but one of the in-camera meter making a decision that favors the darker portions of a subject.

A handheld meter can usually be used in either incident or reflected mode. Sometimes it is good to get an "average" exposure setting by using a handheld meter in incident mode and then measuring BOTH the brightest and the darkest portions of the subject with the meter in reflected mode.

The reflected readings can be analysed to see if there is too great a contrast for the camera's (or film's) latitude and then the photographer can make a well-informed decision about how to adjust the exposure settings derived from the incident reading to get the most important portions of the subject (and, usually, the majority of the subject) exposed in an acceptable way.

This is how a photographer learns the limitations of lighting and, possibly, how to overcome the limitations with reflectors, gobos, etc.

Skip. I stand corrected. I just went outside to my bright, sunlit back yard and did a little experiment and was surprised by what I learned from it. Unless my light meter calibration is off (which I hightly doubt) between the incident light reading and the reflected light reading, the incident reading exposes by one stop more than the reflected light reading. And I had always assumed that they would both give me the same reading if, as you said, I simulated an incident reading by using a gray card.

For example, the incident light reading I got was 1/500. The reflected light readings under the same light reading off both a gray board and a black and white combo, in case the gray was not truly mid-toned, was 1/1000. And, as a control, I also metered the gray and the black/white boards with the camera, in both CWA and Partial, and got 1/1000.

So, maybe my incident light reading is off by a stop? You would think except that the exposure using the incident reading is spot on with the white just short of touching the right side on the histogram.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Finally - someone understands why I use my L-358 in the field frequently .

As they say - the photos are worth thousands of words. Leo - that's a great test that a lot of the folks on the forum should understand.

Ok..wow...lots to take in. Saving this thread to favorites and I'm going to make a point to study it. Anything to prevent glowing white shirts! Thanks for explaining this stuff everyone.

Leo's explanation was better than mine, but you have to admit my picture was more interesting.

Curtis N wrote in post #3848119
Leo's explanation was better than mine, but you have to admit my picture was more interesting.

DEFINITELY more interesting !!!

Curtis N wrote in post #3848119
Leo's explanation was better than mine, but you have to admit my picture was more interesting.

Yes.. the baby was quite cute


As for the OP's situation .. Skip and CurtisN .. convinced me to buy a light meter quite a while ago.. I use it for 98% of my shots outdoors.. and always in the studio!

Incident mode rules !