Question About Lighting Full Length Shots And Shadows

Recently I've been shooting a ton of full length shots of all kinds on white and gray seamless. The shots have been turning out really great but I have some issues with the shadows cast on the paper underneath the subject and need some pointers to improve my technique.

For the sake of simplicity... let's say that I have a model standing on white seamless. My main light is positioned roughly 45 degrees camera left and about 30 degrees up from the lens's axis. I'm metering f/11 on the upper torso and the falloff gives me readings of about f/9 or f/10 as I meter at the lower leg or the shoe. There is a shadow cast behind the subject and to camera right by the main light that is very pleasing and gives it a sense of realism and dimension.

My background lights are rendering the white seamless behind the subject as pure white from top to bottom and left to right within the intended cropped subject area and as far forward as my gobos that hide the lights and prevent flare and halos. The gobos are placed about 6 feet from the background and the subject is standing just forward of that.

The seamless that is forward of the gobos and under the subject is not pure white and the shadows cast fall on this area which is approximately 1 to 1.3 stops under pure white. Due to the falloff there is also a gradient within the shadow and without using some advanced Photoshop techniques and taking a bit more time to process each image it's next to impossible to differentiate the shadow and gradient from the underexposed seamless.

I hope I haven't lost you yet

I know many ways within Photoshop to mask, create gradients and simulate shadows to paint back in a shadow but I'm not thrilled with the time it takes and always seem to feel it doesn't accurately represent the lighting as well as the natural shadow created. Using the Dodge tool with the range set to Highlights works to a degree but since you can't fine tune the actual highlight range it always seems to destroy the outer edge of the shadow and again can't differentiate the shadow gradient from the underexposed seamless.

If I add secondary lighting specific to the floor it changes the appearance of the image and directionality of the shadows, and ultimately it still doesn't do what's needed.

So the question is.... how do those that do this type of work deal with the problem? Pouring light on the floor is obviously not the answer. I don't mind a bit of processing but most of the advanced techniques I know and have learned just don't accomplish this very well.

I welcome suggestions but please make those suggestions based on experience in this area or a working knowledge of this type of lighting. I mean no disrespect but I've heard all the "try this" and "try that" from many that are either just Photoshop guys or from those that guess with no experience. I want to tackle this as a lighting problem first and then as a post processing one.

If you're saying that you want to preserve the model shadow from the key light but have the seamless surrounding it expose as pure white then as far as I know, the only way to to it in camera would be to place your key light a loooooong way from the model until the relative distance between the model and the background becomes insignificant and the key light illuminates them both equally. Obviously this has its own problems - for starters you'd need a large studio and a very large light modifier on the key to compensate for its distance from the model, which in turn would require you to use a very powerful light.

I've used the above method a couple of times when I needed the effect I think you're after and it worked reasonably well, but it's far from practical. It's easier to achieve on a grey background as slight variations in illumination will be far less noticeable when no pixels are actually blown out - again, pull your key light back until the combined backlights and key light produce a roughly even grey tone underneath your model and on the BG.

Thanks for the response Hermes. I've tried various setups and in my space I can only pull the main light back so far. Maybe I'm not really understanding your explanation but I've tried this with gray seamless and didn't have any more success than with white.

By the sounds of it, you just don't have enough studio space (my studio doesn't have enough space for this either).

I should have made clear that it's easier with grey seamless because you can move the model closer to the BG as you'll need less separation to avoid flare and excessive wrap compared to a blown-out BG.

Ahh ok, so then it does become a post processing solution?

Personally I use perspex on the floor when I shoot on blown-out white seamless so I don't have to worry about any of this The one time I did need to shoot in the style you described it was in a huge warehouse/studio so it wasn't too tricky.

Can you explain? I don't know what perspex is and I don't know what you mean when you say that you don't have to worry about any of this.

Any insight would really be appreciated.

I think perspex/plexiglass is more commonly known as something else in in the US - it's clear toughened plastic in sheet form - if you place it on the floor for your model to stand on and then extend it up to the vertical section of the white seamless, it will reflect the directly-lit portion of the background and therefore blow out the floor while producing a weak reflection of the model beneath their feet.

With this method you won't see any shadow on the background so I assumed you'd already considered and rejected it.

Oh ok, yes we have plexiglass here. I want to make sure we're using the same terminology.

I'm using white seamless and distancing my subject so there is no shadow and so the seamless is rendered pure white. I want to preserve the shadow (with it's gradient) that appears on the floor. Won't plexiglass still show the subject's shadow if the light source is coming from above the subject, regardless of reflection?

No, the plexiglass will blow out entirely so any possible shadow detail will be lost (unless you're shooting from a very high angle.

Do you have an example of the sort of lighting you're trying to achieve? still having trouble understanding exactly what you're aiming for.

Thanks Hermes. I'll post a sample shortly.

Robert, have a look at the White Seamless tutorials by Zack Arias, starting here: http://www.zarias.com/​?p=71. There are 5 parts to it (AFAIK), and you will find not only great tips and ideas, but inspiration. The guy is good! (He uses tileboard BTW, instead of perspex ). It's a blog, so start reading from the bottom of this page backwards (if you know what I mean ): http://www.zarias.com/​?paged=4

Hi Rudi,

I've read Zack's site front to back and used many of his techniques but he really does not address the problem in its entirety. His methods work well in some situations but not all. If the shadows are present I don't see the material as being a solution. As Hermes stated, if you create a reflection with no shadow that's a different case entirely but when if you've tried using the approach of dodging with the range set to highlights you quickly discover that if there is a gradient and the shadow edge transfer is very gradual and soft it's almost impossible to differentiate and dodge or paint away the areas not rendered white.

Also, his space is large and is working with the modifiers further away, as Hermes suggested. I've copied his setup as best as I can in my space but in this case, size does matter... lolol

Robert I usually use 4 lights for white seamless. Two on the backdrop (barn doors to keep light for spilling on subject) on light on each side and two stops up from my exposure for subject.. One light off 45 and up with large umbrella and on over camers large umbrella one stop less than my main. So say my main is f/8 fill would be f/5.6 and B/G would be f16. Some times if I have the room I will shoot the lights through the background. Heres an example of how I did this on a location shoot.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

From http://www.zarias.com/​?p=71
"Tile Board :: $11 per 4×8′ sheet at Home Depot. This stuff rocks. This is going to give you a nice white floor and a reflection under your subject. You need a few sheets of it. Check out the photo below to get the exact stock number. You can find it at Lowes as well. You’ll find these either in the area where they keep paneling or in the bath fixtures department as it is used to wall in showers and bathrooms. You want the pure white smooth kind. They have some that has a bit of a pebbled texture to it. Don’t bother with that stuff. It is brown on the back side which actually photographs beautifully as a background when thrown a bit out of focus. Its a floor! Its a background! Make the most out of what you have!"

There is another material but I have foreign language alzheimer and I can't remember how it is called in English GRRR!!!!...

TMR Design wrote in post #6168308
Recently I've been shooting a ton of full length shots of all kinds on white and gray seamless. The shots have been turning out really great but I have some issues with the shadows cast on the paper underneath the subject and need some pointers to improve my technique.

For the sake of simplicity... let's say that I have a model standing on white seamless. My main light is positioned roughly 45 degrees camera left and about 30 degrees up from the lens's axis. I'm metering f/11 on the upper torso and the falloff gives me readings of about f/9 or f/10 as I meter at the lower leg or the shoe. There is a shadow cast behind the subject and to camera right by the main light that is very pleasing and gives it a sense of realism and dimension.

My background lights are rendering the white seamless behind the subject as pure white from top to bottom and left to right within the intended cropped subject area and as far forward as my gobos that hide the lights and prevent flare and halos. The gobos are placed about 6 feet from the background and the subject is standing just forward of that.

The seamless that is forward of the gobos and under the subject is not pure white and the shadows cast fall on this area which is approximately 1 to 1.3 stops under pure white. Due to the falloff there is also a gradient within the shadow and without using some advanced Photoshop techniques and taking a bit more time to process each image it's next to impossible to differentiate the shadow and gradient from the underexposed seamless.

I hope I haven't lost you yet

I know many ways within Photoshop to mask, create gradients and simulate shadows to paint back in a shadow but I'm not thrilled with the time it takes and always seem to feel it doesn't accurately represent the lighting as well as the natural shadow created. Using the Dodge tool with the range set to Highlights works to a degree but since you can't fine tune the actual highlight range it always seems to destroy the outer edge of the shadow and again can't differentiate the shadow gradient from the underexposed seamless.

If I add secondary lighting specific to the floor it changes the appearance of the image and directionality of the shadows, and ultimately it still doesn't do what's needed.

So the question is.... how do those that do this type of work deal with the problem? Pouring light on the floor is obviously not the answer. I don't mind a bit of processing but most of the advanced techniques I know and have learned just don't accomplish this very well.

I welcome suggestions but please make those suggestions based on experience in this area or a working knowledge of this type of lighting. I mean no disrespect but I've heard all the "try this" and "try that" from many that are either just Photoshop guys or from those that guess with no experience. I want to tackle this as a lighting problem first and then as a post processing one.