High key portraits
mark ashley
I'm curious as to what flash power people use to get
a white background. Obviously you can pump as much
power as you can but I'm trying to get the
minimum I would need. I'm going to do some polaroids
this weekend with a couple of units to get some
idea. I'm also looking at the Ultra units from
Paul C Buff. Would the 1200 (2 units) be enough you think ?
The camera would probably be about 10 feet from the
background. Tips, lessons learned, and other advise
would be appreciated. E-mail would be most appreciated
so I get your response faster. Thanks.
Steve Ellis
mark ashley wrote:
>
> I'm curious as to what flash power people use to get
> a white background. Obviously you can pump as much
> power as you can but I'm trying to get the
> minimum I would need. I'm going to do some polaroids
It all depends on what aperature you want to shoot at, and the film
speed you are using. If you are using white seamless, you will only need
enough power to give it _even_ illumination about 1/2* stop more than you are
giving your subject. It is not necessary to "pound" light onto a white
background to get it to look white.
*you should run tests to verify this on your system. Your mileage may vary...
Steve Ellis, C.P.P.
ELLIS Photography, Inc.
Saint Paul, Minnesota
Curtis Leeds
mark ashley wrote:
>
> I'm curious as to what flash power people use to get
> a white background. Obviously you can pump as much
> power as you can but I'm trying to get the
> minimum I would need. I'm going to do some polaroids
> idea. I'm also looking at the Ultra units from
> Paul C Buff. Would the 1200 (2 units) be enough you think ?
> The camera would probably be about 10 feet from the
> background. Tips, lessons learned, and other advise
> would be appreciated. E-mail would be most appreciated
> so I get your response faster. Thanks.
As a rule of thumb for high-key: the background should receive 2 stops
more exposure than the subject.
Steve Ellis
Two stops over on a white seamless is serious over-kill. You do not need
that much light to get a white seamless to look white.
Steve Ellis, C.P.P., MPPA, TCPPA, PPA
ELLIS Photography, Inc.
Saint Paul. Minnesota
Curtis Leeds
It works for me. I'm curious - because you don't mention it - what works
for you?
Winn
One stop over the main light will produce pure white on the background
using a white backdrop.
Steve Ellis
Curtis Leeds wrote:
> > >
> > > As a rule of thumb for high-key: the background should receive 2 stops
> > > more exposure than the subject.
> >
> > Two stops over on a white seamless is serious over-kill. You do not need
> > that much light to get a white seamless to look white.
> >
> > Steve Ellis, C.P.P., MPPA, TCPPA, PPA
> It works for me. I'm curious - because you don't mention it - what works
> for you?
I use between 1/2 and 1 stop over the main. Two stops (in my experience) is more than
you need. It works, but you will encounter problems when you try to balance background
to foreground in a shot where you have both. (ie., the subject sitting directly on the seamless).
There also could be problems with certain types of diffusion (soft focus filters) when you
have that much light coming from the background.
It is critical to make sure your main light is properly exposing your subject.
If you are "right on" with it, your background won't require that much more light to be
white, assuming that your background light evenly illuminates the entire background.
I use a Minolta flash meter and am within .1 stop of where I want to be all the time
(both on the subject and across the entire background).
Hope this helps,
Curtis Leeds
Steve Ellis wrote:
>
> Curtis Leeds wrote:
> > > >
> > > > As a rule of thumb for high-key: the background should receive 2 stops
> > > > more exposure than the subject.
> > >
> > > Two stops over on a white seamless is serious over-kill. You do not need
> > > that much light to get a white seamless to look white.
> > >
> > > Steve Ellis, C.P.P., MPPA, TCPPA, PPA
>
> > It works for me. I'm curious - because you don't mention it - what works
> > for you?
>
> I use between 1/2 and 1 stop over the main.
The way I figure it Steve, what you're suggesting now is one stop less
exposure than my "rule of thumb" suggestion, so my
recommendation (which was only a rule of thumb, remember) wasn't
exactly "serious over-kill".
> There also could be problems with certain types of diffusion (soft focus filters) when you have that much light coming from the background.
Actually, I shoot with Softar 1 diffusion with this arrangement and have
never had a problem.
>
> I use a Minolta flash meter and am within .1 stop of where I want to be all the time (both on the subject and across the entire background).
I use a Minolta meter, too- and find them to be the most precise.
Different things do work differently for different people, which is why
you should be careful about phrases such as "serious over-kill".
Charu datt
mark ashley wrote:
>
> I'm curious as to what flash power people use to get
> a white background. Obviously you can pump as much
> power as you can but I'm trying to get the
> minimum I would need. I'm going to do some polaroids
> this weekend with a couple of units to get some
> idea. I'm also looking at the Ultra units from
> Paul C Buff. Would the 1200 (2 units) be enough you think ?
> The camera would probably be about 10 feet from the
> background. Tips, lessons learned, and other advise
> would be appreciated. E-mail would be most appreciated
> so I get your response faster. Thanks.
This situation is better understood in terms of reflected readings
rather than incident readings. The issue is not so much flash power, as
the relative luminance of your subject vs background. One guideline I've
seen used states that the reflective reading of caucasian skin should be
1 stop over the meter's incident reading (the meter's incident reading
would be the reflected value you'd get from a graycard). And a reflected
reading off the background (or, off any other surface in the scene) of
2-2.5 stops above meter reading will render as white. If you increase
the relative exposure beyond this, the brighter areas still render white
but the contrast of the image decreases because of light spilling around
inside the lens.
To answer the question as to exactly how much power you need- it depends
on the size of the background you're trying to cover, and the f/stop
you're shooting your subject at. It comes down to- how much power do you
need to get a reflected reading off the background of 2-2.5 stops above
incident.
-Charu
Fred Collins
In article <ashleyDt...@netcom.com>, ash...@netcom.com says...
>
>I'm curious as to what flash power people use to get
>a white background. Obviously you can pump as much
>power as you can but I'm trying to get the
>minimum I would need. I'm going to do some polaroids
>this weekend with a couple of units to get some
>idea. I'm also looking at the Ultra units from
>Paul C Buff. Would the 1200 (2 units) be enough you think ?
>The camera would probably be about 10 feet from the
>background. Tips, lessons learned, and other advise
>would be appreciated. E-mail would be most appreciated
>so I get your response faster. Thanks.
The proper thing to do is to light the background separate from
the subject and to ensure that it receives 1 or 2 stops more
light than the subject. 1 extra stop for a brunette, two for
a blonde.
If you don't light the background separately, photofinishers
have a nasty habit of printing the white background as grey or
blue.
Remember, all photo labs are staffed by blind people.
-fred
bhalla
In article <31C413...@ix.netcom.com>, Steve Ellis <se...@ix.netcom.com> says:
>
>Curtis Leeds wrote:
>> mark ashley wrote:
>> > a white background. Obviously you can pump as much
>> > power as you can but I'm trying to get the
>> > minimum I would need. I'm going to do some polaroids
>> > this weekend with a couple of units to get some
>> > idea. I'm also looking at the Ultra units from
>> > Paul C Buff. Would the 1200 (2 units) be enough you think ?
>> > The camera would probably be about 10 feet from the
>> > background. Tips, lessons learned, and other advise
>> > would be appreciated. E-mail would be most appreciated
>> > so I get your response faster. Thanks.
>> more exposure than the subject.
>Two stops over on a white seamless is serious over-kill. You do not need
>that much light to get a white seamless to look white.
I either agree or disagree with Curtis. Here's why. To have
the background go totally white, the background reading using
a *reflective* meter must be at least 3 1/3 stops above the
camera setting (for color films). Built-in camera meters,
hand-held meters with a reflective attachement, and spot
meters are all examples of reflective meters, i.e. meters
that are designed to measure the amount of light reflected
from the scene. Incident meters, on the other hand, are
designed to measure the amount of light falling on the scene.
Use an incident reading to set the camera so that the subject
is recorded as it actually is (i.e. at its true tonality).
Use a reflective reading to determine how something is going
to record on film based on a given exposure setting.
Let's get back to the high-key shot. Set the camera based on
a incident reading taken at the subject with a incident meter
pointed towards the main light source. If you don't have an
incident meter, take a reflective reading of a grey card
placed where the subject is. Let's assume that this reading
is f/8. Then light the background so that a reflected meter
reads at least f/22 0.3 (i.e. 1/3 stop beyond f/22). A
higher reading (e.g. f/32) will still result in a white
background, but isn't a good idea because of flare problems.
This method, BTW, will work regardless of what value the
background is. It could even be black seamless, if you can
put enought light on the background to achieve the 3 1/3
stop difference.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Michael
Steve Ellis
Curtis Leeds wrote:
> The way I figure it Steve, what you're suggesting now is one stop less
> exposure than my "rule of thumb" suggestion, so my
> recommendation (which was only a rule of thumb, remember) wasn't
> exactly "serious over-kill".
>
> > There also could be problems with certain types of diffusion (soft focus filters) when you have that much light coming from the background.
>
> Actually, I shoot with Softar 1 diffusion with this arrangement and have
> never had a problem.
>
> >
> > I use a Minolta flash meter and am within .1 stop of where I want to be all the time (both on the subject and across the entire background).
>
> I use a Minolta meter, too- and find them to be the most precise.
> Different things do work differently for different people, which is why
> you should be careful about phrases such as "serious over-kill".
True, perhaps "serious over-kill" was a bit harsh. Sorry if I offended
you. We are talking about 1 to 1.5 stops difference (between your
approach and mine). That is over twice as much light. Over-kill,
probably. Serious over-kill, perhaps not.
In theory, however, true white seamless should look white with the exact
same exposure hitting it as the subject. The only need to increase
exposure is to compensate for lab, equipment, and (to some extent) film
variences.
In the past when I have done full length high-key, I've achieved a white
background with as little as .5 stop over on the white. In these
situations it is helpful to have UV corrected flash tubes and a
properly calibrated flash meter.
Steve Ellis, C.P.P., PPA, MPPA, TCPPA
Curtis Leeds
bhalla wrote:
> I either agree or disagree with Curtis. Here's why. To have
> the background go totally white, the background reading using
> a *reflective* meter must be at least 3 1/3 stops above the
> camera setting (for color films).... (snip of long explanation about using reflective meters)
I'm really surprised by the confusion that the original poster of this
question has revealed, and this bit about refelctive metering is another
good example. The original poster inquired about high-key studio flash
photography (specifically: what is the relative exposure required on the
background to insure white?), and the obvious solution is to use incident
flash metering. And again, a good "rule-of-thumb" is to light the
background 2 stops over the main. One poster took exception to that
recommendation as being "excessive", and then he proceeded to suggest one
half to one stop over the main. My seamless is a little dirty, usually,
so I benefit from that extra stop, I guess. I just don't see any other
logical way to calculate this.
Lance Bledsoe
In article <ashleyDt...@netcom.com>,
mark ashley <ash...@netcom.com> wrote:
>I'm curious as to what flash power people use to get
>a white background. Obviously you can pump as much
>power as you can but I'm trying to get the
>minimum I would need. I'm going to do some polaroids
>this weekend with a couple of units to get some
>idea. I'm also looking at the Ultra units from
>Paul C Buff. Would the 1200 (2 units) be enough you think ?
>The camera would probably be about 10 feet from the
>background. Tips, lessons learned, and other advise
>would be appreciated. E-mail would be most appreciated
>so I get your response faster. Thanks.
>
This is very easy -- with the proper tools. I use my Minolta
Spotmeter to meter most of my studio flash portraits (and
4x5 still life, etc.).
On a caucasion female, I soptmeter the models' face, and then
soptmeter the white paper background. If I want a real bight
white, the the background MUST be at least 2 stops brighter
than her face. Remember, a typical caucasion skin is appx
1 stop brighter than a grey card -- so the background should
be 3 stopes brighter than a grey card.
With a spotmeter and a polaroid back -- you just can't go wrong!
Lance
--
Lance Bledsoe, President ** ASMP ** Phone: 512-257-2900
Avalon Enterprises, Inc. / Bledsoe Photographic, Inc. Fax: 512-257-2888
9004 Jolly Hollow Drive, Austin, TX 78750 USA, Eve Ph: 512-258-0112
l...@AvalonCorp.com http://www.AvalonCorp.com/~lwb Day Ph: 512-835-3293
Michael Bhalla
Curtis,
I agree that we've created a lot of confusion to what was a simple
question. I wasn't trying to say that your method won't work. My
point is that if you're interested in having your background reach
a specific tone (i.e. pure white), taking a reflective reading is
the surest way to do it. That way, you don't have to know how many
more stops of an incident flash reading a particular background
needs to reach white. Getting a reflective reading of 3 1/3 stops
over the camera exposure will ensure pure white, no matter how dirty
your seamless gets. :) For that matter, it will work even if the
background isn't white. For me, this is a lot cheaper than
"Pola-guess". IMHO (or perhaps not so humble), the obvious solution
in this case is to use a reflective reading once you've established
an incident reading for the subject.
Regards,
Michael
--
Regards,
Michael Bhalla
Curtis Leeds
Michael Bhalla wrote:
> My point is that if you're interested in having your background reach
> a specific tone (i.e. pure white), taking a reflective reading is
> the surest way to do it. That way, you don't have to know how many
> more stops of an incident flash reading a particular background
> needs to reach white. Getting a reflective reading of 3 1/3 stops
> over the camera exposure will ensure pure white, no matter how dirty
> your seamless gets. :)
Michael, I'm still confused by your approach. Again, the original poster
inquired about exposing studio flash for high key. Let me get this
straight: you have a reflective flashmeter?? Is this correct?? What
make and model are you using? And, why would a reflective meter be more
accurate than an incident meter in this application?
Lance Bledsoe
In article <31C795...@mail.idt.net>,
Curtis Leeds <cle...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>Michael Bhalla wrote:
>
>Michael, I'm still confused by your approach. Again, the original poster
>inquired about exposing studio flash for high key. Let me get this
>straight: you have a reflective flashmeter?? Is this correct?? What
>make and model are you using? And, why would a reflective meter be more
>accurate than an incident meter in this application?
Mr. Leeds says "you have a reflective flashmeter??", as if this
is some never-heard-of majic box. Isn't everyone aware of these
things? I don't know what I'd do without my Minolta *reflective*
ambient/flash one degree spotmeter! Go figure...
I always get a laugh when I'm taking spot readings of a person for
a studio portrait, and I'm popping off the strobes via my spotmeter,
and the person says "Is that little thing your camera?"
Curtis Leeds
Lance Bledsoe wrote:
>
> Mr. Leeds says "you have a reflective flashmeter??", as if this
> is some never-heard-of majic box. Isn't everyone aware of these
> things? I don't know what I'd do without my Minolta *reflective*
> ambient/flash one degree spotmeter! Go figure...
I hope Mr. Bledsoe will forgive my ignorance but - it's true - in all my
years in photography I've never heard of a reflective flashmeter. Since
Mr. Bledsoe considers his reflective flash/ambient spotmeter so
irreplaceable, perhaps he will enlighten us uninformed users as to the
utility of such a device. Specifically, what advantage would a reflective
flashmeter have in a studio environment, as opposed to the incident
Minolta Flashmeter that I've been using all along?
Tak Auyeung
Curtis Leeds (cle...@mail.idt.net) wrote:
: irreplaceable, perhaps he will enlighten us uninformed users as to the
: flashmeter have in a studio environment, as opposed to the incident
: Minolta Flashmeter that I've been using all along?
I have a Sekonic L488, which does spot (i.e., reflective) metering of flash.
The advantage of reflective spot metering is the ability to measure the
exact range of tone of the subject (with flash or not). I.e., it lets you
measure small areas of the subject under flash or ambient illumination,
and then you can figure out the contrast range of these small areas.
If the range is beyond what the film can properly record, one can rearrange
the lighting (position and intensity), use another type of film, recompose
or do whatever is necessary.
This measurement of contrast range of different areas of the subject is not
easily or accurately done by a incident meter.
--Tak
-=*#*=--=*#*=--=*#*=--=*#*=--=*#*=--=*#*=--=*#*=--=*#*=--=*#*=--=*#*=--=*#*=-
Tak Ying Auyeung, Ph.D. Web Page @ http://wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us/~tauyeung
-=*#*=--=*#*=--=*#*=--=*#*=--=*#*=--=*#*=--=*#*=--=*#*=--=*#*=--=*#*=--=*#*=-
Snappy Tom
Curtis Leeds <cle...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>bhalla wrote:
>> I either agree or disagree with Curtis. Here's why. To have
>> the background go totally white, the background reading using
>> a *reflective* meter must be at least 3 1/3 stops above the
>> camera setting (for color films).... (snip of long explanation about using reflective meters)
>I'm really surprised by the confusion that the original poster of this
>question has revealed, and this bit about refelctive metering is another
>good example. The original poster inquired about high-key studio flash
>photography (specifically: what is the relative exposure required on the
>background to insure white?), and the obvious solution is to use incident
>flash metering. And again, a good "rule-of-thumb" is to light the
>background 2 stops over the main. One poster took exception to that
>recommendation as being "excessive", and then he proceeded to suggest one
>half to one stop over the main. My seamless is a little dirty, usually,
>so I benefit from that extra stop, I guess. I just don't see any other
>logical way to calculate this.
Okay. Here's my two cents worth:
I learned this method from a friend of mine who spent about a year and
a half working with Irving Penn as his first assistant. I have many
other colleagues who use this method as well and use it myself with
consistent results. It's a very simple technique. Granted, this is
for a studio set up, but you can take the general principle and apply
it to other situations.
All meter readings should be incident--NOT reflected. Light the
(white) background no more than 1 stop over the subject. As a few
people mentioned, one of the keys to this is lighting your background
**seperate** from your subject.
The other part of this however, is to keep the lights from spilling on
your subject or kicking back from your background into your lens
creating flare. You must keep this at it's most minimal level. This
is done by flagging or gobo-ing the background to the point that the
flags are **just** out of frame. Don't just flag the sides--flag the
**top** of your frame as well.
Set your subject up in front of the area that gets flagged. Try using
a nice directional light. Don't just "light them up." If you do this
right, the background will be very clean, you will have no lens flare
and the subject will jump off the background. Also, if you do it
right, you should notice a really nice subtle but obvious rim light on
your subject. This is caused by the light kicking back from the
background--not spilling from your background lights. When properly
done it reads very nice because there is no lens flare to interfere
with it. Hopefully the diagram below will translate well on your news
reader.
---------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
Background
------------------ ----------------
flag flag
X
Subject
[___]
Camera
Bruce Caines
--
Snappy Tom
sna...@bway.net
http://www.bway.net/~snappyt/
"Let us not confuse stability with stagnation."
--Mary Jean LeTendre
Rob Flynn
Curtis Leeds wrote:
>
> Lance Bledsoe wrote:
>
> >
> > Mr. Leeds says "you have a reflective flashmeter??", as if this
> > is some never-heard-of majic box. Isn't everyone aware of these
> > things? I don't know what I'd do without my Minolta *reflective*
> > ambient/flash one degree spotmeter! Go figure...
>
> I hope Mr. Bledsoe will forgive my ignorance but - it's true - in all my
> years in photography I've never heard of a reflective flashmeter. Since
> Mr. Bledsoe considers his reflective flash/ambient spotmeter so
> utility of such a device. Specifically, what advantage would a reflective
> flashmeter have in a studio environment, as opposed to the incident
> Minolta Flashmeter that I've been using all along?
Curtis,
I'd like to offer a rudimentary example of the value of reflected
readings. Suppose you're shooting a person wearing a light red jacket
against a light blue wall. You set up your strobes and read the
exposure with an incident meter. If you know how to use an incident
meter, you can get a proper exposure. But it will not necessarily give
you a pleasing one. In the same scenario, let's assume that before you
shoot you switch to a reflected light mode and meter three specific
areas: your model's face, the light red jacket, and the light blue wall
behind the model. Further suppose that the face reads f:8.5, the
jacket, f:8.2, and the wall, f:8.4. If you're shooting b/w film you've
got a gray scale (for the prominent parts of your photo)that spans a
miniscule .3 stops. Your b/w prints look hopelessly flat. And printing
on a #4 filter ain't gonna help. The reflected light readings are the
best and surest way to evaluate how a scene will actually render,
irrespective of whether the exposure is correct. In the example above,
the reflected light readings would have indicated the need for a change
in lighting, or might have suggested you pull the model and the lights
farther from the wall to darken it, etc.
Regards,
Rob Flynn
r
Rob Flynn
Steve Ellis wrote:
>
> mark ashley wrote:
> >
> > I'm curious as to what flash power people use to get
> > a white background. Obviously you can pump as much
> > power as you can but I'm trying to get the
> > minimum I would need. I'm going to do some polaroids
>
> speed you are using. If you are using white seamless, you will only need
> enough power to give it _even_ illumination about 1/2* stop more than you are
> giving your subject. It is not necessary to "pound" light onto a white
> background to get it to look white.
>
> *you should run tests to verify this on your system. Your mileage may vary...
>
> Steve Ellis, C.P.P.
> Saint Paul, Minnesota
In following this thread I get the distinct impression that all the
contributors are not united in HOW they're metering. If you're reading
a backdrop (whether black, gray, or white) with a reflected meter, and
you want to record it as pure white, you'll need to open up about 3
stops. If, on the other hand, you're taking an incident reading at the
background, and the background is white, a normal exposure calculated
from the incident reading will render it white without additional
compensation.
Rob Flynn
Marcus J. Ranum
On the same but related topic: how does one get the effect
of the subject's skin being paper-white with very little texture?
There's a book out called "marble woman" that's a good example of
what I mean -- the photos all cover a full tonal range from black
to paper white, but the model's skin looks like - white marble.
I can't tell if this is an effect of lighting, film used, processing,
or printing.
Anyone care to illuminate? (so to speak)
mjr.
--
Chief Scientist, V-ONE Corporation -- "Security for a connected world"
work http://www.v-one.com
personal http://www.clark.net/pub/mjr/mjr-top.html
Rob Flynn
Several things you can try. You can shoot with a red filter, which
raises caucasian skin values (conversely, a green filter tends to
impart a weathered, darker tone). You can overdevelop the film,
increasing contrast and raising the skin values. Or alternately, print
on higher-contrast paper. You can supplement your lighting with a grid
spot on the face. You can dodge the face when printing. You can have
your model dress in dark, muted tones, and use a low key background
thus accentuating the lightness of the face. And you can combine any
and all of these.
Rob Flynn
Winn
> The way I figure it Steve, what you're suggesting now is one stop less
> exposure than my "rule of thumb" suggestion, so my
> recommendation (which was only a rule of thumb, remember) wasn't
> exactly "serious over-kill".
using two stop's more is FOUR times more light, 4x more. Most films won't handle a
difference in exposure of 4x's. I wouldn't consider that a rule of thumb(2 stops more).
Serious overkill is a closer definition. Glad to hear your prints look just fine, but
when teaching someone else I use knowleged more than experience. The lab may be
adjusting your print exposures. This is not a flame, but given for better understanding
why steve would suggest overkill.
Winn
Winn
Fred Collins wrote:
> The proper thing to do is to light the background separate from
> the subject and to ensure that it receives 1 or 2 stops more
> light than the subject. 1 extra stop for a brunette, two for
> a blonde.
We all wish to be helpful, but this sounds more like a Hair lighting
exsposure rather than background. Why the Blonde, Brunette consideration
for background lighting? No separation needed as far as I can tell that
one stop won't handle.
Winn
Winn
Curtis Leeds
Read it again, Winn. He suggested one stop more, that's twice as much
light, an amount that is hardly "serious overkill". As for your reliance
on knowledge instead of experience: the two are not mutually exclusive.
My lab analyzes the density of every negative, and my exposures are
correct.
Michael Bhalla
Curtis Leeds wrote in response to Lance Bledsoe's post:
> I hope Mr. Bledsoe will forgive my ignorance but - it's true - in all my
> years in photography I've never heard of a reflective flashmeter. Since
> Mr. Bledsoe considers his reflective flash/ambient spotmeter so
> irreplaceable, perhaps he will enlighten us uninformed users as to the
> utility of such a device. Specifically, what advantage would a reflective
> flashmeter have in a studio environment, as opposed to the incident
> Minolta Flashmeter that I've been using all along?
I didn't realize my original post on this subject would stir so much debate.
Let me try to summarize when and why to use reflective meter readings vs.
incident when photographing people.
Exposures for people photography are usually based on rendering skin tones
as they "actually" appear, otherwise known as "true tonality". This is done
by taking an incident reading at the position of the subject and setting
the camera to this reading. The exposure is thus based on the amount of
light falling on the subject, not the amount of light reflecting from the
subject. This results in lighter skin tones recording light, and darker
skin tones recording dark. Setting the camera to a reflected reading of
the subject's skin would result in all skin tones recording at 18% grey,
wich would be incorrect. I think most portrait photographers are with me
so far.
Once the camera is set to this incident reading, reflective readings come
into play. Reflective readings can now be used to tell what value (i.e.
lightness or darkness, negative density, etc.) different parts of the
scene will record at. A spot meter is ideal for this purpose, but any
reflective meter will work (even the built-in meter in 35mm camears.) And
BTW, the Minolta Flashmeter mentioned above can take reflective readings
by substituting a reflective port for the incident dome port.
Here's an example of when a reflective reading can be helpful. Let's
suppose the camera is set to 1/30sec at f/8 using a flash in a church
scene that includes a stained glass window. Now let's suppose a
reflective reading of the window gives 1/30sec at f/22. In this case, the
window will record almost pure white on color film, because the reading
indicates that the window is three stops brigher than the camera setting.
This probably isn't what the photographer had in mind. Setting the camera
to 1/250 in this case might solve the problem, assuming the camera will
sync. at that speed.
In the post that started this thread, the author wanted to know how to
set up a high-key studio shot. The reflective reading can tell the
photographer *exactly* how much light the background needs to achieve
pure white (based on a reading that is 3 1/3 stops more than the camera
setting). Being able to hit this value exactly minimizes flare. Plus,
there's no need to shoot a Polaroid. As a subsequent poster pointed
out, its a good idea to re-meter the subject in incident mode to make
sure the background lights aren't "spilling" onto the subject.
I hope this ends the confusion.
Regards,
Michael
+ 2359 Re: Reflective vs. Incident Readings (was H [16] Curtis Leeds
--
Regards,
Michael Bhalla
< The views expressed here are my own and not those of my employer. >
Snappy Tom
fcol...@gonix.com (Fred Collins) wrote:
>The proper thing to do is to light the background separate from
>the subject and to ensure that it receives 1 or 2 stops more
>light than the subject. 1 extra stop for a brunette, two for
>a blonde.
I don't know who taught you this Fred, but it doesn't make any sense.
What exactly does the subject's hair color have to do with rendering a
clean white background and seperating it from the foreground?
Unless the subject's hair is the exact same tonal value as the
background, smooth and perfectly flat, creating no area for shadow or
light fall-off (i.e., subject's hair is made of white seamless paper)
this has no relevance to the issue at all.
Frederic Goudal
In article <4qn2ng$1k...@ausnews.austin.ibm.com> mbh...@austin.ibm.com (Michael Bhalla) writes:
From: mbh...@austin.ibm.com (Michael Bhalla)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Date: 24 Jun 1996 21:52:48 GMT
Organization: IBM Austin
Reply-To: mbh...@austin.ibm.com
Path: u-bordeaux.fr!news.univ-rennes1.fr!irisa.fr!news-rocq.inria.fr!jussieu.fr!oleane!in2p3.fr!swidir.switch.ch!nntp.coast.net!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!ausnews.austin.ibm.com!mbhalla
Lines: 62
Sender: mbh...@austin.ibm.com ()
Distribution: world
References: <ashleyDt...@netcom.com> <31C6FA...@mail.idt.net> <4q75jj$26...@ausnews.austin.ibm.com> <31C795...@mail.idt.net> <4q9ab8$g...@pentagon.io.com> <31C88D...@mail.idt.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mbhalla.austin.ibm.com
Originator: mbh...@mbhalla.austin.ibm.com
Curtis Leeds wrote in response to Lance Bledsoe's post:
> I hope Mr. Bledsoe will forgive my ignorance but - it's true - in all my
> years in photography I've never heard of a reflective flashmeter. Since
> Mr. Bledsoe considers his reflective flash/ambient spotmeter so
> irreplaceable, perhaps he will enlighten us uninformed users as to the
> utility of such a device. Specifically, what advantage would a reflective
> flashmeter have in a studio environment, as opposed to the incident
> Minolta Flashmeter that I've been using all along?
I didn't realize my original post on this subject would stir so much debate.
Let me try to summarize when and why to use reflective meter readings vs.
incident when photographing people.
Exposures for people photography are usually based on rendering skin tones
as they "actually" appear, otherwise known as "true tonality". This is done
by taking an incident reading at the position of the subject and setting
the camera to this reading. The exposure is thus based on the amount of
light falling on the subject, not the amount of light reflecting from the
subject. This results in lighter skin tones recording light, and darker
skin tones recording dark. Setting the camera to a reflected reading of
the subject's skin would result in all skin tones recording at 18% grey,
wich would be incorrect. I think most portrait photographers are with me
so far.
It is incorrect if you don't correct your exposure. You may change
your exposure depending on how do you want the area you measured look
like :
to get a black area close 3 stops to get a white one open 3 stops
But I guess that is not what most portrait photographier want :
you don't get a "realistic" portrait, just the one you imagine....(hum
may I say "visualize" ????)
f.g.
Curtis Leeds
Frederic Goudal wrote:
>
> In article <4qn2ng$1k...@ausnews.austin.ibm.com> mbh...@austin.ibm.com (Michael Bhalla) writes:
>
> From: mbh...@austin.ibm.com (Michael Bhalla)
> Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
> Date: 24 Jun 1996 21:52:48 GMT
> Organization: IBM Austin
> Reply-To: mbh...@austin.ibm.com
> Path: u-bordeaux.fr!news.univ-rennes1.fr!irisa.fr!news-rocq.inria.fr!jussieu.fr!oleane!in2p3.fr!swidir.switch.ch!nntp.coast.net!news.kei.com!newsfeed.intern
> Lines: 62
> Sender: mbh...@austin.ibm.com ()
> Distribution: world
> References: <ashleyDt...@netcom.com> <31C6FA...@mail.idt.net> <4q75jj$26...@ausnews.austin.ibm.com>
on like the energizer bunny. For the record, the original poster inquired
about in-studio, high-key lighting. I've questioned those who would
suggest that a reflective meter is the best approach to do this. No one
has yet given a reasonable response, indicating (as I had thought) that
if ever there was a situation that demanded incident metering, this is
it.
Oleg Volk
> On the same but related topic: how does one get the effect
>of the subject's skin being paper-white with very little texture?
>There's a book out called "marble woman" that's a good example of
>what I mean -- the photos all cover a full tonal range from black
>to paper white, but the model's skin looks like - white marble.
>I can't tell if this is an effect of lighting, film used, processing,
>or printing.
> Anyone care to illuminate? (so to speak)
My approach is to use an orange filter and hi-key lighting. You may
find that red filter will have the same effect, but more so.
Paul Thompson
If you are referring to the book by Yuri Docz, it would help you to
know that most, if not all the images were shot on Infrared film,
which causes skin tones to record much brighter than usual in
relation to other objects. You can accomplish a similar result by
shooting B&W film through a red or orange filter, push-processing the
film, then printing on higher than average contrast paper.
Paul Thompson.
Marcus J. Ranum
> If you are referring to the book by Yuri Docz, it would help you to
>know that most, if not all the images were shot on Infrared film,
>which causes skin tones to record much brighter than usual in
>relation to other objects.
That's the book. But I didn't realize the pictures were I/R.
They didn't look grainy enough! Were they 4x5 negatives or something?
Interesting data point, though -- I've shot I/R portraits using strobe
lights before and they were unsatisfying. I'm not sure if it's the
spectral output of the strobes or what. Maybe he uses hot lights and
I/R film?
>You can accomplish a similar result by
>shooting B&W film through a red or orange filter, push-processing the
>film, then printing on higher than average contrast paper.
Been working on that. My last set of experiments were done
w/Tech Pan which I plan to overdevelop in FG7 and print on grade 2
paper. I'm keeping my fingers crossed! (Tech pan w/a red filter was
something like ASA 8 film. :)