# Dark Subject on White Background



## Mystery

I am a beginner photographer, but very determined to learn how to better shoot on white background.  Slowly but surely, I am improving, but I shoot so rarely that I feel like I'm starting over every time I pick up the camera.  Over the past couple years, my photos are definitely improving, but I still get stumped by dark subjects.  Currently, I am running into an issue shooting a black rope on white background.  No matter what I do, the rope tends to be blown out.  I am shooting through plate glass with the subject about 6 feet in front of the background.  My background is seamless paper with a Yongnuo 565EX set at the minimum power to achieve true white.  My subject is lit with a SB-900 and a SB-700, reflecting in umbrellas and placed about as close as they can get; one about level and the other from slightly above. 

Here is a photo of my setup and a sample image of the rope.  This glass tabletop and speedlight setup is new for me and I am wondering what I can try to get some better results.  I have a lot of photos to shoot similar to this so I want to limit my post work as much as possible. My main concern is the back top of the rope.  It just looks way overexposed and blown out.  No matter what I do, I am not able to get the definition of the braids without that blown out look around the edges.  Any advice would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## tirediron

Bring in a third light from the top to even out the exposure, and then drop the overall exposure. Also, buy the lighting bible.


----------



## Mystery

I boomed a third light over the top.  Initially, I put it directly over the subject, but it caused some tiny shadows from the individual fibers of the rope that made it look out of focus.  I moved the light toward the camera a little bit and got this shot.  I need to tweak it a little bit, but I think the third light really helped. 

For your recommendation of the book, are you talking about The Studio Photographer's Lighting Bible by Calvey Taylor-Haw?  I will grab a copy, I need something more than the internet to get my information from, so thanks for the recommendation. 

What do you think of the improvement in the shot?  I would still like to see a little more definition on the front of the rope so I will see if I can bump up the low front light a little bit more.


----------



## tirediron

It's getting there; I'd also move the lights in a lot closer; the closer, the softer.


----------



## Mystery

I was initially shooting through the umbrellas and that got them much closer.  I thought it looked a little better bouncing instead of shooting through, but maybe it will look better now that I have the third light.  What do you think about shooting through or bouncing with the umbrellas in this situation?  With the types of stands and brackets I am using, I really can't get the lights much closer.  I can bring the boom lower, but the original two lights on the stands won't bet any closer.  I could possibly try taking the light off the stand and just lay it on the table, shown in the second shot here.  Not sure it will be very secure there, but it's closer.


----------



## Derrel

I think the white is still blown out, detail-less 255, and the rope is under-lighted and under-exposed. I think you need to LESSEN the amount of light on the background significantly, and get more top light onto the rope. The rope needs about another 1/2 stop of exposure, maybe 7/10 more. The background is over-lit.


----------



## Mystery

Derrel said:


> I think the white is still blown out, detail-less 255, and the rope is under-lighted and under-exposed. I think you need to LESSEN the amount of light on the background significantly, and get more top light onto the rope. The rope needs about another 1/2 stop of exposure, maybe 7/10 more. The background is over-lit.



The background for this shot needs to be white.  I'm not sure how to have 255 white without it being detail-less.  I wouldn't mind having a bit of a shadow under the product, but shooting on glass makes that kind of impossible.  I suppose I could get a little reflection, but not with the high key AND a glass surface.  I have a sheet of white lexan here I was shooting on before.  It allows for some really nice shadows when I don't have it backlit, but I always end up with the same blown out subject I had on this one when I get the white to hit 255.  I will have a go at your suggestions tomorrow and see how it turns out.  I see what you're saying about needing more light on the rope, but less light on the background means I will lose my 255 white.  I suppose I could get a little more depth by going down a stop or two and just vignetting the photo to a white background.  I feel like it's cheating, which is fine by me for now; but I want to be able to achieve this shot without cheating in post.  Plus, I'm not so sure a white bordered vignette would even look good, I think it might be too obvious and look amateur.  

I know that there is a way to get a white background on this shot with minimal to no post work, I just feel like I am missing something.  I know I could use a lot of education and experience, but those don't happen overnight.  I am going to start trying to work on photography more on a regular basis so I don't feel so fresh every time I pick up my cameras.  If you guys have any more ideas for this shot that will help me today, I'd really appreciate it.  Thanks for everything so far too, the replies have been quite helpful already.


----------



## Scatterbrained

First, do you have a lightmeter?  If not, I'd recommend turning on the highlight warning (blinkies) and turning down your background lights until the background stops blinking, then bump them just enough to bring the blinking back.  

Second, quit using white shoot through umbrellas.  You're throwing light everywhere and it's not helping your cause. 

Third, set your lighting for the subject up using a grey card, or better yet, a white/grey/black card (again assuming no light meter).   With a grey card you should have a spike right in the middle of your histogram from the card, this will tell you the exposure is pretty much spot on.  This will ensure a proper exposure of the subject.    

For this kind of shot you can set a bare speedlight on one side and a white card on the other.  The bare speedlight will provide a hard light that will accentuate texture while the card will soften and provide fill, without throwing light all over the room.     Or you can simply take the light you have overhead and turn it around so the umbrella is directly over the subject.   You're currently trying to bounce light down from a _shoot through_ umbrella; not the most efficient way to do things.


----------



## Derrel

Take a look here, at Figure 14. You'' see that 240 is "white" as well...you do not have to be at 255 to make the backdrop "white". Again, you have wayyyy too much light on the background, and are under-lighting, and under-exposing the black rope.  Digital Zone System


----------



## Scatterbrained

240-245 is generally considered "white with detail", and you can see the difference between 240 and 255 if you drop a square of 240 into a background of 255.  255 can be done in camera, you just have to know how to set up and dial in the lights.


----------



## Mystery

Scatterbrained said:


> First, do you have a lightmeter?  If not, I'd recommend turning on the highlight warning (blinkies) and turning down your background lights until the background stops blinking, then bump them just enough to bring the blinking back.
> 
> Second, quit using white shoot through umbrellas.  You're throwing light everywhere and it's not helping your cause.
> 
> Third, set your lighting for the subject up using a grey card, or better yet, a white/grey/black card (again assuming no light meter).   With a grey card you should have a spike right in the middle of your histogram from the card, this will tell you the exposure is pretty much spot on.  This will ensure a proper exposure of the subject.
> 
> For this kind of shot you can set a bare speedlight on one side and a white card on the other.  The bare speedlight will provide a hard light that will accentuate texture while the card will soften and provide fill, without throwing light all over the room.     Or you can simply take the light you have overhead and turn it around so the umbrella is directly over the subject.   You're currently trying to bounce light down from a _shoot through_ umbrella; not the most efficient way to do things.



I have the black bounce covers for the umbrellas, I was just trying to quickly switch the setup to see how it would work.  I will throw the covers on and see if it improves.  

I don't have a light meter yet.  I am saving a bit instead of buying something cheap.  I don't have a gray card either, I keep meaning to get one.  

I have a bunch of foam core boards and and stuff to modify light with, I'll try your suggestion and see how it works.  



Derrel said:


> Take a look here, at Figure 14. You'' see that 240 is "white" as well...you do not have to be at 255 to make the backdrop "white". Again, you have wayyyy too much light on the background, and are under-lighting, and under-exposing the black rope.  Digital Zone System



I understand that you're saying 240 is still considered white, both technically and to the eye.  I agree with you that there is little to be desired by a 255 white background.  However, these shots are going to be used primarily on websites which have a white background on the photo gallery.  A frame filled with anything short of 255 will look like the image posted below by Scatterbrained.



Scatterbrained said:


> 240-245 is generally considered "white with detail", and you can see the difference between 240 and 255 if you drop a square of 240 into a background of 255.  255 can be done in camera, you just have to know how to set up and dial in the lights.




When you say 255 can be "done" in camera, what exactly are you saying?


----------



## Scatterbrained

Mystery said:


> ......................................When you say 255 can be "done" in camera, what exactly are you saying?



If you read my earlier post, I talked about using the highlight warning to bring the background up until it just starts to clip.  That would be your 255 (if shooting in jpeg, Lr will automatically pull the whites back upon upload).   You do this with only your background light turned on.   Keep the subject a decent distance from the background, and use flags to keep areas of the background that aren't in the frame from kicking light back around the subject.  Another option would be to use a background that just barely fills the frame.  

Doing this you should end up with a solid white background and a silhouetted subject.  Then you can turn the background light off and set up the lighting for the subject.  Get the subject so that it is lit correctly without lighting the background.  Once you have the two set it's just a matter of turning on the all the lights and taking the shot.       Granted it's a lot easier to do with a light meter, or at least a grey card, but it can be done simply by chimping and adjusting while watching the histogram and blinkies.


----------



## Mystery

Scatterbrained said:


> If you read my earlier post, I talked about using the highlight warning to bring the background up until it just starts to clip.  That would be your 255 (if shooting in jpeg, Lr will automatically pull the whites back upon upload).   You do this with only your background light turned on.   Keep the subject a decent distance from the background, and use flags to keep areas of the background that aren't in the frame from kicking light back around the subject.  Another option would be to use a background that just barely fills the frame.
> 
> Doing this you should end up with a solid white background and a silhouetted subject.  Then you can turn the background light off and set up the lighting for the subject.  Get the subject so that it is lit correctly without lighting the background.  Once you have the two set it's just a matter of turning on the all the lights and taking the shot.       Granted it's a lot easier to do with a light meter, or at least a grey card, but it can be done simply by chimping and adjusting while watching the histogram and blinkies.



Oh, ok.  I was going to try what you suggested, but now that you explain it more thoroughly, it seems I am already doing something similar to that.  I am shooting RAW to a CF card, but I also send jpeg to an eyefi card that goes to my computer.  I am basically previewing on the computer, like tethered shooting instead of the LCD.  I am lighting my background and verifying exposure on the computer.   I am going to try and spread my subject and background further apart to see if it helps a little.  I will also try all the other suggestions here.  I'm getting ready to start shooting here shortly, I'll post up when I have something new to show.  

Thanks again everyone.


----------



## Mystery

Hey Folks,

Sorry for my delay replying.  I didn't come back yet, because I got too busy and haven't had a chance to get back to the photo work.  Hopefully I will find time tomorrow to work on the photos, but I wanted to ask a question before I proceed.....

With regards only to white background photography, how much post work is usually done with the background?  

I ask this because I am noticing that the photos on glass are lacking a shadow and I feel the images I am taking really need a shadow.  I do still have my sheet of white lexan, and I can achieve nice shadows shooting on it.  However, there is absolutely no way I know of to get a white background off the camera without a completely overexposed subject while shooting directly on the white lexan.  So, this brings me back to my question.  Rather than trying to achieve white on the camera, should I just be planning on having to isolate the subject on every photo in post to get what I want?  I am already doing post work to touch up the products, and adding too much to my editing could become a problem.  I want to be realistic here, though.  So, any advice on this subject?


----------



## astroNikon

Mystery said:


> With regards only to white background photography, how much post work is usually done with the background?


ZERO



Mystery said:


> I ask this because I am noticing that the photos on glass are lacking a shadow and I feel the images I am taking really need a shadow.  I do still have my sheet of white lexan, and I can achieve nice shadows shooting on it.
> 
> I want to be realistic here, though.  So, any advice on this subject?



Why don't you take your background.  raise it up a bit, move it closer and let it curve onto the top you have there so it can be your background AND you base with a seamless transition.  Same exact white color then.


----------



## Mystery

astroNikon said:


> Mystery said:
> 
> 
> 
> With regards only to white background photography, how much post work is usually done with the background?
> 
> 
> 
> ZERO
> 
> 
> 
> Mystery said:
> 
> 
> 
> I ask this because I am noticing that the photos on glass are lacking a shadow and I feel the images I am taking really need a shadow.  I do still have my sheet of white lexan, and I can achieve nice shadows shooting on it.
> 
> I want to be realistic here, though.  So, any advice on this subject?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you take your background.  raise it up a bit, move it closer and let it curve onto the top you have there so it can be your background AND you base.  Same exact white color then.
Click to expand...


Really, zero?  So you're telling me that I should be able to get 255 white on my background every time and not have to do a single thing to it in post?

I have a home made, 4'x4' still life table with built in lights underneath it.  With the lights on, it's too much light and blows out the product.  With the lights off, though, it looks decent, but the only way  (EDIT: the only way I know how with my limited experience) to get the background white without blowing out the subject is to do it in post.  I have never tried shooting on paper, but I suppose I could try it really easily if you think it would help.


----------



## astroNikon

with white paper or board, cloth, etc and if it's one continuous sheet.
When the flashes flash the light will bounce off that sheet and light the lower part (with properly placed lights).  You don't need to light from below.

research it on the internet ... it's the normal way of doing it from what I've seen.  It looks like you are making it way more complicated than it has to be thus you are having a bunch of problems.

but it basically states ^^ everything everyone else has said too ...

here's a simplistic explanation but they're all basically the same setup --> Product Photography Tutorial: How to Shoot Great Photos on the Cheap


----------



## CameraClicker

Some speedlites, umbrellas, a grid, some white card stock, and a sheet of white Plexiglass.  SOOC.

This is the setup, the grid is on the background, not on the strap (sorry, don't have black rope), full power.  The umbrellas are on everything, 1/4 power, each, at about the same distance.  The sheets aren't big enough and without the second one, you can see the wires in the table, so I used two sheets, overlapped under the Plexiglass.



 

This is what it looks like when it opens in Adobe Camera Raw, the big red blob is 255, 255, 255, mostly from the speedlite with the grid


 

This is the whole frame


 

And this is the final crop


 

I think there's some dirt that didn't wash off the Plexiglass.  Cleanliness may be next to Godliness, but around here it's next to impossible!  A little work with the healing brush would finish it off.


----------



## Austin Greene

astroNikon said:


> Mystery said:
> 
> 
> 
> With regards only to white background photography, how much post work is usually done with the background?
> 
> 
> 
> ZERO
Click to expand...


Sorry, I simply disagree. Sure, you can get close to 255 in the studio, but doing so uniformly while properly lighting your objects is near-impossible. Working in a product studio daily I can say that _every _single one of our photos undergoes complete background subtraction, is placed onto a white (255) background, and often we even add our own shadows in post as well. This is a requirement for us when your shooting thousands of items that all need to have identical styling in the eyes of the consumer. It's not how I'd do my own work, but amongst the biggest product shooters out there it is considered a standard.


----------



## Tinderbox (UK)

Just out of curiosity have you tried HDR combine more than one exposure to get more contrast.

John.


----------



## Mystery

astroNikon said:


> with white paper or board, cloth, etc and if it's one continuous sheet.
> When the flashes flash the light will bounce off that sheet and light the lower part (with properly placed lights).  You don't need to light from below.
> 
> research it on the internet ... it's the normal way of doing it from what I've seen.  It looks like you are making it way more complicated than it has to be thus you are having a bunch of problems.
> 
> but it basically states ^^ everything everyone else has said too ...
> 
> here's a simplistic explanation but they're all basically the same setup --> Product Photography Tutorial: How to Shoot Great Photos on the Cheap



I _was_ lighting from below.  I am no longer doing that, because I don't like having a shadow-less image any more.

Thanks for posting the link, but I feel the advice from the author is rather basic.  I'll go so far to say that they have actually given out a bit of bad advice to set the camera to the lowest possible ISO.  Then, they recommend outsourcing the job of making a clipping path.  I have spent thousands of dollars on photographic equipment and photo editing software.  My goal is to be able to do it myself, not outsource it.  I'm not just trying to save a buck by not hiring a professional.  I am actually passionate about photography and want to learn the proper and professional ways to do this.  I'm not attacking you, I know you were just trying to show the example of the lighting setup.  It just wasn't all that good.

While your post wasn't all that helpful in regards to content.  You actually provided me with the best advice from all the replies so far.  You said I'm making it too complicated and reverted me back to all the education I have, which is KISS (keep it simple, stupid!)  For that, I give a big THANKS!  The simple lighting setup you shared showed me that i truly was over thinking this.

I rethought what I was doing and got a much better shot as my first test shot without even trying to tweak anything.  Here is a shot I took without even trying, followed by a shot of the setup.  Setup is one light with a shoot through umbrella boomed over the top of the subject.  Second light is camera left with a bounce umbrella.  Third light is another speedlight in a bounce umbrella, far camera right and behind.  I am going to test this shot with a flag to bounce on the right instead of a third light, I just haven't gotten any further than doing this test shot.   Also, I am not even using a sweep.  I just set my 4'x8' piece of white polycarbonate on the dining room table, flat.  If the product were taller, a sweep would be very useful.  What do y'all think about switching to using a proper still life table, like a Manfrotto table, that will hold my plexiglass with a sweep?











CameraClicker said:


> Some speedlites, umbrellas, a grid, some white card stock, and a sheet of white Plexiglass.  SOOC.
> 
> This is the setup, the grid is on the background, not on the strap (sorry, don't have black rope), full power.  The umbrellas are on everything, 1/4 power, each, at about the same distance.  The sheets aren't big enough and without the second one, you can see the wires in the table, so I used two sheets, overlapped under the Plexiglass.
> View attachment 85184
> 
> This is what it looks like when it opens in Adobe Camera Raw, the big red blob is 255, 255, 255, mostly from the speedlite with the grid
> View attachment 85185
> 
> This is the whole frame
> View attachment 85186
> 
> And this is the final crop
> View attachment 85187
> 
> I think there's some dirt that didn't wash off the Plexiglass.  Cleanliness may be next to Godliness, but around here it's next to impossible!  A little work with the healing brush would finish it off.



Thanks for throwing together that example.  I have adjusted the setup here and got what I think is a better shot.



Austin Greene said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mystery said:
> 
> 
> 
> With regards only to white background photography, how much post work is usually done with the background?
> 
> 
> 
> ZERO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I simply disagree. Sure, you can get close to 255 in the studio, but doing so uniformly while properly lighting your objects is near-impossible. Working in a product studio daily I can say that _every _single one of our photos undergoes complete background subtraction, is placed onto a white (255) background, and often we even add our own shadows in post as well. This is a requirement for us when your shooting thousands of items that all need to have identical styling in the eyes of the consumer. It's not how I'd do my own work, but amongst the biggest product shooters out there it is considered a standard.
Click to expand...


Thanks for posting that.  I honestly didn't feel it to be very practical to expect to get the perfect shot straight from the camera.  However, if you're really shooting thousands of products at a time, isn't there a simpler way to do it?  I mean, even you say it's not how you would do it if it were your own job.  So, how would you do it?



Tinderbox (UK) said:


> Just out of curiosity have you tried HDR combine more than one exposure to get more contrast.
> 
> 
> John.



I have not tried to do an HDR shot. I did consider a composite of some sort for the shadow, but I think it's overkill. I feel I should be able to achieve the look with the lights, basic home made modifiers and the surfaces I have to shoot on. I have around 200 photos to shoot, so I am trying to keep it simple. If I count the photos I would like to reshoot from when I knew even less about how to do this, I have about 300 more photos to shoot. So, that's why I want it simple.


----------



## CameraClicker

I like your latest shot.

Simple is good.  If you can get it done in camera faster than in post, in camera is a good choice.  Usually some post processing is done, even if it is just resizing and sharpening.  If you have 300 to process, every minute per unit adds 5 hours!  

Here is MacDonald's take on the process:


----------



## Mystery

CameraClicker said:


> I like your latest shot.
> 
> Simple is good.  If you can get it done in camera faster than in post, in camera is a good choice.  Usually some post processing is done, even if it is just resizing and sharpening.  If you have 300 to process, every minute per unit adds 5 hours!
> 
> Here is MacDonald's take on the process:



Thanks, I'm liking it a lot more with the shadow.  I feel the light is a little too harsh still, so I will be working on it a little more today to try and dial it in better.  I didn't get to add the hardware in this shot for you guys, but this rope is actually going to be a product with shiny nickel hardware.  I had to leave it off because it is uniquely identifying to the finished product, for which I have a non-disclosure with the client.  I wish I could put up the shot of the completed product, because I am actually really happy with how the reflective hardware turned out.  I have shot a lot of reflective hardware and jewelry, and I've never had it look this good.  

I haven't tried any other colors except the black product, so I'll post back after I've had a chance to get some other colors out.  Hoping everything will work without too much adjusting.  I guess we'll see.  Thanks so far for all the help here.  We're not done yet, so I'll be back after I've done some actual finished shots.

I really liked seeing the McDonalds shoot, thanks for sharing it.  I am trying to set up the shots with the same attitude.  On my first shoot, I did hundreds of shots and spent days editing them.  After I was done, I could see that my eyes were tricking me and my colors weren't the same from shot to shot.  I need a lot more uniformity, so hopefully getting it out of the camera closer to what I want will solve my problems.


----------



## CameraClicker

Colour problems?  How about:  X-Rite  ColorChecker Passport MSCCPP B&H Photo Video


----------



## Mystery

Yeah, getting colors just right has been really difficult for me.  I have some products that the color is really not an accurate representation of.  I need to reshoot those shots anyway.  I've yet to have a customer complain about the color of the product when they received it, but I won't settle for "good enough".

You know, I was looking at that exact thing about a year ago.  Actually, this one with the monitor calibrator.  
X-Rite ColorMunki Display with ColorChecker Passport Kit B&H

I had just blown my budget on other stuff and asked a friend if he ever used one.  He talked me out of it one way or another and convinced me to buy a light meter first if I didn't have money to buy it all now.  He doesn't shoot products though, he does mostly landscapes and portraits, so maybe the advice was uninformed.  Have you used that color checker?  Is it as good as it claims to be for this kind of work?


----------



## Mystery

Here's an example of the color issue I face.  Image #1 is a photo taken by a professional photographer we hired.  He did a great job.  I would still be using him if his services were cost effective for us.  Unfortunately, we are doing a lot of photos of custom work and one-offs.  Paying $20-$30 for a photo of a product we will only sell one of is cost prohibitive.  This is why I am trying to set up a studio in house that we can shoot in regularly.
    
Photo #2 is a raw image with the same setup as the black rope.  I moved the lights and adjusted power a little bit, but not a whole lot.  I also changed the white balance value.  Other than that, this is what I'm getting.

Photo #3 is what happens when I adjust exposure in adobe raw to bring the background to white around the product.

Photo #4 is the same image with the white background around the product adjusted with the levels white dropper.

Photo #5 is photo #4 with the saturation kicked up about +25.  It looks a lot better, but I find that too much adjusting in post gets me into trouble with the colors matching. For example, I thought this looked pretty good in PS, but now that I look at it a few minutes later, I think it looks ridiculously over-saturated.

I know the product shown originally is a different product.  I also didn't take any effort to stage my shot.  The point is, the leather on the inside of the dog collar in my shot is the same teal color as the original professional shot.  The brown is also the same brown.  In every case where I try to adjust the image in post, I end up with a washed out product if I get the background white.  With the exception of actually clipping the product off the background, I see no easy way of making this shot look good with minimal post work.  So, I found myself coming back in on a photo like this to enhance the color.  After a few dozen of them, the teal would end up looking really green or really blue.

So, now that the issue of shooting the black rope on the white background is solved, I have the same old problem of overexposed, washed out colors on white backgrounds.  I want to have that rich, vibrant color like in the professional shot.  I can do it in post, but I have a problem with the uniformity from one image to another.  I know there are tools in PS for this, but I was hoping to get closer straight from the camera.  Am I expecting too much?  Do I just need more practice with shooting AND editing to nail this?


----------



## pyzik

CameraClicker said:


> Some speedlites, umbrellas, a grid, some white card stock, and a sheet of white Plexiglass.  SOOC.
> 
> This is the setup, the grid is on the background, not on the strap (sorry, don't have black rope), full power.  The umbrellas are on everything, 1/4 power, each, at about the same distance.  The sheets aren't big enough and without the second one, you can see the wires in the table, so I used two sheets, overlapped under the Plexiglass.
> 
> And this is the final crop
> View attachment 85187
> 
> I think there's some dirt that didn't wash off the Plexiglass.  Cleanliness may be next to Godliness, but around here it's next to impossible!  A little work with the healing brush would finish it off.


Great shot!  I've been wanting to do a shot like this for some pieces and didn't know how to accomplish it.
Thanks for the info.


----------

