Need Advice on what lighting I need to buy to acheive soft beige background

[monica_der]

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" align="center">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td id="main_container_content">

<table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" bgcolor="#9CA0AD">

<tbody>

<tr bgcolor="#FFFFFF">

<td>

Hi everyone! I'm a new photographer just starting out. I would like to create photos like the ones you see on the site <a href="http://www.nastygal.com/">www.nastygal.com</a> with the models against the white background. <br /><br />What is different about them is that it looks like the clothing and colors pop off the background which doesn't look stark white but a mixture of ever changing Grey and beige blend. Also there are shadows at the feet. If I want to recreate this look <br /><br />- what kind of lighting would I need? (I used two alien bees b1600s) but didnt get this look <br />-what size soft boxes or do I need umbrellas <br />-how many lights do I need <br />-what position do I need to place the lights <br /><br />I really would love if anyone could please help me Thank u

 

I have attached several photos. I took the one with the girl in the burgundy red wine dress.

 

 

<img src="http://i44.tinypic.com/17pi1h.jpg" alt="" />

 

This was the equipment I used which the studio rented which was provided

 

<h4>2 X ALIENBEES™ B1600 FLASH UNIT (640 WS)<br />1 X CYBERSYNC TRIGGER<br />2 X CYBERSYNC RECEIVER<br />1 X 70" OCTO-BOX SOFTBOX<br />1 X 24" X 36" SOFTBOX<br />1 X BACKGROUND/BACKDROP SYSTEM (10' FT TALL X 10' FT WIDE)<br />1 X 13' BOOM STAND<br />2 X 40" C-STAND<br />2 X 10' LIGHT STAND<br />2 X 48" INCH UMBRELLAS (SILVER AND WHITE)<br />1 X 4-LEAF BARN DOOR W/ HONEYCOMB GRID & GELS<br />1 X 18" 65W VIDEO RING LIGHT (FLUORESCENT, DAYLIGHT BALANCED)<br />1 X 9" 28W VIDEO RING LIGHT (FLUORESCENT, DAYLIGHT BALANCED)</h4>

 

The ones from nastygal are the ones with the beige background which is what I would like to achieve

 

<img src="http://images04.nastygal.com/resources/nastygal/images/products/processed/12162.0.zoom.jpg" alt="" width="670" height="1005" />

 

<img src="http://images05.nastygal.com/resources/nastygal/images/products/processed/19820.0.zoom.jpg" alt="" width="670" height="1005" />

 

<img src="http://cdnd.lystit.com/photos/2012/08/22/nasty-gal-black-second-skin-jeans-ombre-product-6-4538091-682788760_large_flex.jpeg" alt="" width="400" height="600" />

 

 

 

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

[ellis_vener_photography]

Primarily it looks like they are working on a reasonably deep set ( allowing for good seperation between the model and

the background and background is diffuse (think: light bank (softbox), umbrella or bounced) llight coming from above

which also means they have good ceiling height and this top light is likely hung from a truss or beam, or perhaps a trolley

and scissors system.

 

The mechanics of how that studio placed the light overhead aren't important but the angle the background light is coming

from is and I wanted to let you what might be involved.

 

It could also be a simpler set up with large white bounce panels ( 4x8 foot sheets of either Gatorboard and Fomecore are

commonly used) surrounding the model on the sides, above the model's head, and near the camera but placed just

outside of the frame will get you the same light quality on the model.

 

Before you try this at full scale trysting a small scale set to work out the lighting and staging.

[michaelmowery]

<p>For one you don't have enough light hitting your model and the light is too diffused. Harder light makes cloths pop. Additional photoshop tweeks also helps. As far as the background is concerned i am not really sure how they did it. There is no bounce light coming off the background hitting the model so maybe it is lit by the main light. If that is the case then the white seamless is only a few feet behind her. My other guess is it is photoshopped.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

Michael is right about the quality of the main (AKA "key") light and processing.

[bob_bill]

<p>The background isn't pure white in any of the shots. Both full length have the soft main coming in a bit more than from 45 degrees left per the shadow on the floor. They appear to be real shadows, not painted in or expanded to the side so pretty even illumination on bg and floor. This might be a situation for a large, specular modifier like a silver 6' AB parabolic to make the clothes and skin pop and the contrast to bring out the texture of the dress. If the large octa came with silver liner, I'd try that and try pulling out the middle, outer or both diffuser panels. On the bg, I would use 2 small soft boxes with grids at about 45 degrees to the bg and nearly as far back as the model but flagged with v flats- mine are foam insulation about $ 12 at home depot. I'm not seeing any wrap from light bouncing off the bg, but she could be about 8-10 feet from it and with less than pure white bg that is doable. Nice thing about having lights on the bg, is the tone is controllable. I would group them on the cyber commander and change the whiteness/wrap to taste. I probably wouldn't want the white blouse blending with a pure white bg so might have cut the bg power a bit on that one to make it a bit darker shade of gray. Or, if as someone above suggested, the only light on the bg is the main, I would move her forward a foot or two along with the main and darken the bg a bit. Her dark hair would still have enough separation. </p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Firstly, I see no beige backgrounds there. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beige">Beige</a> describes a variety of shades of pale brown, and if you're selling clothing this is something you ought to know. Those backgrounds are all shades of grey - i.e a fairly neutral off-white. The colour picker tool shows those backgrounds as neutral; having equal RGB components within a very few levels. So if you're really seeing those backgrounds as beige then maybe your monitor needs calibrating.</p>

<p>Be that as it may. The difference between your shot and the other examples is mainly one of exposure, contrast and colour balance. The skin tones are a tad bluer in your own shot, and the exposure is about a half stop lower. I've taken the liberty of brightening up your picture using the curves tool in GIMP (a totally free image editor), and I think you'll agree that it's brought your shot a lot closer to the look of the others.</p>

<p>I wouldn't be happy with the appearance of the hair in any of those shots. As Ellis suggests, a top rear light would help a lot. It would lighten the background more and add a bit of sparkle to the hair.</p>

<p>BTW. The conditions of use of this site discourage the posting of images which aren't the poster's copyright. Links to other people's images are more acceptable.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Here's the image, after resizing to fit inline.</p><div></div>

[gil_rosado]

<p>To get a white background, meter the flash hitting the background to be 1 stop brighter than the key light on your subject.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

Gil Rosado: "To get a white background, meter the flash hitting the background to be 1 stop brighter than the key light on

your subject."

 

If you are using an incident meter to measure the amount of light illuminating the background and the background

material is white, that's a terrible idea. You'll start bouncing so much light back towards the subject and the lens that it

turns the background into a light source, lowering overall contrast (flare). Whoever gave you that bit of advice didn't know

enough to the "expert" they were pretending to be.

 

My experience (ive been doing this professionally since '84) is that 1/3rd to 1/2 stop brighter is a better value to shoot for.

 

If you are using a spot meter, that's a different story.

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>One more thought. It looks like you've used the big octa to take that shot, judging by the softness of the lighting and lack of shadow. If you want to harden up the light a bit and get a more definite body shadow, just pull the octa back from the subject by 2 or 3 feet. This'll have the secondary effect of reducing its falloff and so even up the light between subject and background. Result - more definition of the subject and clothing, a comparatively brighter background, and the more definite ankle shadow you're looking for.<br>

You still need to get some extra light on the hair though!</p>

[studio460]

<p>I'll take a whack at this as well . . . here's my best guess:</p>

<p>I do a lot of behind-the-scenes shooting for TV on set-ups very similar to this. The set-up I see most often is where the background is lit by two softboxes, one from either side, pointing toward the background (either white seamless paper, or a painted cove).</p>

<p>The background strobes are obscured from both the subject and the camera by V-flats placed on either side of the backdrop (V-flats are two 4' x 8' sheets of white board (Foamcore, Gatorboard, etc.), hinged vertically, stood upright (forming an 'L'). The V-flats are staged between the model and the background. The function of the V-flats is two-fold: 1.) They reduce the amount of light reflected by the background falling onto the subject; 2.) They reduce the amount light reflected by the background hitting the lens (which can lower image contrast).</p>

<p>As I see it, the model appears to have been lit by two sources: 1.) A large soft source (e.g., 7' or larger octa or softbox); 2.) A harder (i.e., smaller) source from camera-left (e.g., Fresnel-housed strobe, or strobe head with smaller reflector or beauty dish attached, etc.). Again, I see this two-source lighting scheme used fairly often: one soft, and one hard source. The soft source provides a base illumination--the hard source (at an angle) helps to add contour and shadow (in this case, to better reveal the clothing's texture).</p>

[gil_rosado]

<p>You be the judge.<br>

<a href="http://www.adorama.com/alc/0014197/article/Keep-Your-Seamless-White-Photo-Background-White-In-Portrait-Photography">http://www.adorama.com/alc/0014197/article/Keep-Your-Seamless-White-Photo-Background-White-In-Portrait-Photography</a></p>

[studio460]

<p>So, Monica, to answer your specific questions (if attempting to mimic the scenario I described above), here's my best estimation of what would be required:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>-how many lights do I need?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>x4 studio strobes (e.g., 400-640Ws).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>-what kind of lighting would I need?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>x2 strobes for background (you may be able to delete these if the background is relatively close to your subject).<br /> x1 strobe with large white PLM or octa (e.g., 6'- 7'), or large softbox (e.g., 54" x 72").<br /> x1 strobe with Fresnel head, small reflector, or small beauty dish. I see beauty dishes used a lot in this application. If placed several feet away from the subject, a small (e.g., 18") beauty dish will act as a hard source.<br /> x2 V-flats</p>

<blockquote>

<p>-what size soft boxes or do I need umbrellas?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Background strobes: You could use either 60" umbrellas, large soft boxes, or even large strip lights (e.g., 6'). You could also bounce a head directly into the back of the V-flat. Keys: as described above.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>-what position do I need to place the lights?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Basically, as described above. Two strobes for the background on either side of the backdrop, behind the V-flats (which are placed behind the subject). One hard source at a 45-degree angle to the subject. One frontal soft source, slightly to the side opposite the hard source (but mainly from the front).</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

At the 4:00> 4:20 section, Marc, being the experienced teacher he is, says the same thing I said about the perils of

making the background too bright. He then meters the background light to 7.1 which is slightly more than a half stop

brighter than the light on his model (f/5.6). In that first example he is also using a seperate light for the background.

 

In his second example, he proves how the inverse square law works.

 

In his third example, the one with the 7ft umbrella, given that the model is now standing very close to the white

background and the light is much further away (as well as being a large surround axis source, I very much doubt that the

difference in illumination levels between model and background is greater than a quarter of a stop. It appears to be a very

clean white background because that is exactly what it actually is: a featureless bright white background with very flat low

contrast (from the camera's PoV, with the camera right in front of the light source).

[studio460]

<p>I said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>V-flats are two 4' x 8' sheets of white board (Foamcore, Gatorboard, etc.), hinged vertically, stood upright (forming an 'L').</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I forgot to mention: Ideally, the V-flats should be constructed with white Foamcore on one side, and black Foamcore on the reverse side (camera-facing side). Or, if using Foamcore alone, the product is also already available in this configuration (one side white, the reverse side, black).</p>

[studio460]

<p>[Note: Foamcore is available in 4' x 8' sheets, in white-white, black-black, and white-black. However, all three varieties are usually only stocked by large pro photo suppliers, or expendable supply houses for film/TV production. Art supply stores and copy centers usually only carry white-white Foamcore (Aaron Bros. also carries black-black Foamcore, but only in smaller pre-cut sizes--stock may vary by region).]</p>

[igord]

<p>Your lighting is just fine, click with white eyedropper while using curves on the grey background to increase contrast and make the background white. You can use saturation with eyedropper to make the certain colors pop up. </p><div></div>

[bob_bill]

<p>If I don't want to take the time to meter the bg, or after the meter gets me in the ball park, I start powering up the bg lights and checking my blinkies. When the entire bg in the shot starts blinking I am there and the bg is pure white. I may have to adjust the bg light(s) position for an even fall of light. If there are blinkies on the subject's edges, I need to move her further from the bg if I don't want any light wrapping from bouncing off the bg. Or with cs 5 or 6, knock the subject and floor shadow out and place on pure white . Comes in handy when running out of time on the shoot or don't have a bg light. Then the bg is pure white... or anything else you want. </p>

[gil_rosado]

<p>Ellis, "Whoever gave you that bit of advice didn't know enough to the "expert" they were pretending to be" it seems like the person that said it was an expert and I did hear him say 1 stop in the video. I don't know you and you don't know me. It's guys like you that makes people prefer not to participate in these forums. </p>

[michaelmowery]

<p>The point that Ellis is making is you don't want to "blast" too much light to background that would cause unwanted light hitting the subject. Keyword unwanted light. White background is subjective. I would first make sure i am using the super white seamless paper if i am going for that pure white look. I personally like to keep my whites in the 245-250 range which is about what the examples are at. I don't like to clip my scene. Try shooting white on white and you will learn quickly how to make your background white with detail.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Suddenly, I've become very interested in <em>fashion</em> . . .</p>

<p><br /> <a href="http://www.nastygal.com/lookbooks-may-lookbook-super-soaker/sunstreak-swimsuit-white">http://www.nastygal.com/lookbooks-may-lookbook-super-soaker/sunstreak-swimsuit-white</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.nastygal.com/lookbooks-may-lookbook-super-soaker/poetic-license-crochet-swimsuit">http://www.nastygal.com/lookbooks-may-lookbook-super-soaker/poetic-license-crochet-swimsuit</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.nastygal.com/lookbooks-may-lookbook-super-soaker/sunstreak-swimsuit-black">http://www.nastygal.com/lookbooks-may-lookbook-super-soaker/sunstreak-swimsuit-black</a></p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>That's hardly fashion Ralph. Are you more interested in the clothes, or the clotheshorse?</p>

[bob_bill]

<p>Mike, I usually preset my bg light(s) for pure white to one group on the trigger. Once I get the pure white shots then start reducing the bg light power of the group for light and middle gray, then turn on a preset kicker or 2 and continue to drop bg power to darker gray and black if it works with the wardrobe/hair. May pull out the reflector fill or kick up main/adjust aperture for higher contrast on the last series. I use grids and egg crates most of the time because of a smaller space and flag if needed for the black bg and if close to black, take care of it in post. If I take the time to set up, I always look for something else out of it to maximize the different looks for the set up time. Sometimes, its my or their favorite shot. Because of the smaller space, some wrap is unavoidable in situations where I need to move the subject closer to the bg. You are absolutely right, sometimes it is wanted and I like the effect. Typically happens when I use a large Octa behind the subject powered up to be pure white as a background and a reflector and/or light front as main. I don't shoot tethered to Lightroom, but it probably would be handy for you nailing the 245-250 range simply by checking with the white balance eyedropper on the bg as you adjust bg lights. I guess could do the same to just achieve pure white with the minimum wrap. I wonder if there is a camera adjustment for the blinkies to appear, like resetting to 250?</p>

[monica_der]

<p>Thanks everyone! I really appreciate the suggestions you have no idea god bless</p>