White on White

[Andybazyoung]

Hello All,
What is the best way to get clear images of a white subject against a white background without them seemingly appearing to blend together? For example, white plate against white table cloth or white wedding dress against white backdrop.

[Mike Buckley]

There is a thorough explanation of that in the fourth edition of Light: Science and Magic. I highly recommend the book not just for that information but also for all of the other information in it.

[Colin Southern]

+1 to Mike's recommendation of Light: Science and Magic.

To answer the question though, you need to treat them as separate light zones, and light them separately. What determines what is "white" is simply the amount of light falling on it; in the studio I can turn a white backdrop gray or black by lighting it only a little or not at all, and I can also turn black into white by hitting it with a LOT of power. In reality, the "white" wedding dress needs to be lit so that it's a light gray (and the background white), or vice-versa.

[John 2]

Well you learn something every day. Thanks for sharing.

[Andybazyoung]

Thanks Mike & Colin, the book has been ordered!

[Mike Buckley]

In reality, the "white" wedding dress needs to be lit so that it's a light gray (and the background white), or vice-versa.

However, the book explains to my satisfaction using sample photos that our brain interprets the light grey subject on a white background to be white on white, whereas our brain interprets the white subject on a light grey background to be white on grey.

[Colin Southern]

Thanks Mike & Colin, the book has been ordered!

Great stuff - it covers a ridiculous amounts of lighting fundamentals.

[Colin Southern]

However, the book explains to my satisfaction using sample photos that our brain interprets the light grey subject on a white background to be white on white, whereas our brain interprets the white subject on a light grey background to be white on grey.

I think that many photographers have an inadequate understanding of what black and white really are. eg if one had a truly black cat then it would appear only as a walking/eating "black hole" and a truly white wedding dress would be devoid of any detail. Whereas in reality, we're actually talking about shades of gray in both cases - with shadows providing texture. One "simply" needs to understand how to light/expose/process that to get those reflective tones where they need to be (sounds easy in theory!). I think it also helps understand camera metering (in that all the camera sees is light - it has no definitive knowledge as to whether that light is supposed to represent something light or dark; it can only make assumptions based on the range of light in the scene.

[Mike Buckley]

I think that many photographers have an inadequate understanding of what black and white really are.

I completely agree. I was in that camp until at least a year or two ago when I came to fully appreciate that it is the grey tones that make the brighter tones appear white even when the brightest tones may actually not be a luminosity value of 250 and above. I actually remember the exact photo I was post-processing when I came to that realization.

Much more recently, I posted an image awhile ago of a crashing ocean wave that almost everyone would understandably consider to be white even though the vast majority of tones are clearly grey. It is neither an accident nor a coincidence that they are mostly grey.

[Colin Southern]

Much more recently, I posted an image awhile ago of a crashing ocean wave that almost everyone would understandably consider to be white even though the vast majority of tones are clearly grey. It is neither an accident nor a coincidence that they are mostly grey.

Yep. Snow & ice are another classic example(s).

Now if Bill would only comment on this thread then we'll have "White on white on white"!

[Andybazyoung]

Gentlemen, I have tried to follow your comments but not surprisingly I am out of my depth and can only examine what you are saying. I will at least try to.
I have also bee informed that when using additional off camera flash there may be a reflection or hint of colour around the subject of the colour of the clothing the photographer is wearing. Is this possible, or have I been done!

[Colin Southern]

Gentlemen, I have tried to follow your comments but not surprisingly I am out of my depth and can only examine what you are saying. I will at least try to.

In summary, an object is only as "white" as the amount of light falling on it (a white sheet of paper is black in a dark room). So you need to have different amounts of light falling on the subject -v- the background.

I have also bee informed that when using additional off camera flash there may be a reflection or hint of colour around the subject of the colour of the clothing the photographer is wearing. Is this possible, or have I been done!

In theory yes, but in practice it may or may not be a problem. Light bounces around everywhere; if you point a white light towards someone in a orange suit, the light coming back will be orange light - which in turn will have an effect on the colour of whatever it hits. Depending on what proportion it is to other light sources dictates how much influence it has. In THEORY the oceans of the world all rise if I throw a rock in, but in practice the rise is undetectable. In the other hand, if I throw the same rock into a childs play pool, the effect will be much greater.

[Andybazyoung]

Thanks again Colin,
Just looking at different lighting set ups that are used by great photographers & I'm astonished at the effect and sometimes the simplicity and outcomes. Love it!

[Colin Southern]

Yep - it's all about the light(s) - which is why I suggest people forget about upgrading cameras and lenses until they've got their lighting sorted.

[Andybazyoung]

Mike, I received my copy of 'Light: Science & Magic' this morning & have just scanned it. Thank you for suggesting this read, it looks from first glance v good and un-pretentious.
Thanks again
Andy

[Mike Buckley]

I hope it works for you, Andy. If you haven't already seen the stuff about white-on-white, check out the details beginning on page 257. However, as I'm sure Colin would advise, there is lots of basic information about the fundamentals of light explained in earlier chapters that will influence other aspects of how you decide to light white on white.

[Inkanyezi]

I think it is rather easy to sort it out, once a decision can be made to where to put the "white point" in the image.

Whites then will take a number of shades, and if the lighting is not too flat, they will be perceived as white even though they are all different shades of grey and creamy colours as well as bluish and other subtle shades of any colour. There are essentially two methods of measuring that work; one is to use highlight blinkies to find out where you accept the whites to clip above saturation, the other to use spot metering of the brightest white that you wish to retain structure in and use that reading with compensation of a value that you have figured out by experimenting. For my cameras it is +2, but one third more or less might be better for another camera or workflow.

I think the trickiest part is when clipping must be accepted, as there is no way to get correct colour where one or two have reached clipping and others remain below the clipping value. Close to light sources there are mostly strange colour effects. To avoid them, exposure must be decreased, but then shadows may become lost, and there is usually no way to render a light source well at the same time as deep shadows.

Anyway, in a photograph white is not white, but any of the umpteen shades close to neutral that you could fathom.

[Colin Southern]

I hope it works for you, Andy. If you haven't already seen the stuff about white-on-white, check out the details beginning on page 257. However, as I'm sure Colin would advise, there is lots of basic information about the fundamentals of light explained in earlier chapters that will influence other aspects of how you decide to light white on white.

My suggestion is to work through the book page by page, front to back - then get out and do some real-world shooting - then go back and read it again. Repeat if necessary.

Lighting is THE single most important thing in photography, and this book is the industry-standard introductory text on the matter. I can't reinforce enough how mastering these fundamentals will pay HUGE dividends throughout the rest of your photographic life.

[Mike Buckley]

My suggestion is to work through the book page by page, front to back - then get out and do some real-world shooting - then go back and read it again. Repeat if necessary.

That's what I've done. I even wrote a document for use in my makeshift studio that summarizes the key points pertaining to photographing glass. I'm now at the stage that I read certain parts of the book repeatedly as needed. I'm sure I've read parts of it at least 7 or 8 times. ( I'm a slow learner. ) I found an important solution to a problem in the book just this week and put it to use today.

[Colin Southern]

That's what I've done. I even wrote a document for use in my makeshift studio that summarizes the key points pertaining to photographing glass. I'm now at the stage that I read certain parts of the book repeatedly as needed. I'm sure I've read parts of it at least 7 or 8 times. I'm a slow learner.

I think that book is "huge" - if one masters all it's fundamentals (and it covers all the bases) then it'll help people with the "why" when they read other books on more specialist lighting .