Dark background

[teokf]

When I took this photo I wanted a dark backround (BG) not a black BG. I did not use a flash as it will have harsh shadows and so I shot using ambient light. I post process with the following tools in PS; dodge, burn, stamp, and a few others. The result was not satisfactory. The #2. has patchy dark tones.

Besides a critique on the photos, how did you acheive a consistent dark BG besides using a black coloured BG? Thanks!

Sony a7iii, 24mm, f16, ISO 100, ambient light.

1.


2.

[Manfred M]

Actually, your background is black; the Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) screenshot shows that quite clearly; where all the blue can be seen.




Here is an image of mine shot so that the background is very dark, but not black, again a screenshot from ACR. This is a multiple light setup including two rim lights to ensure that the model with her dark clothes does not fade into the background. ACR indicates some clipping of the red channel, but when I examine the image, I can't see any signs of it.






Flash works well here as one can control where the light falls. The "secret" is to get the flash very close to the subject; in my shot, it is just out of frame. I use a large light source, relative to the subject, and that is why the light is not "hard". Bounced light, shooting through a sheet, a photographic umbrella or softboxes are all used to create soft light. The background needs to be far away, that way the light drops off quite rapidly giving pure black, if required.

The inverse square law is the photographer's "friend" here. One can get this effect even with a white background, so long as the background is far enough away. Ambient light is not a great way to do this.

Please note, I'm not writing about standard camera mounted flash, although one could make that work too.



This is the original image:

[Shadowman]

You could take a meter reading off the background, adjust your camera according to the settings on the meter, and adjust through experimentation. Not sure if your subjects will participate through your experiments so try using a static model before the shoot.

[xpatUSA]

You could take a meter reading off the background, adjust your camera according to the settings on the meter, and adjust through experimentation.

Not sure if I read that right, John. Because 'Exposure 101' says that, if one did that as I understand it, the background would come out mid-tone and the model would not look right ...

... help!

[Shadowman]

Not sure if I read that right, John. Because 'Exposure 101' says that, if one did that as I understand it, the background would come out mid-tone and the model would not look right ...

... help!

Ted,

That's why I said experiment, the reading should tell how much light is hitting the background, the subject.

[Manfred M]

You could take a meter reading off the background, adjust your camera according to the settings on the meter, and adjust through experimentation. Not sure if your subjects will participate through your experiments so try using a static model before the shoot.

A few problems with your suggestion John.

Assuming that your subject is properly lit (18% gray), the background needs to meter at least 4-1/2 stops more to get a black background. If you meter the subject to properly expose at f/8 (using a reflective meter), then the background needs meter at around f/1.5. It does not matter how one achieves this; a combination of colour of the material or just managing the light.

In a daylight situation, controlling light drop-off is difficult to impossible. There has to be enough light to illuminate the subject and that usually means the same amount of light is hitting the background. That is why we tend to use artificial light; the inverse square law is our friend; at ~ 5x the distance from the light source to subject, even a white background will appear black.. We can do this with any artificial light source, but the reason we tend to use flash, is that the light is a lot brighter and we can freeze the subject (like the dog and chick).

The other trick is to use Photoshop (not Lightroom) to select the subject and then darken the background to the desired level. This generally means starting with a dark background as light reflecting back from the background to the subject can be problematic.

The reason I use the technique I do, is that it is the most effective, with the least amount of work.

[xpatUSA]

Ted,

That's why I said experiment, the reading should tell how much light is hitting the background, the subject.

Ah, now I understand, John. "how much light is hitting the background" means incident light metering, not light reflected from the background. Thanks for the clarification.

[Manfred M]

Ted,

That's why I said experiment, the reading should tell how much light is hitting the background, the subject.

No need to experiment one understands the behaviour of light and light meters..

Ted is right, if you meter the background, the (reflective) light meter will indeed end up creating an image that is 18% gray. If you do that, the subject will be completely overexposed. If you meter the subject, there is a good chance that the background will not be dark enough.

One has to treat the background and subject separately, when looking at how to light this type of shot.

[Shadowman]

A few problems with your suggestion John.

Assuming that your subject is properly lit (18% gray), the background needs to meter at least 4-1/2 stops more to get a black background. If you meter the subject to properly expose at f/8 (using a reflective meter), then the background needs meter at around f/1.5. It does not matter how one achieves this; a combination of colour of the material or just managing the light.

In a daylight situation, controlling light drop-off is difficult to impossible. There has to be enough light to illuminate the subject and that usually means the same amount of light is hitting the background. That is why we tend to use artificial light; the inverse square law is our friend; at ~ 5x the distance from the light source to subject, even a white background will appear black.. We can do this with any artificial light source, but the reason we tend to use flash, is that the light is a lot brighter and we can freeze the subject (like the dog and chick).

The other trick is to use Photoshop (not Lightroom) to select the subject and then darken the background to the desired level. This generally means starting with a dark background as light reflecting back from the background to the subject can be problematic.

The reason I use the technique I do, is that it is the most effective, with the least amount of work.

Manfred,

That's assuming the light is facing the background, the subject could also be sidelit and you could also use a reflector in front of the subject.

[rpcrowe]

I always use some lighting in my dog portraits...

I used a four bulb fluorescent softbox at camera left combined with an on camera hotshoe flash bounced off the ceiling and modified with a Joe Demb Flash Diffuser Pro for this portrait.



I control my background by selection of material for the background. The above image was done with a dark maroon velveteen fabric. The result is dark but not black.

When I want a totally black background, I will use black velveteen fabric. I lit this one with a pair of ancient White Lightning WL-5000 studio strobes. One bounced into a white umbrella from directly overhead and the second through a shoot-through umbrella from camera left...



There are numerous advantages to using flash. I generally shoot around 1/100 second at f/8 using ISO 100 more or less which seems to be the sweet spot for my equipment...

I also like to use a focal length that I would use when shooting head and shoulder people portraits, lately, I have been shooting my dog portraits with a crop sensor Sony A6600 (to take advantage of Animal Eye-AF) and a Tamron 28-75mm lens using an equivalent focal length of between 90 and 112.5mm. However, I have used a multitude of different cameras and lenses for my dog portraits. In fact, the Maltese on the black background (above) was done with a Canon 10D DSLR camera and a 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens at a 103mm equivalent focal length.

[Manfred M]

Ted,

That's why I said experiment, the reading should tell how much light is hitting the background, the subject.

Sorry John - not what one would want to do here. In most ambient light conditions, the light hitting the subject will be the same light as is hitting the background, and your ambient light meter will give you exactly the same reading. Having two identical light readings is not particularly useful to figure out how to shoot this type of scene.

In a true studio setting, I would use an ambient light meter for both readings, but in other situations, I would spot meter the background (reflective) reading. As long as one understands what the readings mean, the rest is fairly simple to figure out, if one has the appropriate knowledge and experience.

Take a look at Dan Koertz's work on some of the flowers he has posted with black backgrounds so some of my work with black backgrounds or white backgrounds. Some of Richard Crowe's work with his dog images, shows this as well.

Please feel free to join the discussion once you can demonstrate your knowledge and experience.


1. Well lit low key image





2. Well lit high key image




3. Studio shot with subject on white background (to compliment the one in #2)

[Shadowman]

Manfred,

As usual you've got a one-sided way of looking at things, you are talking about using flash when the OP specifically asked for ideas on using natural light, my suggestion is at least within the parameters of the discussion.

[rpcrowe]

Steven stated, "I did not use a flash as it will have harsh shadows". Which IMO is an incorrect but, widely held premise.

I use flash when I consider that it is the best way to get the image that I am trying for.

I believe that flash used in a correct manner often provides better results than available light. The flash will also often provide lively catchlights in the dog's eyes which may or may not be in evidence when shooting with available light!

I use both hotshoe flashes and studio strobes in photographing dogs and I will select the background material to complement the coloring of the dog and the accessories in the portrait. In this portrait, I chose a brown background. I have a rather large selection of fabric for backgrounds which I purchase online and from fabric stores when the material is on sale. The primary fabrics that I use are velveteen or velour and polyester. Usually two yards of each fabric is sufficient for my needs.



I used a tan fabric background for this portrait of a primarily brown Shih Tsu. Without the catchlghts in the dog's eyes, this portrait would look dead...



I don't meter my dog portraits because my lighting setup is consistent, I will usually not need to vary much more than a half stop from my standard exposure.

There are larger fabric backgrounds available on eBay at low prices which would be better for larger dogs.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/6-x-9-ft-Bl...AAAOSw8dJeJ390

I keep my backgrounds crammed into a plastic bin I purchased at a home improvement store. Folding them neatly can cause creases evident in the image. My system of cramming the BG materials into the plastic bin drives my neat-nick wife absolutely crazy...

[Manfred M]

Manfred,

As usual you've got a one-sided way of looking at things, you are talking about using flash when the OP specifically asked for ideas on using natural light, my suggestion is at least within the parameters of the discussion.

John - I am not looking at this as a one-sided approach. I am suggesting an approach that works and have explained why it works. Can it be made to work with ambient light? There are a few approaches that I might try, but offhand, I would suggest that they likely won't give great results, if they work at all. The reason that these techniques are done in a studio-like setting is because that approach has been shown to work well. These techniques are only taught in studio lighting or still life courses; there is a reason for that.

In terms of the reason Steven gave for wanting to use existing light is because he did not like the harsh shadows produced when he uses flash. The reason for the shadows is almost certainly his flash technique (including the tools he used); something I addressed in #2. None of the examples I have posted on this thread have harsh shadows; so there are tools and techniques to address his concerns. Refining his flash technique, in my experience, would give him the shots he is looking for.

Based on your postings here, I suspect you don't have any experience in this aspect of photography. I would love to be proven wrong, so please show us some examples of this type of work; indoor shots with a very dark background.

[xpatUSA]

Pardon me if mention a caveat re: the inverse square law which got a mention earlier.

It doesn't always apply which I'm sure most of us know.

"The inverse square law can only be used in cases where the light source approximates a point source. A general rule of thumb to use for [illuminance] measurements is the 'five times rule': the distance to a light source should be greater than five times the largest dimension of the source." [for the law to work].

Meaning that e.g. a 1-meter diameter umbrella placed e.g. one meter from a subject will light it quite evenly, depth-wise ...

See page 25 and page 26 here: http://kronometric.org/phot/lighting...20handbook.pdf

[Shadowman]

Here is an example of a photographer using natural light without flash.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Q1FXFIpjGM

[Manfred M]

Pardon me if mention a caveat re: the inverse square law which got a mention earlier.

It doesn't always apply which I'm sure most of us know.

"The inverse square law can only be used in cases where the light source approximates a point source. A general rule of thumb to use for [illuminance] measurements is the “five times rule”: the distance to a light source should be greater than five times the largest dimension of the source." [for the law to work].

Meaning that e.g. a 1-meter diameter umbrella placed e.g. one meter from a subject will light it quite evenly, depth-wise ...

See page 25 and page 26 here: http://kronometric.org/phot/lighting...20handbook.pdf

Agreed Ted. A direct small flash is a pretty good approximation of a point source, but once we pop a light modifier on the flash things change a lot. The inverse square law is a good way of explaining light drop off to people, but when I use a modifier, I am more concerned with the quality and direction of light that hits my subject. Depending on what I am shooting, I will go anywhere from very hard light to a very soft light. I am also looking at how the light drops off on the subject and potentially in other places in the scene. I use flags and other tools to control the light from going where I don't want it.

The modifiers that I shoot with may or may not have baffles (usually none, one or two) and occasionally a third level. I will use grids to control the amount and angle of spread.

My key lights are often close to the size of my subject and are usually no more than the diagonal or diameter away from the subject, so the inverse square law does not apply per see. I will often feather the light so that I only get light from the edge of the modifier (rather than the centre) hitting the subject. When I use snoots or even reflectors, they are often positioned far enough away from the subject, that they are close to a point source.

Regardless, I always meter the areas I am working to light (or prevent the light from hitting), usually with an incident light meter, so I really don't worry about how close to the theoretical inverse square law I am working to.

[rpcrowe]

Another factor in this equation is the reflective properties of the background material used.

I have some green velour that simply sucks up light and only reflects the light when the light hits it at a certain angle.

I originally purchased two yards of this material because I wanted a green background. But no matter how much light that hits this the material, the important criteria is the angle at which the light hits...

Both of these shots were taken at the same exposure and ISO the lights were placed at the exact same locations. And yes...this dog has eyes of different colors...





The difference is that in the second shot, I am including a portion of the material that was at a different angle from the lights and therefore reflected more of the green color...

Velvet or Velour may or may not be reflective, depending on the fabric.

If I remember correctly, the SAVAGE background paper is pretty non-reflective.

When I was working in one Navy photo studio, we used a black material that was almost reflection free. It felt like a foam of some type.

BTW: If you have enough distance between your subject and your background, you can vary the brightness of a gray background from a bright to an almost black. I know that Gavin Hoey is a pretty funky presenter but, he did well in this video...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIoWwx-elCE

[selig1656]

Terrific thread, still rereading it again and again to absorb the vast information and approaches. Thanks to all.

[Manfred M]

Here is an example of a photographer using natural light without flash.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Q1FXFIpjGM

Take a careful look. He's set up a small studio. Windows have been blocked, subject has been raised to a level where the light hits it and he even uses a reflector (mirror) to do the lighting. While it uses sunlight, any other light source would work in this setup; flash would put out enough light to photograph something as large and mobile as a dog. Notice how a tripod and long exposure are required; not a practical solution for Steven's subject matter. Steven needs an even wider depth of field to get the dog to be sharp, versus the plant.

Studio and location photographers look at light sources in two main groupings; passive and active. An active light is one that uses a power source; speed lights, studio lights and continuous lights. A passive light is some form of reflector (and there are many shapes and sizes). This image shows the passive light being used by my assistant at a location shoot.






That being said, this is one of the numerous YouTube videos where the creator offers some questionable advice. Just look at the veiling flare he is getting from his camera position that is pointing toward the window light. If you look carefully, the backdrop is positioned so that the window is behind and to the side of the background. The light is hard (look at the shadow from the bottom of the flower pot), so the illumination is definitely sub-optimal. What he needs is a white bed-sheet between the window and the plant; but that would spill light onto the backdrop. A white reflector, rather than a mirror on the camera left side, would give superior light.

Let's look at the other issues with this setup: the sun moves during the day, so the setup has to be continuously adjusted to ensure that the light remains on the subject. The quality of light changes (golden hour is the best time of day to shoot). It won't work on a cloudy day, etc.