Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Learning
Photography Q&A
Dana : A Fine Line Between Beauty & Glamour. Blamour?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Robert Mitchell" data-source="post: 112076" data-attributes="member: 11282"><p>If I'm shooting pure white then I allow some wrap to come back to the subject. That wrap is the light reflecting from an enormous white background and exposed skin will see some of that light returning. In that situation, unless the subject is 12 or more feet from the background, the wrap will appear but it is intentional and the subject is still properly exposed. If I were to underexpose so as not to have the wrap then my subject would be a full stop underexposed.</p><p></p><p>Losing the whites is an odd way to put it, though. The subject lighting never loses detail and I don't think you'll find that in any of my photos. If my subject lighting is where I want it then I will allow some wrap from the background for effect.</p><p></p><p>It's a valid nit pick. I don't have a problem with it, though. </p><p></p><p>I love perfection and I get things as close to perfect as often as possible but don't see those types of things as anything to be concerned about or go crazy to eliminate. It's a reality of shooting on a large pure white background but I don't think it's a common problem, as you initially described it.</p><p></p><p>EDIT: I do want to point out that if you're seeing the white on the leg with no detail then you're monitor may need calibration. While there is the wrap and a significant highlight, there is still detail and texture can be see in the skin.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Robert Mitchell, post: 112076, member: 11282"] If I'm shooting pure white then I allow some wrap to come back to the subject. That wrap is the light reflecting from an enormous white background and exposed skin will see some of that light returning. In that situation, unless the subject is 12 or more feet from the background, the wrap will appear but it is intentional and the subject is still properly exposed. If I were to underexpose so as not to have the wrap then my subject would be a full stop underexposed. Losing the whites is an odd way to put it, though. The subject lighting never loses detail and I don't think you'll find that in any of my photos. If my subject lighting is where I want it then I will allow some wrap from the background for effect. It's a valid nit pick. I don't have a problem with it, though. I love perfection and I get things as close to perfect as often as possible but don't see those types of things as anything to be concerned about or go crazy to eliminate. It's a reality of shooting on a large pure white background but I don't think it's a common problem, as you initially described it. EDIT: I do want to point out that if you're seeing the white on the leg with no detail then you're monitor may need calibration. While there is the wrap and a significant highlight, there is still detail and texture can be see in the skin. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Learning
Photography Q&A
Dana : A Fine Line Between Beauty & Glamour. Blamour?
Top