Mind your background exposure
This article is written by a member of our expert community. It expresses that member’s views only. We welcome other perspectives. Here’s how to contribute to MM EDU.
Damn it! Damn it! Damn it! That’s what I said after seeing the images on my camera when I didn’t pay attention to my background exposure. The primary issue is dynamic range. A background with an extreme exposure range usually looks bad. Blown highlights next to dark shadows usually = EPIC FAIL.
Model: Kate, Location: The Grotto
The above image of Kate was tremendously balanced in-post to be presentable. In its original state, I almost deleted it. Hell, if it weren’t for the fact I captioned it “The Grotto,” this image might not even make sense. As I mentioned, the issue is usually dynamic range. To our eyeballs, a sun-soaked ocean in the same frame as a shaded piece of rock looks just fine.
To the Nikon D3 sensor, it’s basically a blown-out patch of white next to a lost patch of black. So, if you only watch your subject’s exposure (in this case Kate, who has been properly exposed), you’re going to wind up with an epic fail on your hands when you get home and find a large blown highlight next to a large black patch of shadow. Mind your background exposure in capture, so you don’t wind up cussing yourself out in post.
LUCIMA
Charles Lucima is a photographer/retoucher based in Los Angeles specializing in fashion, editorial, and beauty. His clients include designers, apparel brands, and modeling agencies around the world. http://www.lucima.com/
Follow Me:
July 09, 2013 at 4:03 pm, Daniel Allen said:
C’mon guys! It takes a lot of guts to share your failures and faults with the whole world like the author did! And a lot of the replies I’m reading on here are scolding him for not spoon-feeding a solution to us or criticizing him for even making the mistake to begin with.
We’ve all had failed shots before–I mean, personally I’ve found that no matter how thoroughly I think I’ve made sure everything is perfect, there’s always SOMETHING amiss: hair out of place, wrinkled clothing, kid playing in the background, camera settings incorrect, etc.
Personally, I appreciate the opportunity to see someone else’s failed shots so I can try to avoid making the same mistakes. So thank you Charles for writing this piece. I would have loved to see the unbalanced-version of the image though–the way you described it sounds WAY worse that what you posted and it would have been handy to see you model lit properly but the environment off-balance…for learning purposes.
November 10, 2011 at 5:40 pm, pebbles1969 said:
if you ask me . i think the whole pic looks like ass!! the model is ok at best!! the bestway to shoot this if its really important to you is in layers..get the background right first. shoot it . save it .then do the same for the girl. shoot it save it. then blend them in photoshop. the pic will then be perfect in every way. other then that. theres the sunny 16 rule for the backround . if you dont know what is. its 200 at 250sec at f16. then meter the girl for around the same thing . and take the shot. thats the two best ways to get a great shot every time..let me know if you want any more tips..lol i can go on all day abput this stuff. and most of you should know this already. its photography 1/1.good luck..
November 10, 2011 at 10:01 am, John Chisholm said:
maybe it should be watch you exposure. If your outside and your ISO 200 and your pulling a f4 at a buck 25 there had better not be any bright sunlight in your frame or it’s blown. Sunny 16 still works
November 10, 2011 at 12:51 am, Clayton Cooper said:
I respect Mr. Lucima’s photography – he creates excellent work and has a very clear style. This article on the other hand, doesn’t provide anything educational. Telling a student to avoid something but neglecting to inform them of how to do so is poor teaching. Fill-flash, bracketing and/or multiple exposures, reflectors, dual meter readings and averaging are all potential solutions. Model Mayhem showcases and attracts so much photographic talent that it seems a shame to display an article like this and call it educational.
November 09, 2011 at 10:13 pm, Carlofivehands said:
Holy crap, a lot to do about nothing. A real photographer would just calculate his fill flash. Duh.
November 09, 2011 at 5:05 pm, Deaftoneimaging said:
i look at the post to see if it is contrived bs or has a point. so many ways to combat the issue at hand and saw more from the comments then the post.
November 09, 2011 at 4:03 pm, Stevie Roy said:
Blowing out your background can be an amazing look, lots of my clients insist, back light, back light, back light, take advantage of the cameras dynamic range, if you don’t like over exposed back grounds then you’ll have to drag flash around with you, the only thing I take on natural daylight shoots is my trusty range of California Sunbounce reflectors and scrims, use a good meter and remember there are few rules, be creative with back lit subjects and forget about the technical mumbo jumbo, if you are the guy mentioned below that relies on his cameras meter I would suggest rusjing to your local dealer and getting one pronto.
November 08, 2011 at 11:37 pm, Gene said:
We all love using available light and reflectors but sometimes a light would come in handy. In this case metering on the ocean and then adding a light to match, for the model.
November 08, 2011 at 8:47 pm, Tyler said:
so ug
November 08, 2011 at 8:47 pm, Tyler said:
use a sturdy $300 tripod. shoot the background in one exposure. place your fat shorty in the shot. shoot your fat shorty in that exposure. repeat.
November 08, 2011 at 8:37 pm, Tyler Waitt said:
use a tripod. shoot the background in one exposure. place the model in the shot. shot the exposure for the model. photoshop.
November 08, 2011 at 8:31 pm, Ken Yee said:
spot meter the background, realize you need more light, fire up the portable strobes…(or use a reflector)
The overexposed background look is popular in fashion though…
November 08, 2011 at 6:35 pm, Carlos David said:
Wait a minute is this the same Charles Lucima that doesn’t like light meters ?
November 09, 2011 at 2:10 am, Sam Axe said:
An incident light meter wouldn’t have helped.
November 09, 2011 at 3:28 pm, CarlosDavid Photo said:
Actually it would. You point your meter at the camera and take the first reading (lower reading) then turn it around to point it at the background and take the second reading (upper reading) that will give you your range.
You can then either use flash or reflectors to bring up the lower reading within range of the upper reading (since you can’t really tweak the upper reading without divine assistance or a humongous ND filter). Of course this is the simplified explanation depending on circumstances and desired effect it could get more complicated.
November 10, 2011 at 2:06 am, Sam Axe said:
An incident light meter would be measuring the wrong thing. The issue is the difference in brightness between the rocks and the ocean, and whether the difference is too large for the camera to handle. If you wanted to measure the difference, you would spot meter the two with a reflected light meter. But, that’s if you wanted to put a number on it, which I don’t think is even a necessary step in this case. Just take a test shot and see if they both expose in the same frame. If not, shoot around the problem.
November 09, 2011 at 7:53 am, Olga Schleicher said:
It could be an option #2 after bracketing. You have to measure background than model, take average and balance in photoshop. You cannot overexpose subjects- everything overexposed is lost, you have a better chances with underexposed (have to deal in some spots with noise)
November 11, 2011 at 7:46 pm, Steamyimagry said:
Light meter? You are kidding right? Didn’t you know that half the people here ran out and bought a light meter and don’t know how to use it? My question to us all is, “Why do we make recommendations of how to without explaining why?”
November 08, 2011 at 4:50 pm, Ron said:
Charles has raised a legitimate problem of many photographers, but perhaps should have also explained the proper way of handling the situation he described. The solution is fairly simple if you’ve got the right lighting gear for the shoot.
Assuming that the background is extremely bright and beyond the capabilities of a speed light solution for the model, you’ll need at least one high-powered studio head and your choice of modifier. Absent high-speed sync capabilities with your studio light(s), set your camera to your max sync speed… likely 1/250 of a sec, and shoot your background in shutter priority mode. I like to achieve at least a two stop differential between my model and the background, so let’s say that the camera meters the background at 1/250 sec at f5.6. I’d recommend trying to balance your studio light(s) for approximately a 1/250 at f8 exposure setting with your model. Your background will be slightly under-exposed, and therefore darker and more saturated, but your model’s exposure should be perfect. Experiment and have some fun with this technique. Here’s recent example that I shot just last week:
http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/25697351
On the other hand, partially blowing out the background can be desirable at times, too:
http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/19090062#19090062
This is where you need to decide what the desired effect is.
November 08, 2011 at 9:11 am, Chris Pickrell said:
Funny. That has been my style all along. And it’s gotten me noticed. A lot.
November 08, 2011 at 8:26 am, AJ said:
Whats all this about HDR and photoshop??? Expose for the background and adjust flash and expose model with fill flash…this is photography 101 surely?
November 08, 2011 at 5:19 pm, Dave said:
i would think so.
November 09, 2011 at 8:16 am, AJ said:
Right!!
November 10, 2011 at 7:01 am, Michael said:
Agreed. Composing the image in the camera rather than patching it up later n the computer…
November 08, 2011 at 6:06 am, Prestonphoto said:
You know what would great to have in an educational article? Some actual education.
I think once a topic is named, and a problem is identified, the next logical expectation is for the educator (a.k.a. amazingly talented photographer LUCIMA) to present one or more solutions to the afore-mentioned problem. Just sayin’
November 08, 2011 at 5:38 am, No name said:
this advice I’m about to give, I shouldn’t, most don’t know or do this. Use a tripod. Shoot 2 exposures. 1. Shoot one for the background perfectly exposed. 2. Shoot one with the model. Photoshop.
November 07, 2011 at 11:53 pm, Gguerrerophoto said:
shoot in manual mode and aperture controls exposure on the model and shutter speed controls exposure on the background, adjust your speedlight accordingly for the proper exposure on the model.
November 07, 2011 at 10:43 pm, James Ogilvie said:
I’m a little unsure as to the authors point here. Is he suggesting underexposing the subject to achieve a properly exposed background?
While he doesn’t come out and say it the obvious answer is to put more light on your subject to balance background and foreground. I see no actual useful advice here other than just ‘watch out!’
Come on Charles. With all due respect, if you’re going to post an article that points out a problem, actual solutions to these problems are what will make an article useful.
November 08, 2011 at 9:32 pm, Hermans said:
Watch out is very useful advice.
many solutions available on MM and the web.
Remembering to ‘watch out’, is the most important.
November 09, 2011 at 10:06 pm, Xavier Lee said:
Disagree, that would be like telling soldiers they have to be careful of the opposing force. It’s self evident. There’s no substance to this post.
November 07, 2011 at 10:40 pm, Anonymous said:
For photos with very bright backgrounds I may use auto backeting and then open with Photoshop CS5 using HDR to put the 3 pictures together.
November 08, 2011 at 3:31 am, Joseph Graf said:
For a scenic that is fine. Most pro models move with every click of the shutter. You have to yell at them to hold the pose for three shots, which is not the normal routine for them.
November 08, 2011 at 3:43 am, Anonymous said:
I don’t know about other cameras but mine would take the brackets in less than a second. Photoshop allows you to pick any of the photos to use as the main image and removes the ghost.
November 08, 2011 at 7:54 pm, Joseph Graf said:
OK, so we are shooting a model in almost constant motion and shooting RAW. Average number of frames taken during such an excursion is 300-500. Now you have tripled that. Hope you have a supercomputer to work with.
November 08, 2011 at 10:10 pm, Tyler said:
ziggy
November 08, 2011 at 10:11 pm, Tyler said:
no really good photograph wasn’t altered in various ways in photoshop. you have to kill it! ~ Tyler Waitt
November 09, 2011 at 2:40 am, Anonymous said:
OK, I’m still pretty new at model photography but how many pictures taken and computer is not an issue to me. 2TB hard drives cost less than 100 and memory cards are also cheap.
If the lighting is really nice on her face, maybe a sunset casting shodows and that is what you are after, wouldn’t a fill light change what you are after? That’s a lot of light in the background to meter for.
November 09, 2011 at 7:47 am, Olga Schleicher said:
I just wonder. Why are you shooting 300-500 for one look? I do not shoot if I see here is no image, I just ask model continue without “click”. I shoot between 15 and 30 frames per look. If you are not able or model to have a shoot within 30 frames…i’m sorry.
That’s right in this case you are working with bracketing when you see this is a pose, you switch to bracketing and make 3-4 shoots. You do not need more. And repeat again if needed.
I did it before and this works for me. R u kidding me shooting 300-500 with bracketing? lol
November 09, 2011 at 11:44 pm, Joseph Graf said:
You don’t read very well, Olga. I said per excursion, not per look. You could do three, four or five looks in a day at the beach.
November 11, 2011 at 7:55 pm, Steamyimagry said:
Shooting in RAW? Only if it’s going someplace worth it! 😉
November 07, 2011 at 8:13 pm, Albino Unicorn said:
You should have more sample from this shoot to express your take on the subject… before and after edits will help to sell your opine!
November 07, 2011 at 7:31 pm, Nestpix said:
go to selective color pick Black and give a little nudge ..like 2-3 points
November 07, 2011 at 6:55 pm, Anonymous said:
No deep blacks, looks like a fail to me.
November 07, 2011 at 9:22 pm, CP_ said:
Maybe, if you believe everyone must shoot with deep blacks.