Subject/Background shadow modifier?

Hi,

Is there such thing as "nice" shadows on the white wall behind the subject, versus "ugly"/distracting?

Any advice as far as modifiers/fill, etc?

I am in the experimental stage right now, no good results yet. I am noticing many times there is something "wrong" with the shadows but I can't quite explain what, they are either too dark or too light or too strange or too something.

I understand now why so many time we move the model away from the background to allow the shadow to disappear by falling on the ground and the background is shadow free. However, I'd like to master the "model on white wall look" as well and not be afraid of the white wall. Right now I hate the shadows I am producing, even if the model is lit ok for my own taste.

Any education/advice is appreciated, even examples? thank you

Nobody can really tell you how to achieve a certain look without seeing it. Post shadows you do like and post shadows you don't like.

There are so many combinations you can use to get a "look". Pick one. Distance of the model to the background. Distance of the light source to the model. Distance of the light to the modifier. Size of the light source. Is it a hard source (bare light)? Soft source (softbox). Medium (umbrella). Any combo of those things will result in various shadow qualities and densities.

--
Mike

First of all, decide if you want the shadows in front of the subject, so the edge of the face is in front of dark shadow on the wall, or if you want the edge of the face in front of white wall / background, and the back of the head (where the hair usually is) against the dark shadow.

This might depend on the subject's hair color.

BAK

Currantos said:

Hi,

Is there such thing as "nice" shadows on the white wall behind the subject, versus "ugly"/distracting?

Click to expand...

Yes, but it's much more a question of what the photographer wanted to do than some general rule.

Currantos said:

Any advice as far as modifiers/fill, etc?

Click to expand...

The first priority should be how you light your subject.

Currantos said:

I am in the experimental stage right now, no good results yet. I am noticing many times there is something "wrong" with the shadows but I can't quite explain what, they are either too dark or too light or too strange or too something.

Click to expand...

Light travels in straight lines, falls off at a rate determined by the inverse square law and is rather predictable once you get the right understanding of it. Light Science & Magic is the place to start.

Currantos said:

I understand now why so many time we move the model away from the background to allow the shadow to disappear by falling on the ground and the background is shadow free. However, I'd like to master the "model on white wall look" as well and not be afraid of the white wall. Right now I hate the shadows I am producing, even if the model is lit ok for my own taste.

Click to expand...

Try to approach the matter in a systematic way. In the end, it's your vision that counts and there are no set rules.

Currantos said:

Any education/advice is appreciated, even examples? thank you

Click to expand...

Good luck and good light.

Currantos said:

Any education/advice is appreciated, even examples? thank you

Click to expand...

With great respect you need to be the one to provide the examples that represent your vision. Provide that and the many knowledgeable people can help you with the technical aspects.

Respectfully it's your vision not theirs. Help them out so they can help you.

Working on it, I will try to explain/demonstrate better what I mean.

Takes mental work to get it correct and hard to figure out

I find that it’s all about experimenting and find that grids, foam core with patterns cut in to it and trying gray seamless will hold those patterns better than white.

i like some shadows ,it connects the subject to the ground ,i dont like floating in space images. you cant have pure white backgrounds if your shooting a subject thats wearing white. i also only like a single shadow so i use a large brolly box mounted ubove/slightly right of the camera. if you want to decrease the shadows i use replace color tool in photoshop.





























--
Olympus EM5mk2 ,EM1mk2
past toys. k100d, k10d,k7,fz5,fz150,500uz,canon G9, Olympus xz1 em5mk1

I have been reading the current (October 2019) issue of American Cinematographer magazine and it contains a reprint of a “master class” article from the 1960s by the highly respected academy award nominated winning cinematographer Stephen H. Burum, ASC.

In the article he writes about about the three “universal” functions of light:

1) To cast shadows

2) To create separation.

3) To add fill.

The article is six densely packed pages long.

Currantos said:

Working on it, I will try to explain/demonstrate better what I mean.

Takes mental work to get it correct and hard to figure out

Click to expand...

When testing and experimenting Make notes and pair them with progress photos.

Currantos said:

...even examples? thank you

Click to expand...

Embrace the shadows. While a simple body on white can be swell, expanding on that to include additional content may add to the depth / complexity of the image.

Thanks for the heads-up, Ellis.

Lots of good information in that article.

Glad you enjoyed it as much as I did. I have been working on my lighting skills for forty years and before I read it I always thought that shadows were mostly a bi-product of light placement. Reading what he had to say put shadows in a new light for me.

--
Ellis Vener
To see my work please visit http://www.ellisvener.com
Or on instagram @therealellisv

Currantos said:

Hi,

Is there such thing as "nice" shadows on the white wall behind the subject, versus "ugly"/distracting?

Any advice as far as modifiers/fill, etc?

I am in the experimental stage right now, no good results yet. I am noticing many times there is something "wrong" with the shadows but I can't quite explain what, they are either too dark or too light or too strange or too something.

I understand now why so many time we move the model away from the background to allow the shadow to disappear by falling on the ground and the background is shadow free. However, I'd like to master the "model on white wall look" as well and not be afraid of the white wall. Right now I hate the shadows I am producing, even if the model is lit ok for my own taste.

Any education/advice is appreciated, even examples? thank you

Click to expand...

In the studio I set the lights so the shadows fall outside the frame or behind the model so his/her body blocks the shadow. Note that once a shadow is created, adding more lights will never get rid of it, so you need to place the shadow where you want.

A broad light source will create a broad, diffuse shadow. A point light source will create a sharp-edged shadow.

If done right, shadows can be a key design element in a photo. When using shadows, you usually only want one shadow since that is more natural.































--
photojournalist

Ellis Vener said:

I have been reading the current (October 2019) issue of American Cinematographer magazine and it contains a reprint of a “master class” article from the 1960s by the highly respected academy award nominated winning cinematographer Stephen H. Burum, ASC.

In the article he writes about about the three “universal” functions of light:

1) To cast shadows

2) To create separation.

3) To add fill.

The article is six densely packed pages long.

Click to expand...

Here's the article if anyone is interested, https://ascmag.com/articles/lighting-a-set

Thank you Ellis.

Thank you, great reading.

One thing it does not address is related to the actual shadow and that comes from differences between moving images and stills.

In stills the shadow is a 'subject' and is noticeable if it lands on the wall.

In movies you don't notice the character of the shadows because things move too fast, you just get the general sense of it but not the features and the moving/speaking subject takes the full attention.

When you have a frozen image of the light's impression as it lands on a surface with the shadow you get a whole different appreciation and that often makes images look amateur versus higher level/pro skilled.

See example provided by someone above, their last image, the ballerina and the shadow are both perceptible and 'tell a story". If we shot a moving clip of her as she danced and twirled in the very same light NOBODY would be able to tell what the shadows were, hard or strong, they would only see her and her performance.

So the difference between movies and still is very significant. I think sometimes people gloss over that. That's why a frozen image can sometimes capture something that a movie can't, even through the predominant trend these days is to do videos due to the better and better phone abilities. I think lighting is MUCH more forgiving for movies then for stills. Same with video camera performance, ISO, etc.

Thank you, great examples of "good shadows" and "not so good, LOL.

The ones telling a story are great.

Thank you for your examples.

The last one is really technically great, would love to know more about how it was accomplished.

I have tried for similar and have run into the following problems.

The DENSITY of the shadow varies and it also gets more diffuse depending on the distance from the subject to the background/wall.

SO I would have a dense one close to the person and it would get progressively softer and lighter as it travels further out.

All of that is true and yet the lessons still are important.