Dark background

[rpcrowe]

We should have mentioned that when using a modifier that increases the size of the light source, such as a softbox or umbrella, having the light closer to the subject will keep the light softer.

Sorry, Manfred did mention this point in his first reply to the original posting...

[Oliviaman]

Anyway, these photos look so adorable. I love pictures with dogs; they express such a positive vibe. I can spend hours looking at dogs' images. My neighbor is a professional photographer, and lately, he did some shoots for families that own a dog. I was soo impressed. He usually chooses spaces from www.aperfectspace.com where he takes his clients and makes the best shoots. I first heard about this service from him, and tbh it quite impressed me. It's very beneficial if you don't know the area or you are searching for beautiful places. You should definitely check the website.

[rpcrowe]

Oliviaman...

You mentioned that you like dog pictures. Here is a gallery of my newest dog, Serena, a Great Pyrenees whom we got in February of 2021.
https://rpcrowe.smugmug.com/SERENA/i-h9PD9x3

Here is a gallery of rescue dogs over the years...
https://rpcrowe.smugmug.com/Pets/MAL...DOGS/i-x6gpr57

And a gallery of our family dogs...
https://rpcrowe.smugmug.com/Pets/HOUSE-DOGS/i-CZCM2Jj

[C J Southern]

I know this thread is over 5 years old, but I thought I'd chip-in on the off-chance someone ends up reading it in the future.

Although the original question was quite specific, I think it touches on an area that's particularly relevant to many photographic situations: ie foreground vs background separation.

I use one of three techniques to manage this; I'll quickly list them and then also add in some additional considerations for each.

1. Treat the foreground and background as a single light zone

2. Treat the foreground and background as separate light zones

3. Isolate the foreground in post processing and composite it onto a different background

1. Treat the foreground and background as a single light zone

In essence, that's what the original poster is trying to achieve, but there are "things that can make that easier" and "things that can make it harder"

Things that make it easier:

Start with an accurate exposure. In-camera exposure metering is - generally - "close enough for government work", but it's less accurate in situations where high tones or low tones predominate ... which is a situation that often applies to animals.

Metering will usually under-expose something light/white, and over-expose something dark/black (a-la the dog in the original photo).

If possible, meter the INCIDENT light that's falling on the subject - don't rely on in-camera (reflective) light metering. If one can't afford a light meter then consider something like an ExpoDisc.

The point I'm trying to make here is that if one shoots a light subject on a dark background - using in-camera metering - possibly as a JPEG - gets some under exposure as a result - then one is already "well and truly behind the 8 ball" for the rest of the workflow - especially considering that the amount of light falling on the background will be less directly behind the subject because it's going to be in shadow (even if shadows aren't obvious because the background is already dark). I suspect that this was the crux of the original poster's issues.

Fundamentally, if you're only shooting with one light zone then - almost by definition - what you get is going to reflect (no pun intended) the tones of what's in the scene. Or to put that another way, if your exposure is accurate and you don't force things in post processing too much then if you want the background to look a bit lighter then one should probably just use a lighter background.

In a situation like this it MAY be possible to lift the tones of the background by slightly over-exposing the image - but this will of course also over-expose the foreground subject to the point of it looking a bit washed out - but given that most cameras have a couple of stops headroom for highlights before things start to blow out, generally, one can get a better result pulling back a slight/deliberate over-exposure in post processing than they'll get trying to recover shadow detail when the background is under-exposed and the especially when the image has been shot as a JPEG. But even with a RAW capture it's likely that noise will be revealed if the area in question is also having a shadow cast over it. On a side note, the application of a masked radial GND filter in Photoshop (ie just a fancy name for a vignette) can often be used as a quick/crude (but effective) way to draw the eye to the subject whilst bringing a problematic background into line.

Things that make it harder:

- Poor quality light (eg reflective diffuse light sources (normally a good thing so the light is soft, but in this case it's bad when it can't illuminate the background evenly due to the presence of the foreground subject in close proximity)).

- Poor exposure (means one is often shooting closer to the noise floor)

- Shooting JPEG (means valuable data is being discarded; not so much an issue with a good exposure - but far more important when an exposure is less than ideal).

In summary, shooting as a single zone for this type of shot can be deceptively difficult - even with light coloured backgrounds (they'll often still tend to be uneven). If one can get greater subject to background distance and diffuse directional lighting that comes mostly from above then it's certainly doable ... but it's something where one has to really have their ducks in a row to get a quality result. Personally, I often found that it created more problems than it solved - which is why I generally prefer to ...

2. Treat the foreground and background as separate light zones

What this usually means is lighting the background separately - thus giving control that allows one to pretty much "shoot with impunity"; ie "setting any tone they wish - from a low tone like this:



Through to a full white like this:



OK - different kind of "animal" but - somewhat surprisingly, much the same lighting setup.

I appreciate that the original poster wasn't wanting to use flash, but (as alluded to by others), that may have been due to not understanding how to modify it's light to give the right look. In my opinion, the better the light, the better the photo - and flashes give exquisite control and superb light; they're worth the investment if one is serious about results and is prepared to put the effort in. In the case of the original photos, placing a remotely-controlled flash - or even continuous lighting - between the subject and the background - would have made the image "a lot less work" (although, obviously, it would need to have been an appropriate brightness).

3. Isolate the foreground in post processing and composite it onto a different background

Not something that's for everyone, but it's one of those areas where one can get a great result if they're prepared to put the work in ... and it's a LOT cheaper than forking out for separate background lights.

For what it's worth, I would occasionally work up to 7 different light zones in an image (some with flashes, some with reflectors). It's a bit of a learning curve (and is always more work), but it's the best way I know to light an image with quality light - which in-turn lifts the image up a level.