how are these guys setting the perfect neutral grey background

>>2967097
Why not just shoot with a complete white background and change its value in post ?

>>2967097
Is it shooting different sized objects at different distances the part thats messing with your continuity?
Maybe light the background continuously, and flash for the subject. That should compensate for the more sudden falloff and darker background at greater shooting distances.

>>2967097

hmm undercover. Too bad Jun has fallen off in recent years

>>2967097
Not sure how exactly you have big problems with this despite using a color chart.

Are you perhaps using many different lights with fairly different light colors and/or poor control and low light output?

> i mean there must be different light setups for half body model shots and small accessories product shots for example
Nothing *must* be very different, no?

This fucking thread again?

You could have literally googled this hundreds of times inbetween threads

Get rid of any light you don't control, make sure the lights are the same color. Use the white balance picker in Lightroom or anything else to select something white or grey for it to calibrate the white balance, then cut the background out in Photoshop and pop in a solid off-white.

>>2967097
okay this is a professional photographer thing so you can be forgiven for not knowing about it
what you need to do is select models with a very specific, neutral gray-friendly skin tone and use them as a color calibration standard. if you have contacts in the fashion world they can refer you, but I warn you, professional quality skin tone comes at a price. it's best if they make the same expression in every shot, otherwise your background gray will oscillate slightly.

>>2967341
On my first professional gig I was a bit of a goof to try and make my model relax but later on when reviewing the photos I realized there was a reason why they froze their face.

God I can still remember the hours spent selectively white balancing the shadows.

File: Amateur-Home-Made-Photo-Studio.jpg (178KB, 1600x831px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 1600x831px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: 1321682378992.jpg (79KB, 555x557px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 555x557px

>>2967348
>God I can still remember the hours spent selectively white balancing the shadows.

So are you pretending to be retarded or are you actually incredibly retarded

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2011:10:05 18:43:02
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	555
Image Height	557

>>2967352
Read the post I quoted.

>>2967348
Ouch, anon. I think we've all been there. On my first fashion gig I still thought I would be taking photos of real clothing! Imagine my surprise when the fabrication team showed up...

>>2967097
All those catalog images were shot with the same model under one lighting setup.

>>2967183
And they'd probably do this, especially because it makes it easier to match new catalog images. Rather than spending another 45 minutes on set with talent trying to match the lighting precisely, you just cut him out in PS and drop him on top of fashion_background.tiff

>>2967097
Falloff.
Decent example: The first image, where you substitute your background with the darkest subject.
http://www.diyphotography.net/lighting-design-easy-way-secrets-inverse-square-law-light/

Simplest solution is shoot everything at exactly same background-to-light-to-camera distances...and therefore exactly the same light intensities... and *crop* the images to frame correctly.

File: Light-Fall-Off-between-model-and-wall.jpg (177KB, 1200x1600px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1200x1600px

>>2967661
better example of your issue: same article, scroll down to this section