Backdrop material

M

Mossberg

Suspended / Banned
Messages
200
Name
M
Edit My Images
Yes
Could you good folks enlighten me as to what makes good backdrop material. I have used the search function but most threads seem to be about what hasn't worked. Getting something that doesn't work seems a waste of funds to be honest, even though they may be cheaper.
 
Black or white?
 
It's going to be for people, expect them to be white, but could be wearing anything and with bare arms, shoulders etc.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Black or white?
Click to expand...
Is thus covered in your book Gary. I have it on my phone but it's not the easiest to navigate on my old thing. I have kit printed at home but won't be there for a couple of weeks.

I presume the colour of background will make quite a difference with lighting.

So much to learn...
 
Bed sheets can work on a budget.
Grey is a nice start, as it can go white or black depending on your lighting/distances.

Edit - just to add, you could gel your lights to change the colour too.
 
Last edited:
Mossberg said:
what makes good backdrop material.
Click to expand...
In my experience, good materials for plain backdrops are either paper rolls or Westcott-style wrinkle-free material. The cheaper bedsheet style creases easily and requires a lot more work.
 
There's an endless - but pointless colour choice.
We tend to gel lights to create any colour on grey (e.g. Pink is just overexposed red and so are all pastel shades)

Black requires black unless either zero light is reaching the background or there's a massive distance between the subject and the background. The best black is either genuine velvet or flock, both of which are horrifically expensive. Black muslin/cotton is a good choice. Avoid paper and vinyl, too shiny.
White - paper is best, but has a short life.
Decent vinyl is heavy but lasts for years. Avoid muslin/cotton
 
The other thing I’d add is that most people don’t realise (Garry mentioned but not explicitly), backgrounds need lighting. And the hardest to light is white.

If you’ve never done it, or seen it done, you wouldn’t know that a full length figure on white will best be achieved with 3 lights just for the BG, then you’re adding 2 or 3 for the subject, it’s a ‘lot’ to juggle. And ideally you’d want 20’ or more front to back.

Full length on grey ‘could’ take the same number, but doesn’t need to.

3/4 or h&s shots are obviously easier, and even on white you might get away with one bg light.
 
Thanks Gavin. Only watched the first 20 mins but really helpful so far - but more about the lighting at this point.

Looking forward to seeing the rest.
 
I used to use a mottled grey back ground worked well for B+W and colour, esp colour as it didn't detract from the main subject.
 
Mossberg said:
Is thus covered in your book Gary. I have it on my phone but it's not the easiest to navigate on my old thing. I have kit printed at home but won't be there for a couple of weeks.

I presume the colour of background will make quite a difference with lighting.

So much to learn...
Click to expand...
I've been away for a few days, with just my wellies and my iPhone and I'm not much good with phones :)

Now that I'm back, there is a brief mention in "Lighting Magic", here it is, but I haven't searched for the photos.


Backgrounds
Backgrounds hardly get mentioned in this e-book, which may seem strange because there is an enormous range available, and most equipment sellers sell far more backgrounds than any other item of photographic equipment.

You can get the pop-up ones, the same mechanism as the 5-in-1 reflectors, and these are very popular but are far too small for many jobs.

You can get backgrounds in cotton (muslin) which is cheap, but it creases very badly. Cotton ones are excellent in black, usable in white and useless in all other colours, and the reason that they are useless is that the creases always show badly unless, as with white ones, they are over lit.

Paper rolls are the old-fashioned solution, and they are still the best if you want to use grey backgrounds, and they are also excellent in white, but poor in black. The reason I don’t recommend them in black is that the surface tends to have some shine on it, which creates unwanted reflections. Paper rolls are commonly available in 1.5m and 2.72m widths, get the wider one if you have enough space, because backgrounds are never wide enough. Paper rolls are available in a bewildering range of colours, none of which are needed, because you can change grey to any colour, simply by lighting it with a lighting gel.

And then there’s vinyl. Vinyl is great in white because it lasts almost forever (unlike paper, which has a very short life) and it is easy to clean. The downside of vinyl is that it costs quite a lot, and it is extremely heavy, requiring a really sturdy mounting system, for safety. There are cheap ones available online that are too thin and too shiny, these are best avoided.

A few years ago, there was a craze for white background shots, and although the craze has now reduced it still remains popular both for portrait / fashion shots and for website use.

Backgrounds are an entirely separate subject to the subject that we’re shooting, and they always need to be lit separately. In many of my shots, I like the drama of a black background, which doesn’t get lit at all, but many people like white backgrounds.

A lot of people struggle to get good results when they create pure white background shots (which some people wrongly call high key shots) in a small studio space, and the poor quality of many of the photos gives white background shots a bad name – but, with care, and with a bit of help from the computer, it is possible to do it well even in small spaces.

The reason why so many professionals choose to shoot in large studios is that life is a whole lot easier with a lot of space between the subject and the background. This is because it isn’t just the subject (which I call the front subject) that needs to be lit, the background (which I call the rear subject) is a subject in its own right and needs to have its own, separate lighting, and it’s inevitable that some of the light aimed at the background will bounce off it and will hit the back of the front subject, where it will degrade or even destroy fine detail in both hair and clothes – and, the less distance there is between the front and rear subject, the worse this problem will be.

The solution is to use an absolute minimum of extra light on the background, so that little if any light that bounces back onto the front subject can cause this problem. If you look at online tutorials, YouTube videos and even on some websites that should know better, you’ll find that a lot of people say that there should be 2 stops ( 4 times as much) more light on the background than on the front subject, but frankly, that’s nonsense, because it’s overexposing the background like this that causes the problems! There are 2 main reasons for this:

  1. So much light hits the rear of the subject that fine edge detail, such as skin, hair and light clothing, is destroyed
  2. So much light hits the lens that lens flare is created, and overall contrast is severely reduced.


​

With the background badly over-lit

This photo with the background badly over-lit shows the result, all of the fine detail from my model’s hair has been destroyed – and that’s before I’ve actually added the light needed to photograph her – in the shot you see here, it’s just the background that has been lit, the light that is also hitting my model is just light that’s bounced off of the background.

By the time light is added to her face, the situation will be even worse.

So, how should it be done?

  1. Get as much space as you possibly can between the subject and the background. 2. Just use as little extra light as possible on the background. The background will end up as light grey, not white, but it doesn’t matter because it’s very simple to put that right on your computer later.
  • The necessary amount of overexposure, when shooting on digital, is in fact just 0.7 (or 2/3rds) of a stop, it’s all that’s needed and is also the highest level of overexposure that is likely to produce good results in a small studio.
  • Use your blinkies to get the exposure right
    Enable the blinkies on your camera, so that the overexposed areas on the shot blink at you when you view the shot. As long as the area immediately behind your subject is overexposed enough to blink, you have enough over-exposure to do the job. Parts of the background that are not blinking will photograph as grey, but that is what you should be aiming for, not something that you should try to avoid. All that you then need to do is to lighten those areas in PP, which is a very quick and simple job.
Gav. said:
@Mossberg

This may be of help? Apologises if you've seen it.

Gavin Hoey has shorter videos too, on backdrops etc...


View: https://www.youtube.com/live/eVZKrwo7V68?si=tarhfeQAA_Z1t0ct
Click to expand...
All credit to him for making a 1-hour video, but I don't have that much time . . .

Here's a very old one of mine, which hopefully will help
 
Thanks Garry. That is really helpful. I started reading your book om my phone yesterday, then my phone died - I now have a permanent black screen, so posting it here is very helpful.
Started watching your video too but had to stop as I was disturbing others in the room so will finish that tomorrow.
Thanks again.
Mick
 
As well as the usual cloth and paper, I've seen vinal used. In the one I saw the photographer had bought vinal from a company that makes lorry sides. It was fairly heavy duty and he claimed cheap.
 
Mossberg said:
Thanks Gavin. Only watched the first 20 mins but really helpful so far - but more about the lighting at this point.

Looking forward to seeing the rest.
Click to expand...
As per the posts above, backgrounds and lighting aren’t separate considerations.

Once you’re in control of your lighting, then you have to think how you’re lighting your background as well as your subject.
 
:agree:

But let’s adopt the KISS principle here, Keep It Simple Stupid, don’t worry too much about the technicalities (but be aware of the Inverse Square Law), just experiment.

I’m one of the minority of social pariahs’ who smokes, I enjoy it and it’s the only vice I have left. I roll my own cigarettes, it’s a simple process and although I won’t admit that I can do it one-handed while driving, I do know people who can . . . I can show you how to do it and you’ll be able to do it after a couple of minutes of practice, but if I tried to write instructions it would probably take about 20 A4 pages, and would seem to be an incredibly complicated process, but it just isn’t.

Same with lighting a background, sounds complicated but it really isn’t.

The most important thing to remember is that the background is a separate subject and so needs to be lit entirely separately, unless of course we want to deliberately cast shadow on to the background.

  • So, one lighting arrangement for the actual or front subject, another one for the background.
  • Don’t (if possible) let one lighting arrangement interfere with the lighting of the other. To get perfect results, you’ll need a lot of space between the 2 subjects, but with care you can manage with relatively little.
  • Bear in mind that unless light from your main subject hits the background, the background will photograph as black – it’s all about the amount (if any) of light that hits the background and if you use only backlighting on your front subject then of course the background will show as black, regardless of its actual shade or colour.
  • Making a background pure white is a very simple process, the trick is to light the background as evenly as possible, with just enough over-exposure for the background to be pure white but without that inevitable reflected light hitting the rear of your main subject, destroying fine edge detail such as hair, causing flare and reducing contrast.
  • If I was doing a pro fashion shoot against a white background I’d use 4 lights on the background, to make the lighting as even as possible, and would overexpose by 0.7 of a stop, and I’d have 20-30’ distance between the main subject and the background, but that’s in an ideal world. If you only have 2 lights for the background just turn the flash power up, and it will work, just not perfectly.
  • Bear in mind that the greater the distance between the front and rear subject, the larger the background will need to be, because of perspective distortion, but we can usually “extend” the background easily in post processing.
I’ve written a few articles that either deal with or mention background lighting, which may or may not help

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/tutorials/using-lighting-gels.141/


 
Garry Edwards said:
:agree:

But let’s adopt the KISS principle here, Keep It Simple Stupid, don’t worry too much about the technicalities (but be aware of the Inverse Square Law), just experiment.

I’m one of the minority of social pariahs’ who smokes, I enjoy it and it’s the only vice I have left. I roll my own cigarettes, it’s a simple process and although I won’t admit that I can do it one-handed while driving, I do know people who can . . . I can show you how to do it and you’ll be able to do it after a couple of minutes of practice, but if I tried to write instructions it would probably take about 20 A4 pages, and would seem to be an incredibly complicated process, but it just isn’t.

Same with lighting a background, sounds complicated but it really isn’t.

The most important thing to remember is that the background is a separate subject and so needs to be lit entirely separately, unless of course we want to deliberately cast shadow on to the background.

  • So, one lighting arrangement for the actual or front subject, another one for the background.
  • Don’t (if possible) let one lighting arrangement interfere with the lighting of the other. To get perfect results, you’ll need a lot of space between the 2 subjects, but with care you can manage with relatively little.
  • Bear in mind that unless light from your main subject hits the background, the background will photograph as black – it’s all about the amount (if any) of light that hits the background and if you use only backlighting on your front subject then of course the background will show as black, regardless of its actual shade or colour.
  • Making a background pure white is a very simple process, the trick is to light the background as evenly as possible, with just enough over-exposure for the background to be pure white but without that inevitable reflected light hitting the rear of your main subject, destroying fine edge detail such as hair, causing flare and reducing contrast.
  • If I was doing a pro fashion shoot against a white background I’d use 4 lights on the background, to make the lighting as even as possible, and would overexpose by 0.7 of a stop, and I’d have 20-30’ distance between the main subject and the background, but that’s in an ideal world. If you only have 2 lights for the background just turn the flash power up, and it will work, just not perfectly.
  • Bear in mind that the greater the distance between the front and rear subject, the larger the background will need to be, because of perspective distortion, but we can usually “extend” the background easily in post processing.
I’ve written a few articles that either deal with or mention background lighting, which may or may not help

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/tutorials/using-lighting-gels.141/


Click to expand...
Thank you Garry.
They say a picture paints 1000 words - a video tutorial so much more.
Is there a link to more of your videos? I went to YouTube but could only see the odd one, but I am not the best at searching!

Thanks again, this sooo much help!
 
Yes, videos can be helpful when they're honest, i.e. when providing genuine info rather than selling gadgets . . .

Nearly all of mine (which are now all pretty old) are in the Lencarta YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/@lencarta/videos so, if you sort them by oldest first, they should be easier to find.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Yes, videos can be helpful when they're honest, i.e. when providing genuine info rather than selling gadgets . . .

Nearly all of mine (which are now all pretty old) are in the Lencarta YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/@lencarta/videos so, if you sort them by oldest first, they should be easier to find.
Click to expand...
Thank you Garry, I look forward to viewing those.
I agree 100% about the honest videos, and unfortunately those are often difficult to find. Being a novice, understanding what is relevant and what isn't can be both difficult and time consuming. Just watching the videos from you has been so educational. Whilst you can't become an expert watching a video, it can certainly put you on the right track and save you from spending hours doing things that don't work.
 
It's fairly easy to spot the dodgy videos, just pay no attention to those that are
1. About the alleged benefits of a product
2. Are made by people who promote their own paid content (usually online courses)
3. Illustrate their videos with beautiful photos allegedly taken with the promoted equipment, i.e. heavily retouched photos
4. Are famous for being famous, not for their actual photography.
5. Fast talkers, clearly reading from an autocue.

My own videos were always honest, but still deceptive - something that takes an hour to do ends up as 6 minutes, because the attention span on social media is short, so everything got edited down. For example, I might move a light 6 times, an inch or 2 at a time, or adjust the power setting a few times, but in the video this might be shown as just one adjustment or none, and I always took the view that retouching photos for instructional videos is the wrong thing to do, let people see what you actually get SOOC, so they won't try to get something that is actually impossible to get, real-world.

The one I posted above, on lighting a white background, is a case in point. except for (I think) the opening shot, I lit ONLY the background, because lighting the background was what it was all about, and all the light on the model was unwanted reflected light from the background, to show faults, but there were still adverse comments about the lighting on the model, which just goes to show that people don't watch or listen properly.

All of my videos were terrible, because I'm not a happy smiley chappy by nature, so they didn't suit the YouTube algorithm and didn't get the view numbers that justify the cost, but that's just me. My very early ones, filmed with a camcorder entirely without help, were even worse than the later ones but, in a way, were more complete.
 
Garry Edwards said:
It's fairly easy to spot the dodgy videos, just pay no attention to those that are
1. About the alleged benefits of a product
2. Are made by people who promote their own paid content (usually online courses)
3. Illustrate their videos with beautiful photos allegedly taken with the promoted equipment, i.e. heavily retouched photos
4. Are famous for being famous, not for their actual photography.
5. Fast talkers, clearly reading from an autocue.

My own videos were always honest, but still deceptive - something that takes an hour to do ends up as 6 minutes, because the attention span on social media is short, so everything got edited down. For example, I might move a light 6 times, an inch or 2 at a time, or adjust the power setting a few times, but in the video this might be shown as just one adjustment or none, and I always took the view that retouching photos for instructional videos is the wrong thing to do, let people see what you actually get SOOC, so they won't try to get something that is actually impossible to get, real-world.

The one I posted above, on lighting a white background, is a case in point. except for (I think) the opening shot, I lit ONLY the background, because lighting the background was what it was all about, and all the light on the model was unwanted reflected light from the background, to show faults, but there were still adverse comments about the lighting on the model, which just goes to show that people don't watch or listen properly.

All of my videos were terrible, because I'm not a happy smiley chappy by nature, so they didn't suit the YouTube algorithm and didn't get the view numbers that justify the cost, but that's just me. My very early ones, filmed with a camcorder entirely without help, were even worse than the later ones but, in a way, were more complete.
Click to expand...
That said, Garry, your videos are amongst the best in my view, as they help people learn something! I like them a lot.
 
TimHughes said:
That said, Garry, your videos are amongst the best in my view, as they help people learn something! I like them a lot.
Click to expand...
I totally agree with this Garry. And as for you not being great for youtube, well when I look to be educated, I dont look for an entertainer!
 
Thanks for the kind comments, but I know that I don't cut it with the public. I don't have what they want.

The quote below is from a thread about favourite YouTube people https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/favourite-photography-youtubers.764246/ and, although I haven't checked, I can be pretty sure that nobody will have mentioned me - which is logical:)
Stuart Mc said:
Haha cheers :)

Some of the replies to this thread are quite interesting - YouTube largely is a game, for a creator to be 'successful' at it you need to gamify the system somewhat (thumbnails, titles, first 30 seconds of video etc.). If you're willing to do that and upload consistently (key), with a decently thought out strategy and if you're reasonably engaging presenter, your actual photographic skills are largely irrelevant. There's a huge amount of mediocre photography on there but that's not what it's for, it's entertainment largely. If you want to see great photography pick up a book or go to a website or an exhibition.

For better or worse however, it's the direction in which all industries are heading including photography. If you've designs on being full-time within my sphere (landscape) in 2024, you have to embrace video in some form as it's expected from newer audiences. Luckily I'd established my business long before doing YouTube however I'd say that even with my somewhat sporadic output it's helped somewhat.
Click to expand...
In economic terms, the fake presenters have got it entirely right.

In my own experience, a 6-minute video takes 3 of us at least 1 1/2 hours to shoot, so 4 1/2 hours. Then the editor needs another day, so 12 1/2 hours at a total labour cost of around £300, plus any materials bought or used in the process. 1000 views might include 20 people who are genuinely interested, and of those 20 there's a faint chance that maybe one of them will actually buy something, but unless they spend at least £3000 it's a financial loss. But if a good presenter can generate half a million views then the money can flow in, and a bit of money would come from YouTube too.
 
Mossberg said:
Could you good folks enlighten me as to what makes good backdrop material. I have used the search function but most threads seem to be about what hasn't worked. Getting something that doesn't work seems a waste of funds to be honest, even though they may be cheaper.
Click to expand...
Lighting or not lighting the background is all good if you have the space and lots of lights.
Much easier these days to just select and lighten/darken or change colour in Lightroom, these are all on the same background.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3020.jpeg
    IMG_3020.jpeg
    108.6 KB · Views: 3
  • IMG_3019.jpeg
    IMG_3019.jpeg
    104 KB · Views: 3
  • IMG_3018.jpeg
    IMG_3018.jpeg
    97.9 KB · Views: 3
Thank you. I still need to start with post processing. I just need to find a free one (well, one without a subscription as I wouldn't use it often enough!)
 
Martinking said:
Lighting or not lighting the background is all good if you have the space and lots of lights.
Much easier these days to just select and lighten/darken or change colour in Lightroom, these are all on the same background.
Click to expand...
Fair point, but much more difficult and time-consuming when the subject isn't follically challenged:)

Mossberg said:
Thank you. I still need to start with post processing. I just need to find a free one (well, one without a subscription as I wouldn't use it often enough!)
Click to expand...
Post-processing is an essential part of photography, so yes you really do need to take it on board. I can't help with software suggestions as I use PS, but can other people make recommendations?
 
Garry Edwards said:
but can other people make recommendations?
Click to expand...
Mossberg said:
(well, one without a subscription as I wouldn't use it often enough!)
Click to expand...

Not free, but powerful software for one off cost (£68)

Edit - there's a free trial..

affinity.serif.com

Unsupported client

It seems you are using an old or unsupported browser. To continue enjoying our product, please update to a recent version of one of the following browsers:
affinity.serif.com affinity.serif.com
 
Last edited:
For budget priced backgrounds, I have a collection of Kate Backgrounds. I found that I really like the material that they use to make them. The face side of these is a fine material much like a velvet that doesn't shine when hit by photo lighting. Wrinkles from folding come out easily, and the top edge is widely hemmed to allow most any backdrop pole to pass easily through it. If folded the right way there is a small image of the backdrop on the back side of this hem that will face out when folded, so you can see what the backdrop looks like without unfolding it and the size is printed there too. I keep the ones that I have folded and in Zip Lock bags to keep them clean and ready for use. Kate Backdrop sells through Amazon, so they are easy to buy and arrive quickly. They are also reasonably priced.

Charley
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top