samples of my gelled backgrounds

Counting the ceiling tiles, it looks like about 22 feet from the stairway to the background. So if you moved the subject forward to get him 6 feet from the background, you would have 16 feet to work in (though moving some furniture may be required).

Yes, the space is limited but I do think you have some room to get more distance between subject and background.

Curtis: I worked it out the same way (not knowing American suspended ceiling panel sizes but guessing 4x2ft) and reckoned circa 20ft. That's a HUGE space to work in. Postively acres of space for a bit of proper background seperation. Funnily enough (small world!), I'm having the same discussion with a guy in Ireland who simply will not move his subjects far enough away. We've increased it to 3ft so far - and even that was under duress.

dmward: David, I'm with you 100% over controlling light spread. In our massive UK rooms (some as huge as 10x12ft including furniture so actually 9½x 7½ft, interesting posing a Bride in her gown), I always used softboxes for this very reason. However, in this instance I was trying to work with what OP has got by describing ways to control what he calls 'light spill' onto his background. I do think he was badly advised over modifiers in this context, but what's done is done and there appears to be an "OP Junior model" around; we know what money pits they can be

coeng: Unlike seemingly everyone else, I don't think the drape is ugly. It could benefit from a little finessing but I quite like it. We went through the 'Splodge' background phase 10-15 years ago, a bit of elegance (potentially) has a lot to offer for variety. You could, for example, arrange the folds to give implied movement and dynamic diagonals subtly in the background; even accentuate this with a carefully placed gelled background light. Can't do that with a 'Splodge', it's forever splodgy with no other real options.

Whortleberry wrote in post #15506076
there appears to be an "OP Junior model" around; we know what money pits they can be

True enough, but some day "OP Junior" may become a "V.A.L."
https://photography-on-the.net …hp?p=15491007&p​ostcount=4

Uhuh - however you missed out certain key stages:

• NO
  
• Don't wanna.
  
• Oh Da-aa-ad, not again. (I'm sure you get the three-syllable-Dad in America too)
  
• I HATE you (girl).
  
• Grunt (boy).
  
• I HATE my life / My life SUCKS (genders reunite against the common foe - parents)
  

• What's it worth?
  

coeng wrote in post #15504772
I am experimenting but not getting very far in the process.

I think that you're further along than you realize at the moment.

Foodguy wrote in post #15506408
I think that you're further along than you realize at the moment.

I agree.

One thing that seems to have gotten lost here is that the background in a studio portrait is generally intended to be that "a background" something unspectacular that does not distract from the subject.

When I was a young photographer we had a shooting room for portraits that had different dark background canvases. We selected the one to use based on the color of the subject's clothing. It was softly lit with a background light to create a natural vignette. Remember this was on film, either B&W or color neg stock and if we could create the vignette on the negative so much the better.

If I were setting this up in the basement as pictured, I plan on using a 100mm lens, smooth black background with light for gel color, get the subject 6 feet from the background put the main light about 3 feet from the subject at about 45* and up about the same. Put the fill light over the camera lens axis and up just enough to get it out of the frame. Set power for F8 with about 1:3 ratio. 100mm lens for head and shoulders should have the camera within about 6-8 feet of the subject which is well within the space confines described.

coeng wrote in post #15504784
Regarding not wanting in-focus backgrounds, look how pleasing this painted background is:

https://photography-on-the.net …?p=15102547&pos​tcount=839

It might be a matter of taste, but your stuff is light years beyond that link. I don't like that photo, at all. If anything your background could be more out of focus.