using gels on seamless

Based on a lot of advice from POTN members, I decided to abondon my attempts at gelling cloth backgrounds and went out and purchased a 9' roll of seamless Fashion Gray. I also went back to using a speedlite instead of a monolight. The photos below are from my first set of experiments.

My 600EX is behind the table angled up using just a basic Rogue gel, no modifier. It is in manual mode, 1/4 power and 20mm zoom. My key and fill lights are at the lowest power settings. My exposure settings were 1/160 sec at f/6.3 ISO 200.

Looking for ANY suggestions on how to improve the gel effect. It doesn't look as good in photo 3 as it does in photo 2.

Photo 1 (only key and fill light, no background light)
Photo 2 (background light only)
Photo 3 (all three lights)
Photo 4 & 5 (my setup from different angles)

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

The real problem with seamless is that it always looks like seamless.
I would suggest textured backgrounds and walls to give more interest with your lighting.

EL_PIC wrote in post #15520647
The real problem with seamless is that it always looks like seamless.
I would suggest textured backgrounds and walls to give more interest with your lighting.

See my other threads. Not worth the hassle.

The difference between 2 and 3 is that you front flash (key and fill) and hitting the drop and thus diluting the effect of the gelled backdrop light. Try moving your lights closer to the subject and metering for that, the falloff will be more rapid the closer the lights are to the subject.

If you're trying to light the whole backdrop with a Speedlite, that's about as good as it's gonna get.

However, you could zoom the flash to 105mm and snoot it with something like a soup can, to create a more concentrated area of color that will vignette nicely for an individual portrait. This will concentrate the light such that you can crank up the power of the main and fill without overpowering the color.

You should be able to go up to 1/2 power without issue, as long as there is a little breathing room between the flash lens and the gel. At full power, you'll run into frustrations with recycle time.

Also, don't give up on using a studio strobe and a fabric backdrop. I think with more experimentation you'll be able to produce something that will be pleasing and useful.

I think a point of clarification may be in order. You say that one doesn't look 'as good' as the other. They are different from one another (=/- saturation of the blue) and imo, it isn't necessarily a case of 'better or worse'. They are both acceptable, depending on what you're hoping to achieve.

As you've posted in the other threads, you're able to achieve a variety of degrees of saturation of the gelled background, so I'm a little confused as to your ultimate goal.

And as I mentioned in the other thread, i think you're further along in the process than you may realize at the moment.

As far as achieving the more saturated look in your examples, your subject and main lights need to be further away from the background in order to minimize the amount of main light falling on the seamless (which is what's de-saturizing the gel color) non technical term= 'washing out'.

gonzogolf wrote in post #15520692
The difference between 2 and 3 is that you front flash (key and fill) and hitting the drop and thus diluting the effect of the gelled backdrop light. Try moving your lights closer to the subject and metering for that, the falloff will be more rapid the closer the lights are to the subject.

^This. You need to either 1) move the lights closer, 2) move the subject further away from the background or 3) do both. Your key and fill lights are not falling fast enough and is mixing with your backdrop light.

I suspect your fill is over-powering it things.

When I was shooting lots of dancers, with gelled backgrounds and main lights, the most critical portion was control of the light. That background light will wash out *really* quick if you can't control how much spill you get from the main lights.

Frequently, I would do shots like this with a backdrop, gelled 580exII, then have one or two main lights - but the important bit was to use them with grids or flags or super directional so they didn't splash back onto the backdrop.

For example - this was lit with one blue gelled speedlite on the backdrop, and one in a softbox with grid. The backdrop is actually dark gold/brown (check the bottom right corner of the backdrop)

IMAGE LINK: http://www.rt2photo.co​m/p608104048/e411105d8

IMAGE LINK: http://www.rt2photo.co​m/p608104048/e4111083c

Foodguy wrote in post #15520764
As far as achieving the more saturated look in your examples, your subject and main lights need to be further away from the background in order to minimize the amount of main light falling on the seamless (which is what's de-saturizing the gel color) non technical term= 'washing out'.

Begging to differ with the part in bold. If you move the lights back, you'll need to crank up the power to get the same exposure, which will make things even worse.

The key is in the distance ratio (light-to-subject vs. light-to-backdrop). If you move the main and fill closer to the subject (thus closer to the backdrop), you can reduce their power and most importantly, increase the distance ratio for greater fall-off, reducing the amount of spill.

Curtis N wrote in post #15520909
Begging to differ with the part in bold. If you move the lights back, you'll need to crank up the power to get the same exposure, which will make things even worse.

The key is in the distance ratio (light-to-subject vs. light-to-backdrop). If you move the main and fill closer to the subject (thus closer to the backdrop), you can reduce their power and most importantly, increase the distance ratio for greater fall-off, reducing the amount of spill.

I probably wasn't clear...I was talking about moving both the light stands and subject at the same time in the opposite direction of the background. IOW, keeping the same lighting set-up for the subject, just further from the background to avoid the main lights spilling on the background as they currently are.

Thanks, I will try all of the suggestions tonight.

In the mean time, suppose these were your working conditions....what light setup/modifiers would you use and how would you position them to gel the background for a pleasant kids portrait. I know that everyone has their own tastes, I'd just like to know your thought processes so that it might stimulate mine.

Curtis N wrote in post #15520748
If you're trying to light the whole backdrop with a Speedlite, that's about as good as it's gonna get.

Based on a thread you started a long time ago, it seems like it actually can be better, I just have to figure out the right way to set my lights up.

Here are some examples I pulled from that thread.

https://photography-on-the.net …php?p=4429196&p​ostcount=1
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost​.php?p=5053241&postcou​nt=105
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost​.php?p=14335802&postco​unt=170
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost​.php?p=14049983&postco​unt=149
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost​.php?p=14386777&postco​unt=212

One of the issues that may be a bit of a distraction at the moment, is the fact that you're looking at the WHOLE set. When your camera moves in to frame the subject so that all that is showing is a bit of background, the impression may be quite different than it currently is.

Foodguy wrote in post #15524884
One of the issues that may be a bit of a distraction at the moment, is the fact that you're looking at the WHOLE set. When your camera moves in to frame the subject so that all that is showing is a bit of background, the impression may be quite different than it currently is.

True, but my ultimate goal is to be able to hopefully gel enough of the background to a pleasant well-saturated color so that I can replace the table in the shot with a similarly sized (but lower to the ground) ottoman bench and have a group of siblings or even families of 4 to 5 posed on it. Once I get all my light positions and settings right, all I need to do is ask each family or group of kids which gel color they would prefer. This is all being done for my extended family just because I'm a nice guy.

Coeng - as shown in my example, speedlites can make very saturated colors on backdrops - but in your examples, you have to control your front lights better.

Several options have been presented - from pulling them out further from the set, to bringing them in closer and dropping the power, and what I do in small shooting conditions - flags / grids / softboxes.

They should all achieve the same / similar results for your needs.