How to keep background Black?

Here is a test shot I did today, with the following:
20D w/50mm 1.8II Lens
(2) AB 400s
Black Paper BG ~ 6 feet from subject(me)
New L358 meter.

It seemed to work for my first time using a meter, but the background seems more charcoal, than black.
Will I need to use Muslin, or Velvet to keep it black?
Or is there a magic trick to setting this up?

Thanks for looking.

1/250 @ 7.1 ISO 100

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

It looks pretty good RinkRat. try to keep the light off of the backdrop and and the light closer to the subject.

The key is for the BG to be -2.5EV compared to the subject for BG to be 'black' (this is true no matter what color or lack of color in the BG...the fundamental brightness) Since the inherent color is black already, you have a start at the -2.5EV, but your subject light falls on the BG so that it is maybe -2EV and getting captured as that 'charcoal'

Velvet could help but there is a bit of inherent sheen in velvet material fibers, making it hard for the BG to disappear wihout careful control of any ripples in the surface which will reflect back some of that sheen!

Michael88 is on the right track with his suggestion. The subject is 6' in front of the BG, so if the light were 6' from the subject but positioned at the side, the light falling on the BG would have brightness of 0EV compared to the brightness at the subject. The key is to get the brightness falling on the BG to be -1EV or more to keep that black material blacker. Move subject farther from BG, or flag off the key light so that it does not fall on the BG

A levels adjustment is the easiest way, just adjust the shadow point under the darkest part of the histogram. But your main suubject is a bit underexpose and bleeding into the background, so that part may go too dark, as well. I would increase your fill light so the dark areas of the main subject are well separated from the background and then use the levels adjustment.

This looks pretty good to me but you could use a bit more light up front. We use black velvet and it still comes out somewhat gray if you aren't careful.

IMO you image is about where I would want it. A bit more light up front a bit less behind. It is probably fixable in Photoshop.

Thanks for all of the great feedback.

If I get time this W/E, I'll experiment with them all.

Thanks again.

I gotta love this way of thinking.... if you can't do it right, you can always fix it in Photoshop...

Is this the level where photography has gone to?

why is everyone so laxed about their photography....

Oh We'll just fix it in PS....

SIGH!

EVERYONE isn't this laxed(sic) about their photography.

But I do enjoy a good photoshop session. It's a different kind of art.

If you are limited for space, black reflectors either side of the backdrop could help to. Especially if you only need to come down 0.5EV or so.

Rob

This is one of the simplest way to light, you don't need all that stuff to light.

One light, and a reflector. If you set it up correctly you get seperation on the hair and background. That's the key with low-key lighting. Seperation.

Adjusting the black level in photoshop is no different than selecting a harder grade of paper in the wet darkroom, or doing a little burning-in during enlarging. Surely there's no moral objction to that.

I don't know about the harder grade paper has to do with it... but burning yes.

But this still applies to the same rule. Why do you need to fix it when you can do it right from the beginning? Specially in a studio where light is controllable? I don't see a validation on "fixing it later" in a control enviroment such as a studio.

>>But this still applies to the same rule. Why do you need to fix it when you can do it right from the beginning? Specially in a studio where light is controllable? I don't see a validation on "fixing it later" in a control enviroment such as a studio.<<

I am of the opinion that the new photographer of today relies upon so many crutches and shortcuts that they are simply NOT as skilled in the craft of photography, in the traditional sense. That does not make them any less artistic, it simply means that their camera and lighting skills are quite deficient! Rely upon wireless automation to automatically set lighting so it appears good, and you have no ability to do it without the automation and without having to learn about handlheld incident metering. Digital photographers often eschew handheld meters, because they have no concept of the need to record something at its inherent brightness level for faithful reproduction, they just 'shoot to the histogram' and let 18% gray fall anywhere it falls in the histogram! Many traditional skills have electronic equivalents, and they should be used where faster and easier. But the traditional skills out not be lost! We see fine cabinets that the craftsman of today cannot even begin to recreate in quality and intricacy...lost skills! Find a carpenter who does GOOD crown molding for a room...hard to fine. Same for photography.

You make an interesting point Wilt. But I don't think it demeans the modern photographer in anyway. It's just a different ballgame today, that's all. It's the end result that really matters.

I can't make a fire with two sticks but I will be warm tonight. I can't use a slide-rule either.

>>I can't make a fire with two sticks but I will be warm tonight. I can't use a slide-rule either.<<

Yes, but it is faster to use a lighter or a calculator than to do it the 'old way'. Bit different.

In the case of photography, one might light a shot and shoot it and have no time spent 'fixing it' at the computer, or one could be unskilled and shoot it wrong and spend hours at the PC to fix the shot they way it could have come from the camera! The second photophrapher is perhaps deficient in lighting and shooting skill. The first photographer may be just as proficient as the second one in Photoshop, but he/she has the skills to shoot it right and spend no time at the PC fixing it!