you need to light your background either from above or more from the sides to eliminate that brighter reflection at the curve. it is the old angle of incidence = angle of reflection rule at work + where the brighter line is the reflection of your lights on the paper. Changing the position ofthe lights will change the angle of reflection, so play with where you are placing your lights.
Re : White balance: you say you are usign a gray card for White balancing, that is the right idea, but which card are you using and are you sure it is at a non-glare angle re: lights and camera?
Finally the Flash WB settign on any camera doesn't take into account either the specific flash or modifier you are using. The short solution to this is to do a custom WB in camera if you wantto continue shooting JPEGs or better start shootign and learn how to process your raw files, whioch is neither difficult or time comsuming. And of course , work on independently calibrated and profiled display using a tool like a Datacolor Spyder 3 Elite or X-rite i1 Display 2.
Thanks for the help E-Vener. I was shooting both raw & jpegs on that day. The jpegs out of the camera were just for ease of review by a bunch of other folks. Raw post processing would begin after the images were narrowed a bit. Due to all of the issues with the lighting, that number will most likely be close to zero
Lesson learned, don't post any non-wb-adjusted shots anymore
Think about the radius of the transition of a skateboard halfpipe or quarter pipe as a visual.... bigger gradual curvature; that will take care of your issue.
Thanks guys. Actually, I can't see the white line anymore with the arc larger arc in the last pic. But I'll try an even bigger one to see what that does. It's clear that the no arc I began with was the issue. I was also trying to get rid of the double shadows and I think I did that too.
jwboring wrote:
Thanks guys. Actually, I can't see the white line anymore with the arc larger arc in the last pic. But I'll try an even bigger one to see what that does. It's clear that the no arc I began with was the issue. I was also trying to get rid of the double shadows and I think I did that too.
Jeff
Or maybe people were getting confused because you showed the super small arc at the end of page 1 and in my opinion the descriptions were confusing and I thought that was what you were calling a wider arc. But then the pictures on the second page showed a nice wide arc and a lack of a line.
The only way I have found to achieve a perfect wall to floor transition from seamless is by first constructing a rough (not to be seen) 5' radius cyc to force the seamless to follow a smooth curve. Without such a set-up, inevitably even if you pull the seamless away from the wall further to create a more gentle curve, the curve will not be perfect and you will see the transition.
The ideal fill light is a very large diffused source (think 7' foot Profoto Giant Reflectors or a full wall of 8' x 12' backlit Perspex) directly behind the camera (not above the camera or to the side of the camera) so that EVERYTHING the camera sees will be filled. Such a fill will also avoid the possibility of creating any cross shadows and will not have to be constantly readjusted as the key light position changes. If you want to adjust the level of fill in different areas of the picture, you can use layers of ND Gels cut to specific shapes and adhered to another diffusing sheet suspended in front of the fill face to cut light into pieces, the softness of the transition areas being controlled by how far you suspend the cutter sheet in front of the diffuser of the fill.
J-
That is an interesting take on the situation. Being new to lighting I am intrigued on how others achieve the best results. I would like to ask you if you could put up a diagram or a photo of your setup as you described in your post, and a resulting image you shot from it please?
I know my pics are low res above but I believe the floor to wall transition is pretty good. At lease you can't see the white line anymore. My original issue (white line) was caused because I didn't use a gradual transition, my arc was too small.
A better pic here shows what I think is the correct arc to use.
Jeff, the photo you linked to on Savage site does NOT show a smooth transition because at the point the paper actually does touch the floor, it bends more abruptly. [Savage probably does not want to show their seamless laying over a cyc, because one of the appeals of using seamless is supposedly to avoid having to construct a cyc.] The key to a perfectly smooth transition is to get the paper to bend at the same exact rate going from the wall to the floor. Again, seamless will not do this naturally, probably because of gravity. How far you pull the seamless out and where it actually touches the floor has little bearing on whether the bend rate is exactly the same from start to finish, unless you force it to bend consistently by putting a cyc support underneath it to counteract gravitational forces. While you could play around in Photoshop to correct this situation, what photographer wants to sit at his computer correcting surface transition problems for 200 images?
The advantage to using seamless has more to do with not having to constantly paint a constructed cyc, or having to custom paint the cyc different colors for different shoots. Using seamless does not really obviate one from having to construct a cyc, if a cyc look is what you are after. Of course, the seamless companies do not want to promote this reality, and that's also why so many photographers struggle to get cyc looks from just plain seamless.
1st pic: 2 lights set up
2nd pic: results, still no white line, but are the shadows ok? The are double shadows, the horizontal ones, but I think these are ok, will not be seen on people.
The shadows are not OK. They are evidence of a confused lighting pattern. It will look ugly on people.
How many shadows does the sun cast? That's your goal.
J.Schmidt: Thanks for your help. I had no idea what a cyc was before you mentioned it. I apologize for my complete ignorance, I am brand new to studio lighting. However, I'm not sure I'll ever get the "cyc" look in my 20X20 studio because I don't think I have enough throw space for a 5' cyc. My subjects are 6' from the background now and I can barely make that work.
dmacmillan: Again, thanks for your help. You are the only one to address the shadows question. Originally, I had an even greater confused lighting pattern - lights on both sides of the subject which resulted in the double shadows. Others recommended I try the lighting pattern that you commented on. At least, that what I thought they said . I'm trying to light a full length subject on a gray seamless. What lighting would you recommend?
Jeff, if you put your model 8' from the background after constructing, let's say, a four foot radius rough cyc, that would give you 4' before the background begins to make its totally smooth journey up from the floor. If your studio is 20x20, that still gives you about 12' from your subject for shooting distance, which is fine (just select the appropriate focal length).
For a compact fill solution, put an umbrella on each side of you. If you are bothered standing right next to a flash going off, just stand up a panel of foamcore or plywood between you and the umbrella. Or alternatively, if the wall behind the camera is matt white, forget the umbrellas, and just bounce a light at that wall on each side of you, again protecting yourself with a large standing panel on each side of you. This will give you a huge soft fill light that will not produce any discernible shadows.
Additionally, if you make sure that your background lights are flagged off from your subject (via barn doors, french flags, etc.) and that your fill is coming pretty much from camera axis and is lower in intensity than the one and only key light, your double shadow problems will go away, and you will be able to focus your attention on lighting the subject with the key light and accent lights..
Yes, you can place the key anywhere you like and concentrate how the key lights your subject, if you follow my advice.
You can easily construct a rough cyc from framing 2x4's and thin luan (or plastic panels), something that will be bendable to a 4' radius. It does not have to look pretty or finished if you will always being laying seamless over it, and it should only take one weekend to construct. Make sure that the edges of the substrate that touch the wall and the floor are sanded and feathered so that they go down to nothing so there won't be any seam showing through the seamless, and make sure you paint the cyc the same color as your wall and floor (which should be the same color) to avoid show through. If you do this one thing (build a rough cyc), your seamless work will improve remarkably and you won't have to fuss around with seamless anymore.
