Creating a white backdrop for portrait shooting

[maxwell_defrisco]

<p>Alright, a little more information than the title:</p>

<p>I'm just starting out taking portraits as a serious hobby, and I'm soon going to be purchasing a Nikon D3100, because it's the best I can afford, and I like Nikon's more than Canon. (Just my personal opinion). <br>

I'm looking to try some studio shooting, and I want to build a backdrop for full portraits. I'm hoping to achieve something along the lines of this:<br>

<a href="http://www.zarias.com/white-seamless-tutorial-part-1-gear-space/">http://www.zarias.com/white-seamless-tutorial-part-1-gear-space/</a><br>

I'll be shooting with props, and without, but I'm hoping to get input on the cheapest and best way to build a backdrop that would give me this effect. All input is greatly appreciated.<br>

Also, if anyone needs any clarification, I'd be happy to go into more detail about what I want.</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

[maxwell_defrisco]

<p>Point of clarification: I know that the link has a tutorial, but I'm looking for any possible cheaper ways of doing this. Thanks.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Well, you really can do this with just a roll of white seamless paper. You can suspend the paper from a cheap piece of conduit (do you have a finished ceiling, or something you can hook into, so you can avoid having to own stands?). You can also rig up something wall-mounted using heavy duty drapery rod holders. Cheap.<br /><br />What will you be using for light sources? That will dictate what you need to put together (using sheets of foam core, or styrofoam insulation, or appliance box cardboard, etc) to rig up flags/bookends. In a situation like this, it's the lights that are the most expensive part. You can rig up the rest using very modest materials.</p>

[maxwell_defrisco]

<p>At the moment, I am looking into buying a lighting kit on the cheaper side, maybe $200? I found one with two umbrellas/light stands that seems fairly worth the price. All of my experience shooting has been outside using completely natural lighting, so I'm brand new to studio shooting, and I'm not 100% the best place to start when considering lighting equipment.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Absolutely <em>do not</em> spend $200 on a lighting kit for this sort of shooting. It will prove to be a complete waste of your hard earned money. For successful shots like the one to which you've linked, you need (usually) two lights on the background, and somewhere between one and three on the subject (key, fill, hair/kicker). These have to be powerful in enought to get you a fast enough shutter speed, low (clean) enough ISO setting, and stopped-down-enough lens aperture to produce workable results while not having the subject lose sharpness because of motion blur, too-shallow depth of field, or noise and low contrast from a too-high ISO setting.<br /><br />If you're thinking of continuous/hot lights, you're going to need hundreds (at least) watts of power. If these are quartz-type lights, they will be literally very hot. If they are compact fluorescent types, they're likely to produce challenging color/specturum issues, and you'll need a <em>lot</em> of them (or very expensive ones) to produce enough light to work with animated subjects like people while freezing motion.<br /><br />The solution is, of course, strobes. Whether you go the "strobist" route and use relatively inexpensive hot-shoe style flash guns, or perhaps start building up a collection of Alien Bees, you're going to have much better success that way than you will with underpowered, cheaply made hot light kits.</p>

[mike_godwin1]

<p>I'll second the "<em>do not</em> spend $200 on a lighting kit for this sort of shooting"! I did. What a waste of time and money and after that you realized you could have used that $200 on better lights. One of my cheap lights blew on the first shoot. No one carried any type of replacement bulbs. I then went with Alien Bees. I bit the bullet and bought 2 light kits to start with. I have since added 3 more lights. I also have spare bulbs. I've only had to replace 1.</p>

<p>Just my $0.02</p>

 

[devon_mccarroll]

<p>Matt and Mike are right. No lighting kit that's only $200 is worth the price. They likely have very weak output and are very poorly built. You'll regret spending the money. And it will take quite a bit of light to make a white backdrop white, along with lighting your subject(s).<br>

When I was just starting out and didn't have much to spend, I started with a portable black backdrop, because then I didn't need to have background lights. I was able to work with my Nikon speedlight fired off camera with an umbrella and stand, along with a white reflector. My focus was on small children and babies however, which requires less light than a full-length portrait of an adult. </p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>It is very easy to totally over think the white background thing. Zac Arias is very good but his studio setup is involved and not cheap or portable.</p>

<p><a href="

guy in this video </a>really simplifies it and shows you how to create a white background almost anywhere for the price of a couple of secondhand manual camera mount flashes. Think light levels, not colour, blast the background with the right amount of light and exposure and you can make anything white.</p>

[maxwell_defrisco]

<p>Using high powered flashes to make anything white isn't something that had occurred to me. Thanks for the input everyone.<br>

Also, does anyone have any personal preferences for flashes? Nikon? Canon? Model?</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>Are you asking about just the backdrop, or the whole studio setup? As for the backdrop, as others have said all you need is a roll of seamless and you can hang it on anything from a random piece of pipe/conduit to a proper background stand consisting of two light stands and a crossbar. Do you specifically want white? It has its use, but portraits are far more often shot on other colors, anything from gray or blue to earth tones. You can buy seamless in any color you can imagine, but muslin cloth backdrops are more interesting and come in various colors and patterns. As for lighting, if you need to do it on the cheap, go look at the Lighting 101 section on <a href="http://www.strobist.com">www.strobist.com</a> and start with one light, then build your way up. The $200 you cite as your budget won't buy anything worth keeping in terms of real studio strobes. But it will get you a $100 shoemount flash, a stand and umbrella that if used properly can give studio results.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I was going to buy my daughter (trained at the Seattle Art Institute) a cheap lighting setup* and I can assure you that she seconds the idea that it is a waste of money. The good stuff, unfortunately, costs more.</p>

<p>All the Nikon people say that their flash systems are better than Canon's line. Who knows, on <em>this</em> one they could be right.</p>

<p>________<br /> *It seemed expensive enough to me, but what would I know since I shoot almost entirely with available light?</p>

[mike_earussi1]

<p>There is no easy way to achieve this pure white look naturally, i.e. using lighting alone. I've tried many ways and have always failed, it's just too difficult in a small space to have your lighting uniform enough to completely blow out the background. The best way is in Photoshop. Shoot on a white background of some sort (I use a white bedsheet), light it as best you can, and finish cleaning up the background in Photoshop.</p>

[george_ghio]

<p>Hmmm, $200?<br>

Yes it can be done. The question is can you do it? Halogen work lights, some drafting film, a roll of paper, a couple sheets of 1/4 in ply and setting custom WB. <br>

Sounds simple enough and it will work. Not pretty. Certainly won't look like a professional set up.<br>

But then if you have a Nikon hanging from your neck everybody will know that you are one of the great photographers of all time and won't even notice the lights. <br>

As I said, Can <em>you</em> do it? Are you a good enough photographer? Do you have the required understanding of light? Nikon's, like any other piece of equipment are only as good as the skills of the person using them. This may sound a bit rough, but on the one hand you are willing to buy a quite good camera and are willing to spend a pittance on lighting.<br>

A camera is a tool used to capture light. This being the case I feel that you may be putting the cart before the horse here. Yes, you can do the lighting for $200. I know this because I have done similar. <br>

But, if you want a studio that is reliable and easy to use, giving consistent results, get good lighting, even if you have to downgrade your camera choice for the time being. Good quality portraits will make you more money to buy a better camera faster than a Nikon and poor lighting will pay for better lights.<br>

And no, I have nothing against Nikon. Great camera, used one for years.</p>

[Jeff Lear]

<p>There are several (relatively) inexpensive strobe kits out there that will certainly do the trick to get you started. Westcott makes two decent entry-level kits, a 2-head 300ws ($349 <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Strobelite-300-watt-Light-Educational/dp/B00303PGIK">[link]</a>) and a 900 ws 3-head setup <a href="http://fjwestcott.com/product/photo-basics-photo-and-video-lighting-kits/strobelite-3-light-kit/">[link]</a> that can be found for around $700. Promaster, the epitome of cheap-o flashes makes a three light kit [<a href="http://www.promaster.com/products.asp?product=9170">link</a>] for around $350 and while it feels and looks cheap, I've used them and they're not bad at all, especially for someone just starting out. They have relatively fast recycle times, and simply work. The drawback to the Promaster units (besides their inherently cheap build quality and materials) is that they don't have an adapter ring to accept universal modifiers so you're stuck using their exclusive accessories unless you modify the strobe head.</p>