Author Topic: Projector as a backdrop? (Read 28022 times)

travismanley · « **on:** May 02, 2009, 11:26 »

Hey all,

I was struck by lighting the other day and had this crazy idea of using a projector as a backdrop so I could use my own images for quick and easy photography backdrops.

Obviously the light from a normal projector wouldnt be powerful enough, but couldnt you use your camera flash as the light source?

The idea seemed simple enough, but I havent had any luck. I have been playing around with just sticking slides in front of my flash but no luck. Im thinking i probably need some magnifying glass somewhere to make this work, but I cant even get the image from the slide projected on my wall.

Any ideas, thought?

I know this is a crazy idea, but it seems like it would be awesome if I could get it to work.

batman · « **Reply #1 on:** May 02, 2009, 11:36 »

As a kid I used to grab my dad's slide projector and his Twin Lens Reflex to photograph the projection on the wall. You can do that, if you use a slow shutter speed . The only thing is that the contrast is ghastly. Even for kid, I knew it was not ideal for projection. But in the 90's we did use equipment for such things. Same thing used by Malak ,that famed product photographers in the 90's . They are the same blue screen that are used in movies today , except they cost much less.
You could try getting them from the pro stores. I am sure some of these are selling in used AV stores .

travismanley · « **Reply #2 on:** May 02, 2009, 11:43 »

Quote from: batman on May 02, 2009, 11:36

As a kid I used to grab my dad's slide projector and his Twin Lens Reflex to photograph the projection on the wall. You can do that, if you use a slow shutter speed . The only thing is that the contrast is ghastly. Even for kid, I knew it was not ideal for projection. But in the 90's we did use equipment for such things. Same thing used by Malak ,that famed product photographers in the 90's . They are the same blue screen that are used in movies today , except they cost much less.
You could try getting them from the pro stores. I am sure some of these are selling in used AV stores .

Batman to the rescue lol.

I could see how a regular old projector would work for product shots with slow shutter speeds, but im thinking of portraits (guess I should have said that). I would need at least a shutter speed around 1/60, but 1/200 would be ideal.

who/what is Malak? What equipment are you talking about here so I can Google it.

Thanks

batman · « **Reply #3 on:** May 02, 2009, 12:29 »

Malak is the brother of the great Karsh. I think at that time when I met him he was the official flower photographer for Holland Tulip Fest,etc..
He was famous for food and flowers,while his brother rules on Portraits (Hemmingway, Trudeau, Queen, Audrey Hepburn, Churchill, etc) . They became Canada's most noted treasures from immigrant as they were as admired in Canada by students of photography and pros alike. Much like Ansel Adams have on the whole View Camera world.
You can do what you want with portraits, as Malak used background projections on all his product and nature photographs. None of the background you see in his works was actually there, but really shot in studio with the projection system and screen. Same like what you see in movies today Underworld, Fantastic 4,etc.. or for the older 80's tv folks.. the TV show, Arf !.
Check out the used Pro Equipment stores, I am sure if you're lucky you could get some equipment from photographers who quit their careers to retire,for example.
It's almost 30 years since these equipment have been put to use, even an older model would do just fine for you. Try googling perharps under Background Projection Equipment of something like that. The product I used was a brown box with projector lense similar to the ones we used for slides. And a silver mylar projection screen similar to slides but probably much better quality. Not too sure about the technical component of these things, I used to sell them and also use them for demos to pro photographers.
They were awesome, esp for me as a new teenage graduate photographer in a job like that. I got to play with everything, without spending a penny. But that's a long time ago, lol.

travismanley · « **Reply #4 on:** May 02, 2009, 12:46 »

Hey thanks for the tips.

The more I think about it I guess blue screen would probably work better, it just didnt occur to me for some reason.

I wonder if there are many stock photographers out there using blue screen?

batman · « **Reply #5 on:** May 02, 2009, 12:56 »

Quote from: travismanley on May 02, 2009, 12:46

Hey thanks for the tips.

The more I think about it I guess blue screen would probably work better, it just didnt occur to me for some reason.

I wonder if there are many stock photographers out there using blue screen?

Well, there are telltale signs, travismanley. Study the point source of light, shadow cast, difference between object shadow detail and background. You can spot it easily if you know what to look .
Unless you're a great movie producer who looks for every minute detail to correspond in the image, I am sure the average stock photographer won't have much time or need to match those details to the background. Or not the eye to notice the telltale signs to match background slide to the actual lighting in studio.

Perry · « **Reply #6 on:** May 02, 2009, 12:59 »

Quote from: travismanley on May 02, 2009, 11:26

Obviously the light from a normal projector wouldnt be powerful enough, but couldnt you use your camera flash as the light source?

The idea seemed simple enough, but I havent had any luck. I have been playing around with just sticking slides in front of my flash but no luck. Im thinking i probably need some magnifying glass somewhere to make this work, but I cant even get the image from the slide projected on my wall.

I have been thinking about something similiar. But instead of a magnifying glass I would try to find an old/broken slide projector or enlarger to use it's lenses. The biggest problem could be aiming and focusing the thing without any light, that's of course not so big problem with digital camera when you can see the results immediately and make the needed corrections.

Here is how a projector works

Perry · « **Reply #7 on:** May 02, 2009, 13:00 »

travismanley · « **Reply #8 on:** May 02, 2009, 13:05 »

Quote from: batman on May 02, 2009, 12:56

Quote from: travismanley on May 02, 2009, 12:46
Hey thanks for the tips.

The more I think about it I guess blue screen would probably work better, it just didnt occur to me for some reason.

I wonder if there are many stock photographers out there using blue screen?

Well, there are telltale signs, travismanley. Study the point source of light, shadow cast, difference between object shadow detail and background. You can spot it easily if you know what to look .
Unless you're a great movie producer who looks for every minute detail to correspond in the image, I am sure the average stock photographer won't have much time or need to match those details to the background. Or not the eye to notice the telltale signs to match background slide to the actual lighting in studio.

I didnt think about the contradicting light source problem either. I bet there are probably ways of avoiding that, but to the trained eye (like you said) it would probably be obvious.

Still something to look into.

batman · « **Reply #9 on:** May 02, 2009, 13:11 »

travis, i wouldn't worry for micro stock. but if you're going to shoot a movie , perharps you would be more concerned, or else your fellow directors are going to laugh . but micro, i wouldn't worry. so long as you keep to their protocol of noise free, fringe free, etc... i am sure not too many reviewers are going to say, "ha! you're shadows are inconsistent !" except maybe Atilla the great who would reject it as a snapshot!

gotta go now, my bat mobile-phone is ringing. have fun with your background projection unit ! nice talking to you. you brought back lots of nostalgic good photographic memories for me !

stockastic · « **Reply #10 on:** May 02, 2009, 13:14 »

Interesting idea. Maybe rear projection onto a translucent screen would work better - then you wouldn't have the slide projector in your way, in front where the subject is, and its light would only hit the background. You'd need some flash on the foreground subject I think.

travismanley · « **Reply #11 on:** May 02, 2009, 13:16 »

A little OT, but who is this Atilla I keep hearing about?

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #12 on:** May 02, 2009, 13:36 »

I used to use a projector to get a sky background when I used to shoot architectural models. Because it was all film, the work was very fiddly. It turned out okay although I never really liked the outcome that much. This with a good medium format projector which was way brighter than a 35mm unit. The lighting has to balance. Plus you have to project from an angle which will give some weird focus issues. There is a reason why isolation have become so popular.

travismanley · « **Reply #13 on:** May 02, 2009, 13:41 »

Quote from: Zeus on May 02, 2009, 13:36

I used to use a projector to get a sky background when I used to shoot architectural models. Because it was all film, the work was very fiddly. It turned out okay although I never really liked the outcome that much. This with a good medium format projector which was way brighter than a 35mm unit. The lighting has to balance. Plus you have to project from an angle which will give some weird focus issues. There is a reason why isolation have become so popular.

Ya, this is why im thinking maybe blue screen might be a good idea. If I could get the lighting right for a non-photoshop isolation that would work too. I was just hoping for something that wasnt going to break the bank.

stacey_newman · « **Reply #14 on:** May 02, 2009, 13:50 »

there is a contributor on iStock who does this very well - gremlin. it is a cool idea, I'd like to try it also. though I think it lends a very artsy look to the image. I wouldn't use it much for stock.

travismanley · « **Reply #15 on:** May 02, 2009, 13:53 »

Quote from: stacey_newman on May 02, 2009, 13:50

there is a contributor on iStock who does this very well - gremlin. it is a cool idea, I'd like to try it also. though I think it lends a very artsy look to the image. I wouldn't use it much for stock.

I was actually thinking of using it more for non-stock portraits, but if it worked out well maybe seeing if I could it for stock too.

Man those blue/green screens are expensive and all the reviews on them are horrible.

click_click · « **Reply #16 on:** May 02, 2009, 13:58 »

I think you are pretty much talking about this: http://www.virtualbackgrounds.net/home.html

Has been done many years. Doesn't look real.

Some people like the post-cardy style...

travismanley · « **Reply #17 on:** May 02, 2009, 14:08 »

Quote from: click_click on May 02, 2009, 13:58

I think you are pretty much talking about this: http://www.virtualbackgrounds.net/home.html

Has been done many years. Doesn't look real.

Some people like the post-cardy style...

Yup, that is pretty much what I had in mind. Those look really big and expensive. Not really what I was hoping for...oh well.

travismanley · « **Reply #18 on:** May 02, 2009, 14:12 »

Here is one of Gremlin's shots that looks like he was using a projector

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-9186638-leaf-girl.php

Hope he doesnt mind me posting this.

I wonder how he is doing this?

stacey_newman · « **Reply #19 on:** May 02, 2009, 14:22 »

yes, that is one of the series I was thinking of. I love his work, though again, not what I would shoot for stock. and until Vogue comes knocking at my door to shoot for them, I can't justify the expense of artsy shoots like that.

batman · « **Reply #20 on:** May 02, 2009, 14:39 »

Quote from: click_click on May 02, 2009, 13:58

I think you are pretty much talking about this: http://www.virtualbackgrounds.net/home.html

Has been done many years. Doesn't look real.

Some people like the post-cardy style...

it all depends on your slide. just as you have to take into consideration when you're submitting for newspaper, you don't submit a B&W that is perfect Zone VI tehcnique you learn with Ansel Adams seminars, you submit a lower contrast as you know the end product on newprints will increase the contrast, you also shoot the background projection slide and process them in a different way as you would for slide presentation. This way your background will not look postcardy, it looks natural.
As I said, Malak was a master for that, and he didn't do this just fudging through.
The bad reviews and bad results are the same thing as every technical issues, they did not understand the process . As always "a bad workman blames his tools".

batman · « **Reply #21 on:** May 02, 2009, 14:48 »

Quote from: Zeus on May 02, 2009, 13:36

I used to use a projector to get a sky background when I used to shoot architectural models. Because it was all film, the work was very fiddly. It turned out okay although I never really liked the outcome that much. This with a good medium format projector which was way brighter than a 35mm unit. The lighting has to balance. Plus you have to project from an angle which will give some weird focus issues. There is a reason why isolation have become so popular.

Yes, remember in those days, we did not have PS to save us. Everything was done on film and we had to retouch either on film or end product. Takes hours. And there is not room for error which cost more money. I think we only started talking layers when Amiga came out with Photo Deluxe and it was a crude version of PS today.
But Zeus, you are right, if I was doing it today, I would n't bother with background projection. I'd do it with PS and use layers. 15 -20 minutes, instead of going through all those hassles to process the slides,etc... Cost too much today. We did it because there was no simpler and cheaper way.
PS changed all that.

travismanley · « **Reply #22 on:** May 02, 2009, 14:49 »

im not sure why im having a hard time getting this to work. If you stick a gel in front of your light it projects the color onto your subject, why wouldnt this work with a slide? Maybe I should try some different slides.

Im using my canon 430ex with a custom gel holder I made and a sketch on some clear plastic I put in the gel holder. (the sketch is just for testing, ideally I would print an image on a transparency and use that)

Magnum · « **Reply #23 on:** May 02, 2009, 14:50 »

Quote from: travismanley on May 02, 2009, 14:12

Here is one of Gremlin's shots that looks like he was using a projector

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-9186638-leaf-girl.php

Hope he doesnt mind me posting this.

I wonder how he is doing this?

Have you tried a good ol "double-exposure" ?

travismanley · « **Reply #24 on:** May 02, 2009, 14:55 »

Quote from: Magnum on May 02, 2009, 14:50

Quote from: travismanley on May 02, 2009, 14:12
Here is one of Gremlin's shots that looks like he was using a projector

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-9186638-leaf-girl.php

Hope he doesnt mind me posting this.

I wonder how he is doing this?

Have you tried a good ol "double-exposure" ?

That would work, but for what I want to do I would have to mask the model out and if im doing that i might as well just isolated in PS.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Projector as a backdrop? (Read 28022 times)

travismanley

batman

travismanley

batman

travismanley

batman

Perry

Perry

travismanley

batman

stockastic

travismanley

PeterChigmaroff

travismanley

stacey_newman

travismanley

click_click

travismanley

travismanley

stacey_newman

batman

batman

travismanley

Magnum

travismanley

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors