Related Local Links:
Backups in Photography
Professional Insurance for Photographers
Turning Semiprofessional in Photography
Related Links:
Environmental Portraits [11/2000]
Lightwave's Stock Photo FAQ (Paul Light) [8/2001]
Low Budget Umbrella Flash [12/2000]
New ballhead (pricey, light)
Photonet on Lighting threads [2/2001]
Sound blimps (cut noise..)
Studio Lights - Do It Yourself [11/2002]
Studio Photography Primer - Phil Greenspun
Amateur Studio Users Mailing List:
http://www.onelist.com/group/ukamateurusephotostudio
Hi Ellis,
1st, thanks for the reply! And a most comprehensive one at that.
You've put in some effort here and I appreciate it and I'm sure the
Program Cordinator will too.
With your permission I'd like to re-post your reply to the newsgroup
so that other folks who may be interested can benefit from your
knowledge. Okay?
> Subject: Re: DN - Re: New studio, what to buy? > > > hi Tim, > Since this is going to be a public studio: > Strobes: Speedotron (because of cost + reliability + ease of service factors > (they are made in Chicago)), 5 2400 w/s packs, 6 to 8 standard > headsheads, 4 x 7" umbrella/grid reflectors, 4 x 10" reflectors. > Light modifiers: Chimera lightbanks + rotating speedrings, 3 extra > large + 3 medium (My personal choice are Plume Wafers, but they are more > expensive. > Whatever you do stay away from Photoflex, IMHO not durable enough for a > rental facility.) Photex Goodlighter umbrellas. 2-3 sets of 7" grids > (anybody's) Radio remotes, 2 sets: I like the Pocket Wizards but the Quantum > Radio Slave IVi is good too, if you get the R/S make sure they are on the > same band (A,B,C,D) so that when one piece breaks down you have a compatible > spare breaks. > Back drops: How high are your ceilings? a rope and pulley system > is the most cost effective way to have a backdrop. > > A 4 ft. to 6 ft. wide heavy plexi sweep table on wheels. This you > can make from that heavy duty Safety Lock scaffolding construction crews > use. Actually enough of that scaffolding to build a shooter's platform is a > good idea too. > A cove or a sweep along one wall/floor junction. This can be bought as a > system or built by a plasterer/carpenter who really understands what you > want. > > The Calumet or Foba ceiling track and pantograph system to mount > your light fixtures on. This reduces the acrage taken by stands and cords, and > should also help reduce liability because there will be fewer things to trip over. > > > Stands: Matthews or Bogen Avenger C-Stands and arms, 8 to 10. > Also various Matthews silks, scrims, flags, and fingers. > > Bogen Magic Arms: start with four. Also several Bogen/Avenger SuperClamps > > You want to make photographer's really happy? A 10ft. Foba ASABA camera > stand and a gitzo G1570 tripod head. Accept no substitutes. Yes this is > expensive, but it will still be in use 20 years from now. > > A really good coffee maker. a 4ft Acculite light table. > probably the best place to start getting bids on this gear is Calumet > (1.800.CAL.UMET) > > I have no connection to any of the companies or brands mentioned > above, nor am I the editor of a magazine that accepts or solicits > advertising from any photographic equipment supplier. > Best of luck! > Ellis Vener > Ellis Vener Photography > Houston, Texas >
From: timbreen@tc.umn.edu (Tim Breen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: New studio, what to buy?
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998
The following is an off-line dialog between Chip Kozy and Tim Breen,
reposted by Tim w/Chip's permission.
Chip Kozy = (CK) Tim Breen = (TB) (CK) > > Some people have all the luck! > > > > OK. First lights. Strobes would be a requirement although a set of > > floods would be nice for those that like them. The strobes should be able > > to be used stand alone so you might consider monolights (more power per > > light, flexability in placement...not being tied to a power pack and > > generally more bang for the buck). The ability to be banked together is > > really cool. I'd say four lights at ~ 1200 W/S each should give you more > > than enough. (Funny, but White Lightnings seem to fit this > > bill...regardless of the fact that I own three of them and love them > > dearly.) (TB) > I've heard good things about White Lightnings, but for the sake of > completeness can you recommend another brand, so my pal can get a > competitive bid? > > Also, what do you recommend for floods? Do you think snoots, etc. should be > bought for both? Or does someone make a cross-over/universal mounting? As > you can see, I'm pretty much over my head here. > (CK) > > Since I first used W/L I was hooked and pretty much forgot about all the > > rest but I believe Bowen still makes a monolight and BalCar makes another > > although the BalCar are going to be a bit more expensive. (BTW the URL I > > gave you is the old one. It's now www.white-lightning.com/zmain.html) The > > W/L's come standard with a 7"reflector and have a 12" option which would > > probably fit most floods. > > Just check the reflector size and mix and match. > > (A friend of mine lends me some of his stuff...snoots, barn-doors, > > honeycombs...which, by the way, are all good things to have around for > > cheap...and he uses both flash and flood [He uses Smith-Victor floods.] > > with 12" reflectors which fit mine just fine.) (CK) > > Where you have lights you must have stands. Get the ones with a > > wide spread for stablity and add wheels for mobility. > > (TB) > Any particular brand(s) you like? > (CK) > > I really like and trust Photoflex for all the extra studio stuff. The stands > > are wide based and their other stuff seems to be well made and pretty > > rugged. They're at www.photoflex.com for your shopping pleasure. (CK) > > Unbrellas are cheap > > and some people like the effect so a couple of white bounce and maybe a > > couple of shoot-throughs would be fine...can also be used with floods. > > (TB) > And they pack away and take up next to zero space when not in use. > (CK) > > A good, sturdy tripod for the camera helps. > > (TB) > They have several but I think they're video-oriented. I personally own > Manfroto/Bogen but nothing of "studio" quality so I can't recommend them > myself. I know the Gitzo's can get *real* expensive... can you recommend a > middle ground? How about the heads? Do studio shooters like 3-way pan and > tilt or pistol grips or what? > (CK) > > As for tripods, everyone that I've talked to pretty much stay away from the > > ball > > heads simply because when you want to adjust one plane (say the > > X plane) you also have to loosen the Y plane making things a bit more > > difficult to manage. The guys I've talked to (with permanent studios...I do > > location stuff so my needs are slightly different) prefer the three lock > > system although this is very subjective. Some people may not like the > > three lock thing, but it kind of makes things a bit easier especially for > > fine adjustments. > > (BTW on the tripod thing, I'd get something that can hold up to a 5X7 view > > camera. It's overkill for a 35mm but if this is an open studio you should > > be ready for whatever comes your way. The 8X10 people typically use their > > own tripods.) (CK) > > Soft boxes are a big plus, but > > don't go overboard with the really huge ones. Depending on the amount of > > room you have to work in some of those things can just take over the whole > > space. Stick with the smaller ones unless you have enough space to do > > cars and such. If that's the case, go for it! (Get the ones with an > > internal baffle that can be removed. Makes the box more versatile.) > > (TB) > Yes, I think _some_ sort of soft box(es) are a must. As to the space, if > memory serves me, the room is about 20-25 foot square with a 12-15 foot > ceiling. Do you think a boom (for the softbox, for overhead product shots) > is affordable? From where? > (CK) > > Not having permanent set-up I've never used a boom or a ceiling mount, > > however every studio I've seen so far has had either booms or ceiling > > tracks. Very few have both. I kind of like the ceiling set-up since > > it gives you more room to move around on the floor without running into > > things. (CK) > > Backdrops: you can pay through the nose for "profesional" backdrops or > > you can make your own out of large sheets of muslin and various dyes (I > > picked up a piece of muslin that measured 12' by 25' and paid a whopping > > $35.00 for it. I dyed it "black" (which, being careful, turns out just > > about 18% gray), and keep it smooshed in a Safeway grocery bag...keeps the > > thing interesting with all the creases and crumples so you won't need the > > "roll-em-up" setup that runs to quite a bit of money. Just dye 8 or 10 > > pieces of muslin (size depends on working area) different colors...or even > > do a tie-dye thing...and keep them in a closet. > > (TB) > Good idea! As they have an Arts 'n Crafts orientation it's likely someone on > staff would have some experience with fabrics and dyes. > (CK) > > Now if you're going to splurge, get some ceiling mounts and tracks for > > your lights. W/L has a "remote" that will set all your lights from a > > single hand held pad which comes in real handy when your lights are up > > there on the ceiling. > > (TB) > They have some type of track lights, on a dimmer, already hooked up, but I > don't have a clue as to the wattage or the color temp. of the lamps. I like > the idea of the hand held remote. Perhaps its possible to combine the two... > (CK) > > I'd check out what they've got up there on the ceiling very carefully. > > You may be able to use what's there but your concern about light > > temperature is well grounded. (CK) > > Props are kind of subjective. You can keep it > > simple and just get modelling blocks or you can get carried away and bring > > in live horses. ;-) Props will kind of grow all by their lonesome. > > You'll get people in who will ask for a specific prop and then you can > > either buy one (and hope other people will use it) or not. Kind of > > depends on the photographers in the area. (What you can do is ask for > > input from people who might use the studio...camera clubs, pros with > > studios and those without, etc.) > > (CK) > > You might want a darkroom attached to the studio (wouldn't it be loverly?) > > if they let you, for those quick proofs. The sky's the limit...or > > whatever the budget is. > > (TB) > Yes, it _is_ loverly. They have two (small-ish but useful) labs right down > stairs. Too cool! I'm gonna be spending *lots* of time there (smile). > (CK) > > Hopefully this helps a bit. Take care and have fun! Let us all know how > > this turns out...we all have this urge to drool all over our keyboards. ;-) > > This whole area is highly subjective and maybe some of the discussion > > this will probably cause will be a learning experience for everybody. > > Have fun with this. It sounds like a blast! Take care and good luck! > > > > Sssssssssssssssee ya, > > > > Chip > > (TB) > Yes, I'll be sure to let you (all) know how the project it progressing. The > project cordinator has until October to spend this budget allotment and > after that, who knows? > > Tim[end]
From Medium Format Digest:
From: Brian C. Miller a-bcmill@exchange.microsoft.com
Subject: Response to Essentials to beginning a photography studio
Date: 1998-11-23
Backgrounds: Use blankets and dyed drop cloths. There are backgrounds (Photek) in the shops which go for about $175. They have a velour surface and are painted on the other side. Those are blankets! They sell for $20-$50 at retail stores. Color selections, while limited, are adequate. Muslin drop cloths go for $15. Try an arcrylic paint on the blankets, and spot dye the drop cloths. Have fun being creative with the patterns. Hang them up with a curtain rod.
Flashes: I have found that my Vivitar 285 is OK for 9ft (stand to subject) at ISO 400 with an umbrella. The 285 is my only flash at the moment, and the next one will most likely be a Metz. Since your question was posted in MFD, I will presume that you are using a MF rig of some sort, so you'll be fine in this regard. The larger format will offset the grain of the faster film.
(If you don't have a MF camera, buy something and become familiar with it. Maybe start out with two Yashicas. If you can afford it, and its accessories, that's the one for you. Just buy the most recent model of whatever it is that you can afford, and use it. Nobody can tell the difference between camera models based on the prints you produce. Whenever I cropped my Pentax 6x7 prints square, everybody thought I had a Hasselblad.)
Umbrellas: I bought a 50-in. Photek umbrella for $60. The black fabric is removeable, and it comes with a white cover to additionally soften the flash. A stand cost $60, and swivel cost $20.
Reflectors: Car winshield reflectors come in silver and gold. Cover thick cardboard with aluminum foil and transparent white plastic for diffusion. Use foil-covered packing bubbles (it's sold as insulation at hardware stores) for portable, roll-up reflectors.
Flash accessories: A Lumiquest snoot cost $20, and Lumiquest ProMax system was $40 or so. Vivitar AC adapter was maybe $25. You can make the bounces and diffusers from cardboard, aluminum foil, and milk jugs if you like.
Posing stool: Wooden crate. Wooden stool. An old office stool. An adjustable chair without the back.
Props: Wood freight pallette. (Some places put out signs begging people to take these away.) Second-hand knick-knacks. Bottles. Book case with used books. Balls, balloons, cubes, newspaper, whatever strikes your fancy.
So there you go. Besides camera equipment, you will probably spend
about $500 initially on flashes/umbrellas/stands/backgrounds if you
buy it all new. Much less bought used or built yourself.
.....
From Medium Format Digest:
From: Craig Shearman craig.shearman@mail.house.gov
Subject: Response to Essentials to beginning a photography studio
Date: 1998-11-19
You need the following:
-- Two camera bodies with wide, normal and telephoto lens. (50, 80,, 150 mm in MF), plus at least two backs if shooting MF. --Tripod --Set of studio strobes, either monolights or packs and heads. At least two, preferably four, with stands, umbrellas or soft boxes, snoots, grids, barn doors, etc. --Backdrops -- either seamless, muslin or painted canvas, and support system --Flash meter --Stool for subjects to sit on, possibly other props, especially for kids --Film --Talent
Craig Shearman
www.bcity.com/redcaboosevideo/
From Medium Format Digest:
From: Marc Turner MTurner@TCMail.frco.com
Subject: Response to Essentials to beginning a photography studio
Date: 1998-11-19
Darlene,
One of the main decisions in setting up a studio is the lighting system.
When I started my home-based studio, I invested a lot of money in a Norman
2400 Watt-second power pack with four heads and lots of grids, barndoors,
softboxes, etc. This system is very nice and gives me a lot of
flexibility, but it was pretty expensive and has a number of drawbacks:
the main ones being that it takes a lot of space, is difficult to
transport, and requires an outlet to plug into (and not just any outlet
either - I've blown circuit breakers a number of times at various wedding
sites which can be a little embarrassing).
What I've found is that many of the portraits you will probably end up
doing will be clients who want the picture taken either at their home or
at an outdoor location. I've acquired two portable (battery-operated)
strobes which I find myself using more than the Norman outfit, and they
were a lot less expensive. I use them in the studio (they are handy
because of their size, weight, and I don't have to run cords to them),
outdoors (on lightweight stands which also support the power packs), and
on-camera (with an over-camera bracket and using a shoulder-strap for the
power pack). They have considerably more power than standard on-camera
flashes. For the price of my Norman outfit I could buy six of these
portable systems. And the thing is, even if you choose to get a
power-pack system, you will still probably need a portable system such as
this for environmental portraiture. That's why I would recommend starting
out with a portable one. What are the disadvantages? Well, mine have
modeling lights but they are not as bright as the Norman power-pack lights
and the battery can only run them for 30 minutes or so on a charge (they
don't have to be on). If I wanted them on longer, I'd have to buy an
adapter that lets you use the pack with a car battery (for studio use).
I guess I haven't mentioned which portable system I chose yet. I've got two Lumedyne 400WS packs. One I use with a standard Lumedyne head, the other I have a Quantum X2 flash unit which can run off the Lumedyne power packs and provides AUTO flash capability for those times you are shooting with the flash on-camera and don't have time to run around metering your flash (like wedding candids). I plan to add a power booster to get one of the flashes up to 800WS for the times you need a bit more power.
I haven't talked myself into selling the Norman outfit, because it does have its place. But I would recommend starting out with a portable flash system, maybe a softbox or two to go with them, and some reflectors/gobos for your first lighting equipment. That would give you a lot of flexibility to start out with, either out at the lake or in your client's home. And you won't spend hours breaking your back lugging heavy packs around.
P.S. Don't waste too much money buying backgrounds to start out with either. A couple of nice painted backgrounds can be good but people really seem to like environmental portraiture - maybe because it's not as easy to get at most "portrait outlets". A plain white paper background is handy too.
-- Marc Turner
From Medium Format Digest:
From: T.K. Liechty tri-x@worldnet.att.net
Subject: Response to Essentials to beginning a photography studio
Date: 1998-11-22
Darlene,
OK. I am a $2 man in a $5 world. Because of this I am also a MacGiver kind of guy. The following is how I built my studio. First I read everything I could find and filtered the most essential from it.
I aquired three flash units, no not studio but what you slide on to your camera. It's important to get the kind that have AC adapters. I shopped Pawn shops, second hand stores, swap meets and yard sales to aquire these units. I bought two of those little peanut slave units at under $5 each.
I bought two umberellas from a clearence store for $3 each and took them apart for patterns and got white sheets a sewed them together for white umbrellas (better if you can find white ones to begin with, hard in my area). I then did the same with black sheets to use as a removeable back for the umbrellas.
I had some aluminum tubing, inch and a half diameter, and I conected them to old office chair bottoms with the wheels for my stands.
I bought a second hand Wien WP1000 flash meter for $60 and a Yashica mat TLR for $35 at a swap meet. At the same meet I found a monopod that has fold out legs for my background light.
With this set up I have been able to learn much about lighting and I can do some pretty impressive photos. Most of all I am having fun and no serious out lay for equiptment. Little by little I can upgrade and get better equiptment to make the job easier.
So you can listen to everyone and still not know or you can jump in with both feet and have fun and learn something.
From: orrin@bad-address.com (ORRIN)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Where can I find Pressure Sensitive Mounting Sheets?
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999
"Rick Davis" vrdavis@roanoke.infi.net wrote:
>I've read that as an alternative to dry mounting photographs, pressure >sensitive mounting sheets can be used. Problem is, I can't find a >manufacturer from which I could order. Two names have come up, Scotch and >Falcon but I don't know how to make the connection, if there is one. Any >suggestions?
I have used pressure sensitive sheets for some time and the only one
that seems to hold over the long term is a product called
"GallerieMount" made by Visual Pursuits, Inc. in Chicago. It's in the
Porters catalog and at various times I have seen it on the shelf at
B&H.; The others seem to come 'un-glued' over a persiod of time.
Orrin - Long Island, New York
Orrin's Caribbean Index - http://www.orrin.org/carib/
rec.photo.technique.people
From: Woodnu@liketa.no (Raskolnikov)
[1] Re: Lighting on a low budget
Date: Sun Mar 21 1999
White walls, white ceiling, 2 283s and a half-fried(full power only) 444
slaved and bounced off every available surface, triggered by an on-camera
322 set
manually about two stops low. But you need a flashmeter - thyristors get
confused in multi-flash setups. alkalines are too expensive - I use 6v
sealed lead alarm batteries, found at Home Depot for $9.95. The 283s are
great -
you can shoot 'em til they smoke (about 8 consecutive
soon-as-the-light-comes-on full power shots with the big batteries
recharging them in 3 seconds) and a couple minutes later they're ready to
go again. I've even run the silly things off a 12v car battery - they
don't sound happy, but they work.
I work out lighting setups on myself (with self-timer) on 12-shot rolls,
and then just follow my notes with real subjects. Pro?? no, but the
results can look pretty good.
Total cost: Used 283s $45 each Used 444 $40 Used 322 with broken battery door $10 Used 292 with dead dedicated battery $10 Minolta Autometer IIIF $150 Electrical tape $.99 a roll = $4.95 Slave $20 Two wobbly tripods masquerading as light stands: $10 each
Only warning: some 283s have a high sync voltage, and other flashes
may not appreciate being on the same sync circuit with them - that's
how my 444 ended up being full-power-only.
[Ed. note: nice use for that dust gathering slide projector - snoot use! ;-)]
rec.photo.technique.misc
From: merriweatherroyceworthingtonjonesiv@utterlyintrepiddreadnaught.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc,rec.photo.advanced
[1] Re: Clean cut snoot ray
Date: Sun May 02 1999
The front half of an old slide projector will do the trick. Replace
the old hot lamp with a jury-rigged attachment to your flash.
Make template "cookies" for whatever shape lighting you wish, and
slide them into the old "slide" window.
Depending on your hacking skills and the projector you start with,
this project can be way easy or way impossible.
> Hello, > > I'm trying to get a clean cut circle (or elliptic shape) of light out >of my snoots. I have tried with honeycomb grids, it gave a better >result, but I'm still far from the focalized ray I'd like. > >I also have tried to extend the tube of the snoots with dark cardboard, >still, the ray is kind of doubled (bright center and less bright >outskirts, even with a diffuser). A ray that has soft edges would do, >but the double circles are not acceptable. > >Here is the order in wich I placed the the things: flash, diffuser, >honeygrid, snoot, cardboard extension. > >I know that a Leiko would do the trick, but these are kind of >expensive... > >I'm using Photogenic's 600w/s studio flashes. > >Any ideas? > >Thanx > >Maxime Gelinas
[Ed. note: for tripod adapter screw mounts...]
From: "W Scott Elliot" selliot@direct.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 1/4 to 3/8?
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999
The Manfrotto catalogue lists several adaptors:
088LBP Small Adaptor coverts 1/4" screw to 3/8"
120 Tripod Adaptor converts 3/8" screw to 1/4"
In the USA, Bogen probably changes the model numbers as they do with the
tripods.
Hope this is of some assistance
Scott
allgoo19 wrote
>Has anyone had experience converting 1/4" bottom thread of tripod head to >3/8" thread? My local machine shop said it'll cost $65.- to have it done. >Of course they are not specialized in that work, so it'll take some >adjustment to their macine setting makes it more costly, I think. I would >guess this is a pretty common needs for many photographer. So, It must be >someone, somewhere familiar with this kind of work. If anybody has >information, let me now.
From: "jsinger" jsinger1@email.com
Subject: Re: 1/4 to 3/8?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999
The bushings cost about $5 from Really Right Stuff.
From: dwa652@aol.com (DWA652)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Which Bogen Head?
Date: 26 May 1999
>Steve wrote in message ... >>I am looking to buy a Bogen 3221W tripod but am having difficulty deciding >>on a Bogen head. There are three heads I am interested in. The 3030, 3047 > >3030: somewhat tedious to adjust, but you can get it into any angle > eventually. Good qr plate, available for about $10. The newer > ones have a cool latch which allows simply snapping the > qr plate back into place. >3047: sort of a deluxe 3030, but the qr plate will dig into your gut > when your camera is hanging from your neck. hex qr plate > about $20. >3160: same qr plate as 3030, nice, smooth movement on two axes, > but you cannot go to portrait mode. Lacks the 3030's cool > snap-back latch. > >You might conclude: I'm not totally satisfied with any of these.
A pretty accurate post. I use the 3030 with a 3021, and am pretty satisfied.
I put a QR on all my lenses and bodies, so that it is easy to switch.
The only exception is my heavy Fuji GX-680 medium format camera, for
which I use with a 3036 and a 3047 head.
God Bless,
Don Allen
http://www.DonAllen.net
From: Tony Clark tcphoto@earthlink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Which Bogen Head?
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999
Canon makes a great ballhead and it sells for about $60.
I've had mine for about 5 years and am very happy with it.
Good luck,
TC
From: boydjw@traveller.com
Subject: Re: Bogen 3038 ball head
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999
I've found the 3038 to be functional, but not much fun to use. It should
be ok with an F5 and 80-200 lens, but it's really a questionable ballhead
for 35mm work. Be warned, don't try a good ballhead after you've bought
the 3038. The rest of the time you own the 3038 you'll be cursing it, and
yourself, and trying figure out where to get the extra money to buy a good
ballhead.
The 3038 is ok up to short telephoto lenses, but becomes a pain with
longer telephoto lenses. The ball has a sticky motion and a tendency to
shift a few degrees after setting the tension. The sticky motion problem
goes away with heavy equipment. Unfortunately, in the 35mm format heavy
equipment accentuates the other problem. When you compose and then "lock"
the ball to shoot, the ball will shift. With 400mm or longer lenses, the
shift grates on your nerves. With practice you can predict the shift. I
got tired of the shift before I became practiced and bought a Studioball
head.
I think the 3038 would work much better with large format equipment. With
this format wide to short telephotos are the only options so the shift
isn't noticeable. The weight of a large format camera obviates the sticky
motion problem, and if you're strong enough to carry the camera and tripod
the 4 lbs. weight of the head won't bother you.
The 3038 is a classic example of "you get what you pay for." The only
reason to recommend a 3038 over better ballheads, such as an Arca-Swiss,
Kirk, or Studioball, is budgetary. Unfortunately, anybody who has saved
$150 on the 3038 within months will spend $200 or more on the difference
between what they sell the 3038 for and have to spend on a good ballhead.
Save yourself the trouble, practice self-control by saving up the extra
money, and buy a good head. You'll keep it for years, vs. months.
HTH,
Joe Boyd
boydjw@traveller.com
From: Keith Clark ClarkPhotography@spiritone.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Which Bogen Head?
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999
Steve wrote:
> I am looking to buy a Bogen 3221W tripod but am having difficulty deciding > on a Bogen head. There are three heads I am interested in. The 3030, 3047 > and the new 3410. As a nature, close -up and landscape photographer I > would need something that is somewhat easy to carry and stable. > > Any suggestions? > > Thank you
The 3047 is a great head, but it's place is in the studio or for use with
large format view cameras for architectural shots. If you want a 3047 head
I'll send you one for $10 and the cost of shipping... Hasn't been used
in 10
years. You really don't want a 3047 head for field use though. Trust me.
A ball head will suit you better. I like Bogen's big ball head, the 3038.
It's very fast and easy to use, although some people hate it because they
expect it to perform like an Arca Swiss.
If you have $300 or more to spend on the best head around, by all means
invest
in an Arca Swiss head or a Linhof Profi II head with a quick release plate.
Oh, don't waste money on fancy anti-twist plates!
If you get a Bogen head and QR plate, immediately remove the cheap cork
material that Bogen puts on the plates and trash it. Then go to your local
auto parts house and buy a $2 sheet of gasket material - the kind made from
cork/neoprene - and cut & glue a piece to the Bogen QR plate. It will not
absorb oils from your hands like the cheap cork that Bogen uses does. That's
what causes the Bogen plates to lose their grip so badly.
Thanks to Dale at Camera Bag (Hillsboro, OR) for that suggestion...it works
great!
Cheers!
Keith
http://www.clarkphoto.com
From: eosman@aol.com (Eosman)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Bogen 3038 ball head
Date: 26 May 1999
>I am interested in purchasing this ball head. I am planning to use this >with my F5 and AFS 80-200mm f2.8D lens. I would like to hear from >people who uses this ball head with a similar camera and lens >combination. Thanks.
I had a 3038 ball head and ended up selling it. It is OK for studio work but
is just to bulky to carry anywhere else.
I bought the 3038 because I wanted a good quality ball head for my 35mm
equipment but I was not prepared to spend $600 to $700 for an Arca B1 plus
plates and such. The 3038 was well made and a good head for the price, it
just didn't really meet my needs.
I started looking for an alternative solution. I concede that the Arca B1
is probably the best, but I was still not ready to fork over that kind of
money. I narrowed it down to offerings from Stroboframe and Kaiser. I
chose the Kaiser 6011 at about $170 ( I had seen some good reviews, Galen
Rowell being one of them) and paired it with a Stroboframe QRC-300 quick
release (another $60 or so).
The folks at Really Right Stuff evaluated the Stroboframe QR system and
were impressed with the build quality. Their only concern was that it
broke (If I remember the test procedure right) when they put it in the
vertical position and attached an 80 pound load . My 35mm equipment
doesn't weigh 80 pounds and I don't typically subject my equipment to
those kinds of loads. Might be another story for a pro.
The Stroboframe QR screws on and I used a permanent thread locking material
(Locktite) to make the installation permanent. I then purchased several
Stroboframe antitwist adapters and base plates for 2 cameras and 1 long lens
(total cost, another $70).
So the whole system ran about $300 which was less than half of what a
comparable Arca B1/RRS setup would have cost. As a bonus, the Stroboframe
flash bracket that I use has an integrated plate that mates to the QRC-300.
Good luck with search for the perfect ball head for you.
From: "Paul" pschmitt@stny.lrun.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Bogen 3038 ball head
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999
I have had a Bogen 3038 for over three years and it is my mainstay. I
concentrate on nature photography. The 3038 price is a lot more reasonable
than the other popular ball heads. Smaller ballheads just don't keep the
camera fixed where I set it. I also have a heavy camera, in my case an F4,
and feel that you need something rigid to hold that camera.
I use the 3038 for close up macro work with extensions and find it has the
necessary rigidity. It is equally good with 300mm lenses. The quick change
hex plates allow me to switch between two camera bodies so I can use both
print and slide as appropriate. The only negative is that it is heavy. But
technically, there is no substitute for weight when you want a stable
arrangement.
I team up the ball head with a Bogen 3221 that is modified to allow the legs
to go fully horizontal. I have cut the center mounting post down to the
minimum so I can get down low for wildflowers and mushrooms. It also helps
to put some of the closed cell pipe insulation on the upper legs so that the
tripod is not digging into my shoulder when I carry it.
Hope this helps; good luck.
From: glosdl@email.uc.edu (David L. Glos)
Newsgroups:
rec.photo.equipment.misc,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Arca-swiss Monoball vs. Giottos?
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999
(Dave Thomsen) wrote:
>I paid about $100 USD for a heavy duty Giottos ball head. I understand >these are fairly new on the market. My local stores don't seem to have >the Arca-swiss so I don't have any way to look at or evaluate it. > >My only complaint about the Giottos is that it is a little "grainy", >the ball is slightly rough and thus not entirely smooth. > >Has anyone had the chance to play with both of these and can offer me >some comparisons? I understand the Arca is the "best:" and most >expensive. What specifically would make me want to spend the extra >money (4 times as much) on the Arca B1?
FOR THE PRICE the Giotto is very serviceable, although, not in the same
class as any Arca-Swiss product. Of course, for three times the price,
they shouldn't be in the same class! Go to your local auto parts store and
buy a small tube of nickle anti-seize. Very carefully, work a LITTLE (less
is better in this case) of this substance into your ball and socket
mechanism. That and initial break-in will significantly improve the
general feel of your ball head.
Regards,
David Glos
david.glos@uc.edu
From: "Jon Canfield" jcanfi@microsoft.com
Newsgroups:
rec.photo.equipment.misc,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Arca-swiss Monoball vs. Giottos?
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999
I bought the Giotto for similar reasons. I'm using a B1 now and the feel is
MUCH better. If you can't justify the 350 or 400 for the Arca, the Giotto is
the best compromise I've seen/tried but it just isn't in the same class as
the Arca. Especially with longer lenses, the Arca feels much more responsive
and positive on locking and panning.
Jon
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: Arca-swiss Monoball vs. Giottos?
From: jalbert@nyx.nyx.net (Joseph Albert)
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999
Jon Canfield jcanfi@microsoft.com wrote:
>I bought the Giotto for similar reasons. I'm using a B1 now and the feel is >MUCH better. If you can't justify the 350 or 400 for the Arca, the Giotto is >the best compromise I've seen/tried but it just isn't in the same class as >the Arca. Especially with longer lenses, the Arca feels much more responsive >and positive on locking and panning.
The Arca Swiss will hold a *much* heavier load without slipping, and
has a much smoother friction braking system for fluid movement when
loosened. I played around with a Giotto head and found the friction
control too grippy-- ie it either has too much slop or suddenly grips
too much as it is tightened, so that I found it difficult to adjust to
a desired level of resistance for a given weight load. That may just be
me, but in any case, I found the Giotto heads disagreeable to use.
There are two ball heads I like:
Arca Swiss B1/B1e
Bogen 3055
The Bogen is quite inexpensive, around $50-60 with quick release, but it
works quite well for loads up to about 8lbs. The Arca Swiss is in a
completely
different league from this Bogen head, and is the best ball head made, imho.
The reason I list these two is that every ball head I've seen at a price
point
in between these two either was so close in price to the Arca Swiss that
I'd say go with the Arca Swiss, or was significantly cheaper than the
Arca Swiss, but significantly less comfortable to use than the Bogen 3055.
Of course, I'm talking about my own preferences here, your mileage may vary.
JA
From the Bronica Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999
From: "Rainey, William" william.rainey@msfc.nasa.gov
Subject: RE: [BRONICA] Background
Karen,
If you don't mind spending a little time, you can actually make them
yourself with very little effort or expense. I've been making mine recently
with excellent success. There are two photographs near the bottom of
http://fly.hiwaay.net/~wrainey/shannonspage.htm which were done in front of
my first backdrop which is latex indoor paint over canvas. Just this weekend
I found another good material for backdrops called "blackout lining" (for
making draperies), and it is VERY opaque. It's already white on one side,
and could easily be painted flat black on the other using flat latex
interior paint. The fabric is similar to a fine weave canvas, and has been
"sealed" on one side with a rubbery kind of coating making it totally
opaque. The fabric side would easily accept latex paint and the sealed
side would remain white. It comes in widths up to 118", and if attached
to a 1.5"
diameter fir dowel rod (available at most good hardware stores like Home
Depot) with a staple gun, makes an excellent and easily portable backdrop!
A recent trip to a different fabric store yielded 5 yards of a crushed
velour for automotive interiors, and it is what I call "ice blue" in color.
I simply stapled it to one of those fir dowels and just started using it as
a backdrop for babies and small children this past week. I got my first
proofs back from the lab the other day using it, and it photographs VERY
well!
Hope this helps...
Bill
> -----Original Message----- > From: Tran, Karen [SMTP:Karen_Tran@URMC.Rochester.edu] > Sent: Monday, July 12, 1999 > To: 'bronica@iList.net' > Subject: [BRONICA] Background > > Does anyone know where to get an inexpensive portable background? Black > preferably, maybe white on the other side? I'd love some websites to > look > at if anyone knows of any good ones. > Karen > :-)
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999
From: classicphoto@bellsouth.net
Subject: Re: [BRONICA] Background
you wrote:
>Does anyone know where to get an inexpensive portable background? Black >preferably, maybe white on the other side? I'd love some websites to look >at if anyone knows of any good ones.
KEH had some new muslins for they were selling for about 60.00 a
few months ago. If you go to the portraits section on my web
page, you can see what they look like. This is a muslin that
sells for about 200.00 most places I've looked. I bought a
few different colors to supplement my canvas and paper
backgrounds. Couple that with a savage stand for about
89.00, and its a fairly cheap rig since the stand comes
in a carry bag.
Regards,
Tim
Classic Photography
http://www.classicphoto.net
From: thrainking@aol.com (ThRainKing)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Homemade backdrop (how to)
Date: 30 Jul 1999
>I whant to made my own canvas backdrop for studio session. >Did somebody know some good tip or advise about materiel I must use? Or >about technique of painting for some "cloudy" effect?
I've made all my favorite backdrops. I ususally use bed sheets too, since
there
is no seam down the middle. The possibilities are pretty endless. Some
pointers:
Stretch the fabric tight... make a 2x4 frame if you have to. I use big c
stands
to hold the frame up.
I use latex paints for ease of cleaning.
As for technique... it just takes practice, and the better your eye for
color & tone, the faster you'll get what you want. Look at old master
paintings to get an idea of color gradients & brush technique. You may
want to put a light, thinned coat of white down as a primer. Let it dry
and then re-stretch the (now
saggy) fabric.
Washing a few times after the paint is dry gives you a softer look.
I prefer a classic look, as I do mostly commercial product. Some of the more
"mass-market" shooters may like the piant-splatter look, which I imagine is
easy to do.
Dark "Portrait" backdrops... the ones that are maybe 4' x 6', for head &
shoulders shots... tend to have a "hot spot" where the tone gets lighter,
positioned to "halo" the head & upper torso of the subject.
Overall, IMO the best thing about painting your own is that it's extremely
relaxing to just paint away. After all, it doesn't have to *look* like
anything. So have fun.
From: zeitgeist greenky.wa@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: homemade backdrop (how to)
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999
there's been a couple threads lately on this,
use household acrylic matte paint, sponge it on, use gray
tones along with your theme color, splatter your highlights
with a dry brush whacked against a stick.
Use awning or sail cloth.
"Erick Sauv," wrote:
> I whant to made my own canvas backdrop for studio session. > Did somebody know some good tip or advise about materiel I must use? Or > about technique of painting for some "cloudy" effect? > > Thanks > > Er
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: ifga13@my-deja.com
[1] Re: Making a background for studio work.
Date: Sun Aug 22 1999
I make most of my own backgrounds. 10x20 to 20x30. Start with heavy
weight muslin from Rosebrand Threatrical supply in New York city.
About $6-$7 per running yard in 10' widths. Apply pigment with paint
or dye. Flat indoor latex house paint is fine, probably diluted with
water, alathough it depends what you want. Two kinds of dye: heat
reactive (like Rite dye at grocery stories) and chemically reactive,
using soda ash as as the activator.
Heat reactive can only make monochromatic shading. must soak dye in
hot water to set the colors, otherwise they will run. I use a clean
garbage can if I use this method. Hard to control tonal ranges.
Chemically reactive: Procion MX is very common (for your web search)
If you can't find, let me know. No need to do a heat process with this
method. Easier to control. "Rupert, Gibbon and Spider" is my
supplier. West coast, California or Washington I believe.
My two favorite tools are eye-dropper turkey baster and gardrn hose.
Spread the muslin out in the yard and go to work. Not good
for "repeatability". No two come out the same. I have several styles
by changing technique.
I can make a 20x30 for about $125 using three pieces of 10x20 sewn
together. Seams are invisible in use. I don't have a web site yet,
but I can send you some wallets of background in use with high school
seniors if you email me your address.
"Ewan Mackie" emackie@btinternet.com wrote:
> Hi all, > Can anyone give me any ideas as to the most successful ways of making a > background for home studio work ? > > Thanks in advance. > > Ewan Mackie > emackie@btinternet.com
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999
From: Terry Dawson tdawson@infinet.com
To: rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.art
Subject: Re: backdrops - how to make?
Elisa Libera elisa.libera@sympatico.ca wrote
> Hi everyone, > > I was wondering if anyone had any information on how to make your own > backdrops. I was searching though all the FAQs to no avail! I was > hoping to create a portrait backdrop with an "old-world-wall" kind of > feel i.e. distressed walls found in Europe.But before I get that far, I > suppose I need some information on basic backdrop contruction itself. > > I guess the standards out there are canvas & muslin, but what works well > & is affordable? What paint works well & is more durable? Is dyeing a > better option than paint? > > Thanks for any guidance. > > - e l i s a -
If you want it to hang fairly smooth, heavy canvas is great. Roll on a base
coat of predominant, fairly neutral color. Use any old latex and/or acrylic
paint you want. You can use it thick or watered down tints. Use muted,
natural tones. Daub it on with rags for a subtle, splashy look. There
aren't many rules, but the overall values should blend well and get lighter
in the center. Use warm, not cold, tones. I would make a high key one
(beige or eggshell) and a low key one (very dark brown to black). If you're
good with the rag and color coordinating, colored accents can be added.
Depending on how you hang 'em, they could be two sides of the same canvas.
I wouldn't go much smaller than 5 feet wide (10 ft. for groups). You need
some back-up room behind the sitter for lighting variations and selective
focus effects. Roll, not fold, for storage.
The best part is, if you don't like what you've done, you can just paint
over it. The built up texture will probably help the effect anyway.
Recap of "rules":
1. Neutral, warmish tones
2. Lighter in center
--
One Zen Zeros - A Digital Photography Resource
http://www.infinet.com/~tdawson/index.html
From: PaulsArt@xoommail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.art
Subject: Re: backdrops - how to make?
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 1999
Hi,
I've made a few backdrops, mostly from heavy cotton canvas, and I
didn't PAINT them, I DISTRESSED them. Soak in bleach for a few hours,
rinse with the hose, leave in the sun for a few weeks. Wash and dry,
DON'T fold but roll up on a tube (PVC or cardboard). Looks like an
old, sun-bleached adobe or worn-out stucco wall. Use different
pre-dyed canvas' for different effects.
My favorite part is they can be done REALLY cheap.
HTH
PaulsArt
....
From: zeitgeist greenky.wa@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.art
Subject: Re: backdrops - how to make?
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 1999
canvas can be had at awning supply or at the large hardware
barns. any house paint will work.
my advise is opposite the previous poster, remember, warm
tones advance, cool tones recede. I usually go for a blue,
blue gray, green gray background with gold, tan and brown
highlights. put on some gloves and use sponges to blot the
color on, I start with my midtone and light colors an cover
them with the overall color. Then I take a 'dry' brush with
some highlight color and whack it against a stire stick so
the splash hits areas for additional highlights.
oh, decide if the highlights go on top or below of the
darker clouds, it doesn't seem to matter which, but
consistancy does in the over all effect.
...
From: "Doug Welling" doug@pciconsulting.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace
Subject: Re: STUDIO RENTAL PRICES ?
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999
Studio space in Dallas ranges from $75-$150 per day for the space.
Something like yours I would expect to pay about $100 for the space for the
day - backdrops and props included (be sure to collect a deposit).
If you are going(willing) to let someone use your lighting setup you could
get up to $25-$30 per day (I am looking at rental fees from 2 places I rent
lighting and equipment from to see what they would charge for a similar
setup of monolights).
I have recently signed up in a studio rental arrangement whereby 3 of us are
sharing a studio space - my cost is $425/mo + 1/3 utilities. I have a
fairliy comprehensive lighting setup - mixture of studio hot lights,
Novatron strobes, Norman monolight system, Metz and Nikon speedlights for
portable location work, stands, booms, reflectors, etc. etc. etc.
I charge a modest fee for the others to use my lights, softboxes, light
panels, etc. This helps defray the cost of any repairs that come up - I
accept responsibility for the equipment, and puts a little money in the
kitty towards purchase of additional items. By having them pay for the
use of my equipment, I think that they take the use, care and handling of
same a little more seriously than if I were to just let them use it - they
are paying to use this out of their pocket and therefore need to get
effective use of their $$$ as opposed to taking for granted that the
equipment is just there.
Anyway - it sounds like you have a very nice setup, and have made an
investment in the additions to the studio and the ability to shoot
different scenes, moods, whatever. Put a value on that investment, charge
appropriately (not outrageously because you want the rental income), and
make sure that you have contingencies in place to cover breakdowns,
damage, accidents, liability (model trips over a column and falls
headfirst through your prize back drop breaking her arm because she can't
see in the blue and red gelled lighting setup boy wonder has put together
due to all of the fog in the studio), and plumbing backups from all the
tissues the novice makeup artist, brought along for the shoot because
she/he is dating the photographer, flushes down your toliet.
--
Cheers,
Doug
....
> I have a small studio in North Carolina that I have been asked to > rent out. I have considered it before, but never have. I'm trying to > figure out what I should charge for such a space. If you can help I'd > appreciate an E-MAIL. > The actual shooting space is about 20x25. There is a changing room > for models w/ lights and mirrors for hair & makeup. There are 6-8 > seamless backdrop colors and 8 canvas backdrops on a track system. 2 > are hotspots and the rest are mottled sort of. They are all 9x15 or > 12x18. There are 4 Photogenic monolights (3 PL750s 1 PL375R) and > various hotlights with barndoors, gels etc. There are various props for > glamour work and a product table w/ a black and a white surface. There > is even a fog machine! > Any help / advice / opinion or comments would be appreciated. Please > e-mail if possible. Thanks for your time and attention in this matter. > Sincerely, > Rob > The Photo Dept > Hickory, NC
From: mcminn@mail.idt.net (Logan McMinn)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Studio Lighting
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 199
I had the same problem. Very small studio space. I draped the entire room
in black fabric, across the ceiling and down to the floor on three sides.
Took a lot of cloth, but I found an inexpensive black material that let me
do the whole room for anbout $150.00. However, I became especially wary of
putting hot lights too close to the material and din't do anything with
open flames. Black paint may have been cheapeer to apply, but given the
time and effort to repaint a room with black walls and ceiling, I figured
the fabric was cheaper.
As for books, I can strongly recommend two
"Light: Science & Magic -- An Introduction to Photographic Lighting" by
Phil Hunter and Paul Fuqua, published by Focal Press. The Second edition
is the current one. This book goes heavily into principles of light and
how light works, rather than showing suggested setups for various
situations.
For studio Portraits, "The Portrait: Professional Techniques and Practices
in Portrait Photoraphy" by various contributors, Published by Eastman Kodak
Company
Two others, which take more of a "cookbook" approach, are:
"Secrets of Still Life Photography" bt Gary Perwiler, published by Amphoto
"Lighting Secrets for the Professional Photographer" by Alan Brown, Joe
Braun, and Tim Grondin, published by Writer's Digest bBooks.
I can recommend you buy the first two, but the other two you should
probably try to find in a library before you decide to spend the money.
....
From: remove.david@meiland.com (David Meiland)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace
Subject: Re: STUDIO RENTAL PRICES ?
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999
Great advice, Doug. About $100/day is right. I would not include
access to the small items unless you really want to watch like a hawk.
Maybe include three stands, three heads, and a pack. If they can get
at all of your Metz stuff and your small grip items, you will lose
some of that sooner or later. All those props and miscellaneous items
cost real money and you need them to work. Large rental houses assume
some loss and it's part of doing business. It's really easy for
photographers to grab your nice accessories and throw them in their
cases when packing up. The law of the universe dictates that they will
not accidentally leave you anything of theirs, except possibly plastic
film canisters, empty canned air, used kleenex, and cardboard tape
cores. I would only include the most basic items, and probably not
monolights, because they are easier to break than a pack that always
lives on the floor.
What about the phone? What if they suddenly decide to call Europe
during the shoot? You won't know that for 30 days.
....
From: Andy Watts andwat@caro.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Inexpensive Ballhead recommendation for novice N8008s user?
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999
The Slik Pro Ball head at around $80 is a good value. It's not as good as a
Kirk, Foba or Arca, but it costs much less. It controls all movements
with a
single handle; very convenient. It's really easier to control than the more
expensive ones. It may not last as long, but it will hold most any 35mm gear
steady.
andy
...
rec.photo.equipment.misc
Date: Tue Oct 26 1999
From: Lisa Horton Geek@GatorGames.Com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
[1] Re: Monolights on a budget!
I have the same problem. You can buy white ripstop nylon at fabric
stores. I make squares of it the same size as the front of my
softboxes. I then attach them to the softboxes with velcro or tape
(when I'm lazy). I get about 1/2 to 3/4 stop reduction in light with
each layer. It's crude, but it works.
Lisa
From: "William Hopkins" whopkins@netins.net
Newsgroups: aus.photo,rec.photo,rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.darkroom
Subject: Re: Home Made Studio lights - Web Site... ?????????????/
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999
This is what I did years ago. Get the clamp on sockets and reflectors at a
hardware store or lumber yard (Home depot ect) Then get the outdoor Spot or
Flood light bulbs - GE Halogen 100 watt or bigger - the halogen is better
light source not so yellow. and your in business.......Bill
Keith cherek@wantree.com.au wrote
> Does anyone know of any web sites for making ones own Studio > Lights?... I am seriously to poor to buy some and only need > them for personal odd jobs etc... nothing professional like > and I am only shooting monochrome Film anyway, so lighting > types is no problem!. > > Regards
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000
From: Lisa Horton Geek@GatorGames.Com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: homemade softbox - diffusion, hotspot, color
Not too long ago I posted instructions on how to make a style of
foamcore softboxes.
Standard thickness foamcore seems to work fine as far as strength, as
long as your seams are really strong. I use hot glue, making sure that
the hot glue contacts and partially melts the foam core of the
foamcore. Very strong and rigid. I use black fabric tape over the
seams to neaten them up and make them a little stronger, this after I
spray paint the outside of the box black.
The inner diffuser will soften the hotspot, but one thing I like about
my home-made boxes is that they have a nice hotspot and so it's easy to
"feather" the light. It would be somewhat difficult to do with a
foamcore box though, especially in a removable configuration. And the
inner diffuser with mounting system might be harder to make than the
whole rest of the softbox.
White or silver will both work. White will be softer, silver more
specular. I like the really cheap and crappy silver spray paint, as it
gives a satin silver finish, softly specular.
Making a box that allows the light to be reverse mounted inside the box
would be substantially more complicated than a straight shoot through
box, but would certainly be possible, if the constructor is clever and
motivated.
Removable silver and gold inserts might not be difficult at all, just
some velcro. But making a removable face would be much more difficult.
I wouldn't reccomend this whole project unless you are fairly proficient
at building things. But it can be a fun project and hugely cheaper than
buying Photoflex or other commercial boxes. My biggest piece of advice
is that I *strongly* reccomend making a small prototype first to make
sure you have everything worked out.
Lisa
mikey@hotmail wrote:
> just an amateur/hobbyist, but I'm wanting > to get my first softbox, mainly to use for portraits. > > I've shopped around, but they cost more than I can spend, > so I've thought about making my own. > I've read some here (and thru dejanews) about other > people's homemade. > > I think I'm going to try to make it out of foamcore and use > ripstop nylon for a diffuser. > Isn't foamcore thick enough that I don't need anything over > the outside of it? (as long as my seams are sealed) > > some people have said to also use an inner diffuser/baffle, > in addition to the front one (ala Photoflex softboxes), > for more diffusion and to help soften the hotspot. > good idea? > > with a big enough box, can't I also turn the light around > and bounce it off the inside, first? > > will white interior work for this, or do I need a more reflective > silver? is there a metallic silver foamcore? aluminum foil? > one of those silver lined emergency blankets? > What kind of gold material? > > maybe I can make removable gold and silver inserts, > again ala the Photoflexes. > http://www.photoflex.com/product/products/multidome/ > > any other ideas, hints, tips, suggestions?
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000
From: zeitgeist blkhatwhtdog@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: homemade softbox - diffusion, hotspot, color
Get a sheet of nylon and hang it from the ceiling and shoot
your light through it, bounce it off the back wall, or get a
couple or three sheets of styrofoam insulation pannels at
the hardware store and make a V or a U and place your light
inside.
If you really want a small softbox, Robert Monaghan gave a
really cool tip, use a styrofoam cooler, you can punch a
hole to run the lightstand pole through, its soft, its
white, its cheap.
all the different insides, silver foil, matte white, etc will effect the
amount of light, and the quality of light, IE: how intense the spectrals
are, how spread the light is. Shoot straight through or bounce off the
back are also major effectual differences that you should experiment with.
I've done lots of posts about this on rec.photo.technique.people,
especially the concept of what a 'large' softbox is, at least to me.
inter pannels do more than soften the light, they give the
light more depth, something that few people ever give any
concideration to.
this post is echoed to the z-prophoto mailing list at
onelist.com, you could join it and ask more questions there.
From: Oleg March olegm@concentric.net
Date: 31 Jan 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: homemade softbox - diffusion, hotspot, color
If you need a studio soft box, why not to use any box? Line inside w.
matte or crumpled alum foil and a white Lycra double layered front. To
attach the box to the head you can do the following:
take 2 5"x5" pieces of plywood. Drill a hole in the center. Take metal
threaded rod and two nuts. Place one 5x5 outside of the rear of the
light box, the other on the inside, put one end of the rod through them
and tighten nuts on both sides. The other end of the rod goes into the
umbrella hole in the flash head.
If you need a location soft box take an umbrella, replace colored fabric
w. a white one (I hope I'm not politically incorrect). Attach w. velcro
another piece of Lycra on the front. (make sure the head is inside)
Oleg
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000
From: rupunzel@my-deja.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Milk jug Lumiquest
I received a reply to a message that I posted last week (Flash with a
handkerchief) that mentioned making a Lumiquest (I assume pocket
bouncer) out of milk jugs. If anyone can give me more information on
how this can be done, I would really appreciate it.
Thanks,
Amanda
By the way, I really think that the people in this forum are really
helpful. I have really appreciated all of the advice that I have
received over the past few months.
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000
From: Joseph Savant jsavant@earthlink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: homemade softbox - diffusion, hotspot, color
I've got several foamcore boxes which have lasted for 15 yrs or so.
Used foam core boxes held together with duct tape. Painted the exterior
black to absorb light bleed through. Used 1/16" white plexi for front
diffusion (and stiffening) but vellum or any diffusion material will
work. My boxes were 24" deep or greater to help with evening out hotspot
with Speedotron 102 heads.
Lined with crinkled aluminum foil mounted with spray adhesive. This
brightened the output by 1 fstop or so and reduced hotspot.
Bouncing the light in the box will be the most even and softest but will
lose a few stops.
On the largest 36x48 boxes, I used a fork made from copper tubing and 45
elbows mounted on two sides of the box and suspended from a boom.
On smaller boxes, the rear panel was made by folding ends from all 4
sides over and sandwiching these between two 1/4" hardboard pieces. The
appropriate size hole was cut for the head and mounting ring attached.
The smaller boxes were light enough to be attached to the head, but the
larger ones required a mount system where the box was supported by a
stand and the head was mounted to the box.
For venting, cut a tight-fitting hole and used a black film container
(with vent slot cut in the side) pushed through from the inside. This
"periscope" vented heat buildup and kept light from spilling.
The Speedo heads I use have a large tube which protrudes into the box
and bounces light in every direction so they work well. If the heads you
use have built in reflectors, you'll have a harsher light and possibly
more of a hotspot problem.
Many materials will work, just be careful about flammability.
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000
From: kroppe@mich.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Home built wood tripod for USD$30
Jim,
Yes, good idea about the washers. I do have them at the
pivots, but they are just large enough to be larger than the
screw heads, which is very small. Plus I didn't do anyone
any favors by making the photos on my web site a bit small
for the sake of minimizing bandwidth in downloading.
The leg pivots don't get loaded in compression too much, so
I don't worry about wearing the wood there. I do think
sleeves in the head pivots would be good though, as the
clamp load to lock the head can get quite high.
Regards,
B.J. Kroppe
Jim Post wrote:
> Hi B.J.: > > You think like I do: Save money and increase quality wherever possible > by doing it yourself. I hope you post the final version of the tripod, > I'll be most interested in seeing it and seeing what I can do with it. > And I agree with your choice of maple. It's a beautiful wood and not > too difficult to work with. One thing I wonder about it wear and tear > at the joints of the moving parts. Have you thought about using screw > sleeves to save the wood? And large washers between moving wooden > parts? What do you think? > > jim
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000
From: John Chapple jc@ch-w.demon.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: homemade softbox - diffusion, hotspot, color
>How about portability? >Has anyone made their own standard/collapsible type softbox? >sewn out of fabric with a removable wire/rod frame?
funnily enough I've done just that with a photograhic umbrella reversed
(for some reason a dealer was selling a whole load of just those) I
removed all the spikes except four (which when expanded, extended to the
corners of the the softbox) The softbox window was made of several
layers of netting & the sides of the box were made of the usual
white/silver material. As the modelling light produces such an amount of
heat & the unit was quite small, the flash unit itself 'sat' in a tunnel
made of the white silver material. The unit is quite effective in use &
doesn't seem to spill too much light out backwards.
--
John Chapple
From: "Patrick Bartek" bartek@access1.com
Organization: NoLife Polymath Group
Date: 25 Aug 99
Subject: Re: Reflective material for product photography
Regarding Re: Reflective material for product photography, zeitgeist
wrote:
> black glass, paint the backside and clean the top surface > and it will reflect the shape of the object, place a very > large softbox above, or aim a soft spotlight at a white > ceiling and move it around till you get the effect that > works. works in color or b&w
This method will give you a double reflected image: one lighter,
ghost image from the top surface of the glass; and the primary from
the back surface.
Use black Plex. More expensive, scratches easily, but only ONE
reflection.
> NikonNurse wrote: > > > > I'm looking for a surface(I/e Plexiglas) that will reflect my subject(pic in > > black and white)......not mirrors either...any suggestions??? > > > > Thanks, Courtney
--
Patrick Bartek
NoLife Polymath Group
bartek@access1.com
[Ed. note: handy tip for portraiture of folks with glasses...]
Date: 28 Aug 1999
From: bagdovje@cobleskill.edu(John)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: Reflections in glasses
hocsigno1@aol.com
says...
>Sometimes just having people tilt their glasses works. Just raise the >earpieces off the tops of the ears so the top of the glasses is farther forward >from the face than the bottom of the glasses.
This is a very simple solution that works, the reflextion is bounced away
from the camera lens. I use it all the time.
John
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999
From: Mark Rabiner mrabiner@concentric.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] studio strobes for the duration
Richard Knoppow wrote:
> At 08:01 PM 12/20/1999 -0000, you wrote: > >You make a very interesting point here, Mark, which makes real sense, now > >that you have mentioned it. When I think how red filters over the lens >Snip > >> Brown stains > >> just kidding. > >> Mark Rabiner :) > >> > > > Low contrast used to be common when strobe lighting first came out. It > was due to reciprocity failure because of the very short (1/10,000 or less) > duration of early strobe flashes. > Most modern studio strobes seem to have much longer duration, perhaps > 1/500 sec., which shouldn't have this problem but its worth checking out. > The little shutter speed meter sold by Calumet will measure strobe > duration up to about 1/10,000 sec. Since the duration of the flash will > vary with intensity in many adjustable intensity strobes it can become very > short in some, bringing back the reciprocity failure problem. > This is at least worth investigating where there seems to be no other > explanation. > ---- > Richard Knoppow > Los Angeles,Ca. > dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Balcars beside their colder Kelvin temperatures also (and they've been
upgraded amazingly if you've got the bucks) have/had shockingly long flash
durations. I think with the long tubes it's 1/300 of a second! So if you
do a Halsman Jump you have to get them at the peak of the jump to freeze
action! There are tricks such as using the shorter tubes and cranking down
the variator which also makes them recycle faster as they are also
shockingly slow to do.
Nowadays I guess they have come out with more than one flashtube in one
head to shorten up the durations. It's as if the longer durations were a
scandal. In my mind they were. Like not being able to see through a darn
Hasselblad; opaque; and the top third of the image gone with a telephoto.
Some things need to get remedied and then they are.
Why I've stuck with them I don't know I'm loyal to gear once I get them
working and figure them out. Why have to figure out a whole new set of
glitches?
Also Balcars draw 8 amps, they "ask" for power as it was explained to me.
Dyna-Lite 13-16 amps Norman 15 Profoto 15 Speedotron 12-20 Calumet 13-16
Yes I got the new Calumet Catalog!
8 amps draw will not blow fuses on locations and in my now Home/studio!
See! I'm not showing off!
Mark Rabiner
Date: 28 Oct 1999
From: cassidy@netaxs.com (Kyle Cassidy)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Monolights on a budget!
freestylesalesco.com has the cheapest monolights i've ever seen.
check out my studio lighting pages using a couple of $60 and $100
freestylesales monolights....
http://www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/cassidy/pix/studio/
kc
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei filter on tessars
Most studio flash units are available today with UV coated flash
tubes, often as a higher priced option. I have the UV tubes in all
my studio flash equipment since I don't want to have to fool with
filters over the lens or on the flash.
Bob
>From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com >To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us >Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei filter on tessars >Date: Fri, Mar 24, 2000, 2:41 AM > > They can also be effective with strobe, > which has a lot of UV in it. A larger difference for strobe is made by > placing UV filters over the lights themselves. This eliminates both > unwanted response from the film and also color shifts in objects due to > flourescence.
Newsgroups: aus.photo,rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.misc
From: "seth berk" snberk@ibm.net
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999
Subject: Re: Home Made Studio lights - Web Site... ?????????????/
William Hopkins wrote:
>This is what I did years ago. Get the clamp on sockets and reflectors at a >hardware store or lumber yard (Home depot ect) Then get the outdoor Spot or >Flood light bulbs - GE Halogen 100 watt or bigger - the halogen is better >light source not so yellow. and your in business.......Bill
William Hopkins wrote:
>This is what I did years ago. Get the clamp on sockets and reflectors at a >hardware store or lumber yard (Home depot ect) Then get the outdoor Spot or >Flood light bulbs - GE Halogen 100 watt or bigger - the halogen is better >light source not so yellow. and your in business.......Bill >Keith cherek@wantree.com.au wrote in message
Good advice... don't forget the extensions cords. Duct tape the
lights to anything you can't clamp onto.
Then go to a fabric store and look for white nylon (does not have
ripstop) or other thin-ish white fabric. Bang together a frame
(start at about a metre by a metre for table top type stuff, a metre
by 2 metre for people) and use as diffusers. You can put more than
one light behind the diffusers if you need a strong light. use
smaller bulbs if you need weaker lights. If you are handy you could
wire in ordinary light dimmer switchs into the cords have the same
degree of control over the lights as highend pro studio lights, and
*more* control than manner mid tol low end pro light sets. You will
get different effects if the light is closer to the diffuser vs
further away, so experiment. Just don't set your diffusers on fire
by getting too close. Note that since the diffusers are not enclosed
you will get alot of light reflecting and spilling all over the
place. Work in a room with dark walls and/or a room with the walls
far back from the diffusers.
Note that these lights will add a considerable amount of red/orange
light to the set. As you noted it doesn't matter if you use B/W
film, and you can get gels from theatre/movie supply houses to colour
correct if you use colour film, at least close enough to use colour
print film. In Vancouver a large sheet (almost a metre square) is
about $7 Cdn (if I recall correctly). They can help you pick the
right the colour. Or you could take a slide of a test subject (lots
of primary colours and neutral grey) and take the processed slide to
the theatre/movie supply shop and look at the slide with the samples
until it looks colour correct.
What kind of stuff are you planning on shooting?
Seth
>> Does anyone know of any web sites for making ones own Studio >> Lights?... I am seriously to poor to buy some and only need >> them for personal odd jobs etc... nothing professional like >> and I am only shooting monochrome Film anyway, so lighting >> types is no problem!. >> >> Regarnds >> -- >> Keith Billington >> Cherek Civil Design Pty. Ltd. >> cherek@wantree.com.au > >Keith cherek@wantree.com.au wrote >> Does anyone know of any web sites for making ones own Studio >> Lights?... I am seriously to poor to buy some and only need >> them for personal odd jobs etc... nothing professional like >> and I am only shooting monochrome Film anyway, so lighting >> types is no problem!. >> >> Regarnds >> -- >> Keith Billington >> Cherek Civil Design Pty. Ltd. >> cherek@wantree.com.au
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Lighting
> Bob, > My specialty for the past 20 years has been doing still life photography > daily for major US corporations for their national ad campaigns. I thought > that you were a photo writer, I never knew that you were a still life > photographer, my error. However I still disagree with you on the hot light > versus strobe issue for novice photographers starting to shoot still life.
Well, I suppose product photography, which I have done a LOT of, qualifies
as still life. If I only did still life and product work I would still
not use hot lights. Unless you use really expensive HMI you have color
temperature variances to deal with. Gunther Blum mentioned in my earlier
post only worked in black and white, never in color, so that was not a
problem for him.
Photo writing is secondary for me. I am primarily a photographer. In any
given year writing accounts for 1/3 to just under 1/2 of my income. The
rest comes from photography, commercial jobs and stock sales.
> For many amatuers who do not actually have a studio but are using some > sort of compromised space, the option of darkening the room sufficiently is > not possible.
Photek sells blackout cloth by the yard. It is vinyl with black flocking
on one side and guaranteed to black out any window. You can put it up
with gaffer's tape, Velcro, or a number of other ways. I used this on my
previous studio's windows. It is not expensive and can be re-used many
times. It's also great for turning any room in a house into a darkroom
temporarily.
> Also for the working pro, who may have a half a dozen clients > and art directors hanging around the studio, making calls, looking at > polaroids, the question of having the studio really dark becomes problematic.
Agreed, and why I have the "night light" on. When conducting one of my
workshops I may have 15-20 students, several models, a couple of
assistants, etc. I have glowing yellow hazard tape used to block off
areas where they aren't supposed to go. Works like a charm. Never had
any problems at all.
> As a learning tool, hotlights are preferred as they are,"what you see is > what you get" whereas strobe, and I use strobe 5-6 days a week for over > twenty years, is not quite as easy to visualize. When I taught at School of > Visual Arts, we started out with tungsten and then moved to strobe once the > basic lighting principles were understood by the students.
To each his own. The only time I use hot lights these days is when
shooting video. I never cared for them. I like to be cool and
comfortable when I work and don't like outlandishly high air conditioning
bills.
> You wrote "Using hot lights on people is sadistic in my opinion! Get > enough light to stop motion and you will give your models nice tans!!" I > think you misunderstood, the topic was still life, not shooting people, > although I pointed out that Arnold Newman, at least when I worked for him, > used hotlights on people, and I think his portrait work is pretty well > reknowned.
I was talking in my original post in very general terms and not about any
one specific type of photography. If you only want to shoot still life
and can live with the heat, then hot lights are fine. I use, prefer, and
recommend electronic flash. Different strokes for different folks.
Bob
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999
From: "Thomas A. Frank" tfrank9@idt.net
Subject: Blacking out rooms (was Re: [Rollei] Lighting)
>Photek sells blackout cloth by the yard. It is vinyl with black flocking on >one side and guaranteed to black out any window. You can put it up with >gaffer's tape, Velcro, or a number of other ways. I used this on my >previous studio's windows. It is not expensive and can be re-used many times. >It's also great for turning any room in a house into a darkroom temporarily.
An even cheaper alternative - aluminum foil over the windows works
perfectly if all you seek is darkness. It's my solution for a
temporary darkroom.
If you need it to be non-reflective on the inside as well, a black plastic
trash bag works OK as a covering...although I've also used felt.
Sorry for the lack of Rollei content...
Tom Frank
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999
From: NYCFoto@aol.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Lighting
Bob shell writes:
WYSIWYG with tungsten takes learning, too. I'm just testing an early
batch of Fuji's new 64 speed transparency film for tungsten, and whether
you get accurate color depends on having your tungsten lights produce just
the right color temperature. Tungsten lamps, unfortunately, change their
color temperature as they age, so for critical color accuracy you may have
to use CC filters. I prefer not to hassle with that myself, so I use
daylight balance film with flash units of known color balance.
I test my daylight emulsions as well, and most of the time use cc
correction. Flash tubes also age and change color, getting progressively
warmer. Softboxes,diffusers and reflectors also yellow with age. Also even
the best color labs will drift a little when it comes to color (we're
talking chromes here) so film you shot on monday and process on monday,
might very well change when you process film from the same shoot on
wednesday. it all depoends on the standards that you apply to your work,
for some photographers a 025 cc drift is unexceptable, for others an 05
drift is fine. ( I'm more on the compulsive side, I also do 1/8 stop
push/pull)
All of my flash heads have had their color temps taken with a color
temp meter, and I label the color temp of each flash tube on the side of
that head. But even then, I take color temp readings on the set every time
I add/subtract a light. So a professional photographer having to be
diligent about color balance is nothing new or unexpected.
My students vary from studio pros to people who bought their
camera the day before. I find that they all can understand basic lighting
concepts if expressed clearly. This stuff is not rocket science, as the
saying goes.
It may not be rocket science but there are sure alot of
"photographers" out there who couldn't light to save their lives. Let's
see how they'd light a polished silver ball on a matte black surface and
get detail in both. The problem with the photo equipment manufacturing end
of the business is that they tend to perpetuate the belief that it is
merely having the right equipment (theirs) that enables a skilled pro
photographer to create great images, and not the fact that the
photographer really learned and mastered their craft.
Most established advertising photographers that I know that do still
life will have a mix of both strobe and tungsten.
In the same picture??? Bob
No i meant in the studio, they may choose to shoot a certain job
tungsten and another job strobe. I have on occasion mixed strobe and
tungsten lights in the same still life. Sometimes I may need to place a
very precisely shaped light beam into a very tight location, like maybe
illuminate a dark LCD read out on a very glossy panel and not let the
light spill onto the panel. In that case I'll use a Dedo light, with a
lens and mask, to illuminate the exact shape of the readout window. I'll
CC the Dedo to match daylight.
Most types of tungsten lamps used in photography can also explode if
water droplets land on them, so you must exercise care when any water at
all is on the set, even a spritzer to put droplets on leaves and such. I
recommend for those who want to use hot lights that they use only the
types of lamps which have an outer protective envelope around the actual
tungsten halogen lamp. These are much safer since they don't easily
explode, and you can install them with your hands. Regular tungsten
halogen lamps must not be installed with any contact between fingers and
lamp, because skin oils left on the surface can cause the lamp to
explode.
Most photographers who shoot liquids do not use tungsten lights for
them. They almost always use strobe especially if the photos require sweat
on a glass, or spray, or pours ( although most pours now are acrylic
models) then you can't rely on tungsten to freeze the motion, so the
danger of water and tungsten is a moot point. The funny thing is that the
lights most prized for the ability to freeze motion, like in water
splashes, are the dangerous Ascor's and their 1/4300 sec flash duration.
In regards to contaminating tungsten bulbs with your finger oils and
having them explode, strobe modelling lights have the same down side.
Brian
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999
From: Denton Taylor denton@asan.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Lighting
To bring the experience of someone who is mostly an amateur but who has
done a lot of catalog work for my own business and others, as well as
'pro' stuff for friends, I would like to add my own experience. As one who
started with two el cheapo tungsten lights, and then 'graduated' to a pair
of Sunpack MS4000 monolites, which, with reflectors and umbrellas, is a
lot less than what has been mentioned previously. Here's something that
just happened to me.
A starving artist friend of mine wanted me to photograph his artwork
(slides) on the barter system. So, I knew the 'right' way to do it, which
is tungsten lighting, 45deg from art, camera perfectly leveled, etc etc. I
actually bought a whole set of SV lights and stands just so I could do the
job 'right'. (as you can tell, doesn't take much to make me buy new gear!)
The first attempt (with tungsten) came out terrible. Something was
definitely wrong with the color balance. So, red-faced, I could either run
out and buy or rent a color meter, and play with gels etc., or go back to
'what I know'. Redid the job with my Sunpacks, two Photoflex umbrellas,
and E100s. Perfect!
I guess the moral is if you use what you know you can generally do the
job.
Regards,
Denton Taylor
Photogallery at www.dentontaylor.com.
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999
From: Tim Ellestad ellestad@mailbag.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Lighting
....
I've used HMI's for 17 years - that is, when they were the right light for
the job. They have the same terrific beam characteristics as good
fresnels - they cut and barndoor beautifully, the snoots make good, small
circles, even the smallest "pencil" snoots - they flood and spot smoothly
and evenly - and they use the same "wires" or graduated scrims as tungsten
fresnels for precise and quick control of light level. The PAR types show
the same parallels with their tungsten counterparts.
HMI's provide a fantastic bang for your buck in continuous light output
for the amount of current drawn. Where quartz lamps provide about 27
lumens per watt, HMI's deliver about 90 lumens per watt of real daylight.
They make good daylight exterior lighting. But where HMI's really pay off
(and they are much more expensive than tungsten lighting or strobes) is in
large interiors where there is a problematic amount of daylight that can't
be physically or economically eliminated, and continuous light or fresnel
light is desirable. Filtering tungsten light up to daylight is horribly
power inefficient.
Too, HMI's are cooler than their tungsten counterparts - when they first
became used in Germany for television production, the gaffers called them
the "politician's light" because nobody sweated under them.
HMI's have some real shortcomings, though. The ballasts are heavy beyond
your wildest dreams - you won't be transporting them on a truck without a
lift. They are very expensive - the lamps, although long-lived (maybe 400
to 600 hours), are real pricey with a 1200 watt bulb in the $200 vicinity,
as I recall. One hates to see that a lamp met an early demise due to a
jolting chuck-hole in transit. When they first came out, prices were so
high that the rental houses charged a high day-rate in addition to billing
the usage time taken off an hour meter on the lamphead. These lights are
pulsed arcs (cycling 60 times a second) and are subject to misbehaving
(when they flicker, they go completely off and on, there is no tapering,
decaying, glow, what-wo-ever) if there happens to be some junk in the
power service being used - electrical noise, power surges, etc.
And, they are not quite as color-pure as they seem at first. Yes they are
rated daylight and have a CRI of 92 or so, but they are not black body
sources and some colors may not hold up perfectly. I have used
practically every brand of HMI lighting over the years because we get them
generally as part of the lighting package on the lighting truck that we
hire. I am finding an increasing consistency on the part of gaffers to
now want to use the HMI's only when they provide a true production
advantage rather than just use them for everything (this has nothing to do
with cost as the gaffer will ala carte his rates on these lights anyway).
HMI's always seemed a little cold to me and more and more I am seeing the
gaffers filter all the HMI's with eighth or quarter CTO (warming) gels as
a matter of course.
I think that HMI's offer great advantages in certain applications, but I
also think that I would never consider them the universal approach to
lighting.
Tim Ellestad
ellestad@mailbag.com
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Lighting
> Denton Taylor wrote: >> > Are you big time new York guys saying that down home White Lightning doesn't cut > it with the art directors. I thought it was clear and pure! > Mark Rabiner
Some pretty big name photographers use White Lightning and more are
switching to it all the time. The problem was that Paul Buff only wanted
to sell direct to consumers, so his competitors were bad mouthing his
stuff and so were dealers. Too many photographers believed the nonsense,
things like they would not hold up to heavy use. I've used them for years
in conducting lighting workshops in which they are fired rapidly all day
with only a cool down during lunch break. I never had one fail or shut
down from overheating, which is what the competitors claimed would happen.
The fact is that the stuff is damned well made and has excellent light
quality.
I use the Ultra CompuScene system which allows me to plug up to eight
units into the control box and adjust each one individually in 1/10 stop
increments. It also will memorize up to 99 setups. With this, diagrams,
and tape marks on the floor you can exactly duplicate a bunch of setups.
If you like you can connect the Ultra CompuScene to a computer and use
MIDI software to control everything!! Paul has just come out with a
completely wireless version using radio control of everything! Rather
than being primitive, this stuff is among the most advanced on the market
today.
Bob
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Lighting
> Actually, I am interested since I don't know a think about good lighting (or > illumination). In this vein, I do have a question. As an amateur looking to > get some proper lighting equipment, what should I consider purchasing? A used > light system will probably do fine, and probably be better $ for $ than a > cheap new system (yes, no?). Without major investment for a pair of used > lights (strobe w/modeling light, or?) what would be recommended? Obligatory > Rollei content: I will use such lights with my Rollei 6006 II.
Be careful buying used flash systems. Some are professional castoffs and
have been run close to the point where the flash tubes burn out. New
flash tubes for some brands can be expensive, and new tubes for older
systems can be hard to find. Watch out for orphan equipment.
About eight years ago I bought a 2400 Ws Venca system, power pack and
three heads. A couple of years after I bought it, Norman bought Venca.
They said they were planning to return them to production, but never did.
The system worked very well and got a lot of use in my workshops and
studio shoots. One of the flash tubes died, and I had a really hard time
tracking down someone who had a replacement, and had to pay over $ 250 for
it!!!! That's almost a quarter of what I paid for the whole system brand
new!
I think that most photographers now are using monoblock type lights rather
than the power pack and heads systems. I've used both and prefer the
monoblock idea myself. If you buy an extra head and keep it in reserve
you are not dead in the water if one unit fails. If you are using power
pack and heads everything is down if you have a power pack problem.
There are pro and con arguments on both systems, though, so you need to
decide just what you need.
When buying flash don't fall victim to buying power for the sake of power
if you don't need it. If you have a really powerful head you may find
that it is too bright for many subjects even when turned all the way down.
You don't want to be forced to use really small f-stops and have your
photos degraded by diffraction. Also, you may want to shoot close to wide
open to blur a background, and if your light is too bright you can't do
that other than with neutral density filters. That's a hassle you don't
need.
So buy the light that's right for the sort of work you do.
Also, don't be fooled into thinking that model numbers have anything to do
with actual Watt-second ratings of the units. Most don't.
Bob
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Lighting
.....
Tim,
If you are shooting static subjects, that's what multiple pop shooting is
for. When I want to stop down beyond what my lights allow I always go to
multiple pop. I have a little timer gadget made by Multiblitz which lets
you set the number of pops you want and the time delay between them.
Open the shutter, press the button, sit down and take a nap or whatever
and it lets out a shrill beep when it is finished.
But for most photographers overbuying light is more of a problem than
under buying. They find out that they have too much light even with
things turned all the way down. That's why Paul Buff put that half power
switch on the new X-Series flash heads. A lot more people were asking for
that than were asking for more power.
We're talking average joe photographer with medium sized camera room in
his studio. We're not talking NYC pro who brings the Empire State
Building into his mammoth studio and wants to shoot it af f/64.
Bob
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999
From: Tim Ellestad ellestad@mailbag.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Lighting
Bob -
Multi-pops are a good point. For anything stationary this technique
generally solves the power problems although I have had some color
shifting in the past when the pops got to be too many. Multi-popping is a
nice configurable feature of the Compuscene, also, where the controller
will take care of the multiple flashes for you, rotating the firing
through the various lights in the set-up.
Recently, however, I had some shots in the studio where we did 4x5
transparencies of some good sized machines complete with the obligatory
attractive model. Multi-pops don't work here.
Your point is well taken, however, and if you're not in position to outfit
yourself with complete dedicated lighting compliments for all specialties,
high-powered monolights (my White Lightnings in particular) are certainly
very flexible and work well in most applications.
Tim Ellestad
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Lighting
.....
> Your point is well taken, however, and if you're not in position to outfit > yourself with complete dedicated lighting compliments for all specialties, > high-powered monolights (my White Lightnings in particular) are certainly > very flexible and work well in most applications. > > Tim Ellestad > ellestad@mailbag.com
I've been discussing this thread with Jay Abend who is a top level big
city pro who writes for me at Shutterbug. He agrees with my assessment
that the power pack with heads is almost exclusively a big city thing
these days. In his travels around the country he sees monoblock type
lights used everywhere else. And more and more photographers are using
them for location work regardless of what they use in their studios.
Machines with models, yeah. I've done a bit of this myself, usually on
location in factories because the machine in question was too big to be
easily moved to my studio. I always just took along extra monoblocks,
frequently shooting several of them through a big diffusion screen to
produce the effect of a giant softbox.
Color Shifts: with multiple pop shooting, as with anything else, you need
to do tests to see how the film you plan to use reacts to this. I've
found no particular color shifts with most of Fuji's transparency film up
to around 48 pops. Be aware though that when you get into high numbers of
pops you will not build up exposure as much as you would think, so if your
meter says you need 16 pops you may really need 28. Again you need to do
tests so you know how your film reacts.
Bob
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: [Gels and things that go boom)
....
> To gel a soft box just gel the tube not the whole box, turn off the model > light to avoid burning gel after setting up.
If you mount the gel as I described earlier, there is no need to turn off
the modeling light. I use this a lot and have never burned up a gel. I
use the Lee brand which seem to be made of acetate.
> The large boom that comes from strobe equipment is when a capacitor blows > up. It shonds like a shot gun blast and can blow right thru the box. But > don't let that stop you-- Seriously in 20 years and thousands of rolls of > film it has only happend to me once and this is shooting three days week > with 3 or 4 packs at a time. After you turn the unit off always discharge > the pack and never plug in heads with the unit turned on.
True for most flash systems, but one of the nice things about the Profoto
power pack and head systems is that you can connect and disconnect head
cables from the power pack while the power pack is turned on. Possibly
some other manufacturers have updated to this system. I just recently
spent a couple of days in my studio with a big assortment of loaned
Profoto equipment, and I love the logic of the design.
> Attaching gels-wooden clothes pins- no more baked on tape or burnt fingers- > also great for pulling screens from hot light.
A studio without bags of clothes pins is not a real studio! I use them
for all sorts of things. I also have a selection of spring clamps from
the hardware store which work great and cost a fraction of what the
special "photo" clamps cost. And don't forget to keep plenty of safety
pins on hand, too.
Bob
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000
From: JW jdwalton@home.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Advice on inexpensive flash meter please
There was a DIY flashmeter in "Nuts and Volts" about three issues back.
Basically, it's a trigger, photodetector, log converter and display.
I use my Minolta spotmeter - it's very handy in itself and OK as a
flashmeter.
Robert Light wrote:
> Thanks to all who guided me to a White Lightning monolight. I've been > using WL's recommendations about exposure using the camera's meter. > This worked very well with color print film, but since I shoot 99% > black & white rollfilm (usually TMAX 100 & Delta 100), I get poor > results due to the lack of film latitude. Yes, it's time to bite the > bullet and buy a flash meter. :( > My budget is $100 or less (yes, I'm the one with the wife that does > not "appreciate" money spent on photo equipment.) > Porters has a Cosmos Flashmeter 2 for $99.95 that looks promising. > They also have a JTL FM-1 for $79.95 (pre-set for EI 100 film, but has > a "conversion table" on the back to convert to other speeds - not a > good selling point for me.) Any others out there? > Also, do I need a unit to meter both incident AND reflected readings, > or is one preferred over the other? > I'm using a WL5000 with an umbrella and white card at about 5 feet for > simple portraits shot with a Pentax 645N and a Pentax ZX-5. > You folks out there in the trenches with the experience really help us > rookies out more than you will ever know saving us time, money and > aggravation. Thanks for your help. Hopefully we can help you with > something some day! > RLight
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Lighting
> I can give you guidance. Check out the Paul Buff White Lightnings Ultra. They > are made in Nashville. > Reliable well designed and the best Watt second lumens per buck. Works with my > Balcar accesories. Many pros I know use them. Quick Cheap service. Friendly on > the phone. > Mark Rabiner
As some already know, I am friends with Paul Buff and helped him when he
had only one prototype Ultra unit which he carried around to camera trade
shows. He is not a photographer, but his first wife was and was always
griping about the shoddy quality of flash equipment available at the time.
Paul being a trained electronics engineer took some stuff apart and was
astonished that they were still using 1940s technology. He designed his
units from the ground up, with no preconceived notions and a LOT of input
from photographers. He uses the best components available, builds
everything in a small factory in Nashville, and offers the best warranty
service in the country. He can afford to because the failure rate is so
low. I'm still using some first generation Ultras and the only time they
have gone back is when I knock over a light stand and break one or when I
had early versions upgraded to newer ones.
Lately I've been testing the new Ultra Zap and X-Series and think they
will be worthy successors to the original Ultra series. In my opinion
they are the best flash units made in the USA. Since Paul sells only
direct and via one dealer, his stuff doesn't have the markup that other
brands have.
Other good stuff is the Multiblitz system, Visatec made by Bron, and
Hensel, but this stuff is a bit pricier since it comes from Germany and
Switzerland and does carry dealer markup on the final price. You can save
on all three, though, buy buying kits which include two or three flash
heads, umbrellas, soft boxs, reflectors, stands, etc.
Bob
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Lighting
Jack,
I hope Marc won't mind a sort of commercial plug here. The November issue
of Shutterbug is our annual Lighting issue. Subscribers will begin
getting it next week and it will be on news stands a couple of weeks after
that. We've reviewed a number of different systems this year.
If you can't wait that long, I'll be happy to make some suggestions if you
give me a ballpark of how much you want to spend.
Bob
FRom Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999
From: Peter Klosky Peter.Klosky@trw.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: Light meters
My take on the metering situation is that the model of meter you have is a
good one, and a fine tool. I suspect, as others have said, that either
the meter is off or there is a problem with how the meter is being held.
Have you checked your meter battery?
Like yourself, I shoot backlit subjects often, and also at the beach. On
my desk here, I have two photos. One of my two year old son backlit with
heavy sun. The other of my three year old daughter on the beach on a
cloudy day.
For the backlit subject, an important point is that the direct light not
hit the meter, and that only the shadow side be metered. If you decide to
go with a spot meter, you will need a gray card unless you are good at
estimating subject reflectivity. This could end up being more of a
problem than getting your existing meter to perform properly. Another
idea is to use the palm of your hand as a substitute for the gray card,
learning its reflectivity.
As others have ponted out, you should try setting the meter to some ASA,
say 125, and the shutter speed to match at 1/125th. Point at a cloudless
sky and expect about f16. Test against any other meters you may own or
find at the corner camera store.
Another factor that may be influencing your result is flare. If
significant light is hitting your lens, you will get weird results. For
example, if you are using umbrellas that allow light to be both reflected
and pass through, then back up behind them for a large group, you may get
a flare spot from the umbrella. This, and many other scenarios, are good
reasons to use a good hood/shade at all times.
I'm not sure what film you are using, and how it is being processed, but
many commercial labs have notoriously variable chemical strength. You
might want to check the development of the edge numbers to see if the
developer is strong enough. I recently shot a job where the film was
underdeveloped, causing a loss in background detail and not helping the
effort to put the job over.
Lastly, it is a good idea to estimate the exposure using rules in addition
to using the meter. For example, a backlit subject often has two stops
less illumination than one lighted directly. Consider using your own
knowledge and gut feel, as well as tables from photography books and rolls
of film as a backup/sanity check for your exposures.
Peter
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
From: Peter Madeley peter.m@zetnet.co.uk
Subject: Re: Budget diffuser for on-camera flash?
I would thought the priority for you would be to get the camera
off-camera before you think about diffusing the light. Even 'diffuse'
on camara light is rather unappealing. If you want really diffuse
light from a gun, either bounce it or make a softbox from a cardboard
box with tracing paper to replace the lid. The box should be lined
with silver foil to bounce the light around inside and the flashgun
pushes in a hole in the bottom. You increase the size of the light
source which gives diffuse light and so soft shadows. You will
typically lose 2 stops of light and make yourself look a right prat,
but who cares if it works. There are commercial available tape on
softboxes but I find they are not big enough to make too much
difference for portraiture, although they are brilliant for macro
work.
If you want to look more professional, try boucing your flash
off a piece of white card/plastic taped to the back of your flashgun.
You'll need a head which tilts 45 degrees to do this. The effect is
even better if you get the flash off camera to one side and above the
lens. I can't understand the physics of light when people say that a
diffuser 'softens' the light from a flashgun, spreads it yes and
reduces it yes, but the only way to get diffuse shadows is to have
light coming from a wide area and only a large or multiple light
source placed close to the can achieve that. If you can get hold of a
copy of Light Science and Magic, there are some excellent discussions
although the images don't tie up with the text references apparantly.
Chapter 3 deals with diffuse and specular light.
I base this knowlege on actual tests done with on-camera flash,
off-camera flash, bounce cards and softboxes that I did for a
photography qualification. I resented the tutor asking me to take a
test film in this way, but I learned more in an afternoon shooting 24
frames, than weeks of reading. Working with continous lighting is
another way to learn the physics of light quality. Hope this helps
your thinking.
--
Regards and phrantic fotography 2U
Peter (DPS Design & Photography Services)
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999
From: zeitgeist greenky.wa@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Building lights and stuff.
A lot of the things you need can be fabricated. It would be
a help if we knew what kind of photography/subject matter,
commercial, portraits. In rec.photo.tech people I have made
numerous posts about making a northlight or artificial
windowlight systems.
You could do a deja.com search. I hung a curtain from the
ceiling that is 12 feet long so it starts near camera
position and goes close to the background. I have four
strobe heads bounced behind it (though I really only need
two, my powerpack is half dead so I'm trying to get all the
power I can) You can get large sheets of white styrofoam
and silvered insulation pannels (OK they have some large red
printing on it,but a little warmth isn't bad) to use for a
smaller floor to ceiling softbox.
You can use a group of clip on metal reflector flood lights
with 60 or 75 watt bulbs gathered in a bank and have plenty
of light. regular household bulbs maybe a little warmer,
but hey, warmth is good, that's why most photog's put
warming filters on though it doesn't fool the lab. You won't
even need to rewire the garage. You will have to use
incandescent balanced film, but you can get that through
ebay cheap enough (NPL, you can get short or out of date
stuff cheap)
Umbrellas are cheap enough that you don't have to resort to
painting one, which would probably end up being
unsatisfactory anyway.
For light stands, look for something called timber toppers,
metal squares with a strong spring inside, place it on top
of a 2x3 and it holds the pole snug against the ceiling, and
drill some holes in appropriate places to push a longish
1/4-20 screw bolts though.
DoC-C wrote:
> Hi it's me again, yes the Newbie dude. > Now I got my camera, I've put together a studio, now I need lighting. > I can't afford real lights, so I have to build them myself. > So I was wondering if anyone have done this before and have some tips to > offer? > I know a bit about electronics and mechanics and my big brother is an > electrician so he can help me. > I just need to know how strong should they be, what type of light bulbs do I > use. Can I take old umbrellas and spray paint them with silver paint to make > umbrella lights? What materials work well for reflectors, fill cards etc. > > Espen
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999
From: Frank Calidonna frank.calidonna@worldnet.att.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.art
Subject: Re: Studio photography
Ken Graham wrote:
> I've been doing a little research into studio photography. I want > to play around with smaller items such as flowers in a vase and > things like that. I was thinking of starting out with two lights and two > stands. I have a light meter and a umbrella for a flash. (Don't ask why > I have an umbrella and no light stand to mount it on). Any recommendations > on a 'starter kit' for such a project. I've looked in the B&H catalog, but > I don't know what I need. I don't want to go overboard. Any help would be > greatly appreciated.
If you really are new to studio work and really want to learn about
lighting I would suggest purchasing two hot lights. Smith-Victor makes
some relatively inexpensive quartz light kits. (don't go with regular
floods). B&H; sells them, but you might want to get a couple of brochures
from Smith-Victor first.
I think hot lights are the best way to learn still life lighting. Hot
lights allow you to see exactely what you are going to get on your film,
they are easy to work with and allow excellent control. Flash is more
difficult to control and even units with built in modeling lights don't
really show you the end result as well. To go from hot lights to flash is
much easier than trying to learn from the start with flash. It will
probably cost as much as flash, but I think you will find them more
rewarding to work with. As you gain expertise you can always add flash to
your equipment later.
If you work with B&W; you can use whatever film you already know. Color
requires a tungsten film but they are available from both Kodak and Fuji.
Small object still life work is so interesting and you really will learn
lighting. You also can start hitting garage sales for the hundred knick
knacks, fabric swatches, table settings, glassware, old windows, small
props, and the zillion other items that make this a fascinating
photographic exercise. You are the photographer, art director, carpenter,
set designer and builder, stylist, and lighting wizard all rolled up into
one. It is a fun way to spend time with your camera. Enjoy.
Frank Rome, NY
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999
From: John Adler jadler@leefiltersusa.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Flash Filter??/
Dear Quigg,
For filtering flash, what you need is lighting gel. You can get many of
the same filters as camera filters, but the terminology is different. For
example, an 85B is called a Color Temperature Orange (CTO) in lighting
filter.
Lighting filter comes in sheets or rolls-- a 21x24" sheet costs around $6.
It isn't optically pure, so it's inadvisable to use it in front of your
lens.
If you send me your address, I'll mail you a swatchbook of lighting gel
samples, and the name of a dealer near you.
Sincerely,
John Adler
LEE Filters USA
(800)576-5055
.....
Date: 3 Jan 1999
From: rabaste@aol.com (RABASTE)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: d.o.f. mathmatics
Hi there!
Just some useless information...
Shutter speed does matter with strobe lighting but not in the example of
the post. Most people refer to textbooks when quoting flash speed but real
life teaches you that not all strobes allow you to shoot faster than the
250th and freeze motion is not always attained. Some big powerpacks have
speeds that go as low as 1/125th and you are safer shooting at 1/60th if
you want all the light produced by the flash. Actually I have a couple
Broncolor Pulso4 (3200J)that will produce no image at 1/500th with a
Hasselblad! On the other hand, Balcars (1200ws and 2400ws) show no
difference and neither do Normans. Speedotron are half-way in between
(about 1/2 stop drop at 1/250th on a 4800ws, about one full stop at
1/500th). These examples came from tests done at my studio using full
power and a single light-head on all packs mentionned.
Bye!
Michel
San Francisco
>Shutter speed is immaterial to strobe lighting, as the strobe flash itself is >around 1/1000th of a second long. The only time the shutter speed matters is >if >you are blending strobe and ambient light (or, if the shutter speed is too >short for X sync, then your pictures will be partially occuluded).
From Bronica Mailing List:
you wrote:
Photek's Background-in-a-bag isn't too pricey. See
http://www.photekusa.com/binabag.htm for backgrounds and see
http://www.photekusa.com/system.htm for a support system. Other options
include Savage seamless; see http://www.savageunvsl.com/
regards,
Henry Posner
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999
Hi Rob,
I don't think there is a 'single right price'; but here are a few prices
I have paid to rent studios:
In Rockville Md, two bay setup similar to yours $20/$25 per hour
In Pikesville Md, little smaller and fewer back drops - $10 per
hour
In Oakland Ca, larger than yours and mores options - $20 per hour
In San Francisco, similar to yours - $25 per hour.
I am seriously considering opening a rental studio here in Raleigh and
am looking at $25 hour - again similar to your. Hope this helps.....
-donnie
Date: 12 Sep 1999
Hi all,
In recent years I've benefitted much from these forums and many web
pages and books about photography, and now I'm working to return the
favor. In the first of what I intend to be a series on various aspects
of photography for the beginning to intermediate amateur, especially
digital camera users, I wrote an article on external flash units and
flash technique:
http://multipart-mixed.com/photo/external_flash.html
This covers: why you should consider an external flash even if your
camera has a built-in one; bounce flash technique; variations on the
basic bounce flash; color temperatures with flash; and flash mounting
and brackets. Example photos are provided, of course, to demonstrate
the topics discussed. A Nikon Coolpix 950 and SB-28 flash are used for
all the examples.
While many of these topics are covered in various sources, some are
reasonably esoteric and only hinted at by general photography books.
My own learning experience with flash techniques contained much
trail-and-error despite reading many books, so this seemed a good
place to start for my articles. Comments and criticism from the
community would be very welcome, and will help shape the direction of
future work.
Best regards,
From Rollei Mailing List:
George,
One of my quests in life has been for the perfect tripod head. I've
tried out just about all of the ones commonly available, and some which
are not so common.
I have several favorites, depending on what I am going to be putting on
the head. For 35mm and some MF, I'm using the pro ball head from Slik.
This is remarkably inexpensive (around $ 60 I think) and has very
smooth movement. I like Slik's latest quick release which uses a round
plate on the camera (or lens) which just pushes into the plate on top
of the ball head. Once it is pushed in it locks in place and can't
fall off, but is free to rotate, which makes fine tuning your
camera possible with the ball head locked. A lever on the top plate
locks it so it can't rotate. Exceptionally practical design.
When I am working with heavier MF and LF equipment, I have a Schoon
Studioball from Bromwell Marketing which is my preference among all of
the large ball heads. Smoother than Arca, and when I bought it cheaper.
I don't know current price since I've had it for about ten years and it
is just as smooth today as when I bought it.
Other good heads I have and use now and then include the Amrus Shpigel
head from NPC, which is the strangest design, sort of a ball cut up into
segments; the Cullmann Titan ball head, another really good medium-heavy
duty ball head; the pro head from Hama (not a ball, but as smooth as one);
and a lightweight ball made by Zorkendorfer that I use with a monopod
for 35mm only.
My favorite tripod for studio use is the Cullmann Titan with pneumatic
central column. For outdoor use I favor the Gitzo Mountaineer, but I
do not like the Gitzo ball heads. This coming week I'm supposed to be
getting testing samples of the new Mamiya carbon fiber tripods and
magnesium alloy heads. I saw them at photokina last year and thought
they were really nice and they are going to be less expensive than the
Gitzo carbon fiber stuff. Mamiya is one of the world's largest makers
of carbon fiber golf club shafts and fishing rods, so it only stands to
reason that they would branch out into tripods.
Bob
.....
From Rollei Mailing List;
....
George,
In my view it comes down to this. If you want the quality of the Arca, you
will have to pay their price. You may want to take a look at
http://photo.net/photo. Lots of ball head information.
Ferdi
[Ed. note: Mr. Shell is a noted photographer (glamour..), editor of shutterbug, and photography
instructor...]
Too much to put in a post here, that's what is involved in setting up
a studio. But some main points. You need a high ceiling. In fact, I
don't think a ceiling can be too high for a studio. My present studio
has 15 foot ceilings, and that is high enough so far. The other thing
is reach. You need space. Suppose you want to shoot a full length
standing shot of a tall model with the 100 mm Planar. You don't want
to be squeezed up against a wall while your model squeezes up against
the other. To get good perspective, you need to be far enough away
from your model. Don't think, "well, I'll just go in closer and use a
wider lens." That doesn't work because you get distortions with the
parts of the model's body closest to the lens looking WAY too big, and
the parts most distant looking tiny. So you need enough room to get a
full length figure shot with a medium long lens. Before I got my
current studio five years ago I had my studio in the back room of our
house for a while. The room was an add-on to the house and has
"cathedral ceilings", so that was not a problem, but it only measures
about 20 X 20. By the time the model was a reasonable distance from
the backdrop I could not get her all in with a 100 or longer lens. So
I set things up so the backdrop was opposite the door to the room and
I would stand in the next room (our kitchen) and shoot. Limiting,
but it worked.
Ideally you want control of all light, so many photographers paint
their studio walls, floor and ceiling flat black. I know it is more
efficient and the studio I had 10 years ago had been done that way
by the photographer I had bought it from. I found it rather gloomy
to work in, so my current studio is painted all white, walls, ceiling,
and floor. Maybe I don't have as much control of reflected light, but
it is a cheerful working environment for me and the models.
That's a beginning, anyway, so ask questions if you like. Hmmmm.
Maybe I could turn this into a book.....
Bob
[Ed. note: homebrew tripod carrying strap..]
----- Original Message -----
From: Simon.Young@astrazeneca.com
"The only annoying thing is that I should have bought the tripod with a
strap; the setup is a bit awkward when carried."
You are right about this Simon, but the Manfrotto supplied strap is
expensive for what it is. The bolt hole just under the head for the strap
mount is a fairly common thread. I just matched up an allen head bolt from
my garage collection, attached it through two stainless chain links, and
attached an old shoulder strap from some bag or other I had lying around.
The bottom of the strap I just looped around the bottom of the legs
between the leg locks. This worked well walking through the bush last
week. Which reminds me, I bought the harness back strap for my Domke bag
on the recommendation of someone on this list which I also used for the
first time last week - what a great accessory. Thanks for the tip. Tim
From Contax Mailing List:
Use a light tent. You can make one easily with a white bed sheet and
some sort of support. Most people use plastic plumbing pipe to make a
frame. That's how many pros photograph reflective stuff.
Bob
- ----------
From Contax Mailing List:
Why use the PC socket? I use infrared triggers in the hot shoe or a
camera mounted flash set at low power to trigger my studio flash. PC
cords are a relic from bygone days. I don't think the Contax PC
sockets are any worse than any others for durability, but the PC
connector is a bad design from the beginning.
Bob
.....
rec.photo.misc
Larry aperture@olypen.com writes:
Start with plain white muslin and dab on Rit dye from the
grocery store, using a big sponge. The sponge avoids sharp
edges like you'd get doing it with a brush. Works fine,
doesn't in any way stiffen the fabric, and it's a dye, not
paint, so it can't crack or peel off the fabric.
--
Josh@WolfeNet.com is Joshua Putnam / P.O. Box 13220 / Burton, WA
98013
[Ed.note: Mylar has a lot of interesting uses in the studio, distortions
etc...]
Sporting goods stores, such as Sports AuthorityT, carry "emergency
blankets". These are large sheets of aluminized MylarT. To cover a large
telescope join more sheets together using aluminized duct tape (available
at l home-centers, such as Lowes & Home Depot) to make the sheet large
enough. Use the same tape to join the seams as you construct your cover.
It is very strong stuff. I joined 4 blankets together to make a cover big
enough for my 25" Obsession.-
Marc
Visit me at the Deer Meadow Observatory Website,
and please check out Marc's Astronomy Shop while you are there:
http://go.to/ncstargazer
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000
LeRoy Michaelson lrm@integrity-design.com wrote:
If it's for 35mm equipment, you might want to ask in a more appropriate
newsgroup, like rec.photo.equipment.35mm
For the price you're talking about you may not be able to get a sturdy,
long-lasting, smooth-panning ballhead that doen't leak fluid. At that
price, I remember some old recommendations on photo.net's tripod page
Do check out that photo.net site. I remember that several people there
were not too fond of what is probably the most popular ballhead in your
price range, the Bogen 3262QR (I think that's it) describing it as leaky
and not particularly smooth.
When I was looking for a ballhead a year or so ago, before I decided to
keep the setup I had, the medium-size Kaiser ballhead (with the separate
panning lockscrew) was recommended to me; it was described it as a
quality, affordable (twice what you want to spend) copy of the medium
Linhof. I tried it out at a local camera store and it seemed impressive.
Date: 14 Jun 200
LeRoy Michaelson wrote:
I went into the camera store with a hundred bucks last month on a Friday
and walked out with a Cullman or some such ballhead which I brought back
Monday as there was a jiggle. This time with my Leica M6 in hand. I ended
up shelling out another C note and getting the ballhead of my dreams.
A Gitzo Magnesium Centre Ball Head.
The quality of an Arca Swiss or some other Swiss but French and a hundred
bucks
cheaper.
I also think they are lighter. The feel is excellent.
I think I am better off here than a Linhof!! This head will work with all
my cameras maybe not the Cambo NX. "New high performance 3 Series ball
head suitable for loads up to 8 kg. At the heart of this ball head is a
precision-machined, Teflon coated aluminium? ball for ultra-smooth
operation. The new ball head incorporates a separate? friction control,
which can be set to counterbalance the weight of the camera, giving total
control over the finest of adjustments. This head is supplied with a
fixed round plate with reversible 1/4" or 3/8" camera fixing. Independent
pan and tilt controls lock the head exactly where it is set, without
movement. All locking knobs have a rubber coating, for a softer touch
and?excellent grip. The combination of smooth performance, controllability
and accuracy once again sets new standards in ball head design."
Mark Rabiner
From: zeitgeist blkhatwhtdog@yahoo.com
F wrote:
well the shop doors is a great idea and saves you a bundle, especially
if they face the north as the light is much more consistent that way.
hang a white sheet or buy a sheet of white styro wall insulation for a
reflector and you should have a nice smooth light.
now the tricky part, you probably want the lamp to look like a lamb, a
light source. you may want to place very bright bulbs in them, so the
lamp is about one stop brighter than the window light, this will give
you detail in the lamp base but let the lamp look like it is doing it's
job. You can get adapters to place a 250 watt quartz halogen modeling
light in the socket, this may be enough. if not, you may have to set the
shot up and sit there and wait for twilight and shoot till you get the
right balance.
another trick for lower light levels is to use your flash if you can
tilt it for a bounce, aim it at the side wall or place another sheet of
stryro insulation pannel there to make one and play with your exposures
till you get a combination that works, bouncing the flash sideways, and
I assume you will want verticles so the shoe mount flash if you have one
might point in the right direction for a bounce, but doing it sideways
will imitate the soft light of the open doorway but with much less power
than direct flash.
set your zoom at 80mm and read your manual to find out what the f/stop
is at that range and how it effects the rest of them, if yours is a 3.5
to 5.6, well, that's a stop and a half range and it changes as it zooms,
which means that your f/8 will change perhaps from f/7 to f/10 as you
zoom, so if you leave it at one place and do an exposure test, you can
figure out a 'working film speed' to make your calculations work.
there are probably some books on product photography but I would
recommend some dean collin's videos which are so good you will probably
want to drop this wood shop thing and become a photographer.
From Nikon Mailing LIst:
Since there has been some discussion on the Arca vs the Kirk ball head, I
thought I would pass along the following advice. When the ball head is
not in use, tighten the fast release all the way. The purpose of doing
this is to prevent the knob which tightens the release from unscrewing due
to vibration or whatever. If it unscrews, you may lose either the knob or
the little cylinder which the knob turns against, or both. Of course, I
unfortunately speak from experience on this. The only good news is that
Really Right Stuff can supply new knobs and new cylinders. Bryan Geyer
passed along this tip along with the new knob and cylinder.
By the way, as to which head is better, I don't know because I have only
the Arca head. I will point out that I have never had any trouble with
tightening or loosening the head itself.
From: "L. & P. Pauer" pauer@ils.net
Hi,
I find it easier and cheaper to shoot in-camera dupes.
When having the lab do the work it is usually to 4*5 repro-dupes average
(17$-20$) here in Canada Or when printing to not-the-Cibachrome a 4*5
interneg is made, also (17$-20$) here, and a contrast mask if needed.
Yes it is expensive and no it is not hard to get a Pro lab to make a good
dupe.
Cost wise normal 35mm dups are about 2$ but contrast tends to build up
quickly.
Scan&print; your own, is fairly easy, lots of good scanners around. Current
crop of home scanners are doing up to 4000dpi. There are tons of good
photo-quality printers out there, but print life is a short 3-5 years with
all but the new Epson 870 and 1270 which claims 15-25 or so year print
life.
Or this fall the Epson 2000p/7500/9500 pigment based printers with a print
life of up to 200 years will be here!
Seriously passing all normal chemical based print lifespans.
Check http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ for actual print life fade tests
but
here is a approximate print life table
Hope this helps a bit 8-)..
"Fjx1" fjx1@aol.com wrote
From: f11bob@webtv.net (Bob Hickey)
K-Mart has them now too, $8.95.
Bob Hickey
From: f11bob@webtv.net (Bob Hickey)
Just out of curiosity; has anyone checked out golf shops
for umbrellas? Some of them are really preposterous, but I don't think
I've ever seen a white one. At least none that don't say Max-Fli or
something on them.
Bob Hickey
From: Mike Farrell farrell3200@altavista.net
I've found that when I need a reflector that doesn't need to be very
big, aluminum foil works well. Taping it to a piece of cardboard adds
rigidity.
--
From: f11bob@webtv.net (Bob Hickey)
We who are financially challenged much prefer the word
frugal. Also Home Depot is our best friend. Outside of a bellows,
you can find enough junk in there to make a whole camera. Reflectors
and diffusers? Next to flourescent lites. Stands or tents? Plumbing:
PVC. Screws and gizmos? Can't have too many gizmos: Fastener aisle.
You want it to go 90 deg. and roll on the floor? Hardware. No floor?
Go to tiles and linoleum. And here's the thing: if you ask them they
know. Amazing!
Bob Hickey
From: "Bruce" hendrick@dowco.com
Not that easy. First off, unless you have extensive experience in
painting backgrounds, I wouldn't bother. muslin is a light material, once
you put paint on it- it will be heavy, thick, and will easily crack.
Never mind the flattening issue. "flat paints" are not flat enough for
photographic use. Plus, there are very few flatting additives that are
actually flat enough for photographic use as well.
PLUS, most muslins are actually dyed, not painted - even harder to get a
blended old masters look.
Why not start off with purchasing a grey old masters and start playing
with coloured gels to give you different coloured backgrounds? You will
have to learn how to control your light (-3 stops minimum of fall off from
subject to background if you want a vivid colour from your gelled
background light).
--
Glenn de Souza wrote in message ...
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
It is very easy. Muslin will take paint very well. The muslin will be a
little heavier, but easily manageable. Provided you paint it properly,
you should not have a cracking problem. I have some that I painted over 5
years ago that do not have a single crack and they are well traveled. I
ball them, I fold them and I have even rolled them. Creases and wrinkles
are easily handled with a spray bottle when hung, and come right out.
Flat paints "are" flat enough for photographic use. There are many many
companies that paint muslins: The Backdrop Outlet, Denny, Bright... They
sell for hundreds of dollars. I have one that I painted different on each
side providing me with two backdrops on one:
Normal interior house paint may be used and diluted. I sometimes diluted
as much as 4 to 1 using a natural sponge to apply it. Give it a try, use
cheap flat interior paint and have fun with it.
--
From: "John Stafford" John@Stafford.net
If you use a Bogen system which includes the universal clamps, tripod
mickies and gizmos, then I've found a surprising source for yet more
goodies. A clothing store went out of business here and was selling off
its display hardware. Among the piles of stuff were the black-metal frames
and extendable stands used to hold signs. The extensions looked so
Manfroti that I had to study them. The "Made in Italy" stickers were still
on them. Upon a hunch, I bought the whole pile for $15. When I got them
home, I first compared the fasteners with the Manfroto fasteners. They
were _exactly_ the same parts. Then I removed the sign frames and base and
lo-and-behold the fittings were _exactly_ compatible - perfect fit - with
the universal clamp and fittings. I have to believe the same folks make
both. Now I have beautiful black anodized legs and extensions that fit the
clamps, a part not offered by Manfroto (to my knowledge), at a huge
savings.
From: Shannon Hong triode@uq.net.au
Manfrotto(Bogen) does manufacture shopfitting supports that U describe.
I was in a clothing store just last week which had 2 such supports with
mannequins torsos attached to them. The joints with locking fastners had
'Manfrotto' embossed on them.
From: rndyhyns@earthlink.net (Randy Haynes)
Just thought I would mention it. Last night the wife and I are
at Wal-Mart and passed the automotive section. I so one of those sun
blocker thingy's you put in the windshield to reduce the heat in a
parked car. This one was silver on one side and gold on the other. It
folds up really nice. I bought it and mounted it on one of my light
stands. It all ready had some elastic straps that worked really nice.
Anyhow the entire setup was less that $8.00.
I looked for a plain white one also, but couldn't find one . I
would have had to settle on one with a big pair of eyes on it, or some
goofy saying on it for that one, so I opted for only silver and gold
only.
After reading everyones advice on lighting I am going to try
the one light / one reflector combo and see what turns out of that.
From: "Pierre Clemente" imagepoint@globalserve.net
Sounds interesting, tell me how it turns out. When I shoot on location I
drop by the Home Depot and pick up a sheet of styrofoam to use as
reflector.
Pierre Clemente
From: rndyhyns@earthlink.net (Randy Haynes)
Here's what's on the label, Axius, a trademark of / Marque de
commerce de\Marca Registrada: Auto-Shade
L.L.C. , Moonpark CA, 93021
I tried it out tonight with some still lifes using Portra
400NC so we'll see what it looks like soon. The elastic straps wrapped
around a light stand and held it easily enough. However I couldn't get
all the folds out of it to be perfectly flat so I'm not sure what that
will do to me.
From: Bill Bill_member@newsguy.com
I started buying those several years ago after I read an article in
CAMCORDER magazine. They also have a silver with shiny on one side and
dull on the other.
And, they just started stocking a black that is perfect as a gobo.
They stocked white for a while. However, it seems to have disappeared. I
wrote to the guy who wrote the article and he said that the company who
makes the white has started making them for several photo related
companies. He thought it was funny that Videomaker magazine sells them for
about three times the price.
Bill
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Alan Bell alanb@blk.com wrote
There are two main differences IMO. The first (and IMO, most important) is
the features. In the least expensive, the flash meter is only that, a unit
for measuring flash output. The more expensive meters incorporate built in
accessories such as ambient light metering, non corded flash metering
(which can be very helpful when shooting alone), and averaging/memory
capabilities. They may also include optional accessories such as spot
metering attachments and reflective domes.
The second difference is the sensitivity and range of measurement. The
less expensive meters may not work in very low light situationsin an
ambient mode or in high output flash situations where you are looking at
very small DOF apertures combined with extension factors (such as in macro
work). A 3 stop difference in metered light and effective flash may be
required in long extension/short focal length situations. An f64, 90 or
even 128 flash output may be necessary to give an effective exposure at
f45 (large format) or f22 (35mm) in high extension situations.
Seems the most popular meter for pros and advanced amatures is the Minolta
Autometer IVF (I don't want to start a Nikon vs Canon type war here
though).
It contains all the features I described above and in addition is a
digital meter with easy to read lighted output and is easy to operate. It
comes with a padded case that can be attached to your belt as well as a
neck strap. I own one and consider it one of the best and most versatile
items I have bought for photography. I'm sure there are other brands of
meters with comparable capabilities but the Minolta meter is now selling
for $224 at Adorama which is a pretty good buy for the features.
Richard
From: "TED SMITH" esmith@kingston.net
Calvin,
Any lens in 85mm to 105mm is ideal for 35 mm portrait work. Lens longer or
shorter tend to create some distortion that would not be pleasing in a
portrait.
If you're shooting Nikon AF, I would take a good look at the 80-200 f2.8
zoom. This is a good portrait lens when used at the short end of the zoom
and the wide aperature can create some nice effects when used with a
little backlighting. The 35-105 zoom is nice too. They also make a
couple of distortian control AF lens ... but they're pretty big bucks.
If you are shooting MF lens you should be able to pick up a 105 or 85 used
for a good price. Nikon has made a couple of versions of their 85mm over
the years .... an f2 or f1.8 would be a great lens. Also consider the
Tamron 90mm f2.5 in MF.
As far as a basement studio goes .... the first commercial photographer I
worked for back in the late 60's had his studio in the basement with a
seven and a half foot ceiling.
You should look for studio flash heads that have a modeling light and are
in the 80 to 125 Watt Second power range. Look at Bowens and Multiblitz
systems. Pick up a used Minolta or Gossen flash meter. Backdrops for
single and couple shots can be six foot wide bolts of heavy velveteen
material. Get one in black and one in sky blue. Seamless paper comes in
four foot to nine foot widthes. Using white paper and putting a coloured
gell in one light and throwing it on the white paper can give you a wide
variety of "couloured" backdrops.
Pick up some umbrellas or soft boxes to shoot through. You can buy
reflectors from a couple of sources or you can make your own from
posterboard covered with silver or gold foil ... the gold will warm up one
side of the portrait creating a window light effect.
Back drop stand sets are available for probably less than $100. Look at a
good easy-to-adjust tripod.
Some other things worth having ... a piano stool (or two) so that you can
adjust subject heights when doing couples. Also buy a thick sheet of
styrofoam insullation ... two inches is best. Cut the sheet into pieces
about 6x12 inches. Pile these up to form blocks that are 4,6, and 8inches
thick. Wrap them well with duct tape. These can be used to prop a
sitting subject's foot up to make their body tilt a little into the
portrait or a little out of the portrait. They're great for making
shorter children fir a little better into the composition.Put them on a
subjects lap, drap them with some black clothe, and you have a place for
the subject to rest and arm or put and elbow on to create some poses.
If you're going to shoot children pick up a hand puppet ... and one of
those three foot long multi=coloured "dusters" made out of nylon threads.
They're great to reach out and tickle a youngster with. (And learn how to
blow bubbles with one hand and shoot with the other!)
Portraits are the most "fun" type of photography.
Hope this info helps. e-mail me if you want any further info ...I've got
over 30 years experience (I started when I was TWO) ... owned my own
studio and photo store .... supervised a half dozen studios for a national
chain ... and taught photography. I am retired from it now (at least for
a while) ... but I'll be happy to help out if I can.
Good shooting.
Ted Smith
From: qdurham@aol.com (QDurham)
Stan Peters wrote:
For small objects, a couple swing arm lamps with 100w light bulbs is
enough as digicams/editors are good at adjusting to light sources.
Another easy (with practice) method is to simply paint the object with a
50 watt lightbulb in a $1 reflector. Swing light back and forth, keeping
it pointed at the subject. Start with light about 2 feet from subject.
F/22, shutter on BULB/TIME. How long? Maybe 10 seconds. Depends on many
variables.
Experiment. Blow a whole roll of film! Try to keep light-subject
distance constant. Keep notes.
And scoff not! This is a common technique used in such amateur efforts as
covers on such as Architectural Digest. Maybe 10 minute exposure at f/64,
8X10 Kodachrome, walk into photo and paint a little light under this
table, over that shelf, wherever experience suggests.
From: "Beverly Robinson" robi086@ibm.net
Mike:
Quoting an ad in "Sew News" of June 2000:
10 foot wide cotton fabrics. Washable. Non toxic. Custom/Do-It-Yourself
seamless draperies, slipcovers, bedspreads, tablecloths. Kit Fabric
Samples
$2.00. Homespun, Box 4315, Thousand Oaks, CA 91359 MC/V 1-888-543-2998
Hope this is what you are looking for.
"Mike Jordan" mjordan@thetics.europa.com wrote
From: dmterp@enter.net
Hi Beverly,
A good source for the fabric you are looking for are theatrical supply
houses. This material is used in theater sets all the time and it
comes in wide rolls. It's also cheap.
NYC has a load of these places and you can find it in several weights
suitable for one time use, or permanent installation.
The proper application would be to stretch it and paint a background
on it.
Regards,
Don
From: josh@WOLFENET.COM (Joshua_Putnam)
Seattle Fabrics stocks seamless 120"-width muslin, $8.49/yard
according to last year's catalog. They do mail order and will
sell you whatever length you need. www.seattlefabrics.com
--
Josh@WolfeNet.com is Joshua Putnam / P.O. Box 13220 / Burton, WA 98013
[Ed. note: some interesting ideas on what to do with those contact prints
- make them into promo items!...]
Nifty idea. A photographer I know cuts up his contact sheets from 35mm
and medium format and then makes tiny wood frames for them. He sells them
at crafts fairs and does pretty well at it. I don't think he thought of
putting magnets on the back so I'll suggest it to him.
Bob
[Ed. note: are you throwing away a goldmine in earring mounts? ;-)]
Bob Shell wrote:
A guy here, Ragnars Viellans(sic) cut up his contact sheets and coated
them with that plastic and sold them to Nordstrom as pins and earings.
Some of them had in LED in them. Some of you might be wearing them now!
Mark Rabiner
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000
Nandakumar Sankaran wrote:
I've only painted canvass ones. Used latex paint and sponges and rubber
gloves and schmeared it on in cloudy patterns. Took a regular paint
brush with some highlight color, and whacked against a stick so a
shotgun pattern of spots would appear where it was aimed. (use a 'dry'
brush)
I painted light colors first and darker ones after, though I've heard
many do the opposite, and most professionals start at the top and work
their way down.
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000
The easiest way is to decrease the aperture by the desired amount and use
a correspondingly longer shutter speed (assuming that this is an entirely
different flash than the 283 and has no adjustments to vary the output).
This will, of course, also change the DOF. The duration of the flash is
less than 1/1000 sec and probably closer to 1/10000, so any additional
exposure (via shutter speed) will expose the areas not covered by the
flash (which will be consequently be under exposed by using the smaller
aperture). Hope I haven't confused you there.
There are many ways to get less than maximum flash output at the subject
from a fully manual flash. IMO, one of the best ways is to use a
diffuser/softbox mounted to the flash. As the resultant lighting is
"softened", it can take away some of the "deer in the headlights" effect
so common with hot shoe mounted flash. There are many different diffusers
available of which the Stofen seems to be very popular, attaching with
Velcro I believe.
If you are looking for a home made solution, tissue mounted with a rubber
band has been a effective solution for many years. Make sure the tissue is
a neutral color for obvious reasons. My favorite is a sheet of frosted
Mylar (found at art supply stores). It will both diffuse the light and
reduce the effective output. A sheet (20x30) runs about $3 and can be
layered for the desired effect. It can also be mounted via an adjustable
organic securement device (rubber band :~) ) and is a neutral color.
Another way, if the flash has a bounce head, is to angle it as if to use
ceiling bounce. Use a small white card secured to the back of the flash to
reflect some of the light directly into the subject. Remember that light
normally travels in straight lines and that the angle of incidence equals
the angle of reflectance (like a pool ball bouncing off a rail). So to use
this method the flash head will have to be adjusted to the 45 degree
position.
As the distance the light travels from the source is doubled, the
available light at the subject spreads (light fall-off) to decrease the
light by a factor of 4 (2 stops). With this in mind, moving back away from
the subject to roughly 1 1/2 times the original distance from subject to
flash will give you one less stop of flash exposure.
You will have to decide which solution works best for you as increasing
subject distance creates a different subject size on the film and you may
wish to use a longer lens (which will also change the background
perspective as well as DOF). Using the smaller aperture will also give you
more DOF which may or may not be desirable.
All of these solutions will require you to experiment to tweak the affect.
Richard
Date: 20 Sep 2000
...
The first reply you received is good if the effect you want is to affect
the overall exposure of the film. If that's not the effect you want,
don't bother.
An easy way to affect how much light the flash provides (assuming it is
non-TTL controlled) is to merely lie to the ASA dial on the flash unit so
that the photosensor thinks that the film is properly exposed when in fact
it is short of the proper exposure...set ISO 400 on the flash unit instead
of ISO 100 if you want 2 f/stops less light from it. Yet the overall
exposure is unaffected...merely the amount of light from the flash.
Another easy method is to buy some Neutral Density gel filters, and place
the desired filter over the flash output lens. Again, the overall exposure
is unaffected...merely the amount of light from the flash.
--Wilt
rec.photo.equipment.misc
check out www.lightingmagic.com for some great info on metering for studio
lighting.
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000
airguitar@webtv.net wrote:
As i remember it:
Put the power on, and let the capacitors charge, and let them keep their
charge: don't fire the flash.
Do this for, say, 15 minutes, then switch the power off again, and let the
charge trickle away. That may take some time.
Repeat this a couple of times.
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000
The best way is to bring it up with head attached, DO NOT FIRE THE STROBE,
and let it sit idle, just charging to reform the capacitors for 10-12
hours. Then try firing the strobe at full power, allowing the pack to
recharge to full power and waiting a few minutes before firing again. I'd
probably do this outside if weather permitted, away from flammable
materials or glass. If a capacitor goes, you'll know it. I wouldn't leave
it unattended for too long, check it periodically while doing this.
If all goes well let the pack charge for a few extra hours without firing
strobe, then just turn it off. I'd do this two or three times before using
it. If you've taken good notes of the output the pack/head provided in the
past you can compare the output with a flash meter and see how close you
are to the old output before the long storage. You may notice the pack is
not supplying the amount of power it did in the past. Also, bear in mind,
the capacitors tend to deteriorate after non regular use (i.e. sitting
unused for a long period of time).
I hope this helps.
SR
airguitar@webtv.net wrote:
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000
I have a U212. I've never had any trouble with it, but it only gets
light use. It's kind of fiddly to use with those stabilizer things. I
thought it was a pretty good tripod, until I got the Slik 300DX.
The 300DX, which is only very slightly more expensive than the U212 is
pretty much superior in every way. The head is entirely made of metal,
other than plastic knobs. Very very sturdy and does *not* slip, even
with a heavy RB67 at an extreme angle. The legs lock at 3 different
angles, using angle locks that are again, metal. It uses screw clamp
locks which I prefer over either those snap lock things or collett locks
and they are adjustable in case they ever loosen up. It's roughly
equivalent to the Bogen 3011 legs, but I think it's a bit heavier and
sturdier.
The U212 is still in use though, but in the garage studio. I almost
exclusively use strobe lighting so vibration isn't so much of a concern,
and the geared column is a big convenience for a lot of the stuff I do.
I did however swap out the plastic head for a ballhead since the plastic
head tends to slip even with a 35mm camera on it.
Lisa
spenser187@my-deja.com wrote:
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
I made one several years ago (2" x 4") for about $30. Just pick up some
lumber to make a box, put a flourescent fixture on the bottom, attach a
transluscent peice of plastic (got mine at a glass store) on top (by
making a lip on the inside of the box, all the way around), add a switch
and handle and voila! It looked pretty good.
Of course, mine was not color corrected, but it worked fine. With my
amateur eyes, I can't tell the difference, especially if I don't have a
color corrected one right beside it to compare.
- Tony
[Ed. note: Postscript]
Sorry, I meant 2' x 4'. Also, I painted the entire inside of the box
white for better reflection.
Cheers.
- Tony
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Trusty ol' Home Depot has all kinds of flourescent lites.
all "colors" and sizes. They also have these color corrected tungsten
bulbs which are close to mid-day daylite. But I guess you can bounce
these off a white board inside, or put a track lite type deal on the
floor. Shouldn't be too complicated.
Bob Hickey
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
See www.darkroomsource.com.. There is a lightbox schematic as well as many
other useful darkroom aids.
Richard
From Nikon Manual Focus MF Mailing List:
Since the winter days are short, I've been playing lately with
my latest toys: some umbrellas, lightstands, and slaves to go
with my flash and manual focus (of course) Nikons. I put
together a quick page with some photos and detailed explanations
of how you can use umbrellas on a budget. Before I got my
own umbrellas, I wondered about the extreme basics of how the
clamps and stuff worked; this page explains it.
The page is at http://www.lanset.com/rcochran/flash/
I apologize that this is not strictly Nikon related, but I hope
it will be of interest to some readers.
--Rich
From Leica Mailing List:
For small prints (8x10) gloss is always better. Under glass or not. When
you get to 30x40 and above, matt without glass or with museum glass (non
reflective but not that frosted stuff) works best. Last year I made some
48x60's, some gloss and some matt. The matt won every time because you can
hang it anywhere. Large gloss prints must be hung where there are white or
bright objects opposite it to reflect in the gloss making it impossible to
see the print. For small prints, up to 16x20, gloss looks better than
matt.
I did some gloss 20x24's and they require careful hanging. I have a high
gloss 16x20 Ciba under museum glass and it can be hung anywhere.
I suggest you use gloss paper for your show since you are using glass and
8x10's. Gloss does indeed increase the perception of sharpness and
saturation. You can kill it with the wrong glass however.
Jim
...
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001
For all those interested. I wrote Dean Collins about finding a copy of
his much prized but hard-to-find book on creating lighting devices from
plastic pipe.
In response, Gary, the webmaster at Collins' site, scanned the book and
has now posted it in pdf form at:
http://www.deancollins.com/tt.html
Enjoy.
Richard Glidewell
From Rollei Mailing List;
Andrei;
A long time ago, I picked up a book from the '30s on painting with
light. It showed lighting techniques, using one light, on everything,
from buildings, outside and inside, to silverware. The same effect can
achieved with one strobe. Once I lit a German Bavarian style restaurant.
Dark, with deep booths, a real nightmare. I put the Rollei on 30 second
exposure, and with a vivitrash 285 on full pop powered by a turbo
battery, I was able to light the whole place, as I walked from back to
front.
The lesson being, if you're not in a studio, improvise. Read the
shutterbug, it's good for practical tips like that. I'm sure that
painting with light has been covered ad nauseam.
...
From COntax Mailing List;
Ways to make things smoke: blow cigarette smoke gently over it and snap
the photo fast. Buy smoke chips from a theatrical supply house. When
dropped in water these make smoke. Put dry ice in a container and add
water. Use surgical tubing to make smoke go where you want. You can also
buy "smoke" in spray cans from some prop houses.
Bob (Who tried all of the above when shooting a "steaming hot" pizza for a
pizza box shot.)
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
From my inexperienced point-of-view, isn't the attraction of monolights
that you have less baggage when shooting on location? Also, if your pack
dies, then you are left with nothing whereas if one of your monolights
dies you still have something left to work with.
For Paul and anyone else interested I compiled some info on the Novatron,
Photogenic, and Paul C. Buff monolights below.
All guide numbers are at ISO 100.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
Paul,
I've got a set of Novatron lights, with the 600WS power pack. I've been
pleased. The package I got was nicely complete with all the stands,
umbrellas, cords and, best of all, excellent case. Nice company, too.
I've used monolights, and they are ok, but I never completely understood
the attraction. They are very heavy high on the stands, due to all the
stuff in them. They require numerous extension cords for power, that do
not manage as neatly as a power pack, in that a second set of trigger
cables is required, in some form or another. I'm going to photograph the
Inaugural Ball that George Bush will visit this Saturday night, and I
think it will be just fine to use my power pack system.
My only complaint about the Novatron 600 pack that I have is that the
600/300/150 power settings are too powerful to shoot head shots with 400
speed film, in some scenarios.
Peter
[Ed. note: Mr. Posner is an accomplished professional photographer as well
as a senior staffer at B&H...;]
you wrote:
Traditional portraiture uses a four light setup as follows:
The Main light is usually 30 to 45 degrees off the camera-to-subject axis
and high enough so the light produces a full catch-light in the subject's
eye. Without model lamps and with small children who won't hold still for
you to check this, try placing it so the bottom of the umbrella or soft
box is level with the top of the head, or just a tad lower.
The FIll light is usually directly above the camera's taking lens and is
1-1.5 stops lower in output than the main light. It should be a broad
diffuse non-directional light, which makes its height less of an issue. I
usually placed mine high enough to avoid walking into it.
The Hair light is behind the subject, pointed towards the background. The
strength of this light should equal the main, if you want the film to
record the background density as your eye sees it, but Dean Collins has
ably demonstrated that with deft handling, the amount of background
illumination can turn a black wall white or vice versa.
The Hair light is above the subject's head and slightly behind, so that
the light is producing a cap (sort of like a yamulke) of light on the
head. The quantity will vary with the subject's hair, the background
treatment and the amount of separation of subject-to-background desired.
Now, these are the traditional old style PPof A type rules. While they
produce excellent results, like any "rules" they're made to be broken,
once you've mastered them. I shot with this setup for a decade, and when
combined with decent posing and subject expression, you can't go wrong.
- --
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001
"Daniel Pruitt" dgpruitt@hotmail.com wrote:
You *might* be able to get some input on this from the JLC ceramic
tile forum, at this address:
http://www.jlconline.com/cgi-bin/webbbs/tile/webbbs_config.pl
My guess is that you'd need to get the image transferred onto raw
bisque and then have a clear glaze baked on over that. The dye that
produces the image would have to withstand the heat of the kiln, which
will probably be the big issue.
---
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001
Mike,
I bought one of those emergency blankets and mounted it on a mobile
reflector of my own design. I used packing tape. However the material
mine is made of is very flimsy and in the future I would consider using
a large peice of the white foam insulation or just foam core when in the
studio ( as suggested numerous times by numerous people - but I just
won't listen). This did work for a while and was quite inexpensive (some
say cheap). My wife did me the ultimate kindness at christmas though and
bought me a 42 inch collapsible Booth reflector, black on one side
silver on the other. As a hobbyist-wanna-be I spend enough money on
film, processing etc. that I sometimes try to save money on the wrong
things. Build the Collins soft box and buy the factory-made reflector
it'll be way better in the field than the emergency blanket. It costs
ten times much as the emergency blanket but it's ten times easier to
use.
Just my two bits,
Jack
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001
Hi Jack,
Jack Germsheid wrote:
I bought two 4 x 2 core panels a while back. One side is white (with
lettering on it) and the other side is reflective aluminum foil. One
thing I noticed about it is that it creates hot spots if you aren't
careful. I got rid of most of those by moving the reflector a lot closer
than I first did. I need to fix some small light stands or something that
I can use them with though because they are hard to position unless you
have someone to hold them.
I know what you mean, Jack. Back years ago when I got into Ham radio I
figured I'd save money by buying radios that needed a little work and
fixing them myself. After spending 3 times what it would have cost to
just buy a decent one, I got smart. Luckly my wife only saw "just a few
odds and ends, dear. Hardly cost a thing." part of it and not the total
amount I was paying for parts and tools and test gear.
Mike
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001
BoBo wrote:
foamcore is cheap, what they call an expendable, bash'm abuse'm, they
ain't flesh and blood, (though the speaker at my association meeting
that was saying that happened to OWN a shop that sold all those
expendibles...)
but you can take a stick and poke it right into the back of the board to
hold it up at an appropriate angle. and when the thing starts to look
too ugly, get another one. I have a a light weight light stand, I use a
clamp, not a pincher clothes pin thing, but a thumb screw and c clamp
thing that came with my larsons, I also have some larson reflectors
which open like a four stave umbrella, open out to a stretched out flat,
and have a center pole to use in the clamp devise.
Those car windsheild things are much too flimsy for photographic use,
IMO, and with two parts that are loosely attached, rather clumsy and
unweildy to use, but I find those pro level twist and fold reflectors to
be, while better than the car protectors, still a bit to plyable,
especially if you want to have it at an angle not verticle.
However, if you are shooting in sweet light, like an overhang, etc, then
you should either be able to get away without it and not loose too much,
it is basically a boost and not a fill light, or, as the right kinds of
overhangs and protected areas tend to have branches, tree trunks, walls
very close by, there is usually something to prop or hang the reflector
on.
The only time I really wish an assistant was available is when I am
trying to shoot out in the sun with a scrim, you can toss all the
sandbags and saddlebags with dead weights you can on the stand and legs
but a breeze will set it sailing and the assistant's job isn't so much
to hold it in place as it is to keep the thing from bashing the clients.
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001
I am not a pro or anything but I use one of those 3 legged stands used to
hold up a white board for a buisness presentation. They have adjustable
legs and little fingers to rest the white board on - It works great with a
big light disk.
Frank H
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001
just this week Richard Glidewell posted a link to the greatest reference
to inexpensive studio do it yourself equipment:
http://www.deancollins.com/tt.html
you will need to download an acrobat format reader from any of the
freeware sites.
The risks you take with shabby, trashy looking, equipment and/or studio
environment is the client's reaction, their feelings about the premises,
the sense of cleanlyness, their comfort level is as much a part of the
creation of the image and is, in the clients' mind, forever part of the
image itself. If they don't feel comfortable, there is that much less
of them involved in the creative process. So actually, you can get
away with a lot more using junky looking equipment than you can with an
unappealing studio environment.
In dealing with the public there are similarites with the restuarant
business. There are many examples of places that adopt an atmosphere
of funk, IE: seafood places with rustic decore. but what are the
differences between a funky place and a greasy spoon?
A lot of a client's perception of value is based on the experience, not
the final result. Look at clothing sales, you can buy used clothes at
some charity thift shop, you can buy 'retro-fashion' at some trendy
shop, often the same stuff. (and one thing I've noticed, the higher the
prices, the less stuff is there, thrift shop has so much on the racks
you can hardly riffle through them, department stores, just enough to
fill the racks, haute coutre boutique hardly has enough on display to
fill a carryone bag, I guess they can't afford enough stock at those
prices either.) The higher the prices, the cleaner the place seems,
thrift shop sometimes feel like you don't want to rub up against
anything, department stores average, and that designer shop with the
$500 t-shirt seems like you could do surgery)
I believe one of the reasons that those background projectors didn't
suceed with the public wasn't that the subjects didn't care about having
their picture before any location or spacy background, it was that they
couldn't relate to having their picture taken against a plain white
plastic wall, (hey dude, like where's the Taj Mahal, man.)
On the other hand, you can engage in major trickery, making something
cheap seem so impressive. In the 80's when video was just taking off, a
friend was getting top bucks doing videos competing against TV newsguys
etc, with just a consumer camera, but he placed a huge cinema lens shade
on the front that he got at some photo flea market, it looked soooooo
coooool. In fact, cause of that, I bought a Lindahl belloshade to use
whether I need it or not.
Oh gosh, just how many different tangents did I dive off to this time....
you can have cheap and/or funky gear, as long as the entire experience
with the client is comfortable and matches their expectation of value.
this reply is echoed to the z-prophoto mailing list at onelist, I mean,
egroups, no wait, yahoogroups.com, I think...
From: zeitgeist blkhatwhtdog@yahoo.com
Dave wrote:
photographing glass is difficult as it is translucent and so you are
trying to capture the light behind it,
pro use a clear glass 'product table' that has one or two layers of
glass that curves up to also have a background, on the lower layer they
place a paper background roll and light it. This floats the item off the
background, no shadows, lets the background get illuminated every evenly
without contaminating the subject item with a reflection and color
cast. with a dark background you would have to place a mirror directly
behind it, look at most beer ads at how the glass glows, there is a
mirror behind it, probably photographed separately. it is lit with a
focused spot light aimed down.
Then you can use soft lights to rim light or side light the item to show
texture and surface solidarity, take lots of tests to balance the front
light with the back lights to get the perfect solid object that reveals
that inner glow.
I would definitely make a procentium, like a lens shade, this is a frame
or matte board with an opening that you carefully place between the
camera and set up, since you are using digital you can keep shooting to
get the opening as close to the edge of the image but still outside.
this will block most stray light from the sides or backlight that can
fog and gray out the image from the loss of contrast.
a cheap an s simple thing to do if the items are not quite solid, but
not very translucent is to cut a hole in a matte board under the item
and place a small strobe or even a hot light under and balance that
light with the side light. You will probably want to side light to
reveal the shape of the item as flat light will do just that, make it
look flat.
From: logan mcminn mcminn@mail.idt.net
Go to your library or a bookstore and get a copy of "Light: Science and
Magic" by Fil Hunter and Paul Fuqua, published by Focal Press. It has a
really excellent chapter on how to light glassware to best effect. it
isn't a cookbook, but works from first principles. Once you've studied
the chapters, you'll have plenty of ideas to try out.
....
rec.photo.technique.people
Bob,
A skim light is a general term for a light source that hits a subject from
an oblique angle and/or "rakes" the light across it. Your snoot is a
"point" light source that will create small specular highlights on
reflective subjects such as as bubbles. If you try to light the bubbles
with your snoot you will probably create a multitude of these small
specular highlight but you won't create much "shape" to the bubble
surfaces. Another approach would be to light your photo with softer,
broader "soft box" or "bank light". A larger light source such as this
will create much larger, sexier looking highlights in the bubbles. As Eric
stated earlier, you'll still want to use a darker backdrop so your bubble
highlights contrast nicely against it. A good illustration of this
lighting approach can be seen in most any automobile ad. Cars (like your
bubbles) are highly reflective and require large, soft light sources to
reflect into the large convex body panels and chrome. These large
highlights articulate the shape of reflective surfaces much better than
point light sources...Hope this helps...
bobC
Bob Rossi wrote:
From Contax Mailing List:
I have no idea what Verethane is. To make food shiny we always used
glycerin, available at any pharmacy.
Bob
...
From Rollei Mailing List:
I read a nice page on using fluorescent lighting in a studio. The guy
who wrote it was using it for video, but it should do equally well
for photo applications. I didn't know that the newer balasts were
quiet and didn't have flicker problems. Here's the web page that
describes the lighting:
http://www.studio1productions.com/Articles/FL-Lights.htm
I'm thinking about going to Home Depot and getting the decent quality 2x4'
ceiling lighting (for about $55.00) and get the 3500K GE bulbs from a
lighting store (~$6.00 ea or $24.00 for 4) and then come up with a frame
to hold the light on a stand. The PVC pipe idea the guy has is nice.
Maybe a simple wood frame would do the job as well. Overall a nice, low
cost soft light for portraits or still life stuff. If I could build or
find a low cost 3500K spot light, then I would be all set! :-)
From Rollei mailing list;
I've been reading the great web site that photographer Scott Smith
has set up (http://www.lightingmagic.com/) over the last two days.
I think I've learned the most about lighting and usage tachniques from
his site so far. I like his recommendation to use a translucent light
panel and a strobe with barn doors instead of the usual umbrella or
softbox for the primary (main) light. So, for the portrait and still-life
folks, what kind of strobes and other tools do you use? The only
problem with the strobes is that they can get fairly expensive
(depending on brand and accessories). I like the idea of hot lights,
but they get too hot for portraits and gels. I probably wouldn't
want to touch barn doors that have been on a quartz halogen light
turned on for a while either... ;-(
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001
Alan Justice" a.justice@worldnet.att.net wrote
You can adjust the tension on the ball head so that the camera will move
when you want it to, but not flop if you let it go. It will not pan as
smoothly as a Wimberly.
On the other hand, the tripod must be set up so the head is level, or the
horizon will tilt as you pan with a pan/tilt head or Wimberly. (You can
leave the tripod mount ring on the lens loose to compensate.) With a ball
head you can keep the horizon level as you pan, regardless of whether the
horizon is level or not.
There is also a compromise avaiable with a ball head. Mount the lens
tripod mount on the ball head and flop the ball completely over in the
slot so that it is in the horizontal position. Loosen the tripod mount on
the lens and turn the camera so the horizon is level. Loosen the the pan
knob on the ball head. You can now pan the ball head. Up and down
movement is by the ball turning in the rest position. The lens cannot
flop to the side because it is already all the way over. If you have a
reasonably balanced lens and camera, you will not need much tension on the
ball to keep it from swinging up or down if you let go.
This is NOT as good as a Wimberly, but it can be a useable alternative for
panning quickly moving subjects. As mentioned before, the tripod must be
level to keep the horizon level while panning.
Scott Elliot
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001
Faced with the same question, the answer I found was a Velbon
magnesium ballhead. The PH263mg supports 11lbs, so it should work
well for your requirements. Now a medium price ballhead like this
isn't going to give Arca-Swiss any competition, but it holds my
(heavier) rig firmly, doesn't shift when locking down, moves smoothly
and weighs < 1 lb with QR clamp (again Velbon magnesium). The QR
plates are low profile and very light. They are reinforced with steel
at the clamping point. I find it a great match for my CF tripod.
B&H; carries the magnesium PH263, but not in a QR version. They do
carry the QR clamp and plates separately though. If you can find it,
I strongly reccomend the QR version.
Note that Velbon makes this and a couple of other ballheads in both
magnesium and regular versions, it's only the magnesium versions that
are super light.
Lisa
MarkTuccillo wrote:
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001
Tony Polson tony.polson@btinternet.com wrote:
The Bogen 3001 is a great choice if you really like bending over and
crouching. It is a ridiculously short tripod for male users, and i'm
not talking about Shaquille O'Neal. The 3011 is just barely adequate,
which is why everyone hops straight to the 3021 legs.
For the same money, a Tiltall Professional would do a much better
job, and an older U212 with metal legs would be even better. If you
want to compromise, get the newer plastic U212 and a Bogen 3025 or
3029 head. I've tried this with Slik and other used tripod models and
it works out quite well. Since no one tripod will cover every job, a
combo of light and heavy legs plus one or two basic heads gives the
user a number of options and can be compiled for around $100 bucks on
the used market. Build into the Bogen system later when you have more
dough (and bigger biceps).
Maybe it's just me, but i'm a stickler about working height. Any
tripod that requires more than 4 to 6 inches of center post extension
is trouble in windy conditions.
mpphoto
From Leica Topica Mailing List;
George Allen wrote:
Having personally known (still do actually) some "car" photographers, most
of the advice given so far is valid, with one exception. Most car
photographs are taken "before" sunrise. During morning twilight, there is
a glow of even light. Obviously not on a cloudy or foggy day. Before
sunrise on a clear day. And usually in the desert or on the coast (ocean
or lake).
Jim
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001
A friend who is an interior designer has offered to let me use their
home to practice on I want to waste the minimum of film.
Try "Professional Interior Photography by Michael G. Manual of
Interior photography Harris; Amazon has it."
You can also go to the library and get a number of books on
decorating and get ideas. Don't skimp of film at this time and don't
worry about quality film or processing for the first few rolls. I
suggest you start with your own home. You don't need a great home to
teach yourself the basics. Do that before going to your friends home so
you are better prepared to do well there.
BTW when done photograph your friend's home,select the ones you like
best and ask your friend what they think. It may be a humbling
experience, but it is part of learning.
I am going to use a combination of the Canon 17-35mm F2.8L and the
Tokina 28-70mm F2.6~F2.8
I would expect that 90% will be with the 17-35mm. Hint here, use
wide angle for everything except shots of some specific detail. The
wide angle tends to make a room look larger than life. Just be very
careful about distorting when not shooting exactly on a horizontal
level.
I have a canon flash, the 540, and a number of smaller flash units
with slave adapters.
Doing it right would use every flash you have and then some.
Lighting is extremely important and difficult. It is especially
difficult when trying to use small flash without large modeling lights.
As a side note, watch out for the different color temperature of room
lights, flash and sun light.
Keep at it, there is a lot to learn. I would rate this as one of
the most difficult areas to even do OK in.
--
From: zeitgeist blkhatwhtdog@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: another open question to Zeitgeist
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001
> I have just viewed some Collins videos on lighting.... and he espouses
> the use of something called a "P40" screen (?) to spread mechanical
> light for a more natural look. My question is this... How do "you" go
> about creating that "northern light" effect when you don't have natural
> northern light available.. Is Dean Collins approach viable for that type
> of lighting effect? and...... where does one "find" this "P40" frame he
> speaks of... or can it be made reasonably inexpensively?
I'd bet that video has a couple corporate logos on it, from sponsors,
and the p40 is probably the model number of a scrim made by whatever
manufacturer that is footing the bill for the video. what is it
westcott? or photoflex?
Dean has always been open about his techniques, and his frugal approach
to making stuff. He used to have a book called Tinker Tubes which gives
diagrams for over a dozen studio and location lighting effects ranging
from a simple scrim to a complex light bank, including one set up using
one vivitar 283 to do the work of a hairlight, huge glamour light and
bounce board, all using pvc pipe and discount outlet fabrics, oh yeah,
there was a background stand in there too. I'm waiting for him to
come out with a diagram to make your own medium format camera outta
Hardware store parts.
anyway, someone actually got a hold of him and got him to post his
Tinker Tube book in pdf format, look up a few posts on your newsreader
as it was posted a few days ago.
If you are in a studio, or room in your house whatever, you can hang a
curtain of thin translucent fabric, rip stop nylon, shower curtain
liner, slip liner, go to a garden supply and get some floating row
cover, aka garden cover, and just hang it like a curtain. Dean's
method was to take two pieces of ten foot pvc pipe, cut it into 6.5/3.5
foot sections and clip the fabric over it. The advantage of the
commercial flats is that they have a shock cord threaded and the fabric
has fitted corners so you can assemble them in less that a minute.
the whole point is to make your concentrated light source, whether its a
small reflector, larger bowl reflector, an umbrella etc, seem like a
much larger light source. I have advocated a 12 foot light source,
Dean demos a six foot one, however in dean's example the subject is
usually a half length or even a close up and I like to be prepared to
shoot a full length, or larger family group without having to alter
lights, or confirm my exposure.
You may have heard this before, but there are a lot of articles buried
in the archives of the z-prophoto mailing list at egroups.com about how
and why of the northlight system...
From: zeitgeist blkhatwhtdog@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: Seamless Shadows
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001
> I would appreciate any advice others may have about lighting seamless
> paper. My problem is getting it evenly lit. I get a darker color in
> the corner/curve than the floor and back. Here's my setup. I'm using
> 9' seamless paper with an umbrella on either side pointing directly into
> the curve. I've been told this should eliminate the 'shadow' in the
> corner. This has not worked for me. I've tried large swooping curves,
> as well as small ones and still no success. I see photo's by other's
> all the time where a subject is standing in an evenly lit field of
> color. What's the secret?
>
lighting a solid color for perfection is a difficult job. even for a
head shoulders shot for the cover of TV guide Gary Bernstein, the other
half of zuga.net, would cross four umbrellas.
If you have enough room, pull the paper out so it's more of a slope from
the wall to the floor, that would require the subject get pulled out
even further from the wall, you may need 12 feet.
Are you sure you have removed the subject's shadow as the problem.
spillage from the main light or fill could be adding a bit more light to
your background, except that corner.
adding more lights might help, two up and two set down low and crossed
the background. When I was shooting hi key in a studio, I bounced my
two heads into the upper side walls so spread the light smoothly.
the problem might stem for the surprising shiny surface of the paper and
the angle the lights are hitting it.
one thing I would try is to place the subject on a riser, lay some
pallets with a plywood pannel, or a folding utility table and let the
background sag behind, this might drop the corner down below, so the
image doesn't show that much of the curve, though there may be a sharper
horizon line you could limit that with a shallow depth of field.
then there are digital solutions...
this reply echoed to the z-prophoto mailing list at egroups.com
From: Kirk kirkdarling@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Detailed PVC Studio Equipment Instructions
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001
There have been numerous requests for instructions on building light-
modification devices from PVC pipe. I've built them, and it's easy
and inexpensive. Some companies have made a business of it.
Dean Collins has put a detailed set of instructions with diagrams and
photos for a variety of great PVC devices on his website...but you
can't navigate to it from there.
Go to www.deancollins.com/tt-book.pdf and it will start a download
automatically.
My only additions:
1. You can run bungee cord through the simpler panel devices to make
them "snap together" like LightForm panels.
2. Study the design carefully before applying glue. There are always
certain joints that you can leave unglued to allow you freedom to
dismantle the device to some extent, yet keep it strong and twist-
free.
3. Ripstop nylon makes a good, washable diffusing and soft-reflecting
medium.
--
Kirk
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001
From: Mike Jordan mjordan@europa.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: Detailed PVC Studio Equipment Instructions
Hi Kirk,
Kirk wrote:
....(above posting)
I printed out his how-to manual and plan on building a few of them
myself. Something that I found that I hope will make good reflective
material is one of the cheap emergency blankets that's made out of mylar
(or soemthing else like mylar). I bought a couple of them for under $3.00
each at a local sporting goods store (GI Joes in our area). The size is
84" x 54" and it's very reflective. It's even crinkled out of the package
because it's folded into such a small package. I've not figured out the
best way to secure it between the pvc pipes yet, but will probably loop it
over the pipes and use one of the clips snapped down over it. For a cheap
reflector it's hard to beat and if I'm ever out in the hills taking
pictures I can still use it as an emergency blanket if I had too.
From: Kirk kirkdarling@mindspring.com
Newsgroups:rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Dean Collins' Detaild PVC Light Modifier Instructions
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001
There have been numerous requests for instructions on building light-
modification devices from PVC pipe. I've built them, and it's easy
and inexpensive. Some companies have made a business of it.
Dean Collins has put a detailed set of instructions with diagrams and
photos for a variety of great PVC devices on his website...but you
can't navigate to it from there.
Go to www.deancollins.com/tt-book.pdf and it will start a download
automatically.
My only additions:
1. You can run bungee cord through the simpler panel devices to make
them "snap together" like LightForm panels.
2. Study the design carefully before applying glue. There are always
certain joints that you can leave unglued to allow you freedom to
dismantle the device to some extent, yet keep it strong and twist-
free.
3. Ripstop nylon makes a good, washable diffusing and soft-reflecting
medium.
--
Kirk
From: "Mark Empson" empson@clear.net.nz
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: FAQ on Lighting techniques
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002
See http://www.lmphotonics.com/photoretreat/faq.htm
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] an image of the 1999 eclipse
Dan Kalish at kaliushkin@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> Suppose i am using a 2 ft deep softbox at about, say, 2 ft from my subject.
> What would that be doing, diffusing the light around the source, or
> diffusing the light around the subject?
> ;-)
>
It would be diffusing the light falling on the subject.
> Why would you put a 2ft. softbox 2 ft. from the subject???? Wouldn't that
> defeat the point of diffusion? Wouldn't the diffusion box be in the
> picture?
The closer you put it the softer the light. I use big softboxes, 4 X 6 feet
and bigger, and put them as close as I can without getting them in the
photo. Sometimes now I just let them intrude into the photo and Photoshop
them out.
Bob
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002
From: Tim Ellestad ellestad@mailbag.com
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] an image of the 1999 eclipse
If the light source is diffuse (softbox, white umbrella, bounce off
non-specular surface, etc.) then the "broadness" of the shadow edge will be
proportional to the relative size (and evenness) of the light source.
Collimated light sources such as fresnel lights or certain "optically
focussed" open-faced lights will cut relatively sharp shadows at any
distance (limited by the optical quality of the unit).
So with diffuse sources the closer you come the larger the source becomes
effectively and the broader (and softer) the shadow edge. Getting closer
and closer for softness introduces another lighting problem, though.
Inverse Square fall-off in intensity may become significant from front to
back through your subject. Bigger sources at greater distances solve this
problem but you then need more horsepower to get the same exposure. Diffuse
sources are not as critical with this Inverse Square problem as point
sources, but the effect is still there.
Tenting your subject just wraps the diffuse light source all around,
providing nearly uniform diffuse light from any reflex angle to the subject.
This is a common technique for photographing highly reflective subjects,
particularly those that have very specular surfaces such as silverware or
jewelry (where the percieved surface of the subject is, in fact, a mirror
image on the reflex viewing angle, in this case showing you the actual light
source - making it look bright and shiny like we think these items should
look). It tends to yield very flat, boring renderings of more normal
subjects with typical diffuse surfaces, though.
Tim Ellestad
ellestad@mailbag.com
...
>Dan Kalish wrote:
>
>>> Suppose i am using a 2 ft deep softbox at about, say, 2 ft from my
>subject.
>>> What would that be doing, diffusing the light around the source, or
>>> diffusing the light around the subject?
>>> ;-)
From: "Hassel Weems" hassel@pluggedindesign.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Softbox (home made)
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002
White styrofoam coolers make great softboxes. Cut a hole in the bottom for
your flash and attach some white ripstop nylon (or a white trash bag) to the
opening.
Hassel
--
Hassel Weems Photography
Plugged In Design Web Sites & Graphic Design
www.hasselweems.com
From: Lisa Horton Lisa@lisahorton.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Softbox (home made)
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002
I've made a number of softboxes out of Foamcore. I based my design on
an article in Shutterbug a few years ago, but modified that design
substantially. I found I like the light best from the ones with a
"satin silver" interior finish. This is nothing more than really
cheap silver spray paint:) For the front, white ripstop nylon is the
standard, but you can also use some various translucent plastic films
found at art supply stores. The softest light would come from a white
interior with the ripstop. The satin silver and translum film give a
light that's almost pearlescent, with a hot center and rapid falloff.
HOWEVER!!! I would suggest that the Photoflex LiteDome XTC 12 x 16"
(X-Small) would be the perfect solution. It's inexpensive, works
well, disassembles easily to a small size, and can be adapted not only
to shoe mount flashes but the big handle flashes as well.
Lisa
"Willie C." wrote:
>
> I'm looking to make a small softbox for my 283 and / or AC strobe. It will
> probably be 12" x 12" or 16" x 16". Do any of you have experience with what
> materials work best. How well do they allow light transmission and quality of
> light? I'm thinking of using aluminum foil inside for light reflection.Or
> maybe some white material with the aluminum foil being glued to cardboard and
> insertable if needed. Also, if any of you already have softbox plans and want
> to share, please feel free to share. Thanks in advance.
>
> Willie
From: zeitgeist blkhatwhtdog@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Home made equipment
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001
MelM2 wrote:
> Greetings everyone. Does anybody know of any links for making your own
> equipment. What I'm talking about is tripods, studio flash systems that sort
> of thing. I'm not wanting to build my own camera just some ot the accessories.
below is a link posted to the z-prophoto mailing list yahoogroups.com
Dean Collins is a fabulous inovator, Tinker Tubes was a book he
published years ago and now out of print so he put it up in a hidden
link cause of all the requests for it, (ok stalking, hounding, vague
threats, pleading) you'll need to get an adobe acrobat reader. the
shows plans for build yourself reflectors, softboxes, bounce boards on
up to elaborate glamour lighting set up using only one flash stashed
behind the background (bouncing off an overhead reflector giving a hair
light and throwing enough light to a silver reflector above the camera
and a bounce board below.
> > "R. A. Glidewell" wrote:
> > >
> > > For all those interested. I wrote Dean Collins
> about finding a copy of
> > > his much prized but hard-to-find book on
> creating lighting devices from
> > > plastic pipe.
> > >
> > > In response, Gary, the webmaster at Collins'
> site, scanned the book and
> > > has now posted it in pdf form at:
> > > http://www.deancollins.com/tt.html
> > >
> > > Enjoy.
> > >
> > > Richard Glidewell
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001
From: Waldo Berry WBERRY@dce.ksu.edu
Subject: Re: portrait business--where to start
I was in your shoes many moons ago. I started by reading lots of portriat
books. Some are a waste others are really good. Videos are an even better
teacher. The ultimate is hands on classes. In my area they have Wicher 1 &
2 portrait and lighting classes. There is a good hand metering book you
should get also. Lights will be another issue. When your starting price is
everything, basic lighting requires a main, fill, background and hair. A
reflector can fill the roll of a fill. Lastly posing and compisition books or
classes will round you out. One book you might try is Wildis, the Ultimate
Image. The other is "The Portrait", and then the metering book. Once you
get rolling, you'll be okay for most standard portrait stuff. Once you want
the really specialized high key specialized or low key rembrant looks, you'll
need to work towards it . My two cents
waldo
From Hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001
From: Stein stein@bekkers.com.au
Subject: Re: portrait business--where to start
Dear Lisa,
Find yourself a niche market. I stumbled upon mine at a hobbies show when I
set up a backdrop and took portraits of medieval reenactors for their club
magazine. Then a couple of belly dancers wandered over to see what I was doing
and I took a few dance poses for them and it is 5 years later and I have 33
wives and a blue silk sultan's outfit and a harem set in the studio and new
tiled floor for them to dance on and life is very good.
Get yourself a window in the town and persuade the shop owner to let you
put a portrait a week in it. Change it every week and peole will get in the
habit of passing the window to see who is in this week. Needless to say you get
permission from the sitter to put them in the window.
Do team photos for the local little league or volunteer bushfire brigade.
If the firemen are cute you can get them to take their shirts off and pose with
their hoses. Do a freeby for the Country Womens Association and they will never
forget you.
Mind you, neither will the firemen....
Uncle Dick
From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org
Subject: [Leica] Re: Winter in GA [long]
Eric wrote:
>David:
>
> >The third and fourth, I am looking for some advice for simple portraits.
>
>http://www.zuga.net/freelessons/JZCH1.shtml
>
>
>Eric
Great site Eric. That is e-x-a-c-t-l-y the kind of work older
professional, knowledgeable, portrait photographers produce. This is not
Leica photography, it is MF or LF work. This is what families want for
their wall and mantle, and what executives want for their foyer and
boardroom. What is displayed here is not Sears, Olin Mills, or other chain
store portraiture. This is not annual report or artsy fartsy portraiture.
It is the real thing. It is very good. And it is v-e-r-y difficult.
These are very far from being "simple portraits." I'm sure they are eons
beyond what you had in mind. But you should read about the lighting, the
direction, and look at the separation of subject from the background, in
appropriate places. There is a lot of information here that can be gleaned
for use in other ways.
After being taught the rigors of formal portraiture in 1959/60, it became
very obvious to me, over the years, that there were hackers (Sears, K-Mart,
Olin Mills, etc,) and there were professionals who had taken the time to
learn the craft. Those of you who have not spent the many many months of
formal instruction in this craft cannot possibly know what I am talking
about. I can guarantee that without hard work over a long period of time
(paying your dues) you will not be able to produce photographs like those
shown on the referenced web sites. You will produce K-Mart specials, if
that good.
Look at Yousuf Karsh's portrait of Winston Churchill
http://www.mfa.org/exhibitions/karsh.html
or Einstein, Hemingway, Frank Lloyd Wright, Picasso, & Giacometti at
http://www.westongallery.com/artists/y_karsh/yousuf_karsh.html
Ultimately, what you are photographing is how light is reflected from your
subject. What kind of light to use (natural, artificial, etc.), what
reflectors and where to put them, how to get the face and facial expression
to be THE dominant feature(s) when there is so much other stuff in the
photograph, etc., is the key. Without experience and direction, one cannot
hope to produce results better than just snap shots.
A master of "subtractive light control," was a photographer named Leon
Kennamer. He was written up in the September 1997 Rangefinder and wrote a
book on the subject, with three other photographers, titled "Four
Photographers." Leon produced formal portraits (sort of like those
referenced above), and informal portraits. But he mostly using natural
light (even in the studio) and usually natural settings. He never added
light to a setting, he just removed the light he didn't want and
manipulated the light that he wanted via black umbrellas and reflectors. He
always shot at f/4 or f/5.6 around 1/60th (and slower) and always shot late
in the day. No twinkie lights! His mantra was "Learn to see the light."
Hello Ted... sound familiar?
Leon Kennamer was an artist first and a technician second. This helped set
him apart from his colleagues. He taught his artistic control throughout
the world for 40 years, and was in great demand.
Enough reminiscing... the bottom line is, if you want to take portraits
that are stand-out examples, be prepared to work very hard for a long time.
It is not an easy craft. This is why I stick to nature, landscapes, and
other fine art stuff, or just stuff. It's a hellova lot easier than good
portraits.
I'm in awe of people like Ted and Leon Kennamer. And folks like Karsh,
well... what is there to say other than just stand there, with mouth open,
drooling!
Jim Brick, BIPAA, ASMP,
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002
From: DaveHodge@aol.com
Subject: [HUG] Re: hasselblad V1 #1532
hasselblad@kelvin.net writes:
The method of exhibition, mounting on thin aluminum and held away from the
wall via a small and invisible wood frame behind the mounted photo, was
incredibly great.
I have seen several exhibitions where the prints were mounted on foam-coard
board whose edges had been spray-painted flat black before the prints were
mounted. Then they used 1/2x3/4 wood strips on the back to keep the prints
floating in space! Very effective.
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002
From: Patrick Bartek bartek@intermind.net
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Kinda on topic: lighting questions
Tourtelot wrote:
> Just got some proofs back from my lab today (shot with my 500C/M if
> that counts as "on topic
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002
From: Mike Kirwan mkirwan@pacbell.net
Subject: RE: [HUG] Kinda on topic: lighting questions
Ian;
I use black velvet for backdrops for still life work and portraits. It can
be very expensive but a trip to a number of local fabric stores turned up
gold. They had a number of off-cuts. I bought one section that was abouit 4
feet by 3 feet that was ideal for still life and head & shoulder shots. That
cost me $9.00. On a return visit I found soem sale items, two pices that
were around 6 feet by 4 feet. Got both for $22.00. They had very ragged
edges and a couple of flaws. I had my niece trim them and stitch them
together. You cannot see the seams.
So shop around, the people working in these fabric stores are very helpful.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: ian.barnes [mailto:ian@ianbarnes.co.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 1:00 AM
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: RE: [HUG] Kinda on topic: lighting questions
I would love to get hold of some cheap black cotton velvet but surprised how
much it is. Any suggestions prices and widths? Ian
From: "UrbanVoyeur" nospam@urbanvoyeur.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Concert Photography
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002
It depends on how much experience you have with each.
Extremely contrasty situations can sometimes fool evaluative metering into
under or over exposure, such as brightly lit performers against a dark
background. The more evenly lit the stage and the more brightly lit the
background, the more accurate evaluative metering will be.
On the other hand, if you spot meter a point that's very bright, and shoot
at that reading without stopping down, your pictures will be under exposed.
If you have limited experience with spot metering in conjunction with
manual settings, then I would stick with evaluative.
If you have used spot metering before and are comfortable interpreting and
adjusting the readings you receive, then try the following as a starting
point:
(1) Put the camera in spot meter, manual mode.
(2) Meter the brightest point you want to retain detail in, often a
performer's facial highlight.
(3) Open up the lens/shutter 2 stops from the highlight reading. That will
place the highlight in zone VII
Until you get the hang of it, bracket your exposures.
J
"webfinder01" webfinder01@xyz.com wrote
> Any idea what is the technic for taking concert photography in term of
> metering
>
> I am using Canon 1V. Should i use spot or evaluative metering .
>
> Thanks
From: bufordsanders@yahoo.com (Buford Sanders)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: cheap lighting?
Date: 26 Apr 2002
Stefan Patric tootek2@yahoo.com wrote
> Do you have a URL?
J&K; Group for inexpensive strobes and accessories:
http://www.stores.ebay.com/id=5697114
(No....I am not affiliated with them....just a satisfied customer)
There are others that might sell inexpensive strobes on ebay
www.ebay.com and search on "strobe"
I hope this helps!
Buford
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org
Subject: Re: [HUG] Slightly OT: shipping prints
David Meiland wrote:
>I assume that some of you here make large prints and occasionally sell
>them, so I'd like to ask how you get them to your customers. I recently
>sold a 16x20 print matted to 28x32 to a nice lady who lives 500 miles away.
>To ship it I bought a sheet of 1/8" lauan plywood (cuts with a razor knife)
>and made a 29x33 sandwich of foamcore, plywood, and duct tape to ship the
>print in. There's got to be a better way! Obviously I should sell the damn
>things without the matte, and I should probably look for off-the-shelf flat
>shipping packages of some kind. Curious to know how others do this.
I bought the following and use them to ship anything up to 11x14:
http://www.uline.com/ProductDetail.asp?model=S-1198
And I bought the following to ship anything over 11x14 through 20x24:
http://www.uline.com/ProductDetail.asp?model=S-5060
These are stay flats and do not require any stiffener inside the envelope.
You can ship raw prints. I also bought a roll of the following stickers:
http://www.uline.com/ProductDetail.asp?model=S-3418
just to help. But so far, I've not had a problem shipping prints in these
envelopes.
Jim
From camera makers mailing list:
From: "John Yeo" jonnieo@thegrid.net
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] DIY - Lighting (softboxes, etc.)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002
http://www.enteric.org/lighting from plastic tubes.pdf
I also made a html file with the link so you can right click>save to disk.
http://www.enteric.org/lighting.html
John
From camera makers mailing list:
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002
From: Ted Burford tedburford@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] DIY - Lighting (softboxes, etc.)
> Is there any news about the Collins link mentioned a while ago?
http://www.deancollins.com/TT.HTML
Ted
From camera makers mailing list:
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002
From: William Nettles nettles@wgn.net
Subject: [Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #367 - 5 msgs
Ah Soft boxes.
I remember them well. My fingers still tingle with burns from the glue gun
and I can still smell the smoke from the burning one in the studio on St
Sacrement in Old Montreal. . . .
Tungsten soft boxes are a risky animal due to the heat. Sheet aluminum is
light and reasonable easy to work. I shoot mostly tungsten and never use
'em. Instead I just stretch some translucent Gridcloth between poles on
C-stands. But I make my own .032 aluminum reflector boxes.
Flash/strobe light boxes on the other hand are easy and very workable.
I basically make them out of the 3/16" foam core. and cut an opening for the
light head in the back --and a couple of vent holes-above and below the
light position for convection flow. The Tungsten modleing lights will, as
our narrow box did in Vieux Montreal, set fire to foam core.
One critical factor is that the white foamcore really isn't all that good a
reflector, and a completely open back will lose a lot of light. It's best
there for to design them with a keystone shape to bounce the light toward
the front.
It is also very good to buy a roll of pebbled silver reflector material from
Roscoe gels (or order from Mole Richardson or Calumet). I used rubber cement
though spray mount will work as well, and cover the inside of the box with
the silver reflector material. This will give you maybe two additional
stops. I use the pebbled surface because tinfoil or a mylar would through
uneven spectral reflections on the front of the box.
The face of the box I use Roscoe Grid cloth. It has the small ripstop grid
incorporated (just like your winter parka) and won't shred like the pure
plastic translume and such. I just gaffer tape them to the front.
That's about it. They aren't as easy to store as the roll up ones but you
can create individual light boxes for specifc shoots.
---William Nettles
nettles@wgn.net
Nettles Photo / Imaging Site http://www.wgn.net/~nettles
Date: Sat, 04 May 2002
From: William Nettles nettles@wgn.net
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Subject: [Cameramakers] PVC pipes and softboxes
I've tried to make some lighting supports with PVC 1" plastic water pipe
which is very inexpensive. SPecifically I made a scrim holder about
1.2meters by 2 meters. I've found the PVC was too flexible.
One thing that would probably work nicely is thin wall aluminum tubing
inserted into the PVC tubing. You'd wind up with a nice durable pole that
won't turn your hands black from oxidation but that is rigid.
Another source of PVC is electrical conduit. I think it is a bit stiffer and
less expensive than plumbing PVC. They also make nice 6" 150mm radius sweep
turns. You can glue this pipe interchangably with the white/gray water PVC
but a mix of such piping is a violation of building codes so don't do this
in your house for potable water.
I still go with foam core softboxes but they aren't portable.
From: "Tony Spadaro" tspadaro@ncmaps.rr.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Need tips on homemade reflector
Date: Thu, 09 May 2002
I buy sheets of posterboard at the art supplies shop - about 5 bucks for a
30x40 sheet. I usually get a black sheet - which is white on the opposite
site. I keep them in a plastic bag the art supply store uses to pack them.
If I need a smaller reflector I simply cut one down. When they get rougie
enough I toss them and buy new. I've used them for backgrounds too - on head
shots and tabletop photography. The grey ones are close enough to a grey
card that you can use one as a giant grey card. I haven't used one in a
while, but I think it was 1/3rd of a stop lighter (more reflective) than the
grey card.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
From: "Skip" shadowcatcher@cox.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Need tips on homemade reflector
Date: Thu, 09 May 2002
For a more portable version, I use a silver windshield reflector, the type
that folds up and stores in a bag. I got one at Target, which fits nicely
in the pouch on the back of my camera bag.
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Darkroom benches
Gest2001@aol.com at Gest2001@aol.com wrote:
> This is not as pretty as a laminate top but is far
> lest costly.
I didn't say it in my earlier post, but I got the counter tops I used very
cheaply because they were custom orders which were never picked up. These
are basically dead inventory for a lumber yard and they will let them go
cheaply just to get rid of them.
Bob
From: tonyofoto@aol.com (TonyOfoto)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 11 May 2002
Subject: Re: Help: Need tips on homemade reflector
Ok, I don't have the money to buy a pro reflector(s). I was thinking
of foamboard.
For about $5 you can get a windshield reflector from Walmart. They roll-up
like the photo reflectors into a small pouch. They are bright silver on one
side and a matte silver on the other.
From nikon mailing list:
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002
From: "Roland Vink" roland.vink@aut.ac.nz
Subject: Re: BALLHEADS
> I am in the market for a ballhead to support my F3HP with a Nikon 300MM f4.5
> ED AIS lens. I may acquire (NAS) a larger lens later but nothing over 6lbs
> in weight. This will all fit on top of a Bogen 3021BN tripod. I am amazed
> by the info on the various ballheads available on the internet, and have
> info overload. I thought that you folks might have some practical knowledge
> in this area and be willing to share your positive/negative experiences with
> ballheads.
Hi Terry,
I also recommend the Arca-Swiss quick release system, I use camera
and lens plates from Really Right Stuff (reallyrightstuff.com) which
are customs fitted. You can also buy similar plates from Kirk Photo.
As for the ballhead, the Arca Swiss B1 is the original, and many
swear by it. This ballhead may be a good choice if you have big glass
such as a 400/2.8. For a 300/4.5 it is bigger and heavier than you
need. I wanted something small and light so I could carry it when
hiking. My biggest lenses are a 300/4.5 IFED and 200/4 micro, so I
spent a lot of time looking for a smaller quality ballhead. The main
contenders were:
Kirk BH-3 http://www.kirkphoto.com/ballheadbh3.html
Acratech ultimate http://www.luminous-landscape.com/arcatech.htm
Markins M1-PQ http://markins.com/2.0/eng/ballheads.htmls
Photo.net has good information on all three ballheads. I think any of
them will comfortably fill your current and future needs. The Markins
ebsite has a short video showing the ballhead comfortably holding a
Nikon 800/5.6 lens!
I went for the Markins - it is a little more expensive, but lighter
than the BH-3, and I prefer the traditional design over the radical
Acratech. It is very smooth in operation, and will lock dead solid.
Regards,
Roland
From: "ajacobs2" ajacobs2@tampabay.rr.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Pistol-grip ballheads: Anyone using the Slik who can compare
to the Bogen/manfrotto
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002
I apologize in advance but I am negative on these things.
I had a store, and carried both, tried both, used both, and stopped
carrying both.
Early Bogens slipped. Later versions held but they still raised the camera
too far off the axis.
Definately not a medium format or heavy lens operation. Too heavy with a
biger lens. My 180 on an ETrsi is enough. One slip and you are done.
Changes the center of balance.
If the SLIK (and I'm only a moderate fan of their heavier models, the
plastic promo stuff is useless) was that much better than the
Bogen/Manfrotto they would be selling them. And they are not...( My rep
couldn't remember the last order for one) so yours was the only post in a
long time about the SLIK as the thought of using it hadn't occurred to
anyone else.
Also the SLIK on the bottom end, they don't make strong enough tripod legs
for me...
>From actual materials, the Bogen is stronger. But as I said I will not use
nor recommend to my students either one. And we endorse Bogen products
except for this one....
If you still go with the BOGEN or the SLIK, (temptation is all powerful). I
suggest the following:
My choice of pistol lever grip , if you put my fingers in a vise is Bogen,
You can sell it off is not happy. Try selling the SLIK. The mere fact you
got no answers refects that.
You want the heaviest pod you can carry. You need the weight downstairs to
overcome the torque produced upstairs (simplification)
Learn how to keep the Bogen in adjustment and not oil it or lube it other
than read below.
Alternatives: I prefer ballheads....
Ballheads are not perfect either till you get into the $$$$$ range.
Many ballheads need to be broken in and or dis-assembled ( Johnny-Fived) and
polished for smoothness to achieve that smoooth action. I loved guys who
traded Bogen heads ( ballhead or even tripod heads) to me complaining of
stiffness, jerky operation, I offered to correct that, BUT they were going
KIRK or one of the others. About twenty minutes on the buffing wheels and
the Dremels and a little deburring made a silk purse of a sows ear....grease
is not the answer.....and it's simple.....
Take the unit apart after making marks for re-alignment:
Remove any grease or lube.
Use machinest dye, BLACK/BLUE Sanford marker, or liquid shoe dye.
Reassemble and line things up,
Lightly twist and turn it, tighten and do again.
Dis-assemble
Look for high spots and polish off...sometime simply polishing the bearing
surfaces helps.
On some, it just was just a piece of flashing or sand.
Many times from being greased up too much attracts dirt and sand.
White teflon bearing grease ( also called casette grease) from bikes works
well, very very sparingly, it does not evaporate and handle compression
well, oil does not, WD40 merely dries out and forms varnish.
Not oil, oils are bad on bearing surfaces and evaporate.
Oh, how do you polish inside surfaces of a ball head....simple you use a
golf ball, ( I use the ones I Bogey holes on, I have a lifetime supply)
anchored on the end of a long threaded rod countersunked and wrapped with
terry cloth and abrasive compound. You then stick the threaded end on a
drillpress or buffing motor with chuck.
I wish you well,
Al Jacobson
Website: www.aljacobs.com
Teaching site: http://web.tampabay.rr.com/ajacobs2
From minolta mailing list:
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002
From: William Rainey wrainey@hiwaay.net
Subject: Re: paint for canvas backdrops.
Michael Hood wrote:
...
> could roll it back up without the paint cracking :) But I was curious if
> there was anything better for this sort of application before I go and start
> painting these things with latex. Boss, I know you've painted a few muslin
> and canvas backdrops yourself..
...
I'm curious to see if anybody else responds to this question also! In the
past I've only used highly thinned latex interior house paint (matte of
course) out of a spray gun for muslin, and unthinned for canvas (applied
with sponges, brushes, and wadded up rags). If there is a better option, I
sure hope somebody will post it here!
While we're waiting for good answers, I do know that if you were to start
with raw muslin, you can do some really good stuff with Ritr dye, but I
haven't tried that method yet, so I can't offer any details on application
methods.
Later,
--
Bill Rainey
wrainey@hiwaay.net
http://home.hiwaay.net/~wrainey/
From minolta mailing list:
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002
From: "haefr2000" ray_h71@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: light table for slide sorting
--- In Minolta@y..., Dennis Ducklow dducklow@s... wrote:
> I would like to make my own slide sorting light box. Does anyone
have
> or know of plans for such a project?
>
> Dennis
Since this isn't rocket science, it should be easy enough
conceptually to cobble something up. Start by laying out the number
of slides you'd want to be able to view at any given time. A
suitably large rectangle or square to accomodate them, plus an extra
1/2" in each direction as a fudge factor, will be your basic diffuser
dimensions. Then you'd need to construct a suitably large box to
hold the light bulb socket at the rear and the front diffuser panel.
A front to back depth of about 12" to 14" should be adequate. 1/2"
plywood should suffice, with an angled front opening (~45 degrees) to
which you'd mount the diffuser panel. I'd paint the interior of the
box flat white or very pale flat blue if you want "color correction"
for the low color temperature of an incandescent bulb, to
minimize "hot" spots. You could cover or paint the exterior to your
preference if aesthetics are important. A common shop light fixture
(ceramic or plastic) wired to a simple toggle switch for ease of
operation is about the most complicated "techy" procedure you'll
face. (You'd need to be familiar with operating a screwdriver to
attach the wires.) A 40 watt bulb should be plenty considering the
close range of bulb to diffuser, and the heat buildup would be within
safe parameters for the materials you'd be using. If you wanted to
get fancy you could even cut a few ventilation slots in the "roof"
and some along the lower edge of the sides to draw cool air through
to exhaust the heat of the bulb. Then glue wood or plastic strips at
least as thick as slide mounts in suitably spaced horizontal rows to
the face of the diffuser panel to hold the slides across the face of
the diffuser. As for a diffuser, there should be acceptable
materials available at any hardware or home improvement center.
(White transluscent plastic sheets are available, but stick with
smooth surfaces.) Virtually all the materials you'd need would be
similarly available. My only question is whether all this trouble is
cost effective. You could end up spending as much as you'd pay for a
slide sorter/light box in the first place, and at a minimum you'd
need basic tools - screwdriver, saw, wire cutters, glue, paint, and
assorted hardware bits.
From minolta mailing list:
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002
From: "gdstaples" gdstaples@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: light table for slide sorting
http://www.spec-tru.com/build_a_light_table.htm
Just did a search on google.
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002
From: Jim Brick jbrick@elesys.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] tripods ...
I think Economy vs lightweight/sturdy/capable of holding a Hasselblad is a
misnomer.
I've had a G1228 and Swiss B1 ball head for many years. One of the first
1228's arriving here. I got the Gitzo strap for it which allows over the
shoulder out of the way portage. The B1 has a built-in Arca clamp that fits
the ClearSight replacement Hasselblad foot (and all other RRS or Kirk
plates). I have carried it all over England, Holland, Germany, and
Switzerland. It is a joy as you really don't know it is with you until you
need it. Take the head off and it easily packs in any Roll Aboard luggage.
My daughter has it right now on a backpacking trip. Angela was going to
borrow it, two weeks ago for an Italy trip but it was loaned out to my son
Chris. So Angela bought one from KSP (gave her exactly the same price as
B&H;) and I loaned her my spare B1 head. She got back Monday and said it was
a joy to carry and use. Angela weighs 110 lbs ringing wet.
This is a v-e-r-y sturdy very small lightweight tripod. See Jeff at KSP.
You can borrow my extra B1 and I have Kirk Hasselblad plates.
Actually, depending upon when you are leaving, you might be able to borrow
the whole tripod.
Jim
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>Hasselblad USA provided excellent service again... They sent me the
>alternative, 3/8" tripod socket mount for the 903SWC so that now it can
>use the same tripod mounting plate and grips as the 500C/M Classic.
>
>So now I'm thinking of tripods. I've been using a heavy, large Bogen with
>Manfrotto Speed Grip head for years and it works beautifully with the
>'Blads. However, I'm leaving on a two week holiday to the UK and don't
>want to carry such a large and heavy tripod, but I do want to carry
>something. A ball head is enough, something that will get a waist level
>camera up to about 40-48" and an eye-level camera up to 50-60".
>
>Any recommendations? Economy is important too .... ;-)
>
>Godfrey
[Ed. note: this is a useful trick, esp. handy for natural skin color with fluorescent
lights when using flash etc....]
From: rabbitbert@aol.com (Rabbitbert)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 25 Jul 2002
Subject: Re: filter on flash or lens?
Rolle asked us:
>Ive seen many amazing photos where the background is saturated with a
>particular hue of color, e.g. blue, yet the foreground subject is of another
>color hue, how can you acheive this effect using filters?
Yes this is done with filters. You can achieve a colored background by using
one color filter on your lens, while placing the complementary color filter
over the flash. The flash-illuminated subject then appears normally colored.
Using a flash filter other than the complementary to the lens filter would give
the subject a different color. Kodak's book, "the Kodak Workshop Series,
Electronic Flash" writtten for Kodak by Lester Lefkowitz, Eastman Kodak, 1986
(my own copy, there may be updated ones now), gives some specific details about
the procedure. I also recommend this book for anyone unfamiliar with the many
uses of electronic flash. Price is about $10 U.S.
R.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Advice on Ball Heads
From: stanman2171@hotmail.com (Stan Randle)
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002
davidb dvdbrm@yahoo.com wrote:
> I am looking for a light weight ballhead to use with a Pentax 67 and
> Hasselblad 500c/m. Biggest lens would be a 250 on the Hassey. Would
> also like a quick release with it.
Take a look at the Linhof Profi II (or its clone, the Kaiser medium
ballhead).
There are several incompatible QR systems on the market. Many
professional nature photographers, using big, heavy glass, have
standardized on the expensive Arca-Swiss style of quick release. How
expensive? $50-$90 for the mounting socket, and $50 for each
custom-sized camera or lens plate. Stroboframe, Gitzo, Linhof, Bogen and
Slik all have their own QR devices, some built into their pan-tilt or
ball heads, all at varying price levels. Bogen has two different,
incompatible systems: a rectangular plate system and a bulkier,
hexagonal one.
I chose the Bogen hexagonal Quick Release adapter assembly ($35), which
came with one QR plate. I also purchased a second, "90-degree
'architectural' plate" ($21) which has a small raised lip that snugly
holds against the back of a camera body and prevents the camera from
twisting on the plate (which especially can happen when the camera is
flopped on its side for vertical shots).
I recommend this as a solid, never-fail, affordable system.
The hex plates are larger and bulkier than other manufacturers' plates,
possibly making them an annoyance when handholding a camera, but when
used on a tripod they lock-in with a reassuring, audible click and are
rock-solid.
See:
http://www.wildpicture.com/pages/photography/hexplates.htm
This web page shows photos of plates from several years ago, when Bogen
used cork on the hexplates (which after time tended to compress and
slip). all hex plates sold today use a sturdier, rubberized material.
From: Bob Salomon bob@hpmarketingcorp.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Advice on Ball Heads
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002
Stan Randle at stanman2171@hotmail.com wrote
> There are several incompatible QR systems on the market. Many
> professional nature photographers, using big, heavy glass, have
> standardized on the expensive Arca-Swiss style of quick release
Well now there will be a new one next month.
The Q-base from Novoflex.
This is a fully automatic locking QR that accepts all Arca style plates and
locks as soon as the plate touches the base.
It also has a macro positioning function that allows plates to slide front
to back for positioning.
Novoflex will also release a series of plates with user adjustable pins to
conform them to any body or lens, regardless of size or manufacturer.
HP Marketing Corp. 800 735-4373 US distributor for: Ansmann, Braun,
CombiPlan, DF Albums, Ergorest, Gepe, Gepe-Pro, Giottos, Heliopan, Kaiser,
Kopho, Linhof, Novoflex, Pro-Release, Rimowa, Rodenstock, Sirostar, Tetenal
Cloths and Ink Jet Papers, VR, Vue-All archival negative, slide and print
protectors, Wista, ZTS see www.hpmarketingcorp.com for dealer listings
From: Jeff four_season_photo@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Advice on Ball Heads
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002
The Arca-Swiss B1 is just about ideal for the Hasselblad system: An
unconventional design, the "ball" is actually an elipse, and it neatly
counteracts the tendancy for a ballhead to flop over when loaded with a
heavy camera. The pan lock knob is awkwardly placed and rather small, so if
possible, try before you buy to see if it's right for you.
The B1 is available with either a QR clamp or a conventional screw mount,
and were I to buy it again, I might consider buying without Arca's QR clamp
and install Gitzo's G1387 Universal Dovetail Adaptor instead.I haven't
tried it yet, but it looks great on paper: It accepts Arca-type plates as
well as most Manfrotto ones (and there are times that I like being able to
use $8 universal plates rather than needing a $70 custom plate for each of
my camera bodies). It may also be worth finding out if the Gitzo clamp will
work directly with Hasselblad's built-in QR plate, because that would save
you about $70 for each Hasselblad that you carry. The stock Arca clamp
doesn't close far enough to work with the older-style Hasselblad plates but
looks like it would with some modifications.
And by the way, if you buy Really Right Stuff QR plates, they're great, but
consider carrying a hex key with you, because you have not experienced
frustration until your camera plate works loose and you can't tighten it
back down for want of tools!
Jeff
davidb wrote:
> I am looking for a light weight ballhead to use with a Pentax 67 and
> Hasselblad 500c/m. Biggest lens would be a 250 on the Hassey. Would
> also like a quick release with it.
> Thanks in advance.
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002
From: Entropia photoguy1967@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Bare Tube Flash
John Stafford john@stafford.net wrote:
>So, is there a good handheld bare-tube flash with slave socket that you all
>can recommend? I use it for wide-angle flash fill with a custom-made flat
>reflector that I can work onto almost any unit.
Quantum Q-Flash T2, rated at 150ws. If you need more power, you can
get the X model which can get up to 400ws I believe with optional
booster packs.
From: "McLeod" wmcleoa910@rogers.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Bare Tube Flash
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002
If you can't afford the Quantum, the Sunpak 120J TTL is a cheap (and
probably less durable) alternative.
...
From: "zeitgeist" blkhatwhtdog@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: filter on flash or lens?
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002
> Ive seen many amazing photos where the background is saturated with a
> particular hue of color, e.g. blue, yet the foreground subject is of
another
> color hue, how can you acheive this effect using filters?
>
> e.g. if I want the background to contain a blue hue (sky) and foreground
> portrait to be warm, what filters do i put on the flash & lens
respectively?
> I thought about this and guessed a yellow gel filter over the flash and a
> blue filter over the lens? so the background will appear blue and
> foreground, illuminated by the yellow light will appear warmer?
>
a favored technique in the 90's. Shoot with tungsten balanced film and
place the appropriate filter over the flash so the subject is lighted with
color corrected flash, but the background will take on a strong cold tone.
or you can use complementary filters, yellow on the flash, blue on the lens,
the two cancel each other but the background will be the color of the lens
filter while the subject should be neutral.
From: lesaus@aol.comnospam (Ed Saus)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 11 Aug 2002
Subject: Re: gitzo and warranty
>there are several people from hong kong selling gitzo tripods on ebay
>for very reasonable prices. for example: gitzo G1228 CF tripod for
>$405 including shipping. if i were to buy the same model from B&H; it
>would cost $505 with shipping. the difference is, i will not get a
>warranty card if i buy it from the guys in hong kong. so, what should
>i do?
>thanks,
>david
The Gitzo warranty is probably worthless, anyhow, so go for the cheaper price.
The bubble level popped out of my 1340 and Bogen/Gitzo refuses to respond to my
inquiries for a replacement part. A friend had a problem with his 1340 and
they won't respond to him either. I am less than happy with Gitzo and may look
elsewhere when the need for a new tripod comes.
Ed
From minolta mf mailing list:
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002
From: "Arnold" seseni@totalise.co.uk
Subject: Re: Tripod differences
Hi Marko,
Take a look at the following website:
http://www.euro-photo.net/cgi-bin/epn/info/equip_reviews/bogen3401b_3410.asp
The Manfrotto 455B is the Bogen 3401.
I do have one and it's a sturdy and heavy tripod.
Arnold Steekelenburg
From: Stefan Patric tootek2@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Best & Most Portable Soft Box?
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002
Anthony Zipple wrote:
> I shoot a lot out on location with monolights and use shoot through
> umbrellas as an easy, light, fast to set up light source. I want more
> control and softer light and am looking for a softbox about 28x36" .
> Portability is a big issue. It needs to be easy and fast to pull apart
> and set up. And recommendations?
I use Photoflex boxes. Cheaper than Chimera and just a good.
You mean 28" x 32," don't you? I suggest that you consider instead the
3' x 4' box. More versatile. Softer light, too, because the light
surface is larger. And when packed, it's not much larger than the
smaller one. It's excellent for head to 3/4 length portraits. The 28
x 32 is a little too small for 3/4 length, and the light is a little
harsh for head and shoulder shots, as well.
I usually use both boxes for dramatic, split lighting, "corporate"
portraits: large box as the main; small one directly opposite, behind
and high as a "kicker;" and a large reflector for fill, if desired.
--
Stefan Patric
tootek2@yahoo.com
from nikon mailing list:
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002
From: "Matthew C. Kartch, M.D." mckartch@cybernex.net
Subject: [Nikon] Re:Vol 1 #491 - 4&17 travel tripod
I also like my little Velbon (Keppler?), but agree with Jesse that
there are compromises involved with the light weight. (And the Velbon
won't give you more than 140 cm.) After reading your notes I put an
N80 body on an 80-400 VR lens (note the order - about the same weight
as your 80-200) with a Kirk QR lens plate and a Kirk 1.75 inch QR
clamp (still fits inside the Velbon bag) on the Velbon ball head. It
was VERY easy to make vibrations travel to the camera. A Gitzo 1325
with a Kirk BH-3 ball head would have held like El Capitan, but this
would have violated your requirements for materials, size (won't fit
in a Domke tripod bag shorter than 32 inches when assembled), and
probably price. (Does anyone else here feel that he or she is putting
at least one of Henry Posner's grandchildren through college?)
Thought #1: I was able to dampen some of the vibrations by resting
one of my thirteen hands on the top of the lens in line with the axis
of the ball head, ala Moose Peterson.
Thought #2: I was also able to dampen vibrations by pulling down on
the unextended column. I mention this because I have already modified
my Velbon to reduce vibrations. Take a 1/4 inch stainless steel
eyebolt and screw it through a nylon hex nut. Then screw this
assembly up through the plastic hex socket in the bottom of the
column. Jam the nut upward to lock the assembly. (Mr. Giusto can
probably find a metric equivalent at a hardware store in Roma.) Hang
an "S" hook through the eye, and you can use anything at hand to
weight the tripod and reduce vibrations. (I have bent the arm of the
hook through the eye even further, to reduce unintentional separation.)
Hope this may help.
mck
From minolta mailing list:
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002
From: "gregarpp" gregarpp@icqmail.com
Subject: Re: ballheads
I had a few bogen ball heads and they were all bad.
The last was the 3018 head.
I picked up a Cullman ball head for less money then the bogen.
It is 10X better then any of the bogens.
I also have a bogen quick action grip head.
It is great! Not really a ball head, but it is quick to reposition.
I found it was not strong enough for my camera this weekend, so I
will probably get rid of it.
It can't handle a pentax 645, 80-160mm stroboframe ProRL, sunpack
120J TTL with quantum battery.
It wouldn't keep this locked into place.
from nikon mf mailing list:
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002
From: crabillw@aol.com
Subject: Re: Ball Heads
Denis,
I've been using a Slik Pro Ball Head for about 10 years now. It will
support approx. 15 lbs, I also have a Bogan (Manfrotto) QD on mine, the
Hexagonal plate unit, I believe the model # is , in the USA, 3296. I've had
no problems with mine, though I'm sure that it doesn't have the quality that
the $300 ball heads the professionals use must have. This ball head lists for
$130, but it is currently selling for $75 @ the B&H; web site. I know there
are a bunch of mid priced ball heads on the market today, this one was
recommended to me by a pro-shop when I bought it, & certainly hasn't let me
down, nor given me any reason to go looking for a replacement unit.
Bill Crabill
From nikon mf mailing list:
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002
From: "Fehskens, Len" len.fehskens@hp.com
Subject: RE: Re: Ball Heads
Bill writes:
>I've been using a Slik Pro Ball Head for about 10 years now.
Another testimonial for the Slik Pro Ball Head. I've had one mounted on
a Leitz Tiltall Jr. for at least 10 years and I wouldn't trade it for anything.
I didn't know the Pro Ball head was still being made; maybe I'll get another
one!
len.
From: "Joseph Meehan" sligojoe@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: homemade relectors
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002
Sure. A flat shiny reflector will make a harsh light with sharp
shadows.
A crinkled foil reflector will, depending on how crinkled will break up
the light, but it still retain some of it's harshness.
The mate side of the foil will make a little softer light, but less
complex (more even) than the crinkled foil.
A white matt reflector will reflect less light, but it will be a lot
softer.
--
Joseph E. Meehan
From: Lisa Horton Lisa@lisahorton.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: homemade relectors
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002
doughnut wrote:
>
> "Lisa Horton" Lisa@lisahorton.net wrote
> > The issue with smooth foil is that you can get hot spots. The
> > scattering of light from the wrinkles makes a better light as well.
> > The shiny side will give more "sparkle" to the light, the dull side
> > softer light.
> >
> > Or make life easy and go get a sheet of foamcore:)
>
> Thanks again. That makes sense.
>
> And ... um, er, ... what's foamcore? (And where do you get it from?)
It's a sheet of styrofoam sandwiched between two sheets of heavy
glossy (usually) paper. Usually available anywhere art supplies are
sold, and often at office supply stores. It's lightweight, white,
rigid (but not strong) and relatively cheap. It's often used for
impromptu reflectors.
Lisa
From: "Christopher Gonzaga" cgonzaga@sympatico.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: Beginner's guide to studio lighting
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002
Hi Ed,
If you're on a tight budget, consider getting self-contained heads. I've
used Powerlight 600 w/s heads and they work well for people shots in the
studio and location if you have AC outlets. They also have variable power
control so it's easy to adjust the ratios. I would highly recommend getting
an incident flash meter like the minolta ivf or sekonic l358. Second curtain
sync work only with dedicated flash units. Kind of a cheeesy affect IMHO.
You can get away with using umbrellas until you have enough money to invest
in softboxes. Umrellas are ok unless there are reflections ie: eyeglasses,
sunglasess that will reflect the ugly ribs of the umbrella. Wireless is nice
but that will cost you lots of $$$ for the good Pocketwizard set. I've never
used them and I haven't hurt anyone yet. Knock on wood. If you really want
to get into studio portrait then I would suggest saving your money and
getting a basic Speedotron kit. This is a very powerful and versatile system
that will take any abuse you can give it. I got mine used on e**y for 1/3
price of a new one. I would also start using a medium format camera. Try a
Hasselblad and you will rarely go back to shooting with your 35mm for studio
portraits. I have 35mm to 4x5 camera systems and the 35mm system doesn't get
much use these days. Be patient and buy only what you need. You will be
amazed with what you can do with one flash head and a Rolleiflex/Hasselblad
with an 80mm lens. If you don't believe me check out Irving Penn's work. The
best way to learn studio lighting is to do it. Trust me it's not that hard.
If you want to learn fast get an old polaroid camera with adjustable
settings so you can see what you're doing. Study the polaroids and see what
the light is doing to the subject. This works best if your subject is
extremely patient.
good luck
"Ed" EdEllks@NetZero.MyPants.com wrote...
> I'm sure that this has been asked here several times before, so please
> forgive the question.
>
> Is there any concise source for learning about studio lighting? So far,
> I've just been using a small soft-box type attachment for my off camera
> flash using a Stroboframe, which has been pretty nice but doesn't give the
> lighting control I now desire. Using Canon A2 bodies for now. I'm looking
> to expand my on-site lighting setup to include a couple of umbrellas or soft
> boxes. Would prefer keeping things as small as possible and possibly going
> wireless to avoid the inevitable "Oops... Sorry. Was that expensive?". I
> don't do this full-time and don't have any money trees in the back yard, so
> the less expensive the solution is, the better.
>
> Also, I've seen frequent reference to "Second Curtain Sync". What does that
> mean? I have no idea how these things interact with the camera and such.
> Do you use a light meter then manually set the camera to match, or do these
> solutions work with Canon's TTL system? Should I use optical slave flash
> units and use the hot-shoe flash to trip the slaves?
>
> Thanks for any constructive advice you can offer.
From: Michael Quack michael@photoquack.de
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: Beginner's guide to studio lighting
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002
Ed says...
> Thanks to everyone on their suggestions. It's
> always nice to hear from people who actually know
> what they're talking about!
You might also try this one:
http://www.photoquack.de/tutorials/diylights.htm
--
Michael Quack michael@photoquack.de
From: "Dark" Helios2@switchboardmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Need help with sticky tripod legs
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002
I'd soak the joints with Marvel Mystery Oil(it's in the auto dept at
Walmart) overnight and then take em apart and clean them with naptha or
spray carb clean it the collets aren't plastic.
Then trot over to Radio Shack....they have a 2 or 3 oz tube of Teflon based
grease for about $3.99 if I recall right-this stuff does not attract dust
and works from -60 to 600F.
Put the joints back together and you should be good for several years.
From: "Bill Karoly" billkaroly@spamsucks-cox.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Any good websites for Lighting Kits?
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002
Here are a couple sites taken from latest issue of Shutterbug:
www.alienbees.com used by Cindy Pitts www.cindypitts.com
www.bhphoto.com they carry the lights that I use. Excalibur SP-3200's
www.bkaphoto.com
www.briteklight.com
www.white-lightning.com
www.jtlcorp.com
www.photographerswarehouse.com
Bill
"surve" surventertainment@nc.rr.com wrote...
> for reasonable prices, what are some good websites for lighting kits,
> strobes w/umbrellas?
From: Leonard Evens len@math.northwestern.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Tripod - Bogen 3036 or 3051?
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002
T Pole 1 wrote:
> kevin i have lost touch with Bogen tripods, I had two and both were to small
> and light for LF. I almost lost my first 4X5 due to a Bogen and some wind. I
> now have a nice FAT HEAVY Gitzo. For some reson we are all concerned with
> weight and geting here and there. BAH HUMBUG! You need a good heavy tripod to
> hold a LF camera.
> Get something that weighs atleast as much as your camera with lens and a few
> holders. In other words heavier than the camera. The alternative is to buy the
> smaller tripod and then carry a five ir six pound bg of sand around with you to
> stabalize the camera. So, what would you rather do carry the sand or the fat
> tripod? I'll go with the tripod everytime.
> Hey ! Ries also makes great wooden tripods.
The more I read about tripods, the happier I am with my 30+ year old
Tiltall. It weighs between 5 and 6 lbs with its built-in head, and it
is quick to set up and close down. It is more than adequate enough for
my Toho, and I've used it for years with my Horseman 6 x 9 Technical
Camera, which is actually heavier than the Toho. I thought I had lost
it when the threads on one leg stripped, but epoxy fixed that. If you
can find one used somewhere, grab it, particularly if you have a
relatively light camera.
--
Leonard Evens len@math.northwestern.edu
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002
From: John huffy49@comcast.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Tripod - Bogen 3036 or 3051?
I have the Bogen 3001, the 3036, and the 3051.
The 3001 is used most often, due to its light weight, and id used
only with 35mm gear.
The 3036 is the most flexible, and gets used mostly with my
Speed & Crown Graphics, my Mamiyas, and my Gowland View camera.
The 3051 gets used to support my slide projector
From: "David" dkbowman@cox.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Best tripod for ground-level macro photography?
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002
check out the Bogen 3021. Not only can you put the center column upside
down, but the tripod legs are able to spread out almost horizontally. With
this capability, I've never had to mess with the center column.
by the way, Amy, nice web page.
David
"Paul Rubin" phr-n2002b@nightsong.com wrote
> "Amy Walters" amy@amystuff.com writes:
> > I'm really wanting to improve my macro photography. A big step
> > towards that goal is finding a good tripod for ground level work. I
> > enjoy shooting insects, frogs, etc. but my current tripod is not
> > suited for such low level work. Can anyone offer any suggestions?
>
> Most Bogen/Manfrotto tripods (and many other brands as well) have
> reversable center columns, which let you get the camera all the way to
> the ground.
From: "UrbanVoyeur" nospam@urbanvoyeur.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: websites for lighting kits, cheap?
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002
You could... but for cheap high quality, look into used Speedotron Black
line. Widely available, tough, durable, and relatively cheap used.
The White lightning and Alien Bee gear is no doubt good, and for a 2 light
kit it is cheap.
But if you get into a 4-6 light kit, it appears to be cheaper to go with a
separate head and power supply system. (like Speedo)
--
J
www.urbanvoyeur.com
"Matt Clara" no.email@thisguy's.expense wrote
> www.alienbees.com
> Great equipment at an affordable price. The fella who started this line
> also started the renowned White Lightning line of lighting products. In
> fact, all of the alien bees products are interchangeable with the White
> Lightning line. I own two B800's and like them a lot.
> Matt
>
> "surve" surventertainment@nc.rr.com wrote
> > for reasonable prices, what are some good websites for lighting kits,
> > strobes w/umbrellas?
From: Bill Tuthill ca_creekin@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: looking for budget ballhead
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002
Lisa Horton Lisa@lisahorton.net wrote:
>
> "T.P." wrote:
>> When the "Velbon Lovers" - Steve Kramer and Lisa Horton - eulogised at
>> great length about the joys of the PH-173, I bought one...
>
> Although I've never seen mine bend as you describe, I'm less enamoured
> of this head than I initially was. It's still great with the Elan 7,
> but the EOS 3 has enough more vibration that it's a problem. This is
> with the 70-200/2.8, with/without 2x TC.
>
> Imperfect as it is though, it's not easy to find a better ball head at
> this weight (for the magnesium version).
Lisa, have you looked at the Acratech? It's a bit heavier than some
Velbons, a bit lighter than others, and supposedly has a 25# capacity.
However some (short-term) owners object to the lack of tension control.
You can special order Acratech ballheads with 1/4" screw for compatibility
with the Velbon QR system.
I have heard nothing but good things about the Markins ballheads. Their
relatively new M1-PQ (panorama, Arca quick release) weighs 16.9 ounces
and purports to support 60#. However it lacks progressive tension feature
as patented by Arca-Swiss on the B-1.
Unfortunately I have tried neither Acratech nor Markins, so my opinions
are basically worthless here, as I'm sure T.P. will soon note. ;-)
From: Doug Payne dwpayne@ist.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: looking for budget ballhead
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002
Lisa Horton wrote:
> The Velbon system does have advantages. When you drop the camera or
> lens into the clamp, the clamp immediately closes so that the camera
> or lens *cannot* slide or drop out of the clamp. Even if you turn the
> whole rig upside down before locking down the clamp, nothing's going
> to fall out.
>
> Then there's the weight, the Velbon plates are very light, made of
> light alloy, but with hard spring steel reinforcements at wear points.
I use both the Velbon system and the Manfrotto/Bogen small rectangular system.
I find them about equally useful and sturdy and equally light. The Velbon
plates are pretty big though, and completely unusable on something like a
CoolPix 995. The raised lip on the rubber piece of the Velbon plate gets in the
way of opening the back of one of my SLR's, meaning I can't use that feature on
it if you have to remove a QR plate, it ain't QR). I like the Manfrotto
'architectural' plate (or whatever they're calling it these days). It has a
similar lip that works perfectly for me to prevent camera twist on the head.
Lately I've been looking at an Acratech ball-head, and I think I'm gonna get me
one of those, minus the A-S clamp. Then I'll use a Manfrotto/Bogen QR instead;
it looks as though it'll just screw right on, with no gain in weight (as would
the Velbon QR), and for slightly less money. The Acratech minus A-S QR is $50
less than with the QR, and the Manfrotto 323 QR adapter is only $28. Then I'll
have complete compatibility across my whole collection (ball-heads, monopods,
other assorted clamps, etc). As I said, I'd rate the Manfrotto equal to or
slightly better than the Velbon (which I tried on your and Steve's
recommendations). Interested in a slightly used Velbon QR? :-)
From: "Sherman" sherman@dunnam.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: Studio Lighting on a budget
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002
"Aidan" dgriffit@ashland.edu wrote
> I write this in hopes that there is a wealth of knowledge and a few
> people out there willing to share it with me on setting up a little
> studio lighting on a rather tight budget. I want to get some better
> lighting for indoor work (headshots, portrait, product, etc.) and I
> really don't know what will work best for me. I'll most likely be
> using an F5, N80 and Rolleiflex 3.5 Xenar for MF work. I already
> have an SB-28 and extension cord for such and was wondering what
> could I expect from mounting this on a light stand and bouncing it
> into an umbrella. Is this going to give me sufficient light for
> small indoor work? More than likely I'll be picking up a second
> flash rather soon, another SB-28 probably, for backup and could use
> this for a second light source. I've already got a couple of those
> handy collapsible reflectors to help in putting the light where I
> want it. Am I totally wrong in my thinking that this might work
> until I really get the money for a nice strobe setup? I especially
> like the possibility of TTL metering with the Nikon bodies. Any
> comments, good or bad, are much appreciated. Thanks in advance.
>
> Aidan
Aidan,
It is totally possible to use strobes for studio lighting. Of course you
give up things like modeling lights but for many applications you can get
along fine without them (and there are solutions for even that).
You might want to take a look at a product from Britek (others may have
something similar). It is a head that will mount on a light stand and hold
three flashes in hot shoes. It has a built in slave so that firing one
strobe via cable will cause the others to fire as well. You can use it with
a single flash also.
If your budget is extremely tight take a look at the mini light stands from
Britek as well. The extend to about 6 1/2 feet (not very tall but adequate
for most situations) and cost about $18. They fold to about 30 inches.
Britek also makes E27 (standard light sockets in the US) holders for their
AC slave flashes. They have some that hold more than one flash and you can
use one of the sockets for a modeling light.
Britek's website is http://www.britek-light.com.tw and their online store
(with *very* limited selection of their equipment is
http://www.briteklight.com . They usually have an ad in Shutterbug as well.
Call the 800 number and have them send you a catalog. (I have no
association with Britek other than having purchased a few things from them.)
As always, if you can afford it, get good brand name equipment but if
finances are tight you can usually make something work.
Sherman
http://www.dunnamphoto.com
From: "Sherman" sherman@dunnam.net
Newsgroups:
rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,
rec.photo.technique.misc,rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: Studio Lighting on a budget
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002
"Gordon Moat" moat@attglobal.net wrote
> I will put in a good word for Britek as well. These are all plastic mostly,
> but surprisingly rugged. Definitely the bottom price range for extreme
> budgets.
>
> Rather than a softbox, you can shoot through a reflector, or diffuser. My
> suggestion is to get a good flash/ambient meter, rather than rely just on TTL.
> Also, cheap work lights, and stands, are available at many hardware stores,
> and often much cheaper than dedicated photo gear.
>
> You can use small mirrors as bounce sources that act like low power flash.
> Slave strobes would be slightly more expensive. You can also buy slave
> attachments for regular on camera cheap flash units, and mount them off
> camera. These are only good for fill light, or details.
>
> Art stores can be excellent sources for black, white, or silver bounce cards
> (reflectors). Some small clamps, or even tape, can help with positioning. Some
> car sun shade can also make good cheap reflectors, especially silver ones.
>
> If you are shooting professionally, renting your lighting can be very
> effective. Often your set-up on location can vary, and you will need adaptable
> gear. When you find yourself using similar gear over many shoots, then you may
> have a better idea of what to buy. Buying used would then be a good next step.
>
> Ciao!
> Gordon Moat
> Alliance Graphique Studio
> http://www.allgstudio.com
Gordon,
I recently purchased two folding reflectors meant for placing on automobile
dashboards to keep the sun out. They measure 22" x 28" and have one highly
reflective silver side and a sort of matte finish side. They are virtually
indistingquishable from those sold as photo reflectors, they fold down to
about 12" round and 1" thick. They cost $9.95 US for the pair at the local
grocery store.
I also made some softboxes. The first I made from mat board (4 ply) and it
is about 16" square. I use a thin white fabric I got at the local fabric
store as a diffuser. It works extremely well with no noticeable color
shifting. The other two I made from poster board which is much lighter in
weight. I am testing some packing foam sheets as diffusers for them and it
appears to also work very well.
There is photo equipment all around if we look for it!
Sherman
http://www.dunnamphoto.com
From: T.P. t.p@noemailthanks.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Studio Lighting on a budget
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002
"Aidan" dgriffit@ashland.edu wrote:
>I write this in hopes that there is a wealth of knowledge and a few
>people out there willing to share it with me on setting up a little
>studio lighting on a rather tight budget. I want to get some better
>lighting for indoor work (headshots, portrait, product, etc.) and I
>really don't know what will work best for me. I'll most likely be
>using an F5, N80 and Rolleiflex 3.5 Xenar for MF work. I already
>have an SB-28 and extension cord for such and was wondering what
>could I expect from mounting this on a light stand and bouncing it
>into an umbrella. Is this going to give me sufficient light for
>small indoor work? More than likely I'll be picking up a second
>flash rather soon, another SB-28 probably, for backup and could use
>this for a second light source. I've already got a couple of those
>handy collapsible reflectors to help in putting the light where I
>want it. Am I totally wrong in my thinking that this might work
>until I really get the money for a nice strobe setup? I especially
>like the possibility of TTL metering with the Nikon bodies. Any
>comments, good or bad, are much appreciated. Thanks in advance.
follow-ups set to rec.photo.equipment.35mm ONLY
It is perfectly possible to use Nikon SB-28s and umbrellas, mini soft
boxes etc.. However, if you want TTL flash control, you will also
need to buy Nikon's expensive SC-18/19 TTL cords, AS-10 TTL flash
couplers and/or the wonderful TTL auto slaves whose model number I
can't recall just now (maybe AS-4?).
However, using two SB-28s and all these accessories is emphatically
NOT a budget option. A real budget option would be to use the SB-28
that you already have, with a portable, collapsible reflector to fill
in the shadows. All you need to buy is a reflector, probably costing
about $25.
Another, more expensive option (but cheaper than buying another SB-28
and all the other paraphernalia) would be to buy a set of photoflood
lights and lighting stands. In the UK this could be done for about
$150. I can't imagine it would cost more in the USA. You would need
to use tungsten balanced film.
Finally, starter kits of studio flash gear start from about $500. Buy
a well-known brand rather than some junk made in China (pun intended)
and consider a starter set from a top quality brand such as Elinchrom.
Why buy Elinchrom? Because you will probably never need to change
brand in the future. That's what I did, and I have no regrets.
Other budget suggestions: Choose a Sunpak MZ-5000 instead of the
SB-28, saving at least 40% of the cost. Choose an even cheaper flash
gun (still Nikon-dedicated for TTL auto flash control) and use the
saving to buy that *wonderful* Nikon TTL auto slave. Buy a
refurbished used studio flash kit or components.
If you finally decide to buy another SB-28, DON'T!!!
Buy the SB-80DX instead. It replaced the SB-28 in the Nikon range and
has full TTL auto flash compatibility with Nikon digital SLRs. That
came only with the still more expensive SB-28DX.
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: looking for budget ballhead
From: Magnus W vader@death-star.com
Lisa Horton Lisa@lisahorton.net wrote
> "T.P." wrote:
>> It has a big blue plastic-coated ball
It's anodized aluminium -- I have scratched mine, so I know.
>> and a huge clamp that sits on
>> top of the ball, leaving both sides exposed when in the 'normal'
>> position. I have the larger of the two, which has adjustable tension.
>
> How do you like this head Tony? I know that you are demanding in your
> standards for heads, so I'm wonding how this one stacks up in your
> opinion. It looks interesting.
While I ain't no Tony Polson I also own this head in its largest
incarnation (there are three sizes). It is a mixed bag. It has an optional
panning base, which I don't use, and also exists in a quick-release version
(Novoflex proprietary) which I also do not own. The latter may be
discontinued by now.
Negative things are mostly minor. One is that the design of the head means
that it gives different friction depending on which way you flop the head.
Another is that the locking handle is quite large, and sits in exactly the
right (wrong) position to interfere with the vertical grip on one of my
cameras. This may be an issue only with that specific camera model however,
haven't tried any other large cameras on it. The third, and biggest problem
with it is that it due to its design where the clamp rotates on the ball
can't tilt much forward or backwards. If you want to tilt more, you will
have to remove the camera (or lens) from the head and turn it 90 degrees,
but then you can't flop the camera to its side. With, say, an Arca-Swiss or
any other traditional ballhead you can rotate the legs so the cutout gets
in the right direction (or use a panning base to achieve the same). Yeah,
and due to the fact that the ball is completely unprotected, it can be
scratched if you bang it around (as noted above!).
Otherwise it's a fine head, with near perfect friction control (greaseless)
and stable as a rock for all lenses I own. I use it on a set of Manfrotto
055B tripod legs. I am satisfied with it, and I got it at a very good
price, but I am still wondering if I shouldn't have sunk the money into the
Arca-Swiss system instead. Or the Acratech Ultimate Ballhead, which looks
like a really nice head and weighs half of the Novoflex one. They are
normally in the same ballpark, price-wise. Sure, the MagicBall looks freaky
and all, but you won't be sitting all day looking at it, no?
From: Bill Tuthill ca_creekin@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: help on buying a tripod
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002
Morten Rosenmeier morten.rosenmeier@e-box.dk wrote:
> If you want a really top quality ball head I can recommend a "Magicball"
> from the German firm Novoflex (www.Novoflex.de). It has another construcion
> than other ball heads and it is extremely smooth. Novoflex also makes a
> really excellent quick release system called Miniconnect, and plates to be
> used with the Arca Swiss quick release system.
I'm not really sure what's the big advantage of the Magicball, aside from
its effect of making others gawk. According to the numbers, other ballheads
have much higher weight/capacity ratios (sorry 'bout Limey units):
weight supports ratio price
Acratech Ultimate 15.9 oz 25 lbs 1.572 $270
Arca Swiss B-1 27.2 oz 90 lbs 3.309 $400
Burzynski Protec 35.3 oz 99 lbs 2.805 $300
Kirk BH-2 QR 32.0 oz >40 lbs 1.250 $340
Kirk BH-3 QR 20.0 oz >20 lbs 1.000 $240
Markins M1-PQ 16.9 oz 60 lbs 3.550 $290
Markins M2-PQ 20.5 oz 80 lbs 3.902 $290
Novoflex Magicball 32.3 oz 22 lbs .681 $265
Novoflex Mini 11.6 oz 11 lbs .948 $160
From russian camera mailing list:
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Studio lights
Anya at oui@paco.net wrote:
> Hello
>
> Does anyone know if there is online site I can find out more about studio
> lighting ??what equipment and techniques , how to use and control ??
>
> Best wishes Anya
Most of the companies making studio lights have web sites, but only
promoting their own products of course! There are two sites with good
teaching setups on studio lighting, but both are sites you must pay to
visit. One is Robert Farber's site (www.photoworkshop.com) and the other is
the Photoflex's Web Photo School. Go to www.photoflex.com and click on Free
Lessons to see what this is all about.
Bob
From: dahessesr@attbi.com (Dana H)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Bob Krist's tripod strap?
Date: 10 Sep 2002
"Kel" ..kelly.berry@attbi.com wrote
> On page 61 of the August 2002 issue of Pop Photo, Bob Krist praises the
> Gitzo 1228 tripod. One of the photos shows a shoulder strap clipped to a
> couple of rings on one leg of the tripod.
>
> Do these rings come on the tripod? an accessory? custom modification?
>
> This is the best way I have seen to attach a strap to a tripod.
>
> Other suggestions?
>
> Kel
Mr. Krist's tripod strap arrangement is homemade. I remember him
writing about it in an old "Nat. Geo. Traveler," I believe. Or
perhaps one of his books on travel photography. Wish I could remember
more.
Dana
From: "zeitgeist" blkhatwhtdog@yahoo.com
Newsgroups:rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Studio Lighting on a budget
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002
The z-prophoto mailing list at yahoogroups.com has lots of articles on
inexpensive set ups, including an authorized scanning of Dean Collins'
Tinker Tubes where he diagrams a dozen different studio and location
lighting devices from light panel reflectors to huge light banks, all made
with pvc pipe and most based on using one flash. Its available in pdf and
jpg format.
Plus there are lots of articles on concepts of lighting, how to make do with
what you have, what you can do for free, (IE: the SB28 is fairly strong so
you could bounce it off a side wall for an effect like a large softbox.
From: T.P. t.p@noemailthanks.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: looking for budget ballhead
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002
matt@gol.com (Matthew Endo) wrote:
>T.P. t.p@noemailthanks.com wrote:
>
>> I wonder if an Arca owner ever finds a need for a Dremel?
>
>Nope, because they buy RRS plates that are custom designed, individually
>CNC machined for the specific purpose and camera, to avoid such
>shortcomings of a generic plate system like the Velbon or
>Bogen/Manfrotto. Someone who can afford the Arca ballhead can also
>afford the plates for the system.
>
>People who balk at purchasing $50+ plates are not the type to use the
>system. I can't see how photographers with a camera in the $1000+ range
>start to skimp at the most important part of the system, the
>tripod/ballhead/release system. However, people who are on a budget and
>have $300 bodies/lenses are probably not going to pay $400+ just for a
>ballhead/release system.
I use Arca-style plates. They cost me either $22 or $34 each -
actually Euros, but that's near enough to a dollar these days. I
"customised" them myself to suit my camera bodies and re-modified them
when I changed brands from Nikon to Canon earlier this year. They may
look ugly, but they work every bit as well as did my RRS plate for the
Nikon F100, which I purchased (used) for $15.
If you possess some very basic metalworking skills (... and a Dremel!)
there is simply no need to buy RRS plates, whether you can afford them
or not!
>It's great to have a snap in plate but those with bodies/lenses well
>over $2500 (such as a F100/80-200 2.8 AF-S combination) probably aren't
>going to trust their gear and will take the extra few seconds with the
>A-S system.
Anyone who needs an extra "few seconds" with the Arca type of plate
needs more practice or maybe even tuition.
>It sounds like you are one of those people who have taken the leap of
>faith to the A-S system (if you search r.p.e.35mm and photo.net for my
>previous posts, you'll see that I am in agreement) and cannot accept any
>compromise with the equipment.
Wrong. see above.
>Remember the subject line, it says "budget ballhead" and I figure that
>means less than $200. Your perception of budget may differ (YMMV).
Wrong.
My ballhead cost me $175 new and it easily supports a plate camera.
Bye!
From: T.P. t.p@noemailthanks.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: looking for budget ballhead
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002
Bill Tuthill ca_creekin@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>Thanks, I'll add this to the list (including pre-Chinese Tiltall)
>of old or discontinued equipment that I may buy if ever found used.
LOL! We should compare lists ... !
I have a US-made Tiltall (pre-Leitz) and it's a super tripod both for
35mm and smaller medium format gear. Don't forget the Leica Table
Tripod. It's still available new after several decades but it's a
very good used buy. It hardly ever wears out and would be easy to
repair if it did.
>There is a picture of the Hama Pro Ball at the bottom of this page:
>
> http://www.dotlinecorp.com/dl_cat_D/-D03_ballheads.html
That's the one for 35mm. There was also one for medium format. Mine
is the large format version, which is similar in appearance to the
ProBall 35 but massively larger. It weighs 3kg (6.6 lb) and will
support 30kg (66 lb).
It's much too big and heavy for most 35mm work, and for the Tiltall,
but the added stability with studio and location Manfrotto tripods is
well worth it. It has a very fine adjustment of ball tension which,
together with a large release lever, gives excellent control.
>So did you mount an Arca-compatible QR release on this head, to be
>used with Hama plates? Did Hama also make a QR mechanism?
Hama made their own QR system which is compatible with Arca's. The
"Arca system" is not unique to Arca. It has been used by several
European manufacturers over the years. I think it would be difficult
to patent something so simple.
Hama make two sizes of plate to go with the QR system on my ball head.
The smaller size appeared in the Hama catalog as "medium format" and
the larger as "large format". Instead, I use the smaller one for 35mm
and the larger one for medium format.
I cannot fault this system - except for its weight. Of course, more
weight often means more stability and therefore more sharpness, so I'm
not complaining! However, I also use a Cullmann Magic Ball for 35mm.
I would not swap either system for an Arca.
From: "MatShop" webmaster@matshop.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.marketplace
Subject: Articles Framing Tips "The Enemies" and Shadow Boxes
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002
Hello Photographers and photography buffs...
MatShop is happy to announce that we have two more informative articles now
posted.
(Both articles contain images and thus could not be posted here, or at least
I don't know how to post them here with images. ;-) )
Framing Tips - Sun, Moisture & Heat
http://matshop.net/framing_tips01.html
An article on these three enemies of picture framing and how to fight them
What is Shadow Box Framing?
http://matshop.net/shadow_boxes.html
An article on shadow box frames and shodow boxes and their many uses for
your collectibles.
We hope you enjoy the articles and find them informative.
Webmaster
MatShop
From leica topica mailing list:
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002
From: Oliver Steiner violindevil@yahoo.com
Subject: Homebrew "studio lighting"
Not having any "snoots", "barn doors", "umbrellas" and the like, but
wanting to try for an indoor flash portrait with some measure of
lighting control, I rigged up a simple arrangement which is described at
the top of my web page, along with the newly posted pop-up photo.
Clicking on the web address below will take you there. Comments are
most welcome!
-Ollie
http://www.web-graphics.com/steinerphoto
Subject: Re: cable release
From: Bob Salomon bobsalomon@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002
Robert Feinman at robertdfeinman@netscape.net wrote
> I need a couple of plain 8 inch long cable releases for a grip I built,
> does anyone know of a source? (brand or dealer)
> thanks..
Gepe-Pro has virtually every type of release you may want. Cloth, PVC, Steel
Mesh, HD Spiral Steel, Standard Spiral Steel covers, rotating tips, T-Lock
or Zeiss Lock or no lock. All are German made. Lengths, depending on cover,
6 to 40".
HP Marketing Corp. 800 735-4373 US distributor for: Ansmann, Braun,
CombiPlan, DF Albums, Ergorest, Gepe, Gepe-Pro, Giottos, Heliopan, Kaiser,
Kopho, Linhof, Novoflex, Pro-Release, Rimowa, Rodenstock, Sirostar, Tetenal
Cloths and Ink Jet Papers, VR, Vue-All archival negative, slide and print
protectors, Wista, ZTS see www.hpmarketingcorp.com for dealer listings
From leica topica mailing list:
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002
From: "Sal DiMarco,Jr." sdmp007@pressroom.com
Subject: Strobe batteries
For all of you out there who realize the use of light is a good thing
when done properly... check out www.underdog-battery.com .
The company make small rechargable batteries for most hand strobes.
The owner is a long time friend. Tell him I refered you to him and he
will charge you an extra 10%.
Happy Snaps,
Sal
Sal DiMarco, Jr.
Philadelphia, PA
From nikon mf mailing list:
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002
From: "Richard Cochran" rcochran@lanset.com
Subject: Re: Cable(s) Recommendation for off-camera flash setup
--- In NikonMF@y..., "pwburton1" pwburton1@y... wrote:
> All,
>
> I have a Nikon FE and two flashes I would like to use in an off-
> camera arrangement; a Speedlight sb-15 and a Vivitar 285HV. What
> cable(s) would you recommend for these two flashes with my camera?
> Would one cable work for both flashes? Finally, for my learning,
> why should I care what cable I use?
I'd recommend hooking only one flash to the camera with a cable,
and using a slave to trigger the other flash wirelessly from the
first one. That avoids any potential electrical problems from
trying to directly wire both flashes to the same sync terminals,
and it reduces the possibility of tripping over wires.
Nikon's SC-17 would work as a cable, and it would preserve TTL
if your flashes and camera supported it, but it's overkill for your
camera/flashes, and it's a bit expensive.
http://www.paramountcords.com will custom make a cable with whatever
connectors you want on each end, of whatever length you want.
I'd recommend them. While the FE will accept a standard PC sync
cord, I prefer the Nikon locking threaded sync cord, because it
never comes unplugged accidentally. It IS a slower to connect
and disconnect, however. A cord that plugs into your hot shoe
is another alternative, and it should work about as well as one
that connects via the PC sync terminal.
A Wein hotshoe slave will trigger whichever flash you choose
to not connect directly to the camera.
There's not much to get excited about regarding basic sync cords.
Anything with the right connectors on each end will work, and
there's no difference in the photographic results. But the
cords and connectors can be a bit fussy, and few things are
more frustrating than a sync cord with an intermittent connection.
So get a well-made cord.
I've got a few more tips on off-camera flash basics at
http://www.lanset.com/rcochran/flash
--Rich
From: John Halliwell john@photopia.demon.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: How to use the Sto-Fen Omni-Bounce?
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002
Rich Pos rich@wrongaddress.net writes
>Been using one for some time and like it, although I don't use it when
>a ceiling is availble to bounce the flash. It indeed does look like a
>bare bulb. Mine is used with a vivitar 285 and manual cameras. With my
>285 the effective distance without any exposure compensation is about
>25'. I've never used it at 90 degrees as Stofen suggests 45 degrees
>unless using a camera with TTL. For 20 bucks, go ahead and try it. I
>like the way it eliminates hard shadows, particularly with vertically
>framed shots. Stofen claims the workable limit is your strobes
>effective range / 2.5.
>The diffuser also works well with wide angle lenses. Another strong
>point is fill flash for portraits.
I performed some informal tests (with a flash meter not film) with a
Stofen on my 283. Without the Stofen, the 283 auto sensor was uncannily
accurate (to a couple of tenths of a stop at least). With the Stofen (at
90 degrees - didn't try 45), everything went screwy, the flash was
underexposed by varying amounts and seemed inconsistent and
unpredictable. I tried shielding the sensor in varying ways but without
much success. Other flashgun sensors may be less effected by the
modified light output.
I bought a remote sensor cord, but this means you need a bracket of some
sort to hold it all together.
I can't see much point using a Stofen at 45 degrees, if you're going to
use bounce flash I don't think it'd help much and if you haven't got
something to bounce off, 45 degrees is going to loose a lot of flash
power.
I taped some parchment paper over the head of one of my 283s (harder to
remove and replace quickly). I haven't tested it (or used it much in
anger) so can't comment if it helps much.
--
John
Preston, Lancs, UK.
Photos at http://www.photopia.demon.co.uk
From: rpn1@cornell.edu (Neuman - Ruether)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: How to use the Sto-Fen Omni-Bounce?
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002
Viken Karaguesian
From: NickC n-chen@attbi.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: How to use the Sto-Fen Omni-Bounce?
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002
...(quotes query above)
I have a Sto-Fen Omni Bounce and on occasion use it. I'm aware that
Sto-Fen recommends that the proper use of the flash would be at a 45
degree angle, and if I were using it indoors, that's what I would do.
But when shooting outdoors, and close to peoples faces, I have used
the flash successfully at 90 degrees. As to what the results would be
between using 45 degrees as opposed to 90 degrees, I suggest that when
indoors and ceilings are at conventional height, use the 45 degree
angle because the bounce effect does help reduce close subject shadow.
When out doors you would be losing a lot of light at 45 degrees, so it
would be best to use it at 90 degrees.
My use of the Omni Bounce has been limited to 85mm or 105 mm use.
Basically, I don't use it where subjects are, say over about ten feet
away from my lens. I've noticed local paparazzi using the Sto-Fen at
90 degrees when running up to a notable and blasting him or her at
close range.
Nick
From: "doughnut" please.reply.to.newsgroup@nospam.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: Travel Tripods
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002
"Jack A. Zucker" jaz@jackzucker.com wrote...
> Thanks. I should have specified my requirements. I want something under
> 2.5lbs and under 16" folded. It needs to be able to fit inside a backpack or
> large camera bag.
Carbon fibre units will give you the best support available in a small & light
package. The Manfrotto already mentioned is good, but if you want to go even
smaller and lighter, look at the Slik Pro 804 CF. It's closer to your limits
than the Manfrotto, but still a bit over (17.7" 2.6lbs.). Slik also has the
much less expensive Pro 340DX which is not carbon fibre or aluminum (it's AMT
alloy) but is still remarkably small, light, and strong (17.3" 2.8lbs.).'
From: Stefan Patric tootek2@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Speedotron Lights
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.technique.people
Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2002
Robin Burns wrote:
> I'm planning to buy a studio flash setup to do indoor portraits on a
> hobby level. I prefer a pack-based system over monolights and I'm
> considering getting a Speedotron Brown Line power pack (1600 joule)
> along with 2-3 heads.
They are nice units, have been around for 20 years, easy to repair --
no hitech integrated circuitry, and inexpensive on the used market.
The 1600WS unit is slow to charge, about 4 seconds, when set for full
power. I suggest that you get a couple of 800WS ones instead. Makes
for more versatility and less cables on the floor. In most cases,
800WS is more than enough power for a 3 or 4 light portrait setup.
Plus the 800WS unit charges to full power in about 1.5 seconds. The
Brownlines were originally intended for the studio portrait
photographer.
> Is the Speedotron Brown Line of reasonable quality? Novatron was also
> recommended to me, but I've heard bad things about its quaility on the
> newsgroups. Any other recommendations?
Novatrons have improved a lot since they first debuted. For a
hobbiest, they would be a good choice, not a versatile as the
Brownlines, but not bad either.
Dynalites are excellent, compact, lightweight, professional units, but
pricey. Not as pricey as some, but pricey, even used. However, if you
can get a 2 pack/3 head setup with the case for what you intend to
spend on the Brownlines, buy them.
There are a lot of flashes out there. Best do some searches and then
ask here for opinions.
I use Ascors, the QC-1000 units. Been shooting commercial stuff with
them for 20 years and have had only one unit -- I have 4 1000WS ones
with 8 heads -- fail in all that time. When you can find used ones,
they a very inexpensive. Not a big demand. And since they have no
fancy IC circuitry and use standard off-the-shelf parts, most any
strobe repair shop can fix them. They are heavy. The power packs
alone weights 18 lbs., but recycle to full power in 1 sec flat, all day
without overheating, and only pulls 15 amps max continuous, any that's
with 1000 watts of modeling lamps, too. I use them in the studio and
Dynalites for location work.
--
Stefan Patric
tootek2@yahoo.com
From: haijack_remove_@onr.com (RD)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: Flash Power for Portraits?
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002
Robin Burns r_f_burns@hotmail.com wrote:
>How much flash power will I realistically need for portraits?
My opinion may go against the grain, but I don't use flash for
portraits at home. I've found that cheap reflector flood lights do an
excellent job of lighting indoors when combined with overhead
incandescents. You can bounce them off the ceiling and walls or use
umbrellas/diffusers. Add a tungsten filter, do a few test shots with a
family pet or other familiar subject (to verify color balance), and
you're set.
I started doing it this way after being generally disappointed with
home flash shots. I was faced with the prospect of either spending
lots of money, effectively building a home studio, or using non-flash
illumination. With the flood lights, I can set the system up in less
than fifteen minutes (if only one subject), and because the lighting
doesn't change when I take the shot, what I see is what I get.
My suggestion is that you try this before investing lots of money in
strobes and the like. If you don't like the results, you'll only lose
the cost of the filter and a few $4 lights.
JL
From: zeus@cix.compulink.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Indoor architectural photography
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002
> I am interested in experimenting with photographing rooms in houses
> showing both architectural details and furnishings. I've never had
> a lot of luck with artifical lighting and I don't have much in the
> way of lighting equipment anyway, so I thought I would start off
> with daylight window lighting and see what happens.
Generally lighting is used for lowering contrast between the lit area
of a room (ie where the window is) and the darkest part of the room
(ie furthest from the window)
You will generally need to reduce this contrast by using lights or
reflectors, as film will not capture detail in both shadow and
highlights. (it will look ok to you but not the film)
> According to Kodak, Portra NC160 requires no reciprocity failure
> correction for up to 10 seconds exposure.
I use Fuji NPS for exposures up to a couple of minutes with no
problems any small colour shifts can be fixed during printing.
> Any suggestions about how to proceed? I will be using a Toho view
> camera, mostly I suspect with a 90 mm lens.
Sounds like a good start equipment wise,
for starters try keeping the camera parallel to walls and use shift
where needed, rooms with furniture will generally need the camera at
eye height (or above) and the use of drop front to keep things looking
natural
Avoid bright sunny days, overcast is better initially.
(tho shafts of sunlight can be great)
Avoid North facing rooms
Use fuji neg film
or the excellent ProviaF (120 sec exposures no problem)
look for texture and detail.
If no lights - shoot small sections of a room,
look for mood, muddy boots in a hallway etc
Use scrunched up newspaper (burning) in fireplaces
USE POLAROIDS - even just B/W
I would strongly recommend reading
Professional Interior Photography
author = Michael Harris
ISBN 0-240-51475-0
probably in your local library
regards
Mark
http://www.architecturalphotographers.co.uk
From: "Bill Karoly" billkaroly@spamsucks-cox.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Model Posing guides online?
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002
got this on another group:
http://www.brawleyhigh.org/~graphics/posing/
http://photographytips.com/page.cfm/371
http://www.ultimateangles.com/posing_guides.htm
http://www.thephotopages.com/classes/bpg-intro.html
"Bill Karoly" billkaroly@spamsucks-cox.net wrote
> Anyone know of any online model posing guides?
>
> Thanks,
> Bill
From: "William E. Graham" weg9@attbi.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: how do you archive slides?
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002
"The Davec" thedave9@yahoo.com wrote
> How do most of you archive and store transparancies/slides? Do you have
> them mounted, or developed in strips? I like the idea of leaving developed
> in strips, but then you have to cut them anyway when you want a particular
> one, plus you're more prone to have the extras hanging around. When mounted
> they seem bulkier, but you easily discard the extras. Just curious as to
> what others do. Thanks.
I number each slide with a pen filled with black ink. Then I enter into
my excel spread sheet program the number, subject, location, and date.
One could also enter the film type, camera/lens used, or any other data
one was interested in. Then, I pack the slide away in cardboard boxes
made for that purpose, and put the numbers (beginning and ending) of the
slides in each box on the ends of the box. I can sort the excel data on
subject, date, location, or any other column that I have, so I can find
all the slides taken of my son (for instance) and pull them from storage
very easily. Or pull all the ones taken in one particular month just as
easily, or at one particular location. (like the zoo, for instance) All
I have to remember to do, is to put the slide back in its proper
location when I am done with it.
From: "Tony Spadaro" tspadaro@ncmaps.rr.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: how do you archive slides?
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002
I cut mine into strips and file them in Printfile pages. Every film I shoot
has a unique number, and they are stored in order. I also run every film
through my scanner for a low res (500dpi) contact scan. These are archived
to Cds, and I make pages of contact prints too. The original scans are also
entered into Portfolio, an image database and keywords are entered to cover
main themes, as well as information about when it was shot, the film, etc.
Mounted slides take up far too much room, and I've learned from the past
that the "tossers" can come in awfully handy if the "keepers" are damaged or
destroyed. I never throw out more than one or two frames per film.
--
http://chapelhillnoir.com
From camera fix mailing list:
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: Norman flash dot com
Don Doucette at DoucettePhotography@cogeco.ca wrote:
> Hey everyone, does anyone have any insight into what happened to the
> Norman web site http://www.normanflash.com
> I used to get to it with that URL now it has vanished.
Go to:
http://www.bookendzdocks.com/normanold/norman.htm
Norman was bought by Photo Control Corp. not too long ago and this is why
their old site was taken down.
Bob
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002
From: Joseph Codispoti joecodi@clearsightusa.com
To: ian@ianbarnes.co.uk, hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Re: Lighting
Ian,
in a few words, short lighting refer to (mostly, if not only, in
portraiture) photographing the subject in cross light on the shadow side,
while broad light is the subject lighted from the camera side.
Short lighting is used to slim a wide face while broad light is used to fill
a slender face.
Look at this site for more details on several variations of portrait
lighting:
http://photographytips.com/page.cfm/2976
Cheers,
Joe
...
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002
From: Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: [HUG] Re: Lighting
you wrote:
>I wonder if you could clarify short and broad lighting please Henry.
>It is not a term I have come across in the UK.
I'm surprised -- they're standard lighting terms as far as I know. For this
particular discussion here's the easy way:
The bride is never square on to the camera. She's always turned 30 to 45
degrees from the lens' axis. If you don't turn her enough the width makes
her look heavier than she is; if you turn her too far you're shooting into
her shoulder. Anyway, if her torso is pointing to YOUR left, the main light
should be to your right, and vice versa.
In more general terms, broad & short lighting refer to the illumination on
the face. In classic portraiture the face is never square on to the camera.
See
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002
From: gdkenney@bellatlantic.net
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: RE: [HUG] OT: Which ball head for Gitzo tripod?
Steve,
I'd suggest sifting thru posts at Photo.net about the Arca-Swiss.
Some people seem to have experienced terrible problems with
unexpected, irreversible lock-up. And not particularly good dealer or
manufacturer support. Others, never. It's a fraught issue. Operator
error, or shoddy manufacturing tolerances? "Best of the best?" Who
knows? When they work, clearly they're great! Probably it's nice to
have one in your kit, with a backup just in case...
G.
PS I'm wondering where Godfrey noticed the FOBA sale??
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi ramarren@bayarea.net
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] OT: Which ball head for Gitzo tripod?
The lock-up problem with the Arca-Swiss head is due to the funky way
they use a setscrew as a limit stop on the main tensioning knob to set
the base friction adjustment. The setscrew can vibrate its way to a
very tight, locked-up state in certain conditions, which jams the main
tensioning knob. It could be eliminated easily with a little bit of
engineering redesign ... I've seen this kind of thing before in other
devices and the redesign required is neither difficult nor expensive to
implement. I have no idea why they haven't done it.
My dealer notified me when I bought the SuperMiniball Plus that FOBA
had just announced the discount program to them and they were passing
the savings along to me. I'd ordered the head at $300, they discounted
and sold it to me at $240. I believe the program started on October 01,
I don't know when it ends.
Godfrey
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002
From: mary parisi meparisi@pacbell.net
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: [HUG] Re: Which ball head for Gitzo
I have the Arca-Swiss B1 which I use for both my Hasselblad and my 4x5. I
really like it and find its movements to be solid and accurate. I'm always
looking for light weight gear so when I bought a second lighter Gitzo I bought a
Foba mini superball with the arca style quick release plate. The Foba is a
little lighter then the B1 but it is no where near as nice and the movement
isn't as smooth. The release lever doesn't handle as fluidly as the arca's knob
either. Several times the knob on the Foba that tightens the release clamp fell
off and had to be replaced. I've stopped using it and now only use the
arca-swiss head. Also my arca head has a pan feature which is very useful if you
want to turn the camera without releasing the ball. The arca is a thing of
beauty and it both looks and feels solid and well made. Mary
From: "Jan Werbiski" janwer@pa54.zgora.sdi.tpnet.pl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: monolights - which, why, how much?
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002
...
> Can someone point me to a comprehensive comparison between the various
> monolight offerings currently on the market? How do Britek compare against
> WhiteLightening or Photogenic (for example)? When is 330WS really 800WS (as
> some
Ask your dealer to compare with flashmeter various lights with the same
softbox (and with former you plan to use) for a few distances in the center
and at the floor.
That's what my Hensel dealer did for me.
This give you real hard info.
--
Jan Werbiski
Strona domowa http://pa54.zgora.sdi.tpnet.pl/jw/
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Q: monolights - which, why, how much?
From: Jerry Gardner w6uv@hotmail.com
Christoper M Perez wrote:
> I did a quick search on google and failed to turn up what I am looking
> for.
>
> Can someone point me to a comprehensive comparison between the various
> monolight offerings currently on the market? How do Britek compare
> against WhiteLightening or Photogenic (for example)? When is 330WS
> really 800WS (as some manufacturers indicate)? Is a setup reasonable
> to achieve with $750 burning a hole in one's pocket? Or does this
> require vaster sums of silly-money?
I've been doing a lot of research on this subject as well.
It looks like you have to take WS ratings with a grain of salt. All a WS
rating really means is that the capacitors can hold that much energy. How
that gets translated into light output is dependent on the efficiency of
the flashtube, the reflector, etc. A monolight with a rating of x WS may be
twice (or half) as powerful with respect to light output as another model
with the same WS rating. Manufacturers tend to inflate the ratings of their
products to make them look more competitive.
If you have a copy of the Calumet catalog, they have (or had, I don't have
the most recent edition) a table showing the actual measured light output
from various pack&head; systems and monolights. Someone on another forum
said this information came from the Chimera website, but I haven't been
able to find it there.
For $750 you should be able to get something that will meet your needs.
Search the archives of the photo newsgroups at Google and also look here:
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-one-category?topic_id=35category=Flash%
20and%20Studio.
In addition to White Lightning and Photogenic, look at Alien Bees (owned by
the same guy as White Lightning), Elinchrom (Style 300 & 600), and
Speedotron (Force 5).
Make sure you get sturdy stands. Monolights can weigh 8 pounds or more and
that's a lot of weight to have sitting at 10' on a flimsy stand.
--
Jerry Gardner
w6uv@hotmail.com
From: Leonard Evens len@math.northwestern.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: How to use Flash on a Mamiya C3
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002
Slavko Eror wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I would greatly appreciate if someone could explain to me how to use flash
> on a Mamiya C3.
> Since I only used TTL flash on 35mm SLRs before I don't really know anything
> about manual settings, guide numbers etc.
You have to get yourself an external flash gun. I have a couple of old
Vivtar 283 flashes, and I think they still make equivalent models. Get
one that has sufficient power for what you intend to do. Also get one
that has a sensor in it. My flash has three automatic sensors settings
for the flash and one manual setting. On the side of the flash is a
calculator. You set a pointer to the film speed, and you estimate the
distance to the subject either in feet or meters. The scale then shows
by a color code, what f-stop you should set your lens at, depending on
the sensor setting. For each color, there is a range of distances that
will work with that f-stop . The flash then delivers precisely the
right amount of light to the subject. For leaf shutters, like those in
the Mamiya lenses, the shutter is usually set at 1/60th. That is long
enough to be sure the entire flash occurs with the shutter open but not
long enough for ambient light to make a difference in the image.
If you use manual operation, you use a guide number. The rule is quite
simple. You divide the guide number by the distance from the flash to
the subject and that gives you the f-stop. But the guide number depends
on the speed of the film and the units used to measure distance. My
Vivitar 283, for example, givens guide numbers either for ASA settings
for film speed assuming distance is measured in feet or for DIN settings
assuming distance is measured in meters.
The flash has to be synchronized with the shutter, so the shutter is
completely open when the shutter is released.
There is a protruding plug on the upper right of the lens board when
viewed from the front. Using an appropriate cable, you plug in an
external flash to the plug. There is something that looks like a hot
shoe on the right side of the camera, again viewed from the front. You
can slide the flash into that, but it has no connection I can see to the
lens shutter, so you still need the cable. (For my 283, if I slide the
flash into the slot, it is facing backwards.) The cable provides an
electrical connection, so that releasing the shutter causes the flash to
flash at the appropriate instant. It should come with the flash, but
you can buy such cable separately. However, the ends can be different
for different flashes, so make sure you don't get the wrong one.
The lens shutter probably also has a setting on the side marked XM. The
pointer is black so it may be difficult to see. This should be set to X
for electronic flash. The M was for the old flashbulbs which had to be
synchronized differently.
As noted before, you probably don't want to put the flash on the camera
directly. You can probably buy a bracket that attaches to the tripod
mount on the bottom of the camera to which you can connect the flash. I
got an aluminum bar at a hardware store or somewhere else and fashioned
one of my own. You of course need something to slide the flash shoe
into to hold it, but you can probably buy something like that a good
photo supply store. Otherwise you will have to improvise.
For formal portraiture, you might want to use more than one flash.
These can be mounted at some distance from the camera on stands. You
can connect the primary flash to the camera by a long cable. You can
then get slave units to connect through a small cable (or the hot shoe)
to the second flash. The camera shutter causes the first flash to go
off and its light causes the second flash to go off, all within the
1/60th of a second the shutter is open. You can probably also get some
sort of remote control mechanism which provides a non cable link between
the camera shutter and the first flash.
You may read that some older flashes use high voltages to complete the
circuit and that these can damage your shutter. I wouldn't worry too
much about that for Mamiya C-3 lenses, but you can if you wish buy a
device to put between the flash and the shutter to reduce the voltage
delivered to the shutter.
The use of flash can get pretty complicated. You may want to bounce the
flash off walls or back onto some large reflector to create the quality
of light you want. In that case, you will have to experiment with guide
numbers to see what works for you. You may be able to find some
published guidelines, but they will only be a starting point. If you
use multiple flashes, figuring out just what to do also gets more
complicated. There have been entire books written about flash
photography, and you can try reading one. Or, you could get a flash
meter which will measure the amount of light the flash system delivers
to the subject for you, so you use it the same way you would use an
exposure meter to determine the correct f-stop.
One problem with flash photography is that you can't evaluate the effect
of the lighting beforehand. Even with a single flash more or less on
camera you have problems. First of all the lighting tends to be very
flat because it comes from the direction of the camera. In addition,
because of the slight difference between the lens position and that of
the flash, there are often harsh shadows on one side of the subject.
These can be softened by bouncing flash off walls or ceilings.
Good luck. You may decide that it is easier just to work with available
light. If you have more questions, since I have a C-3 and once upon a
time used it fairly extensively with flash, please feel free to e-mail
me directly.
> P.S. Some recomendations on which flash unit to buy (inexpensive is the key
> word here) would also be appreciated.
>
--
Leonard Evens len@math.northwestern.edu
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002
From: Leonard Evens len@math.northwestern.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: How to use Flash on a Mamiya C3
Mind's Eye Photography wrote:
> Leonard Evens len@math.northwestern.edu wrote
> {Snip}
>
>>For leaf shutters, like those in the Mamiya lenses, the shutter is
>
> usually >set at 1/60th. That is long enough to be sure the entire
> flash occurs with >the shutter open but not long enough for ambient
> light to make a difference >in the image.
>
> {snip}
> I know I'm new here and perhaps the C33 has a different shutter, but
> aren't most leaf shutters able to sync all the way to their fastest
> speed? I know the book from my RB says that the leaf shutter will
> flash sync all the way up to 1/400 of a second (the fastest shutter
> speed on the C 90mm 3.8). Isn't it usually focal plane shutters that
> sync at a particular speed and below (like 1/60 or 1/125 as on my Elan
> 7e)? As always, I am ready to eat my words if I am wrong, so I stand
> humbly ready to be corrected.
>
> Scott Wuerch
> Mind's Eye Photgraphy
I just checked my Mamiya C-3 instruction booklet, and you are perfectly
right. It says you can sync with electronic flash at all shutter
speeds. Similarly for my Rolleiflex twin lens reflex. I haven't used
flash for a while, except with point and shoot cameras, so I think I
just forgot. When using straight flash it seldom makes any difference
what the shutter speed is since it is dark enough that the ambient light
won't record an image. But when using fill flash or in more complicated
situations, one certainly wants to take advantage of being able to shoot
at faster speeds. The 1/60 rule really applied to focal plane shutters,
as you say. Such shutters work by moving a slit across the negative and
the size of the slit determines the exposure time. For flash, though,
the entire shutter must be open at once. Older focal plane shutters did
that only at 1/60 or slower, but modern focal plane shutters usually can
sync at 1/125 and I believe a few may do so at even faster speeds.
Thanks for the correction.
--
Leonard Evens len@math.northwestern.edu
From: John Garand Garand_over_50@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Brightest hammerheads?
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002
"roland.rashleigh-berry" roland.rashleigh-berry@ntlworld.com WROTE:
>What power do hammerhead flashes go up to? I'm wondering if there is one
>bright enough for use for fill flash for large group shots (30+ people)
>where you have full bright sunshine on the left of your subjects.
SunPak 611: GN 160
I think the 622 is a bit more, but don't remember for sure (and can't
afford one and get other "toys").
Honeywell Strobonar 700/770/800/880 GN 160
Not Thyristor, but a lot of power at reasonable prices when you find
one. Not all of the 700 and 800 series flashes are GN 160, so I've
only listed those I know are. Some of the later models are thyristor
units, but I don't know the GN on those models either. The 800 series
models listed do not have internal battery capability and must be used
with either an AC adapter or a battery pack.
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Brightest hammerheads?
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002
Jonathan Hill wrote:
> I think you are right, the most pwerfull at the 70's(MZ)
> and metz, Like sunpak Always use the first numbers to designate the Guide
> number, CL45 is 45G/N, Sunpak 4500 is also the same.
>
> Nice of them to make it easy for us.
Fooled! ;-)
Not anymore, they don't. Metz started playing tricks, and evidently with
some success.
They always stated GN for ISO 100 and using a 50 mm lens. With the MZ series
they changed that to the longest 'focal length setting' their zoom reflector
allowed.
The Metz 60 CT series are still the most powerfull hammerheads Metz
produces. Despite the higher '70' in the MZ type description. Put a similar
'teleconverter' in front of a 60 CT and the metric GN goes upto a stunning
120.
> "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl wrote
> > John Garand wrote:
> >
> > > >Presumably those GNs are feet, and 160ft works out to be about 48m.
> > >
> > > Yes, that is f16 @ 10 feet w/ ASA/ISO 100 film. Here in the US we
> > > still use the English linear measurement system. :-)
> > >
> > > (Just couldn't resist)
> >
> > The point however was that these GN160 units are not the brightest
> > hammerheads. Metric 48 is a bit less than the metric 60 or 70 units
> > mentioned before... ;-)
From: sog@niwot.scd.ucar.edu (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Brightest hammerheads?
Date: 8 Nov 2002
John Garand Garand_over_50@yahoo.com wrote:
> "roland.rashleigh-berry" roland.rashleigh-berry@ntlworld.com WROTE:
>
>>What power do hammerhead flashes go up to? I'm wondering if there is one
>>bright enough for use for fill flash for large group shots (30+ people)
>>where you have full bright sunshine on the left of your subjects.
>>
>
>SunPak 611: GN 160
The Metz 60 series is about the same.
If you're not committed to the hammerhead design, the Quantum X
series will give you more power, as will Norman or Lumedyne.
>I think the 622 is a bit more, but don't remember for sure (and can't
>afford one and get other "toys").
>
>Honeywell Strobonar 700/770/800/880 GN 160
>Not Thyristor, but a lot of power at reasonable prices when you find
>one. Not all of the 700 and 800 series flashes are GN 160, so I've
>only listed those I know are. Some of the later models are thyristor
>units, but I don't know the GN on those models either.
They're the same. IIRC, the 770 and 880 flashes are the thyristor
models.
>The 800 series
>models listed do not have internal battery capability and must be used
>with either an AC adapter or a battery pack.
I think that's true for *all* the 800 series flashes. If I'm
remembering correctly, that's really the only difference between
the 7xx and 8xx units. The 8xx flashes use a 512V external battery
(still manufactured by Eveready, but very hard to find).
The 700 and 800 were the very first automatic flashes, IIRC.
As long as we're waxing nostalgic:
There's always the ancestor of the Honeywell 8xx, the Honeywell
Strobonar 65D. No automation, but very light and incredibly powerful.
They'll recycle in less than 2 sec. with a fresh battery (or about
15 sec with the AC adapter).
I've seen them for $10-$15 at camera shows - with the pack.
Mine is still working quite happily 34 years after I bought it...and it
had been heavily used even then. I've considered picking up an
800-series just because the Honeywells are so damned reliable.
I just need to adapt it to my Quantum turbo pack - those Eveready 510V
batteries are *really* pricey. ;-)
The most powerful portable flash that I can recall using was a Braun
F800. It had an ISO 25 guide number of 160, which works out to an ISO
100 guide number of 320 - 4 times the power of the Honeywells or the
Sunpack 611. They'd recycle in under 2 sec with a fully charged (and
surprisingly light) lead-acid battery pack and had 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, and
(I think) 1/16 power selections. You could run two heads off a single
pack, too. I shot a lot of football games with a rented F800 back in
my student days.
I think they came out with an automatic version of the F800, but
I don't know if Braun is in the flash business anymore. Anybody know if
you can still buy Braun flashes in Europe (they definitely don't have a
US distributor)?
Steve
From: jfopie@freenet.de (John F. Opie)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Brightest hammerheads?
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002
sog@niwot.scd.ucar.edu (Steve Gombosi) wrote:
{snip}
>The most powerful portable flash that I can recall using was a Braun
>F800. It had an ISO 25 guide number of 160, which works out to an ISO
>100 guide number of 320 - 4 times the power of the Honeywells or the
>Sunpack 611. They'd recycle in under 2 sec with a fully charged (and
>surprisingly light) lead-acid battery pack and had 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, and
>(I think) 1/16 power selections. You could run two heads off a single
>pack, too. I shot a lot of football games with a rented F800 back in
>my student days.
...
Hi -
Anyone remember the Vivitar 365? I've got one in storage somewhere. I
remember using it with a 400 mm lens on an OM-2 to take pictures at
Jazz festivals using Adox KB-14 (wow, that *really* dates me now,
doesn't it?) exposing at 1/60th at f22 from around 75-100 feet.
Took eight (8!) D-cells in a waist-pack and went through them at the
rate of about 3 rolls per set of batteries, 2 rolls if Ni-Cad. Nice to
have in winter, though, since the heat generated by the batteries
being sucked dry kept your kidneys nice and warm...
John
From: larsen6x55@aol.com (Larsen6x55)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 11 Nov 2002
Subject: Re: How to use Flash on a Mamiya C3
I agree wholeheartedly with the dissertation on flash photography procedures
the Leanord wrote here.
The only thing I might add is to consider buying the Vivitar 285 HV flash
instead of the 283. Why? Because of its zoom head which makes it more
versatile "as is" where with the 283 you would have to get seperate accessories
for wide or telephoto shots.
And no matter which of the two models you choose, I highly recommend the
purchase and use of the Wein flash sync adaptor that slip onto and screws to
the base of these Vivitar flashes. It is a metal base (with a 1/4" thread)
that screws to the body, not just the feet of the flashes. The only minor lose
it it does not have a not shoe so you must use a sync cord, but the C3 does not
have a hot shoe anyway. The biggest complaint about the Vivitars is that their
plastic mounting feet break. If not the Wein, then there are other similar
models available, but I prefer this one because I can use one of mine off
camera and one on camera, and both fire when the other does.
From: John Garand Garand_over_50@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Brightest hammerheads?
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002
"Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl WROTE:
>John Garand wrote:
>
>> >Presumably those GNs are feet, and 160ft works out to be about 48m.
>>
>> Yes, that is f16 @ 10 feet w/ ASA/ISO 100 film. Here in the US we
>> still use the English linear measurement system. :-)
>>
>> (Just couldn't resist)
>
>The point however was that these GN160 units are not the brightest
>hammerheads. Metric 48 is a bit less than the metric 60 or 70 units
>mentioned before... ;-)
My point, quoted above, was supposed to be a bit of humor centered on
the fact that the English no longer use what is sometimes known in the
US as the "English" linear measurement system (when it is referred to
by a name at all, since metric is "the other" system). Oh well...
I never intended to imply that these GN 160 units were brighter,
though at a metric GN of 48, they certainly aren't far behind the Metz
70 MZ's GN of 50. I intended solely to add some units to the
consideration, particularly for readers here in the US.
I have routinely found the Honeywell units at not more than $20 USD,
and have bought 4 SunPak 611s with the most expensive costing me $45
USD (with battery pack, remote sensor, and 35mm bracket) and the
remainder costing $35 USD or less (both Honeywells and 611s obviously
used as these flashes are no longer manufactured). Given the prices
here in the US for used Metz 60 series flashes, I will speculate
that it isn't easy to better the light output to cost ratio of these
units. Your experience may vary. Obviously there are flashes
available on the European market which aren't/weren't even imported to
the US, and probably vice versa.
From: Michael Quack michael@photoquack.de
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: lighting
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002
legal secretary says...
> I am looking to do some portrait photography. I have purchased
> a white back drop. I would like to be able to go Lowe's or Home
> Depot and purchase the lighting i will need to get started.
> Does anyone have a suggestion on what i might need.
http://www.photoquack.de/tutorials/diylights.htm
should get you started on equipment,
http://www.photoquack.de/tutorials/baselight.htm
will give you a rough idea of the lighting.
--
Michael Quack michael@photoquack.de
Fast, reliable, cheap. Pick any two of the three.
From: "Jake" jbphoto@bit-net.com
Newsgroups: alt.photography
Subject: Re: Potato Masher Flash
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002
http://nwcollectorcamera.com/elcflash/vivitar_365.htm
http://www.cambridgeworld.com/sunpak_auto_544.htm
Etc...
They are a side-mounted flash unit. In my experience, I have found that they
cast a shadow to the side of your subject... not that nice. Flashes that can
sit above you lens are better...
jake
From: "Sherman" sherman-remove_this@dunnam.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Portraiture with a medium format !
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002
...
Daniel,
Take a look at Britek light stands for holding your reflector. They have a
"mini stand" that extends to 7 1/2 feet (around 2 1/2 meters) that costs
only about $17 US. They weigh less than a kilo and collapse to less than a
meter for transport. They also have clamps and arms that can hold your
reflector on the stand. (Windy days will still be a problem however.)
Sherman
http://www.dunnamphoto.com
From: bhilton665@aol.comedy (Bill Hilton)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 27 Nov 2002
Subject: Re: Tripod suggestion?
>From: Craig Schroeder craigclu69n@netscape.net
>I'm a bit naive on the light/middleweight tripods out there. I want
>something that will pack and travel easy (hiking use, too) and
>properly support a medium format rangefinder.
One of the Gitzo CF's would work fine, but they are expensive. We have three
of them, 1228 and 1348 for the wife, 1325/29 for me. The 1228 and 1348 have 4
leg sections and so pack shorter (will actually fit in a standard suitcase or a
big overhead carry-on). The 1325 and 1348 extend high enough so that somone
over 6 ft can use them without bending over (you have to extend the center post
on the 1228 to do this). I think the 1325 is the heaviest at around 4.5 lbs.
We actually use the 1325 and 1348 with lenses as long as 1,000 mm (Canon 500 mm
f/4 IS with 2x t/c). Wouldn't use anything longer or heavier than a 300 f/4 on
the 1228 though.
Put a good ballhead on them (like the A-S B1 or the Kirk) and you're in
business, especially for something as light as a rangefinder.
>I tried, via mail order, a Velbon Maxi ... I found it too light duty
I've tried various Bogens and reached the same conclusion :)
From: remove.david@meiland.com (David Meiland)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Modeling Lamps
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002
"Scott Chapin" rschapin@attbi.com wrote:
>>I am having great difficulty selecting a monolight setup. My concern is that
>>so many seem to have either meager modeling lamps, or the falsh units are
>>strong enough to peel paint and are pricey.
>>
>>Elinchrom and Visatec only have a three stop adjustable range, and not being
>>experienced, I have fears that I could not "quiet them down enough". The
>>lower wattage units virtually have no modeling lamps, usually being around
>>40 watts. That's barely strong enough to see clearly enough to change film!
>>
>>In your opinions, what is a minimum acceptable wattage for modeling lamps,
>>at least enough to see lighting ratios and shadows?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Scott Chapin
40 watt modeling lamps would be totally inadequate for anything, and a
3-stop range would be hard to work with too. I have and love the older
White Lightning Ultra units. They use 250 watt BBA1 tungsten
photofloods as modeling lamps, and have been just fine for everything
I've ever done with them. They produce exactly the output I need for
typical 35mm and MF shooting, with occasional multiple pops needed for
LF shots at f32, etc. The only downside they have is that once you put
a unit high up on a stand, you have to climb up there to adjust it
unless you get the remote control unit. Power pack units do not have
this drawback, but I have not seen pack systems that are anywhere near
as flexible at a decent price.
---
David Meiland
Oakland, California
http://davidmeiland.com/
From: "John Emmons" johncyn@worldnet.att.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: studio: what's the difference...
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002
Obvously you could do something like what you describe. But you'll be giving
up a lot.Flash power, recycle time, modeling lights, accessories like soft
boxes, umbrellas, barn doors, grids, etc.
Why not take the cash you'd spend on those portable flashes and try to find
one decent used monoflash? Something like a White Lighting. They're going to
give you far more power, ease of use and you'll be able to use all of those
accessories I listed above with one.
As you can afford it, add another one.
Or use your small portable strobes for things like backlighting or
hairlights.
If you do try the portable route, I'd try to get hold of a couple of Vivitar
283's with the AC power adapters. They'll last longer than any of those
small AC light bulb type of portable strobe and you can use them on camera
if the need should arise as well. Manfrotto makes an umbrella mount that
fits on top of a light stand that you can adapt to the Vivitar, that'll at
least give you the ability to soften the light with an umbrella. You could
also rig up some sort of softbox mounting ring if need be. Course you'll be
giving up quite a bit of power too.
John Emmons
...
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002
From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: studio: what's the difference...
Look into the low cost gear from Britek. These are plastic, but surprisingly
durable. They have a few choices under $70 with sync cord. Add some small barn
doors for light control.
Try: http://www.mardelonline.com/products/studiolighting/Britek/Britek.html
and http://www.britek-light.com.tw/homepage(stud_main)/eindex.htm
I have a couple of the AS-36 units. They are great to take on location, since
you don't have to worry too much about damaging them. My tests show the
measured guide number to be 100. Anyway, these should work okay until you can
afford better lighting. Save up for a good flash meter too, since that will
help quite a bit.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html
From: "Sherman" sherman@dunnam.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: studio: what's the difference...
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002
...
I also have some Britek flashes (a couple of AS66 models, one has a PC
connection and an AS150). I have used them for portraits of one or two
people, bounced from umbrellas. Using ISO 100 film I usually get around f8
to f11 with the flashes about 5 or 6 feet from the subject.
Britek usually has an ad in Shutterbug and they sometimes have a package
deal with 2 AS66 units, a 3 meter PC cord, 2 light stands, 2 small 18 inch
umbrellas, a case for the flashes and a case for the light stands and
umbrella all for about $120 US. A very cheap way to get enough lights for
one or two person portraits or table top lighting. Plus later when/if you
get the cash you can still use the Briteks for back or hair lights and those
little stands are very handy.
Sherman
http://www.dunnamphoto.com
From: rcochran@lanset.com (Richard Cochran)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: studio: what's the difference...
Date: 4 Dec 2002
...
It can work. Professional studio lighting will be much more powerful,
will recycle faster, and will have modelling lights to help you
judge the effects of the lighting and placement of shadows.
You can mix and match small battery flashes with studio lighting,
too. For example, a little Morris AC slave works nicely as
a background light for a white background. I often use a
monolight for main light with a little Sunpak for fill
(sometimes with the fill located on-camera).
See http://www.lanset.com/rcochran/flash for some basics of
how to do low budget off-camera flash using umbrellas.
--Rich
From: Michael Quack michael@photoquack.de
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: alien bees
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002
Lisa Horton says...
> > One drawback is the flimsy pilot light with only 150 Watt
> > (100 Watt shipped) max power rating, and that all units
> > have the same pilot light, no matter what power rating
> > their flash unit is.
> >
> > This leads to the recommendation to buy all units in the same
> > power rating and not mix, or replace the pilot light on the
> > smaller units with smaller lamps as well.
>
> This sounds like a real drawback, especially for someone learning
> lighting. It's invaluable (IMHO) to have the modeling light reflect
> the output of the strobe. IOW, if you have two strobes, one twice as
> powerful as the other, the modeling light on the more powerful unit
> should be twice the wattage of the one in the lesser strobe.
I think if you buy a 1600 and a 800 model and have the 800 equipped
with the shipped 100 W bulb but replace the 1600 bulb with an
Osram Halostar 150 or Philips 150 you are pretty much in the ball
park. It's just that the pilot light is very weak.
You might make do in the studio, but onlocation when filling up
daylight, you don't see much of the pilot light.
Better units use 300 or 650 W halogen pilot lights.
But that is much likely not the target clientele of
Alienbees. They head for assigments with low fuse
circuits and private households, I guess.
--
Michael Quack michael@photoquack.de
From: Lisa Horton Lisa@lisahorton.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: alien bees
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002
...
Having the modeling light track the flash output is a pretty standard
feature. But if the wattage of the modeling lights doesn't "match"
the max flash output, it doesn't really matter if the modeling lights
track, since the lighting ratios of the modeling lights are already
out of sync with the flash output.
If one light has twice flash output of another light, the more
powerful light must have a modeling light twice the wattage of the
lesser light, or you're back to guessing.
>
> They look rather nice, I wonder how they hold up with ordinary use.
Considering the very high quality and extreme durability of the
regular White Lightning lights, I'd speculate that the Alien Bees are
likely to be rugged and durable as well.
Lisa
From: Lisa Horton Lisa@lisahorton.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: alien bees
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002
Ron Todd wrote:
>
>
> Is there anything out there, well built (able to stand use with
> reasonably careful handling), that would be more in the price line for
> an amateur who might use it say, no more than dozen times a year? Price
> IS a factor.
>
Well, there are traditionally several potential issues with the
cheaper brands. One is power, or lack of it. The cheap units
generally aren't as powerful as "professional" units. In a small home
studio space, this isn't necessarily a problem. In fact, in the
aforementioned small home studio, it can sometimes be a problem with
big lights getting the power down low enough to let you use a wider
aperture.
Next problem is consistency. Better lights are more consistent pop to
pop. Cheap lights are less so. But using print film largely negates
the problem, as the variations are within the exposure latitude of
print film. For chromes or digital, this could be a problem.
Then there's the modeling lights tracking the flash output. In good
lights, if you double the flash power the light from the modeling
light doubles. In cheap lights, there may not be such a
correspondence. For example, with my old Britek/Studiomate lights,
when the flash is set to half power, the light output of the modeling
light is 1/4 of full. Also good lights use voltage regulation so that
the output of the modeling light isn't affected by minor power supply
fluctuation (mains power).
Inexpensive lights also tend to have more a more limited power range,
often just 2 or 3 power settings. Good lights offer continuously
variable output over a 5 stop or so range.
And finally, many cheaper lights can't accept high power modeling
lights. Low power modeling lights are usable when the ambient light
is low, but normal ambient light levels play havoc with trying to
visually assess your lighting setup.
I'm not even addressing durability or ruggedness, since those aren't
likely to be major factors when the lights are used just a few times a
year. But most assuredly expensive lights are more durable and
rugged.
Now that you know the potential pitfalls and disadvantages, you can
decide what things are important to you and which ones not. I started
with the cheap Britek/Studiomate lights, and did a lot of good
portraits (and some really execrable ones) with them. They're not a
bad way to start learning about lighting, you can use reflectors,
umbrellas and softboxes with them, the same types of tools used with
the better lights. You can hang black bedsheets on the room walls to
get more control over the light and reduce the ambient level, and you
can turn down the ambient lighting to see the modeling lights. One
method I've used to gain finer control over the light output was to
make sheets of white ripstop, which I could hang over the front of the
softboxes. 1/2 stop to 1 stop per layer. This does modify the
quality of the light somewhat as well, but it's cheap to do.
The Alien Bees do seem to be generating a lot of buzz, and they're
from a VERY reputable manufacturer. As long as you make sure that the
modeling lights reflect the power of the flash (as we've discussed),
they should be quite functional and more than enough for the
occasional user. With the caveat that you'll likely need to control
the ambient lighting level, they should be an excellent learning
tool. IIRC, they can use the White Lighting wired remote, which is
inexpensive and HUGELY useful. Being able to instantly adjust
lighting levels and ratios seems a valuable feature for the student of
lighting.
Cheaper than that, Photogenic's economy Photographers Warehouse line
looks good, although I've not tried them.
Lisa
From: Michael Quack michael@photoquack.de
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: How hot are "hot lights"?
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002
Patrick L. says...
> I still haven't decided whether to go the hot light route, or strobes,
> but if I go with hot lights, the guy at the camera shop told me that
> they are real hot, and my subjects are going to sweat, so bring lots
> of fans, etc. It seemed like he was trying to talk me out of using
> them.
For professional use I fully agree. Amateurs with a limited
budget and only occasional use might be content with hot
lights. Look here http://www.photoquack.de/tutorials/diylights.htm
for starters.
> But in John Hart's book, "Professional Headshots", he uses hot lights
> exclusively, with fabulous results. Using these lights would really,
> it would seem, simplify things, and I could see what I'm shooting.
Professional studio flash equipment has pilot lights for that.
> Do you think the heat would really be that big of a problem?
Definitely, and the light output is not even near
what the heat and the subject blinding promises.
> Is there a way to rig a rheostat unit to a tungsten light, so that I
> have variable power (or are there any reasonably priced hot lights
> with variable power built in)?
If you don't do color - yes, with limitations.
The more you dim, the more reddish the color goes.
This is almost like using orange or red filters,
skin tone rendition will change visibly.
> Anyone ever heard of, or use the "Kaiser Provision Softlites" ?
> (http://www.gassers.com/Talkischeap/Lighting.html) Though
> they are expensive, they sound like they solve the problem of
> heat (if, indeed, it is that big of a problem worth solving to
> the tune of $1700 for these lights).
That is approximately what the better Photo-Flo do.
http://www.kinoflo.com/
But I'd rather suggest professional studio flash equipment.
With alimited budget Alienbees might be right for you.
With better budgets, White Lightning, Hensel or Bowens
might be better for your needs.
--
Michael Quack michael@photoquack.de
From: frederickl@aol.com (FrederickL)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 24 Dec 2002
Subject: Re: Electronic Flash corpse effect - how to beat
PINE 3.89 MESSAGE TEXT Folder: INBOX Message 570 of 829 50%
>Macochrome - either re-branded Ferrania or Agfachrome
>I was shooting flash with daylight coming in the
>windows
Electronic flash and sunlight should work well together with daylight balanced
film ... but you will have to be careful with exposure.
If you are use the daylight as the 'main' light, you might want the flash fill
to be 1 stop less exposure so that you have a 1:2 ratio....or even 2 stops for
1:4. A 1:1 match often is just too much. That is, if the sunlight exposure is
1/125 @ F8, use the flash setting that would be for F5.6 for 1:2 or even F4 for
1:4. This approach will work for portrait type sessions when you have time to
think through your work. Not as handy for candid pictures at a party. (If
this still doesn't make sense to you, pick up a book that talks about fill
flash; the flash unit manual may provide some insight as well.)
>I have a Bachrach flash bracket from Porters that places the flash directly above
>the lens. I'm probably less than 18" but no red-eye so far.
OK...But it is close to 'on camera flash' which, as noted previously isn't very
flattering. But it will give you reasonable record or candid shots. Again, if
the exposure is right. If you have a long coiled pc synch cord you can take the
flash off the bracket and hold it up off the camera at arm's reach to give you
even greater distance when you're taking pictures (there isn't anything magic
to the bracket - although it is a handy place to keep the flash when you're
walking around) If the flash is 18" or more above the camera, then the shadows
are placed behind and BELOW the people in your pictures which is better that
directly behind them.
> (color temperature discussion)This I don't get - all of my cooling filters
> are a shade of blue - isn't this what you are recommending?
No, the electronic flash color temperature is essentially the same as noon
daylight. If the exposure is correct, you should be seeing good flesh tones.
(I kind of suspect you are over exposing the film a bit ... you might try an
intentional underexposure from what you are doing, by say 1/2 stop and see if
your flesh tones don't improve.) A cooling filter would make the problem you
are having WORSE.
If you want the transparencies to be warmer, use a color correction filter that
will warm the image just a little bit. This is a very slight correction filter,
not at all as if you are trying to use daylight film with tungston light. I
seem to recall using a light coral colored filter to warm portraits.
(These are some of the reasons that wedding pros tend to use negative films
rather than slides...a slightly overexposed negative - even by a stop or so -
can be printed down to give a good image, there isn't a lot that can be done
for an overexposed slide.)
Good Luck
From: "Paul Brecht" noway@idontthinkso.net
Newsgroups: alt.photography
Subject: Re: photos of rings/jewelry
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002
Look here:
http://www.webphotoschool.com/bhphotovideo/Lessons/vault2[wps]/index.html
Paul
From: Alan Browne alan.browne@videotron.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: alien bees -DEF Rec'd From Alien Bees' Paul Buff
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002
Here is Paul Buff's answer to my question...
Cheers,
Alan
Alan,
Quickly, if the flash duration is specified properly, the t.5 method
should measure 50% of the light energy. Here's how I do it:
1. I measure and note the exposure at a slow exposure time setting (say
1/30th), using an accurate flashmeter such as Gossen UltraPro.
2. I make more tests from the same location and power level, each time
reducing the exposure time setting.
3. When I reach the time setting that yields 1 f-stop less exposure than
in step one, the I know this is the exposure time over which the first
half of the total exposure occurs. This is the proper t.5 flash
duration. If you have a decent flashmeter you can do this yourself easily.
Effective WS ratings are another matter. Measuring the actual light
output of any flash unit accurately is nearly impossible outside of a
science lab. This is because a direct reading with a flashmeter tells
you far more about the beam concentration (reflector angle, diffusion
value, diffusion loss, etc) than about the actual power (Lumenseconds).
The only way I have found to be reliable is to do comparison tests
against a known standard. Since there are no standards in the flash
industry, I use a household 100w bulb at a calibrated voltage as a Lumen
standard. If it is a 1700 Lumen bulb and you measure it over a 1 second
period in a given diffusion setup you can create a base for comparison.
By then substituting the flash unit in exactly the same diffusion setup
and doing the math, you can determine a flash unit's true output, in
Lumenseconds. Yes, this is complex and, yes, we are the only flash
company that bothers with this.
As far as effective wattseconds, unfortunately the term has evolved into
"whatever the mfg wants it to mean". That is why we no longer use it to
define our power levels and why we publish Lumenseconds and true
wattseconds as the "real number". The reason for effective WS in the
first place is mostly because "box and cable systems" tend to be less
and less efficient as you connect more and more flasheads. This is
particularly true with the small 400ws and 800ws power packs. Typically,
with three or four flashheads connected to a small power pack the total
light output is about 1/2 what is is with one head and a short cable . .
or from a good monolight of the same ws rating. Therefore, it it can
be said the monolight has an "effective WS" rating of twice its actual
ws rating because it will typically yield twice as much light as a box
and cable system of the same actual ws rating.
For the sake of numbers, some manufacturers started calling 2 1/2 times
the real ws the "Effective WS". Therefore, as you can see, it is
strictly an arbitrary term that is probably only useful for making the
case that a monolight is typically more efficient than a central power
box system. The only truly correct term I know of is lumenseconds, but
this is exceedingly difficult to measure. That leave "real ws" as the
most usable term in the real world, with the caveat that the user should
understand what happens to those ws when they are converted to
Lumenseconds and bounced around the room.
Regards,
Paul
Alan Browne wrote:
> Certainly look like good value.
>
> Can somebody enlighten me as to how the "effective watt-seconds" is
> achieved? Are they taking credit for the reflector ... or what?
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
From minolta mailing list:
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003
From: BillB800si@aol.com
Subject: Re: Monopods/chestpods...or something else perhaps??
lensman32@attbi.com writes:
> I also carry a Giottos Q-pod when doing museums or around in a city,
While inside buildings I have found the Slik Slim-Pod a great photo saver. It
folds down and has it's own tilt head on it. Weighs just .65 lbs. And another
nice feature is it's still under $20.
I usually just loop it on my belt when entering a building and no one seems
to mind when I use it.
Do remember not to use Flash in museums though.
http://www.thkphoto.com/ look under "Monopods".
Good luck,
Bill B. (USA)
From minolta mailing list:
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003
From: "lensman3" lensman32@attbi.com
Subject: Re: Monopods/chestpods...or something else perhaps??
Thanks for the thought. I have one. What I usually do is pack a Slik 960 GQL
and the pocket-sized Giottos. If we are travelling in scenic country, the 960
gets used. If we are in an urban area, I carry the little guy. My wife also
uses a Giottos with her Explorer and occasionally with her 600si.
There are several models of the Giottos. DON'T get the one with the ball head
unless you are using small rangefinder camera. Get the one with the locking
lever. There are also two different leg styles. Either one works well
I am careful to follow rules in all museums, and we have been in the Louvre,
Rodin, and others in Paris, Hungarian National Museum, Uffizzi, Palazzo
Vecchio, Capitoline in Rome and the ruins in Pompeii and a bunch in the US.
Not arrested yet. Thanks for the reminder.
I am concerned that the monopod might be considered a weapon but I will try it
again.
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
From: "Jose Luis Gallardo" jlgallardo@audioyfoto.com
Subject: RE: [Nikon] Re: OT: Ballheads (Acratech and advice please!)
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003
I'm an Acratech user... I love the weight, look and the knobs
efficiency... Combo with Gitzo 1128 is incredible light.. But...
1. The manual said not to move the friction knob. The problem here is
that the ballhead doesn't have elliptical ball and then, friction
doesn't increase as you move the ball. Does anybody using acratech use
to move the friction knob regularly? Why the manual advice not to do it?
2. There is no "tab" to move rapidly to a 90 degree when you want
vertical shots. It moves like 100 or 110 degrees so you need to center
the shot and press the main knob. Question for the guys using Arca, BH-3
or Markins M10: Do you have an exactly 90 degrees movement to shot
vertical? I'm planning to use one of this heads for studio work with
80-200 AFS and D100/D1x as my heaviest weight. What do you recommend? I
like the lightest possible but with friction control and 90 degrees
movement to have control over smooth camera movements.
For outdoor, action, freedom of extravagant movements carrying light
weight, Acratech is the answer...
Regards
Jw
From: "Sherman" sherman-remove_this@dunnam.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Lighting Jewelry
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003
"Nuttshaw" Nuttshaw@cox.net wrote...
> Hi
> I'm shooting a ring set....white gold & diamonds....does anyone have any
> good suggestions for lighting diamonds?
>
> Thanks anyone!
> Sarah
Sarah,
If you want to spend the money you can get a shooting tent from Calumet (and
other suppliers). Basically it is a white plastic tent or dome with a hole
or holes for the lens. You set up a flash or hot light outside the dome
pointing in. It provides even lighting for very reflective items.
Depending on the size of the object you might find an old milk jug useful.
Cut off the top part where the handle is and set it down over your object.
Decide on the angle you want the camera at and cut a hole for the lens to
"look" through. Set up your lights and you are in business.
Sherman
http://www.dunnamphoto.com
From: Ralph Barker rbarker@pacbell.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Lighting Jewelry
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003
You have a couple of things to contend with, Sarah - getting the surface
of the metal to "read" correctly, and getting brilliance in the diamonds.
As mentioned in one of the other responses, a large white surface is
usually required so it is reflected in the surface of the metal. A large
(compared to the object being photographed) softbox suspended above the
object is often sufficient. Then, add supplemental lighting for drama
and effect.
For the diamond itself, try putting a snoot on one of the supplemental
strobes. Shine it on the diamond, and move its position until you get
the proper reflections and "fire" at the camera angle. Small mirror
chips, just outside the composition, can also be used to direct small
beams of light to the spots that need emphasis.
Nuttshaw wrote:
>Hi
>I'm shooting a ring set....white gold & diamonds....does anyone have any
>good suggestions for lighting diamonds?
>
>Thanks anyone!
>Sarah
From: "news.halcyon.com" TheNandakumars@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Lighting Jewelry
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003
I recently photographed some blown glass artwork. I presume photographing
diamonds and jewellery would be similar, given the reflective nature of
these items. The best way to light them is through light tents or through
large scrims. The idea being that you want to minimize specular highlights
on the subjects. In either approaches, you would want to employ black gobos
on the tent or scrim to further tone down specularity.
If you dont already have a light tent, consider this: if you have a kid's
tent or a camping tent, assemble only the skeletal support and drape a white
nylon fabric on the skeletal support. Fabric materials are available are any
major fabric stores (JoAnn etc). Place the photographic subjects inside the
tent, light them from outside and photograph them through a small opening in
the fabric material.
Hope this helps.
Nandakumar
http://crookedtrunk.com/Photo/
From: fredfoto1@aol.comnospam (Fred Warren)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 12 Jan 2003
Subject: Re: Lighting Jewelry
I heard cutting the bottom out of a large styrofoam cup and hitting it with 2
flashes works well.
From bronica mailing list:
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 10:29:53 -0700
From: Barbara Lee Spinnenweber
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003
From: gdkenney@bellatlantic.net
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Arca-Swiss B1
Just to follow up on the Acra-Tech vs. Arca-Swiss thread.
I got my Arca-Swiss 3/8" thread plain model (I like to use the Hassy
QR plate with level) today. Haven't used it yet, though it's now on
the tripod. Nevertheless, after fiddling with it a bit I believe that in all
respects it is a vastly superior product to the Acra-Tech. Which is
not to say the AT is really bad, it isn't. AT is actually pretty good and
nicely machined, but it has a number of problems and basically I
found it a pain to use. On the other hand the AC is a marvel. Just
an amazing, perfectly made instrument. If you -- like I was -- are in
the process of deciding on one versus the other, do yourself a favor
and spend the extra hundred and change for the Arca-Swiss. You'll
not regret it. But don't bother to thank me...
Cheers,
G.
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003
Subject: Re: Getting stuck with reflections on curved surfaces
From: Mads Pedersen mads@imv.au.dk
Newsgroups: alt.photography
Maybe others have a better idea, but the only way I can think of is to turn
off all light in the room and use spots to light the cup. If you're
completely in the dark you won't be reflected.
HTH,
// Mads
.: http://www.madspedersen.com
.: http://www.doubleloop.dk
...
> I'm having trouble avoiding the reflections in my Club's trophies but
> capturing the details of the engraving.
> The wrong 'uns are here -
> http://www.johnstone-wheelers.co.uk/trophy-error.htm.
>
> Can anyone help with how to go about it?
>
> The friendliest Cycling Club in Scotland!
> www.johnstone-wheelers.co.uk
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi ramarren@bayarea.net
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Ball Head Rec?
I've used both a FOBA Super Miniball Plus and a Manfrotto~3265 "Grip
Action" ball heads with Hassy 903SWC and 500C/M. The FOBA is more
precise but slower operating, the Manfrotto is great for field use and
a lot cheaper. Both do the job well, although I have not experimented
with telephoto lenses on them yet.
I wish I could get a grip action style ball head that was as precise as
the FOBA or Arca Swiss models, but that seems to be an elusive
combination.
Godfrey
...
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003
From: gdkenney@bellatlantic.net
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Ball Head Rec?
Honestly, I like the Acratech people and the head looks spiffy and it
moves OK, but it's not a great choice. I replaced my Leica large ball
head with the Acratech, which I've had for about 9 months. At some
point, soon (when it gets warmer out), I'll replace the Acratech with
the Arca-Swiss B1.
The big problem with the Acratech is that it shifts, by quite a lot,
when you tighten it up. Never seems to be by the same distance,
though, so you end up tightening, loosening, tightening, and so on
in order to frame what you want to frame. It's a nuisance and a very
disagreeable process. I really ought to move back to the Leica large
ball head, which I've still got, as an interim measure, but the
Acratech model feels a bit more secure with a long lens on my
501CM, which is why I got it.
Acratech is not that much less expensive but, from what I've read of
the Arca-Swiss, a much cheaper build.
Just my two cents.
G.
A. Bellenger wrote:
Acratech.
Anne Bellenger
Avon Park, Florida USA
From: Stefan Patric tootek2@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Indoor architectural photography
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002
Leonard Evens wrote:
> I am interested in experimenting with photographing rooms in houses
> showing both architectural details and furnishings. I've never had a
> lot of luck with artifical lighting and I don't have much in the way
> of lighting equipment anyway, so I thought I would start off with
> daylight
> window lighting and see what happens. If that doesn't work, I will
> see what I can do about artifical lighting.
When anyone mentions that they intend to do architectural interiors
with "available" light, I'm reminded of the story of the architect who
wanted his latest project photographed by available light to get
"natural, the way it really looks" photos. Upon arriving at the
location, the architect finds the photographer and two assistants
waiting with a dozen, large cases full of lighting equipment.
Surprised, the architect tells the photographer that he wants the
project photographed by available light. To which the photographer
replies, "I have all the lights available that we'll need."
In the vast majority of cases, all interiors need to be lit. And if
you're very good at it, it won't look lit. I know. I've been doing it
for a living for over 20 years. (In addition to other types of
commercial photography.)
> According to Kodak, Portra NC160 requires no reciprocity failure
> correction for up to 10 seconds exposure. I expect the color balance
> to
> be off, but I think I can correct digitally. I will start off however
> with b/w using TRiX (TXT) because that is what I have.
Contrast between the inside and outside, as when viewed through
windows, is exceptionally high. If you can do an interior angle where
there are no windows in the shot, you might be able to get a passable
picture. If you do have windows in the shot, you're going to need to
o major contrast control. With color this can be done only with
contrast masks. With b&w; you might try a highly compensating developer
or water bath development or both. Better to light the interior.
The best way to start is to shoot at night (or twilight) using existing
lights in the room and supplement them with your own. You don't need
to spend a lot of money to do this. Regular Reflector Spot and Floods
in 75 and 150 watts available at most home improvement/hardware stores
will do, along with clamp type sockets, stands, Blackwrap aluminum,
cardboard gobos, etc., and tungsten film. Total cost (not including
the stands & film) should be under $100. I recommend Fuji NLP (or is
it NPL?) for negative and 64T for chrome. Your exposures will run
around 15 secs to 2 mins depending. Do Polaroid tests with the 64T
Polaroid, but keep the exposure at 5 secs or less, regardless of what
you final, taking f-stop will be, to avoid reciprocity failure. It
doesn't matter if the Polaroids don't have any depth of field. They
are just used to verify exposure, contrast, and composition. Use an
82B filter to balance the lighting to the tungsten film.
> Any suggestions about how to proceed? I will be using a Toho view
> camera, mostly I suspect with a 90 mm lens.
A 90 is a good lens to start with. With anything much wider, it shows
too much, and leaves little room to place lights and keep them out of
the shot. I use just 4 lenses to shoot with: 75, 90, 125, 180; with
the 90 and 125 doing about 75% of the work.
After you learn to light at night, then you can tackle daylight balance
with strobes. Hot lights aren't bright enough to do this, unless you
go to 4000 watts or more and bring your own generators and electrician.
Good Luck . . .
--
Stefan Patric
tootek2@yahoo.com
From: RDKirk rdkirk@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: How do you Color Dye your own backdrops?
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002
w6uv@hotmail.com says...
> >So here goes - I have RIT dye and
> >lots of Muslim, how do you get that blotchy like look without turning
> >the whole thing blue, red or green?
>
> Muslims generally will put up quite a fight if you try to dye them. As for
> muslin, however, most people paint it rather than dye it.
Very good. LOL.
But the trick of dying muslin is to use *very* hot water. Set the water
heater temporarily at its highest setting or boil water.
Even if paint will be used for the final effect, it's often efficient to
dye the muslin a light-to-medium background color first.
--
RDKirk
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002
From: Steve Baker sbaker04@midsouth.rr.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: RE: [HUG] OT: Which ball head for Gitzo tripod?
http://www.reallyrightstuff.com has a good write-up on the "fix" for the
lock-up problem, should one ever encounter it. Just d/l the catalog.
Apparently, you firmly grip the knob and rotate it 1/8-inch clockwise, then
the screw is free. As to the Kirk ball head, I've been reading up on it and
it seems to look real good. However, for just $13 US additional, one can
order the Arca-Swiss B1 w/QR from Robert White. Decisions,
ecisions. -Steve
From: rbean@shell.core.com (Ron Bean)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: V.short folded length Tripod: does such a creature exist?
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003
lahippel@ieee.org writes:
>Just to add another mindbender, have a look at Manfrotto (or Bogen)
>Magic Arm with the Superclamp. It's not a tripod, but it can do weird
>things...
Just a note on that--
Bogen makes three versions: the Magic Arm has one lever that
tightens all three joints, but the whole thing goes limp when you
loosen it, so you'd better have a firm grip on the camera.
The second one is called something like "variable tension arm"
and is a Magic Arm with a tension control, like a high-end
ballhead. It costs only slightly more than the Magic Arm.
The third one is just called "articulating arm" and has separate
knobs for each joint. Again, keep a firm grip on the camera
before loosening any of them. It's much cheaper than the other two.
I have the articulating arm, and I can tell you that it's not
very rigid, due to the length of the arms-- the whole weight of
the camera is on the end of a long arm, so any slight bend in the
arm moves the camera a significant distance. You'll definitely
want to use a remote shutter release, or the self-timer. It's
main usefulness is to get the camera into positions where you
can't get the Super Clamp close enough. But it's definitely a
compromise. BTW it can also be mounted on a tripod (the ends are
threaded).
Depending on where you are, just the Super Clamp can be very
handy. Also consider the Novoflex Basicball-- a tabletop tripod
with a weight rating of 55(!) pounds.
From: "Howard Henry Schlunder" howard_hs@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Portable flash research
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003
"Alan Browne" alan.browne@videotron.ca wrote
> See below
>
> Howard Henry Schlunder wrote:
> >>
> >>>3. In camera slave mode, what is the longest recycle time you would
> >>>tolerate between flashes?
> >>
> >>With fully charged NiMH: 6 seconds.
> >
> > Hmm, at 200W-s, that will be a lot of continuous power. Would you prefer
> > the ability to snap two flashes with absolutely no delay between them, but
> > have to wait 10 seconds each to recharge, or simply 6 seconds of delay all the time?
>
> You can always have compromises, but then you have to sell them! I may
> be pushing a bit hard for 200 W-s, but for 100 W-s, it should be
achievable.
Actually it is possible to do 200W-s in 6 seconds from 4 NiMH batteries, but
durring flash recharge it would put a drain of at least 33.3W on the set of
batteries. I've found that a single cell of todays technology (1600, 1800,
and 1850mAh) is capable of producing about 10W maximum. If I increased the
load down to nearly a dead short circuit, I was able to get about 32A,
however at that, the voltage dropped down low enough that again only 10W of
power output was observed. I have found, though, that all conventional
battery holder designs which use spring contacts are utterly incapable of
currents that high, so cost would be rather high creating a custom battery
holder. While still expensive, it would be more reasonable to increase the
number of batteries instead.
> >>>4. Typical disposable flash cameras have a single flash input energy of
> >>>about 6.5 to 8.5 Joules. Relative to a disposable camera, how bright should
> >>>the flash be (in camera slave mode)?
> >>
> >>Not enough: go for aprox 100 to 200 W-s or more or a GN of around 50
> >>meters at 100mm, ISO 100.
> >
> >
> > GN? I'm not familier with that.
>
> The "standard" measure of SLR camera flashes. Studio strobes are rated
> in W-s, but camera flash heads are rated in GN.
Do you have any idea why they use Watt Seconds instead of Joules? I mean,
they are exactly the same thing, but doesn't "Joule" just sound cooler and
simpler to you? It does to me.
> GN is a rating that allows the photogrpaher to determine if the flash is
> strong enough for a given shot. GN = a * d. (aperture * distance) @
> ISO 100 and typically 100 mm (sometimes 85 or 50 depends on the
> marketing slime balls at the manufacturer, the longer the FL, the
> slimier the marketing).
>
> If I have a GN 50 (meters) flash and I'm shooting ISO 100 film at an
> aperture of f/5.6 then the distance I can expect proper illumination is
> 50/5.6 = ~9 (meters). (Note that in the US GN's are usually given in
> feet). The photog must account for faster film (each doubling gives 1.4
> times the range).
>
> Note that we're talking TTL flash: the flash is expected to turn-off as
> soon as the TTL flash circuit of the camera has reached proper exposure.
> Add that to your list too.
Hmm, that's a good idea I hadn't thought about. All I have is a POS, err, I
mean, PAS digital camera, so details like light measurement and shutdown
don't reveal themselves as important.
Anyway, thanks for you help and description of guide numbers (as well as the
others who helped shed light on that subject for me).
Howard Henry Schlunder
From: breathless aaa@aaa.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Re: Unsatisfactory shots of curved trophies showing reflections.
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003
You will probably find sucess using a "light tent" or something
similar. Take a look here:
http://www.bogenphoto.com/product/itemlist.php3?manufid=7ionid=259
You could try this also:
The idea is to place a large card board or curtain in between the
trophy and the camera lens.
* Trophy *
* *
* *
* * <--board/curtain
* *
* * *
camera
You'll need a small opening in the material for the lens to see
through. The material is evenly reflected on the trophy surface and
the engraving will be revealed.
Give it a try! :-)
-breathless
iainQlang@electricwords.co.uk wrote:
>I've posted this to other NGs to seek heklp across the widest range.
>
>I'm having trouble avoiding the reflections in my Club's trophies but
>capturing the details of the engraving.
>The wrong 'uns are here -
>http://www.johnstone-wheelers.co.uk/trophy-error.htm
>
>Can anyone help with how to go about it?
From: Lisa Horton Lisa@lisahorton.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Watt seconds question
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003
Although it doesn't directly pertain to the Alien Bee units, this
information from Paul C Buff may be of interest/assistance:
http://www.white-lightning.com/power.html
I would suggest contacting Alien Bee (which may or may not actually be
Paul C. Buff company) and asking them.
To power my White Lightning units, I got a 2500 watt Honda generator,
with a generous (IIRC almost double) surge capacity.
One important aspect of generators is noise. They tend to be VERY
loud. You can get really quiet generators, but they cost
significantly more. Quiet could be well worth the extra money if
you're going to use the generator primarily for photo shoots.
My generator is really noisy. In a (perhaps) interesting side note,
living in California, as I do, means dealing with almost third world
levels of power reliability. The generator paid for itself in short
order, as it costs me at least $200 to replace the contents of the
refrigerator each time the power goes out for more than a few hours.
But the generator is so noisy, I have to put it in the far corner of
the yard and close all the windows to even hear anything.
Lisa
Patrick Lockwood wrote:
>
> I am going to be shooting outdoors using my Alien Bees strobes. I have two
> that are 800 watt seconds a piece.
>
> There is a battery I can buy that is good for 200 flashes before it needs to
> recharge. But I don't want any limitations. So I'm looking into getting a
> small, quiet, four-stroke AC generator.
>
> So the question is this; does "watt seconds" mean the same thing as just
> plain "watts"?. Generators are rated in watts, not watt seconds, so I am
> wondering that if I need one generator for two 800 watt seconds flash units,
> does that mean I will need at least a 1600 watt generator?
>
> Thanks for your feedback,
>
> Patrick Lockwood
From: Bob Salomon bob@hpmarketingcorp.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: V.short folded length Tripod: does such a creature exist?
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003
Christoper M Perez at
christopher.m.perez@tek.com wrote on 1/16/03 11:54 AM:
> I've scoured the 'net looking at specs and such for very short folded length
> tripods. I'm looking for something that meets the following criteria:
>
> - 12inch folded length (maybe 15 inches max)
> - 4 to 5 feet extended length
> - capable of holding 2 to 4 pounds
> - light weight (~2pounds)
>
> I travel on business from time to time and would like to carry a tripod that
> fits into one of my carry-on bags with all the other thing that I need to
> take with me.
>
> All the CF tripods I'm aware of are too long folded. All of the metal
> tripods I've come across are also too long. In fact, I carried a Slick
> U8000 to South Asia a year ago and it was far too long (~19inches folded
> length). Security guards were making sure that it wasn't a gun or
> something.
>
> Comments? Suggestions? Feedback?
>
> - Chris
Almost but not quite.
Linhof ProfiPort 003449 tripod. Closed is 18" long (fits into a Samsonite
Attache case. Open 59" high less head. Weighs 5 lbs. Supports 15 lbs. Has
just been re-introduced after having been discontinued for several years.
From minolta mf mailing list:
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003
From: "Frank Mueller" frank_mueller88@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: DIY diffuser?
Hi Adam,
I went to my local Woolies in Canberra and bought a 1 litre plastic
bottle of orange juice - milk is sold in the same bottles. Drink the
orange juice or milk, and cut off the bottom 4-5cm of the bottle.
This makes a first class diffuser, and leaves any Omnibounce for
dead - well the results are pretty much identical, but you save
US$40, and you get a free drink!
To hold the diffuser on the flash I used a piece of styrofoam that I
cut out of some packaging material. I used a 2cm thick plate that I
cut to size using a box cutter knife. It needs to just fit into the
bottom of the bottle . I also cut a hole into the styrofoam plate
that just fits over my flash head - I am using a Sunpak 444D. You
can smooth any rough or crumbly edges of the styrofoam using a hot
knife. I glued the styrofoam into the milk bottle, and if I slide it
over my flash head it sits very firmly.
It still says '1 Litre' on my flash diffuser, and at the front is the
little recycling signs, but nobody has commented on that yet when I
used it, and you sure can't see it in the results ;-)
HTH
Frank
From minolta mf mailing list:
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003
From: Bob Hrodey rth@hrodey.com
Subject: Re: Re: DIY diffuser?
I have seen, but not duplicated, a diffuser made from a toilet tank float.
You need to find the white translucent kind (and they're getting scarce)
and cut a slot to fit your flash head into it. Secure it with Velcro or
whatever fits your design and needs. Looked to be a pretty nice unit and
the globe will give you a nice even and diffused light.
---------
Enjoy,
Bob Hrodey
From: Alan Browne alan.browne@videotron.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: HOMEBREWING (and I am not talking about beer either!)
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003
I can't afford a big studio flash (I have two 200 W-s ones) or a 7'
octogon, but I want that big difused light look.
I put up two stands 8 'apart and draped a cheap white sheet across them
(I'd like to find a lower quality sheet (more translucent) but can't
find one), using two old chairs to brace the stands (clamps). A length
of PVC pipe across the top to hold the sheet evenly.
I put the two flashes on the other side about 3.5 feet above the floor
and 43 feet apart pointing square at the sheets.
Gives me (ISO 100, full power) f/11 at about 3.5 from the sheets and
f/5.6 at about 7' from the sheets. I have the subject facing at right
angles to this with whatever backdrop may be needed. The backdrop is
lit directly and seperately with a low powered slave.
Opposite the sheets, a cheap plasticized white painters tarp provides
reflected fill at about 1.5 stops down. Reflectors on stands are placed
for other fill.
the whole thing gives a very large, even difused light with less than
1/3 stop light fall off top to botton in the shooting zone.
Cheers,
Alan
KC8PMX wrote:
> I was discussing this topic with a friend and was wondering what you may
> have made for your photography hobby (or career) instead of possibly
> purchasing it? Homebrewing is typically a term used in ham radio as "making
> it yourself" instead of buying whatever merchandise.
>
> For example, using PVC pipe I had constructed lighting stands when I did
> alot of still photography. And I also had experimenting with home-made
> lighting devices (no I didn't make the bulbs! :)
>
> Ryan
From: lawrence reiss [lawrencereiss@yahoo.com]
Sent: Mon 3/10/2003
To: medium-format@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [medium-format] Re: Flash Woes
Hi Bruce - I have several 283's of various vintages and a Sekonic flash meter. The 283 units all underexpose for two reasons. First, they are not quite as powerful as Vivitar says - in full power manual mode they overrate the guide number by about a stop. Second, when used in auto mode, the underexpose by almost a stop. I use print film with flash, and generally set the auto exposure setting to give about 1/2 to 1 stop extra exposure over the film's box speed, depending on the situation. For example, Fuji 160 box speed - I set the auto dial at about 80 to 120 depending on the subject and circumstances. Also, when the charged light first comes on, the unit will fire a little below its maximum output on manual - only when the light is actually flashing is the unit at its absolute max. On auto, however, this is of little consequence.
Lawrence
From: Bruce Feist
Subject: Flash Woes
I'm using a Vivitar 283 flash on several MF cameras, most recently a
Meopta Flexaret IVa. I'm having a consistent problem with
underexposure, which I'm not sure I understand. I generally try to use
it as a bounce flash, angling the flash direction towards the ceiling
between me and my subject. Since the flash is automatic (and I do have
it on one of its automatic settings), it should just *work* if I set the
f/stop to the appropriate aperature for the automatic setting, right?
Yet the photos seem to always be badly underexposed.
*embarassed note* I haven't tried pointing the flash directly at the
subject to see what would happen.
Anyway, here are some of the things I've considered and mostly rejected:
1) Flash is underpowered for the distances involved. I don't think
so... the distances aren't that great, and it happens even with
extremely high-speed film.
2) I have a basic misunderstanding of how the flash should work when
bouncing. I can't judge this one.
3) The flash synch itself isn't working right. This seems unlikely;
I'm using the correct "X" synchronization, and a leaf shutter should be
able to synch at any speed (right?), so I don't think I have it set
wrong, and I've had similar results with multiple cameras, so it's not a
specific camera malfunctioning.
Any suggestions?
Bruce Feist
From: "ajacobs2" ajacobs2@tampabay.rr.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Tiltall/Star D Tripod History - A Genetic Mutation?
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003
"C.Phillips" phillips_sager@starpower.net wrote
> So some of you folks thought that you had the provenance of the
> Tiltall/Star D line of tripods down pretty good, did you? You know -
> Marchioni brothers, then Leitz, then Star-D and now after a long pause
> a company in China? Well here's something that I stumbled upon while
> looking through ebay's [recently] past auctions. Take a look at:
Last Month at the PMA, Bogen/ Manfrotto had their entire tripod line up on
display. Four aisles over a Taiwan knockoff company had their knockoffs of
the Bogen lineup on display. Three aisles from them , Mainland China had
their Taiwan Bogen knockoffs of the real Bogen Knockoffs on display. Aside
from the finishing and quality of the castings, they looked all the
same....the difference "price and feel" . And for about a 110 dollars I
could have a 320 dollar Bogen. I wouldn't, too rough for me, but they are
there and there are many knockoffs of the Tiltall that were shortlived. It
was the state of the art for that era of tripod.
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Tiltall/Star D Tripod History - A Genetic Mutation?
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003
...
It really does look like a knock-off. My first tripod was
a Star-D, bought about 1954, which finally fell apart a
couple of years ago. I think Davidson was located in Los
Angeles at the time. They made inexpensive but good quality
tripods. The quality brands of the time for small cameras
were the Tiltall and Quick-Set. My original Tiltall will
take an 8x10 camera!
--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: scharf@hotmail.com (Steven Scharf)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.misc,rec.photo.technique.nature,rec.travel.usa-canada
Subject: Website for Lightweight and Small Travel Tripods
Date: 18 Apr 2003
After completing my search for a compact, lightweight, travel tripod, I
gathered my data into this website:
"
From: Henry Posner [henryp@bhphotovideo.com]
Sent: Thu 5/29/2003
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: [HUG] Re: OT: Studio Strobes/Monlights
you wrote:
> I'm new to studio lighting ...
Go to
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bh4.sph/FrameWork.class?FNC=GetPage__Aindex_html___page=FreeCatalog.html
and sign up for our 700+ page lighting sourcebook.
-- -
regards,
Henry Posner
B&H; Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
From Hasselblad mailing list:
From: Nelson L. Mark, SC001 [phair1@jklsoftware.com]
Sent: Tue 5/27/2003
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] OT: Studio Strobes/Monlights - Opinions?
This is complete hogwash. You can get Alien Bees at different power
levels. 1600 WS is 1600 WS, whether it's made by Paul Buff or God. I
can't find film with a low enough ISO to use any 800 WS studio strobe
at full power, unless I'm trying to dry my model's hair. I use one AB
400 WS unit for fill, and I usually set it around 1/16 power even in a
soft box. If Nelson can't get his AB light far enough away from his
model to shoot at f16, then she needs to lose some weight.
Hmmm...1600 "Effective" WS is NOT 1600WS. Trust me. Put an AB in a 5' Octodome and
try shooting a model from 6' away. Not enough power for crapshooting...And, a WL Ultra 1200
is "effectively" 1200, but actually close to 550WS or so. I like to know exactly how much power
is being popped each and every time. Not to mention the WL or AB's are designed for extremely
light-duty usage. Do some multi-pop shots (like for 8x10 LF @ f/64) and watch the clouds of smoke roll...
Ever tried shooting a group shot with only 600WS? Your camera room must be really small to use
400WS for fill...
Photogenics are really nice "bang-for-buck" strobes. Many studio's use them. In mine, we use Normans and Elinchroms.
As far as AB units looking like Disney, the different colors are
extremely handy. I buy each power rating a different color, so I can
just grab one and know what it is.
Color temp and power curves are fine. The world is full of amateur
photographers who tell you that they can tell 2 degrees of color temp
difference by looking at a transparency. Don't bee (intentional) fooled
into paying 1600 bucks for 300 dollars worth of light because it's
German. (or swiss, or whatever)
And the next thing you're going to say is that you can see no color difference between Velvia and
Provia 100F shot under the same lighting conditions...
Amateur? I've shot over 400 rolls of film in the last MONTH. And, trust me, when you're shooting a
product against a white background, with gel-coloured lighting, a few degrees of color variation or
a color-shift between exposure WILL be noticable. Or, any high-key work.
$1600?????? Where are you shopping? They must love you...seriously, though...getting a good
used set of lights cost only about $800 for a pack and 2 heads or around $1200 for 4 monos.
Even Novatron packs are better quality that WL or AB. Spend the money on some Photogenics
and bee happy. Or, if you really care about the quality of your work, get some used Elinchrom,
Multiblitz, Balcar, Broncolor, Visatec/Bron, Profoto gear...spend the extra money...and have a
light setup which will last you a lifetime and allow you to produce consistent shots with little worry
about the final outcome.
Color Temperature Shift vs. Flash Output Range Test:
http://www.shootsmarter.com/strobetest.html
With the strobes at the bottom of the list you could easily have
variations of 300 degrees with multiple lights at different power
settings. That's as big a shift as the difference between Kodak E100S
and E100SW (or G and GX). That could be a problem for some with
transparency film.
Hmmm...good thing all of my Elinchroms are in the TOP few rows. And my Normans are up there too. Oh, so is the Bron pack I use. The primary issue with color-temp consistency occurs when you are firing rapidly (as in sequence type shots) or multi-popping (as in small f-stops and product/commercial type work).
From: Patrick Bartek [bartek@lvcm.com]
Sent: Mon 5/26/2003
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] OT: Studio Strobes/Monlights - Opinions?
you wrote:
> I wonder if anyone could give me an opinion on some monolights that
> I'm looking to purchase.
> I was able to test out a DynaLite Uni400Jr this weekend with some
> very impressive results.
> While I like the results out of the DynaLite, I was told by another
> photographer that the Alien Bees (http://www.alienbees.com) are
> excellent strobes for the money - high value for the dollar - I
> would only be using them right now for headshots so I was wondering
> if anyone out there has tried this brand.
>
> If not, what brand do you prefer/are using?
You might want to take a look at Novatron (www.novatron.com).
Besides the "standard" power pack/head combos, they make a couple of
nice monos that are better than the Bees, but only a little more
money. The Bees seem to be for light duty amateur user. The
Novatrons cater to the small studio, single shooter pro market and
are designed to be used a lot. A good value.
However, if you can afford it, the Dynalites are excellent. I use
their power packs and heads. Very compact and light, but powerful.
Whatever units you decide on, be sure to get color corrected flash
tubes.
--
Patrick Bartek
NoLife Polymath Group
bartek@lvcm.com
From: Hank Graber [hgraber@narrativerooms.com]
Sent: Mon 5/26/2003
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] OT: Studio Strobes/Monlights - Opinions?
Color Temperature Shift vs. Flash Output Range Test:
http://www.shootsmarter.com/strobetest.html
With the strobes at the bottom of the list you could easily have variations of 300 degrees with
multiple lights at different power settings. That's as big a shift as the difference between Kodak
E100S and E100SW (or G and GX). That could be a problem for some with transparency film.
Hank
From: Scott Coutts scott.coutts@med.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Simple lighting on the Cheap?
Date: Sun, 25 May 2003
I've just started with artificial lighting even though I've been into
photography for a few years now. My set up, which I just put together a
couple of weeks ago, works well enough for now but has very obvious
limitations. But for the price, it can't be beat (: The things you
mentioned are most important here (in order): cheap, digital,
close-range work.
Anyhow...
I do a lot of small still-life and macro shots. The things I shoot are
usually small, so I need to light a space no larger than 1 cubic meter.
I use one of those 500W flood lights. It has frosted glass over it
anyhow, so it already has a mild diffuser built in. When I need it
diffused more, then I use paper from a roll of that thin, kitchen-type
'tracing' paper that is normally used for lining cake tins (but not the
waxy one). I just drape it over the light. I use this for lighting
objects that are a bit larger. You can get them already on a stand here
in Aus, and I should imagine that similar things are available anywhere.
You can get ones that have two 250W floods on one stand, about 0.5m apart.
For smaller things, I use those 12V quartz-halogen dichroic bulbs that
are used in downlights. You can get bulbs that direct their beam at
different angles, so you can have wide angle ones and narrow spots.
They're very cheap, and you can get them in a kit with their own
transformers and an enamel coated holder. It's designed to fit flush
with the ceiling of your house, facing down. But I screwed the globe
holder to an L shaped bracket, and screwed a spare tripod quick-release
plate to the other side. Now I can mount the spot on my tripod and point
it very precisely. A better way is to buy a fitting, like the last two
lights on this page, which use the 12V dichroics, but it's more expensive:
http://www.ambience-lighting.com.au/extwall/extwall.htm
The other benefit of the dichroic bulbs is that they specify the colour
temperature, so if you have a digital camera, you can set the colour
temperature to that and it comes out fine (Auto WB works OK anyhow, I've
found - I use a Canon 10D). Lastly, the size of the opening in the
downlight holder is 49mm, so I can fit coloured filters to the front of
it too (:
500W Flood light with stand and diffusing glass built in: AU$20
Quartz-halogen downlight dichroic bulb, AU$7.50
Downlight holder and transformer: AU$25.00
... having said that, I'd love graduate from my dodgey home-made setup
to one of those Elinchrom monobloc kits. Only AU$9,500. (: I'm thinking
of getting one of those alien bees lights - they seem pretty good for
the price.
Jordan Bortz wrote:
> Hello
> Here's a question that I'm interested in and I bet others are too...
>
> For simple indoor photography just to get started with lighting, what are
> some good recommendations on cheap lighting systems/diffusers/reflectors
> that can be made out of ordinary materials and/or cheap hardware store
> items?
>
> It doesn't really have to be roadworthy or portable just things to get going
> without spending lots of money... Ideas?
>
> This is primarily for digital at fairly close range...
>
> Jordan
From: Tom Christiansen [tomchr@softhome.net]
Sent: Sat 6/21/2003
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: [HUG] Tripods (was: 503CX Mirror)
Hi,
>I'd search for a solid tripod instead. (I know, it's
>extremely difficult, because they almost all have flimsy, teetering
>center columns, or other serious design defects.)
Finding a good tripod is not exceptionally difficult provided that you have
access to a store with a decent selection. Finding a cheap (<$50), stable
tripod is exceptionally difficult (aka impossible). As with all other
stuff, you get what you pay for.
For "amateurs" and other penny-counting folks (such as myself) I suggest
looking at the Bogen/Manfrotto 3021 or 3221. Priced at about $130-150 they
are actually a pretty good bang for the buck. But if you want to use
exceptionally long lenses (>300mm on 35mm film) you probably want something
more stable.
For photographers looking for something more stable than their Bogen 3221 I
recommend the 300-series Gitzo. I have had my eyes on a G1325 for a while
now. It's a damn good tripod. The G1349 is incredibly stable as well. Those
are both in the "slightly more expensive" range ($300-500).
In any case: Get a tripod without a center column and make sure that the
tripod is tall enough that you won't be needing the column. In the store
mount a good head on the tripod and put your biggest rig on the head. Now
lock the head, give the lens a gentle ding with a finger and watch how much
the tripod oscillates. Repeat for other tripods within your price range and
buy the one with lowest amplitude on the oscillations.
Tom
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003
From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.misc,rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: help deciding on which lights.
Ted wrote:
> I am ready to get some lights for occasional use. I am looking at several on
> ebay and would like opinions of them please. The ones that I am looking at
> are:
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category;=30087&item;=2937992430
Overpriced. I have some Britek gear. Stick with the lower priced items if you
go with them.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category;=30079&item;=2937906681
Okay, compare with
http://www.goodwinphotoinc.com/Studio_Lighting/studio_lighting.html. I bought
some Britek items from them before they closed their store and went only
on-line sales. Since you appear to be in Miami, check with
http://www.mardelonline.com/products/studiolighting/Britek/Britek.html or get
their phone number on the home page http://www.mardelonline.com
Anyway, the Britek lights are low cost, and plastic. They are okay for small
studio, or will transport well. They are cheap enough that you do not need to
worry about them in rougher conditions . . . if they break, oh well, just buy
some more. Even the smaller units at GN 100 are good in small spaces. However,
a really good flash, with cords to get it off the camera, might work just as
well.
Rather than go for a kit, if you want to stay low cost, start small. One Britek
AS-36 or similar should be fine to start. If you want some accuracy, and
avoiding bracketing, get a good flash meter. Do a search through the archives
for this group, and read about the experiences Patrick L. had with some Alien
Bees studio strobes. Those are really well made units, and even one might be
good for some photographic situations.
Buy a good book on lighting. Learning To Light by Hicks and Schultz is a great
place to start. The B&H; Photo http://www.bhphotovideo.com Professional
Lighting Source Book is another good resource, and at over 800 pages, has
almost everything one could imagine. Figure out what you want to use the
strobes to photograph. Often one light can be enough. Many of the higher priced
units have sliding power settings, to help avoid overlighting. While many
sources will tell you to buy as much light as you can afford, with the idea
that you can never have enough, this idea can also lead to overlighting, and is
a common first mistake.
Consider starting with lighting modifiers, since those will change the look of
your lighting. One strobe, and a reflector, can be functional similar to two
strobes in the final effect, but might be similar. Start looking through
magazines with subject matter you want to light. Try to figure out how many
lights were used, what direction, and how they related to the camera position.
Look at the eyes, or any reflective surface, and see if you can count the
lights. Understand what you are viewing prior to buying your own kit.
Finally, I hate to say this, but grab a copy of the latest Shutterbug magazine.
Use this as a catalogue for pricing, and retailers for lighting. White
Lightning, Alien Bees, Elinchrom, Novotron, Norman, Broncolor, Speedotron,
Profoto and Bowens all make fairly rugged gear. Many of these could be
considered good used purchases. The lower cost is often covered by Britek,
Morris, SP Studio Systems, and Photogenic, with some better choices from each
company. If you find a copy of PDN (Photo District News), sometimes there are
articles on lighting, including placements, power settings, camera settings,
and camera positions. Some of the UK photo magazines have occasional articles
as well.
There are few rules in lighting that cannot be broken, but only if you know how
to do it. Do not get into a mindset that you need two strobes, and two
umbrellas, just because they have the word "kit" on the box. Do some more
research, ask some more questions, then make an informed purchase.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com
From: thomandpam@yahoo.com.au (Thom)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Rollei SL66
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003
Randall Ainsworth rag@nospam.techline.com wrote:
>> No one believes me but I bought my B-200 in 1980 and I'm still on the
>> ORIGINAL battery!
>
> I could only get 'em to last about 7 years. But it's still a great
>unit. Helped make me lots of money and was extremely reliable. I
>think I bought mine in the mid 70s.
problem today is batteries. The new batteries can be changed over for
the B200 but the older chargers (I'm told) aren't good for the new
batteries Norman sells for the B400 and there has to be some kind of
modification.
THOM
From: Randall Ainsworth rag@nospam.techline.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Flash retraction
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003
> Some time ago in this forum, I said that 1/30 was too slow for an
> electronic flash sync. Well I was wrong. I just mistakenly shot half a
> party on "B". The shutter was sounding funny and I looked at the camera
> and realized I had left it on "B" after checking out the lens the
> previous night. 90% of the images were OK with a little blurrieness in
> the background. So I suppose 1/30 should be adequate for indoor images
> with an electronic flash.
I used to photograph wedding formals at 1/15 or so to capture some of
the ambient light of the church. Us old codgers used to call it
"dragging the shutter".
From: Lisa Horton Lisa@lisahorton.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: REQ: suggestions for a good $100-$200 tripod (FOLLOW-UP)
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003
Alan wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Does anyone have any suggestions for a really good tripod in the $100
> > to $200 range (preferably closer to $100)?
> >
> > Alan
>
> I like the looks of the Bogen 3021 and the price is good and all that,
> but I did see a Slik Pro 700DX in B&H; Photo's "specials" section for
> only $129.95.
>
> It looks like the biggest differences (besides price) are that the
> Slik supports up to 15 pounds where the Bogen supports up to 11 and
> the Slik has a 3 year warranty where the Bogen only has a 1 year
> warranty.
>
> The head on the Slik has a quick release which I kinda like, too.
>
> Is Slik a decent tripod or am I a fool for even considering it?
>
> The almost $40 price difference is certainly something I'll have to
> consider.
Slik makes some really cheap and crappy tripods. On this basis, you'll
hear people dismissing the entire brand, or worse. However, Slik also
makes some good tripods, some very good. The 700DX would sit at the top
of that category. I have a 300DX, and it's in every way comparable or
better than the equivalent Bogen (3001, equivalent in price). I would
think the 700DX to be at least as good as the 300DX, and almost
certainly more than a little bit better.
However, the 3021Pro has a unique feature that no Slik tripod has: the
ability to use the center column horizontally. Great for macro and copy
work.
Lisa
From: "Slavko Eror" unknown@sympatico.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Vivitar 283 Flash Questions
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003
The cheapest softbox: Use a Bounty paper towel. A single square roll is
ideal. Put each corner on all four sides of your flash and secure with an
elastic. This creates a fairly large "dome" around the flash head and
diffuses light really well.
"Mark Stephen" markrstephen@hotmail.com wrote
> I just picked up a Vivitar 283 strobe to use with my Yashicamat 124G
> and have a couple of questions.
>
> First, the flash has no PC cord. I am going to order some film and
> stuff from B&H;, can I just buy a cheap Male to Female 12" PC cord,
> will that work ?
>
> Second, can anyone recommend a cheap soft box or diffuser to use with
> the unit ?
>
> If anyone has a PC cord and softbox/diffuser for a 283 they want to
> sell, let me know.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark.
From: "Fred Leif" fsleif@starband.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Vivitar 283 Flash Questions
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003
Hi Mark
The cord you need is Vivitar's "Detachable Shutter Cord" PC-1 which is NOT a
pc to pc type cord. It is about a foot long. One end is a special Vivitar
fitting - it stays in better than PCs do - IMHO. It does have a pc (male)
end on it, so you can plug it into your pc socket on the camera or 'daisy
chain' it with pc to pc cords if you want more distance between the flash
and the camera.
Vivitar makes a couple of attachments for the 283 which help in adjusting
the flash beam for wide angle and short tele lenses. Other manufacturers
make similar products (inflatable pillow type gadgets) and adapters that
would allow you to use umbrellas. The unit doesn't have loads of power, so
soft boxes, umbrellas, and bounce applications may require you to use
largish apertures with medium speed films. I've been pretty successful with
mine using umbrellas from ~5 to 8 feet on ASA 200 materials. When you use
umbrellas and soft boxes you'll probably want the detachable sensor (for
automatic mode) or a flash meter and use the unit in manual mode.
The 283 manual is pretty helpful. See Vivitar's web site for flash
accessories http://www.vivitar.com/Products/Accy/accy.html#FlashAccy
Good Luck
"Mark Stephen" markrstephen@hotmail.com wrote...
> I just picked up a Vivitar 283 strobe to use with my Yashicamat 124G
> and have a couple of questions.
>
> First, the flash has no PC cord. I am going to order some film and
> stuff from B&H;, can I just buy a cheap Male to Female 12" PC cord,
> will that work ?
>
> Second, can anyone recommend a cheap soft box or diffuser to use with
> the unit ?
>
> If anyone has a PC cord and softbox/diffuser for a 283 they want to
> sell, let me know.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark.
From: Jim Brick [jbrick@elesys.net]
Sent: Mon 10/27/2003
To: casalmonte@tin.it; hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] lighting in big winecellars
Here's what I would do... and have done:
A wine cellar looks best when the lighting seems natural, that is, the
overhead lights shining down on the barrel tops. There is typically not
enough light to fill in the shadows even a little, so aux lighting must be
used. But you want to keep it looking darkish so that it actually looks
like a cellar. I would use small Morris mini slave strobes placed
strategically around to gently fill in the really dark spaces. I would put
an 85EF equivalent gel over each mini strobe so that the output reasonably
matches the tungsten overhead lights.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A;=details&Q;=&sku;=89986&is;=REG
or use the Morris round mini slaves:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A;=details&Q;=&sku;=106894&is;=REG
and the filter set. The amber filter converts it to tungsten o/p:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=details_accessories&A;=details&Q;=&sku;=174591&is;=REG
These Morris mini slave strobes are used extensively in interior
photography. Inside lamps, taped to the light bulb (which is turned off of
course!), behind counters, chairs, wine barrels, tables... everywhere where
a light kick is needed. And they are slaves that are triggered by a single
flash that is triggered by the camera.
My local pro supplier runs out of these things regularly. People buy them
like popcorn.
Rosco makes every conceivable color gel filter, 20x24 sheets for $6.99.
Enough for a lot of lights. The ambers are the correct colors. You can also
get a neutral density gel to cut the strobe o/p a stop or two where needed.
Go to http://www.calumetphoto.com and search on Rosco.
Test with Polaroid!
You probably don't want to buy anything new, but above is what I have done
in the past.
MHO,
:-)
Jim
andreas wrote:
>
>dear all,
>
>I have promised a friend to make photo's of his wine cellars for pr
>purposes. they are the modern type, big square 20 x 30 mtrs and about
>4 mtrs high, full of oak wine barrels stacked (without neon tubes only
>very dim lights). Originally I thought using my swc and some tungsten
>lights but I have also a pro-photo pro-5 2400 with one single and a
>double head, with the advantage of using daylight film, of course I can
>check with the polaroid back but in order to arrive prepared what would
>you suggest?
>thx for the advice
>
>andreas
From Bronica mailing list:
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003
From: wjkean@fsmail.net
Subject: Re: Re:flash
Hi,
The most automation is TTL (through the lens) where the camera measures the light at or near the film and controls the flash. It is particularly useful for
macro work or where you are using filters on the lens or where the subject distance is changing a lot. For this to work there must be a special module for
the specific camera model and flash.
Next level down in automation is an 'auto' flash where the flash has its own sensor and controls itself. As long as the sensor is near the camera (either
because the sensor is on the flash which is on or near the camera or some systems have a sensor that can be placed on the camera and connected to the
flash with a cord) it will work well in almost all normal picture taking. Most flashes these days are like this and will work with any camera.
Or you can use a fully manual flash as Marie does which works just fine particularly when the subject is always more or less at the same distance or when
you have time to set up the equipment. These will obviously work with any camera.
I use a Metz 45CL4 with the SCA386 adapter (TTL) which works well (although the markings for the settings are so small that I have difficulty in reading
them, plus the battry clips underneath and doesn't seem that secure - but has never failed so far). It is probably the easiest setup to use.
Sunpak also have TTL systems for the ETRSi.
In terms of cost the TTL is most expensive (although that is partly because it tends to be available on the more powerful flashes with more features).
As has already been said, a flash meter is useful if you have a studio setup but I managed for many years without one (I now have a Minolta Flah Meter
IV which can do practically everything you would ever need).
BTW all my medium format equipment was bought second hand, including the TTL module.
HTH,
Bill
From : alljupiter
To : Bronica@yahoogroups.com
Copy to :
Subject : [Bronica] Re:flash
Hi everyone this is my 1st post, i'm going to order myself a ETRSi
later this week with AEIII prosm finder and a few other bits, but
what i don't really know much about is flash units. Being
completely new to medium format and flash units its a bit daunting.
This may seem a stupid question to you guys but are there any flash
units available whereby the camera will work out the correct
exposure or do i have to buy a light meter?
If you do use a light meter which one do you use?
Any help is much appreciated.
From minolta mailing list:
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003
From: "motikomfort" motikomfort@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Any websites/books that explain details/nuances of wireless flash?
--- In Minolta@yahoogroups.com, Robert Lynch robalynch@y... wrote:
>
> http://users.westelcom.com/~waltsman/flash.html
here u have two links about wireless flash with minolta
http://users.westelcom.com/~waltsman/flash.html
http://friedmanarchives.com/flash.htm
also i read an article written by Mr. friedman about the all
wireless thing from any known and unknown secrets about the wireless
system.
the article was publised in UK minolta magazine.
moti
From: "Sherman" shermanDELETETHIS@dunnam.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Is Bronica the answer ...
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003
...
Instead of shelling out big $$$ for a folding reflector from a photo company
check out the type designed to place in the windshield of a car to keep it
cooler.
I purchased two such reflectors which fold to slightly more than 12"
diameter and open to squared ovals about 20" by 30". One side is bright
silver and the other side is dull or matte silver for a softer light. The
results are indistinguishable from much higher priced reflectors. I paid US
$9 for two.
Sherman
http://www.dunnamphoto.com
From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Tripod advice
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004
"WMcga66339" wmcga66339@aol.com wrote...
> I have a Mamiya RZ67 that I plan on using for wildlife and a bit of macro
> photography, I have been looking at both Bogen and Getz tripods, can someone
> recomend a head leg combo. that will both be steady enough and somewhat
> portable, as I will be backpacking with it,,,,,The steadiness in the priority
As I mentioned before, I just bought a Velbon Neo Carmagne 730, that I like
very much. It's 2.4 kg (without head), and the Yodobashi Camera sales person
swings from it with his whole weight as part of their hard sell spiel,
which, as you can tell, I bought, hook, line, and sinker. (I said Mamiya
645, and they said: don't even think about anything less.) It's _seriously_
bulky, though. It is _not_ a compact tripod.
I think they were right about the "don't even think about anything less"
bit: all the standard CF pods that I looked at were just too flimsy and
shaky and vibration prone at even medium heights. The Velbon Neo Carmagne
730 is quite solid even at my (6'2") eye level.
If you don't want to spend that much, my take is that the cheap Slik _metal_
(not CF) tripods (300DX, 500DX, 700DX) are better than anything carbon fiber
less than the Velbon Neo Carmagne 730. But they're heavy cheap tripods. (I
have the 300DX, and it's actually quite solid, although short.) But I
haven't really compared metal tripods.
The problem, though, is that the RZ67 is a bigger camera than my Mamiya 645,
and you'd want to use the Slik metal 'pods only partially extended. Velbon
makes an ever larger monster, the Velbon Neo Carmagne 830. Both the 730 and
830 are three-section tripods, and are available in 4-section versions, the
740 and 840. I prefer 3-section tripods, but there are those who argue that
4-section pods are just as steady. (These may not all be available in the
states, or wherever you are.)
One of the reasons I like the 730 is that it's tall enough to use at eye
level. Although I don't mind using a short tripod and kneeling, I find that
when I see something I want to shoot, it may not be visible from a short
tripod.
I'm not completely happy with the head I'm using, and am considering
ordering the Kirk BH-3. For the RZ67, you'd probably need the BH-1. You
might want to start with an expensive head and cheap metal legs, and then
buy a more expensive set of legs later.
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001wya
All these tripods allow the legs to be set to wider angles for shooting
macros on the floor or ground. (The center column on the Velbon 730 is in
two sections that screw together. You unscrew the extension for low level
shooting.) But I'd think you'd also want a rack that can move the camera for
serious macro work.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
From: Bob Salomon bob_salomon@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Cheap :) Medium Format Projector?
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004
sog@niwot.scd.ucar.edu (Steve Gombosi) wrote:
> Bob Salomon bob_salomon@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> >Eventually Rollei purchased the Honeywell photographic business (flash,
> >auto focus patents, etc) and moved the ROA company from NJ to CO.
>
> Too bad they didn't keep making the Strobonars. I've still got a 65D which
> works like a charm (even if the batteries are insanely expensive).
>
> Steve
Technology passed it by. Better flash units have coated tubes to reduce,
or eliminate UV and color shifts caused by UV, as well as to warm up the
shot. They have lower synch voltages to protect the cameras, higher
output due to increased efficiency, longer flash duration, in some
cases, to reduce reciprocity failure, etc.
--
From: Craig Schroeder [craig@craigschroeder.com]
Sent: Sat 1/24/2004
To: PentaxMF@yahoogroups.
Subject: Re: [PentaxMF] Tripod for 67
Don't underestimate what you need.... I spent a lot of time trying out
pods with a laser light attached to the camera and found that things I
assumed would work were not the best combinations. I use an old Bogen
3046 w/3047 head (wt, about 11.5#) for short jaunts and indoor use and a
Gitzo 1320 w/R3 head (about 8.5#) for field work and hiking. My longest
lens is a 200 and these have proven usable. I was initially using a
Bogen 3029 on the Gitzo and while it was steady enough for what I was
doing, it wasn't high enough to let me leave the wood grip on the body
and tilt to vertical easily. A foot tension strap on the center post
can settle things well, too.
Walt wrote:
> Looking to purchase a tripod for the 67 Anybody have any
> recommendations on what they are using now?
> Walt
From: bob.kirkpatrick@heapg.com (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Watt / second question
Date: 3 Feb 2004
"Jim Clark" wk321@pacbell.net wrote
> the AC strobs have rateings of 100 w/s how does that compair with my 550EX
> flash. or to put it another way how w/s does my 550 EX flash have????
AC Strobes and Monolights are usually rated by Watt-Seconds (or
Joules, same numerical value) since this represents the total physical
power per flash and they are normally used with a wide range of
modifiers, different reflectors, soft boxes, or umbrellas. A small
on-camera flash like the 550EX is normally used directly with it's own
internal reflector so it is rated by 100ASA Guide Number.
Since the GN varies as the square of the power, a factor of two GN
change means a factor of four power change. As a concrete example,
Photogenic monolights come with a 7 inch reflector. Measured like
that, their 1000WS unit has a GN of 515, their 500WS unit has a GN of
365, and their 125WS unit has a GN of 180. A 100WS AC strobe with a
reflector that creates a similar beam width as the Photogenic 7" would
have a GN of about 115 which is fairly close to your 550EX.
From: KBob KBob@donteventry.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment,rec.photo.equipment.misc,rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: WARNING: JTL Monolights are DANGEROUS!
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004
steelshim@yahoo.com (John Steven) wrote:
>FYI: I recently discovered the hard way that the three JTL monolights
>(Versalight series, 300 and 800) I owned are ELECTRICAL HAZARDS.
>CAUTION: you may get shocked quite severely if you use these lights. I
>found this out by getting a good shock when doing a portrait session
>in a studio with a concrete floor. I was wearing shorts and knelt down
>to get a better angle on the subject and as soon as my knee touched
>the floor, I felt a strong electrical current run through my arms via
>the camera. I measured 85 volts AC between the sync cable outer
>connector and earth ground. THIS IS NOT NORMAL!! I tried contacting
>the JTL company twice but did not receive a response. The same problem
>was exhibited by all three lights, so I don't think it's an individual
>defect. Instead, it seems to be a design flaw.
>
>Yes, you might say I was an idiot for wearing shorts and shooting
>portraits in a room with a concrete floor, etc. I agree, and I'll not
>do that again. However, I recently took delivery of some new
>monolights (from Calumet) and they do not exhibit this voltage
>problem.
>
>-John
Sounds as if the internal design may involve an AC-DC converter that
does not use an isolation transformer, i.e. the worst kind of cheapo
engineering. The problem you experienced is clearly a severe design
flaw and safety hazard, possibly the result of a failure to connect
the neutral of the supply to the proper pin of the plug, and the
ground pin (if used) of the cord is probably not terminated to the
metallic structure (at least the mounting flange & flash bowl support)
of the flash . No flash unit should need to depend on having the plug
properly polarized, however--your safety should not depend on whether
the plug is shoved in one way or the other. This is of particular
concern for electronic studio flash units where potentially lethal
voltages are present, and when these voltages are backed up by large
capacitors that hazard is made all the more serious.
See if the JTL units carry the UL sticker, and if so threaten to turn
them in and do it. Consider contacting the BBB and Interstate
Commerce Commision about this. Tell them to fix these correctly or
you want a total and immediate refund. JTL has an extremely poor
reputation for dealing with customers and they are likely to jack you
around, expecting YOU to pay for their mistake. Their head guy got
his start working for Britek, and that should tell you something.
Their products are cheaply made in China and JTL (in the US) doesn't
even seem to have a clue as to what's inside them. They are located in
La Marinda, Calif.I hope this won't be an expensive learning
experience; at least try to post your experience in the various camera
discussion groups so that others can profit. Since Adorama is a major
outlet for JTL, you might also inform them of your experience.
Lest anyone think these lamps are some kind of bargain, keep in mind
that the Versalight 800 sells for $550, and that's more than I paid
for a like-new Elinchrom 1000 W-S monolight that's a real pleasure to
use. Speedotron, Norman, Elinchrom, Comet and Dyna-Lite are brands
trusted by pros to deliver, they cost a little more but work out
better in the long run IMHO.
Here's someone else's bad experiences with JTL:
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005Gl6
From: Q.G. de Bakker [qnu@tiscali.nl]
Sent: Mon 11/10/2003
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Studio Lighting
rstein wrote:
> Uncle Dick is violently opposed to the use of soft boxes as they are
> way overpriced and common as muck. They scream mall portrait. He may be
> prepared to violently reverse this opinion if Henry Posner sends him a free
> softbox. Henry...?
A better and cheaper alternative to soft boxes (though perhaps more work to
set up) is to use white perspex sheets (in whatever size you need/want). Put
them up in the appropriate place, and then set up your lights behind.
The very good bit of using these sheets is that varying the number, angle
and distance to the sheet of the lights behind the sheet will vary the
characteristics of the light coming through, giving you much more control in
addition to the simple "a bit closer --- not so close"-thing that using
regular soft-boxes provides. They "eat" light, but not too much.
From minolta mailing list:
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004
From: "Hung @ pc1" hungkh@theminoltians.com
Subject: Re: the ultimate fashion accessory for flash photographers
>http://69.93.124.90/truestories/flashhelmet/?page=2
>
>Alan
Where can we get one? I thaink that constant use of it will lengthen
your neck due to wind pull ;-)
Hung
From: Doug Payne dwpayne@ist.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: mounting camera to studio equipment
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004
Gordon Moat wrote:
> Bogen/Manfrotto have a few brass threaded slug looking pieces that could fit
> into the socket hole of a lighting stand.
These come in lots combinations of male/female, 1/4 or 3/8 each end, long,
short, etc. I use one to mount a flash on a light stand (via the stock Nikon
remote cable). They're called "studs" in Manfrotto-ese (or maybe any-ese :-)
> There is a device in an older catalogue that I have called a Magic Arm. This
> use to be a Manfrotto 2930, though they have changed the numbers so often, I am
> not sure if that helps. Anyway, the arm fits a 5/8" female socket, and will
> work with the Super Clamp. It can hold up to 8.8 pounds, though you may want to
> brace the stand when you have a heavy camera attached. The Magic Arm is a
> double jointed arm with a plate and ball head on the end, making any angle of
> position possible.
I have an 035 super-clamp and 155RC head combination that I use for various
things. A bit smaller than the Magic Arm. The 155RC is a double-jointed
ball-head with quick release that fits in the end of the super-clamp. Dunno if
it's suitable for whatever app was the original subject of this thread.
head http://www.manfrotto.com/product/templates/itemalone.php3?itemid=343
clamp http://www.manfrotto.com/product/templates/itemalone.php3?itemid=344
arm http://www.manfrotto.com/product/templates/itemalone.php3?itemid=741
From: john@xyzzy.stafford.net (jjs)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: mounting camera to studio equipment
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004
"Neil Gould" neil@myplaceofwork.com wrote:
> I have this Elinchrom Polystand
> (http://www.foto-mueller.at/shop/pd896774283.html?categoryId=88),
> which I want to use to attach a camera to. The Polystand's boom has
> 5/8" pins on both sides, no thread. The camera could be a Hasselblad
> or Minolta 35mm. The Minolta only has an inner 1/4" thread, while the
> Hassy has both 1/4" and 3/8", so I'll go for the 1/4".
>
> So I'm looking for a head which can be quickly attached to the 5/8"
> boom pin and has a 1/4" threaded pin for the camera. I'd like to
> tilt/swivel/rotate the camera, so a straight adapter is not an option.
IMHO, not a good idea because of the lightweight nature of the stand. It
is okay for the lights it was intended to hold to move a bit, but the
camera? Nooooo.
In any event, there are (or were) Bogen/Manfroto adapters that can be used
to Mickey-Mouse what you want. One is a clamp intended to go over round
tubes. It has a 'v' jaw on one side and the other jaw is flat. On the
bottom of this clamp is a standard 1/4" hole for more accessories. Also on
the bottom is a proprietary hole for more Bogen/Manfroto gizmos - one of
which is a universal, double-jointed clamp with 1/4" and 3/8" female
tripod mounts. Another gizmos that attaches to _that_ part is Manfroto
#155. (The other pieces have no numbers or I'd post them.)
All together it make for one seriously shakey, Rube Goldberg setup.
(BTW, some of the Bogen/Man... parts, in particular the telescoping tubes,
1/4" end pieces and knobs are pretty much standard Italian hardware you
can find in the spendy (but still cheaper than BF) sources for retail
store displays.)
From: "Bandicoot" "insert_handle_here"@techemail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Lightweight tripod head for MF
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004
"David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com wrote
>
> "Bandicoot" "insert_handle_here"@techemail.com wrote:
> >
> > The Kirk BH-3 is like a scaled down Arca monoball (more or
> > less: it doesn't have the progressive damping) and is what I use
> > on a Manfrotto 444. I know Lisa uses an Acratech on hers and I
> > think with this tripod these are the two leading choices.
>
> Do you use your BH-3 to hold your camera flopped over on the
> side for vertical shots? If so, what camera/lens and how well does
> it work?
>
> (I've been thinking about the BH-3. I'm currently using a Foba
> Superball M-1, and I'm not happy with it for flopping my Mamiya
> 645 over on it's side for vertical shots. (The camera moves as I
> tighten down on the knob, very irritating.))
Yes, but not often. I much prefer to use an 'L'-bracket for portrait
oriented shots, so only 'flop the ball' when I'm travelling light. I use
this head mostly with 35mm gear, usually putting my MF cameras on an Arca B1
on a big Gitzo.
Having said that, the BH-3 really doesn't seem to move when I tighten the
knob. It'll hold a Pentax LX and 300mm F4 A*, for example, like this. I
like it, and it seems exactly the right size to match up to the 444.
I have used the 444/BH-3 combination with my 6x6 gear when travelling and it
has worked pretty well, certainly fine with a 180mm f2.8 (though probably
not if it was very windy.) Of course, with 6x6 I don't need to flop the
ball.
My 35mm stuff is probably similar in weight to your 645 though, so I'd
expect it to be fine. In fact, my preference for using an 'L'-bracket
rather than flopping the ball isn't really to do with the head: it has more
to do with the tripod and keeping the mass above the apex. It also just
seems easier to use that way rather than work with the ball flopped and then
need to use the panning base to adjust side-to-side, etc.
Peter
From: Randall Ainsworth rag@nospam.techline.com
Newsgroups: alt.photography,rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Homebrew Front Projection Info?
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004
> Is anyone aware of a good source of information for building a front
> projection system similar to the Scene Machine? Drawings, diagrams, and/or
> pictures, would be very useful. In fact, just an ongoing discussion with
> someone who has done it would be useful. And, of course, sources for a
> reasonably priced mirror-type beam-splitter and reasonably priced high-gain
> retro-reflective screen material would be helpful also. Thanks for any
> assistance offered.
I did front-projection in the studio from about 1980 to 1995. Had
several articles published in The Professional Photographer related to FP.
I think that 3M is the only company that makes the screen material
and it's real expensive. As for the hardware, you've gotta have
perfect alignment between the camera lens and the projector lens. I
doubt that the average DIY guy could do it.
I've still got my Hensel Vario-Compact sitting in a box. Might let
it go for the right price. Only have mounting blocks for Hasselblad
(manual) and RB though.
[Ed. note: looking to recreate that "old time" look?...]
From: "dr bob" rsmith@dmv.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Old large format-Which One?
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004
"Capt Nud" captnud@aol.com wrote ...
> Hi Richard, everyone,
> I have access to some old planes, a real 1917 Curtiss Jenny, a 1924 Dehavilland
> Dh-4 Mailplane that will be painted as one of the ones Lindbergh flew for
> Robertson while in St Louis as well as some others (Local aviation museum.)
>
> The models will be wearing period clothing. I want them, the pictures, to look
> like Barnstormer/mail plane pilot pictures from the time.
>
> I'm going to shoot them digitally also with my 10D, but I want to make some big
> enlargements of actual photographic prints for the museum. I'm thinging of
> getting either a Speed Graphic or Koni-Omega as all I have is 35mm.
>
> Was planning on using Efke film and printing on warm-tome fiber based paper .
> thanks for your interest...
>
> don
If I were to perform the task you propose, I would choose my Koni Omega
mainly for the format. Actually the camera should matter least. The film
will! The film used in those days was primarily the ortho-chromatic
emulsion. This is marketed by Ilford today (I have not used the Ilford -
yet). It will render the sky white (as seen in those vintage photographs)
and anything red - black. I might try some experiments in processing also.
You might like a grainy appearance or not - your choice - depending on the
film and processing. Frankly, I like some of the recent photographs I have
seen produced with ortho film.
Another possibility is to use "normal" panchromatic film with a cyan filter.
This will give essentially the same look as ortho but they are rare these
days. A #47, blue filter will make really old looking images - not what I
would like, but you might. Try some of this experimentation and get back.
Truly, dr bob.
From: Peter Irwin pirwin@ktb.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Old large format-Which One?
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004
...
I think most of those circa 1920 pilot pictures were taken with
Graflex SLRs with colour blind plates or film. The camera
shouldn't be that important except that the reflex finder
made taking that kind of picture much easier than it would
have been with a view camera. You could probably get away
with making enlargements from a medium format negative.
You can get a lot of the look from a panchromatic film
plus a blue #47 filter. The filter factor of 6 will also
allow you to get similar aperture/shutter speed combinations
to those of the originals if you use 100 speed film.
Peter.
--
pirwin@ktb.net
From: "Nicholas O. Lindan" nolindan@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Old large format-Which One?
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2004
"Capt Nud" captnud@aol.com wrote
> I have access to some old planes, a real 1917 Curtiss Jenny,
> a 1924 Dehavilland Dh-4 Mailplane ... models ... period clothing.
Ah, that's better, now we & I have some understanding of what you are
trying to do.
> I want them, the pictures, to look like Barnstormer/mail plane
> pilot pictures from the time.
I don't think I have ever seen a B.S./M.P. picture, so I am not
sure what the 'look' would be.
> I'm thinging of
> getting either a Speed Graphic or Koni-Omega as all I have is 35mm.
> Was planning on using Efke film.
The film will make not a whit of difference. If you are going to hand
hold a Koni-Omega or Graphic then 400 is a good choice: you can then use
a fast shutter speed. Otherwise any old 100/125 is fine. Me, I shoot
TMX, TMY and deplete my remaining stocks of Plus-X Pro and Royal Pan. If I
were doing the shoot I in 4x5 I would use TMY, a speed graphic with flash
gun, synchronizer, blue filter and a #5 flash bulb: this is about the closest
you can get to a 1920's press outfit.
You can get a large-format look, smooth creamy grey tones
and complete absence of grain, with a 35mm loaded with tech pan.
With 5x7 prints you would need a loupe to tell the difference.
For lighting you are going to need to get hold of some #5 flashbulbs
and a flashgun. It was common practice then that news photographers
used flash under all circumstances. You still see that practice today
if you watch the newsies instead of the Prez. It keeps shadows out
of the eyes and lessens the chance of flubbing the exposure.
> and printing on warm-tome fiber based paper .
In the mid 20's, from the pictures I have seen in the Cleveland
Art Museum Collection - the non-arty-farty ones - professional
photos are pretty much as they are now: blue/black image on bright
white paper.
The brown & cream look to pictures is Edwardian: late 1800's, early
1900's.
That doesn't mean you can't give them that fin-de-siecle look. How
many photography oriented art historians and archivists do you have
in your flying club?
Toning in Kodak Brown toner is the closest to getting a turn-of the
century brown: all prints were toned then, the brown doesn't come
from the emulsion. The motivation may have been to lessen fading
as print washing was pretty rudimentary back then.
The other key to an 1890's pic is to find a very buff paper stock.
You won't, though, so don't bother. They don't make buff stock any
more, which is why olde-tyme photos are dipped in tea as a final
rinse: to stain the _paper_ to a buff color.
But, being repetitive, this won't get you a true '20's look,
just an 'old picture' look.
Other age hints, though not historically correct: Use a _very_
slow shutter (15 seconds) so you get that hazy-eye look from folks
blinking; heads and hands will also get some motion blur - this is
1850's, but who's keeping track. You will need a lot of nd filters
to pull this off.
To complete the 1850's look you will need a very bad lens. Try
unscrewing the front or back element and see where that gets you.
To make it look like an old limited latitude film I would suggest blowing
the highlights and sky by overdodging when printing.
A blue filter will help keep the sky white (and shutter speeds long, heck
use two or three).
> Thank you for your interest.
It sounds like it's going to be a lot of fun.
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/
From: "Leonard Robertson" leonard@harrington-wa.com
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] wet plate lens recommendations
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004
Steve,
I'm not sure any of these links will help, but you can look at them
and decide:
http://www.antiquewoodcameras.com/site-map.htm
http://www.phsc.ca/links.html
http://www.cwreenactors.com/cgi-bin/collodion2000/dcboard.cgi?az=list&forum;=DCForumID1&mm;=0&archive;=
Maybe you can find someone on one of these pages you can email who
can direct you to a lenses page.
Leonard
----- Original Message -----
From: "steve wilson" steveophoto@mac.com
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004
Subject: [Cameramakers] wet plate lens recommendations
> hello,
> I'm beginning to work in the wet plate process and am seeking
> information as to lenses of the day, specifically darlots. any advice?
> many thanks.
> steve
From Photography Teachers Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004
From: "Darren Collins" collinda@nortelnetworks.com
Subject: RE: Portrait Ratios
Just for clarity, let's call the relative intensity of the main light (as
measured at the subject) M and the fill light F.
Some people define the ratio as (M+F):F and others define it as M:F. In my
experience, it's usually older people who have had formal photographic
training that use the first version, and younger enthusiasts without the
photographic education that use the latter.
So, if the main is twice the intensity of the fill (a one-stop difference,
M=2, F=1), some people will call it a 3:1 ratio and others will call it a
2:1 ratio.
For equal intensity (M=1, F=1), the two groups will call it 2:1 and 1:1
respectively.
For a two stop difference (M=4, F=1), they'll call it 5:1 and 4:1
respectively.
The first definition is (technically) correct. It describes the ratio of the
combined intensity of all light sources (at the subject) to the intensity of
the fill light alone. As such, it gives a more accurate picture of what's
going on when you've got more than two lights.
Confusing, eh?
I like to just describe it in stops. As in, "I set the fill to 1 stop under
the main" or "I had two fill lights - one on the left at 1 stop under and
one on the right at 1.5 stops under the main". That way there's no room for
confusion!
Darren
http://photo.pool-room.com
From: "Bob Hickey" Hickster711@nyc.rr.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Diffusing material
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004
What Graham said. I use the surface called "Ice" which gives me the most
even effect. 2' x 2' is about $3 at Home Depot, but they come much larger.
It's also easy to snap off a few small pieces and make diffusers and
reflectors for on camera strobes. They also sell aluminum dishes for a
couple of bucks. Fine for fill. Bob Hickey
"Don" mackie.don@bigpond.com wrote
> Folks
>
> I wish to make some large diffuser screens to put in front of some hot
> lights in my "studio". I am obviously looking to do this as cheaply as I
> can. The screens will be square about 3 feet wide by 7 feet high. Can
> someone advise what material I can use. I am hoping to go for a similar
> effect to that achieved using a commercial "soft box".
>
> regards
>
> --
> Don From Down Under
From: Bob Salomon bob_salomon@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Lightweight tripod head for MF
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004
"jjs" nospam@please.xxx wrote:
> "Bob Salomon" bob_salomon@mindspring.com wrote...
> > john@xyzzy.stafford.net (jjs) wrote:
> >
> > You didn't look at the professional category. This link might be easier for you:
> >
> > http://www.hpmarketingcorp.com/PR/Giottos%20pr.html
>
> Still looks like the transposition of a conventional design with the same
> liabilities.
Well let's see:
The Giottos has a central control around the center column that sets the
leg spread angle to one of 3 positions for all legs at the same time. To
my knowledge no other tripod does this.
Then there is an individual lock on each leg top to adjust each leg to a
different angle if desired. And the tension of the leg spread and the
leg lock are adjustable by the user.
The column goes up and down like most tripods and then racks over, from
the center, to any position from straight down to almost straight up. It
is adjustable for the amount of overhang and a seperate control, beneath
the column tube allows for 360o rotation of the column - a feature not
found on any other tripod. A spring loaded hook is at the bottom of the
column for a counter weight.
When the column is not used the top plate becomes a 3-way pan tilt head.
A feature not found on other tripods.
The feet are rubber balls covering large aluminum spikes. these can be
unscrewed and replaced with a large diameter rubber disk which has it's
own ball head with adjustable tension control. The disk has a small hole
in it to put a nail or spike through to anchor the disk on sand, snow,
mud, etc. Or a snow shoe with an attached spike can be used.
The tripod comes with a shoulder strap and a tool kit for adjustments.
Each is attached to the tripod with a 3/8" screw on the side of the
casting for the column. These can be replaced with Novoflx gooseneck
arms either 10 or 18" long. Each arm has a ball head with a flash shoe
mount. The arms also accept Novoflex reflector clamps or plant clamps.
That means the tripod can be set up in the field with the column pointed
at any angle and the gooseneck arms can hold a flash on each side, a
flash on one side and a reflector on the other side, or a clip to hold a
leaf, stem or electronic part in front of the lens so your hands are
free to operate the camera. Again not seen in other tripods.
Then add the other standard features, leg covers, 14 layer French carbon
fiber, case, etc and a M.A.P. of $268.00 to $326.00 or in aluminum from
$145.00 to 160.00.
So how do you envision a tripod to be different?
From: Charlie Goodwin [cgoodwin@mcttelecom.com]
Sent: Sun 3/14/2004
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] spend my hard earned money on a tripod
A couple of random thoughts on tripods.
Try in no particular order: Benbo, Bogen/Manfrotto, Gitzo.
It's poor economy to cheap out on tripods. Money spent on a better tripod is like buying a better lens. No, even better
than that, since the more stable your camera the sharper your work. It's like getting an upgrade on your entire stable of
optics for every camera you own. Lesser optics sometimes will surprise you with how much they can do if camera
movement isn't an issue.
An unspoken benefit of any and all stable camera platforms is that you will focus better when the camera isn't all over the place.
My usual mantra about equipment ... "Rent it, borrow it, steal it, but whatever, try it, before you buy it." That goes double
if scarce funds must be spent wisely.
If the tripod isn't going on rugged climbs, then a sturdier heavier item might be workable.
For a purchaser "stuck in rural MA", you aren't even close to being a goner if you can't get to NYC. With all due regard to
the amazing photo retailers in NYC, they are a category of their own, but instead, stay in MA . You will, I'm sure, find what you are looking for at:
Calumet Photographic
65 Bent Street
Cambridge, MA 02141
(800) 795-6315
http://www.calumetphoto.com
or
Hunt's Photo and Video
100 Main Street
Melrose, MA 02176
(781) 662-8822
http://www.wbhunt.com
or
E. P. Levine
Boston Marine Industrial Park, 23 Dry Dock Ave.
Boston, MA 02210
phone: 617-951-1499 fax: 617-951-1466
M-F 8:30-5:30 EST. * * * No Saturdays * * *
http://www.cameras.com (http://www.cameras.com)
Hunt's is, for a "local" store, more than surprising, a real powerhouse with quite a stock to browse. Strong for new amateur
and a lot of new pro stuff. Only OK for used - not spectacular.
Calumet's web site is, well, rather tepid for a major international photo retail entity. I'll just put it that way. Regardless,
their stores are great; very well stocked, and I've had great sucess in their Cambridge store, and happily used Calumet
products for 30 years or so. The people I have dealt with in Cambridge have been wonderful. Best for new stuff.
Levine's is an incredible source for used pro equipment; my preferred source for lightstands, tripods, used cameras,
optics. Big rental dept. Big.
All three of these are best visited in person - the websites won't help you get a feel for what's out there and how it
would work for you. Make it a day's trip, see all three. Levine's is open only M-F
Happy hunting,
C
From: "RSD99" rsdwla.NOSPAM@gte.net
Newsgroups: alt.photography
Subject: Re: Photographing Jewellery
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004
See
http://www.ganoksin.com/borisat/tip_sear.htm
http://www.ganoksin.com/borisat/directory/library/subject/9/1
http://www.ganoksin.com/borisat/directory/library/subject/9/2
http://www.ganoksin.com/borisat/directory/library/subject/9/3
"toff" toff_sydney@yahoo.com.au wrote
> Hi,
>
> I hope someone can help me. I know virtually nothing about photography
> - my wife and I own a fairly standard camera, which cost about $100,
> for taking holiday pictures and so forth. However, she makes jewellery
> as a hobby, and is going to try to sell some - and we've found our
> normal camera hopelessly inadequate in photographing it. The pictures
> either come out badly blurred etc. or (if we take them from further
> away) not of sufficient detail.
>
> My question is - what sort of camera do I need (the least expensive
> solution) to photograph jewellery with good detail?
>
> Thanks for anyone who helps me out.
>
> Chris
From: Rob Novak rob.novak@NOcomSPAMcast.net
Newsgroups: alt.photography
Subject: Re: Photographing Jewellery
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004
toff_sydney@yahoo.com.au (toff) wrote:
>My question is - what sort of camera do I need (the least expensive
>solution) to photograph jewellery with good detail?
A point-and-shoot is probably not going to give the results that you
are looking for. If you want to go digital, look for a camera with
macro focusing capabilities. Even then, you're going to have some
problems getting the results that are going to sell your wife's
product.
However, a possibly less expensive (and much more flexible) route
would be to pick up an older, used 35mm SLR body with a standard
(50mm) lens, and a set of close-up filters. If you want to show off
jewelry to its best advantage, you'll be wanting:
1) A diffuse light source. On-camera flash is going to wash out
detail on metal objects, which are going to throw reflections and
create hot-spots. Direct point lighting from a spot or flood is going
to do the same. You'll either need a lighting rig with soft-box, or
you'll need to build a diffuser box through which you'll light your
jewelry.
2) A macro lens or close-up filters. You're going to need to get in
close to get the detail. A standard zoom lens has a close-focusing
distance of anywhere from 4-1.5 feet, and even at full zoom that's
usually completely inadequate. True macro lenses aren't cheap. A set
of close-up filters will run you around $50.
3) The main reason a point-n-shoot (even digital with macro zoom)
isn't really feasable - you need a polarizer. With metals, stones,
etc. you're going to have reflections. A polarizing filter helps you
tweak the reflections that show up in the final image. No
point-n-shoot camera is going to take filters.
4) If you're using off-camera flood lighting, you're going to need
color correction filters for daylight films. An 80B filter is
normally OK for 500W floods. BTW - for photo-floods on the cheap, go
buy a set of 500W halogen work lamps from the hardware store. You can
get individual floods for $10, and the dual-head ones on a stand for
about $30.
Jewelry is one of the hardest subjects to shoot well. It's small.
Detail is very important. It's frequently reflective in all the wrong
ways for photography. This is not to discourage you, but to explain
that while you're looking for a simple "buy camera X" answer, the
solution's not that simple. You're going to need to assemble a number
of components.
My advice would be to find a good camera shop in your area that sells
used gear. Go in, tell them your budget, tell them what you're
looking to do, and have them recommend an affordable SLR, lens,
tripod, and filter-set combination.
Here are a couple of articles on shooting jewelry properly. You don't
need to get this extreme, but it illustrates some of the principles.
http://tinyurl.com/3byo3
http://tinyurl.com/2b7g6
--
Central Maryland Photographers' Guild:
http://www.cmpg.org
Subject: Re: Homebrew Front Projection Info?
From: billfrogg froglett@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: alt.photography,rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004
Peter Chan pete@petezilla.co.uk wrote:
> Randall Ainsworth rag@nospam.techline.com writes:
> > I think that 3M is the only company that makes the screen material
> > and it's real expensive. As for the hardware, you've gotta have
> > perfect alignment between the camera lens and the projector lens. I
> > doubt that the average DIY guy could do it.
>
> I have an old Ilford manual that tells you how to make your own silver
> screen. IIRC it involves mixing varnish and aluminium poweder. I wonder
> if it would be possible to mix varnish and small glass beads, anti bumping
> granuals for instance.
Yes, the glass bead scheme can be DIY; you look for a screenprinting
supplier and they will have both the beads in bulk and the rather
rubbery adhesive that you can apply to almost any surface.
Having applied the adhesive, you sift the beads onto it. This is sold
normally to the sign manufacturing crowd. billfrogg
From: Henry Posner [henryp@bhphotovideo.com]
Sent: Tue 3/9/2004
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: [HUG] Re: Studio question
Hasselblad wrote:
> I need to talk to someone on the list who has experience using a
> front-projection system in a portrait studio.
I did this for a decade, albeit 20 years ago.
Book:
Creative Photography with Front Projection by Don Ellis
ISBN: 0-8174-2139-4 / 0817421394
Title: Creative Photography with Front Projection
Author: Don Ellis
Publisher: Watson-Guptill Publications, Incorporated
Edition: Softcover
EPS Scene Machine. See
From: "zeitgeist" blkhatwhtdog@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: Soft Box Improvisation?
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003
> I'm starting to experiment with food photography and I would like to
> improvise a soft box lighting without actually buying a soft box.
>
> Would a piece a paper covering a flashlight or a spotlight suffice?
> Any suggestions?
>
The main point of studio light modifiers isn't to put something between the
flash and subject, it isn't really just something more to sell you, to make
you look cool.
the point is to make a very small light source, the flash tube, seem much
larger. a tube with minimal reflector is a very tiny and harsh light
source. they used metal reflector bowls cause in the very early days of
photography you needed every little bit of light energy to be concentrated
and even focused (fresnel lensed spot lights) cause photofloods were
relatively weak, film and lenses slow. with flash power we can blast
through walls (well I exaggerate) but the thing is, with even a basic
monoflash you can hang a sheet a translucent white fabric from the ceiling
and shoot a light through and get the effect of a very very large softbox.
the back half of a softbox is just a way to make it more efficient, again to
avoid wasting all that light splashing around, to reflect it back to the
subject.
you make scrims by taking that fabric and taping it over some pvc pipe, get
two lengths 10 feet long (standard size) and cut 6.5 feet so you now have a
6.5 x 3.5 rectangle, use 4 90' corners and you have a framed scrim panel.
run a stretch cord through the pipes and you will have enough strength to
hold it together yet be able to pull it apart for packing and keep the loose
pieces tied together.
the cloth can be found in most fabric stores, called sports nylon.
general rule of thumb is that a light source should be twice as big as the
subject. I try and try to convince portrait photogs of this.
From: Dave davedoes@qwest.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Re: Portable AlienBees w/Vagabond battery
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004
There is an alternative, but without the nice carrying bag. Wal-Mart
has a portable 15 Amp Hour vehicle battery/DC Power Source with its own
charger for about $40.00. They also have a 350 watt inverter for about
$60.00.
So, for around $100.00 you have a portable 350 watt AC supply.
That should do the trick for a couple of heads.
Patrick L. wrote:
> The whole Vagabond thing is very expensive. Does anyone know of a cheaper
> alternative?
>
> Patrick
From: Alan Browne alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Re: Portable AlienBees w/Vagabond battery
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004
Bobs wrote:
> "Patrick L." nicework@ifyoucangetit.com wrote:
>>The whole Vagabond thing is very expensive. Does anyone know of a cheaper
>>alternative?
>>
>>
>>Patrick
>
> Seems to me that all they're using is a 12V DC/AC converter (inverter)
> to supply 110V power to the flash. Can't you find something like this
> at Radio Shack or elsewhere? Just make a compact bundle out of a
> lead-acid 12V battery (the kind used in UPS units) and the inverter,
> that's all there is to it.
Read Tom's post. I heartilly concur. The P/S in monolights (in fact
many electronic products) do not handle the power generated by a
'chopping' inverter. Sine only.
The thing they (Alien Bees, et al) don't tell you is that they could
design their P/S to handle choppers (bigger P/S caps, isolation
trasformer, better P/S design), but it would drive up the size, weight
and cost of the unit. In the end this is the right decision as most
strobe shooting is in a studio.
http://www.ecovantageenergy.com/catalog/items/item1410.htm these go up
to 600 watts which might not be enough for two AlienBees when they recycle.
http://www.ecovantageenergy.com/catalog/items/item1395.htm is a lot more
$ but can probably handle a couple AlienBees 800's.
Cheers,
Alan.
From: Alan Browne alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Thyristor accuracy question
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004
Patrick L. wrote:
> Okay, say I"m using a Vivitar 283.
>
> I'm using ASA 160, the subject is about 10 feet in front of me, and I set
> the Vivitar to red because I'm shooting at F/5.6.
>
> On the Vivitar dial, red tells me I'm good for under 30 feet with this
> setting, and as I understand it, the thyristor will adjust output to match
> what I'm focusing on,
>
> or does it?
>
> The thyristor is not communicating to my camera, it's a non TTL flash.
>
You're using an "AUTO" flash, which is the poor, older cousin of the TTL
flash. In an auto flash, the "sensing" of the falsh is done in the
flash unit. The camera tells the flash to "go"; the flash thyristor
lets the flash power through until the "integrator" has detected enough
flash for the desired range/ISO.
The weaknesses of this approach (and it's better, but not perfect with
TTL flash) is that scenes are not always 'average'. So, if you have a
person dressed in dark clothes and the background is dark (or even light
if far enough away) the flash remains on too long waiting for light to
come back from a relativeley small surface (face) instead of the 'model'
average scene. So the subject gets 'burned in' pretty hard.
My rule of thumb with print film is that if the foreground "light" areas
(faces, etc) is less than 1/3 of the image area, then I flash comp down
by one stop... if less than 20% then 1.5 stops. (in your case, you
would reduce the aperture from f/5.6 to f/8 or f/9 as you can't control
the flash that way.)
AUTO flash is a compromise that allows you to get away from guessing or
using a flash meter... if I were you I'd think of getting a TTL system
or an incident flash meter. The advantage of the hand held meter is
precision at the expense of some convenience; the advantage of TTL is
greater convenience at the expense of accuracy (although good technique
and some advanced TTL flash systems will overcome this quite well).
Cheers,
Alan
From: Nick C n-chen@cometcast.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Thyristor accuracy question
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004
Jeremy wrote:
>>Is the thyristor going to sense that distant object an create an
>>overexposure (haven't tried it yet, just theorizing)?
>>
>>How does it know what I'm focusing on?
>>
>
>
> You've got it all wrong. Let's go back in time and see if it makes sense
> after you review what led up to this.
>
> Back when we used flashbulbs, the output of the bulb was in no way
> adjustable. You snapped the shutter, the bulb flashed at its full output,
> and that was that. The way that you adjusted your exposure was to set your
> aperture opening based on how many feet away from you the subject was. (I
> do not remember whether flashbulbs could synch at any shutter speed--I'm not
> old enough to remember that). What you got was an average reading, based on
> an average subject reflectance (18%??).
> Whether you were shooting in a
> large auditorium or a small room, the flash bulb created the same amount of
> light, and you had to adjust your lens opening accordingly.
My comment below is NOT intended to be read as a correction, but should
be read as being additional information as concerns the use old fashion
flash bulbs.
The 'peak' light of a flash bulb was the same but the light output at
the time a picture may be captured may not the same. For example, when
used in a small room as opposed to a large room it was not unusual for a
picture to be taken prior to the flash bulb reaching its peak light
output. Because the light output of a flash bulb was fixed, the size and
reflectency of a room was also a consideration, along with subject
distance, the the photographer had to be aware of. The peak light
plateau was extremely short as compared to the inherent time lag of
flash bulbs to build up to peak light. Therefore, capturing a scene at
best peak flash bulb light was indeed a trick, more or less a function
of luck. The degree of luck could be reduced dending upon the expertese
of the photographer coupled with the exposure latitude of film. The
light output of a flash bulb (as compared to a electronic flash) is not
at immediate full output.
When using sheet film Press Camera's with Press Flash Bulbs, cameras
could be synched at any speed, as determined by the f-stop setting.
Since it was common practice to use fast
From: "Jeremy" jeremy@nospam.thanks.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Thyristor accuracy question
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004
> I hope you won't take it amiss if I point out that it would be better,
> in the sixth para - the electric eye flash - to say that the remaining
> charge (coulombs) or energy (joules) were dumped to ground; current
> (amperes) is a rate of flow, and does not really fit the concept of
> having a remainder to be dumped.
>
I really don't understand the technical end of it--but I couldn't come up
with a way to express the fact that, before thyristor circuitry, the battery
power used to light the flashtube was all used, regardless of the actual
duration of the flash.
> The only additional point which occurs to me is that some of the best
> thyristor controlled flash units had a separate sensor; this could be
> placed in the hot shoe, so that the flash sync signal came from the
> camera, and the exposure reading was also done from there, whilst the
> flash head (connected by cable) could be located off-axis up to the
> limit of the cable. I used to use a National 5650 gun of this type, a
> big hammer-type with separate power pack, very powerful for its time,
> though it has more or less fallen into disuse since the NiCd battery
> won't hold its charge for more than a flash or two, and the alternative
> of using 8 D cells is not my idea of sensible. IIRC, you could get
> similar remote sensors for some of the better single unit flashes like
> the Vivitar 283.
> --
I think that Honeywell introduced that feature, with the "Strobo-Eye." I
first saw it when the Spotmatic IIa camera came out--that was the one that
had the Strobo-Eye built right into the camera body. I bought a hotshoe
model Honeywell Strobonar Model 462, and it worked fine. There was no real
benefit to using a hot shoe-mounted flash, with the Strobo-Eye just a couple
of inches away on the camera . . . And the downside was that the unit could
be used only with the Spotmatic IIa camera--otherwise one had to purchase a
separate Strobo-Eye, and that added more wires and more stuff that had to be
connected.
My Metz 402, while not quite so sophisticated, had a evey elegant
implementation: the electric eye was located in the front of the handle,
which would normally be pointed toward the subject. The flash head could
swivel up and down and/or side to side, for bounce flash effects. And the
402 also had a second auxiliary flash head that could be plugged into the
power pack, and which was controlled by the electric eye on the first
handlemount head.
It was more automation than I ever needed. . .
If I am not mistaken, wedding photographers used that system for quite a few
years, along with MF cameras that had no TTL flash capabilities, and they
did just fine with it.
What is truly amazing is the level of sophistication of those little flashes
that are built into the average Point-&-Shoot camera! My digicam has 5
flash modes, including automatic fill-in flash (my favorite use for flash
shots). My Nikon Lite Touch 140 P&S; also has several automatic flash modes,
including red-eye reduction. It is amazing how far electronic flash has
come in the past 3 decades. Those humble, oft-maligned P&S; cameras seem to
be where all the innovation is these days.
From: David Littlewood david@nospam.demon.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Thyristor accuracy question
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004
Jeremy jeremy@nospam.thanks.com writes
>>
>> Is the thyristor going to sense that distant object an create an
>> overexposure (haven't tried it yet, just theorizing)?
>>
>> How does it know what I'm focusing on?
>>
>
>You've got it all wrong. Let's go back in time and see if it makes sense
>after you review what led up to this.
>
>Back when we used flashbulbs, the output of the bulb was in no way
>adjustable. You snapped the shutter, the bulb flashed at its full output,
>and that was that. The way that you adjusted your exposure was to set your
>aperture opening based on how many feet away from you the subject was. (I
>do not remember whether flashbulbs could synch at any shutter speed--I'm not
>old enough to remember that). What you got was an average reading, based on
>an average subject reflectance (18%??). Whether you were shooting in a
>large auditorium or a small room, the flash bulb created the same amount of
>light, and you had to adjust your lens opening accordingly.
>
>Got that? Good, let's move on:
>
>The first models of electronic flash operated on the same principle. The
>flash shot at full output. You adjusted your aperture opening based on the
>distance between your lens and the subject. Instead of your working off a
>printed table, there was a little "calculator dial" which gave you the
>exposure settings, based on the ASA (film speed) of the film you were using
>and the distance. Again, it was an AVERAGE reading. You might decide to
>open the aperture up if your subject was dark, or you might close it down a
>bit if your subject was light.
>
>You could also compensate for some degree of over or under exposure during
>the printing stage. The black & white film that was used had a certain
>degree of exposure latitude.
>
>Next generation of electronic flash incorporated an electric eye in the
>base, which instantaneously measured the amount of light reflected back by
>the subject, and quenched the electronic flash, by shunting any remaining
>current to ground. Essentially, the flashtube was shut off early, before
>all of the electric current was allowed to light it up. As long as your
>subject was within the flash's distance range, it would receive sufficient
>light. If you needed more distance, you bought a bigger flash, like a
>handlemount unit.
>
>With this electric eye system, the photographer now had options. 1: He
>could continue to shoot at maximum output, and adjust his aperture, as he
>had done all along. Or, 2: He could set the flash to automatic, and, as
>long as his subject was within the flash's distance range, the flash would
>average out the scene and cut off the light output when the subject had
>received enough light. This was a big improvement over the previous system.
>The photographer was freed from estimating distances and adjusting his
>aperture accordingly. He simply set his aperture and shutter speed one
>time, as specified by the flah unit manufacturer, and the flash unit did the
>rest. It was probably the earliest use of "automatic exposure." BUT IT WAS
>NOT THROUGH-THE-LENS. The flash unit averaged out the scene and adjusted
>the light output. Amazingly, it was pretty good!
>
>Next generation flash: THYRISTOR. There was one shortcoming with the
>previously-described automatic flash: it made no difference how much current
>was quenched--all of the unused current was lost. So, if your unit
>delivered, say, 80 flashes per charge, that's what you got, regardless of
>how much power was used for each flash. Whatever power was not used was
>lost. The thyristor was a development that allowed that power to go back
>into the flash capacitor, to be used for the next flash. This had the
>potential of greatly increasing the number of flashes per battery set,
>especially if you were shooting objects that were close to the lens, as most
>of the flash current could be recycled.
>
>A thyristor is not an electric eye--it is a current recycling component. It
>did not affect the flash unit's output, it simply extended the life of its
>batteries by not wasting unused current. Every flash made today has this
>feature, but it was big news when it first came out in the very early 70s.
>
>Next generation of flash: MULTIPLE F-STOPS (this is what you have on your
>Vivitar). Up to this point, the photographer had to shoot at a single
>f-stop, specified my the flash manufacturer, at any given film speed. This
>limited him because he could not take advantage of depth-of-field (since he
>could shoot only at a single aperture) nor could he control the ambient
>light in the scene (for example, at a small f/stop, the people or objects
>lighted by the flash might be ok, but the surrounding areas might be dark.
>You see this often in shots of wedding receptions--the guests at the table
>are properly exposed, but it looks like the table itself was located in a
>very dark room).
>
>This newer generation of flash units had multiple f-stop settings (typically
>3), which would allow for automatic flash operation. The flash unit was no
>more powerful than before, in terms of light output, but the internal
>computer now had 3 different cut-off points, based on 3 different f-stops.
>Now the photographer had some degree of control over which aperture setting
>he could use.
>
>IN ALL OF THESE SYSTEMS the flash unit's electric eye averaged out the scene
>and cut off the light output at the appropriate instant. The unit did not
>know what you were focused on. It is entirely possible that an object
>located close to the lens might fool the electric eye into allowing less
>output, even though you were focusing on an object farther away. In that
>case, you would need to shoot the flash at manual (full output) setting, and
>set your aperture based on the distance table on the exposure calculator
>wheel, for the object that you were focusing at.
>
>If you have objects in your field of vision that are not all the same
>approximate distance from your lens, you are going to get imprecise results
>with any flash. The farther away an object is, the more light is needed to
>properly illuminate it. If you illuminate a distant object properly, you
>can expect any objects closer will be over-illuminated and will appear
>washed out.
>
>You can sometimes lessen that effect by shooting at maximum allowable
>aperture for your flash, to let available light illuminate as much as
>possible. That may not always be practical, depending on the circumstances
>and the film speed.
>
>I shoot with a Metz 402, which is a handlemount from the 70s, with 5 f-stop
>ranges, an electric eye, and a thyristor to conserve battery power. It
>serves my needs just fine. It turns out that, since my camera bodies are
>all from the 70s, and were made before they invented TTL, I can't use the
>features on the newer generation of flash units anyway.
>
>Amazingly, the results on those older electronic flash units are extremely
>good. Unless you have very exacting requirements, you probably can get very
>pleasing results without moving up to the dedicated camera/lens/flash
>solution.
>
>I think that I got this all correct, but I welcome any additions or
>corrections to this post.
A truly excellent summary, Jeremy - very much in the true Usenet spirit
of helpfulness, thanks.
I hope you won't take it amiss if I point out that it would be better,
in the sixth para - the electric eye flash - to say that the remaining
charge (coulombs) or energy (joules) were dumped to ground; current
(amperes) is a rate of flow, and does not really fit the concept of
having a remainder to be dumped.
The only additional point which occurs to me is that some of the best
thyristor controlled flash units had a separate sensor; this could be
placed in the hot shoe, so that the flash sync signal came from the
camera, and the exposure reading was also done from there, whilst the
flash head (connected by cable) could be located off-axis up to the
limit of the cable. I used to use a National 5650 gun of this type, a
big hammer-type with separate power pack, very powerful for its time,
though it has more or less fallen into disuse since the NiCd battery
won't hold its charge for more than a flash or two, and the alternative
of using 8 D cells is not my idea of sensible. IIRC, you could get
similar remote sensors for some of the better single unit flashes like
the Vivitar 283.
--
David Littlewood
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003
From: "BCampbell" chickenlittle@theskyisfalling.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Basic camera-mount/tripod questions!
>>And what about the
> > pins? I've seen a lot of tripods on eBay but the mounts usually don't
> show
> > any pins, just the holes for them; are these just common little parts that I
> > need to acquire separately?
Although the Pentax has the little hole you don't have to use it. I've used
mostly Kirk plates with my Pentax and never used, or needed, the pin hole.
However, if you really want to use it you can look for plates that allow the
mounting screw to slide backwards and forwards so that the distance between
the screw and the pin hole can be adjusted to confrom to the distance
between the camera tripod socket and the hole. Kirk and probably Really
Right Stuff make quite a few plates like that. I don't know the size of the
screw that would fit into the hole on the Pentax camera, none of the Pentax
literature that I have says anything about the size of the hole or even what
it's supposed to be used for. You could buy a package of screws in various
sizes at Home Depot for a couple dollars and probably find one that fits, or
you could call Pentax U.S.
>>If I find some tripod legs without a head, is there a standard
> > here too that I should be looking for when shopping for a head, or
> > vice-verse?
Among the better quality tripods most legs are sold without a head. It's
usually the el cheapo ultra flimsy jobs for 35mm cameras that are sold with
integrated heads and legs. So in all likelihood you will be buying the two
separately (though if you buy used the seller may be selling both together
even though they weren't originally sold as a single unit).
There is no "standard" relationship between the head and the legs that I
know of. Some manufacturers (e.g. Bogen/Manfrotto) suggest certain
combinations but you aren't limited to the combinations they suggest. I've
used Bogen 3221 legs with an Arca Swiss B1 head (a ball head) for years
with my Pentax 67 and it's a good combination though the head is expensive.
Some might think the 3221 legs are too light for a camera as heavy as the
Pentax 67 with lens but they've worked fine for me. I don't believe in the
theory that a heavy camera demands a heavy tripod. I've also used this
camera with a Gitzo G320 metal tripod (no longer made I don't think) and a
Bogen 3247 head (pan/tilt head). That combination worked well but was very
heavy plus I didn't care for the collars on the Gitzo legs. My favorite
combination is Gitzo 1325 legs (carbon fiber, very light weight, improved
leg collars) with a Bogen/Manfrotto 410 geared head but I only use that for
large format. It would work well with the Pentax 67 too but I prefer a ball
head for the type of work I do with the Pentax. The Gitzo carbon fiber
tripods are expensive but worth the money I think.
IMHO the principal considerations in buying a tripod are weight, weight, and
weight. A tripod that remains in your closet because it's uncomfortably
heavy to carry is the worst kind. Once you've found an acceptable weight
then look for build quality and ease of use.
"Norman Worth" nworth@earthlink.net wrote ...
> You need a sturdy tripod to keep that beast steady. I use a Bogen 3221 with
> a Bogen 3047 head to support everything up to 4X5. Even with this fairly
> sturdy arrangement, I can feel some vibration when my big SLR trips.
>
> I. I don't know of any standard for the indexing pins. On the tripod heads
> I've seen, they have been spring loaded so that you can use the tripod with
> cameras that have no hole or a hole that doesn't match. You don't really
> need it when using a tripod. It may be required for special grips and
> mounts.
>
> II. Camera tripod heads come with either 1/4-20 or 3/8-16 screw sockets for
> mounting. (A few very big ones may take 1/2 or 5/8 or even bigger, but
> you're unlikely to run into them.) The larger Bogen heads and tripods use
> the 3/8 size. Most others use 1/4. Don't confuse the head mounting screw
> size with the camera mounting screw size, which is almost always 1/4. Be
> careful to get a head that fits your tripod.
>
> "Lunaray" yar@easystreet.com wrote...
> > Okay, so I just got this big heavy caricature of a 35mm SLR called a "Pentax
> > 67II" and I know nothing about mounts, or tripods! Up until now, all of my
> > cameras have been small & light and just about any $50 tripod worked just
> > fine, but I think I'm in a different arena now and I need to start looking
> > for something a little beefier.
> >
> > Questions 1: On the bottom of my Pentax there's the tripod socket and an
> > "accessory guide hole", I know that the guide hole is for a mounting plate
> > pin, to keep the camera from twisting, but does this spacing between the
> > guide hole and the tripod socket conform to some kind of standard so that I
> > know what to look for in a tripod mount/mounting-plate? And what about the
> > pins? I've seen a lot of tripods on eBay but the mounts usually don't show
> > any pins, just the holes for them; are these just common little parts that I
> > need to acquire separately?
> >
> > Question 2: If I find some tripod legs without a head, is there a standard
> > here too that I should be looking for when shopping for a head, or vice-verse?
> >
> > Thanks all, for my continuing education! :-)
> > --
> > Ray ( www.rayspace.com )
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004
From: Jim Williams jimwilliams1@cox.net
Subject: Re: [RF List] studio lighting question
Arthur Schlaman wrote:
> I have for a long time wanted to experiment with studio lighting.
> There
> are all sorts of lighting equiment set ups on ebay. I was wondering if
> anyone could suggest what power lights to get (ie: 120ws)? I want to
> get
> something usable without breaking the bank.
Usable for what? If you want to photograph small still lifes/tabletop
stuff/headshots/etc. then a total of 250ws or so should provide you
with plenty of energy. For full-length photos of people, you'll get
more versatility with about 500ws of energy -- you need more because
the lights have to be farther away. For GROUPS of people, room
interiors, cars, etc., you'll need about 1500ws or more.
The numbers I'm throwing around refer to the total energy storage of
the flash system -- either in a central power pack or added up among
various heads. Energy storage doesn't translate directly to light
output, but it's a handy way of comparing the approximate capacity of
various different units.
(When reading eBay or ads, beware the watt-second numbers quoted for
the "White Lightning" and "Alien Bees" type units, which on close
reading can be seen to be "EFFECTIVE" or "EQUIVALENT" watt-seconds --
meaning the actual energy storage is lower, but the manufacturer claims
the unit puts out an amount of light equivalent to a unit with that
number of ws. The trick here is that that's ONLY when using a specific
type of reflector -- when experimenting with lighting you'll almost
always be using all kinds of different reflectors and diffusers, so the
'equivalent' guide number doesn't tell you much of anything.)
By the way, if you want to experiment with a lot of different light
effects, you'll probably want at least three heads. In a central power
pack unit, the total energy will be divided up among those heads. If
you buy separate monolights (power unit built into the head) then the
total energy of your system is the sum of the watt-second ratings of
the individual units.
RF cameras are great for studio electronic flash because you can see
whether the units went off or not! Good luck and have fun...
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004
From: Joe Polizzi polizzi@westbend.net
Subject: RE: studio lighting question
Good subject. I've been thinking the same thing!
I know that strobes are all the rage, but I would think that us RF-folks
would be more for constant-output lights, right?
Just yesterday I saw some tungsten light kits advertized in the latest
Shutterbug magazine that seemed like a pretty good deal. I saw it at
the library, and don't remember the brand or any specifics. They
offered all sorts of accessories, like umbrellas and dimmers and
whatnot. I know that one disadvantage of the tungsten lights is that
their output and color temperature changes with little voltage
variations on the line, and those constant-voltage transformers are
expensive! It'd probably take like $500 worth of CV transformer to
regulate $300 worth of tungsten lights. Does anyone know if the voltage
issue is much of a problem? I'd think it's not as bad for B&W; shooters
like me.
Joe
Arthur Schlaman wrote:
>
> I have for a long time wanted to experiment with studio lighting...
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004
From: Jim Williams jimwilliams1@cox.net
Subject: Re: [RF List] studio lighting question
Joe Polizzi wrote:
> Just yesterday I saw some tungsten light kits advertized in the latest
> Shutterbug magazine that seemed like a pretty good deal. I saw it at
> the library, and don't remember the brand or any specifics. They
> offered all sorts of accessories, like umbrellas and dimmers and
> whatnot. I know that one disadvantage of the tungsten lights is that
> their output and color temperature changes with little voltage
> variations on the line, and those constant-voltage transformers are
> expensive! It'd probably take like $500 worth of CV transformer to
> regulate $300 worth of tungsten lights. Does anyone know if the voltage
> issue is much of a problem? I'd think it's not as bad for B&W; shooters
> like me.
I used to use tungsten lights a lot, and I never noticed any particular
effect from line-voltage variations. At any rate, it's a small enough
difference that it "comes out in the wash," i.e., you can't distinguish
it from the other minor variations caused by different film batches,
processing-line differences, color characteristics of individual
lenses, etc.
If you were hooking the lights up to dimmers, then yes, you probably
would notice that the lights would get significantly warmer as you dim
them. The answer would be not to dim them much -- and if you just need
a 'trim' adjustment to get an exact lighting ratio or whatever, it's
easier just to move the light forward or backward slightly. (Dimmers
are more important in, e.g., theatrical lighting, where the lights have
to be in fixed positions.)
I don't really see why tungsten lights would be more "RF-friendly" than
flash, though. They are large, they get hot, they're conspicuous, and
they don't put out a lot of light for their size, which makes them not
very portable.
One exception would be if you want to photograph basically by available
light and just want to add something to give the light a little
directionality. Fluorescent-lit rooms are a lot like this: there's
plenty of light, but it doesn't COME from any specific direction, so
the lighting is flat and ugly (especially for b&w; photography.) Add one
small tungsten light off in a corner somewhere and you can create some
direction and modeling.
If you're photographing in color, though, it suddenly becomes hugely
complicated because now you have to filter your light source to match
your ambient light, and tungsten lights are hard to filter because
(again) they get really hot. In this case it's probably better to go
back to electronic flash, which can be used to create the same type of
effect but requires only a small filter to get it to sort of match the
fluorescents.
From: TP tp@nospam.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: Tripods: Carbon Fibre vs Aluminium
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004
"Tony Parkinson" nospamnewsreplies@photoshot.com wrote:
>
>Tony, since you've mentioned the 2 tripods I'm considering
>replacing/supplementing my Uni-Loc S1700 with in the next few months, what
>would you advise is the largest lens that can be securely supported by these
>2 tripods ?
With the right head, the 055 Pro/3021 Pro will support a 300mm f/2.8
or even a 400mm f/5.6. For a faster 400mm you should choose a larger
tripod. The 190/3001 will support a 300mm f/4 but is marginal for a
300mm f/2.8. In very good conditions (no wind, firm ground) you might
stretch to longer lenses.
>Which head would you suggest ? 141RC ? 222 ? 322 ?
From long experience (since 1988) I would not recommend any Manfrotto
tripod heads except the geared 3-way heads 410 (Bogen 3275) and 405
(no Bogen equivalent). I use a 405 in the studio and it works
perfectly; the 410 is a lighter version suitable for 35mm format with
lenses up to 200mm, maybe 300mm at a pinch.
The 141RC is a good, sturdy, cheap 3-way head that has been around for
years. Because it's so cheap, it is very popular, wlthough sales have
been dented by the new 460 Magnesium. I have always found that the
141RC moves when you tighten it. Every time. It's very annoying.
The 460 is light, handles well and is cheap, but simply isn't rigid
enough. It also moves when you tighten it.
The 222 and 322 are from a long tradition of grip action heads (of any
brand) that simply don't work. Anything that's so easy to unlock and
move is just not going to hold your camera steady, except maybe for a
wide angle or standard lens in 35mm format on the 322. The 222 is
surely just a joke?
It's not easy to find a good tripod head.
I sold my nearly-new Manfrotto 055N Pro about two years ago and now
use a Tiltall with integral 3-way head. It's no good for working low
down but it's fine for everything I do in 35mm and 6x6, and it's also
light enough to carry. Probably the best thing about it is not having
to agonise about which 3-way head to buy.
;-)
HTH, HAND etc...
From: David Littlewood david@nospam.demon.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: Tripods: Carbon Fibre vs Aluminium
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004
...
Just to add a few comments of my own to Tony's thoughts (and with
apologies if I have repeated anything said earlier - I have been
away/busy over the last few weeks):
(1) I have used a 141RC on my 055 for many years with a high level of
satisfaction. In particular, I have never noticed any problems with
shifting about any of the 3 axes when tightening; either Tony is more
fussy than I am, or I am more careful in tightening (neither sound
likely to me) or Tony's 141 is slightly sloppy.
(2) The 055/141 combination works fine with my EOS 1n/100-400 IS, and
with my Mamiya 6 120 outfit. I have when stretched used it with my
Linhof 5x4 camera; it is some way below ideal for this, but better than
hand-holding!
(3) My favourite Manfrotto head is the 229; I use one on my 058 tripod,
the heaviest I own. This combination is marvellous to use (the leg level
adjustment mechanism on the 058 is inspired*), and robust enough for
anything I have ever used, or imagined using - but too heavy to carry
"just in case", and really only necessary for LF work. It would be
perfectly possible to use the 229 head on an 055 tripod, but maybe a bit
of overkill. It is also rather expensive compared with many of the
others discussed.
*Many people overlook the fact that to use a tripod accurately - e.g.
for panoramas - it is essential to get the axis of the legs accurately
vertical - levelling with the head just will not do - and the 058 is the
only 'pod I have ever seen that allows you to do this in seconds and
without bending down.
(4) I have just (literally - just got back half an hour ago) bought a
Manfrotto 440 and 460 head. I was very surprised - and impressed - to
find that the 4-section model showed no significant loss of rigidity
compared with the 3-section version. I had gone along with a firm
preconception that "less sections must mean more rigidity" but I
certainly could not measure any difference, and I spent half an hour
trying to compare them.
(5) Having read Tony's comments on the 460 yesterday, I was slightly put
off it - over the years I have found Tony to be a good source of comment
on such matters. Having tried it - in the shop only, which I agree is no
substitute for use on the job - I agree the locking knobs seem less than
ideal. When the knobs are slackened the transition from locked to free
seems rather jerky. However, I really did want to save weight, and I
judged that the rigidity when locked was good enough for purpose.
(6) I have only tried the action grip heads in shops, and I agree they
are not good - I certainly would not use one.
(7) Many people seem to swear by ball/socket heads, but I have never
liked them much. Maybe if I got a Rolls-Royce version I would like them
more - the only one I have used much is the one which came on my Benbo -
but I have never felt the need.
I got the 440/460 to take to Madeira next week (my wife was getting very
stroppy about the weight of the 055/141 in the suitcase*). I will try to
remember to give a report on how I find it when I get back.
*It was cheaper than getting a new wife, and I'm quite attached to the
one I have.
--
David Littlewood
From: TP tp@nospam.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: Tripods: Carbon Fibre vs Aluminium
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004
David Littlewood david@nospam.demon.co.uk wrote:
>(5) Having read Tony's comments on the 460 yesterday, I was slightly put
>off it - over the years I have found Tony to be a good source of comment
>on such matters. Having tried it - in the shop only, which I agree is no
>substitute for use on the job - I agree the locking knobs seem less than
>ideal. When the knobs are slackened the transition from locked to free
>seems rather jerky. However, I really did want to save weight, and I
>judged that the rigidity when locked was good enough for purpose.
David,
The lack of rigidity I referred to occurs when everything is tightened
up and you are ready to take the shot. Unfortunately, the magnesium
alloy casting is flexible, and it can even resonate in the wind.
I found this when taking some night shots with exposures of between
10-45 sec with a Nikon F100 and 85mm f/1.8, and a Bronica ETRSi with
150mm f/3.5. There was evidence of camera shake on many of the shots.
When re-shooting them several nights later I noticed the movement in
the viewfinder. I tightened all three axes only to find the movement
was still there. Then I realised the magnesium alloy casting was
flexing, and it would even resonate at high frequency (order of
60-80Hz) when the wind was at right angles to the optical axis!
I returned the tripod head the next day and the new one was exactly
the same. I returned that one and waited a few days for another
replacement, and that replacement did exactly the same thing.
In the studio I set up the 460MG head on a Manfrotto 075 (huge and
heavy tripod) and mounted the Nikon F4 with an 80-200mm lens set at
200mm and a 2.0X teleconverter. Making sure that everthing was
tightened up, I flicked the end of the lens while observing a red
laser dot on the white wall through a 6X turret viewfinder, and the
vibration was very noticeable. I exchanged the 460 for a ball head
and the vibration was absent.
Several friends have bought Manfrotto carbon fibre tripods complete
with the 460MG head, and all have experienced a lack of rigidity that
is in stark contrast to the excellent rigidity of the tripod legs.
All have sold their 460MG heads on eBay, where there is a ready market
for them - which is good news for sellers.
I have not checked to see whether the latest production 460MG heads
have been re-designed. If not, you shold perhaps consider replacing
it with something better. For all its other faults, the 141RC has no
such flexibility problems and weighs not much more.
Tony
From: mr645@aol.com (Mr 645)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 26 Feb 2004
Subject: Re: Feedback on cordless flash syncs
I have owned them all.
Best to worst
Pocket Wizards
FreeWire 98% as good as PW
Quantum 4i
Wein IR, about tied with the 4i
Jon
http://www.jonlayephotography.com
From: "Dennis O'Connor" doconnor@chartermi.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: upcoming studio shoot question
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004
2X3 what, feet, meters ? A 2x3 foot, box is small for full figure work,
unless you stack them...
Background, props?
Clothing, gloves, nylons, scarves, sheets, drapes, sun glasses, etc.?
Who is doing the hair and the makeup? And supplies...
Filters, light green for minimizing skin blemishes and veins... Light yellow
also workable if she is young enough to still have peaches and cream skin...
Enough heat in the studio for nudes? mucho importante unless blue veins and
goose bumps turn you on Bring an extra electric heater...
A warm dressing gown she can throw on between setups...
Something warm for her to drink, tea usually works...
Music? Who is picking it?
A fan if you need hair blowing...
Enough staff that she is comfortable naked in front of you, but not so many
she feels like she is on the menu...
Who is stuffing film into cameras?
more than one body, right?!? You lose a lot of time and break the mood if
you have to stop every 12 shots...
That's starters... Google on the topic, lots of books out there...
denny
"photo" mjlphotographics@shaw.ca wrote ...
> I have an upcoming studio shoot, majority of film will be black and white.
From: "Maywood" maywoodw.nospam@oco.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Re: Portable AlienBees w/Vagabond battery
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004
If you look at the details on the Vagabond you'll see that its a 15AH 12
volt battery and either 1 or 2 true sine wave inverters. The inverters are
coded CU150 - so that may mean 150 watts.
If you look around you may find 150 watt true sine wave inverters for $150
or less and 12 volt lead acid batteries 12AH less than $50 or 18 AH at less
than $75 but then you'd have to add some kind of charger.
As an alternative you might try something like this:
http://www.xantrex.com/products/product.asp?did=565
for as low as $100. The caveat is that it is a modified square setup. I've
not seen any definitive answers as to whether Alien Bees or for that matter
any AC flashes require true sine wave input or may run on modified square
wave.
"KBob" KBob@donteventry.net wrote
> "Patrick L." nicework@ifyoucangetit.com wrote:
> >"Alan Browne" alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca wrote in message
> >> Bobs wrote:
> >> "Patrick L." nicework@ifyoucangetit.com wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> >>The whole Vagabond thing is very expensive. Does anyone know of a cheaper
> >> >>alternative?
> >> >>
> I've often thought that these Vagabond gadgets could be easily cobbled
> together from a common DC-AC converter, and a great many of them now
> produce quasi-sinewave output, so should in theory work all right.
> The problem that I see with these is the very large inrush current
> that occurs during the first period following each flash. Studio
> flashes can draw upwards of 80 amps and more during these short
> transients--usually to short a period to blow fuses, unless you fire
> in quick succession. So my concern would be that an inverter of this
> type may need to have higher capacity than expected in order to handle
> these transient inrush currents. I'd be anxious to hear if anyone has
> any luck with this.
>
> Also consider that D-size NiMH cells having a 9 amp-hour capacity and
> solder tabs are available (on eBay and elsewhere), and 10 of these
> might make an ideal battery for this.
From: Lourens Smak smak@wanadoo.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Shiny Stuff
Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2004
"Jack" No@mail.Please wrote:
> Are you saying that these shots were shot at an angle?
> http://www.moled.cwc.net/Pics/CatSamp4.jpg
>
> Is the camera at an angle or the object?
If you use a longer lens, it gets easier a bit and the angle won't show
up as quickly. You only need a small change from the 90 degrees anyway.
(go for as small a difference as possible!)
I use a proportional font so I hope the diagram below is clear when you
read it....
LLL C L=softlight C=camera
\ / (reflecting angle)
/ -- \ bracelet with reflector cards next to it, top and bottom.
(light coming from the "top", when looking at the final image, will be
best.) If you use a longer lens, the light and camera will be further
away from the bracelet, and also the angle will get less...
If you have a flexible camera (Sinar etc.) you can use the shift
function to shoot at an angle while it still looks perfectly straight.
> > Usually I add a spot with grid
> Can you please explain what this means?
It's a matte black metal honeycomb-grid with a certain thickness, so
light goes straight through it, but not at an angle. A grid is used to
create a beam of light. It changes the direction of the light, not the
light itself.
Couldn't find a better example quickly, but here:
http://www.profoto.com/product_category.php?catId=118
you see some tiny images; the actual product pages don't have images,
sadly. They come in different sizes to fit onto different reflectors.
Lourens
From: Lourens Smak smak@wanadoo.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Shiny Stuff
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004
"Jack" No@mail.Please wrote:
> Hi
> Here are some very boring bracelet catalogue shots.
>
> http://www.moled.cwc.net/Pics/CatSamp4.jpg
>
> How would you say, this was shot?
I did many pictures like this (most of them better, even if I say so
myself...) and it's not that difficult.
Explaining the setup is more difficult. If you look at the right part,
you can see a bit how it's done. The dark part of the reflection is the
"hole" in the setup (white cardboard cards probably, given the size of
the bracelets) where the camera is behind. use a long(ish) lens and make
sure no light falls onto the camera, or it could show up in the (dark
part) of the picture.
shoot just a little bit in an angle, it will make lighting a bit simpler
because it will be easier to make the reflection in the flat frontal
parts "not black" if you understand what I mean. If everything is
90-degree straight the flat parts will reflect where the camera is, and
that will be black. You can't put a light there, or put a white
reflector there...
reflecting cardboards top and bottom, and maybe a softbox or so shining
"into" this arrangement, giving a bit of direct light as well. (2nd
picture, lightest part of the reflection... notice light shining over
the reflector card.) You *need* a bit of direct light, for the colour.
Usually I add a spot with grid from top-left or top-right for this,
flashing with low power.
The shadow and background were put in later. In fact the shadow was made
from the mask of the bracelet itself, it shows. A coloured background
will show up in (some of) the jewelry! use white or grey or so. You
could lay down two small strips of black or grey cardboard close to the
bracelet, to get a nice contour. (How this will look depends a lot on
the actual shape)
> What lighting was used?
> Tent, strobes, lightbox or what?
Forget the tent...really, forget it. You'll end up with a grey looking
mess. Probably strobes were used, but you could use other lights.
Working with tungsten will get very hot though, because your set will be
very small.
> How easy is it to shoot something simple like this?
Take your time and maybe spend half a day or so experimenting with the
first bracelet, if you don't have any experience. The other 100
bracelets will go quickly after that.... Also, all of the shown ones are
flat, and more rounded ones could be more difficult, or need a slightly
different setup.
;-)
Louren
From: slberfuchs@aol.com (Ted Harris)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 26 Jul 2004
Subject: Re: Newer Tiltall Tripods
New tiltall/old Tiltalll does not tell the story. Tiltall has gone through at
least 4 major changes that I can think of:
1) The ORIGINAL Tiltall manufactured by Marconi in Rutherford, NJ through the
late 50's or early 60's (not sure of the dae). I have one from late 50's and
it will definitely handle a midweight 8x10, it will easily handle 10-15 pounds.
When it was the only tripod I owned it did yeoman duty with a Linhof Kardan
Color.
2) The Tiltall's manufactured by Star (Star D?) whil clooked the same
externally but had nowhere near the same structural integrity as the original
and were, according to those who used them, nothing special.
3) The Tiltall's marked by Leitz (who knows who made them) that were
propurtedly quite good but again, I am not sure they were up to the original.
4) The current version about which I know nothing.
There is a Tiltall mystic and it all centers around the quality fo the ORIGINAl
'pods that came from Marconi. None of the others are quite the same AFAIK.
Ted Harris
Resource Strategy
Henniker, New Hampshire
From: bmitch@comcast.net (Willhelm)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Newer Tiltall Tripods
Date: 26 Jul 2004
One rather unheralded feature of the old Tiltall heads was a viscous
pad which damped small vibrations from tranmitting to the camera. New
Tiltalls have only the customary rubber pad.
From: "William Schneider" william.schneider@ohio.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Newer Tiltall Tripods
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004
I purchased the smaller Tiltall Junior (silver) for my father as a gift last
year and was satisfied with the construction.
I have used ancient Tiltall tripods that featured brass leg-locking bushings
and owned a somewhat newer Tiltall (purchased circa 1982) that employed
plastic locking bushings. The black coating of the legs combined with
plastic lock bushings of my 1982 tripod contributed to a stick/slip problem.
In addition to the friction problem, the black powder coating was applied
unevenly with more of it near the top of the legs. It meant that the leg was
not the same diameter throughout its length and that caused extension
difficulties. You'd loosen the locking collar so the leg was free, extend it
but it would grab because the leg diameter would change. That combined with
the plastic/coating stiction, the legs were miserable to adjust.
I sanded and cross-hatched the powder coating at the top of the leg to match
the diameter of the bottom and improve the action somewhat, but it was never
as good as the old silver one I used at work. If you want to see the plastic
bushing and leg on my 1982 Tiltall, I've put a picture on my web site at:
http://www-schneider.viscom.ohiou.edu/vico222/images/tiltall_bushing.jpg
I still use my Tiltall tripod, but not for photography. I now have a Gitzo
320 for small and medium format work.
When I ordered the new Tiltall last year for my father I specifically
ordered silver. It was an improvement over mine, and it still has the clever
Tiltall pan-tilt head. I still want another Tiltall someday to put through
the paces, but it will be a silver one like the original.
Bill Schneider
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004
From: Leonard Evens len@math.northwestern.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Newer Tiltall Tripods
PGG wrote:
> Has anybody purchased or seen the new Tiltall tripods available for sale
> from B&H; and Adorama? These are 6lbs in weight and have a capacity of 13
> lbs. Price is only $99.
>
> Are they nearly the same as those manufactured 30 years ago (which I read
> great things about)?
>
> I'm looking for a tripod to hold my 10-pound 4x5 camera and this seems
> like a good deal compared to the Bogen/Manfrotto offerings.
>
> --pgg
From the small picture at Adorama, it looks exactly like my old Tiltall
from the late 60s, and the weight seems to be the same. So I suspect it
is essentially the same tripod.
But I have doubts about whether or not my Tiltall can hold a 10 pound
view camera. I use it with a Toho FC-45X, which with lens is at most 4
pounds. It is stable enough on the Tiltall, but I am not sure it would
be with more than double the weight. Keep in mind also that with the
bellows fully extended with a long lens, you have to worry about the
torque. Personally, I would want the capacity of the tripod to have a
considerable safety margin built in relative to the camera I was
mounting on it.
From: wsb wsb@nospam.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 'cool' temperature lights
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004
RSD99 wrote:
> The only bulbs on that page that seem to meet the criteria are
> http://www.goodmart.com/products/74194.htm
> Color Temp = 5100 deg K
> CRI = 84
> Initial Lumens at 25C=1200
>
> http://www.goodmart.com/products/213696.htm
> Color Temp = 5100 deg K
> CRI = 84
> Lumens=1,200
>
> http://www.goodmart.com/products/213709.htm
> Color Temp = 5100 deg K
> CRI = 84
> Lumens: 1,020
>
> All have an internal ballast, frequency of 45 kHz.
>
> The CRI of 84 is a bit *low* for photographic work, and at a price of $20 to $25 each,
> they are just a bit costly ... particularly since you will need to set up somewhere
> between 8 and 32 of them in an array.
I agree. Just do a search on similar terms and you'll find many companies
sell natural light fluorescent bulbs. Lowest cost ones I recall were in
the $15-20 on the various websites I found.
With 8 bulbs, it would be 160w, or roughly 500w standard lighting. 32 bulbs
would be 640w or roughly 2000w standard lighting. You want 32 bulbs
in a single fixture??
As far as price, go to B&H; and price the fluorescent systems there to see
why people are off trying to build their own. They should last 10K hours or
more though so you amortize the cost over a long time.
One problem you run into is how to control the light if you make your
own setup.
Wes
> "wsb" wsb@nospam.com wrote
>>Use high frequency ballasts if you're going to try that.
>>Standard ballasts are 60Hz. The high frequency ones are
>>something like 30-40Khz. Same tubes work for both ballasts.
>>
>>The problem is how to control/position a bank of lights.
>>Take a look at:
>>http://www.goodmart.com/products/bulb_compact_fluorescent_screw_in_base_dimmable.htm
>>
>>They have HF dimmable, various color temp screw-in bulbs.The max
>>bulb is 20 watt but they are much smaller than a shoplight. Four
>>bulbs would be 80watt. Also would give you more adjustable light
>>levels. I'd estimate 80 watt fluorescent is about 240watt standard
>>bulbs.
>>
>>Wes
>>
>>Tsotsi wrote:
>>
>>>I just bought a bunch of 48 inch "shoplights" from the hardware store - the
>>>units are all wired up and ready to plug in. A bank of 10 units would give a
>>>4 foot x 4 foot light bank - all connected to a good power bar. With 2 tubes
>>>in each unit at 40W per tube = 80W, 10 units would draw 800watts which
>>>should be ok for a household circuit. I found Philips "natural sunshine" 48
>>>inch tubes rated at 5000K and 92 CRI. What do you all think of this plan?
>>>
>>>--
>>>xx
>>>"Bandicoot" "insert_handle_here"@techemail.com wrote
>>>>"Tsotsi" anyone_at_all@anywhere_at_all.com wrote
>>>>>I need to buy or make some cool lights (as close to daylight/5500K) as I can
>>>>get, & that are a reasonable weight, are portable, and give a decent amount
>>>>>of f-stop/shutter speed - I cannot use flash/strobe and tungsten/halogen
>>>>>lights are too hot. Lowell make a unit called Scandles but it's only 200w
>>>>>and I am sure you cant get much of an exposure from them. Can anyone
>>>share their experience?
>>>>>thanks
>>>>>Frank
>>>>
>>>>HMI is one solution, the one the movies use. Expensive, and you need a
>>>>ballast as well as the lamphead, but it is reasonably portable. The
>>>flicker rate is extremely high, making any flicker virtually non-existent when
>>>>compared to tungssten lamps, which makes it much better for use with
>>>>scanning digital backs. It is also almost a point source, so can give
>>> very hard light if yo want it, or be modified as appropriate.
>>>>
>>>>There are several makes, but the only one I'm familiar with is the
>>>>Elinchrom: this has a colour temperature of 5,800K. It is a 575W lamp,
>>>but be aware that HMI is much more efficient than tungsten, so it is a lot
>>>>brighter than a 575W tungsten lamp or photoflood would be: the Elinchrom
>>>>produces 14,000 Lux, whihc is about the same as a 2,000W tungsten halogen
>>>>lamp. The Elinchrom takes all the same reflectors, softboxes, snoots,
>>>>fresnels and whatever else as their flash heads do.
>>>>
>>>>MSR and CID lamps are more or less similar technology to HMI, but I really
>>>>don't know anything about these types.
>>>>
>>>>Photographic flourescents are the other option. These have a very near
>>>>daylight 'temperature' (in inverted commas because flourescent doesn't
>>>>behave like a black-body source, so strictly it doesn't have a colour
>>>>temperature). However, because the peaks and troughs in their emission
>>>are rather different to other sources, they tend not to appear quite the same
>>>on different films - not a massive difference but enough to merit some
>>>testing before investing a lot of time or money.
>>>>KinoFlo are the best known manufacturer of these types of lights. They
>>>tend to be large, and linear, of course, because of the shape of the tubes.
>>>
>>>This makes for a large light source, but the light is not as soft as the size
>>>>alone would suggest - it seems quite attractive when I've seen other people
>>>>use it, though I haven't done so myself. Popular with fashion photographers.
>>>>
>>>>Power is lower than HMI sources, but even so be aware that flourescents are
>>>>far more efficient than tungsten lights, and so a direct Watt for Watt
>>>>comparison is extremely misleading. Thus the Scandles you mention are going
>>>
>>>>to be 'worth' a lot more in light output than that 200W power consumption
>>>>suggests if you are comparing them to a tungsten lamp - you could ask the
>>>>manufacturer for a Lux value.
>>>>
>>>>HMI is much cooler running than a tungsten halogen of equivalent brightness,
>>>>but obviously flourescents are much cooler still, hence their other group of
>>>>fans: food photographers.
>>>>
>>>>A lot of people hire both these types of light rather than owning them
>>>>outright so you could always do a day's hire and take some light readings
>>>
>>>>shoot some test shots before committing to a purchase.
>>>>
>>>>Hope that's a bit of help,
>>>>Peter
From: wsb wsb@nospam.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 'cool' temperature lights
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004
Tsotsi wrote:
> the ballasts in the 'shoplite' units are 60mhz - what is the result or
> negative effect of using these vs the high frequency 30-40khz ballasts you
> wrote about - does it have to do with flicker or col or....?
Don't know of any ballast rated at 60mhz. The standard ones are 60Hz.
Basically, fluorescent bulbs flicker at the given frequency.That will
effect what shutter speed you can use. By using a high frequency
electronic ballast, you can pretty much use any shutter speed,
within reason.If your shutter speed is too high, you get into timing
problems and exposures can vary from exposure to exposure depending
on the number of flickers your image records.
As another post mentioned, the CRI is a little low. Your shoplite bulb
CRI is better. There are compact fluorescents that go to the low
90's for a CRI.I haven't tried this arrangement but have been looking
into it as you are now.
If you want to still use a shoplite with HF ballast, the best bulb I've
seen specs on is the Triten 950 for 5000K lights.
For your current setup, I'd say the ballasts will be a problem if they're
not HF.
Wes
>>Use high frequency ballasts if you're going to try that.
>>Standard ballasts are 60Hz. The high frequency ones are
>>something like 30-40Khz. Same tubes work for both ballasts.
>>
>>The problem is how to control/position a bank of lights.
>>
>>Take a look at:
> http://www.goodmart.com/products/bulb_compact_fluorescent_screw_in_base_dimmable.htm
>
>>They have HF dimmable, various color temp screw-in bulbs.The max
>>bulb is 20 watt but they are much smaller than a shoplight. Four
>>bulbs would be 80watt. Also would give you more adjustable light
>>levels. I'd estimate 80 watt fluorescent is about 240watt standard bulbs.
>>Wes
>>
>>Tsotsi wrote:
>>>I just bought a bunch of 48 inch "shoplights" from the hardware store - the
>>>units are all wired up and ready to plug in. A bank of 10 units would give a
>>>4 foot x 4 foot light bank - all connected to a good power bar. With 2 tubes
>>>in each unit at 40W per tube = 80W, 10 units would draw 800watts which
>>>should be ok for a household circuit. I found Philips "natural sunshine" 48
>>>inch tubes rated at 5000K and 92 CRI. What do you all think of this plan?
>>>--
From: wsb wsb@nospam.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 'cool' temperature lights
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004
Use high frequency ballasts if you're going to try that.
Standard ballasts are 60Hz. The high frequency ones are
something like 30-40Khz. Same tubes work for both ballasts.
The problem is how to control/position a bank of lights.
Take a look at:
http://www.goodmart.com/products/bulb_compact_fluorescent_screw_in_base_dimmable.htm
They have HF dimmable, various color temp screw-in bulbs.The max
bulb is 20 watt but they are much smaller than a shoplight. Four
bulbs would be 80watt. Also would give you more adjustable light
levels. I'd estimate 80 watt fluorescent is about 240watt standard
bulbs.
Wes
...
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999
From: Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com
To: bronica@iList.net
Subject: [BRONICA] Re: "Tran, Karen"
>Does anyone know where to get an inexpensive portable background? Black
>preferably, maybe white on the other side? I'd love some websites to look
>at if anyone knows of any good ones.
Director of Sales and Training
B&H; Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
From: dSavage Photo dsavage@dsavage.net
Newsgroups:
rec.photo,rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: STUDIO RENTAL PRICES ????
> Hello all,
>
> I have a small studio in North Carolina that I have been asked to
> rent out. I have considered it before, but never have. I'm trying to
> figure out what I should charge for such a space. If you can help I'd
> appreciate an E-MAIL.
--
http://www.dsavage.net * dSavage Photography
From: josh@spies.com (Josh Carter)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: article on external flash & some techniques
Josh
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Ballhead recommendations
> Folks,
>
> Hi -- I'm interested in hearing what your recommendations might be for
> tripod heads. I know this is a _highly_ personal topic, but your input
> would be appreciated.
>
> I currently have one Arca Swiss B-1, with which I am pleased. I've had a
> Foba go South on me in the past (movement became gritty, and I managed to
> torque the handle in the trunk of my car).
>
> Ideally, I would like something on the order of the Arca, in terms of
> overall quality of construction and smoothness, but which is a touch less
> expensive.
>
> This head will primarily be devoted to my Rollei system and secondarily to
> 35mm. I'll use it in the "field" as much as, if not more so, than in
> studio settings.
>
> Or, since my primary use will be with a 6x6 anyway, should I just go
> pan/tilt, much as I like the simplicity of a ballhead?
>
> Thanks...
>
> George
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999
From: Ferdi Stutterheim ferdi@stutterheim.nl
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Ballhead recommendations
From Contax Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000
From: "Bob Shell" bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] OT - news
From Minolta Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000
From: Tim Munro timmunro@bigpond.com
To: minolta-l@listserver.isc.rit.edu
Subject: Re: Tripod & head issue
Sent: Monday, 17 April 2000
Subject: RE: Tripod & head issue
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000
From: "Bob Shell" bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] lighting help
>From: Alexander mediadyne@hol.gr
>Subject: [CONTAX] lighting help
>Date: Mon, May 8, 2000, 1:25 AM
>
> I am a little stuck here.
> I want to take a photo of a great blue bottle the kind you use for
> decoration).
> It's colors are amazing.
> From where should I light it to avoid that annoying hot spot??
>
> I have reflectors from every side, but the light spot still shows...!
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000
From: "Bob Shell" bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Leica R8
From: josh@WOLFENET.COM (Joshua_Putnam)
[1] Re: Painting Backdrops
Date: Fri May 26 2000
>I'd appreciate any guidance regarding the painting of
>muslin. Want to have a blue mottled effect. It is very
>important that the material does not become stiff or crack
>with frequent storing in stuff bags. Can you suggest media
>to use, other than that offered by the backdrop companies
>with is quite expensive. Thanks!
"My other bike is a car."
http://www.wolfenet.com/~josh/
From: "Marc Jones" ncstargazer@earthlink.net
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000
Subject: Re: Aluminized mylar sources?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: sgsg@iname.com (S. Gordon)
Subject: Re: Q: Inexpensive Ballhead?
> Are there any ballheads that work satisfactorally in the $100 (US)
> range? I'm not ready to part with four or five hundred dollars for a
> ballhead and quick mount setup. I use a Bogen 3021 (?) and 35mm
> equipment.
From: Mark Rabiner mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Q: Inexpensive Ballhead?
> Hi,
>
> Are there any ballheads that work satisfactorally in the $100 (US)
> range? I'm not ready to part with four or five hundred dollars for a
> ballhead and quick mount setup. I use a Bogen 3021 (?) and 35mm
> equipment.
>
> Thanks,
>
> LeRoy
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000
Subject: Re: Seeking product photography advice
> Greetings,
> I'm attempting (and determined) to learn to do my own product photography
> on a VERY limited budget. I need photos and slides of my painted,
> textured wood lamps for brochures, etc. At he moment I have a Minolta
> MAXXUM Stsi 35mm AF w/manual overide and a QUANTARAY 28-80 mm 1:3.5-5.6
> lens, plus a tripod,some halogen shop lights and other odds & ends
>
> I live in central Arizona where it's always windy and often quite warm so
> I'd prefer to do these shots indoors. I do have large shop doors that can
> be opened to allow a fair amount of reflected natural light to enter, if
> that helps.
>
> I'm seeking advice on LOW BUDGET lighting, backdrops, diffusers, etc.
> I'm also looking for input on exposure values, film, composition, books,
> articles, tricks ... whatever !
Date: Wed Jul 05 2000
From: CTemkin@aol.com
Subject: [NIKON] Tip on Arca-style heads
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Do Pros dupe slides they send out?
Normal inkjets 3-5 years
HP Photosmart 5-8 years
Normal c-prints 12-20 years.
Epson 870/1270 15-25 years
IlfoChrome about 29 years.
IRIS print about 29 years
Fuji Crystal Archive paper 60 years.
Epson pigment printer about 200 years
> I know that most Pros shoot slides because that's what magazines prefer(
> quicker view on lightbox, true picture unaffected by lab and cheaper).
> My query is this:
> do they send dupes or originals out.
> If they send dupes , isn't it
> 1. expensive
> 2. difficult to get a good dupe?
>
> I like to print my good shots( maybe one per rol if I'm lucky). Should I be
> using chrome and then have the good ones printed by a pro. Should I shoot print
> film? Or, should I get a good scanner (LS-2000?) and shoot chrome and print my
> own. Is it very difficult to scan and print your own slides?
>
> Thanks for the input.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Cheap gold/silver reflector
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Cheap gold/silver reflector
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: A cheaper way
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000
Mike Farrell -- farrell3200@altavista.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: A cheaper way
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: hand painting your own muslins
Bruce A. Hendricks MPA, F.Ph.
Clearbrook Photographic Arts Inc.
http://www.photoart.bc.ca
>Can anyone point me to info on the web (or anywhere) about painting your own
>muslin backgrounds? I'm interested in Old Master styles in different color
>palettes. Buying one of each I want would cost more than I can afford, so I
>got to thinking about painting my own.
>
>Thanks in Advance
>
>Glenn de Souza
>Scottsdale, Arizona
From: "Cliff Hawker" cliffhawker@email.msn.com
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: hand painting your own muslins
Cliff Hawker
Medina, Oh
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000
Subject: Strange Tip O'the day
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000
Subject: RE:Strange Tip of the day
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000
Subject: Cheap gold/silver reflector
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Cheap gold/silver reflector
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Cheap gold/silver reflector
>in gold AND silver is unbelievable! PLEASE e-mail me any brand name or
>other info you can; I'll check my local WalMart and other places.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Date: 6 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Cheap gold/silver reflector
> Just thought I would mention it. Last night the wife and I are
>at Wal-Mart and passed the automotive section. ...sun
>blocker thingy's ... silver on one side and gold on the other. It
>folds up really nice.
> I looked for a plain white one also, but couldn't find one .
From: "Richard Knight" adreamcatcher@email.msn.com
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Flash Meters: (1) FAQ? (2) Which One?
> I have never used a flash meter, but want to take the plunge.
>
> 1. Is there an FAQ on the subject?
> 2. What sort of differences are there between the cheapest and the most
> expensive?
> 3. Does one flash meter stand out as the meter of choice, for instance, the
> way eBay stands out among auction sites?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Nikon Lenses for Portrait Photography
> What Nikon lens work well for portrait photography?
Chaffeys Lock ON Canada
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Date: 30 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: How to take small object product photo
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Souce for muslin cloth for backgrounds?
> I've been doing some searching on the internet for a source of the wide
> (8' or more) muslin cotton coth that is used so much for backgrounds but
> haven't found a good source yet. I've bought one off e-bay, and the price
> wasn't bad, but I'd like to find a source that is cheaper.
>
> Does anyone know of a supplier of plain and colored muslin cotton (or
> anything like that) that comes in wide seamless widths and long
> lengths? I'd like to make a number of backgrounds to use and if I can
> save a little money, I'd sure like too. (grin)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Souce for muslin cloth for backgrounds?
dmterp@enter.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Date: 28 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Souce for muslin cloth for backgrounds?
http://www.wolfenet.com/~josh/
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: GEPE Mounts
> From: David.Clark@Walsworth.com
> Reply-To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000
> To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: [Rollei] Re: GEPE Mounts
>
> I don't project MF slides, but use the GEPE glass mounts to make
> refrigerator magnets. I mount a contact print with the grey side out and a
> self stick magnet on the back.
>
> These get displayed more frequently than prints I work on for hours!
>
> David
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000
From: Mark Rabiner mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: GEPE Mounts
> Nifty idea. A photographer I know cuts up his contact sheets from 35mm
> and medium format and then makes tiny wood frames for them. He sells them
> at crafts fairs and does pretty well at it. I don't think he thought of
> putting magnets on the back so I'll suggest it to him.
From: zeitgeist blkhatwhtdog@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc,rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: Painting backgrounds
> Has anybody attemped to paint their own backgrounds for portrait
> photography? I'm interested in finding out what kinds of paint are suitable
> for painting on muslin and what tools one should consider using to paint
> them. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks!
>
> Nandakumar
From: "Richard Knight" adreamcatcher@email.msn.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Homemade Flash Power Reduction
> I have an old Vivitar flash that I use a lot. It's an excellent flash
> but my Canon does not have a PC terminal, so off-camera flash with the
> Vivitar is not possible (at least not until I find a hot-shoe to PC
> adapter). I was wondering if anyone has any homemade methods for
> losing a stop or two of flash power, given that the flash will be
> mounted on camera. I'm basically looking to extend this flash's
> capabilities on to fill flash while keeping it on camera. BTW, the
> flash is a Vivitar 273, guide no. 100 (in feet).
>
> --
> Ryan Shaner
> E-mail: rxshaner@home.net
From: wiltw@aol.com (Wilt W)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Homemade Flash Power Reduction
Date: Fri Oct 27 2000
From: "reverend_maynard" twizout@mindspring.com
[1] Re: Light meter
>"SnowMan" snowman2001@hongkong.com wrote
>> hi, can i ask how to use light meters?
>> how important is the calculations in ambient and flash light?
>> i am using it in studio lighting.
>> which one will u recommend?
>> thanks a lot.
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: Anything special firing up unused strobe powerpack?
> Does anyone out there know if you have to do anything special when you
> first fire up a studio strobe powerpack you haven't used in a long time?
> I have an old Dynalite 804-2 pack which I haven't used in a couple of
> years. Does anyone know if I have to do anything special when I plug it
> in again? I realize there could be components that could have gone bad,
> I just don't want one of the caps inside going "bang."'
From: Stephen Ratzlaff ratzlaff@ticnet.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: Anything special firing up unused strobe powerpack?
> Does anyone out there know if you have to do anything special when you
> first fire up a studio strobe powerpack you haven't used in a long time?
> I have an old Dynalite 804-2 pack which I haven't used in a couple of
> years. Does anyone know if I have to do anything special when I plug it
> in again? I realize there could be components that could have gone bad,
> I just don't want one of the caps inside going "bang."'
> Thanks!
From: Lisa Horton geek@gatorgames.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Tripods
> With all the recent posts regarding tripods, I've realized mine is
> probably inadequate. I don't want to spend too much money on a tripod
> and found one that may fit my budget. Has anyone had any experience
> with the Slik U212?
From: "tonyarl" tonyarl@email.msn.com
Date: Thu Nov 02 2000
[1] Re: Lightbox plans
From: bobhickey@webtv.net (Bob Hickey)
Date: Sat Nov 04 2000
[1] Re: Lightbox plans
From: "Richard Knight" adreamcatcher2000@earthlink.net
Date: Sat Nov 04 2000
[1] Re: Lightbox plans
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000
From: "Richard Cochran" rcochran@lanset.com
Subject: Low-budget Umbrella Flash
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000
From: Jim Brick jim_brick@agilent.com
Subject: [Leica] Re: lightjet: matte or gloss for a show?
From: "R. A. Glidewell" rg@glidewell.net
Newsgroups:
rec.photo,rec.photo.technique.people,rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Dean Collins Tinker Tubes book download
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001
From: S Dimitrov sld@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT Oscar formerly Double-Anastigmats
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Some advice please!
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001
From: Peter Shier pshier@mindspring.com
Subject: RE: Portrait lighting setup
=========================================================
Novatron
=========================================================
Model: M300
Max Power: 300w/s
Guide No: 160
Recycle time: 2 seconds
Weight: 4.5 lbs
Modeling light: 150w
AC cord: 18ft
Reflector: 6 1/2", 70 degrees
Power selections: variable from 150w/s and 300w/s
Fan-cooled: no
Flash duration: 150 w/s - 1/330 300 w/s - 1/290
MSRP: $369.95
B & H: $289.95
Warranty: 1 year
Info: http://www.novatron.com/catalog/monolights/m300.html
Model: M500
Max Power: 500w/s
Guide No: 220
Recycle time: 2.5 seconds
Weight: 5.5 lbs
Modeling light: 150w
AC cord: 18ft
Reflector: 6 1/2", 70 degrees
Power selections: 2 1/2 f-stops from 500 w/s or 125 w/s
Fan-cooled: yes
Flash duration: 125 w/s - 1/600 500 w/s - 1/200
MSRP: $469.95
B & H: $399.95
Warranty: 1 year
Info: http://www.novatron.com/catalog/monolights/m500.html
Kits at B & H:
2-M300, 2-45" umbrellas, 2-10' stands, 1-case, $715.95
2-M500, 2-45" umbrellas, 2-10' stands, 1-case, $834.95
1-M300, 1-M500 2-45" umbrellas, 2-10' stands, 1-case, $779.95
=========================================================
Photogenic
=========================================================
Model: 300DR
Max Power: 125w/s
Guide No: 180
Recycle time: 1.5 seconds
Weight: 4.5 lbs
Modeling light: ?
AC cord: ? ft
Reflector: None, takes all Photogenic reflectors
Power selections: variable in 0.1 f-stop resolution with digital power
display
Fan-cooled: yes
Flash duration: 1/1300
MSRP: $599.95
B & H: 508.95
Warranty: ?
Info: http://www.photogenicpro.com
Model: PL1250
Max Power: 500w/s
Guide No: 365
Recycle time: 1.5 seconds
Weight: 5.5 lbs
Modeling light: 250w
AC cord: ? ft
Reflector: 6 1/2", 70 degrees
Power selections: 6 f-stops in 0.1 f-stop resolution
Fan-cooled: no
Flash duration: 1/1300
MSRP: $550.00
B & H: $399.95 including 45" umbrella
Warranty: ?
Info: http://www.photogenicpro.com
Model: PL1250DR
Same as PL1250 but with digital power display of 0.1 f-stop increments
MSRP: $650.00
B & H: $479.95 with 45" umbrella
Info: http://www.photogenicpro.com
Kits at B & H:
1-PL1250DR, 13' stand, 45" umbrella, soft case, $549.95
=========================================================
Paul C. Buff - White Lightning
=========================================================
Model: UltraZAP 800
Max Power: 330w/s, effective power 800 w/s
Guide No: 290
Recycle time: 1 second
Weight: 3.7 lbs
Modeling light: 150w
AC cord: 15ft
Reflector: 7"
Power selections: 5 f-stops variable
Fan-cooled: no
Flash duration: 1/3600
MSRP: $399 (available directly from mfr. only)
Warranty: 5 years
Info: http://www.white-lightning.com
Model: UltraZAP 1600
Max Power: 660w/s, effective power 1600 w/s
Guide No: 420
Recycle time: 2 second
Weight: 4.6 lbs
Modeling light: 150w
AC cord: 15ft
Reflector: 7"
Power selections: 5 f-stops variable
Fan-cooled: no
Flash duration: 1/1600
MSRP: $479 (available directly from mfr. only)
Warranty: 5 years
Info: http://www.white-lightning.com
Kits (more on their web site):
1 - UltraZap 1600 flash
2 - UltraZap 800 flash
2 - Heavy-duty stands
1 - BLSB Back light stand
2 - 42W White bounce umbrellas
1 - LMMF LiteMod Mainframe
1 - LMHG20 LiteMod 20o grid
1 - UBR Background refl.
--------------------------------
$1558
2 - UltraZap 800 flash
2 - 8' stands
2 - 42W White bounce umbrella
-----------------------------
$916
2 - UltraZAP 1600 flash
1 - UltraZAP 800 flash
2 - Heavy-duty stands
1 - BLSB back light stand
1 - UBR background reflector
2 - 42W White bounce umbrellas
1 - LSBAG Light stand bag
1 - WLC White Lightning hard case
--------------------------------
$1802
From: Peter Klosky [mailto:Peter.Klosky@trw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001
Subject: Re: Portrait lighting setup
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000
From: Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com
Subject: [NIKON] Re: Portrait Lighting with Flashes
>how high should strobes be over the eye level of the subject?
>
>Is it fairly necessary when you mve the strobes out to the side to have a
>third strobe to knock down the under chin and nose shadows? I've tried a
>reflector and it seems just a little too little.
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H; Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
From: remove.david@meiland.com (David Meiland)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc,rec.photo.advanced,rec.photo.technique.art
Subject: Re: Photo images transferred to ceramic tile?
>I'm interested in learning about processes which transfer photo images onto
>ceramic tiles.
>
>I can't seem to find a ceramic newsgroup, so I'm hoping there will be some
>relevance here in the photo realm.
>
>If anyone has experience/knowledge about the process, required equipment,
>useful websites, etc. I'd appreciate some assistance as I have seemingly
>scoured the web and have not been able to turn up much information.
>
>I have found a reference to a system produced by Canon called STARS,
>however, there is no information on STARS (apart from a trademark mention)
>on the Canon website. Again, I appreciate any enlightenment in this area.
>
>Much thanks,
>Daniel
David Meiland
Oakland, CA
From: Jack Germsheid jgermsheid@home.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: Detailed PVC Studio Equipment Instructions
From: Mike Jordan mjordan@europa.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: Detailed PVC Studio Equipment Instructions
> Mike,
> I bought one of those emergency blankets and mounted it on a mobile
> reflector of my own design. I used packing tape. However the material
> mine is made of is very flimsy and in the future I would consider using
> a large peice of the white foam insulation or just foam core when in the
> studio ( as suggested numerous times by numerous people - but I just
> won't listen). This did work for a while and was quite inexpensive (some
> say cheap). My wife did me the ultimate kindness at christmas though and
> reflector
> it'll be way better in the field than the emergency blanket. It costs
> ten times much as the emergency blanket but it's ten times easier to use.
> Just my two bits,
From: zeitgeist blkhatwhtdog@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: Question regarding reflectors and stands
> What do you guys do for shoots when you need your reflector and you have
> no assistants?
>
> Most of my friends are working or busy doing other things.
> I have a piece of foamcore that I would like to use, but dunno, what I
> can use to hold it.
>
> Unless I strictly use my flash for fill.
> But would much rather use natural light if possible.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> (also instead of foamcore i have this 2 whitet circular sun reflectors
> for the car, that I use as reflectors also, but have no idea what to use
> to hold them up)
From: "Frank h" frank@hovie.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: Question regarding reflectors and stands
From: zeitgeist blkhatwhtdog@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: Starving student photography
> I'm a sports and nature photographer looking to dabble in a bit of
> glamour. Do any of have any suggestions on cutting costs concerning
> equipment. I have the camera and accesories. I'm just concerned about
> the rest of the studio equipment. I also would love to know any of the
> concerns you have with using inexpensive equipment.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000
Subject: Re: Photographing Glass???
> Hi Folks:
> I have been asked to help a good friend of mine take some digital
> pictures of his work. He makes hand-blown glass and I find it nearly
> imposable to get a picture that I like. I think that black is probably the
> best background to use because it offers good contrast. However, I would
> appreciate any suggestions that anyone might have on techniques for
> photographing glass items. Thanks in advance for your help.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000
Subject: Re: Photographing Glass???
From: bobcoscarelli bob@coscarelli.com
Date: Sat Mar 24 2001
[1] Re: soapsuds shoot
> Eric, thanks for the suggestion. What is a "skim" light? Will a strobe and
> snoot work?
>
> Thanks, Bob
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] some help???
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001
From: Philippe Tempel ptempel@home.com
Subject: [Rollei] Color balanced flourescent lighting
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001
From: Philippe Tempel ptempel@home.com
Subject: [Rollei] Strobe recommendation
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
From: "Scott Elliot" selliot@direct.ca
Subject: Re: What is the best
tripod head for wildlife?
> I never used a ball head, so I don't understand how you can use one for
> tracking a bird in flight. You can loosen the horizontal movement alone,
> but then you can't aim higher or lower. If you loosen the ball, then you
> can aim up or down, but then won't the camera then be prone to fall on its
> side? I've used a pan/tilt, where I can loosen 2 of the 3 dimensions, and a
> Whimberly, which is great.
>
> -Alan Justice
Kelowna, B.C.
From: Lisa Horton geek@gatorgames.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Very Light Ball Head
> To lighten my hiking load, I replaced my Manfrotto 3001 with a Slik 804
> CF. It is very light, but my Manfrotto 3265 pistol grip ball head weighs
> about as much. Any recommendations for a very light ball head. I need to
> support a max of about 7 pounds.
>
> Thanks
>
> Mark
From: mpphoto@nospam.forme
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Slik U212+Mamiya TLR?
>"FRANKEE" frankee@att.net wrote:
>
>> Has anyone used the above combo? The spec sheet at Slik's site says it
>> should support the camera without a problem. I like the idea of a light
>> tripod to carry around instead of a heavy lunker Thanx- F.
>
>If you already have the Slik tripod, just try it. If you are
>considering buying the tripod, think again. I would not choose to
>entrust the stable support of any camera to a Slik tripod; I have owned
>several tripods from Slik, Velbon and others over the years and they are
>worth little in terms of stable support.
>
>Look instead at the Bogen 3001; I would not normally recommend it for
>medium format but for the near-concentric load of a TLR, and the short
>extension needed to support a tall camera, the 3001 could be enough.
>And it's a lot lighter than the 3021 I would normally recommend.
>
>And at B+H prices, the 3001 is a *steal*.
>
>--
>Tony Polson
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001
From: Jim Brick jim_brick@agilent.com
Subject: Re: contest..crritique...thanks
>Wow! It sure is great to know that I have a lot of hwlpful friends on
>the list!
>
>Many thanks for all of the suggestions in regard to getting a good car
>photo. My son and I will try them in the near future and will repost
>the resulting photos.
>
>Thanks again
>
>George
From: "Joseph Meehan" sligojoe@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Photographing interiors - advice required
Dia 's Muire duit
Joe M
From: Andrei.Calciu@hn.va.nec.com
Subject: [Rollei] Super tripods
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001
Folks,
I have discovered a superb tripod that is very versatile and light. It is
made by Pentacon and was intended for use with both their 35 mm and medium
format cameras. It can hold a Pentacon 6 with a 300 mm lens or a Praktica
with the normal lens. The legs can be positioned independently. Further,
the legs come in pieces. You can use the tripod for up to about 4 feet or
so in height as they come, or you can remove part of the legs and the
remainder is usable as a (fairly large) table top tripod.
I can email pictures to those interested. I love this tripod so much that I
bought two of them. on Ebay they seem to sell for about 150-160 bucks, as
apparently more than one person has realized the quality within.
Andrei D. Calciu (VA-4270)
From: Rollei@davidmorton.org
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: RE: [Rollei] New tripod discussion
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001
Roy Dunn wrote:
"Uniloc: http://www.uniloc.fsnet.co.uk/
Hakuba Carbon: http://www.velbon.com"
Agree with both of those, The Uniloc's a significant improvement on the
Benbo, although a friend's description of deploying a Benbo as "wrestling an
amorous octopus" still applies.
My Velbon 3 section carbon fibre was a great buy too. I use it with the
large Leica B&S; head.
I'm getting a Berlebach U17
http://www.berlebach.de/produkte/stative/uni/e_uni.html#modelle7 soon to use
mainly with my 5x4 and 10x8 kit. Large format cameras - even metal technical
ones - seem to belong on a wooden tripod, and I wouldn't dream of putting my
new (to me) 1926 Eastman 2D on a metal one. :-)
--
David Morton
dmorton@journalist.co.uk
From: "Tom Bloomer" bloomer@/"NoSpam>"/snip.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: dropping prices of med fmt gear.. Re: ATTN: R MONAGHAN
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001
Yes, you are correct. I am thinking like an advanced amateur. In a studio
environment, production work flow is the most important factor. In fact the
last company that I worked for is now in the process of converting their
studio to a complete digital work flow. They will spend about $0.5Million
to accomplish the effort. I am a network architect by trade, and I worked
as a technical advisor to the photo department when they were planning the
conversion.
They are dumping their film processor, Sinar 4x5 and 8x10 large format
systems and their Hasselblads to move in to a complete digital work flow.
They should be totally digital in about 2 or 3 more years . . . making the
entire transition over a period of about 6 years. They will likely be
restaffing as well because it is easier to hire new "digital photographers"
than it is to retrain their existing staff. To their advantage is the fact
that they will significantly reduce their time to market for their catalogs
and flyers.
They have already invested $400,000 in a "digital asset management system" -
a server farm with dedicated terabyte disk and tape robot storage capacity
and an on-line digital image catalog and work flow tracking system. Once
they get there they will have invested almost $1million. In addition they
already employ a full time staff of IT professionals like me to keep their
LAN, WAN, PCs, mainframe and associated systems up and running. They have
significantly added to their IT expertise requirements and increased their
support and maintenance spending for proprietary software designed to
integrate manage the new technology.
How many studios can afford to make that kind of investment? Even if the
cost comes down by an order of magnitude? There is a lot more complexity to
a total digital photo environment than one sees at first glance. The
photographer has to learn about the technical aspects of networking,
storage, digital photo editing and retouching, or one has to hire that
expertise and rely on a vendor to deliver results.
Working as a network architect and systems integrator, I have seen the pain
first hand. For the big ad-agencies and high production studios, the time
savings in the work flow may justify the TCO (Total Cost of Ownership). But
what about the mom & pop studios? What about the freelancer? The learning
curve is very steep and the technology to compete with film is very
expensive. It is less expensive to buy a high end CCD scanner like the
Imacon or the Nikon 8000 then it is to purchase a digital camera system to
replace your film technology investment. How many small studios and
independent photographers will choose to take this route first?
Bottom line, do you really think film will disappear in 5 years?
--
Tom Bloomer
Hartly, DE
"radiojohn" yeahsure@nospam.invalid> wrote
> 16MP does not even begin to capture the amount of detail in medium format
> transparency film. It may match or surpass 35mm, but to think that it will
> match medium format is ridicules. What the digital industry is hoping is
> that we drop our standards to accommodate their technology before they
> approach the capability of film.
But you are forgetting that many of the images shot with these "new" digital
cameras are ending up as very small images in catalogs and folders.
The practical consideration is that the current backs and cameras are
getting the job done faster and cheaper. This has nothing to do with fine
art, lines per millimeter, film area, etc.
Obviously the current gear is not designed for the big wedding portrait.
But for ever one of those, there are thousands of small images shot for some
Wal-Mart throwaway insert.
In short, you are thinking like an advanced amateur, whose needs are totally
apart from many pro needs.
John
From: "Mark Blackwell" av8r@cobweb.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: building a studio light system
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001
Well the first test of my florescent light system was a successful in many
regards. The color temp was fine. The lab had to do nothing to color
correct the negatives. I loved the quality of the light. It was a very
soft light without any diffuser needed. Being on constantly makes it easier
for me. You see what you get is a plus without the heat of halogen.
My only problem is how to mount them. The first method was hardly a long
term solution. I build a wooden box with a hardboard back that will hold 2
2 bulb fixtures 48 inches long. I have another one to build tomorrow. Now
I have to figure out how get them elevated a few feet, and ideally pivot.
The boxes themselves are about 53 inches tall and they do way a bit. Would
like to be able to get them above a models head height (not over them
directly) and ideally adjust the angle
Any ideas would be welcome.
--
Mark Blackwell
http://www.aviatorsonestop.com
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001
From: Michael Vanecek mike@mjv.com>
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: [HUG] Tripod Bushing...
Does anyone in the States have any 1/4" to 3/8" bushings handy? I could
get one from Adorama for $3.00, but shipping will be twice that. USPS is
fine with me on such a tiny item... Just got my autobellows today and it
only has the larger hole - I assume the 3/8". I've been using the
smaller hole (1/4"?) on my old 500C with my Bogen 3028 til now.
Alternatively, if there's something you know that I could use from a
hardware store, let me know. I'd hate to have to get a new head just for
that...
Cheers,
Mike
--
http://dotfile.net/ - Dedicated to Open Source Software
From: zeitgeist blkhatwhtdog@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Re: Home Studio Lighting How-To
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001
> I would like to setup a home photographic studio on a minimal budget.
> Are there any references (books, websites, etc) that you can recommend
> that will provide enough technical and practical information to get
> started?
>
The z-prophoto mailing list at yahoogroups.com has a lot of old posts
about simple and elegant lighting on a budget, including free (open
garage door, shoot at an angle) or near free, (since most portraits are
verticle anyway, bounce your flash off a side wall) and then to get
really technical and archain, I have some bizarre articles that talk
about why traditional lighting in studios got started, why it really
sucks and looks so artificial, and what to do about it. the simple way
to join is to send a blank email to
z-prophoto-subscribe@yahoogroups.com but to search and read the old
posts you'll have to go to the yahoogroups.com site and register as a
user and then get to z-prophoto pages.
From: "Tom Bloomer" bloomer@snip.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: With Flash, Does shuetter speed matter?
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001
>>Flashes range in duration, but some are as slow as 1/400th.
At full power, the Quantum Q-Flash T and T2 are 1/300th, and the Metz 60
series is only 1/200th. Both are too slow for a 35mm focal-plane shutter
that synchs at 1/250th. 1/300th is barely within the speed of a leaf
shutter at 1/250th. In addition, you can't stop action with a flash
duration that slow. The flimsy little Sunpak 120J (GN 150) has a full
power duration of 1/600th.
One of my complaints is that the flash manufacturers don't make you aware of
this limitation. To my knowledge, the only high-power (GN 160 or better)
flash with a short duration is the Norman 200C or 400B. Both of those are
1/900th at full power, but they have absolutely no automatic controls.
Quantum is the ONLY flash unit that displays the flash duration with each
power setting. Life's a bitch!
--
Tom Bloomer
Hartly, DE
From: wiltw@aol.com (Wilt W)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 20 Nov 2001
Subject: Re: With Flash, Does shuetter speed matter?
Might be a dumb question, but it's definitely a MF question since most 35mm
gear syncs just at 1/60 sec. At least anything I owned did. I know of
course that aperature matters, but does shutter speed? I mean light travels
so damn fast I think that a subjuct at 1/30th of a sec and one at 1/300th of
a sec would look the same given the same aperature and flash strength. And
that being the case, why not always take flash pictuters with the highest
shutter speed possible? I guess my real question is, how long does the
flash pulse last? If it only lasts 1/1000 of a second then any shutter
speed will do. Any thoughts?>>
Gee, you got a lot of replies, but often the reply does not particularly
relate to your question! Let me try...
If electronic flash lasts 1/400, with a leaf shutter camera you need to
keep the speed SLOWER than 1/400 so that the open shutter gets all the light
the flash puts out!
If the electronic flash lasts 1/10000, with a leaf shutter you can use ANY
shutter speed and get all the light that it puts out.
If you use flash with ambient light, the shutter catches two sources of
light...the flash and the ambient. So a nearby subject lit by the flash is
properly exposed, but the background may be too dark because of its low light
level not being captured by too fast of a shutter speed (like 1/250). So you
use a slow speed to brighten the dark background, or a fast shutter speed to
make the dim background stay dark in the photo.
If you use a focal plane shutter camera, the shutter curtains opens a
narrow slit and then moves the slit across the film to expose the frame. So
the flash is not putting out light during the entire esposure. One piece of
the film gets 1/500 exposure (for example) with the flash outputting during
that time. But it takes a lot longer for that slit to move entirely across the
film, so the flash only shows up along a short segment of its travel across the
film and a bright slit in the middle of the frame results, and everything else
is poorly exposed.
When the focal plane shutter is used at 1/60 (or whatever the X synch speed
for that shutter is), the shutter curtain is totally open, and it is not merely
a moving slit. So the flash exposure strikes the entire frame, not just a
slit. So a focal plane shutter MUST be used at the X synch speed or SLOWER.
If you use focal plane camera with flash as well as with ambient light, the
shutter catches two sources of light...the flash and the ambient. So a nearby
subject lit by the flash is properly exposed, but the background may be too
dark because of its low light level not being captured by too fast of a shutter
speed (like 1/250). So you use a slow speed to brighten the dark background,
or a fast shutter speed to make the dim background stay dark in the photo. But
you need to ensure that the focal plane shutter is a X synch or slower, in this
situation, or the problem with the slit exposure shows up. That's why leaf
shutter cameras are more prevalent with pros shooting weddings or portaits
outdoors with synchro-sun flash fill...the flexibility of shutter speed which
can be used.
--Wilt
From: rbrac53660@aol.com (RBrac53660)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Date: 14 Aug 2001
Subject: Re: Studio Strobes question
Look into a used Dynalite port. kit. Check B&H; for prices
>Well I realize Im gonna ask a question with about a million different
>possible answers. Different opinions are what I need to make an informed
>decision. Im looking in the near future for my first studio strobe. I
>would like something I could grow with and not have to put in a closet and
>never use it in a year. This will be on a very limited budget. What
>features are must haves, nice to have, and great but rarely use? How much
>power do you really need for
www.geocities.com/winston53660/wbphotog.html
Subject: RE: Getting a completely black background
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001
From: "Michael Waldron" mwaldron@cadogan.net>
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Hi-
I had a similar problem, but ended up shooting with the background
angling backwards and with slight side lighting (rather than straight on
for "beauty shots"). That way, most light relfecting off the background
went away from the camera (hope the diagram below works -- S is
subject):
\
\
\
\
S \
^ \
| light
camera
Michael Waldron
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel K. Lee [mailto:daniel@dklimages.com]
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Getting a completely black background
I've been shooting some portraits with black Savage seamless paper - I
use a one light (softbox) setup and am limited by space in that the studio I
have is relatively small. THe subject is approximately 3 feet in front of
the backdrop and the light is apprx 3.5 feet in front of the subject....
and no matter how I work the lighting ratio, the backdrop always looks dark
grey and not JET black...has anyone had this problem before and if so what
was your remedy?
Daniel
Sharookh Mehta at first@vsnl.com wrote:
> Won't the filter get in the way of the viewfinder..careful.
> Sharookh
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: DKFletcher@aol.com>
> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001
> Subject: Cokin's on XPan???
>
>> Has anybody tried using a Cokin A holder on an Xpan with 45mm lens? I'm
> sure
>> the larger P size would work but the smaller one would be easier for
> grads.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Dirk
From: Les Meehan les.meehan@zone2tone.co.uk>
To: "'hasselblad@kelvin.net'" hasselblad@kelvin.net>
Subject: RE: Getting a completely black background
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001
Daniel
If you place 'black' paper/card, a Kodak gray card and white paper/card in
direct light e.g like your setup straight on lighting and meter each paper
you will find 'black is acutally only two stops darjker than the gray card
and the white paper is only two stops lighter than the gray card. In zone
tems you have gray card zone V, 'black paper' on zone III and 'white paper'
on zone VII. Therefore, the 'black' is only dark gray and the 'white' is
only light gray even though your eyes tell you differently.
In your lighting setup you have two options if the distance between the
subject and background cannot be changed, 1. Change the background to
velvet or 2. Move the light source closer to the subject and alter your
exposure (close aperture or reduce flash power ratio). Moving the light
closer to the subject will increase the fall-off to the background and
hence darken it. Obviously you get more light on the subject.
No. 2 is the easiest option and the cheapest.
Regards
Les Meehan
www.zone2tone.co.uk
Lancs, UK
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel K. Lee [SMTP:daniel@dklimages.com]
Sent: 07 September 2001 17:53
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Getting a completely black background
I've been shooting some portraits with black Savage seamless paper - I use a
one light (softbox) setup and am limited by space in that the studio I have
is relatively small. THe subject is approximately 3 feet in front of the
backdrop and the light is apprx 3.5 feet in front of the subject....
and no matter how I work the lighting ratio, the backdrop always looks dark
grey and not JET black...has anyone had this problem before and if so what
was your remedy?
Daniel
...
From: "Charlie Goodwin" cgoodwin@conknet.com>
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net>
Subject: Re: Getting a completely black background
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001
Reply-to: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Daniel,
Try black velvet. Keeping it clean is a hassel, but it might get you
closer to absolute black. Also an eggcrate grid over your softbox to keep
the light on the subject, especially using light hard in from the side and
scrim the background. Or bring the light in close to the subject...from the
side would be best, as close as you can, and torque it away from the
background, so it's facing the camera mostly and just skimming the subject,
and hardly putting anything on the subject. Not a very efficient use of
your watt seconds or watts...but might help.
Charlie
Subject: Getting a completely black background
> I've been shooting some portraits with black Savage seamless paper - I use a
> one light (softbox) setup and am limited by space in that the studio I have
> is relatively small. THe subject is approximately 3 feet in front of the
> backdrop and the light is apprx 3.5 feet in front of the subject....
>
> and no matter how I work the lighting ratio, the backdrop always looks dark
> grey and not JET black...has anyone had this problem before and if so what
> was your remedy?
>
>
> Daniel
...
Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2001
Subject: Re: Studio set up
From: "Peter G. Walker" peter@peterwalker.com
To: Syed Noor Hossain snh@terra.com.br, hasselblad@kelvin.net
Syed,
Over the years I have put together many studios in small spaces. The
smallest that you can get away with, if you want to do full-length standing
portraits with a reasonable length lens (say 120 to 150mm in MF) is 8 meters
long by 4 meters wide and 2.5 meters high. Any smaller and you are
limiting the type of shots you can do. An extra meter or two in all three
dimensions would be better.
I use the Elinchrom studio lights (www.elinchrom.com). They are flash but
with a modelling bulb. For a while I managed with two and used an old
portable flash with a slave trigger as the 3rd light. Now I have 5 and
although I often only use one or two, having the flexibility to add a light
without having to move one is helpful.
For backdrops, I have a mixture of homemade and purchased backdrops
(www.lastolite.com). For white, black and grey, you can have someone with
a sewing machine make a large 3 meter by 7 meter rectangle of fabric with a
10 cm loop at both ends. The reason that you can get away with sewing this
together is (a) you will use lighting effects to either white-out or blacken
then background and (b) it will be so far behind the depth of field as to be
completely blurred. Then, any simple pole system can be used to suspend the
backdrop. The same system will work with the Lastolite drops.
Until you decide whether you want to invest in the professional stuff, you
can make most things yourself cheaply. Barn doors and snoots for the
lights can be made from sheets of tin (not cardboard as lights get really
hot). Reflectors can be made from sheets of foam-core.
You'll need a collection of props, chairs, etc, but your imagination and
some scrummaging in markets can take care of that.
Regards
Peter
Email: peter@peterwalker.com
URL: http://www.peterwalker.com
Syed Noor Hossain at snh@terra.com.br wrote:
> Thanks. You have always been very helpful and positive. I love your
> contributions which are always appropriately spiced. The small studio space
> I mentioned is currently available. Eventually, as I gain experience, I
> would like to move into a much bigger space with optional space for terrace
> for outdoor shots. I am still vague about the lighting. I visited a large
> studio where the photographer had modeling lights with what looked like
> built-in strobes. I presume these are different from the big and hot flood
> lights.
>
> I am sorry if I sound a little naive in studio photography. I suppose I
> ought a study a bit before I venture into buying the studio equipment. By
> the way, what should be the ideal size of a studio, if space is not a
> problem? I never thought of dumping place for junks, etc.
>
> Syed
>
>
>
>
>> Dear Syed,
>>
>> If it is serious advice you want, press the delete key now....No, wait,
>> I promise to tell the truth.
>>
>> For your backdrop the big ol' rolls of Colorama paper are very nice -
>> you can get small or large and if you have a 10 foot wide room you might
>> just be able to fit in a biggie if you suspend it off the wall. Otherwise
>> you can use a small tripod and bar system like that marketed by INKA to
>> suspend a smaller one. This would be fine for upper torso and head and
>> shoulders work.
>>
>> You can search the net or your copy of SHUTTERBUG to find painters and
>> dyers of muslin who can supply cloth backdrops. We have a local woman in
>> Collie, West Australia who makes cotton drops in a dozen different colours
>> with a mottled pattern. The advantage for us is that her prices are half of
>> those imported from the USA. I suspect that if you have access to a backyard
>> and a washingmachine, you can RIT dye your own drop and save a bundle. On
>> second thought, make that someone elses's washing machine....
>>
>> For light stands you can't go past Manfrotto if you have the money or
>> the cheaper Photax or INKA if you don't. Put some Photax tungsten lights
>> onto them ( Be prepared for heat and blown light globes ) or search the USA
>> advertisements for cheaper AC studio flashes. I would recommend Elinchrom or
>> Prolinca but I do not know your budget.
>>
>> In any case you are unlikely to need more than 3 lights and a few
>> reflectors in your small studio. Get a medium reflector, two small
>> reflectors, a white umbrella, and a couple of honeycombs. You can make your
>> own polystyrene flats and cardboard flags as you go along. Hint: If you need
>> cheapo stands for flags try the local junk or pawn shop and look for old
>> music stands. They won't hold heavy lights but they will hold lighter items.
>>
>> Remember the electric flex and a couple of splitter boards.
>>
>> Then you can start looking for a chair and a posing rail and some
>> drapes. I recommend IKEA for the two former items and a discount fabric
>> store for the latter.
>>
>> One thing you cannot buy but will need more of as you go on - space. You
>> will be amazed how you can junk out any available space with more and more
>> studio accessories and props. You will know you have reached saturation
>> point when you find yourself stacking the stuffed crocodile on top of the
>> log cabin.
>>
>> Oh, and the EEE sential feature of the studio. A coffee pot that works
>> and a cookie jar.
>>
>> Uncle Dick
From: "Stein" stein@bekkers.com.au>
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net>
Subject: Re: Getting a completely black background
Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001
Dear Dan,
They are all telling the truth - move your light in a little, direct it
with a honeycomb, snoot, or doors, use a higher synch sped to eliminate any
contribution from ambient or spill light, and use black velvet.
I have tried all but the last - the local discount fabric store sells
velvet but at a price that looks like the national debt. They did have a
good line of wide black broadcloth and I settled on this as a drop. Two
lengths sewn side-by-side and enough out the front for a floor.
This has the advantage of being lighter in weight than velvet and
darker in colour than paper while still allowing people to walk over it.
Feet marks are inevitable but you can eliminate a lot of it by making a fuss
and a game of shoe cleaning when the sitters arrive. Note: white paper and
people in chain mail boots is a sad combination - but you can cut up the
paper roll after the sitters leave and frame it as modern art.
Have you thought to look round your studio and study the walls? I kept
wondering why I was getting more fill than I wanted and the occasional weird
flare when I moved in to take 3/4 portraits with my beloved 120 Makro. I sat
with the negs over a light box for an hour and canvassed all possibilities
from slipped lens elements to stray sequins in the lenshood.
Belly dancers shed worse than sheepdogs. You find sequins and bits all
over the furniture and whenever you go into the bathroom with bare feet you
are sure to tread on a damn glass bead. I dread cleaning out the S-bend in
the sink....
I digress. The odd nature of the flare seemed to follow the contours of
the backdrop and I decided in frustration to reset the lights and camera
and try to reproduce the mess. In the end I resorted to putting my head
where the camera was and squinching down my eyes into the back of the 120
lenshood and firing the flashes.
The culprit, in combination with my own unobservant nature, was a
framed print on the wall with a highly reflective glass front. Set the main
light just in the wrong spot and it made a 2-cushion shot right onto the
spot on the backdrop where it was not wanted. Drape a black cloth over the
print and the problenm disappeared. I am not going to repaint the walls in
black as I do like to use them as fill reflectors for many shots, but I will
definitely drape them for some setups when I do not want them to contribute
their opinion!
Uncle Dick
From: "Stein" stein@bekkers.com.au>
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net>
Subject: Re: Studio set up
Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001
Dear Syed,
Peter Walker pointed out a very good thing - indeed a number of very
good things. The part of his post that I thought was best was when he
advised you to try making some of the smaller accessories yourself. This is
spot-on.
I think some of the best ideas I have ever seen in other people's
studios and darkrooms have been the ideas that they cobbled together with
mounting board, gaffer tape, and Tupperware containers. I have done the same
myself whenever I couldn't afford a professionl bit of gear or needed to
solve a mechanical or optical problem on the spot.
To wit:
1. The barn doors for my lights. Believe Peter when he cautions you about
heat on cardboard. I tried to make doors from mounting board and damn near
burned up Chicago, so to speak. I resorted to a couple of aluminium cookie
sheets on metal hinges and they worked fine. Note: beware epoxy glues and
heat - they can come unstuck. Rivets.
2. I needed to increase the draw on the bellows of my enlarger when
making cartes de visite from large negatives. I cut holes in the top and
bottom of a 4 x 5 sheet film box and taped it to the enlarger and lens.
Looked horrible but worked fine.
3. Cardboard flags on secondhand music stands as per earlier post.
4. Product table from a defunct drawing board and some plastic sheeting.
Now I still have not tried my pet projects - crocheting a 100cm softbox
for the electronic flash or manufacturing my own Polaroid film packs - but
then we must have plans for the future or we will grow dull.
Uncle Dick
Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2001
Subject: Re: Getting a completely black background
From: "Peter G. Walker" peter@peterwalker.com>
To: "Daniel K. Lee" daniel@dklimages.com>, hasselblad@kelvin.net>
Daniel,
Black velvet works really well. I know that it is expensive but if you are
going to do a lot of black background shots, it is a good investment. All
the other approaches will work but, with limited space, you'll always be
fighting the light problems on black paper. Black cotton might be a
compromise - then you can use the seamless paper as a light sink between the
flash and the background.
Useless sidebar: A few years I lived in India and, for some reason, velvet
was really cheap - about 1/4 of the price anywhere else. So I had a curtain
shop make up two lined velvet backdrops (7m x 3m and 3m x 3m). Labour cost
was about $5 US. They still serve me well (see the first image of my
website at http://www.peterwalker.com)
Regards
Peter
Email: peter@peterwalker.com
URL: http://www.peterwalker.com
Daniel K. Lee at daniel@dklimages.com wrote:
> I've been shooting some portraits with black Savage seamless paper - I use a
> one light (softbox) setup and am limited by space in that the studio I have
> is relatively small. THe subject is approximately 3 feet in front of the
> backdrop and the light is apprx 3.5 feet in front of the subject....
>
>
> and no matter how I work the lighting ratio, the backdrop always looks dark
> grey and not JET black...has anyone had this problem before and if so what
> was your remedy?
>
>
> Daniel
From: Patrick Bartek bartek@intermind.net>
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: From color Blads to Studio Set up
Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001
Syed Noor Hossain wrote:
> [snip]
> Can I move on to an old issue and ask your advise? I am a serious amateur
> and want to set up a studio for occasional portrait and still life
> photography.
>
> I am currently doing outdoor photography, mostly nature, and using a 201F
> body, and 110F/2 and C40T*/4 lenses in the medium format. On the 35mm side,
> I use a Nikon digital D1with wide angle, macro and telephoto zoom lenses. My
> room size for studio is 10'x15'.
You've got better equipment than when I started my professional career
almost 30 years ago. What did I have? 2 Pentax bodies (an H3v and a
Spotmatic), 3 screw mount lenses -- 28, 50, 100 Takumars (no
multicoating back then) -- and a Mamiya C220 with an 80mm lens.
> I would like to make a modest investment on background screen and studio
> lighting, etc. Could some of you suggest me a package with brand name of
> products and approximate cost? Once before I raised this in the forum but
> didn't get adequate feedback. May be the topic is old and boring and lacks
> color!
I've read the many recommendations that you have received, but before
you buy anything, I recommended that you read every book your public or
university library has on photographic lighting and product/portrait
technique. Once you've studied the technique of lighting, you'll have
a better idea of what you'll need and, more importantly, what you can
do without.
In any case, use the KISS principle. Keep It Simple, Stupid. Start
off with one light. And it doesn't have to be flash. I started with a
single 12 inch reflector and a 500 watt Photoflood lamp.
I bought very little made-for-photography accessories. (I was on a
shoe string budget, at the time.) I made or made do with what I could
build or adapt. For example, my portrait background was an old, solid
color, dark brown blanket taped to the wall. Thrown out of focus, it
made a perfect background. I used military surplus parachute nylon to
diffuse direct sunlight or the harsh light from my single 500 watt lamp
or to make a lighting tent. Large white or foil art boards from the art
supply store were used as reflectors and backgrounds. Fabrics
purchased from fabric shops were also used as backgrounds or props.
My most innovative project was a large softlight for product
photography. (At the time, there were no ready made ones like Chimera
or Photoflex.) I had no studio flash and I didn't want to use "hot"
lights. They drew too much power and were uncomfortable to work with,
particularly if you were shooting something that melts. I build the
light by bolting several twin-tube flourescent "shop" light fixtures
together, taped a cardboard frame around its perimeter, and covered the
front with some parachute nylon. It put out a beautifully soft light.
I later used it for single light portraits. The whole rig cost less
than about $40 US.
Anyway, you get the idea. Start simple and build on that as you gain
experience. You don't need to spend a lot of money to make good
photographs.
--
Patrick Bartek
NoLife Polymath Group
bartek@intermind.net
From: "rstein" rstein@bigpond.net.au>
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net>
Subject: Re: [HUG] Starter Studio Lighting
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002
Dear Jim,
Elinchrom.
I use their monopacks in the 500 and 250 w/s versions and they function
perfectly except when they don't. ( That's Irish, that is...)
They go off regularly unless the temperature of the studio gets over 38
degrees Celsius then they go odd. They also go off reliably except when the
PC cords decide to take a holiday. It helps if you loop the cord up over the
back handle before leading it down the the camera or radio receiver.
Occasionally they arc over inside with a report like a pistol shot but this
is good for loosening up the models. Don't worry, it won't happen till after
the warrantee period finishes.
They DO give consistent colour results and the output is closely
mirrored by the modelling light. And they do have a large range of useful
attachments and light shapers for the front. And in the case of my city, the
agent is fairly helpful.
Try one main, one fill, and one backdrop - that's 3 light stands and
associated electric boards. Treat yourself to a small radio link so that you
can bounce around the studio without pulling the lights over on the PC cord.
tape down the power cords and wrap the lightstands with some bright yellow
tape. Remember that dogs and kids have no sense of social responsibility* so
make sure the backdrop is washable.
Uncle Dick
* This applies to high school graduates as well. Trust me on this.
From: "WILLIAMS, DAVID R. (JSC-DB) (USA)" david.r.williams2@jsc.nasa.gov>
To: "'Hasselblad@kelvin.net'" Hasselblad@kelvin.net>
Subject: [HUG] start up Studio Lighting
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002
After 2+ years of investigating studio lighting equipment, I came to the
conclusion that Profoto or Elinchrom was the only way to go for me. I
respect and admire both product lines, but I had to choose one, and without
any doubt, I picked Profoto for my needs and desires. I have (2) Compact
Plus Special 600 watt mono lights, (2) Acute II - 2400 watt Power Packs (2
heads per pack) and a Pro 7B 1200 watt Portable Power Pack (2 heads).
There's a lot to like about the Profoto line, the light quality,
reliability, fast recycle time/flash duration, company support, accessories,
etc,. Some Pro's also like that Profoto products have an auto voltage
feature for world wide use and that Profoto is found in rental houses all
over the world if needed. I also enjoy using the Pro 7B. It's a wonderful
thing to have a 1200 watt power pack, fully portable with plenty of flashes
per charge and very easy swap out of an extra battery (if needed), it has
the same light quality, build quality, reliability and uses the same light
shaping accessories as the other power products in the line. If I did'nt buy
the Pro 7B, I would have bought the Broncolor Mobil which is a really neat
product too at a much more affordable price. Best of luck!
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002
Subject: Re: [HUG] Starter Studio Lighting
From: george day george@rdcinteractive.com>
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net>
Jim,
Second, third and fourth on the Elinchroms. For a starter, the 500w/s kit
is all you need. Monoblocks are easy to use -- fewer cables, switches, etc.
-- color consistency is second to none an these things are made to *last*.
Case in point: I dragged mine all over Guatemala and Honduras (in a Pelican
case, but more often than not thrown in the back of a pick-up and used in
conditions so humid I practically needed a snorkel. The same kit has
traveled all over the country in cargo holds, all with nary a problem.
Profotos are sort of a "definitive" studio system or great if you travel to
locations with a Suburban full of gear.
Another great, great "starter" system that's no starter system at all:
Quantum T2s. Get a pair of those, a nice selection of accessories and go
for the Lumedyne minicyclers (cheaper and, I think, better built than
Quantum's packs) and hit the road or studio with confidence.
"rstein" rstein@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> Dear Jim,
>
> Elinchrom.
>
> I use their monopacks in the 500 and 250 w/s versions and they function
> perfectly except when they don't. ( That's Irish, that is...)
>
> They go off regularly unless the temperature of the studio gets over 38
> degrees Celsius then they go odd. They also go off reliably except when the
> PC cords decide to take a holiday. It helps if you loop the cord up over the
> back handle before leading it down the the camera or radio receiver.
> Occasionally they arc over inside with a report like a pistol shot but this
> is good for loosening up the models. Don't worry, it won't happen till after
> the warrantee period finishes.
>
> They DO give consistent colour results and the output is closely
> mirrored by the modelling light. And they do have a large range of useful
> attachments and light shapers for the front. And in the case of my city, the
> agent is fairly helpful.
>
> Try one main, one fill, and one backdrop - that's 3 light stands and
> associated electric boards. Treat yourself to a small radio link so that you
> can bounce around the studio without pulling the lights over on the PC cord.
> tape down the power cords and wrap the lightstands with some bright yellow
> tape. Remember that dogs and kids have no sense of social responsibility* so
> make sure the backdrop is washable.
>
> Uncle Dick
>
From: zeitgeist blkhatwhtdog@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: polarizing filters on camera in the studio
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002
John Hudson wrote:
>
> After a recent portrait session with young Filipino lady I found that
> the studio lighting slightly over accentuated the sheen on
> her natural light brown tanned skin. A friend of mine has two
> suggestions for me. One, for the lady to have applied a skin coloured
> powder or moisturizing tissue to her face to dull the skin tone, or,
> two, for me to have used a polarizing filter on camera along with a two
> stop exposure correction.
>
Shiny skin is a symptom of a lighting problem. I've found that darker skin
tones merely reveal bad lighting better than lighter skin.
Consider that skin can be almost as reflective as dull finish metal, that
maybe an exaggeration but treating it as such can make you a better photographer.
In the old days one cure was to use a 'dulling' spray on silver ware etc, a
solution not unlike powder.
A polarizing filter will not help any because the shiny areas are specular
highlights.
The other answer was to soften the lights, the early photogs would take
their flood light on a stand and wave it around for the duration of the
long exposure, this was called painting with light. With flash we can
spread the light out in a wide arc, similar to the spanse the flood light was
waved, more importantly, similar to the effect of such nice light
sources as large windows, as twilight, open shade etc.
I recommend that you read the archives of the z-prophoto mailing list at
yahoogroups.com, way back in the first couple months I wrote some
articles about why studio lighting as traditionally used aways looks like
studio lighting, why photogs used this lighting in the past but don't need
to anymore, and what to do about it.
basically you want to spread your key light so it has an arc of 45' to
90' (that's an 1/8th to a 1/4 pie slice) and that's minimum. One
commercial photogs rule was the light source should be twice the size of
the objects. our 'objects' are five to six feet tall, and if doing
families etc, six feet or more wide (though the typical subject seems to
think they look that wide in the images presented.) so that would
suggest a light source 10 to 12 feet.
From: David Grandy dgrandy@accesscable.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: Flash diffuser opinions?
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001
I love the effect of my Sto-fen. I routinely use it with my Vivitar 283
and 35 mm gear for photojournalism, especially when I'm using a 20 mm
lens. The effect seems to be like bare bulb and the wide angle coverage
is amazing.
When I shoot weddings I use a medium format camera and a Metz 45 series
flash. I have a Sto-fen for my Metz as well but use it less frequently
since the single downside is that it significantly weakens the flash
output.
If you are looking to use something like the Pocket bounce I might
suggest a trick we used to use at a newspaper. Get some adhesive Velcro
and some corrugated white plastic sheets. Put the "soft" Velcro on the
flash and the "hard" on a piece of the plastic. You can then use the
plastic as a fill card. Since you can pretty much make these cards any
size you'd like you can get something that actually works. Even a
12"x12" card would be very light and should give you a nice fill.
I always find it funny watching a "shooter" use a fill the size of a
playing card. They'd be in a room so big that 2400 watt seconds
wouldn't give you a bounce and there's their little flash aimed up with
that little tiny fill card. Their explanation was that they'd be getting
a softer light from the diffusion effect of the card. Yet all a small
fill card will do is weaken your flash output. The idea of a softer
light requires a larger light source and these small cards remain a
point source.
Anyway I liked the velcro fill cards (in my pre Sto-fen days) just
because there was no cost to the cards which I would be constantly
losing. I'd also put Velcro on the sides of the flash and use the fill
cards to flag the flash if it was off camera. Again, very cheap.
From: zeitgeist blkhatwhtdog@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: High Key Vignetting
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001
> > Can someone please point me to filters, lenses, a tutorial or book that
> will
> > enable me to produce high-key portraits with soft, disappearing edges? I
> > understand how to minimize shadows or blow out the background with my
> > lights.
> >
> >
Lindahl makes a special bellows type attachment for hi key work, it is
just a frame that holds a white vignette and a small slave flash
underneath. The flash is often necessary to ensure that the vignette
gets some exposure in an otherwise darkened camera position in a
studio. Usually you try to avoid light into the lens.
I've shot hi key vignettes with just a milk white plastic vignette, the
'secret' is to get some light ON the vignette so it stays white and
doesn't go gray.
The lindahl frame gives an advantage as it is adjustable to hold the
device at an optimum position which is supposed to be a distance equal
to the focal length of the lens.
This reply is echoed to the z-prophoto mailing list at yahoogroups.com
To join send a blank email to z-prophoto-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
From: rurmonas@senet.com.au
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: [Rollei] Tripod threads was: Hello and Question
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001
> WHY would they use BSW threads on the bottom of a camera, when the standard
> camera tripod mount is 1/4-20?
The question should be "why would they use 1/4-20 when 1/4" BSW is the
standard?"
The standard tripod sizes that I am aware of are:
1/4" BSW
3/8" BSW
5/8" BSW
7/8" BSW (I would like to see what uses a tripod mount this big!)
I am sure there are others, and lets not forget the early metric thread
tripods.
I don't doubt that you are able to use a 1/4-20 bolt in a 1/4" BSW hole, but
that does not make it a 1/4-20 hole. I don't have access to thread profile
information on the American threads, but it seems every standard has a
different thread profile, so I would be surprised if 1/4" BSW and 1/4-20 were
an exact match.
Richard
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
From: "Thomas A. Frank" taf@wiredwizard.com>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Tripod threads was: Hello and Question
> > WHY would they use BSW threads on the bottom of a camera, when the standard
> > camera tripod mount is 1/4-20?
>
>The question should be "why would they use 1/4-20 when 1/4" BSW is the
>standard?"
>
>The standard tripod sizes that I am aware of are:
>
>1/4" BSW
>3/8" BSW
>5/8" BSW
>7/8" BSW (I would like to see what uses a tripod mount this big!)
>
>I am sure there are others, and lets not forget the early metric thread
>tripods.
>
>I don't doubt that you are able to use a 1/4-20 bolt in a 1/4" BSW hole, but
>that does not make it a 1/4-20 hole. I don't have access to thread profile
>information on the American threads, but it seems every standard has a
>different thread profile, so I would be surprised if 1/4" BSW and 1/4-20 were
>an exact match.
Hello All;
I think you will find that 1/4" BSW (British Standard Whitworth) is
close enough to 1/4-20 UNC (Unified National Coarse) to be considered
interchangeable for non-critical applications such as this (if this
were an airplane, I'd think differently). The differences are out in
the third decimal place, being on the order of 0.005" or less.
This interchangeability is fortunate, since BSW is considered
obsolete and is approaching extinction (Britain having gone metric),
while the UNC should be around for a good while longer. Certainly
tooling in UNC is a lot cheaper than BSW.
If anyone really cares, I'll check a couple of my cameras and tripods
to see which one the manufacturer actually used.
Tom Frank
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net>
Subject: [Rollei] BSW versus UNC 1/4" x 20 Tripod Threads
The two sizes are identical: both are exactly 1/4" by 20 turns-per-inch.=
See
http://mdmetric.com/thddata.htm#idx
for one example: any differences are minute, to be polite -- Whitworth
uses a 55=BA thread-pitch, while Unified National uses 60=BA.
True Leica Thread-Mount, incidentally, is 39mm in diameter -- but has a
thread of 26 turns-per-inch Whitworth. I understand this was done as
Whitworth threads were the rule in microscopy until the past twenty years
or so, and Leitz, of course, has always been primarily a microscope compa=
ny.
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001
From: Michael Vanecek mike@mjv.com>
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net, 01A_Photography@yahoogroups.com,
photographic-techniques@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HUG] Jewelry and Lighting
Well, my adventure with jewelry was fairly disasterous, even though
looking at it through the Hassy autobellows at 2x+ was really cool. I
used strobes and wasted a ton of polaroids just in tweaking. Since this
is self-education rather than professional, using that many polaroids is
reducing the cost effectiveness of my education. On researching jewelry
photography in general, I noticed that virtually all the sites I visited
indicated the use of non-strobe lighting from quartz to HMI floodlights.
WYSIWYG photography - I can get into that. I'd like to explore that side
of lighting without losing my wallet, and still use my favorite daylight
reversal film. Many of the kits I've seen are prohibitively expensive.
Is there any way I can get into HMI or similar lighting without going
broke doing it? I'd rather use daylight balanced lighting rather than
using filters, but if filters are the way to go, suggestions are welcome...
Cheers,
Mike
http://dotfile.net/ - Dedicated to Open Source Software
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001
From: Michael Vanecek mike@mjv.com>
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Jewelry and Lighting
Softboxes and snoots and reflectors and scrims - the usual studio setup.
Works great for regular shots, but the jewelry is much more challenging.
Catching the highlights just right and getting the extra sparkle from
the gemstones... I think my primary problem is the fact that I have to
use polaroids to see the final outcome which is getting expensive -
using something in the floodlight catagory would allow me to use less
polaroids mainly because you get what you see, more or less. Strobes are
superior, but floods are easier... I may even experiment with the Fuji
64T film too if daylight floods prove to be too expensive. This is
primarily proof-of-concept for me so I don't want to dive in with both
feet just yet.
Cheers,
Mike
Daniel K. Lee wrote:
> What kind of lighting (exact) did you use? I use strobes all the time and
> have had great success - what are is uR subject?
>
> Michael Vanecek at mike@mjv.com wrote:
>
>
>>Well, my adventure with jewelry was fairly disasterous, even though
>>looking at it through the Hassy autobellows at 2x+ was really cool. I
>>used strobes and wasted a ton of polaroids just in tweaking. Since this
>>is self-education rather than professional, using that many polaroids is
>>reducing the cost effectiveness of my education. On researching jewelry
>>photography in general, I noticed that virtually all the sites I visited
>>indicated the use of non-strobe lighting from quartz to HMI floodlights.
>>WYSIWYG photography - I can get into that. I'd like to explore that side
>>of lighting without losing my wallet, and still use my favorite daylight
>>reversal film. Many of the kits I've seen are prohibitively expensive.
>>Is there any way I can get into HMI or similar lighting without going
>>broke doing it? I'd rather use daylight balanced lighting rather than
>>using filters, but if filters are the way to go, suggestions are welcome...
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Mike
-http://dotfile.net/ - Dedicated to Open Source Software
From: "Joe Codispoti" joecodi@charter.net>
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net>
Subject: Re: [HUG] Jewelry and Lighting
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001
> Well, my adventure with jewelry was fairly disastrous (snip)
> Mike
As in product photography, each item calls for different lighting
techniques, and jewelry is definitely a specialized field.
Small jewelry such as precious stones is best photographed with fiber optic
lighting. Each facet of the item is lighted individually in a multi-exposure
sequence. The angle and intensity of the light determining the pattern and
degree of specular and normal highlights.
By using such lighting, it is possible to visualize and verify the desired
result.
I have seen this done with bellows or with microscope.
Other types of jewelry are best treated to tent lighting where the item is
placed within a white cloth, paper, or plastic enclosure and lighted from
the outside. The resulting light is very even, soft and flat.
I have found that in most cases one single source of light is inadequate to
render jewelry properly.
Joe
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001
From: Mark Rabiner mark@markrabiner.com>
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Jewelry and Lighting
>{Snip}
>
> Other types of jewelry are best treated to tent lighting where the item is
> placed within a white cloth, paper, or plastic enclosure and lighted from
> the outside. The resulting light is very even, soft and flat.
>
> I have found that in most cases one single source of light is inadequate to
> render jewelry properly.
>
> Joe
Balcar makes a matrix like fiber optic setup to put over your strobe
head to attack jewelry from a variety of angles.
Although i can't now find it on their website which kind of funny.
The idea being your light source is roughly the same size as the object
you are photographing.
Mark Rabiner
http://www.markrabiner.com
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net>
From: Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com>
Subject: [HUG] Re: Jewelry and Lighting
you wrote:
>Softboxes and snoots and reflectors and scrims - the usual studio setup.
>Works great for regular shots, but the jewelry is much more challenging.
A great deal of jewelry and flatware, etc is shot with strobes using light
tents. You can see what a pre-built one looks like by entering PLCL in the
search field of our home page and selecting the second item it returns.
Another's at http://www02.bhphotovideo.com/images/items/215903.jpg.
When I was doing this stuff I built one. All you really need is a wire
frame draped with white translucent fabric. A clean bed sheet will do in a
pinch. The light(s) go outside the tent and any hole or seam will let you
shove the lens in.
--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H; Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
From: Patrick Bartek bartek@intermind.net>
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Jewelry and Lighting
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001
Michael Vanecek wrote:
> Well, my adventure with jewelry was fairly disasterous, even though
> looking at it through the Hassy autobellows at 2x+ was really cool. I
> used strobes and wasted a ton of polaroids just in tweaking. Since
> this is self-education rather than professional, using that many
> polaroids is reducing the cost effectiveness of my education. On
> researching jewelry photography in general, I noticed that virtually
> all the sites I visited indicated the use of non-strobe lighting from
> quartz to HMI floodlights. WYSIWYG photography - I can get into that.
> I'd like to explore that side of lighting without losing my wallet,
> and still use my favorite daylight reversal film. Many of the kits
> I've seen are prohibitively expensive. Is there any way I can get
> into HMI or similar lighting without going broke doing it? I'd rather
> use daylight balanced lighting rather than using filters, but if
> filters are the way to go, suggestions are welcome...
The first thing you want to start with is a good bookot two on general
product photography. Check the library and the book stores.
For jewelry, watches, highly reflective objects, etc., the basic
lighting technique is the translucent "tent." The objects go on the
inside, the lights on the outside with the camera looking through a
hole. The tent can be either a full one: no openings except for the
lens of the camera; or a partial, where there are gaps that accent the
objects being photographed. Additionally, small white, grey, silver or
gold reflectors can be placed inside the tent to fill and/or accent the
subject(s).
Most times, only a single light, usually placed at 10 or 2 o'clock, if
the camera is at 6, is needed along with a few small reflectors. For a
larger set or bigger items, like chrome pots and pans or silver tea
service, you might need another light or two. Depends on the size of
the set.
I once did a watch catalogue using two matched sets and two cameras (to
reduce production time): full tents, approximately 1 meter square.
Most setups had 4 to 10 watches at a time, and I lit each set with only
one light, plus reflectors. However, another time I did a large set
for a triple panel brochure -- 11" x 24" production size -- of brass
desk and business accessories. The set, a partial tent, was 1.5 x 2.5
meters. I used 3 lights -- one each, camera left and right, and one
above, plus a large (1 x 2 meter) reflector at set level at the camera
position, which was on a tall stand 8' high shooting almost directly
down.
If you're into product photography, the best advice I can give you is
to read, read, read. Also, look through catalogues and try to figure
out how the photographs were lit. Try to reproduce the setups you like.
You can light with either strobes, tungsten or HMI, but it's cheaper to
start with tungsten photofloods and a couple of 10 or 12 inch
relectors: easier to see the results; no Polaroids needed. With a
little practice, you can move up to strobes. They make the set a lot
cooler to work in than hot lights.
--
Patrick Bartek
NoLife Polymath Group
bartek@intermind.net
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001
From: Michael Vanecek mike@mjv.com>
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Jewelry and Lighting
Well, I'm working backwards - all my experience is with strobes. Now I'm
moving to hotlights - at least for jewelry. Jewelry photography is so
different than regular product photography that it threw me for a loop.
There's a difference in shooting large shiny metalic surfaces and trying
to capture the sparkle of diamonds or the glow of ruby or similar gems.
I can get the overall lighting down just perfect - rather than a tent I
used an overhead softbox very close to the subject (just out of the
frame) and used mylar and white reflectors to create highlights in the
metal parts as well as black strips of paper to enhance the chrome look.
On the pearls I set the necklace on a translucent surface and
illuminated from under via softbox placed right under the bottom and
reflected fill from above. Really brings out the translucent nature of
pearls. But making the gem stones glow and sparkle is an art unto
itself. I used up all my polaroids trying to get that with strobes
before noticing that with the flashlight I used to help focus at high
extension I could create sparkles on the whim. Being able to see it that
way before I shoot is what I want currently. Hence the desire to explore
continuous lighting. When I'm experienced in gemstone photography I'll
hit the strobes again with it. Strobes are inherently superior in the
color control and cooler operating temps.
What I've gathered from further research is I need a large fill light to
provide overall even illumination as per the set requirements - perhaps
a pair of floodlights aimed up a a white reflector over the set - and a
few little tightly focused spotlights to angle in on the facets to give
me that sparkle. That's assuming I'm going for the graduated background
with a shadow-box. Or I could tent the set for high-key and shine the
keylights through the tent to get sparkle... It would seem that for
every photographer, there's a different way of doing it depending one
the desired outcome - highkey, lowkey, contrasty, non-contrasty, etc...
Believe me, I've done my share of reading. I've a complete library
dedicated to photography. But sometimes you've got to put the book down
and shoot and make your mistakes and learn from practical application
using the basics from the books as a foundation. From my experience with
the past jewelry shoot - reading about it and doing it are completely
different things. I'm just hoping to save on polaroids in the learning
process.
Cheers,
Mike
Patrick Bartek wrote:
> Michael Vanecek wrote:
>
>
>>Well, my adventure with jewelry was fairly disasterous, even though
>>looking at it through the Hassy autobellows at 2x+ was really cool. I
>>used strobes and wasted a ton of polaroids just in tweaking. Since
>>this is self-education rather than professional, using that many
>>polaroids is reducing the cost effectiveness of my education. On
>>researching jewelry photography in general, I noticed that virtually
>>all the sites I visited indicated the use of non-strobe lighting from
>>quartz to HMI floodlights. WYSIWYG photography - I can get into that.
>>I'd like to explore that side of lighting without losing my wallet,
>>and still use my favorite daylight reversal film. Many of the kits
>>I've seen are prohibitively expensive. Is there any way I can get
>>into HMI or similar lighting without going broke doing it? I'd rather
>>use daylight balanced lighting rather than using filters, but if
>>filters are the way to go, suggestions are welcome...
>>
>
> The first thing you want to start with is a good bookot two on general
> product photography. Check the library and the book stores.
>
> For jewelry, watches, highly reflective objects, etc., the basic
> lighting technique is the translucent "tent." The objects go on the
> inside, the lights on the outside with the camera looking through a
> hole. The tent can be either a full one: no openings except for the
> lens of the camera; or a partial, where there are gaps that accent the
> objects being photographed. Additionally, small white, grey, silver or
> gold reflectors can be placed inside the tent to fill and/or accent the
> subject(s).
>
> Most times, only a single light, usually placed at 10 or 2 o'clock, if
> the camera is at 6, is needed along with a few small reflectors. For a
> larger set or bigger items, like chrome pots and pans or silver tea
> service, you might need another light or two. Depends on the size of
> the set.
>
> I once did a watch catalogue using two matched sets and two cameras (to
> reduce production time): full tents, approximately 1 meter square.
> Most setups had 4 to 10 watches at a time, and I lit each set with only
> one light, plus reflectors. However, another time I did a large set
> for a triple panel brochure -- 11" x 24" production size -- of brass
> desk and business accessories. The set, a partial tent, was 1.5 x 2.5
> meters. I used 3 lights -- one each, camera left and right, and one
> above, plus a large (1 x 2 meter) reflector at set level at the camera
> position, which was on a tall stand 8' high shooting almost directly
> down.
>
> If you're into product photography, the best advice I can give you is
> to read, read, read. Also, look through catalogues and try to figure
> out how the photographs were lit. Try to reproduce the setups you like.
>
> You can light with either strobes, tungsten or HMI, but it's cheaper to
> start with tungsten photofloods and a couple of 10 or 12 inch
> relectors: easier to see the results; no Polaroids needed. With a
> little practice, you can move up to strobes. They make the set a lot
> cooler to work in than hot lights.
>
--
http://dotfile.net/ - Dedicated to Open Source Software
From: Patrick Bartek bartek@intermind.net>
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Jewelry and Lighting
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001
Michael Vanecek wrote:
> Well, I'm working backwards - all my experience is with strobes. Now
> I'm moving to hotlights - at least for jewelry. Jewelry photography
> is so different than regular product photography that it threw me for
> a loop. There's a difference in shooting large shiny metalic surfaces
> and trying to capture the sparkle of diamonds or the glow of ruby or
> similar gems. I can get the overall lighting down just perfect -
> rather than a tent I used an overhead softbox very close to the
> subject (just out of the frame) and used mylar and white reflectors
> to create highlights in the metal parts as well as black strips of
> paper to enhance the chrome look. On the pearls I set the necklace on
Essentially, you've built a tent, but I've found that many times having
a lightbox directly overhead at a small angle to the lens-subject axis
creates distracting reflections of the lightbox light surface itself
that when reflected in dark surfaces like gemstones can be a very
uneven, star pattern of the strobe tube itself.
I prefer to have only the reflections of the light source(s) inside the
tent reflect off the items. The exception being specular highlights
used as accents. This is usually accomplished using small, very
directed light sources INSIDE the tent.
> a translucent surface and illuminated from under via softbox placed
> right under the bottom and reflected fill from above. Really brings
> out the translucent nature of pearls. But making the gem stones glow
> and sparkle is an art unto itself. I used up all my polaroids trying
Another technique to create "glow" in translucent objects is a black or
dark surface -- velvet, shiny contact paper, etc. -- on your
translucent, lit-from-below surface, but with small holes cut in the
black covering under each stone or pearl, the holes hidden by the item
itself.
> to get that with strobes before noticing that with the flashlight I
> used to help focus at high extension I could create sparkles on the
> whim. Being able to see it that way before I shoot is what I want
> currently. Hence the desire to explore continuous lighting. When I'm
> experienced in gemstone photography I'll hit the strobes again with
> it. Strobes are inherently superior in the color control and cooler
> operating temps.
To better see what the lighting is going to look like, turn off all the
lights in the studio, so the strobe's modeling lights are more easily
seen in the camera finder. This will save you lots of Polaroids.
> What I've gathered from further research is I need a large fill light
> to provide overall even illumination as per the set requirements -
> perhaps a pair of floodlights aimed up a a white reflector over the
> set - and a few little tightly focused spotlights to angle in on the
> facets to give me that sparkle. That's assuming I'm going for the
> graduated background with a shadow-box. Or I could tent the set for
> high-key and shine the keylights through the tent to get sparkle...
Both techniques will work. Basically with rings and such, doing one or
two at a time, you're really doing macro work. Consider very small
tents and sets, i.e. a 1 foot cube of translucent material. You can
buy these small object tents ready made with several access ports (with
translucent covers) for the lens.
> It would seem that for every photographer, there's a different way of
> doing it depending one the desired outcome - highkey, lowkey,
> contrasty, non-contrasty, etc... Believe me, I've done my share of
> reading. I've a complete library dedicated to photography. But
> sometimes you've got to put the book down and shoot and make your
> mistakes and learn from practical application using the basics from
> the books as a foundation. From my experience with the past jewelry
> shoot - reading about it and doing it are completely different
> things. I'm just hoping to save on polaroids in the learning process.
There comes a point the learning process when "the theory" must be
applied. You can't really learn without "doing." And failing, a lot,
I might add.
> Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > On Monday 10 December 2001 09:45, Michael Vanecek wrote:
> >>Well, my adventure with jewelry was fairly disasterous, even though
> >>looking at it through the Hassy autobellows at 2x+ was really cool.
> >> I used strobes and wasted a ton of polaroids just in tweaking.
> >> Since this is self-education rather than professional, using that
> >> many polaroids is reducing the cost effectiveness of my education.
> >> On researching jewelry photography in general, I noticed that
> >> virtually all the sites I visited indicated the use of non-strobe
> >> lighting from quartz to HMI floodlights. WYSIWYG photography - I
> >> can get into that. I'd like to explore that side of lighting
> >> without losing my wallet, and still use my favorite daylight
> >> reversal film. Many of the kits I've seen are prohibitively
> >> expensive. Is there any way I can get into HMI or similar lighting
> >> without going broke doing it? I'd rather use daylight balanced
> >> lighting rather than using filters, but if filters are the way to
> >> go, suggestions are welcome...
> >
> > The first thing you want to start with is a good bookot two on
> > general product photography. Check the library and the book
> > stores.
> >
> > For jewelry, watches, highly reflective objects, etc., the basic
> > lighting technique is the translucent "tent." The objects go on
> > the inside, the lights on the outside with the camera looking
> > through a hole. The tent can be either a full one: no openings
> > except for the lens of the camera; or a partial, where there are
> > gaps that accent the objects being photographed. Additionally,
> > small white, grey, silver or gold reflectors can be placed inside
> > the tent to fill and/or accent the subject(s).
> >
> > Most times, only a single light, usually placed at 10 or 2 o'clock,
> > if the camera is at 6, is needed along with a few small reflectors.
> > For a larger set or bigger items, like chrome pots and pans or
> > silver tea service, you might need another light or two. Depends
> > on the size of the set.
> >
> > I once did a watch catalogue using two matched sets and two cameras
> > (to reduce production time): full tents, approximately 1 meter
> > square. Most setups had 4 to 10 watches at a time, and I lit each
> > set with only one light, plus reflectors. However, another time I
> > did a large set for a triple panel brochure -- 11" x 24" production
> > size -- of brass desk and business accessories. The set, a partial
> > tent, was 1.5 x 2.5 meters. I used 3 lights -- one each, camera
> > left and right, and one above, plus a large (1 x 2 meter) reflector
> > at set level at the camera position, which was on a tall stand 8'
> > high shooting almost directly down.
> >
> > If you're into product photography, the best advice I can give you
> > is to read, read, read. Also, look through catalogues and try to
> > figure out how the photographs were lit. Try to reproduce the
> > setups you like.
> >
> > You can light with either strobes, tungsten or HMI, but it's
> > cheaper to start with tungsten photofloods and a couple of 10 or 12
> > inch relectors: easier to see the results; no Polaroids needed.
> > With a little practice, you can move up to strobes. They make the
> > set a lot cooler to work in than hot lights.
--
Patrick Bartek
NoLife Polymath Group
bartek@intermind.net
From: "Michael Shorts" mshorts@cisco.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Photography Studio
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002
The absolute best advice that I've gotten for setting up a studio on a
budget was Dean Collins book on how to make lighting stands, diffusers, etc.
from PVC pipe (http://www.deancollins.com/tt.html). I would, however,
recommend working with 1" PVC instead of the 3/4" he recommends.
You can get good results with Vivitar 283/285 flashes, which are relatively
inexpensive.
Michael
"Mexx" Mexx@ablenet.com> wrote...
> Hi Tricia,
>
> I really wish you could get a straight answer from some of these people.
I
> suspect they don't know either.
>
> But I will speculate, since I'm interested in the same thing....please note
> however, I am not yet a working photog.
>
> A minimal professional setup might require:
> -A good camera (medium format preferable, of course, for max. flexibility)
> with a couple of good lenses
> -a couple of decent lights + assoc. equipment (stands, softboxes, etc.)
> -backdrops, props (if deemed necessary)
> -a good computer (if doing digital work), with a great printer (if printing
> in-house, or good contacts with a decent print house if outsourcing). The
> computer would also be used for bookkeeping, etc.
> -most important, a space to do it (this will end up being the most expensive
> part I think, since it's usually an ongoing fixed cost)
> -knowledge of your local taxes and business regs (esp. if working from home)
>
> Anyone care to add/correct me on some of this?
>
> Thx
> Darren
>
> "Tricia Moran" TMoranjwc@hotmail.com> wrote...
> > I am a first year student studying Photography and Digital Imaging, I
> > would like people to offer me their advice on creating a photography
> > studio,ie- all the items I will require and how much it will cost.
> > Everyones help and advice will be much appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks Folks.....
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Photography Studio
From: "Tom Thackrey" tomnr@creative-light.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002
"Mexx" Mexx@ablenet.com> wrote:
snip
> Anyone care to add/correct me on some of this?
>
>
> "Tricia Moran" TMoranjwc@hotmail.com> wrote...
> > I am a first year student studying Photography and Digital Imaging, I
> > would like people to offer me their advice on creating a photography
> > studio,ie- all the items I will require and how much it will cost.
> > Everyones help and advice will be much appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks Folks.....
I think one of the reasons you haven't been getting very 'helpful' responses
is that your question is very broad. I have a friend who's studio is an old
garage, he shoots with an old 8x10 that someone gave him, his light is from
a skylight. On the other hand, I know a photographer who has a 3000 sq ft
studio with a 30 ft ceiling, he shoots with a Hasselblad and a Sinar-P (only
4x5), he has a kitchen (for food shots) and a 30 foot light box for shooting
cars. He's thinking about going digital.
You might look into rental studios, most cities have them.
The first thing to determine is what you are going to shoot in your studio.
People? Cars? Tabletop? Food? And, for what purpose. Advertising? Catalogs?
Portrait studio?
>From that you need to analyze your market and determine what the market
requires in terms of output. Many types of studio work are going digital. A
lot of high end advertising is still done with large format transparencies.
Assuming you want to shoot portraits on film-
Camera - almost any camera with manual controls and a pc socket will do.
Medium format is the standard. You can get good used MF cameras (Mamiya C220
for example) in the $100-200 US range. A new Hasselblad, Contax, Mamiya
setup will start at about $4,000 with lenses running about $2,000 each.
Meter - you will need a flash meter, a good one will be $300-500
Lights - you will need 2, 3 is better with stands and reflectors, I think a
soft box is necessary for portrait work. A cheap setup will be about $2,500.
You want strobes not hot lights.
Camera stand - you can probably get by with a tripod ($300 with head), a
studio stand would be better.
Backdrops - you can probably get buy with a home made stand, rolls of
seamless run around $50-100 each, pained cloth backdrops are more.
Sand bags - One per light stand, more depending on the configuration of your
studio.
Posing seat - A kitchen stool will do.
Makeup - you will need face powder (I can't remember what it's called off
hand, but it kills the reflections) and a brush. Hair spray, bobbie pins
Filters - if you shoot negative film you can probably get by without color
correction filters. A soft focus filter is useful.
Misc stuff: pc cords, cable release, power extension cords, duct tape,
clothes pins, spring clamps
Film storage - most pro color film wants to be kept cold so you will need a
refridgerator
The studio itself needs to have level floors and high ceilings. Outside
light should be mostly blocked out. It should be clean and dust free. A
bathroom is useful.
--
Tom Thackrey
tom at creative-light.com
www.creative-light.com
From: ladagency@aol.com (Ladagency)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 25 Jan 2002
Subject: Re: Photography Studio
1: Determine what kind of photography you are doing. Make a list of what you
need.
2: Buy Used/Used/Used - may take time to find the good deals.
3: Medium format with great lenses means a used, older Hassy with three lenses
- a 65mm, an 80mm, and the 150mm. I use another brand, but do recommend the
Hassy system and 6x6 (I use 6x7).
4: Keep your eye out for a Novatron 4 head power pack with switchable heads
(off, -1, -2). plus Umbrellas, snoot, honeycomb, barndoors.
5: Tiffen Soft FX filters or make your own filters with fine mesh cloth.
6: Tripod, . . . invest in a good one, Sanford is the lightest and fastest to
use.
7: Blow some bucks on a Master Canvas flat background and a
matching/complimentary muslin, . . . cubes and a posing stand can be found
cheaply enough. I found my stool for $30 and painted it white, . . .
Hassy is a huge system camera so close-up, superwide, and other parts are
available to buy used or as rentals, . . . but others will argue you will be
paying a premium. If chromatic aberation and minor flaws are not critical, the
Bronica SQA is a good choice. There are great buys in the S2 line, but the
rigors of pro use relegate those cameras to serious amateurs.
From nikon mf mailing list:
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001
From: "Ron Barlow" rbarlow@gru.net
Subject: Re: Cheap ball head
Ashok,
An inexpensive product is the Canon Professional Ballhead 1 for only $60.
See good reviews at photo.net in the "Tripods and Tripod Heads" section.
It's solid and will work great. Save your money for a better tripod.
Ron Barlow
-----Original Message-----
From: k_ashok_k@yahoo.com k_ashok_k@yahoo.com>
To: NikonMF@yahoogroups.com NikonMF@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Friday, November 02, 2001
Subject: [NikonMF] Cheap ball head
>Greetings
>
>I am looking for a good ball head. My heaviest set up (which includes
>a camera (F2As), 70-300 F4.0 Nikkor ED zoom (or a 105mm Micro Nikkor)
>and a tele extender will be less than 1.5 kgs or 3.5 lbs). Tripod
>legs are Bogen 3001 Pro.
>
>I also have a Bogen 3055 dual action heavy-duty ball head but I am
>very dissatisfied with the same. When the lens is pointing down there
>is creep (slight movement) after tightening the ball and because of
>this it is very difficult to precisely frame the subject especially
>when doing macro work. Due to this I am looking for an alternate ball
>head that fits on my Bogen 3001's 3/8" stud. My budget is $100. I did
>some survey on the B&H; site and finally found three ball heads that
>fit my budget. These are
>
>Linhof Pro 1: Load capacity 7.7 lbs, no quick release, no tension
>control, cost $94
>Slik Pro 800: Load capacity 7 lbs, quick release, tension control,
>cost $90
>Giotto MH 1001 Medium Ball: Load capacity 17.6 Lbs, no quick release,
>tension control, $90
>
>As you can see all the three support my camera lens combination (in
>terms of weight) so this is not a problem. Quick release is important
>but I can always add a Hama quick coupler if it is not there. I am
>not so sure about tension control. Is this essential? Also can I get
>the same affect by tightening the ball slightly?
>
>I would be grateful if list members can share their personal
>experiences regarding these ball heads or recommend any other ball
>head that costs less than $100.
>
>I am leaning towards Linhof, as it is a very reputable brand, but
>willing to consider others. The main criterion is that there should
>be no creep after tightening the ball at any orientation of the
>camera and lens.
>
>Also in which country is Giotto made.
>
>Thanks in advance for all your answers.
>
>Regards
>
>Ashok
From nikon mf mailing list:
Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2001
From: "Mike McIsaac" mike_mcisaac@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: cheap balhead
> I don't know what cheap> is to you, but take a look at
> http://acratech.net/prod01.htm. One of our guys bought one for himself and
> brought it in last week and it's a gem.
>
> --
> regards,
> Henry Posner
> Director of Sales and Training
> B&H; Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com
Hello Henry:
That is good news. I have one on order. I spoke with Scott at
Acratech (he designed the ball head) and he uses Nikon equipment.
Stated that he wanted a minimalist ballhead that was lightweight,
strong, and easy to clean. I haven't received mine yet but after
reviewing the website and speaking with Scott, I had an intuitive
sense that this is something that will work and work well.
BTW, Scott stated that it costs more to machine the ballhead than
what he is charging at his introductory rate. If any of you don't
want to pay the high prices of the "other" brands, now is a good time
to order. Scott told me that the order volume is such that they are
currently running two weeks from order to delivery. These are
catching on.
Stay focused!
Mike McIsaac