ruben leal

<p>Robert, I guess you have two more options. The Sunpak 622 has a lot of power if you want to manually control the flash power, but Pocketwizard just anounced a couple of devices you could use if you want to control your E-TTL flashes and Alien Bees strobes from your camera: AC3 is a 3 zone controller that replaces the master flash unit over the camera, and the AC9 is an adapter to control the AB strobes (both of these require either the MiniTT1 and/or the FlexTT5). I believe these aren't commercially available yet tough.</p>

<p>Why don't you trade your 17-40 f/4 for a 16-35 f/2.8 and use it on your 50D when you need the middle focal range? That way you go to B&H to spend a grand on a new L glass without really spending that much to forget your girlfriend. You will fill the empty gap, will have 2.8 all over the range, and will gain an extra mm at the wide end...</p>

<p>Hey Nathan, what's the rationale behind using f/11 for this shoot?<br>

I believe you can fit 10 persons in some 15 feet, creating a group consisting of 4 rows of 10 people each. You need 20 feet to fill the angle of view of a 50mm lens with a group that wide (<a href="http://www.photo.net/learn/making-photographs/focal-length">http://www.photo.net/learn/making-photographs/focal-length</a>). Depending on whats used to rise the people on the back, you may need 8 or 10 feet of depth of field.<br>

If David focuses carefully, he could use a 50mm lens with an aperture of f/5.6 (<a href="http://dofmaster.com/dofjs.html">http://dofmaster.com/dofjs.html</a>). I'm not that a whishfull thinker and would protect the DOF, but there is plenty of room to play before getting into f/11: If the group is a little bit wider, the OP will need a little bit more distance to get the shoot, let's say he goes to 30 feet (that way he can crop later if the group is not that large), and let's say he uses f/8 to err on the safe side of depth of field, by then he will have more than 50 ft of depth of field!<br>

I'm not saying it wouldn't be great to go to f/11 or f/16, but you don't have to use those apertures to get a group of this size, specially if you are compromising between motion blur and depth of field.<br>

And David, about the tripod, that's a must for this type of photos. You will be dealing with posing the group, and you may be in the limits of subject motion blur, you don't want to add camera motion and composition errors caused by a hand held camera.</p>

<p>I would try to test the lighting before the actual photo day. I've done theater photography, and some smaller stages call for 1/15s f/1.4 ISO 1600. You also need to check the light pattern, if they are only using the overhead lights you will get racoon eyes, so you will need some fill light, but they may be using some elipsoidal or fresnels from the front or sides, and then you may need some separation lights, it all depend on the theater and the lighting people, and they may be able to help you, but you need to plan ahead with them.<br>

You also need to consider the light color. Theater lights are tungsten, sometimes below 3000K, so your flash will be a lot bluer than the available light, and you should gel it to match the color, but then you may end with quite a weak light source from a hotshoe flash.<br>

This kind of portraits calls for a normal to short tele field of view lens, which may be from 30mm to 80mm depending on your camera format (30mm in DX, 50mm in FX for normal, or 50mm in DX, 80mm in FX for tele). You may have 3 to 6 rows, and the camera height should be around that of the second to last row. With all this you need to pick a place in the house, choose a focal lenght, and calculate the depth of field needed to get the photo. You may get some help from www.dofmaster.com to calculate you aperture.<br>

Once you know your aperture, the level of available light, and also based on the size of the print, you will know if you need additional light to keep the ISO in the levels you want to use. A couple of Alien Bees AB800 should be more than enough to get a good level of light for that group.<br>

If you use the additional lights, remember to check for the shadows, to avoid leaving people in the back rows in the shadows from the people in the front. Some photogs rather space the lights to get an even lighting, while others rather have them over the camera to avoid shadows.</p>

<p>Maybe the slave was too close to the subject, so close that it is too powerfull even at min power. Is it posible that the flash was moved closer to your subject?<br>

The other option is that the slave flash was changed into the C group, but you should noted if that happened.</p>

<p>It's a good idea to use a slave flash when there is somke (fog). Be ready to use the slave as your main light to avoid reflections from the smoke. Bounce your in-camera flash, either to the ceiling or a wall, that may help (compare that to fog lights for cars: Those are indirect lights).<br>

Also, depending on the quantity of smoke in the room, you may have focusing issues, so you should be ready to use manual focusing. If you use the near-infrared aid from a flash to autofocus, remember that the pattern will be projected onto the nearest surface (the smoke in this case), giving you an out of focus main subject.<br>

Try to test before hand. Some lighting guys forget the the couple is the main subject, not the lighting, and they put as much smoke as posible to enhance the ligthing effects.<br>

Good luck!</p>

<p>Sometimes we just use terms like APS, DX, crop sensor, etc, and we don't explain what's all that about. Well, these are smaller formats than the conventional 35mm format, and the effect of that in photography is that the field of view of a lens will change if we use it in a camera of a different format. For example, a 50mm lens will always be a 50mm lens (which is roughly the distance between the focal point in the lens and the sensor plane, and 50mm are some 2 inches), but it will perform as a telephoto on an APS camera, as a normal lens in a full-frame camera, and as a wide angle in a medium format camera.<br>

Then, to get the look of a 35mm on a full frame, and I guess you are referring to the field of view, then you can get it using a wider lens, such as a 20mm or a 24mm prime, or a zoom in that range (this comes from dividing 35mm by 1.6, which is the conversion factor between the 35mm and APS-C formats, 35mm/1.6 = 21.9mm).<br>

Again, changing your camera will change the angle of view, and you may get the results you are after, but it may be easier to get the exact same results if you just change the lens, actually that's the reason SLR cameras allow us to change lenses anyway, to get the angle of view we want.<br>

I guess you are referring to a shallow depth of field (DOF) when you say your focus is very touchy, and it can be quite touchy! Let's say you want to take a picture of a subject at 3 feet from you, and you open your lens' diafragm to f/1.4, well, with those settings, your DOF, or the distance between the nearest and farest points in focus, is less than 1.5 inches. In that example, if you focus in your subject's eyes, you wont get a perfect focus from nose to ears, so your subject better stand still for you to get a good sharpness in the subject's eyes. Then we have the situation that the sharpness will vary depending of the size of the photo reproduction, so you may see a well focused face in your camera's display, but you will see a different DOF when you do a 8x10" print from the same file.<br>

To learn more about DOF you may visit <a href="http://www.dofmaster.com">www.dofmaster.com</a>, and you may also want to use their on-line DOF calculator to compare the theory to your practice (remember to select an APS-C format camera in the calculator, such as the Canon 50D).<br>

I rather focus in one thing at a time, but before you begin spending money in softboxes, you should know that the effect of the softboxes is from the relative size between the softbox and the subject. The bigger the softbox, the softer the light. Don't expect a 3x2" softbox to soften the shadows in a subject 10 ft away: It will just eat your 580EX's power. You may test this bouncing the light from your flash from different surfaces, from a white 4x6" index card, to a floor-to-ceiling wall, and compare the results. Also remember that softboxes are best used as main lights, but not that effective when used as a fill in direct sunlight (not really a problem with the softbox, but you will need quite a bigger flash than the 580EX to get that much light out of the softbox).</p>

<p>John, I find interesting that you say you like shooting at 35mm, but want to change to a larger sensor. How did you find that you like shooting at 35mm?<br>

So far I'm not sure about what you really want to accomplish, so I believe it's not even clear to you what's the problem you find with your pictures. I liked your photos at Flickr, so I can't tell what's wrong with them. If I were you, for example, I would use a longer lens (50mm or 85mm in a digital Rebel camera) for head & shoulders' portraits, or a macro lens for close-ups, but more a question of personal taste than a problem with your pictures.<br>

The fact that you joined photo.net the same day you posted this thread, together with the way you ask your questions make me believe you are a new amateur photographer. Nothing wrong with that, we all begin at some point, and it's nice that new photographers ask questions which help them to grow as photographers (I know enough old school pros who assume more than they should and get it all wrong at the end). Please correct me if I'm wrong with my assumptions.<br>

It sounds to me like you read an old thread where it was suggested to use a cheap 35mm camera (a Rebel in this case) with the best prime lens you may afford (an L lens in this case). In the film days the camera was just a black box to hold the film in place, and not much more than that for image quality, and the lens, together with the film, gave you the quality and look you were looking for. 35mm, by the way, happened to be the most popular film format, not the most used lens' focal lenght.<br>

In this days of digital photography you need both a good camera and a good lens, but new cheap lenses may be as good as old excelent lenses. Also newer zooms are as good as old primes. So you may give it a try to a zoom lens, say something in the 17-55mm range, and find out what focal lenght you really like, and then, if the image quality is not what you expected, either buy a prime lens for the specific focal lenght you used the most, or invest in a better camera.<br>

If I were starting in photography, I guess I would stay in the same format for a while (that's APS-C for you, which includes all the Rebels and the xxD series, like the 50D) before switching between formats, and add additional lenses to my kit before changing the camera. But if you really want to change to a (35mm) "full-frame" (format) camera, you may want to wait a couple of months and see if the Canon EOS 7D rumor becomes true (supposedly a new 35mm full frame camera body to be sold under $2,000).<br>

Regarding the issue that you don't know how to process film, well, most people just sends the film to a lab. It may be something like dropping the film roll at the local Costco or Walmart, ask for developing and printing, and you are done, or add scanning and you will get a CD with a digital copy of your images for you to process and publish over the internet. Again, that may be just for testing the "full frame" format (you may buy an used Rebel or Elan at ebay or KEH.com for almost nothing, and then resell it after your testing).<br>

Welcome to photo.net!</p>

<p>Mike, is that a 30D or a D30?<br>

The 30D was an 8.2 MP camera released in 2006 (sharing a sensor with the 20D from 2004). The D30, "the first affordable DSLR", was released in 2000, and had a 3.25 MP sensor.<br>

To add some additional confusion, the EOS 10D, the succesor of the D60 that changed the nomenclature from Dxx to xxD, now can be confused with the newer D10, a waterproof P&S. Let's see if Canon reuses the D30 and D60 names when the D10 family grow.</p>

<p>John Deerfield: Actually the original 580 EX also knows if it is APS-C (DX) or 35mm (FX). But the only issue with that is the use of a wider or tighter angle of coverage, which will lead to a longer or shorter reach. But once an angle of coverage is set (in the way of a focal lenght), the flash will generate an specific amount of light, and then knowing the camera sensor format is irrelevant. What I mean is, the only problem you could have when using a 580 EX with a APS-C camera (at least a problem related to the sensor format), could be the waste of light all around the area you were trying to illuminate, which could lead to a lack of reach for further subjects, but the system would know that the power wasn't enough by the time the preflash from the ETTL-II was fired.<br>

Anyway this may become quite technical, and the point is, what really matters is the end result for the user. That's why I want to do an objective ETTL-II vs iTTL test. I'm not trying to demonstrate that Canon or Nikon is superior, I just want to understand how both systems work, as I believe ther must be a logic behind the algorithm from each system, and perhaps the Nikon algorithm is more user friendly.<br>

Let's put it this way: If I were to shot using whatever system available, I would test it before hand, and that testing would be in a very controlled environment, in such a way that it should let me take advantage of it's pros, and take care of it's cons when used in a real scenario, but I can't admit that the only way is to take a new camera, and just go out and take photos of, say, a wedding, and hope the system worked fine without intervention, and then learn from the errors, and try to compensate next time. That just isn't my way, I need to test, and test, and then test again, until I have a degree of knowledge of what's going on. And trust me, that testing is quite simple these days, at least compared to when I used to do all that testing on positive film, spending lots of money and time in the process.<br>

John Bolton: Just to clarify, not every USM lens returns the distance, such as the 50mm f/1.4 and the original 85mm f/1.2L (source: <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/#distancedata">http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/#distancedata</a>).<br>

And now that I am talking about <a href="http://photonotes.org">http://photonotes.org</a>, perhaps that kind of article is the problem of the people who trust their work to the Canon ETTL system: We may be way too technical, and we may search and read lots of information, and then try and try and try, until we believe we understand the system. And that's not natural, that's way too complicated, and, I agree, it took me a while to understand ETTL, so maybe we should just gave up before hand, and let Canon know that their system was too complex, but at least I can't do that, I must master whatever I'm on, and that's how I understand ETTL, so maybe Nikon's iTTL is just the way it should be: Shoot and expect for the best. But at the end we have these discussions because, after years mastering a techinque, we can't tell we had a hard time to figure it out at the very begining, maybe because we don't want to, or maybe because we already forgot that obscure time in our past...</p>

<p>JT, if you are using a 28mm, then you don't have wide angle problems, as that lens is a "normal angle" in that camera.<br>

Are you doing panoramas stitching several images? If that's the case, you should consider a panoramic head, which should allow you to pan at the nodal point of your lens, instead of panning at the center of the camera. A search in Google presented this tutorial: <a href="http://www.panoguide.com/howto/panoramas/panohead.jsp">http://www.panoguide.com/howto/panoramas/panohead.jsp</a><br>

The use of a wide angle lens should prevent you from stitching several images, and this will fix the parallax errors, but then your pictures may suffer from perspective distortion.</p>

<p>Forgot to add something: When buying an older DSLR (like the 20D), be prepared to spend some $250 to replace the shutter.</p>

<p>Ken, while 6MP could be more than enough when considering "<em>digital darkroom skills (40%)</em>", I believe the OP stated he wants an 11x17" print from a JPG straight out of the camera, so maybe ~8MP is the minimum to meet that condition (considering printing @250 DPI).<br>

Michael, I guess you need, at least, a 20D. The viewfinder isn't that of the 1D series or from a full frame, but is better than the viewfinder in the Rebels or any powershot (unless you add an external viewfinder, or use the Live View LCD option). The Rebels feel quite flimsy when compared to a bigger camera, but they won't break as easy as it appears. Actually the G series powershots may feel even better than the Rebels, so that's another option, but you must consider the cons of such cameras, like the shutter lag.<br>

About the G series Powershot, and the use of an external viewfinder, you may want to see the Gary Knight video under the Tips & Advice section at the following page: <a href="http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=2726">http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=2726</a> But remember, the G series sensors are smaller than the sensors in any Canon DSLR, so they won't give a good image when used over ISO 400ish, so those are cameras to use mainly in daylight or in a well lighted scene.<br>

It would be easier to help you if we knew what will be the use for your camera, as that will determine the best body type, viewfinder, weight, pixel (photosite) size, etc.</p>

<p>I also want to add (in a separate message, to avoid mixing it with the test mentioned before), that I believe the Nikon flash can not "<em>circumvent the inverse square law</em>", but it is possible that the OP could find a difference in the final results due to additional in-camera processing, such as the mentioned D-Lighting, which, at the end, may be considered as an integral part of the Nikon Flash System.</p>

<p>I believe reliability is what a photographer expects from a camera system.<br>

A hand held exposimeter will always read the incident light in the same way, and reflected light in the same way, so this gives the photographer the expected reliability.<br>

If I use a handheld exposimeter to measure reflected light from a white surface, I need to compensate before entering the exposure value into the camera. Same thing if I meter from a black surface.<br>

The exposimeter within the camera is a reflective exposimeter, and I expect it to behave just like that, and that's they way the exposimeter in my cameras behave (with some minor changes when the exposure pattern is changed).<br>

A couple years ago I did a quick test with my 20D + 580EX to compare the ETTL-II to the equivalent Nikon Flash Exposure algorithm, but never found a Nikonian to complete the test. This test basically demonstrates that the ETTL-II needs the same compensation needed when measuring with a reflective handheld exposimeter. Perhaps the Nikon's RGB system will find the difference between white, gray and black, and neglect the need of manual compensation, Is that the case? I really would like to know that. Perhaps my test didn't include more elaborated scenarios, like a white target over a black background, or focus point bias, or several targets at different distances, but I will add those if a Nikon user wants to perform the same set of controlled tests to compare the systems.<br>

Real life experience would be much better, but difficult to measure. If the photographer in the only photo in this thread would aim higher, to avoid the heads in the foreground, the exposure could be quite different, so that test doesn't helps to me. If, in the same photo, a Canon flash had a Stofen, we don't know if the Nikon diffusor could make the difference, so this is how we end taking pictures of brick walls, just to have a measurable comparison.<br>

Is a Nikonian interested in the test? Could we open a new thread to let fellow photonetters decide the test rules?<br>

My old test is in Spanish (<a href="http://www.rubenleal.com/ETTL/">http://www.rubenleal.com/ETTL/</a>), but here's an auto translation from Google (I need to translate it to make sure we don't have Google translation errors):<br>

<a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&js=y&u=www.rubenleal.com%2FETTL%2F&sl=es&tl=en">http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&js=y&u=www.rubenleal.com%2FETTL%2F&sl=es&tl=en</a></p>

 

<p>Mario, considering Tudor's post, an option could be (depending on the quality needed... which can't be that much if the final product is going to be video and not a printed photo) to use a Canon Powershot with the CHDK (Canon Hack Development Kit) and get a script to do the time lapse.<br>

With the CHDK you can have a software intervalometer within the camera, kind of an internal TC80N3.<br>

The diference between the Powershot + CHDK and the timelapse video option within the G9 is the control: CHDK will allow you to use a photography setting (including complete manual control with RAW files, even from Powershot cameras that don't offer RAW files right out of the box) instead of the fully automated, low-resolution video option, as well as full intervalometer control, instead of the 1s or 2s options provided by Canon.<br>

I don't know the shutterlife for a Powershot, but you may discard several cameras before reaching the cost of replacing the shutter in a DSLR. This also means you may set the camera in a remote location and not worring about your expensive 1D series camera being stolen.</p>

<p>Ross,<br>

You don't state what kind of photography you want to do with your "multiple flash set up", so, in case you are talking about studio photography, here's another option for you:<br>

Alien Bees is about to release a new remote product called "Cyber Commander", which seems to be similar to the manual option available in the Canon remote system. The newer Alien Bees will have full remote capability, and the master unit will be able to control (that means to change the power settings as well as measure it with the incorporated exposimeter, not only to fire the flashes) up to 16 separate flash units remotelly.<br>

<a href="http://paulcbuff.com/pcb2009/cybercommander.html">http://paulcbuff.com/pcb2009/cybercommander.html</a><br>

Ruben</p>

I speak Spanish.

 

The information in John G's link is almost the same already given by Lindy Stone. Actually I would say that article could by an automated translation, as there is some information not clear even in Spanish, or perhaps it's from a country which uses different words than we do here in Mexico.

Did you edit those images in any form? Perhaps those were vertical images which were turned in the Windows Viewer (I don't have my camera at hand to try it, but most likely the camera won't display a modified image).

 

Ruben

Dan,

 

When using the IS, you must press the shutter button halfway, like when locking the focus, and keep it halfway for a few seconds, you should see when the IS locks the image. My copy of this lens sometimes starts moving the stabilization mechanism, so I start again instead of taking the picture while the lens is moving.

 

Perhaps the IS can't achieve stabilization on the boat, you should test the lens out of the water.

 

 

Ruben

Mr Engel, hope I'm not too late, but perhaps your image isn't out of focus, it may be blurry because of subject motion. If this is the case, you may need additional lighting, which may help to correct the color cast. The problem could be to add the ligthing.

 

Not being an expert in underwater ligthing, I think you could use a large glass bottle as a housing for your ligths, as long as you keep the opening of the bottle out of the water to prevent the water from reaching your lights. Obviously this is DEADLY dangerous, so you must be 100% confident with what you are doing before energizing the lights and before allowing the subject to enter into the pool.

Craig, do you know that for sure? Is my understanding that the (Canon) camera(s) will do a custom WB to whatever is in the center of a picture available (at the time the custom WB is set) in the memory card. This means it doesn't matter if the picture was taken with available light or with a flash, and it also doesn't matter the duration of the flash, as the WB is taken from an image file, not at the time the flash went off.

 

Perhaps the behaivor in other cameras is different, but I know this is the way I do it in my Canon 20D.

 

Answering Yan's question, had you tried with another white subject? Perhaps the paper you are using isn't reflecting the light properly. You may even try a gray subject, as the idea is to have an even reflection of all the colors.

Weiyang,

To instal a Canon software downloaded from their web site, you need to previously instal from an original CD one of the programs they list. That's suposed to be an upgrade site, not a first instalation source.

OTOH, I never use a camera connected to a computer, but I use DPP and frequently update, via a download, to the new versions.

 

Ruben

Thanks for your comments, my wife selected it, so I guess it may be appreciated by the quinceañera's family.

 

Ruben

I usualy discard images were only photographers know how hard is to get them,

and my wife normaly select the images because of the contents, but I'm quite

tempted to include this image, which is plagued of mistakes (it isn't clear

who's the main subject, all the people is looking away from the camera, I had

the speedlight manualy set at 105mm for the previuos shot and forgot to put it

back to auto zoom, the exposure isn't well balanced, etc).

 

What dou you think? May this be a good image for the "quinceañera"?

 

This was taken tonight in a very small town (I guess less than 500

inhabitants) where an uncovered public sports court is used for the local

weddings and "quinceañeras" (15 year's birthdays). The weather was rainy, and

the thunderbolts were so long that I believed I could shoot them... and I did

it! No further processing than converting the RAW file and removing some

sensor's dust spots in Canon's DPP.

 

Thanks for your replays!

Ruben<div></div>