jmublueduck aim

I have a Chimera "super shallow plus" (or something like that) 54x72" box on a 800w/

s head... it's more than enough power... and creates BEAUTIFUL soft light.<br /><br

/>

<img src="http://www.face5.net/photos/sv/images/5401.jpg" />

<br /><br />

Additionally, Ron Kramer of <a href="http://www.houseofphotography.com"

target="_blank">houseofphotography.com</a> uses

a 4x6' box on a similar size head. He has a lot of great examples on his site

(basically anything *not* shot under natural light).<br /><br />HTH.

try this: 6 foot diameter bounce umbrella with a diffuser about 4 feet from the model

above and directly in front.

the photog's name is Stephen Eastwood. Do a search on the dpreview.com forums or

dphoto.us (a lot of his stuff is there) & you'll find some of his posts re: technique. His

true homepage is nyphotographics.com - maybe drop him an email & he'll give ya

some pointers.

well from your descriptions, you spend WAY too much time in PS. There are several

things that could help you.... including John's suggestion to figure out a style to

reference.

technically though, diffuse (soften) the light more. While not completely ideal, a

cheap & workable solution is a white bedsheet hung a couple feet in front of the light.

Also, put more distance between the subject & the background. This will help throw

it out of focus, eliminating wrinkles & stuff like that that could distract from the

subject. Also, this will allow you to reposition the light to avoid excess spill onto the

background itself.

1.6x sensor, no... Canon won't go to a smaller sensor than the 1D. A new zoom, I

doubt it (maybe an IS update to the 70-200/4.. but that's just my wish). Canon

discontinued 3 primes this year: 200/1.8, 85/1.2, 50/1.0 -- all their super fast glass.

Could they be replacing them? I doubt it as high-iso sensors are doing quite well &

this much glass is VERY expensive to make... but who knows. I don't care. A

decently priced FF body would make my happy, but as of right now I'm still thrilled w/

my stinky D60's photos. ;)

ditto Steve: thanks for the replies.

peace.

- anyone have direct experience w/ the Sigma 24-70/2.8 wide open?<br>

- how about experience w/ both the Sigma & Canon's version?<br>

- is it worth the add'l cost to just spring for the Canon?<p>

examples would be excellent if you have any :)<p>

thanks,<br>

~ scott

Check out garageglamour.com. Also, pornosig... crap, I mean photosig.com has a

seperate category for glamour as well.

what's an arm & a leg?

the EF 300/4 is excellent, a zoom to consider is the EF 100-400 IS, & Sigma makes a

great 120-300mm.

give us your price range ;)

TFP = time for prints

LOL = laughing out loud

manual mode, f/8, 1/60s, bracket the flash exposure compensation (likely it'll be

best to dial in -1/3). Your 10D is a smart camera. You could get a decent result on P

mode if lighting is good enough to stop the aperture down.

otherwise, I'd ditch the flash. Pay more attention to where the shadows are; eliminate

any areas of deep shadow by moving the subjects around, or get something to reflect

some light onto them to provide some soft, natural fill. Direct flash can be harsh.

Foamcore is cheap, but so is tin foil or sunshades for cars. Set it off to the side, say

@ 45 degrees & reflecting up if sunlight permits.

otherwise, an overcast day is perfect for soft outdoor lighting. Just meter off their

faces.

focus on the mother's eyes, but if you have enough depth of field (f/8 is plenty), this

shouldn't be a big deal.

remember the rule of digital: expose for the highlights. You can extract shadow

detail later.

good luck!

look into Kenko's Teleplus Pro 300 TCs. 1.4x is $170 & I've only heard good things

about it. Plus, it WILL work with almost every EF lens.

never used it, but my assumption would be that it'll create a very flat portrait. If

you're that close, get next to a wall & bounce some light.

don't forget you can get very usable images w/ the iso cranked WAY up on the 10D.

at such a short focal length, you should be able to get by pretty easily considering

that... 2.8 should be okay to work with. depends on your wallet though ;)

but I hear you; I got rid of all my zooms except for the 16-35/2.8 & stuck w/ fast

primes.

OH - one more question... do any of these bodies support a remote shutter release

cable? I know the 1n does, but how about the suggested 630 or 10s?

thanks again.

answered my on question... digging around the web for IR info, I found this page,

which has to be about the longest page I've seen in a long time... used links @ the

very bottom... scroll 90% down:

<a href="http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mainpage.htm">http://

www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mainpage.htm</a>

thanks for the responses guys... this is just what I needed. yakim - great link,

thanks.

besides KEH & ebay, where are other good places to look for used bodies? I guess

the classifieds here... anyone know of other options too?

Miro emailed me off this board... thought I'd mention this here too, that these "deals"

are ONLY worth pursuing if you can convince the seller to use something SECURE like

<a href="http://www.escrow.com">www.escrow.com</a><p>

99% of the time they won't agree & will want a wire transfer or money order. Then

you're screwed.

I feel dumb asking this, but is a Rebel Ti + a 16-35/2.8L a stupid combination? I

happily shoot a D60 most of the time, but I'm itching to occasionally go wider than

the sensor size permits, & refuse to spend $7-8k for a 1Ds. I'd use it for B&W work,

& maybe some infrared.

I had an Elan 7e a while ago, but sold it to offset the D60 cost. I know that body

didn't support infrared film... not sure about other current models. Anyone know? I

don't need anything fancy... just a body w/ fully manual controls that can support a

heavier-than-consumer EF mount zoom. Infrared film compatibility would be nice.

thanks...

believe it or not, I'd recommend WIDE for some interesting street photos. Look into

the Tamron 19-35mm. 35mm is a good range to work with, and being able to go

wider is a real boon. That lens is around $200.

Alex - yup, I do the same w/ my 16-35/2.8. It's my only zoom, accompanied by an

8mm (yes, eight) f/4.0, 50mm f/1.8, & 100mm f/2.0. No regrets going this route,

except it bugs me a little that the filter for my 16-35 cost more than my 50mm, but

oh well ;)