kirk_keyes

Thanks Scott. It looks like you used 30s, f/8, 400 ISO.

 

That is looking really nice.

Matthew - thanks for the link. That's the kind of info I'm looking for.

I have the Konica-Minolta cable release that works in the Sony. It works just fine.

Perhaps "bloom" is not the right term.

 

On shots of around 30 and longer (I tried up to 400 seconds), in addition to an overall noisiness, I get a purple tint eminating from both of the upper corners of the frame fading in tint as you get away from the corners. The purple tint decreased the contrast of the original scene in the corners.

 

I'm not sure what you are seeing on your photo. Do you mean the flare coming off the lights?

Has anyone here tried doing long exposure, night-time photos with their a700?

I've got the a100 and it gets a lot of bloom on the sensor with long (greater

than a few seconds). I'm hoping the a700 is more in line with the Canon 20D or

5D - both of which do pretty well at long expsoures due to their CMOS sensor.

 

Kirk

The digital sync looks linteresting, but at about $300, I'm hoping for something cheaper, more flexible, less dedicated....

 

I figured it must have been a preflash that was triggering the slaves. It's interesting though, that it did work sometimes and not others.

 

So a manual flash loks to be the best answer. And there are the two Sony flashes that will work - the HVL-F36AM and the HVL-F56AM. Will any Minolta or KonicaMinolta flashes work?

 

Or how about an adaptor from the Sony hotshoe to an older flash, like the flash for my X-700 (a 200X flash I think) or even my trusty, yet old, Sunpak 555 potato masher?

Michael -

 

10-4, Come on back, good budy! Your transmission seems to have been cut short...

 

I don't see where there is a manual setting. I did try setting the flasf to -2 stops with the adjustment in the menu and that was erratic as well.

 

Kirk

Hi -

 

I just spent a very frustrating morning trying to sych up my Sony alpha with a

set of monolight flashes. I was shooting in manual mode, my Minolta Flashmeter

VI measured the output of the monolights at f/22. I set the camera to f/22 and

1/60 or so, and popped up the flash on the Sony so that it would trigger the

monolights. It was the wierdest thing - sometimes the camera would take a

beautifully exposed photo, and othertimes, it was way underexposed - totally

black or sometimes a hint of detial in the image.

 

I tried using my hand or a shield to deflect the on-camera flash to block it

from the subject, and the monolights would trigger on the Sony's flash, but the

images were near black. But then sometimes, for no reason, they wold be right

on again.

 

I had the SOny flash set to "Fill" for most of the testing, sometimes it

synched, other times it did not... I also tried "Rear" (Which seems like a

wrong choice - and it did not work) and I also tried "wireless" just for the

hell of it. It did not help either...

 

So it seems like I have an issue with getting the monolights to synch with the

Sony. Any suggestions on how to get this camera to reliable synch with some

monolights?

 

Thanks!

 

Kirk

Greetings -

 

I'm wondering when strobes became commonly used in studio portrait lighting?

I'm assuming it was sometime in the 60s. Certainly in the 40s and probably 50s,

hot lights ruled the studio. But when would a regular portrait studio have

gotten a set of strobes?

 

I wondering as I'm planning on recreating some portraits taken of me when I was

6 months old in 1963 with my now 8 month old daughter. I suspect the photos

were taken with hot lights - and it was a simple set up - subject facing to the

right of camera, with key also to right of camera, fill to left and nearer

camera, and a background light.

 

While I'm not actually going to use hot lights, I will use 6 (on fill) and 8

(on key) inch dishes to try and simulate the harsher look of hot lights.

 

Any comments on the history of lighting and my project are appreciated.

 

Thanks-

Kirk

Opps - sorry, I meant John Paul.

Paul - beautiful work! Can you give us some details as to the film, lenses, and exposure times you are using? Looking at the length of the star trails, most of your shots are not using very long exposures - 15 minutes or so?

 

Thanks!

 

Kirk

With the birth of my first child this year, I decided it was time to move into a DSLR. I went with the Sony for pretty much the same reasoning as you.

 

I was a long time Minolta user - I bought my only 35 mm camera - an X-700 in 1982(?) when they came out. My father had a XD-11, and the X-700 was a really good and cost effective way to get into 35 mm, especially since I could use my dad's lenses.

 

I normally shoot 4x5 for serious photos, but for less demanding shots, I bought a Nikon N990 digital point-n-shoot, which I really enjoyed. But trying to catch the baby fleeting expressions with the N990 was near impossible with the shutter lag of what seems like about 1.5 seconds, I started looking for a DSLR.

 

Coincidentally, the Sony was coming out and I liked the idea of the Minolta heritage, the large backlog of used Minolta AF lenses, and the antishake in the body, I decided to they the a100. I ordered it the first week B&H listed them, and I've had is since the end of July. I'm up to about 1000 shots so far, and very happy with it. I took it to a vintage/historic car race and it did much better than I could have ever hoped with action shots than I would have with the X-700.

 

The only thing I miss is the ability to get really wide angle lenses. I thought about getting a Canon 5D for a while, but the price was too much at this time for ne. So when/if Sony comes out with a full frame DSLR, I'm going to really thin seriously about upgrading for that feature only.

 

Anyway - really happy with the Sony!

 

By the way - do you have any shots of your Beta Coupe rally car? I see you also had a Fiat Spyder - I had a 1970 124 Spyder for several years in the late-80s. Never ran reliably, and then one day, the rubber donut on the end of the gearbox going to the drive shaft failed. And when I say failed, I mean that in a big way. The drive shaft started to flop around, really fast. Fortunately I had the support bar installed under it to keel the car from pole-vaulting on the loose driveshaft. It hit the end of the 5-speed gearbox, breaking off the end of the housing with the shift lever, and leaving a gaping hole in the top of the gearbox. I was going down a hill at the time, had just gently downshifted, and I hear this loud bang, and I noticed the windshield got obscured and my right leg was getting hot - from the oil flying out of the gearbox onto it!! As I got over the shock of all this happening, I hit the brakes, and nothing happened... The brake line had been ripped out by the spinning drive shaft. So I grapped the emergency brake, and that worked, and I got the car to stop. AS I'm sitting there in the driver looking over the mess and laughing at what a mess it was, I heard the gentle noise of what sounded like water pouring onto the ground under the car. I opened the car, and without getting out of the seat, leaned out of the car and looked underneath. Not only had the brake line been ripped out, but the fuel line was gone as well... and all 10 gallons of gas that I had just put in the car was slowly pouring onto the ground under the car. I grabbed my important tools and stuff from the car, got out quickly, and walked away... I eventually rebuilt the gearbox and got the car running again, and promptly gave it to a friend. (He had a 124 Sport Coupe that we have alots of disaster stories from...)

 

Sorry for the off-topic story.

Kirk

With all the threads about the Sony alpha DSLR being posted in the Minolta

forum, should photo.net make a forum so newbies can figure out where to post

questions. After all, not everyone realizes the Minolta heritage of this

camera. Or can they change the name of this forum to Minolta/Konica-

Minolta/Sony DSLR?

 

Kirk

Held it, I own one. I've had it for two weeks now, bought a kit from B&H.

 

I don't have any experience with Maxxums (or any other DSLR) other than using the first Maxxum in 1985(?) for a day. I typically use a Linhof 4x5 for photography, or if I need 35mm, I have an X700. Oh, and a Nikon 990 digital point-n-shoot.

 

I've got a new baby, so I haven't had a lot of time to really test the camera, so my comments are probably not that in depth.

 

I like it - it's a nice wieght, the size is good, not too large and not as small as my X700 body, which I always use with the motor drive/grip. I do wish the grip on the a100 was a little larger, but it's not unacceptable. I played with a coworkers 7D the other day, and although I did not have the cameras side-by-side, I think the 7D feels much heavier and is maybe too large for my taste.

 

I find the a100 control placement to be nicely laid out. I handed the a100 to another friend that used a Maxxum several years ago, and he looked at it for a minute, and started playing with it, and he started showing me all the AF and exposure locks, the exposure bias controls... just like he had been using the camera for a while. I'd say that if you have experience with recent Minoltas, then you will have no problem finding your way a round the camera.

 

I was expecting to have all sorts of functions buried in menus, but they did a good job of placing the things you would need access to frequently, like ISO and white balance, accessable by simply turning a dial and pressing a button.

 

I don't have a flash, but the manual does describe (briefly) how to set up wireless flash.

 

I'm happy with the camera. I plan to go shoot some historic car races later this month, so that will be my realy trial by fire for the camera.

 

Kirk

I ordered one from B&H last week and it arrived Friday. It's my first DSLR (I usually shoot a Linhof Technika IV 4x5, but I have a well used X-700 and a Nikon Coolpix990 for a point'n'shoot) and I'm really happy with with the a100. I'm still going through the manual, and I really haven't done any tests other than a couple of snaps, but I think I'll like the camera. It's really easy to access the menus and make changes, the viewfinder is bright and the display easy to read, and it fits nicely in my hand. I still need to play with the autofocus (historic car races coming up at the end of the month) and put it throught it's paces.

 

Kirk

Kent wrote, "and the second tallest mountains in North America (Black Hills) are in the southwest corner."

 

Kent - I really enjoyed your descriptions of the Great Plains states, but I'm sure you can't mean that.

 

The highest mountains in the Black Hills are just over 5000 ft. That's up to the base of a lot of mountains here in Oregon (Cascades, Wallowa, and Steens), and then many of them go another 4 or 5 thousand feet higher. And the Cascades have nothing on the Sierras and Rockies for elevation.

Rob Smith wrote, "Sulphur Dioxide mixed with water vapour produces Sulphuric Acid, breathing in SO2 is effectively putting acid into your lungs."

 

Not true. SO2 + H2O makes H2SO3, which is sulfurous acid, not sulfuric acid.

 

Still not good to breath though... Get some ventilation.

 

Kirk - www.keyesphoto.com

"The trick is to increase development without increasing fog or general stain, so that you end up with a net gain in density range, and not just density."

 

Because of this issue, and if you are using variable contrast printing paper, I would recommend that you use a non-staining developer, so no PMK. This is because with VC paper, the stain from the PMK will flatten your highlights.

 

Try Xtol or HC-110 or another nonstaining developer and then give a plus development.

Solids do have specific gravities just like liquids do. My CRC handbook lists the sp. gr. for thousands of solid compounds. Ask a geologist about the any of the minerals they work with, and they all have specific gravities.

 

The problem here is that the sp.gr. listed are going to be based on individual crystals, and not the form that most of our chemicals come in, like powders or crytals of varying sizes...

 

What you want to ask for is called "bulk density". This is measured by pouring an amount into a fixed volume and then dividing by the weight. It is typically used for industrial chemicals and other materials. It takes into accound the vloume of air between the material being measured.

I guess I should have said I know they are friends.

I'm sure Ron will chime in here about this, but I'm certain they are friends.

 

Kirk

OK - I see what happened. I had thought it was "past the quarry in Marble", so had gone there and started hiking south down the Yule drainage. That was as good as I was able to figure in the pre-internet days of the early 90's...

 

Thanks again for the map. I'll being my 75mm for the 4x5. But there is a 65 for sale in town...

 

Kirk

Rich - thanks for the map link! That's a great help.

 

So it looks like afternoon (or the middle of the night) as the best times to be there?

I tried to go to the Crystal Mill about 10 years ago and I don't remember a road going to it. I remember going to the town of Marble and then up to the Marble Quarry and parking (in a VW Jetta). We then tried to hike up the river from there but we had a late start and didn't make it to the Mill. Could someone be kind enough to give a like to Topozone showing where ther Crystal Mill is? I may be going through the area next month and I've always wanted to go there. TIA!

 

Kirk

If you're looking for a place near Bryce, try looking in the town of Tropic. It's just in the valley below the canyon and has several hotels. Takes about 15 minutes to get up to Bryce from there.