skipd

I also think that Dan Mitchell's post is based on a misunderstanding of Gaylon's post before it.

 

What Gaylon was saying is that any lens of the same focal length used on any particular camera will provide the same field (angle) of view. As an example, a 50mm prime, a 24-70 set to 50mm, or an EF-S 18-55 set to 50mm will all provide precisely the same size image on a 40D.

An incident meter reading is NOT taking a meter reading of an object. An incident meter reading is measuring the light falling on a subject.

 

To make an incident reading, you should have the white hemisphere (part of the meter) extended and pointed toward the camera for a general reading. You could also point the meter at each individual light source to measure what each individual light is contributing to the setup.

You have found some scam sites for sure. DO NOT order from anyone who has a signficantly lower price than B&H or Adorama unless you like burning money or throwing it down a bottomless hole.

The radio module for Sekonic meters will only work with PocketWizard receivers.

 

You can connect a cheap transmitter to a Sekonic meter via the PC connection, though. You would not want to spend the money for the radio module in that case.

For the original poster - read this page and you should better understand the "crop factor": http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=45388

AlienBees is an excellent choice at a very modest price. Check them out at www.alienbees.com.

 

By the way, they only sell direct - via their web site or phone orders. You'll find that AlienBees (the Paul C Buff company) has about the best Customer Service - both presale and post sale) - of any company anywhere.

The question is absolutely impossible to answer, as one camera could have a very sharp lens and the other one be much lower quality. The sensor size and design also has a lot to do with this question.

 

If you can ask about two SPECIFIC cameras, then you could get a reasonable answer.

You will definitely need something better than direct lighting with hotshoe lights. At the very least, you will need some light stands, large umbrellas and/or reflector panels, etc.

 

If you look at your sample shot, you will see harsh shadows from objects in the room that are rather low. It's rather obvious where you located the flash sources and that they are virtually point sources of light.

 

You need to get your lights up higher and appearing as if the light source(s)is/are MANY times larger than the straight-on flash that you used so that the resulting lighting is more "natural" looking and pleasing to the viewer.

 

Quality lighting is the main "secret" to good interior photos.

and to give you an idea how bad the light was.. This next one was 800ASA, f2.8, 1/250.

 

>>>>You can see the colour shift from one side of the image to the other from pink to blue/green

 

Again all three of these are straight RAW to JPG with no PS.

 

Attachment: Arena3.jpg<<<<

 

You CAN solve the color shift problem by choosing the correct shutter speed. The problem is that the light is changing intensity and color at twice the line frequency.

 

If you use a shutter speed that is the the same time as precisely 1/2 of the power line frequency (1/120 second in places using 60Hz power and 1/100 second in places using 50Hz power) or slower shutter speeds that are these multiplied by two (as in 1/60 or 1/50, 1/30 or 1/25, 1/15 or 1/12.5), you will have the entire frame exposed for a full half-cycle of the power (or multiples of a half cycle) and you will have uniform exposure and color. Excuse the super-long sentence, but I hope you get the idea.

 

You can't stop action with any of these shutter speeds, of course, but you can get decent looking images with little motion of the subject.

Deanna, I suspect your primary problem is that you have the subjects way too close to the backdrop. Keep the subject(s) at least six feet from the backdrop. That way, if your lights are a bit above the subject(s), the shadows will land well below the subject(s) on the backdrop and won't be an issue.

 

Keeping your umbrellas close to the subject(s) will give you a softer lighting effect than having them further away.

 

You may need to light up the backdrop with a third light. Another option is to use a large white reflector and a single light to illuminate the subject(s) and use the second light on the backdrop. You would mount the backdrop light below and behind the subjects (between them and the backdrop), usually on a very short light stand.

In my opinion, that is a very expensive and probably unreliable way to go, especially since the Speedlite slaves MUST be in a position to "see" the infrared signal coming from the master Speedlite. There is a very specific angle that they can work within.

 

You'd be much better off, in my opinion, with some much less expensive simple flash units (no TTL or ETTL link to the camera) and radio slaves. This does mean, of course, fully manual exposure control. A flash meter would be extremely useful.

Like a couple of folks have posted here, the term "landscape" does NOT necessarily mean "cram as much into one image as you can" even though it seems that is what is being touted as the way it should be by those who are enamored with ultra-wide lenses.

 

I have used every lens in my kits over the years for what I call "landscape" photography.

Deanna, you will need a meter that measures flash sources. I don't know of any analog meter that will do that.

 

One of the most popular and versatile meters to handle today's needs (ambient light and flash and combinations of the two) is the Sekonic L-358. I have one and it has been a real workhorse for me.

The "DPI" numbers embedded in a camera have absolutlely no meaning whatsoever. You should really forget that the number exists.

 

The only thing that matters is the number of pixels in your image. The software you use to set up an image for printing will handle the "DPI" (actually PPI, Pixels per inch) issues for the size prints you are telling the software to make.

>>>However, I take pictures and have great lighting but still have shadows. <<<

 

The lighting in the sample shot is not what I would call great. It is very flat - no shadows to sculpt the face.

 

First of all, as mentioned above, get your subject about 6 feet or more from the background.

 

Second, get the light OFF of the camera and use something like an umbrella to soften it. You need to learn about positioning lighting for the best effect. You will probably want at least one main light - away from and probably above the camera/subject - with a reflector for fill and another light on the background.

Richard, to make your statement "My EF 75-300mm actually has a field of view eqivalent to= 120-480mm when mated to my 400d..." truly correct, you would have to add "(used on a 35mm film or 'full-frame' DSLR)" to the "equivalent to..." part of the statement. I am sure you and others here understand this, but newbies reading the posts are easily confused when the relationship is not made very clear.

 

It's amazing how many newbies actually believe that the focal length of a lens changes when you fasten that lens to cameras with different size film frames or digital sensors.

Considering Rand's idea - cash (or equivalent) might be a lot better than a gift certificate for a particular store. The reason is that not all products are carried by any one store. AlienBees, for example, sells only directly from their factory.

 

As a tool freak (for all my hobbies including photography), I fully agree with Rand's idea that you should not buy tools for a craftsperson.

Quality lens tissue (such as that sold by Kodak), a good lens cleaning fluid, and PROPER TECHNIQUE is the way that I have cleaned my lenses for decades. What is "proper technique"?

 

First - the goal is to clean the lens (or filter - I would use the very same process) without grinding any dirt/debris into the lens. To me, this absolutely dictates single-use surfaces for anything that touches the lens. That's why I use lens tissues instead of a washable cloth or - particularly - something like a lens pen.

 

Here are the steps that I use to clean a lens:

 

1. Use a squeeze-bulb blower to blow any loose dust off the lens. 90% of the time, step #1 is all that is necessary.

 

2. Take a lens tissue out of the pack. Fold it once, holding only what was the ends of the tissue. You want to be extremely careful to NEVER TOUCH the areas of the lens tissue that will be touching the lens. This will avoid transferring oils from your fingers to the lens.

 

3. Moisten the folded portion of the lens tissue with a little lens cleaner. You don't want the tissue dripping wet, but it must be damp.

 

CAUTION: NEVER apply lens cleaner directly to the lens (though it won?t hurt a filter, you don?t want liquid leaking into the lens? innards).

 

4. Wipe LIGHTLY across the lens ONCE with the damp tissue. Then either turn it over or fold it so that you can wipe again, but with an unused surface. You can do this as often as needed, as long as you never wipe the lens twice with any surface of the tissue. This prevents scratches. Again, make sure you never touch an area of the tissue that will touch the lens.

 

5. Ensuring that the lens is actually clean, use a dry tissue, handled the same way as above, to wipe the lens dry. Since you have already removed the dirt, there's no risk of scratching the lens with the dry tissue.

 

6. Dispose of the used lens tissues in a proper trash receptacle.

 

That's it in a nutshell. Simple and effective. I've been cleaning my lenses this way for over 40 years, and all of them have pristine glass (and none have ever worn "protective" filters).

Lydia, in order to be able to answer your question it would be extremely helpful to know something about what lights you have.

If you add the white insert for the 80-20 (part of the LumiQuest Promax System), you will have a very versatile modifier for your on-camera (or bracket) flash. The Promax System is my single choice for a portable flash modifier.

Eric - the 72ppi figure means absolutely nothing. The only thing that makes any difference it the total pixel count of an image file. Software used to print the image tells the printer what size you want to make the print and handles the rest.

Richard - the Digital Rebel series is MUCH smaller physically than the 20D/30D/5D family. Before you get all wrapped around the axle over specifications and features, go somewhere where you can actually handle samples from both families. Once you have decided which one feels right in your hands, then and only then start the detailed search.

I suspect strongly that the biggest problem, Brandon, is that you are not using Canon's hood and the hood you chose has the wrong physical shape for the lens.

 

The rubber hoods cannot provide the same kind of physical protection that a rigid hood can. In my opinion, you'd be way ahead by buying a Canon hood designed for the particular lens.

Keith, in 40 years (plus) as a photographer - both amateur and part-time pro, I have never heard such bullroar as you describe when discussing lenses at a camera user's level. Maybe when discussing lens design details some of your ideas may come out but definitely not when trying to teach a newbie about lens choices. "Wide angle" and "telephoto" have always been referred to in reference to the "normal" focal length for any given camera format.

 

PERIOD.

Keith, I don't disagree with the engineering definition for a "telephoto" lens (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephoto_lens), but the definition for a wide-angle lens is based on its field of vew relative to a "normal" lens' field of view. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide-angle_lens.

 

For most people, especially those just learning about photography, the more common definitions for both wide-angle and telephoto (focal lengths relative to "normal") are far less confusing to them. That's especially true since almost all of today's long lenses are actually telephoto designs.

 

It is, in my opinion, unfortunate that the camera manufacturers came out with a new camera format (the APS-C format for DSLR's) that uses lenses originally designed for a larger format. The confusion that many folks have with the "crop factor" is beyond belief.