PhotoWorksbyDon

<p>Well good new on the tripod, it does seem to be able to withstand the kind of wind that's been whooshing around the Golden Gate the past few days that I've visited. However, the air between the ears of yours truly needed some whooshing of its own.</p>

<p>I went out again last night and the wind was about the same. Instead of mounting the camera to the tripod I used the mount on the 70-200 2.8L, and voilà! Much better results.</p>

<p>However, I am very appreciative of the suggestions for a stronger tripod and will most likely get one. The reviews for the one I now use were glowing in regards to handling wind, but obviously it's not as strong as I'd like. But I am happy that it will work in the kind of conditions I experienced the last two nights.</p>

<p>Thanks again for all your feedback!</p><div></div>

<p>Hi, we've had a wonderful full moon here in the Bay Area. I've found that actually capturing the thing is far easier said than done and was hoping for some tips/</p>

<p>I've read a smaller aperture is best. I've also talked to some who say shooting it hand-held rather than with a tripod is best. At what ISO would work while still getting it tack-sharp?</p>

<p>Any other tips or suggestions appreciated!</p>

<p>Hi, thanks for the responses. I checked all the connections and it was as tight as I could get it. The bridge shot wasn't taken on the bridge, but from the overview just above. Same vantage point as the moon shot.</p>

<p>Also, they were long exposures (obviously) 8 and 13 seconds.</p>

<p>Ellis, thanks. I'll look into those heads and get a sandbag or two. I did have the autofocus on and this model of 70-200 doesn't have IS.</p>

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>I was out last night trying to get some images over San Francisco on the beautiful full moon. It was windy, as is the norm around the Golden Gate, and I just couldn't get a good shot. Too much wobble. I'm using the following tripod and head:</p>

<p>Tripod - Manfrotto 055CXPRO 3-SECTION TRIPOD<br>

Head - Manfrotto 322RC2 GRIP ACTION BALL HEAD</p>

<p>I'm suspecting the head may be the culprit here. It seems to "slip" every so slightly with the bigger lens. I notice it when I'm trying to meter - I'll place to focus point on a particular spot and it will drop a tad once I release the grip. Is this normal for all heads?</p>

<p>Using a 50d with a Canon 70-200 2.8L Series lens. Is there a more stable tripod and/or head?</p>

<p>Thanks!</p><div></div>

<p>Problem solved. I couldn't fathom having to use a non-functional speedlight as a master, since shooting on-camera is mostly a bad thing.</p>

<p>Found this cord - http://ocfgear.com/ettl-cord-extra-long/ - which will let me use the master off-camera, thereby keeping my four-light setup complete with all speedlights functioning. I purchases the 33' cord.</p>

<p>Thanks Lorne, this is where I was confused. If I read the manual (and your first response) correctly if the Master is set to M it does matter if the slaves are set to E-TTL?</p>

<p>Will that be the case with the 320EX as well?</p>

<p>Thanks for your help.</p>

<p>Hi, I'm sure this is a very easy thing to do but it has me baffled.</p>

<p>I have three 580EXIIs and one 320EX that I'm trying to fire using a ST-E2 transmitter. I can do so in E-TTL mode but can't seem to get them to set up Manual mode. Is this not possible? The manual isn't really clear, at least to me. I have a 50D.</p>

<p>I've even tried using one of the 580s as the Master and having the all set to M. As soon a I set the off-camera speedlights to 'Slave' they automatically revert to E-TTL.</p>

<p>Is there any way to have them all fire in Manual mode? I like E-TTL but am trying to get a better understanding of how lighting works and would like to use M mode to do so.</p>

<p>Also, is it possible to have these set to high-speed sync in M mode as slaves, if they can be set to M mode as slaves?</p>

<p>Thanks for any help.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks for all the feedback and advice. This is all very, very helpful for now and in the future. I'm still leaning more towards picking up a couple more speedlights. Why four? Primarily I don't think three is quite enough for some of indoor situations I see myself shooting in. I just did a shoot in a loft and the way it was set up the beams were throwing some wicked shadows that my two 580s along with a reflector couldn't overcome. I am open to the fact that it could be user ignorance, but I also know I could have overcome the problem with another source of light.This experience prompted the question since I know studio lights also would have solved the problem, but I don't have any.</p>

<p>I will definitely check out Neil's site. I did get a book on Canon speedlight shooting written buy Syl Arena and so far it appears to be very comprehensive.</p>

<p>Thanks again.</p>

<p>Thanks all. I have considered the lack of modeling light. I'm not sure power is an issue for what I want to do but obviously could be in the future. Modeling lights certainly would be an advantage. I'm relatively new to lighting and every little bit of knowledge and experience helps, so thanks.</p>

<p>I'm not sure I want to lug big and heavy power packs down to the beach, haha.</p>

<p>Thank again for taking the time to respond. You've been very helpful.</p>

<p>I'm looking to do more portrait work but I don't have a "studio." If I do indoor stuff it will either be on location, meaning someone else's home/business or outdoors. I'd like to do more outdoor then indoor and was wondering if it's better to go with four (or more) 580 EXII speedlights with stands and softbaxes/snoots/etc... or go with a studio lighting package. I've seen some pretty incredible stuff done with speedlights and they seem so much more versatile.<br>

<br /> Suggestions and direction most appreciated.<br>

<br /> I use a Canon 50D but may bump to a full-frame in the near future, though I am happy with the 50D. if that helps.</p>

<p>I shot these with the 580EXII and liked how they came out.<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/13123177-md.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<br /><br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/13123176-md.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<br /> Thanks</p>

<p>YES! The skin blemish can be fixed post production, but those eyes are amazing. Can you get that same clarity with the 24-70 2.8L or the 70-200 2.8L?</p>

<p>The softness of the birds eye was probably due to me inching closer and closer as I was shooting before the bird flew away.</p>

<p>The girl was shot with the 70-200 using an old 10D.</p>

<p>I want to thank all of you for taking the time to help me work this out. Now I have some things to consider. It's much appreciated.</p>

<p>These are two I've shot. Both shot with the 70-200 2.8L</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/12792118</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/12792154</p>

<p>Here is one of Bueh B's that I love, and shows the kind of sharpness and reflection/catch lights I'd like to get. This was shot with 50 1.4. Would the 1.8 have that kind of sharpness? I haven't seen anything shot with a 24-70 2.8L so don't have a comparison.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/10878673</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>Don</p>

<p>Jeff, my thoughts on tack sharp are in regards to eyes. I want to do work that make eyes literally pop out of an image. As such that would be my main focal point.</p>

<p>Of course I am also looking to do some off-centered shots, side shots, shadow, and such but really want to capture a subjects eyes. Is that too narrow?</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>Don</p>

<p>Thanks again. A couple more questions based on all the great feedback. Is a 24-70 2.8L better glass than the non-L prime lenses? If I went with the 24-70 2.8L and the 70-200 2.8L would the outcome, since they're L Series lenses, be more tack sharp than the 85 2.8 and 100 2.0 non-L Series lenses or any of the other non-L Series lenses?<br>

Also, would you use different lenses for indoor and outdoor portraiture?<br>

Thanks,<br>

Don</p>

<p>Sorry, thought I had the camera in the original post. Right now I have a Canon 50D. I've been considering the 7D but I really do love the 50D.<br>

Thanks,<br>

Don</p>

<p>Hey, thanks everyone for the great feedback. I've also been considering the 24-70 2.8L as well. I can use that for some of the other things I do and may be swayed to get that. <br>

I'll play around with what I have now as Scott suggested and see which length works best, though I hope to be more versatile. And yes, I do wish to get far more proficient in regards to lighting, but that will be for another thread.<br>

Thanks again!<br>

Don</p>

<p>Hi, thanks for any feedback and suggestions. I'm looking to take my shooting to a higher level, especially in portraiture. I'm deciding on which lenses to get for various uses but would be interested in any feedback on which lens, or set of lenses, would be best. I do eventually wish to dive into studio lighting but for now really want to focus on natural light, windows, bounce cards, reflectors, and dawn and dusk lighting.<br>

So, the question I have is would it behoove me to get the 24-105 4L or the pair that includes the 85 1.8 and 100 IS 2.8L Macro?<br>

I already have the 50 1.8, a 20 2.8, and a 70-200 2.8L.<br>

Or, is there another lens or combination of lenses that would be more optimal for portraiture?<br>

Thanks,<br>

Don</p>