arjen van de merwe

<p><img src="../photo/10555380" alt="" width="497" height="497" /><br>

<img src="../photo/10555380" alt="" /> <br /> sorry, some technical problem did post, but not upload my photo. Here it is:</p>

I have to photograph some jewelry from natural materials. My photos come out dull and uninspired, while they

should inspire the viewer to want this stuff. For some photos I will bring in a model, which will help, bu tnot

for everything. Look at my attempt. Can anybody give me some hints on spicing up these images to something

exciting that will make people buy?

<p>Thank you all, I'll look for CCleaner,and try that.<br>

I'll also try the preferences, and see.</p>

<p>When I try to start PS CS3, I get the following message:<br>

Adobe Photoshop CS3 has stopped working<br>

A problem stopped the program working correctly. Windows will close the program and notify you if a solution is available.</p>

<p> I tried reinstalling but that does not solve the problem<br>

I have CS working, but that does not open D300 raw files. Now I am back to converting with View NX which is an extra step and takes forever.</p>

<p>What do I do?</p>

<p>I do not know these programmes. I use Rescue Pro. But the simple wisdom is: try. Make some photos, delete them and try to recover them. Also you can try to format the card and see if you can recover anything. Then at least you know when the shit hits the fan.</p>

<p>Fluorescent lights are a nightmare for photography. You can set your (digital) camera for fluorescent and get better colour rendition, but the colour keeps changing in the lights with time they are on and age.<br>

Better to go for daylight (also changes colour, but on the red/blue scale, not on green magenta like fluoresecents, so daylight is not as bad),but I'm not sure how you would get your background pure white.<br>

You can go for tungsten halogen. For tungsten you set your camera for tungsten and your pretty much set for the colour balance. This is much cheaper than mains flash. You will probably need some modifyer to soften you key light. An umbrella is the cheapest option here, a soft box for tungsten light requires cooling and is a quite professional affair. With tungsten you are gling to need a tripod for longer exposures, but this is good for product photography anyway.<br>

For flash, you use daylight setting, or some cameras have a flash setting because of a slightly bluer colour. Mains flash is nice but expensive. You can go for battery powered flash: check www.strobist.com for lots of great advice.<br>

To get the background white: You can use a translucent sweep, perspex is most used, and light it separately from your product from the back.This means a minimum of two lights.</p>

<p>Or you can use a white background lit separately from your product, with lots of light (probably 1.5 stop more than your product). You need two lights to get this even, one from each side. Then place your product on a shiny white surface like formica, that will reflect the white background. (I use a white wall). You may get a shadow in front of your product, which usually looks nice. You need a third light to light your product. Here you probably need diffusion like an umbrella or a soft box. YOu can also improvise with tracing paper or something alse translucent. You can use a reflector for fill light.</p>

<p>You do not need a trigger, you can trigger the SB800 with the D300 internal strobe. Check your manuals for CLS lighting. The drawback may be that some models blinktheir eyes in the foreflash of the D300. You can prevent that with a infrared filter on the D300.<br>

And I agree: www.strobist.com is the place to find info about this type of lighting.</p>

<p>thanx</p>

<p>These do not have fans. I had one with a fan, but it gave out, for unknown reason..............</p>

<p>It will be much easier with the strobes. Fog is not easy to light with window light. To get the fog to come out well, you want backlighting. With the fog low lying you will need to be away from the window a fair bit to get that, which means you need space. The light may not be best for you rmodel, wehile with nudes lighting is of essential importance. If you have them available, use the strobes, if you feel like it in combination with window light.<br>

Everything else is up to your idea and taste.</p>

<p>It depends what effect you want. I recommend you use different settings and test. With experience you should be able to predict results up to a certain extend. But with film, the use of a polariod is important for detailed lighting control. Also using on camera flash for fill gives you ungly fill shadows. It may be better to get a swivel head flash, if that's the way you want to go. I usually trigger my lights with bounce flash, unless that would give me too much fill for an extremely low key photo, or it is unreliable, for instance in bright sunlight.<br>

If you have one off-camera flash available, it is probably best to get fill from a reflection screen. (I regularly use one of those silvery screens that are sold for keeping heat out of a car. For a softer effect a white bedsheet gives good results.)</p>

<p>A cheaper option is optical slave triggers. They work fine indoors. Outdoors sometimes they cannot see your master flash due to no reflection from walls, or bright sunlight.</p>

<p><br mce_bogus="1"></p>

I have a problem with mains flash. I use Bowens and MultiBlitz. Both brands work fine for one or two hours

intensive use. Then they start to give problems. The MultiBlitzes shuts off for a half hour or so and then works

again. The Bowenses start to work intermittently. When I test the next day they work fine. This may be

overheating. I live in Malawi, with a tropical climate. However I have not noticed any difference between hot and

cool seasons, the problem remains.

Is overheating mains flash common?

I tried lowering flash levels, turning off modeling lights, working in an airconditioned place if possible, using

a different style of working (slower photographing with more contemplation). I am not sure how effective these

are. Does anybody know a better solution? (Does it help to buy more expensive brands? Are certain brands better

in a tropical situation?)

<p>I recently was very disappointed in my own focussing, using auto focus. Testing in the studio revealed that I needed to fine tune auto focus (the Nikon D300 has this feature). Also I found that with an f2.8 zoom, I can focus more precisely with auto focus than on manual. The faster the lens, the easier manual focus becomes.<br>

On the other hand I found that my less than perfect focussing wa mostly a matter of sloppiness.....<br>

Always using the tripod is not good advice. Use the tripod when applicable, but when you are making photos with a lot of motion by the model, the tripod may slow you down to the point of missing some great photos.</p>

<p>I would recommend to use the histogram to get exposure right. Especially when you are using non ttl flash.</p>

<p>Hey, thanx, I did not think of that.</p>

<p>mains flash: key: 250 ws medium soft box and 250 ws umbrella side by side camera left effect: 200 ws honeycomb behind model, camera right My main problem with this photo was light spill from the key light on the background, spoiling the night club mood, and deminishing the effect of the available light on the bottles. Flagging was ineffective. Maybe next time work with harder light that is easier to flag? (This model can take it I guess, and it would also give more of a night feel to herself) Any other ideas? I have little experience with models (as opposed to portraits and documentary) so all critiques from you experienced photogs out there are appreciated.</p><div></div>

<p>Thank you , that should solve my problem.</p>

<p>The way I see it it is a major underexposure. It is 1.3 stop. Which would mean about N+1 development. For critical work it is best to test your developments yourself. But like Lex says, it depends on what you want from your negatives. The shadow detail is mostly determined by exposure, you can not bring out much in extending development. For the highlights you can, and it will increase grain size. Also there are developers available that push your effective film speed, with more shadow detail. I found considerably faster effective film speed (about 1 stop) with T-max developer than with D76 or Rodinal. Maybe you could ask your photo shop for a push developer? (again, if this is absolutely critical, test first before you destroy your negatives with an untested recipe)<br>

Btw, I read somewhere that it is possible to push your negatives after development and fixing with selenium toner. I have not tried this myself, though it seems interesting: more film speed with no increase in grain.</p>

<p>I've been out of b/w for a few years. I now live in an African country where I cannot buy film and developer, I have to import myself. I have used Tri-X and Plus-X with Rodinal in the past, and want to get back to that look. Are these still available? Are there better alternatives these days? (I do not want TMX or Ilford Delta look) I used Agfa multi contrast resin-coated paper in the past, is that still available? Are there better alternatives? What is good paper developer for your recommendation?</p>

<p>I've been out of b/w for a while. I want to get back and have to test different darkroom equipment. I remember the tests, but not the numbers: <br /> - which zone should have how many times the density of base+fog for film speed?<br /> - which zone should have how many times the density of base+fog for normal development?<br /> (I do not understand logarhythms, so can I have the densities?)</p>

<p>The Nikon D300 has a flash sync speed of 1/320, so what you get is totally normal. You cannot go faster than that with flash with this camera. Unless you have a dedicated flash, which is capable of gling fasterby emitting a series of flashes in the time your shutter opens and closes.</p>

<p>I should have explained in my post:<br>

I did the classic test:<br>

A white towel<br>

Underexpose 2 stops than 3 etc until 7 stops underexposed.<br>

Then overexpose 2 stops, then 3 etc until 7 stops overexposed. Then see in which photo I still see detail. There the difference is negligible between 14 bit raw and jpg.<br>

If I bring up the shadows 14 bit does give me a lot less shadow noise, and some more detail. Also some strange low frequency colour noise comes up in jpg. Is that the compression? With the shadow/highlight tool I get quite a bit less noise in jpg than with levels.</p>

<p>I read in a book that many cameras offer better contrast rnage in 14bit than in 12bit, or 8bit. I tested my D300 in jpg (adobe1998 colour space) and 14bit raw, and found no visible difference. Did I make a mistake here, or does the D300 offer the same contrast range? (7 stops detailed)</p>

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>I may have the chance of doing a project where people with no photographic experience will photograph their own lives. This has been done many times before. Does anyone know if there is a manual for this kind of project available?</p>