e_thp

<p>There are a lot of good answers and I hope you read all of them and are comforted by the combined wisdom and expertise available to you. I also hope you make your own decisions after doing a bit of your own research ;-)<br>

With proper technique your camera and lenses should perform very well.</p>

<p>Here's my story, one I tell everytime this discussion comes up.<br>

<br />I used to work for a major portrait studio and regularly sold 20x24 and 30x40 prints and canvasses to many fine and beautiful customers using a 5 megapixel camera with a zoom on a teleconverter. On jpg.<br>

I had ZERO complaints or returns because of image quality, it wasn't even an issue.<br>

You show up looking good and I will take a large number of your dollars for a very nice image of you.</p>

<p>It's easily done. Go take some great pics! :Ð</p>

<p>Hey Matthew, Yes it matters. You won't see it in every situation but if there's a strong lightsource behind your camera it will show up in your final image. The mirror does block light but it's not 100%.</p>

<p>Especially when doing long exposures or tripod work as your eye probably won't be against the viewfinder blocking the light.</p>

<p>I nearly had a fit when I started getting bars across my IR images. No amount of calibration or service or sending it to california could fix it and then somebody here on PN explained that I should start covering the viewfinder. D'oh!</p>

<p>To use the supplied cover you have to take the rubber eyepiece off of the square bracket around the viewfinder. Since I don't keep my strap attached to the camera I just use a piece of electrical or gaffer's tape.</p>

<p>Last week I was out taking pics of a cemetery at about 10 pm with a security light directly behind me and I had nothing so I hung my baseball cap on top of the body with the bill floating backwards.</p>

<p>This isn't something you should worry about greatly. If you need it you'll know. if not. why worry :p</p>

<p>the 50/1.8 is amazing all around. amazing thin focus and stops down sharp as a razor.<br>

the 28/2.8 is the next cheapest. less sharp wide open, but still stops down very nicely.</p>

<p>the 35/2 at $300 to me doesn't seem that cheap.</p>

<p>Others said it, I'll chime in. It's not your camera.</p>

<p>I printed 16x20s out of the original canon rebel at 6mp regularly.</p>

<p>Frank, The OP asked a question.<br>

Most of us have tried to help him find the answer.</p>

<p>All you've done so far is tell him to go read his manual.</p>

<p>Is that the point of these forums?</p>

<p>Frank, While I agree that a basic knowledge of what is and isn't compatible with one's tools is important to protect your investments why limit yourself?</p>

<p>Are you saying I can't use my AlienBees because they are not Canon? that I can't put a pocket wizard in my hotshoe? what about my old Vivitar manual flashes which are easier to waterproof than my 580s?</p>

<p>Or my first 580 clone by sigma which has more features than the Canon?</p>

<p>Also, Like Parv said.<br>

http://www.digitalfunstuff.com.au/images/nissin_di866.jpg<br>

has a neato display with nifty buttons, USB connectivity, multiple flashes (what? why? neat? maybe?)</p>

<p>Does that look familiar?</p>

<p>Shoot them til they stop moving. I find 12 gauge works best on golf.</p>

<p>Second, it probably says a lot better in LS&M, but shiny things reflect everything.<br>

Tiny light sources will be obvious and you might be too if you get the right edge. You don't want a mini you all twisted about on the metal face, but i think it talks about that in the book too.</p>

<p>Giant light sources everywhere except where you don't want them :-)</p>

<p>Clear as mud? Great!</p>

<p>Thanks for the responses all,</p>

<p>What I'm hearing is that in brighter light situations it's easier on the subjects to just use flash.</p>

<p>Which is what I've been doing anyways. That 60" reflector does make a nice sunshade, I've used it much in that effect since then :-)</p>

<p>Pax</p>

<p>Many times it's easier to light on two planes (the kind without wings).</p>

<p>I do this with rings and small tokens from weddings.<br>

For example, Set a ring up on a small pillow / stand / felt (I love to use my felt beret) and set up 2 small strobes on either side of it into white paper diffuser</p>

<p>Then 5 feet behind this, I setup a piece of white poster board with 2 flashes or 1 gelled flash in the middle.</p>

<p>You set your flashes so that if you take a picture and just have the front flashes fire, you don't see the background. or just the back flashes, you get nothing on the front. See? You're lighting each section independantly.<br>

There's no spill from the background onto your subject.<br>

So you get your background as white as possible, then turn it off and get your jewelry exactly like you want it.<br>

then you turn both on.</p>

<p>Mix to taste.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Went out on an engagement session this weekend with friends so I felt like playing around and experimenting with techniques I don't normally use.<br>

It was a moderately sunny day and I had borrowed a 60" silver reflector from a friend (and then asked him to come along and hold it for me) although normally I use small flash on radio triggers as fill.</p>

<p>To start the reflector was amazingly efficient. at sunset it threw back more than enough light to shoot into the sun and keep faces well lit and the size of it kept it from being just a point source of hard light. It was nice.</p>

<p>Except that it threw back so much light that my couple was squinting and grimacing the entire time.<br>

I completely understand as you've got a large silvery sheet throwing a sunset right into your faces.<br>

Probably just as bad as having them facing the sun.</p>

<p>Am I missing something? is there a way to fade the light? to make it more manageable for them?<br>

White doesn't throw enough back, and silver's way too hot. Gold is hot and warm.</p>

<p>All the examples are on the laptop, but I'm sure you don't need reference pictures to understand the question :-)</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p><br /></p>

<p>the 50 / 1.8</p>

<p>it makes my 5d happy.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The last camera I did IR on was the original Canon Rebel/300D and just because it was a cold sun-shiny day I dug through my toybox and slapped a hoya r72 on my 5d2 and trotted out into the pines.<br>

Got some acceptable images of some trees (you know how exciting this gets, right?) but for the life of me I cannot process them down the way I want them.</p>

<p>I've looked through old archives but not found any original 300D pics to compare to but it almost seems to me as if it's a different colour red. Redder, more magenta, perhaps, to my untrained eye all I can tell is that it's different.</p>

<p>With the old setup I'd bracket a bunch of pictures and then take the one I liked best and hit Auto-WB in photoshop to start. This, more often than not, got me close enough to play with. It'd take out a great deal of the overall red cast and leave me with a warmish almost duo-tone image. I'd touch the curves gently and be left with a decent (to me, mind you) image which looked like a toned B/W.</p>

<p>I cannot do that with these images. Can't get anywhere close!</p>

<p>I don't like the look of a pic that's just been desaturated to grey-scale and I don't know where to start.</p>

<p>A) Has anybody had to change their IR workflow with the 5dII. If so, how so?<br>

and<br>

B) Will somebody mail me a cookie?</p>

<p>Thanks :-)</p>

<p>I went out today after seeing your post earlier this week and took a few frames.<br>

Then I saw you said only after 60 seconds. (are you using a wired or wireless remote?<br>

Then I re-read and cannot duplicate your exact scenario.<br>

So I stuck my camera out the back door and aimed up and blew out a hundred odd seconds at f something.<br>

5dII with a 50/1.8 and a hoya r72<br>

jpg with the original firmware.<br>

<img src="http://www.photo.net/photo/8549261" alt="" /><br>

<a href="../photo/8549261">http://wwwphoto.net/photo/8549261</a><br>

I'm having a bear of a time processing these down. they just act different.<br>

prolly ask in a separate forum post.<br>

thanks</p>