phil_derosier

But here's the issue, Todd: I don't use TTL. I meter first then manual-fill only. (By the way, to the best of my rememberance, there were two kinds of TTL referenced to the positioning of the light sensor: straight TTL, and TTL/OTF--reflected off the film).

So back to my original question: is there any technical reason why "digital-ready" flash inits are inherently better than plain-vanilla units?

Some brands and models of flash units tout themselves as 'digital-

ready' or some similar moniker.

What da heck is that?

Specifically, what would differentiate a Metz 54AF-1 from -- say -- a

Sunpak 622?

Is it consistency, reliability, and fractional control of light

output? (Circuitry design and quality)

Is it reflector design? (Parabolic)

Or is it chutzpah and balderdash from manufacturers that are trying

to sell something old at a newly inflated price?

Maybe it's me, but I think wedding photography is not a sane

profession. It's hazardous to your health and wealth.

... bubbles at the church threatening to land on those pricey

lenses ... pandemonium (typically after the liquor starts flowing) at

the reception, in which the clumsy elderly, the inebriated swingers

and tampering tykes spilling food, drink, and themselves on your

equipment ... the ("are you leaving already?") Bridezilla ... rain ...

Are we having fun, yet?

please pardon the slightest suggestion I am being supercilious ... but why didn't you protect that ~$1,000 camera with a $5,00 neck strap?

you mention that you dropped it, as opposed to it falling off a ledge, or something. am I missing something, here?

Click on this link ...<BR><BR>

<a href="http://wcbs880.com/komando/local_story_272100721.html">Anti-

photography Tools</a><BR><BR>

... just curious

There are sooo many options to choose from when lighting, you know. And it can be difficult to sort them out and be efficient -- especially when you're on the go and under the gun. So I've learned to be always cognizant of the (traditionalist) basics when shooting.

First, evaluate, incorporate and meter for the existing (continuous, or main) lighting conditions. (When do you *not* have some source of continuous light?)

Second, bolt that image machine to Mother Earth with a tripod wherever possible.

Lastly, add supplemental light to highlight areas of technical concern (EV) or to provide artistic emphasis--key, hair, practical lighting, etc. (Actually, a corollary to #3 is to gobo or scrim for de-emphasis.)

Its kinda sad to see some photographers start at #3 before considering the first two.

Hot lights just don't work out from an equipment deployment and subject comfort aspect. One or two monolights and a good light meter should be all you need. If you want to really increase your flexibility, get a radio slave also (Pocket Wizard, etc.) All this hardware can be found on EBAY at reasonable prices.

Finally, study up on fundamental lighting concepts and "learn to see light"---"Light Science and Magic, an Introduction to Photographic Lighting" by Fil Hunter and Paul Fuqua (Focal Press) is a classic work.

Bingo, Csab!!! This digital/film combination is -- to me -- the photographic 'sweet spot'.

I'm already the owner of a 20mm lens and I refuse to spend more money acquiring another specialty lens for the digicam simply to duplicate what I can already accomplish with existing inventory.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Hold on to your film bodies! Digicams are *still* in the "I-286" stage (for those of you old -- or nerdy -- enough to know what that means). Film cameras capture with aplomb what digicams struggle to get -- especially when you're working with wide-latitude negative films (blown out highlights, anyone?)

Film is in no way an outdated media for the photographer that is skilled in lighting, modeling, concept building and pre-visualization. Digital photography is not "better" than film photography -- it's just "different". The optics and optical principles are precisely the same. It is simply the processing method and job flow that have changed.

Yes: for those that "gotta have it now", digital is for you. But also know that the 35mm camera workhorse is the most elegant, mature, versatile and capable sensor/storage/image system ever developed. The film camera -- accompanied by a film scanner -- will see many productive years ahead of it.

Actually, you CAN make a profit on a $250 shoot ... it's just that you won't be offering much in terms of service to the client at that price quote.

Think about posted taxi (medallion) cab fares in New York and you'll get an idea of what I'm talking about. Yeah, a $6 fare might get you across the street, just as $250 can get you in the bridal couple's door -- and herein lies the opportunity for you to hawk your value-added services.

Every New York car service ain't a stretch limo, you know ...

Thank you Georg. I will re-assess my technique. It is possible that the problem is indeed associated with the weight of the lens. It occurs primarily with the 80-200G--which is no lightweight. I have on rare occasion noticed the issue with the 100-400 APO. Parenthetically, I also have the 35-200xi, which does not display this problem.

Thank you for your input and insight.

Problem: I have a 9xi that switches from manual focus to auto focus

by itself when I'm using long lenses (above 200mm). This problem

occurs randomly and erratically, and is kinda hard to pin down.

Any observations or comments?

Weighing in with my 2 cents ...

After all is said and done, the reasons to switch to digital capture is to

1) accomplish a meaningful improvement in your job/work flow and

2) succumb to a dwindling source of chemical processing locations (which actually is a restatement of #1)

I've said this before, and I say it again: when the price/performance ratio of digital capture meets MY expectations, I'll switch to digital capture.

This is not to say I'm falling behind the curve on digital technology: I'm not some incorrigible Luddite. I'm a self described PS nut that tries to improve my skillset every day. So my suggestion is if you're going to obsess about anything related to digital imaging, first start with learning, living, existing and thriving in the PS environment. THAT is where the truest leap in technology can be found. PS is what will separate the gadget-geeks from the true artists for the forseeable future.

By the way, what do we call this new venture ... drop the 'K' for "S & M" ...

Ahh yes, think of the possibilities!

;->

Some weeks ago, I posted the question "Why is KM such a laggard ...".

Now we know why. But you know, this is common in all industries -- aircraft, automobile, watchmakers, etc. Consolidation is at work here. This also means lower cost but less selection and possibly less innovation.

This is all a sign that the digicam industry is maturing.

I appreciate (most of) these comments even though some of the respondents ... not all ... fail to recognize that in a free market, competition drives prices down and sends quality up. This is the primary reason why I feel KM is presently not up to the task.

I have ZERO problems with their film camera line. (Actually, I do: while I feel Minolta engineering is superb, I likewise feel their sales and marketing truly suck. But that's none of my business.) KM just needs to get in gear and accellerate the DSLR development stream, or else...

Now to Mr. Luiz Cavalcante's response: As a photographer, I truly appreciate where you're coming from. Your love of the art of photography, rather than a lusting for toys, comes across strong. It took a divergent mind ... one thinking outside of the box ... to write what you did and get me thinking straight again.

It is people like you that will rescue photography--as an art form--from itself. For this, I thank you.

Phil D.

Hey Minolta! Is the vessel taking on water? Is the good ship KM

sinking?

Maybe KM is switching its corporate strategy to hawking copy

machines, or something, but other manufacturers have been swift to

usher new digicam products to market and KM is being left in the dust.

And yes, I'm kinda pissed because I have a stable full of dedicated

Minolta gear that's looking more like paper weights and museum relics

with each new release by Canon or Nikon. KM seemingly hasn't a fire

in their belly for keeping pace with a changing world.

This is all such a shame. I hearken back to the days when Minolta was

truly leading-edge; you know, ..."Only from the Mind of Minolta", and

all that.

I was a dedicated Minolta fan. I hung in there long enough. Oh well.

Time to jump ship.

That's a simple one ...

Have an assistant (or two!) pre-assemble and meter your lights so you can walk in and start shooting.

Ya gotta keep a watch post on EBAY, where these lenses occasionally show up. I just purchased one for $450 ... it was externally 'challenged', but optically excellent.

Good luck.

When the 100 - 400 first came out, I got one. I admit i should have done my homework first because I now barely use it.

Primary complaint? -- No tripod mount on the barrel. i think that was a major oversight on the part of Minolta. Frankly, the lens is no more than a 24-85MM series on steroids. Whereas the 24-85 is a wonderful lens, the 100-400 is a clunker.

When I get around to it, the 100 - 400 is off to EBAY.

Phil

You CAN attain pro level photographs with the equipment you already have IF you understand how lighting properties work. In a nutshell, the goal is to avail yourself to soft, even, diffuse lighting. On-camera lighting can work, but typically fails (especially indoors) because the photographer is asking something from the on-camera flash unit that is impossible from a physics standpoint.

So, take your camera and flash outdoors, out of direct sunlight (a shade tree, for example), use auto exposure lock, use a tripod (ALWAYS a good idea to bolt that camera to Mother Earth), then fire away. Don't worry about flash output, as TTL-OTF will take care of that.

Is bright, direct overhead sunlight not avoidable? Then slap a ND filter in front of your lens, and repeat the above. This will minimize those "raccoon eyes".

And yes, there are many other approaches to what I've just described. I'm certain that other experts will weigh in with their sage opinions. My objective is to get you going with as little additional investment as possible.

Lastly, learn your craft! Read books on lighting. Good luck.

... a simply superb work that delves into the nuances of the Minolta system.

Thanks for a fine article.

Email me and I'll send the documentation--4 .PDF files. Type in the header "Photo-Net", so I'll pay attention to it.

atpcficto@yahoo.com

Yes. For high-end work, it's of marginal value. It's just not how the high-end client shops for goods and services.

Yes. The Yellow Pages shoppers (and the variants) center on price (and impulsivity).

Yes. The (wedding) photography business relies strongly on word-of-mouth ... I always get 2 or 3 strong referrals from each wedding I shoot. But it's also a 'get-out-and-press-the-flesh' kind of business also. If your people skills are poor, you won't do much business.

If you are in business to serve the public, some clients may not be techy or saavy enough to log on to a website, hence the Yellows must be factored into any marketing strategy. And let's not forget that entries in the Yellows assign a certain 'permanence' to your business ... an attachment to a community or region that is somehow lost via web based marketing.

... you *do* still carry business cards, don't you? Heck. You *do* still have a physical portfolio, right? Are these not marketing tools as well?

Interestingly enough, I shot a wedding 7 days ago using monolights, and some unusual issues cropped up.

(It was a Roman catholic ceremony. Aaarrrgh!!! RC restrictions on photography drive me nuts!! But the priest was more pliant than customary, so I had a little more freedom of movement than usual.)

I operate a 4-light set-up, 2 Speedotron Force 10s, and 2 Sunpak 622 Supers ... all radio-slaved. Ooops, I forgot I also have the on-camera flashgun that I set manually to the lowest, or next to lowest setting. So in all, 5 lights.

I was very pleased with the way things were going ... until the organist -- who sat hidden from my view, behind a rather large marble column and out of my sight, just about creamed me after the ceremony because she was in the "direct line of fire" of one of the Speedos (actually, it was about 6 feet above her head) and the light discharge -- understandably -- more than interfered with her playing.

My point? You can never plan out every last detail or nuance when it comes to wedding photography. I try to be a perfectionist in my work, and her discontent really upset me for a good while afterwards.

And no. This is one time I did not attend the rehearsal (and I usually do) because it was a favor (gasp!) for a co-worker.

Oh well. At least the results were great.