jeffdietz

I'd like to expand my photography to include IR, but want to make sure I pick

the right medium to get the right effect. I've shot a couple of roles of

Kodak HIE with a red 25 filter, and ended up with "classic" IR shots that have

the halos which make them look a little soft. I like that look because it's

cool and different.

One question I have is - what causes the halo look? Does it have to do with

the film construction? Or, is it because the red 25 filter allows some

visible light through, and since visible and IR get focused at different

planes, I'm ending up with focused IR and out-of-focus visible light?

As for digital, I know that cameras can be altered (remove the IR blocking

filter) to make IR photography easier. My question here is - would digital IR

provide sharper images (no halo) since the sensor doesn't have the layered

construction of film? Or, would digital IR still show the halos because of

the light-focusing concept described above?

Last question - if I used a stronger IR-dedicated filter such as an 89, 87, or

87c, what effect would that have on the halo look?

Why do I care?

1. I want the look I'm looking for.

2. Cost and commitment. I'm willing to pay for either a bunch of film, some

chemicals, and a film scanner, or I'll pay to have a digital SLR altered, but

not both.

Thank you.

Your question is one of many that will spark controversy between different camps of loyal followers. Digital vs. Film, Nikon vs. Canon, etc. Each side of the discussion will think their position is better than the other because their choice suits their needs and personal preferences.

In the end, you will have to live with your decision. Realize that new cameras come out every few months, each with their own good points and not-so-good points. Personally I'm a Canon shooter, and have been pleased with decision. If I went Nikon, I would probably be happy there as well. I think both companies make fine products, so it boils down to what will make you happy and what will tick you off every time you see/feel it.

I'm with Bob...if you have convinced yourself that Nikon is for you, for whatever reasons, then do it and live with it.

Has anyone heard of a website, etc. where you can search for photo

subjects by location? For example, I'm doing a project on train

bridges/trestles. I've shot a couple of local train bridges, but

haven't found a good source that lists them out. There are a couple

of sites out there where train enthusiasts chat, but they really

don't focus on the type of information I need. In this internet

age, there has to be an easier way.

Similarly, what if I were a person who liked to shoot old

cemeteries, caves, or whatever. For people who are project-driven

in their photography, it seems like there should be some bulletin

board, site, or whatever that lists locations by subject. Driving

around and searching is just way too inefficient.

Thanks.

I'm looking for a method to measure the voltage returned by my

hotshoe flash. I have a Promaster 5700 flash and have seen reports

that say it is at/under 6 volts, and other reports about it being

much higher. I'd rather not fry my Drebel. Currently I'm shooting

with an optical slave attached to my 5700, using the on-camera flash

to pop the off-camera slave. At times this is a bit cumbersome and

sometimes I don't want two flashes on my subject. I'd rather mount

the flash on the camera or use my off-shoe cord if possible.

So, does anyone have ideas on how to measure the flash return

voltage? I have a voltmeter for normal household use, but will it

record such a quick pulse?

Thank you.

Does anyone have experience with the Delkin BurnAway? It seems like

a good deal to have a portable DVD burner for my CF cards for $250.

Are there any drawbacks? Is it reliable?

Thanks.

I own a Cokin P filter holder, and find it works great. So far, I only have three filters that are P-sized. One is a Hi-Tech 2-stop ND Grad, and another is a Hi-Tech 2-stop ND (sorry to contradict Mary). My third filter is the Cokin polarizer, which fits in the wider slot closest to the lens. So far, the cokin polarizer works fine, but then again, I don't have any others to compare it to. I also have the Cokin A system with a handful of Cokin filters, but I got those before I started getting bigger lenses, etc. If I had it to do over again, I would have just started with the P series, but I was (more) cash-limited back then.

Many of the square filters will tell you if they fit Cokin..at least on the B&H site they do. I don't recall the exact size required for rectangular filters to fit, but it shouldn't be too hard to find out.

Good luck.

Freedom of speech is a fine thing, and I support it and the rest of

the Constitution totally. It seems to be exceptionally prevalent in

colleges and among people of similar age. However, as a veteran, I

am taken aback by someone using our national symbol as a trash can

liner. Normally I'm not very sensitive to other people's opinions

(everyone's entitled to them), and the images of the flag on the

grass and with scissors are OK from an artistic standpoint.

However, as a trashcan liner...well...if you want to evoke emotion

with your images, you have succeeded.

My Cincinnati Zoo pics were taken with Nikon gear, rented for free

at the zoo on Father's Day weekend last year. A local photo shop

does this as an annual promo. Body of choice was D-70, lenses were

80-400 VR and 500, flash SB-600.<div></div>

IR will work on a Digital Rebel. My first shots were with a Tiffen 87 which turned out to be the wrong filter for what I wanted to achieve (too dark). I returned it and am awaiting a Hoya R72, which is supposed to work better. I posted a thread on this myself. See http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Aaw7

-- Jeff

Personal preference - I like the punch of glossy. To me, matte seems to have an inherent softness to it. However, I sometimes go with matte to achieve certain looks.

That being said, I can't stand glare from a framed print -- it always seems to catch my eye no matter how I look at it. When I'm framing, I use glare-free acrylic. A piece of 8x10 glare free runs around $2.00 from Home Depot.

I'm considering taking some college courses in photography, and am

looking for anyone with experience with two of the schools on my

list. -- Sinclair University (Dayton, Ohio) and Antonelli College

(Cincinnati, Ohio).

My employer will pay for college classes as long as it leads to a

degree. Dayton also has Ohio Institute of Photography and

Technology (OIP&T), but they don't have a degree program so they're

out of the picture.

Anyway, Sinclair is $65 per credit hour and seems like a general-

eduction community college with a associate-of-arts degree in

Photography. Antonelli is $325 per credit hour, and is very focused

on training people for a specific trade, offering an associate-of-

business degree in photography. My goal is not to use this as a way

to change careers, just to get more knowledge and an excuse to shoot

on someone else's nickel.

So...any does anyone out there have experience with either of these

schools?

Thanks...Jeff

See some recent threads on creating a light tent with very little budget. It's proof that good results don't require a lot of money.

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BDNy

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00AzeH