jerry_cargill

Keep practicing with the lights on until you can do it with your eyes closed.

Yes, sacrifice an old roll of film for practicing purposes.

<p>So Dan do you recommend the Dynalite you left a link for, or the Profoto B! for a small studio? </p>

<p>Hello,<br>

I would like to upgrade my current Genesis 400 system (I have two). The heads are stripped and no longer hold a softbox at a particular angle longer than a few minutes, they're only good for grids and umbrellas at this point. I have a pretty small studio, about the size of a two-car garage. I don't want to overpower myself should I need to open up a lens all the way.<br>

I was looking at Profotos in particular, and could spend up to $1500. I have been looking at some used sets of monos as well as packs. I admit I'm a bit dizzy from the choices. I don't think any profotos out there are bad... but my concern, like I said, is to get a set that is better than my current set, which I can dial down pretty low for a small space. I also like the idea of upgrading into the pro realm. <br>

Can anyone recommend some solutions? I don't have my heart set on Profotos, its just a brand that I have experience with. I have also used Speedotron Black in a small studio space and found that I could not really open up greater than f5.6 even with a softbox. </p>

<p>Thank you.</p>

<p>Parvv some clothing stains may be temporary, or permanent but I still PS them out.</p>

<p>Jeff I see your point, and it's a good one. I find the blurry waterfall photos cliche, and I think they've been cliche for decades. Maybe what I am seeing here is the formation of a new cliche in (portrait) photography. Maybe what makes me uncomfortable is that it seems to me that the urge to iron out all of the supposed imperfections also erase the subtle characteristics that make us differentiated human beings. I find myself siding with Bernard because in my limited experience with portraits, I only eliminate what is temporary: pimples, odd hairs, cold sores, stains on clothes, etc. The irregularity of human beings is one of the charms that I enjoy in the appearance of human beings. <br>

Furthermore, texture is a powerful element of photography, and when you iron it out with android-making, something critical is lost. But I don't deny anyone to say this is an artform, it is certainly an artform.</p>

<p>Craigslist gigs is good for that. I have found many good models there, mostly amateur.</p>

<p>I apologize in advance if this is a newbie question, but I am a newb...sort of. I shot film, mostly fine art, since 1985 and last few years I've been selling very little if any fine art at all, but am making some good extra money doing portraits, so I've been studying a lot of professional and not-so-professional work. I have been looking especially on Model Mayhem, which seems to cover the entire range of skill and creativity. I especially find Photo of the Day...interesting.<br>

So when did retouchers start turning models into androids? What is the software that does this? Sometimes I look at a photograph and I think: 'this might no longer be a photograph; it's now something else, like a painting perhaps'. <br>

What is going on here?<br>

Thanks,<br>

Jerry </p>

<p>Since Facebook, Twitter and Instagram can appropriate and sell our photos without notice or compensation, I feel very uncomfortable posting valued photos there. Is twitter safe for photographers? Or is there another better (free) option?</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>Jerry </p>

<p>Thanks for your replies, but even when I push halfway down and manually focus, the AF still overrides my choice of focal point while in MF. I cannot get it to take an out of focus photo, as the AF just takes over. I really was hoping that I would not have to make an issue out of this with ebay.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hello,<br>

Bought this lens used from a very reputable seller on Ebay. I just noticed that while AF works like a charm, no noise, lightning fast. However, I am unable to manually focus! I switch over to MF from AF on the lens and it keeps autofocusing. This is obviously a problem for food and portraits especially. I am an old-school film photographer and I am more comfortable with MF than AF. I should add that the body is a 60D, and that this is the first L series lens I have put on the body. I tried my EF 50mm just now and it MFs like a charm. <br>

I am hoping that I am just overlooking something really obvious. At this point, I would welcome a flame-storm just to get the solution. I just got this lens new and I am right now on vacation in Greece and Italy for several weeks. I got this lens for the trip. <br>

Any ideas or suggestions are greatly appreciated. <br>

Jerry</p>

<p>Q.G. and Len, thank you for your responses.<br>

Sorry for omitting this important detail: The back features a small black crank that you have to manually crank to '1', and on our other identical back it indeed does stop at 1. But in my case the second back does not stop at 1, nor does 1 ever show.</p>

<p>Jerry</p>

<p>Hello,<br>

I'm working with a Hasselblad 500c. I have two 120 backs, one that seems to load rolls of 120 no problem and then there's my trouble child. This second back's problem is that whenever I load a roll, and I try to crank the little crank on the back to 1 but, well, 1 never arrives. It just keeps on cranking until the roll is completely rolled up on the other side of the cartridge, as if I had shot the whole roll. What am I missing here? <br>

I've wasted a few rolls already thinking that I just missed something each time I tried it, but now I'm thinking either there is some setting or switch I may have moved to mess this up. I hope this is something simple and one of you Hassie experts will be doing a palm-slap to the forehead/eye-roll as you read this and then cheerfully clue me in on what I've missed here.<br>

Thank you for your help and time.</p>

<p>Jerry Cargill</p>

<p>Matt, that is a very good point. I suppose I could just check out that metadata in Bridge. Thanks!<br>

Jerry</p>

<p>Hello,<br>

I would like to shoot full body (head to toe) portraits and full body nudes. I already have a Canon 85mm 1.8 which I really like, a great lens, super sharp and nice bokeh, but my studio is too small to back it up enough to use for the whole body. Plus, I like to shoot the model from above, and I would need an atrium to get the whole body with the 85mm.<br>

What kind of (prime or zoom) lens can I use that would not distort the face or body and yet get the whole body in? I should also add that I have a rather inexpensive Tamron zoom, that seems ok for tourism and other non-studio uses, but I have found disappointing in the studio because the focus is nothing at all like my Canon 85 1.8! I guess I am outgrowing it.<br>

Thanks for your help. Let me know if there is other info I can add to clarify the question.</p>

<p>Jerry</p>

<p>Hello all,</p>

<p>I'm a photography teacher in a large high school. Over the years we have been able to collect 3 Epson printers for our exhibitions and for use by advanced students. Our 2200, which we have had for several years, continues to be a workhorse, but its color is not the greatest. When we got our R1900, it was love at first sight with its print quality. Now, with most of the yellow nozzles clogged, it is now our designated BW printer, set up with Quadtone. I can't even begin to tell you how hard I tried to clean out those nozzles with sponges, syringes+surgical tubing combos, etc. <br>

Then there is the paperweight: the R1800. Right out of the box, this printer never worked. Seriously, it has never produced a single print. It just sits on a cart. To its credit, it has managed to do something: suck up 2 whole sets of ink. I will spare you the details of what else it does and doesn't do: suffice it to say that it is defective. My students don't even acknowledge it anymore. I took it out of the box in the beginning of the year in my advanced class so they could see its first prints churned out from their files, but the closest thing we ever got to a print was a piece of enhanced matt with random ink stains on it. My fruitless hours and various experiences with Epson customer service, tech support et al, have been epic and very deeply frustrating. A small part of this is our fault: the printer was a purchased by our school's booster parents, and because of a bureaucratic gaffe, it spend over a year on the shelf before I got my hands on it...so yes, the warranty ran out before I even cut the tape on the top of the box. I don't know how helpful Epson would have been if we had opened the box sooner; from my other experiences with them with my other two printers, their techs seem to think that cleaning sheets will solve anything (I guess it does from their point of view, because it gets the difficult customer out of their hair). But I guess I look at a printer as something mechanical, like a power-drill, and not something perishable like a carton of milk. I have done extensive research on the R1800 and I have read numerous complaints describing problems exactly like we've experienced here. It's a dead piece of crap.<br>

You've probably gotten the idea that, yes, funds are scarce. I can't justify spending hundreds to unclog our R1900 and as for the R1800, it's clearly factory-defective and unsalvageable. We have just a little bit of ink for the R1900 and as for the R1800...no ink. So we really are not fully invested in these printers, for as you know, the real cost is the ink. We've still got a lot of 2200 ink, which is fine since it still works great. Ironic, because it's like ten years old.<br>

I've had some colleagues in other schools rave about the Canon printers, as being now even superior to Epson in printer build and quality of print. I've worked with Canon cameras for decades, film and dig, and have always found them solid and wonderful.<br>

Should we just abandon Epson and start investing in Canon?<br>

2c from converts please?</p>

<p>Jerry Cargill</p>

 

<p>There are two holes at the top inside of the camera that are revealed once the removable bracket is taken out. Just put a couple of pieces of black gaffer's tape over them or putty them over with black caulk or thick black paint. </p>

<p>Thanks to all who have responded to my post. I suppose I should clarify my question a bit. So if I have a Tamron 17-50 zoom, is a 50mm even necessary since 50mm is covered in the 17-50 range? Would I even need a 60, since 50 is pretty close to 60mm?</p>

<p>Hello,<br>

Just got my new Canon 60D. Full disclosure: this is my first DSLR, so these are going to be some basic, maybe dumb-sounding questions. I am interested in a portraiture lens and also a "walking around" lens. I have tried a Canon 85mm 1.8, and I feel I would have to get very far back from the model for a portrait other than a head shot. I was thinking about the 60mm instead because, well, I guess I want to say a "less alienating" macro for portraits (I like to be able to converse with my subjects, not holler). Is there going to be that much significant difference in distance between an 85 and a 60?<br>

As far as a "walking around" lens, I'm thinking a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 would be good, and my research so far justifies the purchase, but here's the thing: If I had the Tamron 17-50mm, would it be superfluous to have a 60mm lens? I ask this because 50 is close to 60, and I'm thinking a few steps towards my subject or away from it may be the difference between buying a $450 lens. <br>

Or, maybe keep the 85mm for tight portraits and also go with the Tamron 17-50mm? Decisions, decisions...<br>

Thanks for your 2c!</p>

<p>What a great old Rollei you got there!!! Take care of that tank. I love mine.</p>

<p>Hello,<br>

I know this is a pretty basic question, but I am kind of a newbie to flash photography, and I want to brush it up. I am considering buying a Canon Speedlite 430 EX II for my Canon Rebel. I also shoot with an old 1940's Rolleiflex as well as quite a bit of Holga use, and sometimes a Hassie.<br>

So will I be able to use this modern flash with my older cameras and toy cameras? What issues or problems might there be? I am shooting portraits.</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>Jerry</p>

<p>Hello,<br>

I will be shooting nudes and portraits, medium format, and I have a large and medium softbox and reflectors at my disposal. I am looking for a film that is not too grainy, is easy on the skin and not too harsh with the shadows. I'm a bit of a studio newbie, and am awaiting your 2c. <br>

I still have some TRI-X 320 and some Fuji Acros 100 sitting around from doing outdoors work...should I give that a whirl? But I really want to know people's favorites. <br>

Thanks!<br>

Jerry</p>

<p>Hello,<br>

I recently found a stash of 4x5 Polaroid color and BW film at the high school where I teach. I have found it an invaluable tool to show how the view camera works, for metering/lighting setups, explaining pinhole, etc. I guess you could say that I have become dependent on it this year as a teaching tool, and the kids have a fun time using it. In this world of digital everything, believe it or not, some of them really like film and they really like the idea of getting an image and a negative at the same time with Polaroid, especially when experimenting with lights and posing in the studio. For some kids, my darkroom course is one of the only classes not done on a computer.<br>

Ok, so I know I missed the party, that Polaroid instant is kaput, and our Polaroid back will be a paperweight after we take about 30 or 40 more shots. I know there is a Fuji back and there is Fuji instant film. I spoke with one very nay-saying guy at Calumet who basically told me not to waste our money, that Fuji barely ships their instant film anymore. But he also said that because of digital, that film is going to disappear, and that I know is untrue, so I'm left skeptical and a bit confused. Film may not be as popular anymore with commercial photographers, but there is still a demand, especially with fine art photographers, and where there is a demand...<br>

So should we buy the Fuji back and film? Give me some pros and cons.<br>

Thanks,<br>

Jerry</p>

<p> </p>

I am a high school photo teacher. We have a Hassie manual focus with one lens: a 80mm 2.8 Planar, and the closest

we can get is about 4 feet, which gives us head and chest, but we would like to be able to get close enough to do

head shots. Unfortunately we don't have the funds for a new lens, the camera and lens we have were gifts to the

school. We do have the funds for an extension tube for the 80mm lens, but I have never purchased this kind of

item in my years of photo and need to know which one is the BEST tube to add to be able to do head shots with

this 80mm? We are not looking to shoot super-macro closeups of butterflies, products or anything like that, just

need to get close enough for head shots. Or is a filter better than a tube? Thanks!