bob studer

Thanks Tom!<p>

Those are great shots. I checked out some of your other stuff too. You do really good work, bro!

Thanks guys... those look like some great options!<p>

Tom - That Norman softbox looks cool. So no speedring or anything? It just snaps onto the Lumedyne head? <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=350615&is=REG&addedTroughType=search">THIS</a> is it, right?

<p>

Do you happen to have any examples with it in use? Don't worry if you don't have anything handy.

I just got a Lumedyne kit. I picked up a 400ws signature series

pack with two HEBC 800ws heads. Thinking I might go for a used 065

or 067 pack sometime down the road. But for now, I need a couple of

umbrellas.

<p>

I shoot people...headshots, environmental portraits, etc... I was

wondering what a good size umbrella is to use with the Lumedyne

Signature heads?

<p>

I'm thinking I want at least about a 45", but wondering if I went

larger what I might gain (softer light, more coverage, ?) versus

what I might lose (less power, less efficiency, more spill, ?) In

my modest experience so far I've typically used the translucent

white umbrellas with removable black covers in both shoot-thru and

bounce configurations.<p>

thanks

Thanks Paul. I knew it was a stupid question.<p>

I'm pretty sure I wasn't clicking "cancel". I think I was just always clicking "open" to go ahead and open the image. That seems to cancel the changes also. But "done" worked.

I'm shooting canon digital and using CS2 with Camera RAW and

Bridge... <p>

 

When previewing a RAW file for the first time after loading it on

the computer, Bridge does some auto-adjustments to the image. Is it

possible to disable this? ... I know this question has been touched

on before and that when you go into ACR, you can click on that

triangle and turn off "Use Auto Adjustments" or Ctrl-U then "Save

New Camera Raw Defaults" but that doesn't seem to work for me. All

the adjustment sliders still have the "Auto" checkbox checked. What

stupid thing am I missing?<p>

 

Also, if I want to disable auto-adjustments when previewing in

Bridge, should that same preference I just mentioned in the previous

paragraph do it, or is there some other setting?<p>

I Realize this stuff is sort of a moot point when shooting RAW,

since the idea is you're likely going to change the settings anyway,

and you can copy the settings to other files... but I'd like to see

what came out of the camera "As Shot" with the exposure and color

settings that were set at the time of exposure, just so that I can

know what the thing is doing and get better shots straight out of

the camera the next time..... I shoot a lot of contrasty scenes and

find the auto-adjust often does a horrible job with these..... Do

the camera settings only apply to jpegs?<p>

About buying used Lumedyne stuff...sounds like it's also a good option, eh? Looks like the older stuff goes pretty cheap. Is that $120 a standard price for overhauling a pack? I wonder what that includes (testing, replacing parts? etc.)... I guess I'll contact lumedyne and find out.

Thanks so far. <p>

Yeah, I've heard of a lot of journalist/editorial type people who use lumedynes and know there's a couple guys on these forums that use them also. That's one thing that draws me to them. I've also rented them a couple times. The slower recycle and duration times are interesting points. Also the easier AC power ability of the alien bees would be convenient. <p>

I guess many of the drawbacks of either system are things I already deal with one way or another and overall either would still be a nice improvement.<p>

Am I correct in using the "True WS" of the alien bees when comparing to the Lumedyne? So the B800 is closer to a 400WS lumedyne?<p>

How much does the Vagabond battery weigh? I couldn't find that spec on their website. It looks relatively compact, but I'm guessing it's gotta have a little heft to it, just wondering how much? Also wondering about having to ground the battery...seems like it might be a bit incovenient sometimes.<p>

I would like to upgrade to a nice portable lighting kit. I've been

using a mix of old shoe-mount flashes (quantum T2D, sunpak 120J,

383, vivitar 285) and mounting on stands triggered with wein slaves.

Usually, I only use 2 lights at a time with the T2D and 120J getting

the most use. Only modifiers I've used are umbrellas, gels, and

homemade snoots. It's been an adequate kit and very inexpensive

since I acquired all the lights on the used market.<p>

WHY upgrade?... More power, more reliable equipment, and more

consistent light output. I've found shooting groups, it's difficult

to get even lighting because of falloff. I'm guessing putting more

distance between the people and the strobe will help that. I'd also

find myself wanting more power sometimes when mixing bright daylight

and flash.<p>

So at the moment, my choice is between a 400WS Lumedyne or 800WS

Alien Bees kit. I like the Lumedyne and have used the system

before. A pack and two heads seems just slightly more portable than

two Alien Bee monolights and the battery pack. Never tried the

AlienBees stuff, but they are considerably cheaper, even with the

portable battery. But one thing that's a slight annoyance to me

about monolights is that it's more difficult to adjust the output

when it's positioned way up on a stand. I guess a lot of people rave

about the Alien Bees so they must be great bang for the buck. Any

sigificant advantages that the Lumedyne has over the Alien Bees or

vis versa?<p>

Wonder what opinions people have about how these two systems

compare? How about output? From both websites, it seems that they

are fairly close in power. Any comments or suggestions would be

appreciated. Thanks.

Oh, I forgot to mention I'll be pushing a stop or two.....thanks

Does anybody have experience with Fuji 800Z ? I guess this emulsion

has replaced NPZ, which I used several times in the past with and

really liked. With digital, I don't keep up with the latest films

but have a situation where a film like NPZ would've worked nicely

given my familiarity with it. So how does this new 800Z compare

with the 'old' NPZ in 135? <p>

BTW - I did a search for "fuji 800z" and came up with pretty much

nothing...

I'm not really a fan of digicams, but how about the <a href="http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/vModelDetail?displayTab=O&storeId=15001&catalogId=13401&itemId=94142&catGroupId=24999&modelNo=DMC-LX1K&surfModel=DMC-LX1K&cacheProgram=11002&cachePartner=7000000000000005702" </a>Panasonic DMC-LX1</a>? The guy from luminous landscape has a recent review of it. Personally, I'd go with a 35mm film point-n-shoot. But that's just my personal preference/style.

Hey Ken... What's up your butt? No need to get on this forum if all you're gonna do is toss around petty, sarcastic insults and give lame advice like "use the search engine".

Thanks for the helpful responses. I've tried 3.2, but I think I'm seeing some of the problems that are mentioned, so I also suspect that it's not actually 100% yet...which, as also mentioned, explains why Adobe doesn't have the 5D on their list.

Haven't compared these two specifically, but my experience is that a decent prime has always beat out all but the very best zooms (and then it was practically a toss up). I'd get the prime lens myself, and personlly would get a 20mm (32mm equiv) since I like the slightly wider look.

Does version 3.2 of Camera Raw support the 5D? I seem to remember

seeing somewhere that it does, but I don't see the 5D in the list of

supported cameras on Adobe's Camera Raw web page.

Okay Rob, thanks for your fantastically helfpul contribution(s) to these forums. Gee...using the search engine. Why didn't I think of that?

Rob - That thread discusses the Elan 7 and low-end of the film line. I'm interested in the EOS 3 and 1V, if you read my questions.

I am interested in upgrading a well-worn old Elan 7 (not the "N")

with an EOS 3... better build, better autofocus, better metering,

etc. The used prices of these are attractive to me compared to the

more desirable 1V.<br><br>

But I'm thinking that Canon hasn't updated the higher end of their

film SLRs in a while. The Elan 7N was the last new film body I

think, and it was upgraded with newer E-TTL II, for example, which

neither the 3 nor the 1V have.<br><br>

Anyone else think an update to either the EOS 3, 1V, or both can be

expected soon? Maybe within a few months... Maybe even a price

reduction given all the "hoo-ha" over the digital stuff...<br><br>

Or perhaps there's not enough new features that Canon could add to

these already nice cameras to make it profitable for them? Care to

speculate? Any Canon reps out there?

Thanks John!

I'm wondering if there's a hi-resolution test / reference image file

somewhere that I could download and use to help calibrate my digital

setup... Adobe color space, non-compressed file format (preferably

tiff), printable at 8x10", ... an image with a Macbeth chart, gray-

scale chart, some skin tones, other standard test shot stuff,

etc.<br><br>

I've shot many a test image myself, and feel reasonably good about

my color management process, but as you probably know...with this

digital stuff, we're constantly swapping/upgrading pieces of our

systems, so I'd like a known good image from somewhere independent

of my setup for a sanity check every now and then.<br><br>

Thanks

Thanks for the responses so far <br><br>

Richard - Some of my B&W work is intentionally push processed to get a nice grainy/contrasty look... I like film grain (not sure why so many people don't) and sometimes don't want a "clean" image. The look that you get with traditional film cannot be duplicated with C-41 films (much less digital capture). C-41 grain is like color neg film, and although it's finer looking grain, it has a softer look to the grain that's less attractive to me when enlarged. I often push Tri-X (35mm) to 1600 or more...printed wet, the negs look great. I want a scanner that can capture nice, sharp grain withOUT trying to "clean it up". But even in 120, with say APX100 in Rodinal, there's a subtle grain that adds just enough texture/character/depth to my wet prints...maybe I'm asking too much of digital imaging.<br><br>

Ed - is there a scanner you can recommend that does does a better job of full-frame than the 9000? Or is it possible to file out the Nikon film holder to get a larger scan area?

 

<br><br>

Thanks again

Looking to upgrade my scanner. I'd like a good quality dedicated

film scanner that can handle both 35mm and up to at least 6x7 medium

format (important that it can do "full-frame"). <br><br>

I'm assuming most scanners can handle color negs & slides pretty

well, but I also shoot a lot of traditional B&W neg film and want

the scanner to be able to capture the tonality and grain as well as

possible. Some of my stuff tends to be fast film, push-processed

for intentional high-contrast and distinct/coarse grain... so I'd

like to be able to repro this in a digital print ( I realize I'm not

going to get the same results as a wet darkroom, but I'd like to get

close ).<br><br>

Outside dropping the cash on an Imacon, would the Nikon Coolscan

9000 the best scanner for this? The roughly $2k price tag is kind

of high and I probably wouldn't want to spend much more than that

unless there were vastly superior results elsewhere. <br><br> So

how does the 9000 do on b&w negs? I know about turning off ICE and

all that. <br><br> Can it do full-frame (135 & 120)... anyone know

the actual, maximum scan area? <br><br>Is the glass carrier/holder

better than the standard holder?<br><br>

Any suggestions welcome...<br><br>

Thanks!

I think there's a lot of interest in how this new printer performs,

so I thought I'd just put out a quick word here...I bought it mostly

for the claims about how well it works for B&W prints. I already

have an R1800 that I think is fabulous for color but sucks for B&W

(not neutral at all). I've also done a lot of experiments with a

friend's 2200 and never really got great results for b&w. I'm

usually not a early adopter , but I couldn't resist getting a 2400

to try out.<br><br>

I only got the 2400 yesterday and only had time to run a few test

prints with a couple B&W images. Bottom line is I got what I think

is extremely neutral greyscale prints right out of the box with

excellent tonality. It seems almost too easy to do this stuff these

days. I tried printing on Epson Enhanced Matte and Premium

Semigloss. I'm impressed. Checked the prints under daylight

balanced lighting, flourescents, and tungstens... the prints are

about as neutral as it gets. I've been devoted to traditional B&W

processes for a while and continue to shoot film and scan. I admire

those who continue to print traditionally, but I don't have the time

anymore, so that side of my wet darkroom is now for sale (along with

my R1800). The 2400, and I think digtial printing in general,

doesn't quite match the quality and feel of a fine B&W fiber or

Ilfochrome print, but it's close enough for me. Haven't tried color

yet, but I don't doubt it will be great also.

I have a feeling I might be searching in vain at this point, but I

figure it wouldn't hurt to ask... <br><br>

I'm looking for paper that will work in the epson 2200 that has the

look and feel of traditional B&W glossy fiber. I've tried lots of

different papers and a number of 'samplers' from different places.

Found stuff that comes really close to RC paper, but nothing near

fiber based paper.<br><br>

Also, anyone think there will be new papers to complement the new

epson 2400 and its inks.

<br><br>

Any recommendations would be appreciated

I'm mostly a prime lens guy, so forgive the ignorance here...

<br><br>

I recently picked up an AI-S 35-105mm zoom for lightweight travel

occassions. Aside from testing of course, how do I know the f-stop

reduction as I'm zooming in? Does the meter (FE2 / FM2)

automatically compensate (seems like it is)? Can I still have the

aperture set at f/3.5 throughout the zoom range, if I compensate

exposure with the shutter speed instead? Is there an online

resource that gives this info for other lenses? <br><br>

Thanks