rob_martin5

Dmitriy,

 

Before you go too crazy with stocking up on a bunch of different backdrops, I'd strongly suggest you review the lighting themes in the Administration pages of this forum. Specifically, check out...

 

WEEKLY LIGHTING THEME: Using Lighting Gels

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007xgk&tag=

 

and

 

WEEKLY LIGHTING THEME: Lighting the Background

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008H7C&tag=

 

You may have already seen these, but I personally found them to be absolutely fascinating. It's amazing how many different results can evidently be achieved by simply using a single mid-gray background and a variety of gels. This method appears to be limitless.

 

Rob

Nice, Paul. I'm awaiting delivery of a 50mm Distagon myself, so these were helpful as well.

 

I too am interested to see your results from the SWC.

 

Rob

Thanks for the great example Theo! Wow, DOF really IS shallow. Given this...heck of a job with sharpness (focusing) on the eyes. Nice.

 

Q.G.... :)

Thanks again to everyone. Q.G...very cool calculator. Not sure about the math when I do exactly as you prescribe, but I trust you :).

Thanks guys.

 

Since posting this, I did find some technical info on Hasselblad's site. For the 150mm CFi, they specify the 16E for a 10 3/4" field width and the 32E for a 7 3/16" field width. Seems to me that the former might work well for my objective. I don't quite understand these particular "field width" specifications, though, since later in the document they provide a field width coverage and exposure compensation table that includes min/max field widths for each lens-tube combination. The 16E on the 150 CFi indicates max=1'8.5" and min=8.7". If I'm understanding this correctly, it sounds very suitable. I can move closer/farther to/from my subject and yield any field width within this range accordingly, right?

 

As for teleconverters, I guess I hadn't considered this due to my thinking that the introduction of additional optics might potentially degrade image quality.

 

Rob

Does anyone have experience with using extension tubes for portraits? I'm using

a 503CW with the standard 80mm as well as a 150mm CFi. I'm interested in

hearing of any thoughts on this with regard to loss of image quality, exposure

compensation, etc. I have no way of trying one (in any size), and therefore

can't tell if this is feasible. I seem to recall reading somewhere of some pros

who do this with the Mamiya RZ platform, so I'm wondering if it's equally viable

in 6x6.

 

I'm not looking for macro shots of skin pores :), but I am trying to get a bit

closer than currently possible with my 150mm--say, for example, enough that I

can fill the frame with a child's face. With this rough spec in mind, and

presuming this is even feasible...any recommendations as to the "right" size

tube for the job?

 

Any comments are greatly appreciated!

 

Rob

John--This was exactly what I was thinking and was trying to articulate; but, you put it more concisely, thanks. I needed a sanity check.

 

Ellis--The camera would otherwise be my first thought for adjustment, but as you say...you can't always be precise. So, there appeared to be a more precise means for coordinating the strobe with the meter, each with 1/10th stop incremental capability.

 

Thanks to you both, much appreciated as usual. This board is awesome.

 

Rob

I'm a little confused about how exactly to use the 1/10th Shutter

Speed or f Stop value (depending upon which mode--Aperture Priority

or Shutter Speed Priority--you're in) when metering with the Sekonic

L-558. There's not much detail of this number in the documentation,

but I'm assuming that it simply tells you where you are between the

actual metered value and the next stop down. So, for example, I'm

metering f/11 at 1/125 sec. (shutter speed priority) with the 1/10th

f stop value saying "5." I'm thinking this simply means the meter

reading is five tenths (1/2) of a stop down from f/11 (toward f/16),

right?

 

Now, I'm wondering what I can do with this value in terms of

artificial/strobe lighting etc. I'm primarily focused on

portraiture now in a reasonably controlled studio setting. If I'm

using, say, an Elinchrom RX series monolight (or any other strobe)

that has 1/10th stop adjustment, can I correlate the 1/10th

increment strobe setting with the metered 1/10th f stop or shutter

speed value for fine tuning exposure? How might this be done? Can

someone walk me through a basic scenario or two? I'm confused

around how to best make use of the extra precision.

 

 

Thanks,

Rob

For closure and whatever it's worth to anyone, I did have this checked at a Hasselblad shop here in Houston (Houston Camera on Fondren between Westheimer and Richmond), and there was a loose element at the front of the barrel. This was a new lense so covered by warranty, which is how the shop is proceeding with repair (I think it would've only cost ~$80 anyway).

 

Thanks to those who offered the expert advise that coaxed me to have it checked rather than ignorantly thinking it's supposed to rattle!

 

Rob

Thanks David. It actually appears to "rattle" or (possibly) "clunk" when shaking it in any direction. It also is clearly emminating from the front of the lens rather than deeper inside for whatever that's worth. I believe the Houston area has only a single certified Hasselblad shop, and they're not very close to me; so, it'll take me several days to get up there for them to take a closer look.

 

Thanks,

 

Rob

Just recently purchased a CFi 150 on eBay. It's apparently brand

new with absolutely no signs of any use whatsoever. Not that I make

a habit of shaking my lenses, but I couldn't help but notice as I

was placing it back in its leather bag that it sounds as though some

elements are loose inside. It makes a dull rattling noise as you

shake it. My CFE 80 doesn't do this, and none of my Nikon lenses do

either. Is this normal for this particular lens? I haven't had a

chance to use it yet, but it "sounds" normal at various shutter

speeds and seems to function properly.

 

 

Thanks,

Rob

Phew...well, I think I got it back together pretty well enough; and, it does look a whole lot better. In fact, aside from one tiny speck of dust I allowed to get between the plates, it looks as good as new. After so much handling of each piece, though, I'm only 99% sure I reassembled it correctly. The etched surface does go on the outside (facing downward, toward the mirror), right? I couldn't tell a difference in surfaces of the thin plate, but I think I replaced it as it was originally. I know it lies on top (as the screen sets in the camera). The camera appears to focus normally, although, I'm new to MF and don't have much of a point of reference. I'm finding it generally difficult to focus anyway but figure this just takes a bit of practice/experience.

 

Rob

Interesting, Chenwah...I hadn't considered taking such a risk (e.g., deforming the frame structure, introducing dust between the plates, etc.). However, at this point the odd effects continue to linger with no apparent signs of further improvement. So, I just separated the plates, and I'm going to attempt to wash them with distilled water and see what happens.

 

Rob

Not so much a question as simply sharing a very stupid thing I did

recently...

 

I bought a "new" 503CW on ebay, and it was nearly immaculate except

that the focusing screen was rather filthy--not scratched in any way-

-just dirty. It actually looked as though someone had sneezed on it

or something. I figured it would take a bit more than simply

blowing it off with a duster, and I'd read that these screens are

acrylic--not glass; so, lens cleaner would be a no-no. I decided to

very gently wash it under warm running water with mild soap. It

cleaned up quite nicely with no resulting scratches. The problem is

that I hadn't realized that these screens apparently consist of two

plates that are sandwiched together. Rinsing the screen under

running water resulted in water/moisture being trapped between these

plates. It's difficult for me to describe the appearance, but it

seems to be slowly clearing up. I did this several days ago, and

the adverse effect is all but gone now. I'm hoping it will

completely clear up, but it's been a slow process.

 

Dumb, dumb, dumb thing to have done, and I just thought I'd share it

so someone else doesn't try the same thing. It might have (and, may

still) cost me a new screen.

 

Rob

Mike, I thought this sort of thing was generally reserved for uncoated papers. I've done a bit of coloring of b/w prints but was taught that an uncoated paper is the right approach. Thanks!

 

Christopher, you're absolutely right. I need to pay more attention to stuff like this. If there is a "right" or "wrong" here, this would certainly be a strong indication.

 

 

Rob

Great responses, thanks. I'm glad to hear it's not necessarily an "industry standard" to avoid this.

 

I haven't made the jump to digital, so Photoshop isn't an option (Dennis) but is a great idea/option for when I do make that transition.

 

I like your conviction Major. :)

 

Giampi, I like your model :), but more importantly it was a relief to see such a nice example that includes multiple catchlights as I described.

 

I appreciate the responses.

 

Rob

When using multiple strobes in front of a subject (e.g., a simple

main on one side at 45 degrees and a fill on the other at 45 degrees

setup) is it just inevitable/unavoidable that two catchlights will

appear in the subject's eyes?

 

I'm wondering if this is generally undesirable. I guess I haven't

noticed multiple catchlights in professional portrait/fashion/beauty

shots.

 

Should one care, and if so, how is this avoided when multiple

strobes are used in this manner? I realize that a reflector in lieu

of the fill strobe would solve this (?), but I see plenty of setups

with two lights similar to how I've described.

 

 

Thanks,

Rob

Thanks guys. To Glenn's point regarding the wizards and monolights...Am I right that I would only need a receiver on one of the heads and can trust the cells on the rest to fire? I've heard that the Elinchrom cells are pretty sensitive.

Thanks Jonathan.

 

I hadn't considered the increased stop-down impact of other filtration (besides neutral density) or from grids. The few shoots I mentioned included softboxes on both lights. Each channel on the Dyna 500 w/s pack has three power settings, 250, 125 and 62 w/s, and be controlled asymmetrically. To go any lower than 62 w/s, you use the 2-stop variator (in 1/3 increments), but this applies globally to both channels. So, it appears that I'm rather hamstrung with this rig as I try to work with low power settings (grids, filters and other output-inhibiting accessories aside). It's the "granularity" where I'm concerned as much as the ability to stop the whole pack down. I guess this is where I see the comparative advantage to someting like the Elinchrom 300RX or even 600RX monolights. They'll stop down to 9 w/s and 18 w/s respectively, but perhaps more importantly, this can all be done in 1/10th-stop increments AND can obviously be done far more asymmetrically. It just seems there's way more control to be had with the monolight setup in this comparison. I don't know why I stay hung up on the generator config. I like the built-in PW feature, because I was also planning on picking up a PW-enabled Sekonic light meter. Plus, I guess I like the idea of lighter heads for use on booms, for example. Decisions, decisions...

 

Thanks again.

Hi everyone.

 

At the risk of this sounding like a "which is the best lighting

setup?" question (I prefer to think it's not), I have a related

question.

 

I'm struggling between these two systems for relatively close-

quarters home portraiture work: the Dynalite 2-head/3-light kit

(2x500w/s) or the Elinchrom two-head kit (2x300RX).

 

I've rented the Dyna 500 pack with two lights and feel from

experience that it's a bit more power than I can reasonably use in a

small "studio" setting. I found myself having to crank way down on

the power switches (on both channels) as well on the variator just

to be able to meter within the range of what my lens could handle.

If I recall (it's been awhile ago), I had one channel set to 125 w/s

and the other at 62 w/s with the variator at least 1 stop down

(across both channels, as required by the unit). Seems my subject

metered at f/11 if I'm not mistaken. This doens't appear to leave

much latitude for creativity (e.g., DOF adjustment, etc.). Oh, and

even this required that the lights be no closer than ~5 feet from

the subject, making it difficult to achieve the softer/wraparound

look I wanted.

 

It seems the Dyna packs can provide fair flexibility with their

asymmetrical setting, but this asymmetry appears to be quite a bit

coarser than that available from a monolight setup like with the

Elinchrom RX series.

 

A pair or more of 300RX's are attractive, because I think you can

throttle them down as low as 9 w/s...I don't think I could ever use

more than a full 300 w/s per light in my home...and, you seem to get

much more granularity across all heads in this type of system.

They're a little more expensive, when you factor in accessories as

well as a wireless rig (vs. the 500Wi packs I'm considering from

Dyna).

 

Based on what I've already indicated as my low output requirements,

I realize two 500w/s packs (1000w/s) seems like overkill; but, I was

thinking the extra pack would give me the increased

flexibility/granularity it seems the Dyna solution inherently lacks.

 

It sounds crazy, but I've researched the specs on these and other

solutions for several years without taking any plunge. I know the

technical data and features pretty well inside/out on at least these

two. However, from a practical perspective, I'm no expert my any

means. In fact, I'm very much a novice when it comes to good

lighting for portraits. I've only done a few "shoots" of my baby

daughter, one of my wife w/her and one with all three of us.

 

I guess I'm looking from some experiential input in terms of how

crucial this "granularity" (as I've termed it) is in this type of

work and how much of a factor it should play in my decision. Also,

I'd be curious to hear any responses to my notion that the 500w/s

pack(s) could be overkill (short of always having to employ ND

gels). I've been so impressed with this site and all the incredible

education, ideas and examples you all have to offer. Any such

feedback here would be greatly appreciated as well.

 

Thanks!

Rob