bluphoto

<p>So I've been using my Elinchrom D-Lite 4 set for the last few years and it has served me well.</p>

<p>Now it's time to take my studio work to the next level and invest in a semi-decent set of lighting equipment.<br />I have a few softboxes and modifiers for my Elinchrom setup so it would probably make sense to stay with that manufacturer, but I need a couple of higher power-shorter duration heads.<br>

<br />Remembering that this is just a hobby, I want to start shooting dance in the studio. Specifically dancers "in flight" - along the same lines as Lois Greenfields airborne series. As such, short duration is priority - at least 1/1000 (would that be the t-0.1 time?)<br>

<br />I'm no expert, but I think the lower power flash heads have shorter durations, and the flash I need will likely have two lower power flash tubes combined into a single head (maybe?).<br>

<br />I have access to the appropriate space - extra height and width for shooting dance, but obviously my d-lites wouldn't be up to the job.</p>

<p>Not sure of the distances involved, but I want to light a full body at full stretch (say a 12' x 12' area of background)<br>

<br />Any help would be much appreciated, though I'd appreciate it if you didn't go suggesting top of the range equipment that's going to cost me thousands of pounds!</p>

<p>Guy</p>

<p>Can anyone tell me what sort of material the "sock" is made of in this dance image?<br>

<a href="http://www.loisgreenfield.com/dance/2179/anna-venizelos-sara-joel_2.html">http://www.loisgreenfield.com/dance/2179/anna-venizelos-sara-joel_2.html</a> (work safe)<br>

and, if possible, a recommended source in the UK?</p>

<p>many thanks<br>

Guy</p>

<p>I want to be able to skip through the TRP gallery viewing as many thumbnails on screen at a time as possible.<br>

Can I suggest having a "TRP Columns" and "TRP Rows" setting in my workspace settings which can give me more economical use of my screen real estate.<br>

Also, a full-screen option would be great too. right now the images don't even start until half way down my screen, requiring a scroll on every page before clicking "next".</p>

<p>Happy holidays from Scotland,<br>

Guy</p>

<p>Out of interest, I'd like to see the results of your purposely poor shooting style, followed IMMEDIATELY by the best portrait you can shoot. Then compare the BEST portrait with the "slim" version a couple of months later.</p>

<p>For me, the full-frame vs crop argument had nothing to do with image quality. Full frame simply gives me the ability to throw shallower depth of field for portraits.</p>

<p>Felix<br>

That being my whole point. Making covers the whole process, I wanted to separate out the part where the photographer is holding the camera from the other parts of the process.</p>

 

<p>Which part of your art satisfies and excites you the most?<br>

Personally, I have two favourite parts to my photography - the preparation before a shoot, and working on the image after the shoot.<br>

The actual holding the camera part doesn't excite me so much - as such, I think my preference is for the "making" of the image, rather than the "taking" of the image.<br>

Similarly, once I'm satisfied with a partifcular image, I rarely view it again. It simply resides on a Backup DVD somewhere, and doesn't generally see much of the light of day.<br>

I very much enjoy viewing and appreciating the images of others - such as you guys at Photo.net.</p>

<p>rgds,<br>

Guy</p>

<p>Personally, I'd rather pay an extra five pounds for my annual membership and have the site "ad-free". Mostly for the reason that I'd be able to fit more images on-screen while browsing the top rated photo's.<br>

I wonder what the percentage is of ad revenue to membership revenue.<br>

What I'd really like to see would be a setting in my preferences for the number of rows and columns of images in the TRP area.<br>

The ads themselves don't bother me - I just wish they didn't hog the higher priority screen real estate for photo.net material.<br>

Put them at the bottom - that way if I want to see them, I'll scroll down.</p>

<p>Okay, so I think you're probably right. My problem is now finding a decent stylist who has connections and exposure.</p>

<p>I'm in the North of Scotland - not a place that's well known for its fashion industry! I don't want to "break into" fashion photography. I think if I was doing it for a living I'd get bored with it. I love my photography so want to keep it as a hobby.</p>

<p>I want to show myself that I can shoot pictures like those from Coco Chanel or Nina Ricci, with big hair, flawless makeup, sumptuous ballgowns and 5'11" models.</p>

<p>I know the below might sound more than a little naive, but I'd love to make it happen so I am hoping for a little

advice.<br>

I'm not a professional photographer but I want to take on at least one couture fashion shoot. These images will

be for ME, not for a client, so I'm assuming I'll have to pay for everything myself.<br>

I'm inspired by many of the fragrance advertisements on TV and I want to shoot with models and couture

dresses of that level and quality. Without meaning to offend anyone, I've almost had it with shooting 5ft3 models who

are just trying to earn some extra cash while at college.<br>

There are a few couture outlets here I could approach for use of outfits, but I can't find any agency sites that

publish model prices though.<br>

What sory of money am I looking at for higher end agency models - models that have already had some

exposure to advertising?<br>

I know I also need to look at makeup and hair too, but one thing at a time.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<

p>Guy</p>�

<p>I'm afraid I may not be of much help but one thing I noticed with my D-Lite 4 heads are that they crack near the mounting (where they attach to the light stands).<br>

I also noticed that they overheat when pointed downwards (which is where they would point on a boom)</p>

<p>That said, they're very consistent and reliable at other times - cheap too.</p>

<p>I have no info on the Hyundai lights, I'm afraid.</p>

<p>Hook it how, exactly? Are you talking about "powering" the 580 from the travelpak (No) or just "triggering" the 580 from the travelpak (probably)</p>

<p>Rashed,<br>

This is a good, basic photography question, one that I think has been answered well above but also one that has got me thinking. Yes, the point of IS/VR is so you can handhold a camera at lower shutter speeds than would otherwise be the case without it.<br>

What I'd like to know, is does the CAMERA know whether you've got IS/VR on or off (or not available) - eg you're shooting handheld in a dim area, Does the "AUTO" mode of the camera sense that you've got IS/VR on and prioritise a slower shutter speed & smaller aperture, as opposed to a faster shutter speed & wider aperture WITHOUT IS/VR?</p>

<p>Guy</p>

 

<p>We are looking into getting a new projector for our photographic clubrooms as our old one is getting a bit long in the tooth.<br>

So we're starting to look at internet reviews etc, but I'm not sure that a fantastic home theatre projector, for example, will also be fantastic for displaying still images. (I'm guessing that there would likely be compromises in image quality for the sake of frame-rate/refresh rate etc, for displaying flicker-free movies etc).<br>

Conversely, an "office" projector might be fine for powerpoint etc, but I need reasonably accurate colour reproduction, with neutral grays for displaying mono work and a decent conrast ratio - obviously I'm not going to get the same contrast ratio as an LCD TV for example, but I would like to get relatively deep blacks (that's where our current projector lets us down)<br>

Resolution of our current unit (Canon XEED SX50) is 1400x1050, so any replacement would have to be that or higher.<br>

We have no allegiance to any particular brand or make, so any recommendations would make a great starting point for our search.<br>

<br />We use it in a darkened room (attached to the ceiling) approx 10ft from the "screen"</p>

<p>many thanks<br>

Guy</p>

<p>Yes, I'd far rather spend several hundred bucks than have Canon question my integrity!</p>

<p>I just got my 5D2, and as I'm used to using my original 5D with the grip (more for the handling than the extended battery life), I'm thinking of buying a similar grip for my 5D2. My 5D grip was genuine Canon, but I hear the Phottix ones are also very good, and half the price.<br />What really annoys me, is that Canon appear to be forcing me to not only buy the grip, but to spend another £50 for a second battery! I'm hard pushed to spend £40-50 on a second canon battery, when I'm used to my original 5d which used aftermarket batteries (and measured the battery level).<br />Using the grip for the 5d2 (Canon or Phottix), can someone tell me if the battery power level is shown on the top screen when using AA's? Does anyone know if the grip will function with only one genuine battery installed - alongside an empty slot? - alongside an aftermarket cell?<br />From what I read, the Canon battery has a device on-board which tells the body the battery power, rather than the body reading the power directly. Perhaps it doesn't but it appears that the battery power isn't displayed unless the "smart" battery allows it.<br />We know that a li-ion battery can be produced for about £5, so why does canon charge £50? My 5D worked fine on the £7 aftermarket batteries and I'm sure the 5D2 would as well. Why would Canon purposely cripple the camera & photographer for using a decent quality aftermarket battery? When someone asks me to name a battery company, the last thing I'd say would be Canon.<br />Canon also makes the AA carrier to go in the grip, right? I'm guessing I don't have to buy "smart" AA batteries, and that with AA's there's even more need for a "battery level monitor" on the top LCD - as they obviously don't last as long? So the camera MUST have the ability to read the battery level from AA's, right?<br />In that case, how come the aftermarket batteries don't just use the same contacts as the AA's, making the camera think it's got just a really long-lasting set of AA's in there?<br />Are any of you using the aftermarket Li-Ion batteries, are you having any problems with them - do you miss the LCD battery monitor.<br />Oh, if only someone like Phottix would build an inexpensive battery level monitor into an aftermarket grip! Or if somone could hack the firmware to allow the battery level to be shown despite the use of aftermarket batteries!<br />Comments?</p>

<p>Guy</p>

<p>Thanks Tom<br>

Lovely picture. Obviously your model is soft due to the long exposure - though amazingly sharp for a 30 sec exposure!. How do you think this would go down in club level competition?- I just fear that a judge would see the motion blur and not appreciate the reason for it.<br>

I'm going to study a few perfume ads etc as I think some of them have moonlit shots (though again, probably not really moonlit!)</p>

<p>cheers<br>

Guy</p>

<p>Fascinating Stuff, T.<br>

My model and I were really looking forward to undertaking a "midnight shoot", but it seems our plans are foiled!<br>

Night would also have been better as the location is quite public through the day - albeit off the beaten track a little.<br>

I guess some more lateral thinking is in order!</p>

<p>okay, so I'm not going to get the shot without some cleverness then.</p>

<p>So what LOOKS like moonlight? What could light a scene (foreground model / midground lake and water ripples and background buildings/hills/woodland) and be believable as moonlight?<br>

Am I just going to need to get a blue gelled flash on a 30ft pole?</p>

<p>I just worry that sunlight is too "blankety" as it lights the whole sky, which in turn then becomes one massive softbox. Moonlight is a much smaller source and is therefore much more directional. Even with shoting at dusk/dawn and processing blue/grey I feel that the light source wouldn't be an equiavlent size and thus have the same "directionality" as moonlight.<br>

Any more tips would be very much appreciated.</p>

<p>This is going to need to be a composite, isn't it? Don't know if I'm good enough at photoshop to make it believable though.</p>

<p>Guy</p>

 

<p>I'll apologise first for making such a lame suggestion, as I assume with you using this level of equipment that you know what you're doing. That said, it's not just going into "sleep" mode, is it? My 580 EX2 does that all the time - I think you can turn it off.</p>

<p>I'm not looking to include the moon in the shot. That would mean that lighting the model from the front would look unnatural (as the moon would be behind the model and her front should not be lit).</p>

<p>I'm looking to have the model lit by moonlight (or a flash that's believable as moonlight) with the moon behind the camera (or something like that).</p>

<p>Okay, I've set myself a real challenge here.<br>

I'm trying to arrange a fine-art shoot under moonlight. I want the (mono) image to appear naturally moonlit, but I want the model to be "eye-lash sharp" - so shutter speeds have to be short.<br>

I'm NOT looking for sillhouettes, but I'm wanting the model to appear naturally lit with a large enough depth of field to keep the buildings about 200ft behind her recogniseable, so I think that means aperture has to be small.<br>

I don't want to see too much noise either, so I think that means ISO has to be low.<br>

I think I might be asking the impossible, maybe a composite image with the background shot on long exposure, maybe "lightpainting in mono" - eg a 30 sec exposure, pop the model, cover the lens, get her out of frame and then finish the exposure. I can't think of any other way to do it.<br>

If I was to do it that way, how can I make the "pop" look like natural moonlight?<br>

I think my most appropriate equipment will be my 5D, 24-70/2.8, 50/1.8, 85/1.8. I have a couple of 580EX2's and a couple of small (400WS) monolights & small softboxes (but probably no mains power where I'm shooting unless I run about a 200ft extension)</p>

<p>I really need some advice. - give up?</p>

<p>thanks<br>

Guy</p>

<p>No bother, Em. Hope you get it sorted.</p>

<p>One question though, assuming you DID manage to find a womens communal shower - were you really going to start shooting your model while it was open - with the other ladies lathering up in the background!?</p>

<p>Couldn't you approach your local swimming pool to use the mens locker room after hours? Write to the pool manager, or the local authority who runs it - it's makes it look more like you're serious about what you do, rather than slipping the desk clerk a twenty under the counter.<br>

I recently managed to get free use of a traditionally furnished castle in Scotland by writing to the Trust that owns it.<br>

If you are completely open about what you're using it for, I find most people very approachable.</p>

<p>Guy</p>

<p>Of course it's not illegal to take photo's of the police - as long as the person being photographed doesn't mind, or doesn't know. What IS illegal (in Scotland) is any behaviour LIKELY to cause a breach of the peace - which surely could be almost anything. Taking a photograph of a police officer when you KNOW it will enrage her IS likely to cause a breach of the peace. In England, I think the law is more ACTUALLY causing a breach of the peace. I'm not sure if taking a picture of the officer actually caused any breach or not - guessing not - though I understand that's not the charge brought.<br /><br />We are talking about what IS legal or not here, right, not what SHOULD be?</p>