w.smith

Ross is correct: ALL undeveloped film - exposed or unexposed - suffers from X-ray.

Sometimes more than other times, depending on the field-strength of the X-ray 'blasts'

used. Airports NOT in the western world often use 'second-hand' X-ray equipment 'we', in

the west, used 30/40 years ago. Imagine the field-strengths . . .

To protect film from X-ray carry it - ALL your films, exposed and unexposed - in lead-

lined bags or pouches when going through X-ray machines. They are impenetrable for X-

ray, but can be hand inspected, of course.

More: http://www.magellans.com/store/article/376?Args=

And I was just pointing out a 'bug' that WILL affect ALL PC and internet users, including

readers of PN!

Zip your full-size photos together (not to make 'm smaller, zipping doesn't work on JPGs,

but to 'tie' them together in one archive/folder; max. 100MB per archive/folder), then

upload via http://www.yousendit.com/.

Your recipient will receive a small mail message with a link, and they can proceed to

download your photo archive/folder at their convenience.

Test it out by sending a zipped archive/folder like that to your own eMail address!

If desired you can password protect zipped archives/folders. Check your zipping app's

preferences.

You may not WANT to upgrade to Vista, but you will HAVE to: before long EVERYTHING -

including websites - will be written for Vista. If you don't run Vista you will be locked out!

So you will HAVE to upgrade and buy a screamingly expensive product that is teeming with

THOUSANDS of 'glitches' (and forces you to buy a new PC, and a couple dozen other,

expensive, software applications).

It is going to cost the average user THOUSANDS of bucks!

Whether they like it or not!

For faulty, rambling software . . .

Where are the consumer organisations when you need them?

Polarizing an extreme WA gets you ugly, blotchy skies. And stacking guarantees heavy

vignetting.

Have fun!

No way.

Sorry to be a party pooper, Daniel, but no way are you going to get useable photos without

adequate light. Some laws of nature still apply.

It's a sensor, an 'eye' that you connect to an off-camera flashgun, it 'watches' for a flash -

from your pop-up flash, then sets the flashgun it's connected to. Not all of them function

correctly with all all flashguns, though.

Hi Kelley,

If you'll have a look at our 'library' (type 'Prom Portraits' in the search box and enter!) you'll

find many responses to similar questions.

Have fun!

A D-I-Y reflector, foamcore slab, or Lastolite reflector (http://www.lastolite.com/

originalreflectors.php) straight over your camera bouncing your 580EX in its hotshoe,

should give adequate light, and a whitish background. Another reflector below and in front

of the subject opens up the shadows under chins, noses, etc.

Angle them carefully.

Have fun!

But if you decide to invest in another grey background, it need not be useful for this one

gig only:

if you get one light-grey background, you can make that appear to be an endless variety

of pastel colors by using colored gels on the background light(s). So you get multiple

backgrounds for very little investment.

That size room will make it extremely difficult to not use too much unflatteringly

distorting wide angle while at the same time keeping enough distance between the subject

and any background, Lee!

BTW, you looking for a dark background or are you planning on lighting it too?

Oh yeah, and set it up, light it out, and do your testhots with a sack of potatoes as a

placeholder for the baby (or ANYthing of course). And leave the baby in it's cot until 10

minutes before curtain time (give the baby some time to become fully awake).

I'd be surprised if you'll get more than 30 minutes of actual 'lens time' with the baby

before it fades or gets otherwise unphotographeable.

You want to avoid cry-faces at ALL cost!

Anyway, with the setting up and testing you have everything sorted out - and tested! -

when the baby comes into the frame. That really gets the number of unpleasant technical

surprises way down. So you'll have some more piece of mind and can pay full attention to

the baby and the timing of your exposures.

Have fun!

Concur: close-out window light so that you have full control of the lighting. Use (2x?) flash

to kill (OUCH! Wrong choice of words here...) subject movement. One or two reflectors to

soften/open up shadows.

Now that is the subject lighting.

Thought about what you (they) want for backgrounds and the lighting thereof? And what is

technically possible?

Remember: you can use slower-than-X-sync shutter speeds if you want to get ambient

artificial light points (i.o.w. the average (bedside?) lamp in the interior that's in the frame)

to come through a little more pleasing. Experiment.

Bracket!

If you bracket adequately you'll have good material to later apply some measure of

dynamic range optimization to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDRI and http://

www.hdrsoft.com/). Which could perhaps make your photos really shine!

Hi George,

Tip:

if you get one light-grey background, you can make that appear - in your photos! - to be

all sorts of pastel tints simply by covering the background light(s) with colored gels. So

you effectively get multiple backgrounds for very little money.

Have fun!

"That example you posted looks absolutely fakey. Why not use a real star filter instead?

Less photoshop time and it won't look like fake cartoon stars?"

Hi JR,

1) that example was a 'quick & dirty'. If I'd spent a full minute on it instead of 3 seconds

you wouldn't have been able to tell the difference.

2) 'Photoshop time' was 3 seconds . . . So 'less time in Photoshop' is a moot point.

3) "Why not use a star filter"? Because you cannot use a star filter with a light tent: a star

filter needs specular highlights (overexposed points of light) to convert into stars. In a

light tent you don't get specular highlights, so there's nothing for the star filter to convert

into stars!

With a light tent you have 2 choices: either NO catchlights, or faked catchlights.

Of you know a third, better, way - proven in practice - I'd be interested to hear it!

Have fun!

Hi Leia,

Exactly for situations like you describe I got a "portable studio". It basically consists of 3x

wireless 5600HS D flashguns on their own tripods (2 battery sets per), triggered by the

pop-up flash on my camera (set to 'wireless' = IR), a 3' and a 4' silver/white Lastolite

reflector. This provides plenty 'oomph', I can bounce and fake 'softboxes' and balance

shadows, and endlessly vary combinations. And the whole schpiel fits a medium- sized

suitcase, so it's perfect for locationwork.

A seeming downside is that you have no modelling lights. But, hey!, this is the digital age,

so you simply do a test shot with the real light output, you chimp - on a laptop for a good

view - and adjust if neccessary!

Indoors I shoot live subjects often with unsupported camera, because flash freezes

movement anyway, and it enables me to move around freely, direct the scene, try different

angles and viewpoints, or adjust the lighting.

This set also provides TWO backup flashguns for my 'primary' flashgun.

The combination of versatility, portability and power means that I use this setup often.

YMMV of course.

I used this set for the past 2 years and about a year ago expanded the set with 2 more

5600HS D flashguns, which I use for background lighting or backlighting (or even both).

Have fun!

"flash which kind of rules out continous mode shots"

Not neccessarily, Ian. If you get an external power pack and set the speed to relatively low

(3 fps, instead of 5 fps), then continuous mode shooting, with flash, is very possible. Of

course a assuming you got a good flashgun (580EX or so).

If you are used to shooting in continuous mode with sports, and feel comfortable with it,

then I'd incorporate it in the occassional wedding shoot too. It may get you a few very nice

shots: shoving the ring on the finger, the kiss, the cake cutting, the toast(s), etc.

Have fun!

"Why do my quotation marks and apostrophes end up as question marks in the posting?"

Because the software this board runs on is EXTREMELY old. I'm guessing 20 years

minimum! So old that it can't handle the "high ASCii" character set, which is the second

128 characters, wherein the quotation marks and apostrophes reside. On this board we

only have "low ASCii", the first 128 characters, available.

Indeed, it's positively prehistoric!

For a trip like that I'd take the new Olympus SP-550 UZ Ultra Zoom and be done with it. I'm

not a mule.

http://www.steves-digicams.com/pr/olympus_01252007_sp550_pr.html

For stills of rocks and gems your gear should be fine, Dave. Obviously you'll need to use

longish shutter speeds. But off of a tripod that shouldn't pose a problem, should it?

Getting catchlights - 'specular highlights' - in a light tent is nigh impossible. So you may

want to fake 'm in PP. I use PhotoLine32 for that (http://www.pl32.com/). Try it.<div></div>

Hi Ray,

yes, I've heard that often too. And I get the strong impression that is indeed the case.

'Cause not surprisingly I'm not about to put it to the test. It's supposed to be something

with different voltages. And what you call a remote trigger - connected by wire to the

hotshoe - is still very much 'connected': in contact! So that wouldn't any 'safer' than

stuffing the flashgun straight into the hotshoe. I wouldn't try it.

Just my 2 cents.

"Painting with light", in photography, used to mean something quite different: cam on

tripod (e.g. in large, very dark space like a church at night with lights out), open shutter,

walk around the church with flashgun, setting it off every 10 yards, when you return to the

cam you close the shutter. This way you could light large spaces with just one flashgun.

It seems the expression "Painting with light" that described this technique has been

hijacked.