bob_estremera

<p>I hope I'm allowed to link to a post on another webite.<br />Maybe I'm just confused but look at this photo: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1209248<br> From what I THOUGHT I understood, the high shutter speed allowed the overall scene to be underexposed while the flash can light the subject as desired. That is why I thought there were two separate exposures to be made - one for the overall scene (underexposed to the desired degree with a higher shutter speed) and the other by adjusting the power of the speedlight. I see these examples often when photogs describe how the X100's allow this because they can sync at very high speeds. So for instance, I have my subject in the open shade. But I want to lower the overall light values of the scene. I want to leave my aperture around f2.8 or f4 for depth of field reasons. If shorten the shutter duration to, say 1/1000 of a second, I get a nice dark overall scene, underexposed from a normal exposure. Now I light my subject with the flash adjusting the power until I get the value on the subject that is 'normal', exposed correctly. Given my example, isn't that the correct evaluation of the process to get the look I want?</p> <p> </p>

<p>I'm going to be very close. Close enough to hand-hold the speedlight with my subject only a few fee away. I would be shooting at very low power levels (if shooting regular, without the HSS). I've seen the effect accomplished with leaf shutter cameras where a shutter speed of 1/1000 or so is used to drop the ambient around three stops, maybe more, and the flash is used just for the subject. And I won't be trying to kill bright sunlight, more like open shade.</p>

<p>That's a great question Pete. I'll have to Google around and see if the tubes are replaceable.The speedlight itself is pretty cheap, around $107 US so it's not the biggest calamity if I have to replace it sooner than I'd like but replacing tubes would be great.<br> And Starvy, for this project, I would be using HSS exclusively on any given day.<br> Thanks,</p>

<p>Thanks Brian,<br> It's a budgeting issue. If I'm going to wear out the units faster than usual, I want to know that beforehand so I can purchase accordingly.</p>

<p>I'm looking to do an outdoor portrait project with the new Godox/Neewer 850 speedlights using their HSS function with my Canon 60D and/or EOS M.<br> I need to kill lots of ambient light with high shutter speeds.<br> It seems that the continuous pulsing used by the flash to achieve HSS would prematurely shorten the life of the speedlight compared to just regular single pops.<br />Does anybody have any input on this? <br> Thanks,</p>

<p>Thanks everybody. I guess I really need to make sure of the quality before I buy. Maybe just wait for keh to have what I want. No hassles there and you're pretty sure of the quality and returns.</p>

<p>Thanks Stephen and Phil,<br> The first lens that I'm leaning towards is actually a Rokkor 35-70mm 3.5. It gets great reviews and I've seen some of the output. They look great to my eye. I have lots of time so I'll keep searching around.<br> Do you have any experience from the Japan sellers on eBay? It would seem that a large retailer in Japan would probably have access to some really nice examples of Japanese lenses. </p>

<p>I am considering purchasing a used copy of some 'legacy' glass for an A7II. Might be FD, might be Rokkor. Whatever I purchase, I expect to buy it in good working order but would still want have it cleaned up and brought back to original working order. I live in New York City and would like to find a place, can be anywhere in the US, that is skilled at this kind of repair and refurbishment.<br> Are they getting harder to find?<br /><br /> Thanks</p>

<p>I am considering purchasing a used copy of this lens for an A7II.<br> I expect to buy it in good working order but would still want have it cleaned up and brought back to original working order. I live in New York City and would like to find a place, can be anywhere in the US, that is skilled at this kind of repair and refurbishment.<br> Thanks</p>

<p>I think you're right. I'm meeting with the real estate company legal and marketing people tomorrow because although they tell me the wording of the agreement is intended to prohibit a third party to sell images that they (the real estate company) paid for, they see a marketing/branding opportunity here. Interestingly, the Furnishings company came back with their image selection and only 4 of the 9 images they want to work with are from the real estate company. I might just inform them that 4 of the images they selected are not available but then I can give them a large selection of other images to find another four that work for them. All and all, this might have been a very costly lesson but now I feel it will work out for the best without having to 'lawyer up'. <br> Lesson learned.<br> Thanks everybody.</p>

<p>Yeah. I know from experience that the Furnishings company will require that I have sole, unencumbered ownership of the images so I actually reached out to the attorney I worked with at the Real Estate company to ask specifically if this arrangement with the Furnishing Company is allowed. He and I had a very collaborative relationship when drafting the original Agreement so I think this is safest and most prudent tack to take. If I have to pass on the opportunity, then so be it. Can't get in a position of having lawyers sort this out.<br> Thanks all,</p>

<p>I was commissioned by a residential real estate firm in November of 2011 to photograph a series of architectural details that were used in a marketing campaign.<br> I wanted to be sure that after the campaign was over, I retained the copyright so I could sell individual prints of the work.<br />I have just been contacted by a major home furnishings company that sells nationally through catalogs and in-store galleries as well. I will be providing the furnishings company's print vendor with digital files from which they will make the prints, then sell the finished prints through in-store galleries and through the catalog. They will purchase the prints in lots of 25 at a time.<br> After re-reading the Agreement between myself and the real estate company, I keep getting stuck on the following terms of 'ownership':<br />3. Ownership and Exclusivity: Vendor retains copyrights and acknowledges and agrees that all materials, including but not limited to photographs, negatives, and related files produced by Vendor for Company shall provided to Company with unlimited and unrestricted use. Furthermore, Vendor acknowledges and agrees that the use of the copyrights to all photographs, negatives, and related files produced pursuant to this Agreement will not be sold to or granted to any company, partnership, sole proprietorship or individual other than Company and Vendor. <br> My question is with the last sentence that begins with the word 'Furthermore'. I clearly get to retain the copyrights to the images which was my intent because I knew that someday I would want to sell prints. Later in the sentence - To my non-legal mind, I am not "selling or granting" the copyrights to anybody else. Just allowing the Furnishings Company to make and to sell prints of work in which I have the copyright. Consequently, my arrangement with the Furnishings Company should not be in conflict with my Agreement with the real estate company.<br> Am I interpreting this correctly?<br> Thanks,</p>

<p>Thanks for the pic of a very lovely and obviously precocious young lady.<br />I can't really tell too much from this photo without being able to see a 100% crop from the original jpeg or RAW.<br />Although with those big beautiful eyes, who would even notice hair detail!<br> Thanks Gerry</p>

<p>Even though I'm not a fan of the M43 sensor for print making (I like the option of 'organically sharp' 16X20" prints), I am intrigued with the feature set of the LX100. Of particular importance is the leaf shutter enabling sync speeds of around 1/1000 sec. <br />But as I've looked at some of the files from portraits/headshots taken with the LX100 I have noted that on some of them, the hair seemed to blend together in a kind of brown mush. The individual strands were not distinct.<br />Do any of you have experience shooting portraits with the LX100 or can direct me to some full size portrait images?<br />I'm working on a project that will include both environmental and tighter portraits (same subject) and if the lens is truly sharp throughout its range, I'm hoping I can use the LX100 for both types of portraits. I just want to be sure that for tighter headshots, I'm going to get good sharpness.<br> Thanks,</p>

<p>Thanks. That's all I wanted to know.</p>

<p>I've been all over the place and can't find the answer to this simple question.<br> What is the A7 or A7II standard flash sync speed?<br> <br />Thanks,</p>

Boy, there sure us a lot of clampy gear out there. Thanks.

<p>Looks like the Variable Friction arm is the best bet.<br> Thanks everybody.<br> Bob</p>

That flex arm looks very nice Tom. This is a great start. Thanks

I'm thinking that this is the most likely forum for this challenge. The setup I need is going to be used for portrait lighting. I want to be able to attach a speedlight to a lightstand via a flexible gooseneck. The reason I want the speedlight on a flexible gooseneck and not a ball head is so that I can just reach up and make small adjustments to the light position with just one hand. I'm sure this can be done, I just need some help with the hardware options. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks,

<p>Joe, No, I didn't realize that. I just assumed that speedlights were of a similar flash duration to my monolights - and they aren't. Thanks for pointing that out. I'd have to go to around 1/2 power to get the advantage of the high-speed sync. And by then, I know I'd lose too much power. I think I'll need to lug my monolight (more power) and use a one stop ND filter to drop the ambient as needed knowing I can boost my light to compensate. <br />Thanks so much for the enlightenment.<br />Bob</p>

<p>Yes, I've been following Hobby for a while now. He's crazy about his X100S and the high-speed sync he gets from it. But that cam is pretty wide angle but there is a tele-adapter bringing it into the 50mm equivalent range. And it does have some great ISO performance. It's all about what you want to compromise in the end.<br> Thanks for all your input everybody. It's been helpful.<br> Bob</p>

<p>I love my softlighter and when I'm going to do a standard portrait session, I will bring my monolight, and softlighter and I love the overall effect and quality of light.<br> But for another series of on-site portraits I'm going to be undertaking, I will be going for a chiaroscuro, low key effect. For that, I want the ability to adjust the amount of ambient with the high-speed leaf shutter. Then I want the flexibility of the speedlight/softbox so I have the option of using the softbox in regular positioning (up close), feathered or gridded so I can put only the light I want, where I want it.<br> Hope this is making more sense. </p>

<p>Craig, I'm interested in the ambient-killing properties of a leaf shutter with high sync speeds without resorting to ND filters. That is what brought me to the Sigmas. After more research, including downloading and comparing RAW files, I find these image files are amazing in terms of sharpness and resolution. But the Foveon sensor is also quirky due to it's architecture and gets noisy fast as it exceeds ISO 200. So if this travel setup with speedlight and softbox can work at ISO 200, I'll have a leaf shutter on a super high-resolution camera/lens combo that costs only about $800. I'll have other equipment when I need higher ISOs but in a controlled lighting environment, I think this setup, on the technical side, will produce outstanding images.</p>

<p>Hey Joe,<br> I was purposefully staying away from using GN's as a reference, only that the LP160 is roughly equivalent to the 580EX as a reference. I also have a 46" Softlighter but I usually use that with a bigger, heavier monolight that I'm trying to avoid for some location shoots. The Q24 has several optional mods including a grid so I can control and direct the light, which I will need to do from time to time. With the 60D, I can pump up the ISO a bit and still get a pretty clean image but the Sigma tops out at around ISO 200 for a really clean file, hence the consternation. <br> Thanks, Bob</p>