jesseb
-
Posts
29 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by jesseb
-
-
<p>I appreciate your contribution Andrew, I know you have some good background in the subject.</p>
<p>What exactly, though, do you mean by an integrated solution? It seems to me I've heard of some higher-end monitors that come with calibrators... is that what you're referring to?</p>
-
Ok, I've searched the photo.net (and other) forums and filtered through a bunch of info, but here's a question with a bit of twist on the repeat subject of "what's better":
<br />
<br />
I'm looking at either getting the
<ol>
<li>Spyder3 Pro </li>
<li>XRite i1Display 2 </li>
<li>DTP-94 (aka Optix XR) with ColorEyes software </li>
</ol>
<br />
The question is:
<br />
<br />
<strong>Is DTP-94+ColorEyes worth DOUBLE the price of the Spyder3 and/or i1 D2? </strong> Is it that much more accurate than the aforementioned competitors?
<br />
<br />
And if not, I'm open to hearing why some of you would go NOT go with one product over another (yeah, I know, re-hash). Internet forums seem to be split between the spyder3 and i1 display2, but from what I gathered, both will achieve more or less the same end result. Open to hearing differently though.
<br />
<br />
-
<p>Yeah, you're right about the quad vs dual. I remember looking at CPUs a few months ago and noticing the Intel E8400/E8500 as being the best bang for the buck. Seems to still be the case.</p>
<p>Check out this CS3 benchmark from tomshardware:<br>
and this more recent one which includes the i7:<br>
<p>The E8600 is faster and yet a fraction the price of many high-end CPUs (see the very expensive QX9770). If you want to save more $, then I'd stick with the E8500 - significantly cheaper and I doubt you'll see much of a difference in performance, truly good value.</p>
-
<p>Just to add to my previous post, it's the fact that you're no longer limited by the 4GB (or more accurately, closer to 3GB) limit. <br>
64-bit vs 32-bit running same amount of RAM = no real difference. <br>
(64-bit) 6GB vs (32-bit) 3GB = now you're starting to see a difference working with those large files.</p>
<p>Google more, check out some Adobe forums for user opinions and check out tests like the one at the below link.</p>
<p><a href="http://arstechnica.com/reviews/apps/adobe-cs4-review.ars/5" target="_blank">http://arstechnica.com/reviews/apps/adobe-cs4-review.ars/5</a></p>
-
<p>As usual, verify that the manufacturers' test results are reflected accurately with real-world data, but check out this Adobe link for info pertaining to Adobe CS4 running in 64bit environment, in case you haven't seen it yet:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/photoshop/faq/?promoid=DRHXB" target="_blank">http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/photoshop/faq/?promoid=DRHXB</a></p>
<p>"In early testing of 64-bit support in Photoshop for Windows, <strong>overall performance gains ranged from 8% to 12%. Those who work with extremely large files may realize noticeably greater gains in performance, in some cases as dramatic as ten times the previous speed.</strong> This is because 64-bit applications can address larger amounts of memory and thus result in less file swapping — one of the biggest factors that can affect data processing speed."</p>
-
<p>instead of bronze, perhaps silver (& gold and platinum)?<br>
or if you want to stay away from those, comprehensive/super comprehensive/all out?</p>
<p>I would definitely stay away from cheesy stuff like moon/sun/stars (sorry Ronny) - sounds like a service you're offering to kids.<br>
I'd also stay away from Coach. After flying Coach (and especially if you've flown Business overseas), coach has a bit too much negative connotation to most.<br>
You could also do like George recommended, but perhaps opt out Cheap with Value.</p>
<p>I think I like the 'comprehensive/super comprehensive/all out' the most though, I'll probably adopt it for myself in the future.</p>
-
<p>This lawyer is a bozo and a bully. Per his letter, he's just *asking* for a refund. He's probably just trying, but won't proceed once he gets a nice registered letter with a copy of the signed contract. And if does proceed, I would follow through with it in court. The little time that would be wasted in court would be balanced by the fact that I would sleep well at night knowing this bozo didn't get what he was (unjustly) after. In the meantime, I'd probably throw in a letter to his firm management (if he has one) asking if their lawyers actually understand the basic concept of a contract, something along the lines of that. I'm sure most would say this is a waste of time, but I say have some fun with it and if possible make him look like the office bozo. Again, if it ever gets past the point of *asking*.</p>
-
<p>I'd say in this order:<br>
Part A) 1. Technique 2. lens 3. lighting equipment 4. body ... to get a great out-of-box shot. <br /> Part B) With that great out-of-box shot, post processing.<br>
each part put together = "the perfect color and crispness" you're seeing in professional portfolios.</p>
<p>Not to say that there aren't shots out there that looked absolutely stunning out of the camera and didn't need any post-processing. But for the majority of the shots, especially when dealing with dynamic environments (ie. weddings), post-processing is required to either make that picture "happen" or at least give it the edge and world-renown wedding photographers (Yervant, Jessica Claire, etc) know and express this fact.</p>
-
I echo David's comments.
-
<p>
-"should we expect RAW or a certain minimum resolution on JPEG"
</p>
<p>
If the contract stipulates that the client will receive the "digital negatives", then the max resolution JPEGs
are provided. Forget about RAW, as RAW is what the photographer is importing from his camera to his workstation
(unless he captures JPEGs right out of the camera, but few do that) and RAW is essentially the format prior to
all the post-processing (software touch ups).
</p>
<p>
-"But how do you judge someone else by their camera equipment?"
</p>
<p>
You don't, you judge them by their work/pictures.
</p>
<p>
-"Is it right to ask what kind of equipment they use and how many cameras they'll have on-site (to minimize lens
changing time)?"
</p>
<p>
You shouldn't need be concerned about exactly what kind of equipment they'll have, OTHER than verifying that they
will indeed have backup equipment (at least 2 camera bodies, lenses, flashes, etc).
</p>
<p>
As Nadine mentioned, the proof is in their work, which they provide samples of online or by sharing with you an
album of a past wedding shoot (it’s important to be able to see the entire series of selected pictures, so you
can see consistency amongst other things).
</p>
<p>
You are indeed right to be concerned about experience level and what to expect, but certain details are
irrelevant to yourself/the client. The details that you need to address include points such as found here <a
href="http://www.zookbinders.com/choosing_photographer.php"
target="_blank">http://www.zookbinders.com/choosing_photographer.php</a>, for example.
</p>
-
<p>It's good you're doing this first one(s) for free to build up your portfolio, but as Sheri mentioned, if
you're the designated photographer (no matter if you're free, cheap or expensive), the couple is depending on you
and you shouldn't be doing this without backup equipment.</p>
<p>If you're nervous about lighting, that should ring some alarms as well that most likely, as the designated
photographer, you're not ready to do this first wedding in February yet. By all means, if you're able to go pick
up a flash and whatever other equipment this weekend and do a daily couple of hours or research and take
pictures, then you should hopefully be *more ready* to shoot that wedding in 3 months from now. But you don't
know that yet and so it's not truly reasonable to commit to it and ultimately, it's a
gamble I don't believe is fair to the couple... unless of course they weren't going to get a photographer at all to
being with
and so don't mind having a friend/yourself to do some casual shooting and simply hope for the best.</p>
<p>The point is, it sounds like you need to learn the basics and to do that in 3 months is I guess somewhat
possible (and
it irks me to say that so please understand that I emphasize *basics*) - in order to accomplish basic results -
but nevertheless a gamble. Be honest with yourself AND be honest with the client and if you both feel
comfortable, then fine, go ahead and I wish you the best.</p>
<p>That being said, you're going to need to do a whole lot of reading and research (and most importantly,
practicing) then just reading a bunch of responses in this thread. I suggest you start with the photo.net learn
section <A
href="http://www.photo.net/learn/wedding"> by clicking here.</A>
<p>All the best.
-
I'm no Nikon user, but a D90 is apparently on par with D300 in terms of IQ. And naturally, the full frame D700 will render nicer (same version of) images then its cropped siblings, just as a 5D over 40D's, 30D's, etc. But if I saw a professional photographer shooting a wedding with a couple of D90's, I probably wouldn't think/say anything more of it until AFTER I saw his pictures. His shooting and post-processing technique may just blow away the *more real* professionals shooting full frame.
Obviously, I'd rather be shooting full frame. But I find there's way too much of a "<looking at other person's equipment> so what are YOU shooting with, because if you're shooting with THAT, you can't possibly know what you're doing" attitude. Or maybe I say that because I'm just getting my hands on my first full frame in a couple of months... :)
-
Ruslan said: "Will those cameras withstand dropping on concrete and will work seamlessly?! - Don't think so.".
Sorry to contradict, but It happened to me, on my 20D - fell from waist high and down on concrete. Knock on wood, it continued to "work seamlessly", to this day. Just because the LCD is the weakest part, doesn't mean the rest of the build doesn't matter - logic and experience dictates that a more rugged build quality will *reduce* your odds of a problem due to a bang or drop. And those are better odds to work with on a paying job. Of course, if Michael is not getting paid and/or the designated photographer for the wedding(s) he plans on covering, then by all means go out and buy the more economical equipment.
Anyhow, all of this is digressing from the OP. I agree with Rob and Ben, it naturally does indeed come down to the photographer, but the OP simply wanted some technical feedback as to what bodies might be best suited for wedding work, taking into account factors such as ISO performance. Learning the art of shooting a wedding is obviously an altogether different matter. I wish you all the best on that Michael (wherever you are).
-
David,
Thanks for the feedback on the Sigma 50, it reaffirms my decision to purchase it. Also, I've made a business decision to get a used 5D for the time being. It will be a happy 2nd body when I'm ready to get the 5dmkII and will allow me to get the lenses and lighting I need/want now.
Thanks to Nadine and Kenny for your input as well, much appreciated and comments noted.
Cheers,
Jesse
-
I don't know that I agree with some of Raymond's comments (all due respect).
"Weddings are hard on equipment as dropping seems to be more common than you think. I would rather drop a $1K
camera than a $4K camera. And that does not even take into account the problem of theft."
All the more reason to have a more rugged (and as a result more pricey) camera when doing work. A Rebel will be
less drop-proof than a 40D. A 40D will be less drop proof than other more expensive models. The higher up in
line you go, the more rugged they are. There's a reason journalists and the sort have $8k bodies - they
withstand more abuse and they won't necessarily be left having to resort to their "cheaper" backup unit in case
of a drop/bang.
As for theft... that's why you have insurance. In any case, that camera wouldn't leave my shoulder (especially
not the more expensive one). In fact, there's more risk that my lenses may get stolen. But by the
aforementioned logic, only cheap and/or mid-line lenses should be brought (in case of them being dropped or
stolen)? If I'm getting paid for a wedding, I want to deliver as best results as possible (within budget) and
that means I can only do so with quality glass and quality equipment. Doesn't have to be top-of-the-line, but
you often get what you pay for (and same goes for clients).
"Any name brand camera DSLR camera is more than good enough for almost all weddings."
Last year, I suggested an Olympus evolt e-420 to a friend - great little entry-level camera. However, I wouldn't
think about shooting a wedding with it, nor just any other "brand camera DSLR". A generalized comment like that
means you're not taking into consideration things like quick access to features and sensor size (which can either
translate in either little or lots of noise at moderate at high ISO settings).
What I do naturally agree with is having 2 or 3 "middle of the road" bodies - along with good glass - rather than
one top of the line. Never, EVER do a wedding without at least one spare body. And if that means not being able
to afford the more expensive higher-end body, then so be it.
-
Okay, so the 20D will be strapped on my shoulder as well. I've taken ISO 1600 shots and had nice results, but
there was still too much noise for me. I'll stick with ISO 800.
I've been thinking of getting the Sigma 50/1.4, seems to have nice reviews. I could always put that on the 5D
(instead of the nifty85) and swap with the Canon 135/2 when needed. Or put the 50/1.4 on the 20D and stick with
the 24-60/2.8 & 135/2 on the 5D. Not sure which seems to make "most sense"/best balance, will have to think
about that.
Thinking that, if I'm going to purchase both a 50/1.4 and a 135/2, I may have to postpone the 5Dmk2 (crying) and
just get a 40D (I heard the 40D ISO800 is similar to 20D ISO200). This will also allow me to get some other
gear, such a Lowel iLight which I absolutely wanted.
What's your take on that (40D)?
-
If you already have Nikon equipment, stick with Nikon, and same story with Canon. If you don't already have
equipment, or don't have enough that you don't mind switching, then fine, look at both.
That being said, I went through somewhat the same questions as yourself recently and here's what I found, in my
own humble research:
Currently, the king of ISO (and a great blend of nice features) is the full frame Nikon D700. If you're serious
about weddings and have the money (along with enough to get good lenses, backups, etc), then go full frame and
the D700 is your baby. The Canon 5Dmk2 is the one to look at on Canon's side, verdict pending, but looks
promising. I personally hope it will *at least* compare to the D700.
For cropped systems, I'd go with either the D90 or the D300. From what I understand, there is no IQ difference
between the two, but the D300 is more rugged. So again, if you're on budget, get the D90 and pair that up with
some nice lenses.
On Canon's side, the 50D hasn't been reviewed as favorably, though I imagine there is debate on that and further
research would be necessary. Dpreview even recommends the 40D over the 50D in terms of ISO. They're supposed to
compete with the D200 and D300, but I'd probably even go with the Nikon D90 then these (again, if you haven't
already invested money in Canon). Though it shouldn't be a determining factor, I view a nice screen as a very
big bonus... and Canon only finally improved theirs with the 50D and 5Dmk2.
Hope that info helps and see what others say.
PS. Something to remember is that Canon's choice (not quality, but choice) of lenses is better than Nikon,
though Nikon is catching up. I believe some of the same lenses are also cheaper with Canon - something else that
you'd need to verify (I'm a Canon user).
-
<p>I'm starting on a couple of weddings next year. If I could, I'd have the following body & lens combo on me to
shoot with:</p>
<p>5Dm2 with 35mm f/1.4L and<br />
5Dm2 with 135mm f/2.0L</p>
<p>However, I'll only be able to afford one 5Dm2 for the time being and since I'll have only one body -- not
including my 20D which I'll have as backup -- I'm unsure as to what configuration I should go with. <br />
I currently have a Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 (opted for that instead of the Canon 24-70L, as the latter was 3x the
price with simply not enough of a difference in IQ, not to mention the many soft copies out there). </p>
<p>So far, I’m leaning towards one of the following three options:</p>
<p>1)<br />
Canon 24-105 f/4.0L</p>
<p>2) <br />
Sigma 24-60 f/2.8<br />
Canon 70-200 f/4L IS</p>
<p>3)<br />
Sigma 24-60 f/2.8<br />
Canon 135 f/2.0L</p>
<p><br />
#1 fits best in my budget and I obviously like the range. However, optical quality on that lens (though good) is
not as high and I’m worried I might miss the extra stop. <br />
#2 would give me the two ranges I’m looking for and #3 would give me the fast lenses I’m looking for and I would
get decent reach with the 135 f/2.0L… but I’m worried that, working with 1 body would severely restrict me at
times due to having to swap lenses (??).</p>
<p>A) What would you go with and <br />
B) do you find it to be a terrible disadvantage in having to swap between two lenses (at least to the extent that
you don’t recommend doing so during certain stages, such as the ceremony)?<br />
</p>
-
One word: ISO (performance). Video? Bonus. High MP? Bonus. It all comes down to IQ, including being able to take low noise shots in low light environments.
-
<p>I am taking some shots of a product. Using white seamless paper background, a couple of flash strobes and<br />
exposure set to f/11 and shutter at 1/250 (Canon 20D), all is turning out well.<br />
<br />
However, the product in question also contains a logo/LED that lights up when powered on. Naturally, because of<br />
flash and a shutter speed of 1/250, the pics are not taking in that LED lighting (shots are coming through as<br />
though the product is not powered on, LED is not on).<br />
<br />
Any way around this? Any way so I can have the LED logo lit up in the shots, but with my according flash
metered<br />
readings/settings?<br />
</p>
-
Guys, before anything, thanks a lot for your responses. This is my first posting at photo.net and though I've
visited for a while and always very much appreciate the information shared on this online community, I'm only
more so impressed by the members (you) and how there really are folk out there ready to take some time in helping
others.
Ellis, for the top diffused light... will a strobe high up pointing downwards through an umbrella work? In terms
of being "on top", do you mean simply higher and angled downwards... or do you mean it needs to be literally over
the (center of the) speakers (hoping this is not the case as I have no way to set this up)?
I don't currently have any fill cards, but I'm going to run out and make some this weekend (thanks to
diyphotography.net).
Bob, I've heard about spraying panels with a matt finish before, but I don't know much about this. Does doing
this have any visible effect on the product? How do clients usually feel about a photographer doing this on
their produts?
Regarding a third light: I have a 430EX flash... I was planning on buying a wireless trigger and receiver and
then use that as a third light, so that might be a possibility.
Those messy shadow on the glass base... I knew I had to do something about that, those specific results made me
wince. That was going to be my next question, once I got helped and figured out the main lighting problems I'm
having, but I'm happy you brought it up. I'll probably have to inquire more about supporting the speakers with
hidden stands or using back illumination through clear plexiglass once I get my main lighting resolved.
Per Ellis' suggestion and yours, I'll be dropping my shooting angle, though I've been asked to provide some
"high" viewpoint angles as well as low viewpoint shots (so will experiment and lower those high ones a bit more).
Dropping the polarizer too, which I figured I'd have to and will be working on my lighting angles.
Gary, thanks for the added comments. Interesting what you say about product lighting being the reverse of
portrait lighting. I'll check out that link (and sub-links) you provided. I also just got my order from Amazon
and Chapters today, books like "Light, Science and Magic" - gonna be doing a lot of reading!
Chris, cool link. I just skimmed through the tutorial and their site... very nice. That DVD workshop looks
killer - I might not be able to pass on it (budget? what's that again...).
-
<p>Guys,</p>
<p>Thank you very much for your responses, truly appreciated, and though I'm very much of the learning phase of
studio photography/lighting and the sort, what I'm reading in your posts makes sense. I'll stop there; as Nathan
kindly pointed out, I should have this thread in the Lighting forum (I was actually looking for such a forum when I
posted, but couldn't find it 'Practice and Techniques' forum and didn't think of looking in the equipment forum; my
bad). So, I've opened up a thread there:
<A HREF="http://www.photo.net/photography-lighting-equipment-techniques-forum/00QQQ5" >
http://www.photo.net/photography-lighting-equipment-techniques-forum/00QQQ5 ></A></P>
<p>Thanks again and I'm going to start following up on your comments!</p>
-
<p>(I posted the below in the wrong forum <A HREF= "http://www.photo.net/portraits-and-fashion-photography-
forum/00QQBT" > HERE </A> and so I'm moving the thread here per one of the members suggestions, in
anticipation of anyone's kind expertise on the matter; thanks!) </p>
<p>I spent some long hours trying to figure out this problem and desperately need some help/pointers. Here
goes...</p>
<p><br />
<B>Equipment</B><br />
Body: Canon 20D<br />
Lens #1: Sigma 24-60 2.8<br />
Lens #2: Canon 17-85IS 4-5.6, with circular polarizer<br />
Light Meter: Sekonic L-358<br />
Lighting: 2x 250ws Opus OPL-K250 monolights kit with 2 imbrellas (outer linen can be removed for diffusion),<br />
barndoor, snoot<br />
Opus specs: <A HREF="http://opusprolighting.com/products/monolights/k_series_monolights.html" >
http://opusprolighting.com/products/monolights/k_series_monolights.html</A><br />
Opus manual: <A HREF="http://opusprolighting.com/downloads/OPL_K_Series_Instruction_Manual.pdf" >
http://opusprolighting.com/downloads/OPL_K_Series_Instruction_Manual.pdf</A></p>
<p><br />
<B>Problem & Goal</B><br />
Trying to take some studio pics of home loudspeakers, but the results I am getting back are not desirable. </p>
<p>I am (naturally) looking for:<br />
- clarity and sharpness<br />
- overall detail and outlined edges (defining them from my white background paper), including a sharp logo<br />
- as much "uniformity" in terms of of lighting and color through the speaker, top to bottom and sides<br />
- a nice smooth surface (without distracting reflections) at the bottom of the speaker where the glossy area is<br />
(where the logo is)</p>
<p><br />
<B>Issue #1 (light meter question)</B> </p>
<p>On Sekonic: ISO set to 100, shutter to 1/125 and take a reading. Result I get: f/22 with "U" showing bottom<br />
left. I rotate the wheel to lower my shutter speed and only get out of the "U" (sorry if I'm using the proper<br />
terminoly) when I'm at 1/25 or so.<br />
I take the shot... and exposure is not set correctly. I drop the f-stop to f/11 and now things are looking<br />
better. But no thanks to the light meter (or more specifically, my lack of using it properly, I naturally<br />
assume). So...</p>
<p><B>(1)</B> --> Why is it telling me 1/25 to begin with, since this seems obviously wrong? (What am I not
understanding<br />
/ doing wrong?)<br />
<B>(2)</B> --> What do I have to do if I want the Sekonic to give me a reading at f/8 or f/11? </p>
<p>I would have thought I could choose the desired f/stop on the Sekonic and it would give me the
corresponding<br />
shutter speed, same as if I were to take ambiant measurement. But I guess that assumption is wrong and the
only<br />
way to lower the f/stop is by changing my lighting/strobe (lowering it or moving it away)?</p>
<p>I'm guessing this is basic 101 flash light metering, but having spent a few hours and some google'ing, I still<br />
don't understand 1) and would appreciate confirmation for 2).</p>
<p><br />
<B>Issue #2 (lighting question)</B> </p>
<p>As mentioned, the result I am getting back is not desirable. I've tried different lighting setups, but I don't<br />
understand why I am getting the following:</p>
<p>At f/11 (the highest apparture value I seem to be able to attain with my current lighting - strobes at max - is<br />
at around 1/40, otherwise everything is too dark), I am not getting any of the desired clarity and sharpness. <br />
The front of the speaker, depending on the area, is more focused and clear than towards the end of the speaker.
<br />
Unless I zoom/focus in on the logo, that also does not come out sharp/clear. </p>
<p><B>(3)</B> --> Though what I really want is f/22 (but I guess my 2x250w strobes aren't strong enough?), I figure
if
I'm<br />
using f/11, I should still be getting a clear focused shot in all of those areas, no?</p>
<p>I am definitely not getting any "uniformity"; I am getting a reflective faded white'ish on the sides of the<br />
speakers as well as on the (flat) top.<br />
I tried different light positioning (more towards the front of the speakers and as low in height - about waist<br />
high - as the tripods would allow) and also tried lighting without diffusion as as well as using the imbrellas...<br />
but all to no avail.</p>
<p><B>(4)</B> --> Why can I not get a nice smooth result on the glossy area at the bottom of the speaker where
the logo is?
<br />
Why am I getting "noise" (for a lack of better words) there and everywhere else?</p>
<p><br />
In attempt to address the "non-uniform" and reflective white'ish shine on the sides of the speakers I finally put<br />
my 17-85IS lens on to take some test shots with the polarizer on. Without the polarizer, results were pretty<br />
much identical as my 24-60. However, with the circular polarizer on, I was able to take away much of the shine<br />
from the sides of the speakers. By doing so though, I need to lower my f/stop to f/7.1 or so, which I don't like<br />
doing as I'm worried that is not helping with my clarity/sharpness(?). More importantly, I seem to be losing<br />
detail in the darks with the polarizer on and overall, the result still leaves much to be desired.</p>
<p>In terms of sharpness, I am also curious as to why my Sigma 24-60 shots are not significantly sharper than
my<br />
Canon 17-85IS (or sharp at all in these shots), as the former lens is typically (always) very nice and sharp,<br />
sometimes too sharp.</p>
<p><br />
<B>Here are some of the images I have as examples:</B></p>
<p><A HREF= "http://www.pbase.com/jbgimme/image/101280896">
http://www.pbase.com/jbgimme/image/101280896<A/><br />
Sigma 24-60<br />
overall too light, not enough contrast, no clarity or proper detail, especially towards sides and rear of<br />
speaker, no edge detail. Logo isn't sharp enough.</p>
<p><A HREF= "http://www.pbase.com/jbgimme/image/101280898" >
http://www.pbase.com/jbgimme/image/101280898<A/> <br />
Sigma 24-60<br />
Color is a bit better, more contrast and detail on certain parts, more edge detail, but too dark in certain parts<br />
and too light in others (sides and top surface again). Logo is a bit sharper.</p>
<p><A HREF= "http://www.pbase.com/jbgimme/image/101280899" >
http://www.pbase.com/jbgimme/image/101280899<A/> <br />
Canon 17-85IS<br />
Much the same. Logo sharpness is not amazing, but better and okay I guess.</p>
<p><A HREF= "http://www.pbase.com/jbgimme/image/101280900" >
http://www.pbase.com/jbgimme/image/101280900<A/> <br />
Canon 17-85IS and circular polarizer on.<br />
"Best" so far as the polarizer took away the white'ish shine away from the sides and edges look better; but<br />
detail harder to see, top surface still too light and fades and logo isn't sharp enough.</p>
<p></p>
-
<p>Hi,</p>
<p>I spent many long hours trying to figure out this problem and desperately need some help/pointers. Here
goes...</p>
<p><br>
<B>Equipment</B><br>
Body: Canon 20D<br>
Lens #1: Sigma 24-60 2.8<br>
Lens #2: Canon 17-85IS 4-5.6, with circular polarizer<br>
Light Meter: Sekonic L-358<br>
Lighting: 2x 250ws Opus OPL-K250 monolights kit with 2 imbrellas (outer linen can be removed for diffusion),<br>
barndoor, snoot<br>
Opus specs: http://opusprolighting.com/products/monolights/k_series_monolights.html<br>
Opus manual: http://opusprolighting.com/downloads/OPL_K_Series_Instruction_Manual.pdf</p>
<p><br>
<B>Problem & Goal</B><br>
Trying to take some studio pics of home loudspeakers, but the results I am getting back are not desirable. </p>
<p>I am (naturally) looking for:<br>
- clarity and sharpness<br>
- overall detail and outlined edges (defining them from my white background paper), including a sharp logo<br>
- as much "uniformity" in terms of of lighting and color through the speaker, top to bottom and sides<br>
- a nice smooth surface (without distracting reflections) at the bottom of the speaker where the glossy area is<br>
(where the logo is)</p>
<p><br>
<B>Issue #1 (light meter question)</B>
<p>On Sekonic: ISO set to 100, shutter to 1/125 and take a reading. Result I get: f/22 with "U" showing bottom<br>
left. I rotate the wheel to lower my shutter speed and only get out of the "U" (sorry if I'm using the proper<br>
terminoly) when I'm at 1/25 or so.<br>
I take the shot... and exposure is not set correctly. I drop the f-stop to f/11 and now things are looking<br>
better. But no thanks to the light meter (or more specifically, my lack of using it properly, I naturally<br>
assume). So...</p>
<p>(1) --> Why is it telling me 1/25 to begin with, since this seems obviously wrong? (What am I not
understanding<br>
/ doing wrong?)<br>
(2) --> What do I have to do if I want the Sekonic to give me a reading at f/8 or f/11? </p>
<p>I would have thought I could choose the desired f/stop on the Sekonic and it would give me the corresponding<br>
shutter speed, same as if I were to take ambiant measurement. But I guess that assumption is wrong and the only<br>
way to lower the f/stop is by changing my lighting/strobe (lowering it or moving it away)?</p>
<p>I'm guessing this is basic 101 flash light metering, but having spent a few hours and some google'ing, I still<br>
don't understand 1) and would appreciate confirmation for 2).</p>
<p><br>
<B>Issue #2 (lighting question)</B>
<p>As mentioned, the result I am getting back is not desirable. I've tried different lighting setups, but I don't<br>
understand why I am getting the following:</p>
<p>At f/11 (the highest apparture value I seem to be able to attain with my current lighting - strobes at max -
is<br>
at around 1/40, otherwise everything is too dark), I am not getting any of the desired clarity and sharpness. <br>
The front of the speaker, depending on the area, is more focused and clear than towards the end of the speaker. <br>
Unless I zoom/focus in on the logo, that also does not come out sharp/clear. </p>
<p>(3) --> Though what I really want is f/22 (but I guess my 2x250w strobes aren't strong enough?), I figure if
I'm<br>
using f/11, I should still be getting a clear focused shot in all of those areas, no??</p>
<p>I am definitely not getting any "uniformity"; I am getting a reflective faded white'ish on the sides of the<br>
speakers as well as on the (flat) top.<br>
I tried different light positioning (more towards the front of the speakers and as low in height - about waist<br>
high - as the tripods would allow) and also tried lighting without diffusion as as well as using the imbrellas...<br>
but all to no avail.</p>
<p>(4) --> Why can I not get a nice smooth result on the glossy area at the bottom of the speaker where the logo
is?<br>
Why am I getting "noise" (for a lack of better words) there and everywhere else?</p>
<p><br>
In attempt to address the "non-uniform" and reflective white'ish shine on the sides of the speakers I finally put<br>
my 17-85IS lens on to take some test shots with the polarizer on. Without the polarizer, results were pretty<br>
much identical as my 24-60. However, with the circular polarizer on, I was able to take away much of the shine<br>
from the sides of the speakers. By doing so though, I need to lower my f/stop to f/7.1 or so, which I don't like<br>
doing as I'm worried that is not helping with my clarity/sharpness(?). More importantly, I seem to be losing<br>
detail in the darks with the polarizer on and overall, the result still leaves much to be desired.</p>
<p>In terms of sharpness, I am also curious as to why my Sigma 24-60 shots are not significantly sharper than my<br>
Canon 17-85IS (or sharp at all in these shots), as the former lens is typically (always) very nice and sharp,<br>
sometimes too sharp.</p>
<p><br>
<p><B>Here are some of the images I have as examples:</B></p>
<p><A HREF="http://www.pbase.com/jbgimme/image/101280896"> http://www.pbase.com/jbgimme/image/101280896</A> <br>
Sigma 24-60<br>
overall too light, not enough contrast, no clarity or proper detail, especially towards sides and rear of<br>
speaker, no edge detail. Logo isn't sharp enough.</p>
<p><A HREF=http://www.pbase.com/jbgimme/image/101280898> http://www.pbase.com/jbgimme/image/101280898</A> <br>
Sigma 24-60<br>
Color is a bit better, more contrast and detail on certain parts, more edge detail, but too dark in certain parts<br>
and too light in others (sides and top surface again). Logo is a bit sharper.</p>
<p><A HREF=http://www.pbase.com/jbgimme/image/101280899> http://www.pbase.com/jbgimme/image/101280899</A> <br>
Canon 17-85IS<br>
Much the same. Logo sharpness is not amazing, but better and okay I guess.</p>
<p><A HREF=http://www.pbase.com/jbgimme/image/101280900> http://www.pbase.com/jbgimme/image/101280900</A> <br>
Canon 17-85IS and circular polarizer on.<br>
"Best" so far as the polarizer took away the white'ish shine away from the sides and edges look better; but<br>
detail harder to see, top surface still too light and fades and logo isn't sharp enough.</p>
<p></p>
DTP-94 vs Spyder3 vs i1D2 (worth double the price?)
in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing
Posted
<p>Gotcha, something for me to think about next time I switch my monitor.</p>
<p>Thanks for your responses Andrew.</p>
<p>Jesse</p>
<p> </p>