bambam_ilusorio

<p>Thanks for the Lighttools heads-up there Ralph, I'll give them a peek when I'm ready to be purchasing stuff again (hopefully sooner than later hah!). My somewhat similar experience with the confluence of cinematography and photography was when I was hoping to enroll in a cinematography workshop. The DP who was going to teach the course required a screening process for the applicants, and aside from the usual written exam (which I really felt I could pass, what with my back issues of American Cinematographer mags giving me all the education I needed haha ), a portfolio of still images was also necessary. Since this was during the film days when digital photography was a mere whisper, and having nothing cobbled together with any semblance of a respectable portfolio, I backed out. My friend did have one ready and submitted it for approval. Unfortunately, he didn't make the cut (his photos were decent, but I guess didn't impress the DP enough. He spent the next three days in a mope). Anyhoo, the one lesson I learned that day was that Lighting, whether it be for still images or for the movies (film or video), worked on similar concepts. After all, a movie is really still images that move, isn't it?</p>

<p>And what a coincidence this is, but I was surfing the web a few minutes back and bumped into this site <a href="http://blog.profoto-usa.com/?p=3125">http://blog.profoto-usa.com/?p=3125</a> The first image was certainly eyecatching, because it looked like a promo shot for a 'Fast and the Furious' movie sequel. The lighting concept lends to the idea very well, I think. Then scrolling down you can see how the shot was setup. Which I believe ties in nicely with the topic of this thread: Grid or flag (no softbox here though). I just realized how cluttered a photo shoot would be when using flags--the extra C-stands to hold it, the space it takes up, etc. It may be a big deal for some (when pressed for time), or maybe it won't. But wow, look at that particular pic and how much neater the set was using a grid!</p>

<p>Hey Ralph, I just read your response (we posted just a minute apart, so I'll address you separately rather than edit my previous post) and really enjoyed and appreciated it; it confirmed a lot of of my suspicions about these modifiers. In as much as they give similar or 'near-identical' results with regards to the way they affect a light source (albeit in a softbox), I think I'm going to go for a flag in my next portrait project. Yep, I got what you meant about the 'varying degrees of cutoff,' just how much variance is what I'm hoping to do an experiment on (as I mentioned in my previous post).</p>

<p>PS I enjoyed your post because of the mention of hot lights. It was on the back of my mind but I didn't mention it right off the bat because I think not a lot of people use it anymore in a photographic studio, plus, as I mention above, I see the flag often more at home in a Hollywood movie set, which might stir the pot unnecessarily. Good to read someone has an opinion on this.</p>

<p>To y'all, thanks again!</p>

<p>EDIT: Ralph, you really know your lighting. I would've never known eggcrates were used with the HMI. It turns out, all you need is some distance between them. I've learned something new today lol. Thanks, man.</p>

<p>Thank you guys for your responses, they're giving me an idea already how both modifiers could compare to one another. Ellis, the cell description really knocks out some of my thought "cobwebs"; I didn't think of it that way till you pointed it out, as I was imagining a single flag only. Matt, your "puddle" analogy also makes a lot of sense, as I noticed most portraits online that used a softbox grid do have a circular shape like, well, a puddle. </p>

<p>As an aside, I've noticed that in a lot of Hollywood movie behind-the-scenes videos, the cinematographers employ a lot of flags or barn-doors with their lights. No grids in sight at all. I'm guessing this is because of the tremendous heat generated off of the bulbs. With photography and still images, however, does this mean you can interchange a flag for a grid?</p>

<p>In any case, I'll try the DIY route and see if I can do a little lighting study on these modifiers (and post the results as well). Thanks again.</p>

<p>Hi folks,</p>

<p>I've been trawling the internet for some time now, and I can't seem to find a definitive answer nor a comparative photo test that explains the different results when using either a flag or grid with a softbox. Generally, I find articles exclusively on grids, or on flags alone, never about the two against each other. I've gathered that a grid is more directional with your light source than a flag, and that it significantly lessens the spread of its beam. A flag simply blocks off a portion of the light. But is that all there is to it? Wouldn't the the light falloff be the same if the edge of a grid or flag were set at similar angles? What would be the effect if, say, one shoots a one-light portrait and employs either light modifier? If anybody has done a lighting study or know of a website that has already done this, I'd really appreciate a link to it.</p>

<p>Bam</p>

Of course its physics, and I get that part. What I was wondering about was if by the mere act of bouncing/diffusing, without any other changes to the variables such as increasing power, was draining batteries faster, because there was some sensor in the flash that automatically escalates this to compensate for the fall-off. It turns out, as do many other advices on the web, that this caveat is made in general terms, and rather left to the reader's interpretation.

 

Thanks for your immediate responses everyone.

I frequently find articles here and other fora advising to bounce your flash on walls, cards, etc. to

soften/diffuse the light from it, but recently I increasingly come across warnings that bouncing---and now using

diffusers such as a demb or stofen--- eat a lot of "battery juice." Is this based on fact? Those warnings never

come with explanations as to why though...If true, is there a science to it why it works this way, and just how

much is the battery drain compared to not bouncing?

Thank you everyone for your responses, they were all elucidating and certainly educational. Until now, I had no inkling that "stop" measured ISO and shutter speed also, which are typically explained as "sensitivity to light" and "fractions of one second" respectively. I have used the 1/focal length technique for some time now with my non-IS lenses, and am looking to purchase an IS lens in the future, if only to allow me some modicum of confidence for sharp captures, good hand-held skills notwithstanding.

Often when researching lenses, you come across articles touting Canon's IS feature (and Nikon's VR for that

matter), giving you accordingly "several stops (from 1-3) advantage" over non-IS lens. What does this mean

exactly? As I understand it plainly, IS or VR are special features of high-end lenses that help achieve sharp

photos, so shouldn't the measurement be in millimeters, degrees, or something similar instead of f stops?

I know this thread is a bit old, but Ken if you're reading this, I'm wondering

why you did everything with the bride-dancing-with-the-groom shot except take

out the red-eye. Her left eye looks freakish too.

 

Summer, if you figured this out by now, good for you. If you find tweaking

colors in Photoshop laborious and time-consuming, there are presets you can

download for free. Google "cross-process+actions+downloads" and you'll find one

that's suitable to your tastes.

"Shoot a lot of photos" is obvious, but as the rest of the talented people here who've responded point out, if you can't get people (clients) to see your work, no matter how good, you're stuck. If you want a home based studio but can't afford equipment yet, try offering your services in photographic fields where a studio setup is not essential, such as travel, nature, even fashion (get a good looking friend, learn how to pose her/him, and shoot in places of character, say, a sculpture garden or park. Many a famous photographer started out this way. Don't believe me? Try researching in-demand photographer Mario Testino's bio) The money you earn from this work can be put to gear purchases later on.

Just save for web. Go to File\Save for Web & Devices (PS CS3). works for me

I just wonder if it ever bothers the players whenever the flash fires? Since it's been mentioned that Sports Illustrated has been doing this for years, it does point the answer out somewhat, but isn't it because the strobes were strategically placed (strobists seem to know all there is to lighting stuff!)? Even watching NBA coverages, one can't seem to spot those strobes. Any ideas?

Quote: Do fashion photographers also shoot head shots and full length fashion photos with 17-55mm?

 

Not sure on this one, but I'm betting they don't. They usually shoot at focal lengths of 85mm upwards, since even at 55mm, there's that distortion problem you encounter (unless given some good distance between subject and photographer. You'd have to experiment to find the safest distance that works for you). I'd say get the 70-200mm if you won't be having group-shoots in the near future.

Orada, the reason fashion/portrait photographers reach for the 70-200mm is because its a "flattering" lens, in the sense that facial proportions are least distorted when used. Try shooting with the 17-55mm at close range and you get that slight fish-eye effect, with the nose becoming more prominent than is desired, and the ears disappearing from view (or getting smaller). But the drawback with a long lens is similar to what you mentioned with the 85mm, you'll need space to get that minimum focusing distance. But that could be a bonus as well, since models can get uncomfortable when a photographer starts to get too close and invade their space, which usually happens with the shorter 17-55mm. Also, as mentioned above, the bokeh or background blurring given by the telephotos, especially at wide apertures, is a much-desired effect...

 

Your present prime lenses are certainly functional for your purposes, as prime lenses' images are generally considered sharper than zooms. F/1.8 is a beaut too, in low light and shallow depths of field. I'd say keep them around, they're solid performers.

 

Hope this helps

C LaMont, lol :) ...its great you got your gear back, but it was a blessing in disguise, eh? You tried a lower model of a camera and it turned out ok. Thanks for the encouragement and support!

 

David, thanks for your insightful response, it is very interesting. I initially wanted to shoot ISO 100 without aid from flash or strobe, but as many have pointed above, I am only going to meet frustration this way. However, the story you relate is inspiring. May I know who is the photographer who shoots award-winning photos at the abovementioned settings? I would gladly view his/her work if they're online. Of course, if I do get the funds for it, a 1.4 or 1.2 prime lens will be my next purchase.

 

James, I hear you sir. My ambivalence though is with the tripod for candids, particularly the before- and after-the-ceremony happenings, which means faster shutter speeds. In bright light, that would be no problem. Indoors, maybe a monopod (or wall :-) ) would work better than a tripod. But as Marko points out above, what's wrong with blur? I guess wedding photography is a challenge of compensating settings.

 

Thanks again, everyone!

Jonathan, thanks for your photo; was there any post processing involved or was the noise level left untouched (sepia toning is a given I think)? At ISO 3200, I'd assume the grain was high and noticeable? Good photo, by the way, of a bride's emotion

Robbie, I'm undergoing that process already. I had the mistaken notion that to emulate the masters, one must eschew flash and use fast lenses, when I should've been thinking how to be creative with what I have already instead. In the sidebar of this particular forum thread is an archive of Jeff Ascough's interview http://www.photo.net/interviews/jeff-ascough

Imagine my shock to find out that he does use flash during weddings! And even admits to using a bit of dodging to lighten a bride's face taken in shadow! But he's technique, patiently waiting for the "decisive moment," certainly establishes the quality of his images.

 

As Dawn Kelly and the others put it above, it's a mistake to think flash = bad. Your last comment is taken to heart: "There is nothing wrong with f/2.8 glass coupled with good flash technique." Thanks!

C. Lamont Blackmon, I hear you sir, clear as a bell. Bottomline: The Picture - Get it, by all means necessary.

Thanks guys, I was struggling with the same problem. I however would love this camera more if the LCD was a bit more faithful to colors (but that's just me). Surely a giant leap though, this camera, from a 10D.

Guys, my deep and heartfelt thanks for all your comments. Though I seem to have provoked the old "branded vs third-party" lens debate, I am touched by the efforts of everybody to point out my mistakes in the hope I become a better photographer. It certainly makes up a lot for the initial letdown I felt, feeling a bit misled by other recommendations that a f/2.8 lens would suffice for low-light event coverage. I humbly admit I don't have both the experience yet, and the proper gear. If there's anything you guys rammed so well into my head, it's "2.8 ain't fast." :-) I am now looking at an f/1.2 or f/1.4 purchase to add to my limited arsenal. I will also keep an eye out for opportunities for practice like family events. I would love to get a full-frame sensor Canon 5D, but will have to settle for the APS-C 40D in the meantime. I admit, I could have purchased the 50mm f1.8 along with the others, but felt it won't give you proper range for candids (thought I would get too close to the subject). I see now with the examples here I was wrong. Also, the reason I chose ISO 200 was to see what I could get away with, with the least noise possible. Now, thanks to most of you hammering me on this, I know better.

 

Chris E. said it well, a Porsche does not make a Mario Andretti overnight...I feel my work is cut out for me.

 

Thanks also to those who posted shots as examples: David, Chris and Marc, Marko for the links. Without exception, they instantly all became inspirational to me, and helped me understand more what "finding the light" means. They were also beautiful, and certainly all of them "tell the story." This is what I want in my photography as well, dramatic, poignant pictures. This is what I want my next level to be.

 

Marc, thanks for that histogram lesson, it was illuminating at the very least. The "after" shot is incredibly different!

 

Michael, no problem with the post processing, though I really wanted to nail the camera technique first. Still, thanks for that!

 

Marko, hats off to your gallery (Nighttime scenes). They are good examples I could emulate (heck, all who posted pics are worthy of emulation).

 

Thanks all again, for your precious comments, this page is now bookmarked.

Steve, thanks for your response. I agree with you on all the points you mentioned, you're recommending then I click on shutter priority and set a high ISO number? I'm going to try this out, possibly this Saturday if I get that debut gig (as a guest shooter, of course). Thanks again!

Photo #3<div></div>

Photo #2<div></div>

Here are several photos in different lights<div></div>

Marc, I just saw your post, it must have come in while I was typing my response. I am going to upload some samples I took around the house after this...I must admit I am trying for the wedding photography of the masters such as Buissink or Yervant, though that, of course, is a tall order, since I am just starting and most of them are veterans in the industry. That said, I can't help feeling disappointed with my initial shots, if only to accomplish tack sharp photographs in low light, without the aid of a flash. Is that a tall order too? I still think that's a minimum requirement an aspiring professional should pass muster. But is it the gear? Or the technique?

 

Anyway, thanks for pointing out the fairy tale of ambient light shooting, I had a chuckle on that one. But at the same time, what you said about it is true. I have a suspicion that for every astounding shot in ambient light, several are thrown away. Patience then is the key.