philk1

<p>Nope. Won't fit in my studio!</p>

<p>No problem Patrick. I'm still new to this stuff and I want to be sure I get it right if called upon to create a setup like this. <br>

My studio is small and I use 48" octoboxes for beauty head shots. The box in your photo looks a bit larger. Do you know the size?</p>

 

<p>What you refer to as a softbox, is that actually an umbrella or octabox?<br>

Much appreciate the sharing.</p>

 

<p>Michael,<br>

I have the dish and just ordered the sock/diffuser. Can you share some details about the grid. How do you use it? to what effect? etc. You seem pumped by it and I need some motivation here. Thanks.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Michael,<br>

I have the dish and just ordered the sock/diffuser. Can you share some details about the grid. How do you use it? to what effect? etc. You seem pumped by it and I need some motivation here. Thanks.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks Nathan. Can you help me out by describing placement of the second softbox which will now be used for "shortlighting." As a newbie I'm also not sure what is meant by shortlighting in this case and where the softbox will physically be placed.<br>

Other than that confusion on my part, my take is that the setup you prefer uses 2 fills, the reflector and the overhead, and a key that uses shortlighting. Let me know if I've got that part correct.<br>

Putting aside the Ps issue and the setup modication, you seem to agree that with a longer lens my existing lighting should be able to get me the shot the model wants. Is that correct?</p>

 

<p>A model asked me if I could do a beauty shot that would be similar to a commercial shot for a teeth or skin product. I typically use a clamshell setup for beauty portraits. My 24-105mm lens is almost full out getting a shoulders up shot. So I would need a longer lens. My question for the forum is will I need to modify the clamshell if focusing on the teeth and skin. I use a large softbox above the subject, small softbox below, about 1 f-stop difference.</p>

<p>Jin,<br>

That's kind of a cryptic message for us non-techs. What does that mean? </p>

<p>I've not been able to upload since yesterday evening. Each time I attempt to upload I receive an "Error 500. Unexpected server error" screen message.<br>

Anyone know what this is about?</p>

<p>Can someone tell me when file size limits were increased to 1500x1500 and 3MB? My understanding was that limits were 800pixels max. Is this a recent change?</p>

<p>Thanks for the responses.<br>

 

<p>Here's what seemed to have worked. I renamed the Photo.net folder I was trying to upload files to. I made it a shorter name. This enabled me to upload my files :) Following the upload I then changed the folder name back to the longer version without incident. Does any of that make any sense to either of you?</p>

</p>

 

<p>I've been uploading files to Photo.net from my Mac for over a year. But I can no longer do uploads of multiple files to Photo.net. When I attempt to upload I receive this message:</p>

<!--StartFragment-->

<p><strong>"</strong>This page provides a Flash application that allows you to upload multiple photos to your photo.net Gallery portfolio at one time. Your browser needs the Flash Player 8 plug-in for this application to work."<br /> <br /> I use Mac OS 10.5.7 and either Safari or Firefox. I attempted to install Flash Player 10 (the message above erroneously refers to Flash Player 8) several times with the same result. The installer indicates a successful install. But when I attempt to upload photos the same message as above is produced.<br /> <br /> Numerous Mac message boards list problems like this. I attempted one posted solution that required editing a script file. It did not work. Are other Photo.net users experiencing this or related problems?</p>

<!--EndFragment-->

<p>Bob Atkins,<br>

Can you tell me when limits were increased to 1500x1500 and 3MB? My understanding was that limits were 800 max. Is this a recent change?</p>

<p>Patrick,<br>

This is very good stuff. Thanks for sharing. </p>

<p>

 

<p >I recently upgraded from a Canon 30D to a Canon 5D2. I process digital files with both Phtoshop Elements 6.0 and CS3 Mac. CS3 does not support RAW conversion of 5D2 RAW files. Since I’m not a heavy user of CS3, I’m not sure I want to purchase a $200 upgrade to CS4 primarily to be able to convert 5D2 RAW files. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I tested 30D RAW conversion with Digital Photo Professional (DPP). I compared these to 30D files converted with ACR version 4. DPP outputs to 16 bit TIFF, 8 bit TIFF, and Exif JPEG. Here’s what I saw at 3200 percent magnification. The 16 bit TIFF and Exif JPEG have more contrast and the colors are a bit sharper than the ACR RAW files which appear flatter. These observations mirror DPreview’s review of the DPP software that was part of its 5D2 review. The DPP Exif JPEG is significantly sharper and overall higher quality than a large JPEG produced by the 5D2. This result surprised me and I tried it a second time with the same result. This runs contrary to DPreview’s finding that there is no difference between JPEG from the camera and DPP.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >DPP’s TIFF files are very large, up to 120MB for 16 bit and 60MB for 8 bit. That’s a high cost in disk space to pay for converting files that will primarily be displayed on the web. Exif JPEGs are also large, up to 20MB.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I’m leaning toward using DPP to convert my files to Exif JPEGs. I could edit these ACR, PSE 6.0, or CS3 or some combination of these. From there I can produce JPEGs for web or other uses. Since I have the original RAW file, I can always go back and produce a version of the image for high quality printing, etc., should the need arise.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >In put and feedback on any content above is welcome. Input on the observed significant quality difference between 5D2 JPEGs and DPP JPEGs would be appreciated since this finding surprised me.</p>

 

 

</p>

<p>I'd like to use color filters with my Profoto studio lights and prefer to not buy a set of gel filters to fit these specific lights. Filters will be used primarily to light a white backdrop.<br>

Does anyone know of a DIY approach for creating these filters?<br>

Phil<br>

<br /></p>

<p>Thanks.  Between the time I posted my query and returned to read your responses I left a voice mail with Profoto and also sent them an email to see of they have a manual for the Pro Acute 6 as well as the strobes that were purchased with it.  <br>

There is no manual for this item on their website.  </p>

<p>My niece bought a Profoto Pro Acute 6 power pack and strobes when she attended RSDI in the mid-90's.  She's made these available for my use But there's no instruction manual, specs, etc.   That leaves me uncertain how much power I'm dealing with and precisely how the controls work.  I could  find nothing on the Profoto web site about this model.  <br>

Documentation for the newer Profoto Acute2 system of power packs, or generators, as Profoto refers to them suggests that the control configuration has not changed greatly in 12 years or so.  But I'd prefer to work on fact and not inference if I decide to set these up. So I'm looking for any info that might be available on the Pro Acute 6.<br>

Would  also be interested in any info that might be out there regarding the Pro Foto Acute strobes that were purchased with the Acute 6 power pack in the mid 90's.<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p> </p>

Wondering if anyone else is experiencing difficulty getting the beta upload feature to work. I cannot upload to existing or new folders.