smarksphotography

<p>Just passing this along. Original post: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2011/06/status_report_o.html<br>

Thought it might be interesting to some people here. Not sure if this was the right forum though. <br>

Morgan Leigh Manning, "<a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1857623" target="_blank">Less than Picture Perfect: The Legal Relationship between Photographers' Rights and Law Enforcement</a>," <em>Tennessee Law Review</em>, Vol. 78, p. 105, 2010.</p>

<p>Wow. Tine to print a couple more of those I guess.</p>

<p>Thanks Mary and others for the helpful info. I am really debating between the HiTech and Lee at this point but so I've collected quite a bit of evidence in favor of spending the extra dough on the Lee's. <br>

The reverse ND also sounds pretty interesting. I haven not heard of that but since I do like to capture sunsets it might be worth checking out. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hmm, I had not considered the HitTech before posting this. In my initially searches I missed the HiTech but they seem to be decent choice considering the price and the difficultity getting the Lee's. I guess this is probably a frequently asked/debated question, but I could not find anyone who has used both and could compare them.<br>

I have good cannon glass. will I notice a difference between the Lee's and the HiTech?</p>

<p>Spencer</p>

 

<p>Yes, this topic was just recently debated. I liked the suggestion of getting both if possible. If not possible, I'd start with the 24-70 unless you really want that extra length.<br>

Another way to look at this: if you shoot outside a lot (i.e. don't need the f2.8 so much) then the extra length of the 105mm will be nice.<br>

If you shoot inside a lot then you won't need the extra length as much (probably) and the f2.8 will nice.<br>

At this point, having tried both lenses, if I had to pick one, I'd pick the 24-70. I did not try both lenses for the same amount of time (the 105mm getting much less time) but in that time I liked the results I got with the 24-70 a bit better.<br>

On the other hand, I like the smaller size of the 105mm and outside the extra length is nice.<br>

If I had more time with the 105mm I might change my opinon about which I'd get if I could get only one.<br>

If you are really stuck try this: rent both for a week and see which one you end up using the most. </p>

 

<p>Thanks for the replies.<br>

I am considering the Lee filters. I wonder if anyone can speak to their relative hard and softness. Based on Shun's reply I am considering just getting the hard ones intially.</p>

<p>Thanks, Spenncer</p>

<p>Hi, <br>

I have been reading about how neutral gradient density filters are extremely useful for certain types of landscapes including mountains and sunsets along the beach. <br>

Since decent ones aren't cheap, I am trying to figure out if I can ease into them rather than start with a complete set of both hard and soft (by complete set I mean .3, .6. and .9) or is this will just result in a lot of frustration. (I also read lots of comments suggesting that less expensive ones aren't really worth it, and that often people who get the those quickly end up getting the better quality ones. I am thinking of skipping this step.)<br>

I heard that the .6 is perhaps the most used. I was wondering if there was anything like a consensus on this?<br>

Also, which is more generally useful the soft or the hard edge, or perhaps this is not a particular valid question? In other words, is the soft pretty strictly used for mountains landscapes while the hard is used exclusively for straight horizons like a beach sunset and you kinda need both?<br>

Thanks in advance.</p>

<p><strong>Sanford Camera Repair</strong> <br />1056 Massachusetts Avenue <br />Arlington, MA 02476 <br />781 648 2505<br>

<a href="http://www.sanfordcamerarepair.com/">http://www.sanfordcamerarepair.com/</a></p>

<p>Another vote for EF 70 to 200F/2.8L IS USM. I think it is a wonderful lens. It is a bit heavy though. I wish it came in the f4 size, but getting the best lens that works for you really is about compromise. At this level (the L level) I am not sure there is a single best lens. You can get beautiful results with all of them, I think. On the other hand, I do agree with the advice "get the best lens you can afford". You just need to figure out what that is. For me, I think it is the EF 70 to 200F/2.8L IS USM. I typically use it with a mono pod. I often use it to take pictures of soccer games. On cloudy days the extra stop really helps. </p><div></div>

<p>I don't know, a teddy bear? Doesn't all that fur make it hard to figure out the shadows? Maybe if I was going to specialize on photographing Lumber Jacks ... : > On the other hand, there is a large one upstairs I could probably coax into a sitting. </p>

<p>I just purchased single a Bowens 400 Gemini. From what I've read and heard, the Bowens have a good reputation. The mono lights have metal (not plastic) cases and judging from the single unit I purchased a very good fit and finish. I have not used my light long enough to have anything else potentially useful to say about it. </p>

<p>I think I need something roughly the same size as human. I don't think I need a full mannequin though maybe a just the head and shoulders - maybe I am wrong about that though as I want something I can pose. I was able to find what I assume to be high quality mannequins online that I guess retailers buy, but those where two and three hundred dollars - way more than I was hoping to have to spend on this. </p>

<p>Hi, <br>

Sorry if this is the wrong forum. Wasn't sure if this or the accessories forum was correct. Figured this was closer to the mark as people here might have solved the same problem. <br>

Anyway, I am looking for a mannequin so that I can practice lighting techniques. I tried poking around online and sent a few queries but have come up dry. I also tried to Craig's List but didn't even get any spammy replies there. <br>

So I was hoping someone here might be able to suggest a source or ideally a particular recommendation. (I have no experience with mannequins, and I am not what would work best for this task). <br>

Thanks in advance. </p>

<p>Radio Poppers and Pocket Wizards are the two big choices I think. The newest Pocket Wizards has some issues when used with 580ex II. </p>

<p>Thanks once again for the great feedback. This is just what I am looking for and appreciate it. <br>

Steve, I kind of agree about too much over processing, but the funny thing here at least is that I showed "the model" this thread and she said "What program did he use to clean up the picture. I like it. I really don't like looking like my mother!" I got at laugh out of that. So, I guess there is definitely a place for that kind of touch up. However, I am trying to learn how to get it right when I take the shot and not have to rely (too much) on that kind of post processing. <br>

I am getting lots of good comments about what needs to be fixed, however I am wondering if anyone has book or article suggestions on how to fix it. Just one example: "catch light is too low in the eyes." What are approaches for the addressing that? The Speedlighter's handbook has one chapter on this, which is what I am starting from, but additional kind of how to instructions like the one found in that chapter would be helpful I think. <br>

Thanks again. </p>

<p>Thanks for all the constructive feedback. I really appreciate that - rants I can do without. I have no problem with criticism. That is what I was looking for here, so I really appreciate the effort people took to compose careful critiques even taking the time to annotate or edit the images themselves. That's really helpful. Last night I was focusing more on the technical aspects as I try to get more comfortable with some new tools, but I understand that great photography is the coming together of tools, technique and prospective. I'd appreciate any recommendations for books or articles on taking well crafted portraits. <br>

Thanks again. </p>

<p>A problem I see with this photo is the left hand side hair is too dark. </p>

<p>Thanks Matt and Steve. I think both comments that definitely helped. I switched to manual and think I got at least slightly better results. I will post a second round of shots in the right forum probably tomorrow. </p><div></div>

<p>Ack, sorry about posting this in the wrong forum. I apologize for that. This is the first time I've for a asked for this kind of critique, and I didn't realize there was a specific forum. I should have been more careful. Sorry about that.</p>

<p>Oh, I am using full ETTL mode. To me the images don't seem "bright" enough. Maybe a little dull? I think the skin tone looks OK though. <br>

Anyway thanks in advance for your time. </p>

<p>Here is another image. (If you press upload before selecting a file bad things happen) </p><div></div>

<p>Here's another attempt.</p>

<p>Here's the first image:</p><div></div>

<p>Hi, <br /> I am new to studio lighting and working extensively with flash. (I have been doing natural light photography for a long time though). After reading up on the subject (sources include: The Speedliter's Handbook by Syl Arena and The Moment It Clicks by Joe McNaly, the Strobist site) I am setting a up a small studio. I was hoping to get some feedback on these shots. My setup includes two front lights and large softbox behind. I am using 2 580 ex ii and one 550 ex. In the front is smaller softbox to the right and on the left I am using bounced light from an umbrella. Thanks in advance for any constructive comments.</p>

<p>So after a little more experimentation I was able to fire the 550 as a slave using the 580 as the master without the PW - no problem - once I just dialed in the settings correctly. This is not really much of an accomplishment, but I did it. <br>

Next I tried using the PW on the 580 while it was still set to Master. I couldn't get it to fire. I turned the master off and I had no problem. That's what Frank said would be the case. <br>

If I set all the flashes to all manual will I be able to use the PW on the 580 as a master and have it fire the 550? <br>

Thanks again for the quick replies especially on a Saturday night. </p>