jason_hall5

<p>I am with Matt on this...what is missing here is better lighting on the face and mostly the eyes. It can be improved in Post Process, but probably never a "wow" type photo.</p>

 

<p>Boy...I bet his arms are tired...</p>

<p>Yellow Snow...I am glad that is cleared up!! Here in the South that is not much of a worry.</p>

<p>You are right James, What we are after is the balance between sharpest image and the shortest exposure time.</p>

<p>The longer the focal length the dimmer the image is at the film plane. Increase the pin hole size to off set this. The trade off is sharpness due to larger circle of confusion. At the same time we do not want it to small because defraction will also take away from sharpness.</p>

<p>For many, trying to get a sharp image from a pin hole defeats the whole purpose for useing them. All I can say is, to each his own.</p>

<p>Hi Tyler,</p>

<p>While I have built several Pin holes I am hardly an expert. However, there are two main things that will effect sharpness of the resulting image. Both are mentioned above in a couple of post.</p>

<p>1. the correct size of pin hole for the desired focal length. This is the distance from the pin hole to the sensor/ film plane. If you look on the top of the camera body, there should be a circle with a line through it. That marks the position of the film plane in relation to the body. You can buy pre drilled (some by lazer) pin holes made in stainless steel or brass shim stock (very thin). One I have purchased is from a fella that goes by PinHole Billy on Ebay. I think it was like $12 USD for 12 assorted sizes. That will cover most any focal length you want to make. They come with a list to tell you what size to use for each focal length range. You may need to experiment some.</p>

<p>You can also check out mrpinhole.com for some good info and different design calculators. Lots of info on the net for this.</p>

<p>2. How perfect and clean of a hole you make. Pretty much impossible to see with the naked eye. I have scaned mine on a flat bed scaner at its highest resolution and zoomed in on the results. It gives you a pretty good idea of what you have. I found one of mine was cracked at the hole. This is also where buying one that is precision drilled comes in handy.</p>

<p>Also, I did find the images look better on film. I did not get very far with the digital version.</p>

<p>Good luck and God Speed.</p>

<p>Jason</p>

<p>Just speaking of the portrait lens and I guess the Macro lens also, for the sharpest images possible, one should use good solid technique to acheive this and leave the IS off.</p>

<p>Speaking form experience, useing Image Stabilzation when it is not needed will lead to loss of critical sharpness. Not to the point that the image is not useable, but enough I can tell even with out zooming in on the image. And no a tripod was not involved.</p>

<p>Image stabilization is used to extend the usefullness and effectiveness of the lens when less that ideal conditions exist. This is simply not a good time to create portraits. I do mean Portraits, not just nice head shots at an event.</p>

<p>Really the best place for it is on a "work horse" or jack of all trades kind of lens. Such as the EF-24-105 f4 or the EF-s 17-55 f2.8 and the EF-70-200 f2.8. Not very fast but rahter versital in focal length. The IS make them even more so.</p>

<p>Also to make lens that do not have it apeal to those who do not want to pay the extra $ for it. Most likely most of the lens that you mention will one day have it, but I sure with a slow market and R&D funds limited, they have to be stratigic where and how they invest their technology. </p>

<p>Jason</p>

<p>Like Matt, I recomend just giving them a digital copy of the photos. I have fought this for some time as I only like to sell print. However, due to expectations, I have had to change that. Also, lay out exactly what the package will include, time(1 hour session sounds about right) Max travel distance from a central location, and so on. If all you do is on location shooting, then that is all you can offer. Just make that clear as well. <br>

Example: Photo shoot on location of client's choice. Location must be within 25 mile radius of YourTown USA. $0.65 for each additional mile traveled.</p>

<p>Also, give an expiration date as well (1 years is about right). I did one like this 5 years ago. They have yet to come claim it. Saw the guy who bought it a few months ago, and he said they were just recently thinking of booking a day with me. I still kick myself over that blunder.</p>

<p>As for the rain, I assume you mean for the event, you can only do what you can. No one will expect you to risk your expensive gear to get the shots. Have some large plastic bags handy for just incase. Keep any thing else you have in your pockets Memory cards and such, in zip lock bags. That is if you really expect it to rain that day. If there is any shelter around, you can stay there and shoot with a long lens if you have one.</p>

<p>Good luck</p>

<p>Jason</p>

<p>I personally would like to see the original image file unedited. A close look at the subject suggest soft focus (in its self would not cause your issue) and a bit of noise. What ISO was this and what camera are you shooting with? I assume you shot JPEG and not RAW. JPEG can be just fine but, has much tighter limits as to what you can do in post and a somewhat less dynamic range. But really I would like to know what ISO this is and the noise level of the original image.</p>

<p>If you ask me, that will tell the tale on the end result. Also, how did you handle the file? Do you still have a copy of the original? If not you may want to make that a step in your work flow in the future.</p>

<p>I am currently stuck using a crappy laptop and I am not able to see anything in the background on either image. </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think i am fairly attractive so i would think it would work. Would having the person right down their name and email on a clipboard work so i could send them the picture?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Like Kevin, seems like a way to meet some barley dressed girls and get their contact info. Of course when I was 17 I likely thought it was a good idea also.<br>

I am sure that you will get some takers on your offer, until a jealous boy friend....well, you'll see.<br>

This is hardly a good way to Practice, if that is your intent. To get truly great portraits, a Photographer needs to spend some time working with their subject and have time to work out the lighting and the overall scene. That or being able to sit back and observe your subject without being notice and capture moments of expression and emotion.<br>

What you are looking at doing sounds more like running and gunning, much like shooting an event. Hardly a good way to get good portraits people will really want to buy or remember you by. How much time do you think you will be able to spend with each person? Now, many talented street photogs can approach a person and have them beaming and "camera ready" is a few minutes. But this is because of their skills as a conversationalist and how they can handle people and make them comfortable almost instantly. Really nothing to do with how attractive they are.<br>

Also, I would be sure to turn off that Date function...you know..the one in your self portrait.</p>

 

<p>I love that Glen....bet it would have been great painted white. :o)</p>

<p>I am with Lex and Henry here. Works for me. Many times have I taken a photo of a structure, or person for that matter, lit by the setting sun. No matter how far I am from the subject, I can just hold up my L-558R and take a reading in the same light that is hitting that barn/tree/or what ever,100+ yards away, and it works every time. Film or digital (in case somone wants to bring up exposure latitude).</p>

<p>Like Lex, however, I do like the spot meter on the L-558R</p>

<p>"Set the camera to <strong>manual</strong> then you can set your sync speed from 1/60 to 1/200 and your pictures should be fine."<br>

No they will not, He is trying to photograph skaters. They are moving to fast for 1/200 to freeze the action. In what the op describes the flash is only about 10% to 20% of the total exposure, so the flash duration does not help. It is the ambient light that is making the motion blur and the only way to stop that is to increase shutter speed (ie, shorten the time of exposure).</p>

<p>As Steve put it, you need High Speed Sync. I do not know if the flash you have has that option but I am guessing not. So your options are to shoot with ambeint only, or get a flash that has HSS (High Speed Sync). Also as Steve stated, it uses a lot of power for what you get.<br>

Jason</p>

<p>Short answer....no. </p>

<p>WELCOME!!!</p>

<p>I just realized the issue is with the flash off the camera and that it is useing the focus assist(grid pattern). So my answer above is likely of no help. Odd, I will mess with mine tonight and see if I can cause this to happen.</p>

<p>God speed</p>

<p>Jason</p>

<p>Is the flash set to master or slave mode? The red light on front of the flash is trying to conect with another flash it sounds like to me. Also, the 50D most likely has the function to control the flash from the camera. Look in your menus and make sure that there are no odd setting there. You can try a reset of your camera and see if that clears it up.</p>

<p>Check the meta data for the image, I bet the shutter speed is 1/200.</p>

<p>Jason</p>

<p>I think the issue here is that you had the camer in AV so the aperture was locked in. You dialed in -EV. The only thing the camera can adjust in AV mode is the shutter. However, with flash, your max sync speed is 1/200. That is unless you set it up for High seed sync. Either way, your camera was maxed out at the 1/200 sync speed and could not controll the ambient light. YOu needed to stop down the aperture. The camera should have a safety shift that you can turn on so that if the shutter is maxed out, it will shift the aperture for you even if you are in AV mode.</p>

<p>Jason</p>

<p>First, Welcom to PHOTO.NET. Do not worry, your English is as good as most people around here. :o)</p>

<p>Your Equipment set up is just fine. Someone mentioned a flash, however I would not point you that way until you have gotten to the point that you understand some basics.</p>

<p>Right now you just need to learn a bit on how to use your camera. Also learn more about lighting and what makes "good" lighting in portraits.</p>

<p>You said, you wanted them to look like studio photos. Studios are all about light. They are made to control light in every way. So you see, light is your most important element. THere is no way to give you all there is to know about light in a post here. However there is much to read and learn on the internet. Also a lot of books to read also. </p>

<p>I would suggest you read what you can here and other web sites. Think about buying a few books as well. Remember, Learn to understand light and how it affects your photos. Also, learn what makes for "good" portrait lighting for your daughter. In the mean time, practice practice practice. When there is something that you do not like about you photos, try to fine out what it is(post it here) and learn how to make it better. </p>

<p>It is all a learning process that will not happen over night.</p>

<p>Good luck and God Bless</p>

<p>Jason</p>

<p>In a nut shell, Lightroom will do much of what you ever need to do. Except, working in layers and HDR. Lightroom is also a file management application and will only do "nondistructive" editing. Which is very very good. It will allow you to manage your workflow and work with RAW JPEG TIFF and many other formats seamlessly.<br>

CS5 However, is a pixel editor and has many more features and overall power than you will likely ever need or could think of useing. Unless you get into graphic design, video, and such. It also does HDR, but there are much lower cost products out there that do just as well (if not better in some cases). It is not nondistructive, unless you know how to use layers properly and that can make file sizes rather large.<br>

I use both, but this is only because Lightroom will not do layers and some work requires that.</p>

<p>If you are starting out, you may want to try Photoshop elements (not sure of the current version) and also some of the HDR programs out there. Like Photomatix. I do think they have a plug-in that will allow you to use it in Lightroom. I have the standalone version.</p>

<p>Jason</p>

<p>I did something similar recently. My grandmother is...well...getting up in age. I decided to take a few shots of her as well. I am thankful I was able to shoot with Kodachrome (just talked with Dwaynes today and my four rolls are on the way back). I also took a few shots with my Polaroid 195. I had to use fuji film of course. I also visited my mothers grave (first time in a number of years) and took some shots of her grave marker. She passed away nearly 30 years ago. I was only 4. I intended to shoot all the parents and grandparents with the Kodachrome, but never got around to it. So I need to work on that. Most likely with B&W film. </p>

<p>I am not taking these photos for me...but for my kids and those that come after me.</p>

<p>Jason</p>

<p>Will the new "head" light be nuclear powered? What kind of recycleing time will we be looking at? </p>

<p>Jason</p>

<p>Jerry,<br>

You should really read the OPs post and check out his link.</p>

<p>I think its a rather clever attempt to drive some trafic to the new <a href="../bboard/q-and-a?topic_id=1801&category=Flowers+%26+Gardens">Flowers and Gardens </a>Forum.</p>

<p>Jason</p>

<p>I have only read about half of the responses on here...</p>

<p>I have been in your exact same shoes a number of times. Even my wife was pretty bad about it. Bottom line as I see it, they are your photos! Take them home and do what you will. Then email out or post the images you want to show. You do not have to be a high paid pro to justify takeing pride in your photography.</p>

<p>Processing is just part of the work flow of making good photos (film or digital).</p>

<p>Jason</p>

<p>Well now that I think about it Matt is right with the higher ISO. However for the lower "expanded" ISO, it is done with software. In the case of the Canon 5D, the native ISO is 100 for that sensor. You can expand the range to 50 ISO, however you lose some in contrast and dynamic range as a result.</p>

<p>But as Matt so well put it, in either case, you can use it as long as you can live with the trade off.</p>

<p>Jason</p>