stephen_delear

Marco

 

Check out some of the Domke camera bags. When I was shooting photojournalism I had, I think it was an F-9. Very deep lense pockets and the flap on the bag connected with a single metal clip that you could open in a hurry. An extremely nice bag that got stolen with the rest of my equipment in 2001 :-(. Very stable though. I never had a lens roll or fall out on me.

Well lets see when I was shooting photojournalism my favorite modes where

 

Tv: Set to avoid camera shake and any DoF you pick up is a bonus.

 

Av: Sometimes you know you're going to want a shallow DoF of the fastest shutter speed possible (though really, after 1/1000 you don't really gain anything most of the time).

 

M: For when spot metering or working with a subject where I know that I'm going to have an issue with a bright spot in the frame / uneven lighting.

 

Always shooting center weighted mode. ETTL/Matrix/ect is just to unpredictable to know what will happen. That said a hand held light meter can be very accurate if you know how to use it. Also the last wedding I shot was back in the days of film. With a print negative well I wouldn't want to over expose the dress but the details would still be there. On digital the dress can blowout if you're not careful. That argues fairly strongly for either setting up exposure before hand or spot metering the dress and manual then correcting.

 

Which brings up an interesting point. Do folks where meter ambient or spot the dress then dial that exposure down by say a stop? (I suppose a number of shooters will respond neither, use bounce flash as a dominate light source, possibly dialing down the flash a bit to preserve highlights).

Ok two questions about LR 2.

 

1. Can I batch upsize photos in it to meet the minimum size requirements of some stock agencies, that requires submissions in sizes that a sensor has yet to be invented for (sorry pet peeve)?

 

2. Can it work with Alien Skin's Exposure 2 plugin so that I can apply color palletes from the RAW files?

 

Stephen

I lost an SD card the other day when the card holder in my pocket that I thought I had zipped up turned out to be

unzipped (card fell out into pocket and fell out of pocket). After that I went working for a better case and I

think I've found one. Two old Fuji film canisters. They're relatively rigid, waterproof, big enough that they

don't get lost, hold several cards, and come in a variety of colors (one for empty cards and one for full).

Guess everything old is new again...

Well what sharpening setting are the other DPP users using. Obviously not 10 (where I'm getting jagglies), but what are folks default 3, 5, 7? I should probably be using GIMP for this but it's so nice to just make a couple small changes and convert straight to JPG, skipping the edit TIFF stage.

I've been shooting with a Rebel XSi with a 28-70 2.8L. At the default sharpen on Photo Professional (3) I was

beginning to worry if my lens needed to go into the shop. I've upped it to 5 when working with RAW files but I'm

seeing improvement all the way up to 10. I'm also seeing little jagglies at 10 that want to put my teeth on

edge. Should I even be trying to do this in photo professional or should I open up an image editing program (in

my case GIMP) and use an unsharpen mask on an outputted Tiff file? If so what settings should I be using?

Opps sorry. Full size image can be found at:

Sigh. I remember back in the days of film where you NEVER took the UV filter off, under any conditions. I have stacked a UV and CP before but that was with a stardard UV and Cokin drop in CP. Anyway I'm linking in a full size shot. (Didn't get to run a lens test after work).

I'm having some problems with visible unsharpness (i.e. no point in tack focus) on a 28-70L on a Canon Rebel XSi

when viewed at 100%. Photos were at f 2.8. Things seem a bit clearer at f 3.5. The lens has UV and CP filters

I picked up at best buy on it (Tiffan I think). Shots were taken at either ISO 100 or ISO 200 at 1/125.

 

I see a couple potential causes of the problem.

1. CP filter (which was about $20) might have issues. These things use to go for $100, it's quite possible that

what Best Buy is selling might be of a low enough quality to bring down the pictures.

 

2) The lens may naturally not be sharp when you're talking about reviewing something at 72DPI, 50 inches tall.

In this case the only thing to do is tripod mount and stop down.

 

3) With the crop factor of 1.6 the lens at 70mm equaled about a 110mm lens. 1/125 may be to slow to handhold

when large a file will be viewed at 100%. Some of the sharp images taken with this lens might have been set to

1/180.

 

4) Lens may need to go to Canon for repairs.

 

I'll be doing some shooting after work to try to work out the issue. Are either #1 or #2 known issues?

Just got a Canon Rebel XSi. I've been playing with the RAW software that comes with the camera but it seems a

bit limited. Are there any programs out there for less then $100 that could do a better job?

Why yes, it means you lack the joy of locking the mirror up on accident at a critical time. I wonder which sports league will be first to ban still cameras that also shoot digital for violating their TV contracts. Then again the NFL is already grumping about making still photographers pay for rights.

Well I think that if you have to take high quality photos for industrial applications in a cramped space (for example looking for damage on the space shuttle), this might be the camera for you. Other then that I think most photographers who need high priced digital medium format are already using a digital back.

 

Well that and I expect we'll see Canon and Nikon get into the greater then 35mm arena in the next couple of years.

Am I right to think the trick to this would be to take a reading as your flash will see the scene (ETTL I guess), then take a spot reading off one of the faces and dial a correction factor into the flash equal to the f/stop difference between the two. The flash math here is getting me confused.

 

Lets say we have background 1/250 @ f/11 and

foreground 1/250 @ f/5.6

 

I need to throw two stops of light into the shadow to bring it into balance with the highlights. 1:4 Lighting ratio so on a studio flash set if for f/11 at the distance to target then dial in -1/4 stop compensation because 1/4 of the light energy is already reaching the target. (God I hope that's right it's been a decade since a last touched a studio light).

 

Now I would assume that a on the camera flash is going to give me an output for f/11. This would give me a slight over exposure, with TBH would be desirable is I was shooting film as it'd give me a little more detail any remaining shadows.

 

The Canon website however warns me that my flash might need to be adjusted upwards when dealing with a strong backlight. This makes some sense if the flash is going to assume that the subject is mostly exposed as read, f/11 + f/11 = 1 stop over, so I'm presuming that the flash will auto correct me a stop to two stops under? Would this be a constant or will the flash try to out think me and very it output unpredictably?

 

And am I missing something basic here? I have this little voice in the back of my head going "dial that a half stop off f/11 to prevent blown highlights" right next to the voice going "forget the math run a couple test shots and play with it."

So um do any MF models have a depth of field preview? Seems like eyeball it might be the best answer to "what will this lens do" (well that and shoot some test rolls).

I remember when I was back in highschool. Our Journalism teacher had been teaching for many years. She never bought plastic reels for the department (even though a dropped metal reel is a contact error waiting to happen). Her reason, plastic reels were prone to contamination in a high throughput (10-20 rolls/day) environment where the most cleaning the equipment was likely to get was a quick water wash. At college most shooters coming from a highschool journalism background had heard that plastic reels were given to contamination.

 

Plastic reels becoming contamination is a well known "fact". Part of this probably is that with time the reels become discolored from developer (much like old [plastic measuring cups will become discolored). That being said I'll stick to metal where I don't have such worries.

Ok here's my take:

 

1. Megapixels: Canon has more MPs which IN GENERAL = a more saleable image, advantage Canon.

 

2. Price, Nikon D700 = $3000 Street Price, Canon 5D II = $2700 MSRP, preliminarily advantage Canon.

 

3. Noise: Unknown at present.

 

4. Color Rendition: Unknown at present.

 

5. Can take stills while shooting digital video, advantage Canon.

 

Preliminarily the Canon wins BUT it depends on how well it handles in practice. For stock photographers #1 will be an issue, for wedding photographers and photojournalists who need to produce both still and video #5 will be important. Portraiture shooters will probably want whichever camera means less mucking around in photoshop. Sports shooters will have to agonize between faster fps and more MP's allowing for more cropping of the photo (remember most sports shooters use fast, primes).

 

We are fast approaching the point of silly high resolution.

Ok lets see, you're shooting in a dark hole with a high cealing and distant walls. You're going to need a fast ISO 800-1600+ and fast glass f/2.8 or faster to have any shot at shooting in there. As somebody has suggested a 50mm f/1.8 or faster may be the best lens for this.

 

You are going to want to be bouncing flash off a white card for what diffusion you can get. Pick up this months copy of shutterbug, one of the articles features a bounce card with wrapping sides to send more light energy forward. You're going to want to take some test shots to figure out how much if any compensation you want to dial into the flash (my guts saying with a bounce and primary flash lighting you'd want around 1/2 stop over).

 

Remember to load Lithium Batteries into your flash and to have a spare set handy (lithium decreases flash cycle time).

 

Remember fast glass and high ISO reduce the amount of output light your flash needs. Also remember that some situations are quite frankly hopeless, you're going to just have to accept that your flash will be the primary light source. The only thing you can do in these situations is set up a secondary flash on a slave and preposition it to try to cut the shadows some.

 

A high power, studio monolight with an umbrella reflector high in a back corner of the church might be able to create a wide enough zone in the center of the church that lighting will not change to much as the subject moves. As with anything involving studio flash test shots are the key, especially as you're unlikely to be able to bring in a second light to soften shadows.

 

Plan B would be a tripod, 85mm f/1.small lens on a tripod with quick release head and arranged for quick setup and removal , dragging the shutter with flash throwing forward just enough light to cut the shadows from that overhead light source (flash compensation maybe -1/3 to -1/2 stop).

Well lets see, my thoughts:

 

1) In Camera Video. Working photojournalist have grown to hate that they are often expected to shoot video clips for newspaper websites / associated TV stations. This gives them a camera capable of delivering quality digital video without having to switch between still and video cameras.

 

2) On the various 1D's. The real strength of the 1D MIII is that you can be tackled by the police while covering a political convention and camera and (L lens) will likely survive. As pointed out the Ds is dead. I keep hearing rumors about a Canon Digital Medium Format.

 

3) Most sports shooters at some point have used cameras with around 5 fps, they'll either live or continue to use a 1D.

 

4) The megapixil wars will continue until we reach "rule of thumb" level (i.e. 35MP is max useful resolution for 35mm film sized sensor).

 

5) This is a no choice camera. With Nikon, Canon and Sony now in 20+ MP range the market for professional photos is going to demand 20+ MP shots.

 

6) Kodak's quest for film that if scanned at X-MPs shows no grain (i.e. can fake digital) just got harder. 2600-500(use medium format kit) / $10/roll film + processing (optimistic) = 210 rolls. Assume a 2 year life cycle on the camera = 105 rolls/year to break even (not counting price of a film scanner). Depends how much future proofing you can get out of the negatives I guess.

Ok on the text on the back of the prints:

 

1. Worst roll (CVS) no text.

2. "Best" roll (Walgreens) 3536 02 N N N N-16 GR05 Z103.0/100.0 (neg looks slightly over exposed)

3. Pink Tones (Different CVS) 025 NA E0NA0N2 NNN 0 6236 718563 (next line shot number and 1110); was shot with a CP, sky is gone white late day sun is pink, exposure on the neg doesn't look bad.

 

All shots 100UC

All the local labs are scanning negs and then outputting digital prints. The down side of this is that the image

quality is terrible. No color correction or white balancing, limited tonal range. To put it mildly this stuff

looks like crap. Does anybody have a list of labs that are still using optical printing machinery? I noticed

today that 3" prints sent out from Walmart have no CD option. Does this mean the labs using optical on the 3" or

just that they want to sell you bigger prints to get a CD?

I hate to rain on any ones parade but 100UC is CRAP! RG-100 a decade ago had a better color range. 100UC has very fine grain but IT GIVES GOLDEN LIGHT A PINK CAST!!!! I'm sorry but Portria and Velvia both have a better tonal range then 100UC. I've got shots on Portria that have better brown tones then 100UC.

RG 25 was discontinued in 1998. While discussing the new Ektar 100 in another film I did a google search to see

if I could find some images shot in RG 25. Needless to say not much came up on a film that was discontinued

before 2000. Now I have, somewhere, maybe a dozen rolls I shot of the stuff while in highschool that I need to

dig out and get scanned. If you have RG25 / Ektar 25 negs can you post images so that we can establish a

baseline for comparison with the new Ektar 100 (other then "I remember that in my day...").

 

Thanks

Stephen

I've shot 100UC, I've shot RG25. There weren't many rolls of Color negative film in between. Let me tell you something 100UC is no RG25. If RG25 was an oil paining 100UC is a neon sign. 100UC saturates the visible tones, RG25 mapped non visible gradation in the red, brown and gold tones into the visible range (much like Velvia does for greens).

Yuck, what a long thread.

 

Lets get down to the basics:

 

Camera: At 6.3mp you're just pulling even with film. You may want to either upgrade or rent or borrow a film camera shooting Fuji Press 800.

 

Metering: Assuming that lighting conditions will not change dramatically during the ceremony, get a gray card, before things start take readings off it 1) in front of the alter, 2) at the end back of the isle where the procession will start. Write these down and use them to set the camera's meter in manual mode.

 

Flash: Let me sum up years of training in flash photography quickly, point the flash up and rubber band a white index card to the back to throw the light forward. Consider the possibility of somehow having the flash off center (if you have the equipment for it).

 

Lenses: Ok available light is possible in most settings. You're going to want to use your f/1.8 and f/2.0 but ISO 400 is really pushing the slow side. Unless in a well lit indoor setting you're looking at ISO 800-1600.

 

A tripod with a quick release head set up before time so that you can plunk your camera on it and cover the alter might be a good idea.

 

Oh and for those who think shooting weddings is a high stress environment, let me assure you that there are much higher stress things you can shoot. Riots, even relatively benign ones, come to mind.

I've been getting some really blaze results from 100UC. I'm at work so can't post a scan right now. To give you

some idea, I took a picture of a red rusted paint can in late afternoon golden light and got a cold dark brown.

Now there are a couple options as to whats going on here:

 

1) UC could be optimized to Green tones not Brown, in which case this is as hopeless as trying to bring out a

subtle Brown in Velvia.

 

2) Camera was set to ETTL mode (my oops I thought it was centered weighted spot). Two brains trying to expose a

picture = no brains in the exposure.

 

3) Processor color corrected out by brown tones.

 

4) I was not using a CP. 100UC could suffer more washing out from non-polarized light then I expected.

 

I'm a bit disappointed as I was hoping for performance similar to RG25 in tonal range. My question is are either

1) (doesn't hold a good Brown) or 4) (polarizer almost mandatory) known quirks of 100UC?