warren_x

November 6, 2008

It's kind of like the difference between matte and glossy. Standard acrylic is a little bit sharper whereas

non-glare makes it look kind of like a matte surface. I do not display my art under controlled conditions, and

the glare from standard acrylic is sometimes quite bad, so I always use non-glare. You will not notice the

difference unless you are pixel peeping from 12 inches away (and uncontrolled glare would be way, way worse and

noticeable from any distance). I would get UV if possible, as other have said it won't be noticeable.

Stick to name brands like Cyro, Lucite or Acrylite. I've bought no-name stuff before (by accident). It didn't cut

as smoothly and the backing was extremely difficult to remove (to the point where I ended up damaging some

material just trying to get the damn paper off).

February 7, 2008

http://www.khbphotografix.com/

October 22, 2007

The 1540 doesn't extend quite as high and doesn't close quite as short as the 1155T. However, it has only 4 leg sections hence is a lot stiffer. I suspect Gitzo determined the 1155T couldn't really handle the weight for which it was specified.

<p>

For what it's worth, here's a comparison table of similar models I used when making my decision a few months ago. It took me a while to assemble this table because Gitzo isn't very well organized; their US and international sites were inconsistent and a local dealer was no help (they didn't even know the 1540 existed). The 3001 in the first row is a Bogen, and was what I wanted to replace.<p>

To echo what Edward said, the new locking system is very nice.<p><p>

<table x:str border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 width=834 style='border-collapse:

collapse;table-layout:fixed;width:624pt'>

<col class=xl28 width=75 span=6 style='mso-width-source:userset;mso-width-alt:

2742;width:56pt'>

<td class=xl27 width=75 style='width:56pt'>Maximum Load Capacity</td>

<td class=xl27 width=75 style='width:56pt'>Weight</td>

<td class=xl27 width=75 style='width:56pt'>Closed Length</td>

<td class=xl27 width=75 style='width:56pt'>Minimum Height</td>

<td class=xl27 width=75 style='width:56pt'>Maximum Height</td>

<td class=xl27 width=75 style='width:56pt'>Maximum Height with extended

center column</td>

<td class=xl27 width=64 style='width:48pt'>Leg Sections</td>

<td class=xl27 width=192 style='width:144pt'>Notes</td>

</tr>

<td class=xl29 width=192 style='width:144pt'>Baseline</td>

</tr>

<td class=xl38 width=192 style='width:144pt'>Replaced by 1258</td>

</tr>

</tr>

<td class=xl38 width=192 style='width:144pt'>Replaced by 1550T</td>

</tr>

<td class=xl38 width=192 style='width:144pt'>Replaced by 1540T</td>

</tr>

</tr>

</tr>

</table>

April 17, 2007

Argh ... I paid a lot of money for that, and now they give it away for free?!

Thanks for the link though ...

March 26, 2007

Am I the only one that thinks it's odd to keep the cardboard box with the UPC cut out of it for months? I never read anywhere that it was a requirement to do this to get them to pay up. I read everything else ... certified mail, write your name on the back of the codes, photocopy everything, etc. But why would I keep a damaged box with all the useful information cut out of it? (Good for your that you did, I guess.)

February 26, 2007

I stumbled across the post looking for an answer to the same question. In case anyone else does, the broken plastic part can easily be replaced. It's Canon part number CA4-4602-000 and can be ordered by calling Canon at (732) 521-7230. They cost about $8 each (I ordered two - one to fix my OCSC2 and one spare).

February 12, 2007

I second the suggestion to get the flash, too.

I have the non-USM one and love it. Reports say there are no discernible differences in quality between the two. The non-USM will save you additional money because you don't need a hood or a protective filter for it, since the front element is recessed deeply inside the front of the barrel. On the USM version, it's right up front like most lenses. Dell had as great deal on the USM version a couple days ago ($385ish) but I'm sticking with my old one.

January 19, 2007

There is a post from Henry Posner (senior B&H manager) on the subject <a href="http://forums.slickdeals.net/showpost.php?p=5162972&postcount=51">here</a>. I just bought that exact product; it is most definitely "new".

November 6, 2006

Something that hasn't been mentioned is that the Bees require clean electricity. Polarity has to be right, proper grounding, true sine wave. This is primarily a concern when shooting out of old, improperly wired buildings or off of inverters. That said, I still love my Bees.

October 22, 2006

It seemed to me that the author of that article was trying very, very hard to rationalize and justify his inability to afford a 5D. And since he can't afford one and therefore doesn't need one or want one, nor should you.

August 24, 2006

You can't (and don't need to) sync any faster than your camera will allow (probably 1/200 or 1/250). Pick a shutter speed and aperture combination that suit your other criteria and then the short duration of the flash alone will freeze the action.

December 28, 2005

A friend of mine bought a refurbished Canon G2 several years ago. It died a sudden death one day while still under Canon warranty, and when he went to get it serviced, they refused to honour the warranty, claiming the unit had been mishandled as evidenced by scratch marks. When he claimed the scratches were there when he bought it, they said they would never have sold (as "refurbished") a unit with physical damage.

Buyer beware.

October 6, 2005

I think it will be very difficult to do this well without additional lighting, especially with a film camera where you can't just keep shooting and shooting until you get lucky with the fish. I say this because you said the fish are quite active.

I've placed a softbox over the top of my fresh water tank, completely covering the top. It's a small tank (60gal?) but still required a surprising amount of light. The fish didn't seem to mind the flash at all.

AB800 in a medium softbox at *full power!!*, EF 100mm/2.8 Macro, 300D @ ISO 100 handheld, 1/125 at f/8 or so.

September 27, 2005

... but David is right, diffraction definitely becomes a problem. For me, f/11 is the smallest usable aperture when using the 100mm Macro (mine is the non-USM version) plus all three Kenko extension tubes (equivalent to 68mm of extension IIRC). Depth of field is extremely small at the resulting working distances and apertures. It's no MP-65, but a set of tubes is a lot cheaper if you already have the 100mm Macro.<div>

00Dgg0-25827284.jpg.f4a6a314349d207f74f70d264856c940.jpg

</div>

February 8, 2005

Thanks Brooks, that was very informative. In what circumstances would you choose to use a mirror instead of a white fill card? I'm guessing it would be when you want more "specularity", if that's a word. It also seems like quite a practical way to almost have a second light source with minimal light loss.

January 16, 2005

Get them from a theatre supply warehouse ... the type that rents the equipment needed for filming movies and putting on stage events.

November 1, 2004

Brooks and Garry, thank you so much for these excellent lighting themes. You must spend a lot of time and effort compiling them and I hope you know how appreciated they are.

I have two questions for Brooks on the placement of the fill light and reflector in this post.

Why did you choose to place the fill light slightly behind the subject, instead of directly overhead or even slightly to the front (i.e., why from the same direction as the key light)?

Also, why did you choose to use an overhead fill and a side reflector instead of just an overhead fill located a bit in front of the subject and slightly to the left?

September 24, 2004

The possibilities are endless ...

You can get a great view of the skyline from atop Mont Royal, which is a not-too-difficult hike from downtown, or an easy bus ride. Go at dawn or dusk. There's also a nice park up there.

Old Montreal is a classic attraction with lots to photograph.

A short metro ride east will get you to the Botanical Gardens and the Biodome.

Of course, there's all of downtown as well.

You didn't really specify what you were looking for, but those are some ideas to start with.

August 27, 2004

I assume you mean the RS-80N3 cable release? If so, then it sticks out 16.5mm from the edge of the socket for the cable release (on an EOS 3). From the widest point, which is where the film door latch is, it's as close to 0.5" as I can tell, but it's impossible to measure this with complete accuracy.

June 23, 2004

Washington Post columnist Frank Van Riper has been working for the past 6 years on a book on Venice in Winter, as well. It isn't ready yet, but it sounds like it might be interesting when it is.

<p></p>

<A HREF="http://www.gvrphoto.com/">http://www.gvrphoto.com/</A>

<p></p>

<A HREF="http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/essays/vanRiper/index.htm">http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/essays/vanRiper/index.htm</A>

<p></p>

March 23, 2004

Does anyone (Ellis? Brooks?) have any comments on the use of grids vs

barn doors for hair lights? A lot of people seem to use and recommend

grids, and Phil G. himself says in one of the static pages that "This

is Hollywood technology from the 1920's. If you really want to

control the angle of the light cone thrown by your head, you should

probably get a zoom head or a bunch of grids."

But when using grids, you have to replace the grid or reposition the

light to make sure that the light falls on the hair and ONLY the

hair, not the shoulders, the nose, ears, etc. It seems like it would

be much easier to just reposition the louvers (doors).

January 21, 2004

I have no idea if the following will work, but it came to mind as something I would like to try for myself in the future.

For creating the halo, why not just try putting the light behind the backdrop, pointed at the backdrop, without any holes or anything? The cloth should be sufficiently thin to allow at least some light through at higher power levels.

Obviously this wouldn't work for any situation where you needed that light source to be specular/hard.

Posted January 15, 2004 · January 15, 2004

I use a Pocket Bouncer on top of a Pro RL bracket (so a similar setup to the one you propose) and I really love the results compared to having the flash directly on the hotshoe. The only problem is that it looks quite imposing, and the whole contraption is quite bulky, both in size and weight.

January 9, 2004

This is a very complicated setup to be starting with. Try starting off with one light and one reflector, and build up from there. With your current setup (nice picture by the way) it will be very difficult to learn from your mistakes and from adjustments that you make because everything is so interdependent.

The ratios are massively dependent on a multitude of factors, including the look you're trying to achieve, the type of film you're using (B&W? colour? digital?), the tone of the background, the colour of your subjects' hair, their complexion, and so on.

The apertures you've listed are not unreasonable starting points. The hair light might turn out a bit hot, maybe start with a 1:1 ratio with the main light. The fill light might be a bit hot too, but it's hard to say without knowing what kind of film you're using.

December 27, 2003

First bring the umbrella closer ... six feet away somewhat defeats the purpose of using an umbrella. The shine is caused by specular reflection from a small-ish light source, so make the light source bigger by bringing it closer.

You didn't specify how big the umbrella was, but the smaller the umbrella, the more pronounced this problem could potentially be.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by warren_x