moses_sparks

Another vote for Lumedyne...

Much more versatile than the Metz in my opinion. The Metz is also problematic to mount on brackets and lightstands because of the unusual shape.

I carry a small Lightware case that holds 2 heads, 2 400 watt packs, 2 026 Super batteries, and 2 024 Mini batteries. It is amazing how many subjects you can light perfectly with this small kit.

The same packs will also power my Quantum X2 flash if I need an on-camera unit, or just want another manual flash but with 1/3 stop cut or boost for fine tuning the output.

Don,

Thanks for your interest...

The shoot was postponed to June 22nd due to schedule conflicts at the location. We have to shut down that road, and that's a very difficult thing to do, even on a movie studio's lot.

I've talked to a couple of lighting guys that work on sets, and the way they do this is to have a pre-light day (not an option for me) OR to measure off the distances involved, i.e. from the light's position to the surface it will strike, and then choose the fixture and lamp accordingly.

They know the lights well enough to guesstimate what the output will be (better to have too many watts than not enough) and then they knock it down with diffusion or ND gell if necessary.

That approach still has too much "Kentucky Windage" in it for me, so what I'm going to do is take the 100 foot tape measure I've acquired, measure off ALL the distances for each place where I want lights, and then the day before the shoot we will set the lights up in the Set Lighting warehouse (which is basically an airplane hangar with several million dollars worth of lighting equipment in it!) and I'm going to take incident readings at the same distances.

That ought to get me pretty close to the distance/output/f-stop equation I need.

I'm fairly certain these guys think I'm nuts, but they are not used to working with still photographers and transparency film.

They are accustomed to huge budgets and having DAYS to prep and light a set under the supervision of the key grip, director of photography, and first AD. If the lighting level is not right, they go to the grip truck and get another lamp and/or fixture, and then have 4-6 guys rig it while everyone sits around and drinks a Perrier.

That's not going to work for me!

But I think my approach will.

I'll post a follow up when the shot is in the can...

Velcro is NOT a good solution! The Wizard is heavy enough that lifting the pack will cause it to just fall off and dangle by the sync cord (tried it).

Drilling into all 5 of my packs is a bit daunting as well.

Has anyone ever seen a little clamp like I described?

That seems like it would be an elegant, inexpensive, and simple solution.

This to me is typical of the "90/10" design philosophy so many manufacturers of photo gear seem to suffer from. They exert considerable effort and expense to engineer a product, then stop short of addressing the details, the real-world solutions that would make it a truly world class product in every way.

My Mamiya RZ lenses are a good example. Absolutely top notch optically and mechanically...with a cheap-ass rubber hood that rips if a fruit fly lands on it.

And the Wizards in question...do I really have to take my high-tech digital triggers and attach them to my other high-tech devices with rubber bands, tape, glue, paper clips, and ear wax?

THAT doesn't help convince the client to pay me the ridiculous amount of money I'm asking for!

Oh well, sorry for the rant, been watching too much Dennis Miller lately :}

The search goes on...

I recently decided to upgrade my remote triggers to the Pocket Wizard

Multi Max, and forked out the cash for 4 of them.

VERY sophisticated unit with wonderful features...and mounting

options apparently designed by Mickey Mouse.

Velcro? The little loop thing that gym teachers use to hang their

whistle around their neck? Come on now!

What I want to do is physically attach the units to my Dynalite

packs, so that they can be moved as a single unit, and I would like

to use the Wizard's tripod socket for the connection.

The only place to attach something is the pack's carrying handle, and

that's fine with me, but I've tried super clamps and such, and they

are too big.

I think what would be ideal is a tiny clamp with a 1/4-20 threaded

stud, to which I would attach a Stroboframe flash foot, and then just

slide the Wizard right in there.

The missing link is the tiny clamp.

That way the unit would be above the pack for optimum radio link,

doesn't obscure the pack's controls, is secure, and doesn't require

converting the Wizard to a hockey puck by laying it on the floor.

How do you Wizard users do it?

Thanks!

Kevin,

There's a guy here in LA named Brent Hollister, and he owns Holly Enterprises. This guy has made some of the weirdest stuff imaginable for me over the years, and he is a first rate machinist who really knows camera and flash equipment.

He invented the aluminum replacement flash foot for the Vivitar 283 flash, and I would have thought he retired with that money, but I just called him and he's still working!

His number is 818-892-9020.

Cecil,

I've been contemplating the same idea you mentioned, i.e. metering the wall with and without the HMI, and then determining the variance. I don't have a cine meter and I'm not familiar with them, so I would want to use my Sekonic L408's to get a value in f-stops.

So am I figuring this correctly? If I get the HMI in position to cover the area desired, and then take a reading of the wall where the beam's center will hit, WITHOUT the HMI burning, and then take a second reading WITH the HMI, will the variance give me an accurate idea of the HMI's output in f-stops?

Let's say the ambient light alone reads f4 at 1 second, and adding the HMI reads f16 at 1 second. When the daylight is gone, should my exposure be f8 at 1 second? (Splitting the 4 stop difference).

I've shot everything imagineable with strobes, but hot lights are foreign to me!

Thanks.

Mark,

Each building gets it's own HMI, so falloff is not an issue.

I actually ran a quick test with my Dynalite 2000 pack last night, and I was able to get f8 at 50 feet, ISO 320, so I may end up flashing this after all...I only need one more stop, and a quad head running from 2 packs would give me that (4000 w/s).

Still working out the details...

Hi guys,

The term "rake" is apparently confusing some folks here, the HMI's will not be moving during the exposure, they will simply be positioned to rake along the side of the buildings from a back angle.

I've pretty much worked out the lighting plan, but accurately determining the output of those lights is the sticky wicket. I'm basing the exposure on the existing practicals already in the scene, and that's where the f11 at 1 second exposure comes from. At some point the ambient light will drop to that same level, and that's probably going to be the optimum time to shoot, bracketing like a madman, of course.

Today I have someone measuring the exact distance from the building wall to the spot where the HMI will be placed. Then I will have the Set Lighting boys demo a light for me at that same distance (inside their warehouse) and meter that, and hopefully that will put me in the ballpark.

The ideal thing would be to do a dry run at the actual location, but that just isn't possible.

This shot is being done on the main road that runs through Universal Studios, and it gets an amazing volume of traffic, so they will only let me shut it down on a Sunday evening, before a holiday (May 26th).

Apparently they are reluctant to tell people like Steven Spielberg and Jim Carrey to take a detour while some schmuck takes a picture...go figure!

Ellis, you must have read my mind, I am also exploring the possibility of using flash, because that will definitely give me more control, and I'm checking out the Pocket Wizard Multi Max units to see if they will reliably fire at the distances involved. I also have the issue of syncing two cameras however, and that further complicates things.

I'm shooting with a pair of RZ ProII's, from two different angles, one with a 50mm lens, and the other with a 37mm fisheye. The fisheye view is really what they want, but because of the rapidly changing light and the nightmare logistics, I want backups to choose from. I have to provide a digital file as well as a transparency, so that means we will be able to massage the light a bit in Photoshop.

I have a nice budget, but flying you out here is not really in the mix!

The crew is 8 people including me, my assistant, 2 grip/lighting guys, a laborer to hose down the road (glamour!), 2 security officers for traffic control, and the studio's facility rep to coordinate.

I'm also considering the double exposure approach, but that limits the amount of film I can shoot in the window of time available. The background buildings go dark long before the primary subject does, which catches the sun right up to the moment it drops below the horizon. It's actually a huge sign, which also has lights inside that must ALSO be properly exposed so that it reads correctly...just keeps getting better, doesn't it?

So, if I pull it off, I'm the hero!

If I blow it...well, that's not an option. I have kids to feed.

Thanks for the input guys.

Here's the deal: I have been asked to shoot a scene that includes a

large architectural structure, but also about a full city block of

buildings in the background, and it has to be done at "magic hour",

i.e. twilight.

Buildings must be lit and "glamorous".

Because of the huge area to be covered, I have decided the best way

to light the shot, and the background buildings in particular, is to

hire a couple of movie lighting techs to rake them with HMI's. These

will be balanced to the many existing light sources like

streetlights, sconces, etc. that I've already metered.

The HMI's have to be placed something like 50 feet from the buildings

or they will be in the shot.

We will start setting up in the afternoon so that when it begins to

get dark we can shoot until there's no more ambient light.

Here's my question: Is there a way to accurately meter the output of

the HMI's only while it's still full daylight outside?

An incident reading is going to get the natural AND artifical light,

which won't be accurate for the nighttime conditions, and the ambient

light changes so quickly at that time of day it won't be possible to

meter and adjust at that point.

It's also not possible to have a pre-light day (which is how it would

be done for TV or Feature production) because we have to shut the

road down to traffic, and the powers that be will only allow that for

one day.

I need F11 at 1 second, on ISO 400 film.

I would normally use high powered flash for this type of work, but

the scale is pretty enormous, and I'm concerned about sync problems.

Any ideas?

Thanks!

Jeff,

I shoot big projects for high end clients, and there is still no way I can justify the $20000 investment in a Kodak DCS or similar back for my RZ system. I am not a non-profit organization.

These clients have no qualms about paying rental for equipment, and I have used the DCS on that basis, but guess what...98% of them still want transparencies. Their designers and printers prefer the 6x7 original in most cases, which they then drum scan for all the pre-press work.

Which is fine by me.

I guess digital will rule the world someday, but I for one am just sick to death of hearing about it, and I have yet to meet the cyber geek who is posing any real threat to my client base...the people I work for understand and appreciate the value of knowing composition, lighting, exposure, expression, directing skills...you know, being a "photographer".

That will always be more important than the hardware.

I will switch to digital in MF when I have to in order to compete, that day is not here yet.

Steve,

I have exposed enough sheets of Polaroid in my life to fill a warehouse (or buy one probably!) and I can honestly say I see no difference at all whether I peel it at 90 seconds, or 5 minutes. Looks exactly the same to me.

DISCLAIMERS: *I rarely shoot color Polaroid, unless the client specifically requests it, because it drives me nuts to wait 90 seconds when I'm trying to tweek the shot and get to film.

*I live in Los Angeles, so I don't own a parka or worry about ambient temperatures affecting my Polaroids, but real cold WILL have an affect on your development time. Testing is in order if that's your situation.

HELPFUL MARTHA STEWART HINT: I have a Patterson Triple Timer that lives in one of my lighting cases, and I always use that to time Polaroids. It has 3 programmable digital timers, so I keep one set to 90 seconds, one to 60 seconds, and one to 30 seconds, so no matter what combination of Polaroids I'm shooting, as soon as I pull it from the back I just tap a button and the timer beeps to let me know it's ready.

That way, even on a busy set with a dozen things distracting me I get a reminder to peel the latest "roid".

The timer is tiny, and it has a magnetic back so you can put it on a lightstand or tripod, etc. In fact, since I have a steel plate in my head from an old accident I will sometimes stick it right on my forehead so I don't forget where I left it.

OK, I made that part up...

Hey Miles, what are you doing on the ground dude?!

You're right, nobody ever talks about their most important lenses, the ones they were born with, but it's certainly a good idea for a man of your advanced age to have them checked out (I myself am a youthful 46 year old).

I used to be one of those guys who spouted stuff like "I'll buy an autofocus camera the day they make one that can do a better job than I can!" Well, that day came quite a while ago, and I can honestly say that first Nikon N90s changed my life and work significantly.

It also made me aware that I might not be focusing my big cameras as well as I used to.

I go for an eye exam every summer, and I have needed to update my eyeglass prescription every two years like clockwork for the past decade. They are always very subtle changes, but they make a difference in how well I can see focus on the ground glass.

And if you haven't done it already, I would strongly suggest getting the 2x focus magnifier for your RZ. I am often surprised to find that the image I focused without it needed just a little tweak to get it razor sharp.

Keep your powder dry amigo...

MOSES SPARKS - STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER, UNIVERSAL STUDIOS

Hi Michael,

My experience parallels John's in many ways...former Hasselblad user, and I have the same set of lenses, they are all excellent in every way.

Including the 50mm, which seems to have some kind of vague stigma often repeated on photo.net about not being sharp...mine is sharp as hell and easily rivals the 65mm, which everyone raves about.

I have also used the 37mm fisheye and the 350 APO, which are both fantastic, and priced accordingly!

Zeiss seems to be the holy grail of lenses for many photographers (irrationally so in some cases) but the RZ glass easily equals anything from Germany I've ever used. They are also amazingly consistent from lens to lens for color and contrast, something I really appreciate.

They are extremely well built, and when you talk about shutter accuracy and consistency, they are miles ahead of the spring driven Zeiss lenses because they are electronically controlled from the body.

You can change lenses at will, use the top speeds, and all of your chromes will have consistent ambient exposures...something I could never count on with H'blad.

I'm not aware of any "dogs" in the current RZ lineup.

NEVER heard of the paint chip problem you mention.

I have no experience with the tilt/shift adapter, but I have a friend who shoots tabletop and he likes it.

Regarding the bellows, I have 2 RZII's, and they are used on location all the time, no problems to date.

I also find it odd that so many people repeat the mantra about it being a "studio" camera. Well, it is quite possibly the best studio camera in the business, but there sure are a lot of them being used out in the world for every imaginable type of location work.

And there the revolving back and electronic leaf shutters give them an edge over anything else I've tried.

In fact, I have only one complaint about it, and that is that it's heavy and hard to handhold, but what MF SLR that gives you a decent size neg isn't?

I could never get sharp pics handheld with a Hasselblad because I found the ergonomics so uncomfortable, and 645 just isn't worth the trouble to me.

If I'm going to go to all the effort and expense of shooting medium format for the image quality it provides, it only makes sense to lock it down on a tripod and then the weight becomes a moot point.

For better or worse, the RZ slaps me back to that conclusion when I get excited and start chasing the subject around with it!

Good luck with your decision...

MOSES SPARKS - STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER, UNIVERSAL STUDIOS

I have two numbers for Maxwell Precision Optics:

404-244-0095 and 770-934-0431

The state is Georgia.

OOPS!

Wrong model number on the tripod...I don't know WHAT it really is...but it's a big heavy sucker.

Sam,

I'm not familiar with the heads you mentioned, but I have a couple of Bogen 3038 ball heads on my tripods, and they work very well. One of them lives on my Bogen 3038, which is the big one with the support struts, and I use that for my RZ, complete with prism and winder...rock solid.

I had Kirk Enterprises modify it to take the Arca quick release plates.

The Arca B1 is a little smoother in use, but it costs twice as much (about $500 last time I checked) and it isn't twice as good.

My cameras live a life of ease, but my tripods travel in cases with light stands and grip equipment, and they get the crap beat out of them, so I prefer to lavish that abuse on the cheaper head.

You should check it out, it will handle an RZ with any lens easily.

MOSES SPARKS - STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER, UNIVERSAL STUDIOS

There's only one Softar, and after trying everything on the planet I would say with confidence it is indeed the best, although the price is ludicrous.

They come in 3 grades, and that's entirely a matter of personal preference. I only use the #2 myself, and even then rarely (I don't care for diffusion).

Eric...it's a good thing you're a lawyer dude, Barbara Walters is indeed "old and scary" but she's also meaner than a pit bull with a hemorrhoid from what I hear, and has more money than God, so she may be knocking at your door with attorneys in tow pretty soon!

Sam,

Maybe one of the optical gurus lurking out there can comment on your specific question, but teleconverters always affect depth of field because it's effectively increasing your focal length.

Nothing unusual there.

The 1.4 x also decreases maximum aperture by 1 stop. Again, just what you would expect.

But what I did find strange (and this is where someone else will have to provide a more technical response than I can) is that every teleconverter I have ever used with a helicoid focusing lens did NOT change the lenses' minimum focus distance...but it does with the RZ. Obviously has to do with the bellows type focusing.

Adding an extension tube will cost you even more light, and further reduce depth of field.

I can't see how that would be very useful unless you were specifically going for a particular effect.

That's why people needing that close focus ability use the 140 macro.

Hey John!

Almost forgot, I peeked at your site...very nice work!

I get roped into doing interiors for my employer from time to time, so I know how tough it is to do well, yours are first rate.

Hal is right, that's going to be a really tight fit if you add more gear.

I carry pretty comprehensive Nikon and Mamiya systems, and I found it necessary to go with the biggest case Tamrac makes, which is the 694 Big Wheels Rolling Strongbox. This thing holds a lot of gear!

And you will probably need it. RZ lenses are huge, and so are AF-S Nikkors.

I have a 694 for each system, and they currently carry the following:

Mamiya - 2 RZII bodies, Pola back, 4 film backs, L-grip, AE prism, winder, 2x focus magnifier, 50, 65, 110, 180, & 250 lenses and their hoods, and assorted odds and ends. One of the cameras has the prism attached.

Nikon - 3 F100 bodies, N90s body with NPC Pola back attached, 4 SB28 flashes, 2 Quantum batteries, 16 fisheye, 24, 35, 50, 80, & 105 DC primes, as well as 17-35, 28-70, & 80-200 AF-S zooms with their hoods, plus filters, cables, etc.

These cases ARE NOT carry-on size however.

One last thing, I would highly recommend the Big Wheels version over the standard. I used to have 2 of the same size cases in the standard version, and if you try to pull it over grass with a lot of gear inside it becomes a lawn mower. The weight will just cause those little wheels to sink right into the ground! Same thing on thick carpet.

And on surfaces like brick or cobblestone it rattles your gear around like peas in a frying pan.

The Big Wheels version goes over this terrain with ease.

It made such a difference I forked out $700 to replace both of mine with the new version.

Wow, lots of good input, I thank you all!

Bill - I have to disagree about the 150, I've rented it 3 or 4 times now, and I really like the perspective and close focusing of the lens. And optically, it sure looked good to me. I'm not one of those guys who reads MTF charts or photographs brick walls. My eyes and a roll of transparencies tell me everything I need to know about a lens. It's a highly subjective thing though, and the 127 obviously fits your way of seeing better.

Henry - Yes, I have tried the 1.4x, that was my first thought as a compact solution to the problem, and space is really what it comes down to me for me. I tried several rolling cases and liked the big Tamrac the best, so I'm sticking with that. That means whatever I buy HAS to fit in that case!

I didn't like the 1.4x though. Unlike helicoid mount lenses, it changes the minimum focus on the RZ, which is one of the best things about the system. Also makes DOF impossibly shallow. It felt very odd when I tried it with my 110 and 180 lenses.

(After a little measuring session this weekend I found that I can JUST squeeze the 150 in my case by stacking it with my 110, with a divider between them.)

John - Regarding the Department of Redundancy Department...you're absolutely right. The short tele is such an important lens for people work I've decided I don't mind having two of them. I have had some of the weirdest things happen to me on location, you need all the backup you can get.

SO, I'm going to rent a 140 macro, a 150, and the zoom, and test drive them side by side. Hopefully that will help me make a final decision.

Thanks again guys.

Hi Armando,

I think you're probably right about the zoom, I just dug up my RZ brochure, and man! that thing is huge, needs a steel girder under it to keep from wrenching the bellows out. I also think the speed would be a problem.

The money is not really an issue (although since baby # 2 came along it's certainly more of an issue!), but I only like to carry what I really need.

I already know I like the 150 because I've rented it a number of times, so I think my next step is to putter around with my 250 and see if it will cover the headshot thing adequately, and if so MAYBE I will swap the 180 for the 150...but 150 to 250 is a pretty big jump, so I'm not sure about that.

It just never ends, does it!?

Thanks for the input guys...

Hey Jack!

Interesting idea, and one I hadn't considered.

I have a couple of questions for you:

Did you find the zoom cumbersome to work with as far as focusing or general handling?

Does it focus close enough for a tight headshot at 200mm?

How about the speed? I do a lot of location work where I balance strobes to the ambient light, and that's a big concern. Did you find that to be a problem?

Big pluses for the 150 are that it's small, light, and fast (by RZ standards).

But like I said, the thought of carrying 3 telephotos is a bit daunting...