zack_mccrory

October 6, 2009

Matt- Thanks for pointing that out. I was assuming that CLS was what Nikon marketed iTTL as... and that they were one in the same.

Time to do some more research i guess. Im still on the fence. I cant decide if its worth it to stick with the 2-4x the cost Nikon flashes, or just buy a pair of LP120's and start having fun. All these auto features sure sound nice though...

October 6, 2009

So other than being limited to 2 groups instead of 3, is there any benefit of getting an SB800/900 to run on-camera? I dont really like the look of on-camera lighting.

Most of the shots i do will be in a semi-controlled environment (with the exception of a wedding i have comming up that im doing as a favor to the groom).

The direction im working towards is glamour, and doing senior pictures, etc. So far i've avoided shooting outdoors because of my monolight (even if i had a mobile power solution i wouldn't want to lug a 4' octobox around), so i want to get more mobile with the SB600's. The SB600s will also be used on indoor shoots where i need a 2nd or 3rd light in addition to my monolight.

So basicly i dont NEED the iTTL (my shooting environments allow me the time necessary to get set up), but if it works well it would definitely be a welcome convenience. I was just worried that it would limit the ability to get creative with the lighting and not be consistent (like when a camera is on auto mode... and a set of 10 consecutive shots all look a bit different)

October 5, 2009

How does the i-TTL work with multiple flashes? Most of the stuff im reading about involves just a single flash.

Perhaps im looking at this all wrong, but my only concern with i-TTL is that its the flash equivilent to seeing your camera on "auto".

For example... say i wanted one flash to be 1 stop higher than the other to give a nice contrast across the subject. Will i-TTL allow me to do that or will it simply make the exposure even/correct?

So it takes a SB800 on-camera to fire the flashes off camera, even with a D90? I was under the assumption that a D90 could fire them (one of the thing i thought i read as being an advantage of my old D40). Whats the downside of using the pop-up flash to trigger the off-camera flash? Cant i simply turn the power down to where it doesn't effect exposure?

October 5, 2009

I've been reading a lot on strobist lately, and really want to get a pair of hotshoe flashes.

So far my only experience with off camera flash has been my Alienbee and fill reflector. I get results that im happy with, by "eyeing" it and adjusting settings accordingly.

My first thought was to get a pair of SB600's so i would have a complete Nikon "system". I was content that was the path i should go down... untill i found out about the LumoPro LP120's. I can get a pair of them for basicly the same price as a single SB600.

SO my question is... if i went with a manual flash such as the LP120 or Vivtar 285's, and im selling myself short? My D90 is obviously capable of the whole i-TTL system, and it halfway feels like a waste not to take advantage of it.

Is i-TTL simply a technology for casual photographers to play with, and not used by serious photographers? I wouldn't consider myself a pro by any means, but i quickly grasped the process of using a monolight... so im wondering if the "auto" i-TTL would be a step backwards?

I plan to use the pair of SB600s as background/hair lights in addition to my Alienbee while indoors, and plan to use them by themselves with some light duty stands when i go outside.

October 1, 2009

This spring i made the transition from a D40 with a kit lens, to a D90 with a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. At first i missed the simplicity of the D40, but after i got used to the features (and actually read the book instead of just playing with it), i absolutely love it.

The metering and AF system on the D90 is a huge improvement over the D40. The high ISO performance is also a huge plus.

When i had the D40 i was always looking online and drooling over high end cameras. Im the kind of person who always wants "bigger, better, faster" etc, but i can honestly say that the D90 is all the camera that i want, and am 100% content with it.

September 30, 2009

Hi everyone,

I think that im ready to add a few pieces of equipment to my arsenal, and would like some advice from this forum.

So far my main interest has been glamour photography. I have been networking with aspiring models around my area, and working with them to boost (or start) their portfolios. Its been a lot of fun, and i have learned a lot along the way.

Im starting to be quite happy with the results that i can produce, but only in an indoor environment where i have my lighting setup. When i go outdoors, or any place where i dont have my lighting, i feel like a fish out of water. Its my goal to be able to produce quality pictures regardless of where i am.

Here is what im working with:

Nikon D90

Tamron 28-75 f/2.8

Alienbees AB400 Monolight

Alienbees Large Octobox

48" 5-in-1 fill reflector

2x 13ft boom stands

Ebay wireless trigger/reciever

The single light/fill reflector setup is doing great, but its not very mobile obviously. It just wouldn't be practical to try and carry it around outdoors with a mobile power unit.

When i originally decided the direction i wanted to go, i decided to go the monolight route vs the strobist/speedlight route. I didn't want to mess with batteries, etc.

I still feel that way, and dont regret the purchases i made... but i need to gain some versitility and mobility. I did a shoot this past Saturday at a models home, and one of the rooms we shot in just wasn't large enough to get my Octobox in there... so we had to skip those... i didn't like that at all.

Im tossing around the idea of picking up a hotshoe flash. The SB-400 looks like a great value, but the SB-600 looks even better. I've also found some great modifiers for them, and would likely purchase one of the offerings from Lumiquest at the same time.

The mobility of a single SB600, mounted in the hotshoe, with a large Lumiquest on-camera modifier seems like it would be a great combo. Im just curious if i would be able to get the results that im hoping for. It would be very nice to be able to shoot a model outdoors without feeling like the shots are sub-par compared to my indoor shots. I also have a lot of unuseable photos when i shoot outdoor due to slight blur from camera movement etc (even 1/50 at 28mm seems to be tricky)

If i have little need to move the flash off-camera... would i be at any advantage to get the SB600 over the SB400? What if i had both and one was to stay on the camera at all times... is a SB400/SB600 combo just as good as a pair of SB600's?

I really like the look of shallow DOF, and shoot at f/2.8-f/5 quite often, so the power of the flash isn't a huge concern (my AB400 stays at 1/4-1/2 power 90% of the time)

Any input/advice would be greatly appreciated.

March 30, 2009

Eric,

I was never getting an "fEE" message, just "F --"

Im confident it was mounted correctly, and clicked in place. The lens has been on the camera since the day i got both of them, and worked fine the few few times i tried it.... although i didn't shoot with it a lot.

In my experience, the pop up flash only raises up if im indoors or some other low-light environment. In those cases i turn the wheel to "no flash" mode... which is one click away from "Auto"

Im no longer using the D40... this is on a D90.

Im still not seeing an aperture ring on this thing. Here is a photo... perhaps im blind and someone can point it out to me.

March 30, 2009

The contacts look brand new (they are only two weeks old).

Obviously the camera seems to be fine... whats the chances that something went wrong with the lens?

March 30, 2009

This lens does not have an aperture ring... just a zoom and focus ring.

The lens was definitely all the way locked in place.

Some of the times that it was giving the error, were times that there is no excuse why it wouldn't of had enough light. One we were up in an observation tower in mid-afternoon. It was an overcast day... but there was plenty of light. I shot in much lower light conditions with my old D40/17-55 kit lens combo.

As far as camera settings go... i just threw it on Auto because most of these were just point-in-shoot... just some pictures of me and my friends walking around. I tried changing the AF point to center and that didn't seem to help any.

The main reason i purchased that Tamron lens, is because i thought it would be perfect for low light stuff, since my 17-55 f3.5-5.6 kit lens with my D40 worked fine.

It seems like this lens worked great the first couple days i had it. I was riding in a friends car going down the interstate, and was taking photos of other cars when it was almost dark outside. Now all of a sudden, when i REALLY wanted the lens to perform well... it let me down. I hope its just something im doing wrong, because my $1300 D90/Tamron combo isn't working near as well as my $425 D40/kit lens combo would have.

March 30, 2009

I just got back from a weekend trip, and had some problems with my new setup

I lost out on a lot of good photo opportunities because my camera kept flashing "F --" on the top LCD screen. Sometimes if i turned the camera off and then back on it would fix it, but other times it wouldn't.

In addition to that, i was trying to take some low light photos and it never would quite focus (was indoors at an aquarium). I took my 67mm Tifen UV filter off, and it seems to help a bit, but not much. It was also having some problems focusing on objects far off in the distance (was in Gatlinburg, and wanted to take some photos of the mountains).

I have only had this setup for a couple weeks, and it seemed to work fine at first.

After much frustration, i finally threw my Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 on there, and it seemed to perform fine.

Do you think there is a defect with my Tamron lens? i have heard of some AF problems with non-nikon lenses, but this was a little extreme. If there is genuinely a problem with it, i want to figure it out now so i can return it. Its really frustrating to pay $400 for a lens, only to have it not act right.

I guess i should ad that both the D90 and the Tamron lens were puchased new about 2 weeks ago.

March 24, 2009

I just purchased a cheap wireless trigger/reciever off ebay for $22, and it works great. Using it with my AB400 and D90... all i did was put batteries in it and throw it on the camera... easy as can be.

March 23, 2009

Im aware that it has nothing to do with the AB...

As stated above... ISO was set to 100.

March 23, 2009

I was just in my computer room with the AB set up facing a book shelf area.

The regular lights were on in the room, so it wasnt dark in there. I was just aiming at thing like the very top of the bookshelf where the monolight wasn't directly aiming, just to see what kind of spillover it had up there from the AB.

March 23, 2009

One more thing to ad... the lens i was using was a fast lens (Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, set at 2.8).

I only noticed it when i was aiming the camera places where the AB wasn't directly aimed. None of the shots i actually wanted to take were a problem, but it made me think "what if it did this to me when i was wanting to shoot something important"

March 23, 2009

It sounds like its probably in the focusing then.

I had everything else set up correctly for the AB400... camera settings were ISO100, my desired aperture, 1/125th shutter speed, white balance set to flashes, etc.

So i guess my next question is... when you hold the shutter button halfway down it focuses... it seemed like it was focusing correctly but the AF-Points just weren't lighting up like they normally do. Is there a way to make it auto focus, and even if the camera doesn't think it has clear focus on something, still take the photo when i push the shutter button down the rest of the way?

I dont want to try to manually focus this thing... gives me nightmares thinking back to when i still had my D40 trying to use my 50mm f/1.8.

March 23, 2009

Hey Guys,

This is a very basic question, im sure... but its driving me nuts.

Sometimes when i push the shutter button, my camera refuses to take a picture. It seems to be in situations where there may not be enough light for an ideal image.

I hadn't noticed it much (my D40 used to do it, but my D90 had hardly ever done it) untill i was messing with my AB400 monolight yesterday. If i turned off the modeling light and aimed the camera at something that didn't have much light on it, even in manual mode it would not take the picture.

Is there a way to get the camera to take the picture, regardless of what its metering tells it?

Im just afraid that im going to get in a situation where im doing a photo shoot with a model, and my camera is going to start "arguing" with me about if i have enough light or not when using the somewhat weak modeling lights on my AB400.

March 23, 2009

Hey Derrick

How large is your studio area? I recently purchased an AB400 (just one of them), and at low apertures, ISO 100, i have to turn it all the way down. Im glad i went with the 400, because for what im using it for i probably wouldn't have been able to turn even a single 800 down enough.

March 20, 2009

I was going through some images the other day, and ran across one that really caught my eye. The photographer had used a projector to put a texture across his model. I love how it looks, and want to try it out. I would love to find more examples, but haven't had much luck... im not even sure where this image originally came from.

Where would be a good starting point to try this out? I assume i would have to either use a slow shutter speed or crank up the ISO.

Where i work has a projector that we dont use, so it would be easy to borrow it for a shoot.

Thanks in advance to anyone who can give me some direction.

March 18, 2009

I just purchased a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, and im loving it in low light on my D90.

March 17, 2009

I was in your exact same situation about a week ago.

I went to the store and played around with the 18-105 lens that you can get with it in kit form... it was a nice lens.

Last week when i ordered my D90, i purchased the body for $890, and picked up the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 for an additional ~$400

I absolutely love it. The constant 2.8 of the Tamron lens i like a lot better than the kit lens i played with in the store. It also feels a lot more solid, and much less "toyish"

March 16, 2009

Thanks for all the info everyone.

I just pulled the trigger on my first Alien Bee. I went with a AB400 (since i work in small spaces, and like shooting shallow DOF), a 47" Octobox, and their 13ft heavy duty stand.

What would make a good reflector/bounce panel etc to compliment this? I have been looking around and a single large softbox seems to produce a nice light, but it would be nice to have a little more versatility of also having a way to bounce light around.

March 15, 2009

Do you all feel the Alienbees are the least expensive monolight worth having?

I was looking at the Impact kits from B&H, and they seemed really nice for the money... but i dont want them to quit on me after a few months.

I wouldn't use them very often. Once i get more into it, and more models lined up, i would probably just do a shoot on the weekend here and there... i dont really need something that can take abuse all day every day.

March 15, 2009

One more thing to ad... here is a photo from the last set i did. The two CFL's with umbrellas were positioned to the right and left just in front of the model.

I would like to have had more light to wrap around her, because i dont like how the side of her is dark, and all the shadows that were produced. I would have liked to had a 3rd light as a hair light, so that i could have put the left and right light lower. I also would ahve liked to have some light to shine on the wall to make it look white.

March 15, 2009

Hi everyone

Im at a crossroads where im wanting to get more serious about my photography. I recently upgraded from a D40 to a D90, and am wanting to also upgrade my studio lighting setup.

Currently my lighting setup consists of two 85 watt CFL lights, with roughly 30" white bounce back umbrellas, on a couple of cheap stands. I picked the whole kit up for $99 on Amazon. Its by no means an ideal setup, and there are a lot of short commings with it, but it doesn't do too bad

My biggest complaint is that i dont have enough light. The last time i shot with my setup, i was shooting at f/3.5-4.0 (kit lens), ISO 200 to 400 (had auto ISO on), and shutter speed was 1/60th. Even at those settings, some photos came out a little darker than i wanted, and there were more shadows than i cared for.

I have read all sorts of forums, reviews, only articles, etc about "Flashes vs Constant lighting" and am still on the fence about what direction i want to go. I was pretty set on going with an Alienbees setup, but after pricing things out... its going to cost 2-3x as much to go that route as it would be to just add 2-3 more CFL lights

It seems like the biggest argument with flashes vs constant lighting is that "constant lighting gets too hot"... well that may have been the case with tungsten setups... but my CFL lights produce VERY little heat. It isn't even noticable.

I shoot in a lot of conditions that are "unknown" as to what light will be around. Normally i just show up at the models home, and we find a room large enough to set up in and go.

It just seems to me that for my situation, constant lighting would be the way to go. I like to shoot at low apertures for a shallow DOF, and like to control the exposure with shutter speed. I can do this very effectively... and im kind of afraid that i wouldn't be able to turn a monolight down far enough to achieve the low-light effects that i really like.

Why is it that all "real" photographers seem to skoff at people that use constant lighting, and consider monolights to be the only real option?

For $300-400 i could add 3 more CFL lights to my setup, including softboxes, stands, a boom, etc. I would then have a main light and fill light in a softbox, along with a hair light in a softbox. I could then use my existing CFLs for additional fill lights, background lights, etc.

I would love some input from all of you on here. This website has proved invalueable in my other questions... and even though this question has came up many times, i guess im just curious about my particular situation. I already know the pros and cons of each setup... and based on that i just cant understand why SO many people chose flashes... it seems like both has enough advantages that the spread would be more even.

March 12, 2009

Very informative indeed!

Why is it the things i like, always end up being the most expensive, hah.

After going to the Photoflex website, and looking at your examples, it seems like im going to need a huge softbox. They offer a 7' octabox (used in their example that i liked the most), and i like the effect even more once they added a grid to it (love the darker background and lighter subject)

Do i have any alternatives to a large softbox, that may be a little more budget friendly? I thought i remembered reading somewhere, that i can hang up a white sheet the height of the subject, and shoot my light through that to get a very even diffused look.

In this link, look at figure 21 and 22 towards the end. <a href="http://www.photoflexlightingschool.com/Equipment_Lessons/Soft_Boxes___Strobe/OctoDome3/Using_Grids_7ft._OctoDome3/index.html">http://www.photoflexlightingschool.com/Equipment_Lessons/Soft_Boxes___Strobe/OctoDome3/Using_Grids_7ft._OctoDome3/index.html</a>

Is there a way i can use a single say... AB 800 with their 30" x 60" softbox... and use my CFL lights as a side and hair light? Or does it not work that way?

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by zack_mccrory