raaj

<p>I made a 1'x1' softbox out of cardboard while sitting in front of the TV and watching the Olympics. This my was my first use of it, other than photographing small objects. I may have restricted the light a little too much here.</p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>Raaj</p><div></div>

<p>From the kitchen counter:</p><div></div>

<p>This is a hand held shot while testing out the 35mm f/2 lens.</p><div></div>

<p>Forgot my tripod adapter at home, so I had to shoot this hand held.<br>

Cheers</p><div></div>

<p>Thank you all for this discussion. I've learned quite a bit.</p>

<p>I've thought about it and decided to keep the lens. The problem is gone by f/4, and it doesn't sound like I would be significantly better off with another lens (within my budget). I would be shooting most night shots at f/8 on a tripod anyway. Guess I can live with a bit of CA in my low light hand held shots.</p>

<p>Fernando, I made sure I removed all filters for my test. The original image at the start of this thread is also without any filters.</p>

<p>Jared, you are probably right. I wear glasses, and if I look at bright white objects at extreme angles, I can see my glasses break up the light into the component colors. Blue and red are the most prominent. My guess is that this is what's happening with the camera lens.</p>

<p>Cheers</p>

<p>Thanks John.</p>

<p>My goal for the rest of this month is to make my flash/umbrella setup a soft as possible. First, I will switch to shoot through, and go from there. If I'm successful, I will post an updated image.</p>

<p>Cheers</p>

<p>Thank You Carlos, Bruce, and Dave.</p>

<p>You've given me something to work on. I'm currently using a 46" umbrella. I set the flash zoom as wide as it will go (17mm), and pull the umbrella as far from the flash as possible. I will keep my eyes open for any good deals on a larger umbrella. In the mean time I will play with the light distance, angle, and bouncing off a wall.</p>

<p>Raaj</p>

<p>I'm posting this question in this forum because I'm looking for technical help. I'm just getting into portraits. I tried rembrandt lighting with this shot:<br>

<a href="../photo/10530632">http://www.photo.net/photo/10530632</a><br>

I'm wondering why the image looks so raw/harsh, unlike the smooth portraits I see on photo.net. I'm using a reflective umbrella with a flash. The light source is about 1 meter from the subject. Also, tried edge and butterfly lighting with similar results. Is the problem:<br>

1. not enough post processing? (I just add saturation and sharpen)<br>

2. light angle and distance?<br>

3. problem in the image capture?<br>

4. the dark skin is harder to photograph?<br>

5. my skin is not smooth like a supermodel?<br>

Equipment used is Nikon D80, 85mm, f/2.8, 1/200s, ISO 400, SB-900 with umbrella. Any suggestions are welcome.</p>

 

<p>Bertram,<br>

Thanks for this great project idea.<br>

I don't know if you can calculate the magnification without knowing the exact properties of the scavenged lens elements, thought I could be wrong. I agree with Akira, you just have to divide the sensor size by the size of the subject you can fill it with.</p>

 

<p>This is the whole test image:</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks Jeremy, Steve, Alex & John.<br /> I've also ruled out sensor bloom based on my own crude test. I just shot my ceiling light with different lenses and apertures. All images has equivalent exposure. ISO 100. All are the Nikkor AF-D primes. No filters used. As you can see stopping down immediately cures the problem. So it's definitely the lens. Guess it's something I'm going to have to live with and work around. Makes me wonder whether I should have gone with recent zooms instead of older primes, but then I would have lost that extra stop or two. John, your link seem interesting; I will be going though it in detail.<br /> Raaj</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks, Andrew and Charles, and thanks of the correction Charles. Seems I had a totally different understanding of CA.<br>

I just Googled "sensor blooming." So it isn't related to the lens, if I understand correctly. Also, there doesn't seem to be anything I can do to prevent it. Strange that it only appears on two sides of the overexposed area. I'm going to do more tests with my other lenses, just to be sure.<br>

Thanks again.</p>

<p>Here's a 100% crop of the problem area:</p><div></div>

<p>I just got the Nikkor 35mm f/2 AF-D lens yesterday. I've been trying it out today and noticed this when shooting bright objects. There's a very blue and pronounced halo around bright white objects. I thought did all my research on this lens, but did not expect this. Is it something I'm doing wrong (over exposure, open too wide) or is it the lens. According to the histogram it's not overexposed, although there is some minor clipping. I've never seen this with any of my other lenses (at least not this bad). It's on a D80, not using any filters.</p>

<div></div>

<p>I've wanted to try this for a while; my first attempt at black & white conversion in Photoshop.</p><div></div>

<p>So it begins; the long, cold dark of winter.</p><div></div>

<p>Woke up early today to shoot the sunrise. Current conditions in Toronto -8 celcius 81% humidity.<br>

Jose, Thank You for starting and maintaining this forum.<br>

Cheers</p><div></div>

<p>Oh, Ok! I am using NiMH as well. Perhaps that problem is that I use the SB-600 infrequently (more than 2 weeks between uses) since it's my secondary flash. I'm going to try to use it as my primary flash and see if it makes a difference.</p>

<p>Thank you all for your responses. They were very helpful.</p>

<p>Does your SB-600 drain your batteries faster than a later model (SB-800 or 900)? <br>

I bought a 600 to compliment my 900. Over the time that I've had both, I've noticed that the 600 need it's batteries charged more frequently than the 900. Even though I use the 900 more often and at higher power. <br>

I had to return my first 600 because it would randomly fire when I was using it in the CLS mode (remotely). It would also frequently charge itself (i.e. ready light turns off and you hear that charging buzz noise) while just sitting there ready to fire.<br>

The replacement 600 is better, but I've noticed that does charge itself once in a while, while turned on and waiting to fire. My 900 does not do this. I can't imagine I got two faulty unit in a row.<br>

Any one else have these experiences?</p>

 

<p>My Christmas offering. Merry Christmas.</p><div></div>

<p>A bit more Photoshop in this one than the usual (to get the black background)<br>

Cheers,</p><div></div>

<p>I just skimmed through today's post. Looks great, I will have to sit down and go through them on the weekend.<br>

Missed the last 3 or 4 Wednesdays; haven't touched my camera for a while. I got around to playing with it last night before bed. This is a burnt out bulb that was on my desk. <br>

Cheers</p><div></div>

<p>Clarification: I meant take the fast lens along with the zoom.</p>

<p>I have the 18-200 VRI and the 50mm f/1.4D lens. The zoom is f/3.5 at 18mm, but stops down pretty quickly as you zoom out. I would definitely take the fast lens along given how light it is, especially for nite shots without a tripod.</p>

<p>This is Babe, the family cat. She's about 9 years old, but looks like a kitten here. Lately, she's taken a liking to sleeping on my bed when I'm not around.</p><div></div>