curtis_harkrider

<p>Plan on doing some shots without flash since the glass will be glowing when first removed from the furnace. To capture the glowing glass, you probably want to stand to the side such that your not looking into the furnace, which can be very bright inside. In addition to the glowing glass, you may be able to get a shot of the glass blower illuminated by the light from the furnace, which could be an interesting shot. You've got to be fast because the glass won't glow for too long. Once the glass is being worked, it will stop glowing at which point I would consider using the flash. Direct flash will reflect off the work piece so the shot may look harsh. I would consider using bounce flash off the ceiling (if white) or taping a 3x5 card above your upturned flash to act as a diffuse reflector. Here's a link that shows a commercial product to do the same thing:<br>

<a href="http://www.brighthub.com/multimedia/photography/reviews/52673.aspx">http://www.brighthub.com/multimedia/photography/reviews/52673.aspx</a><br>

I'd recommend playing around with this at home first to see if you like the technique. I've used it a few times with decent results. Have fun and stay out of the way!</p>

 

<p>Check if red eye reduction is turned on. Some cameras use pre flashes to contract the subject's pupil to reduce red eye. Good luck!</p>

<p>Any liquid would be clearly be a problem since it would be obvious on an X-ray. Small packets of powdered developer and fixer in their original, labelled containers would likely go unnoticed and if discovered have a simple and logical explanation. If TSA confiscated it, what would you be out, ten bucks? There's a chance you might be questioned. If you're worried about it, I'd buy the chemistry at your destination, as James, Mark, and Douglas all suggest. You could always mail it to yourself (hotel address) if you are worried about availability on location. Are you also packing a dark bag, tanks, reels, and storage bottles? Stainless steel tanks and reels may also look suspicious to an X-ray operator.</p>

<p>If the spot location is the same frame to frame than it's not noise, noise is random. There are various degrees of "dead" pixels, the pixel value can be always high, always low, or the sensitivity is different than the rest of the array. In any case post processing should be able to help. If you do batch processing of your images, you can do a nearest-neighbor substitution of the bad pixels, which changes the pixel value to a average of the four or eight pixels surrounding it. My background in digital is more scientific imaging than customer or professional photography, so I don't know specific software that makes this sort of thing easy I would use Matlab but I'm sure there are more user friendly programs available that can correct these errors. So I don't think it's a big deal, all sensors have dead pixels, they're typically corrected by the manufacturing in the camera electronics (using the same kind of algorithm mentioned above). Any shots you want to be "perfect" you can correct yourself.</p>

<p>Good recommendations so far, I've always had good luck using bounce flash. Not every location is suitable for bounce flash. I had a bad experience at a friend's house which had a yellow ceiling... not pretty results! Another idea is to use a small soft box over one of you heavy duty flashes. The soft box scatters the light in all directions so it's easier on the eyes and might fill in the edges of your wide angle lens frame better than a standard flash head.</p>

<p>When you look through a camera viewfinder, you're looking at a ground glass screen which is at the focal point of the camera lens. The light that hits that screen is scattered by the ground glass, some of which makes it into your eye, but most of the light energy is scattered elsewhere. This is different than a telescope, in which there is no ground glass screen. With a telescope, all the light goes through a small part of the eyepiece, so you would be in big trouble if you looked at the sun through a telescope. If you notice, with a telescope your eye has to be in the proper place to see anything (the exit pupil of the system). With a camera viewfinder you can look through it any way you like and still see the image (exit pupil is much larger). While it's smart to avoid looking at the sun through the camera viewfinder, it's not nearly as dangerous as looking at the sun with a telescope or pointing a laser pointer at your eye. </p>

<p>Sensor damage is possible but unlikely since most sensors have overload protection. The roundish gray spots could be lens flare from the sun outside the field of view. You could take some shots against a blank white wall to see if the artifacts are still there. Another possibility is there is dust on the sensor or on the back of the lens. If you clean the back of the lens and the sensor window and you still see spots you might want to send your camera in for evaluation. </p>

<p>Yes, I agree with William about the sharpness. Additionally, the illumination is also more uniform across the field of view at higher f-number. At the lowest f-numbers the illumination can be several times brighter in the center than at the corner</p>

<p>There are no harsh shadows in any of the shots. I don't see any flash artifacts (could have been touched up). I think the photographer might be using a white reflector to fill in the shadows. The outside shots are also low f-number shots with the subject perfectly in the plane of focus. Everything other than the subject is out of focus. I think the levels have also been adjusted to maximize the dynamic range of the photo. This is useful to make the whites "pop".</p>

<p>Kristi,<br>

Here is a "quick and dirty" way to estimate the f-number:<br>

Remove the lens from the body. Hold the lens at arms length and look through the front of the lens with a bright scene behind the lens. You'll see a bright blurry circle in the center of the lens, this is the entrance pupil. Estimate the size of the entrance pupil with a ruler. To convert the entrance pupil size to f-number you need the focal length as well. The easiest way I know of is to use the lens as a magnifying glass and compare it with other lenses of known focal length. Once you have an estimate of entrance pupil and focal length, the f-number is: (focal length)/(entrance pupil diameter). </p>

<p>Tommy,<br>

I think the main enemy is moisture. If lens seals are damaged there's the possibility of moisture getting in the lens leading to condensation inside the lens under cool conditions. The other thing to keep an eye out for with older lenses is optical coating damage like coating delamination (peeling). Another issue with age could be lens devitrification where the one of the lens surfaces crystalizes leading to a hazy surface finish. This might only be present in more exotic lens designs that uses fluoride or phosphate glasses. I don't think any of these are likely with photographic lenses that are only 20 years and that have been properly stored. The good thing is these problems are all pretty obvious. </p>

<p>I'd recommend figuring out how much gear you're willing to carry given the wet, hot climate and you and your girlfriend's travel style. Once you figure that out, prioritize equipment. If you bring the Bronica, you might skip the 35mm or DSLR and just bring a point and shoot for snapshots. I burned my self out on travel photography by dragging too much equipment all over England for several weeks (2 SLR's, lenses, and twin-lens reflex 6x6). I would say both weight and setup time argue against using a tripod. If you bring the Bronica, you might consider a monopod which is quick to use and relatively lightweight. Also ask yourself if you would be broken hearted if the Bronica gets damaged or stolen. You don't want dealing with your gear to be stressful. Have a great time! Curtis</p>