tommy huynh

LOL, thanks anyways Jim. There aren't any FEC controls on the camera AFAIK. I went through the CF list and can't find anything suspicious. Have you tried this on your cameras? I would think something is broken except it's been replicated across 2 flashes. I've emailed Chuck Westfall and am waiting to see what he says.

It was in ETTL mode using evaluative flash metering. According to Chuck Westfall, Mark IIs don't use auto fill flash reduction (hence no way to turn it off or on). Either way, it was in a dark room so it would not have mattered. Exposure was about 3 stops underexposed for ambient lighting alone (to make sure I'm mostly just looking at exposure from the flash).

Per your suggestion Mark, the 2 lenses I used in the test were the 16-35, and the 85mm f1.2. The 85 has no distance information but dialing in a -3 FEC (vs 0) still had no effect.

Sorry for not being clear, I'm talking about Flash Exposure Compensation. Yes I was shooting in Manual when testing this (as well as Aperture Priority).

When I have my 580EX on my 1Ds MkII and the head is in the default

position (not bounced), dialing in a negative exposure compensation

has no effect. A positive EC will however result in a brighter

image. The difference in a +3 EC is not very dramatic though.

 

If I tilt/bounce the head however, EC will work as it should. The

more I tilt/bounce, the more dramatic the effect of EC.

 

I've tried this with 2 580EXs and different lenses with the same

results. With a 550EX though, EC works as it should.

 

Has anyone else noticed this on their system? How do you fix this or

turn off this "feature"?

 

I figured with the head aimed straight on, the algorithms would be

different since ETTL II would weigh the distance information more

but there's no reason I can see why EC shouldn't work.

Hi Quan, I've never had a complaint from a customer either but that doesn't mean they were happy, or could have been made happier with a better print, or that there could have been more customers if my system was calibrated differently.

 

Hey Matt, I don't have an Artisan or Pressview but my Lacie Electron Blue 19s are industry standards and 6500 will look a little "yellow" but not as much as with lower end consumer monitors. This is normal. As it is, I may end up keeping my system at 7500K as my standard for editing for the web.

 

Images in Adobe RGB and sRGB will have a shift if you view it in IE but that's because IE does not render the Adobe RGB image correctly since it does not utilize color profiles (it assumes all images are sRGB). There should not be any color shift if you are viewing in Photoshop but some colors may look dull or clipped in sRGB due to the limited gamut.

That goes without saying, of course you can't optimize for everyone. That's like saying everyone is a different height so let's just make our car seat optimized for people 6'4". All you can do is apply the Pareto Principle.

 

Correct color is correct color based on a reference system but people have a different points of reference. If it didn't look different at different settings, there'd be no point in calibrating or even the settings. You can't optimize for one without suboptimizing for another.

 

Also, tagging the files doesn't do anything since browsers don't make use of them unless people use the plug-in which very few people do.

I'm in a bit of a calibrating conundrum. I rely on my website to

for sales of my photos so I would like to have my system calibrated

to produce images optimized for web display. However, as far as I

can tell, you cannot easily optimize images for the web and for

print at the same time.

 

To optimize for the web, you want your monitor to display the same

way most people's monitors display images. That means high color

temperatures (7500-93000K) and artificially high contrast and

brightness.

 

However when optimizing for print, the monitor displays images at a

lower color temperature (5500-6500K) and contrast. The result is if

I edit on a "calibrated" system, the images appear too contrasty and

cool on *most* people's monitors.

 

Of course I can just optimize for the web when editing, and reload

my calibrations and edit the images again when a print is sold but

this is not very graceful. What have people here done to address

this?

Cuba for cultural photography, Iceland for stunning scenery

Never mind, I just remembered the NP-E2 is 10 cells as opposed to the BM-E2's 8. Got a little excited...:)

<p>Can you use the <a href="http://www.photo.net/ezshop/product?

product_id=364">BM-E2</a>

battery tray in a 1ds MkII? The reason I ask as I travel a lot

with my camera

and need to pack as light as possible. I carry a Rayovac 15 minute

charger already

for my flashes and other AA dependant gear, if I could use the BM-

E2 tray, then

I could shed the god awful <a

href="http://tommyimages.com/photographers_corner/equipment_reviews/n

c-e2/nc-e2_charger.html">NC-E2

brick</a> and charge my batteries in 30 minutes instead of 4

hours! Anybody

know if the 1D series takes these?</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Tommy</p>

I think the fact that it has "Input: 100-240V" printed on the bottom ought to answer that.

 

BTW, you don't need a cable, just a plug adapter.

That's it!

just to clarify me previous response, you don't actually solder the blue wire to the lens release lever but there is a metal tab underneath/next to it. You can see it in the photo above to the right of the lens release lever. It has a bead of solder but no wires coming out of it.

It's not rocket science, just look at the underside of the dial and you can clearly see where the plastic finger on the rotating switch is supposed to go. Line it up with the dial and put the top assembly back down. Screws don't "get worn out", if you are talking about stripping the heads, get a good pair of jewelers screwdrivers and apply firm pressure when using them and don't overtighten so as to not strip the threads. I've opened my A2e up over 20 times for various mods and it's still fine.

The blue wire solders to the base of the lens release button. You need to take the top cover off again to make sure the clear plastic pin flides right in the notch on the dial.

Turning them on to check them while they are still wet is not going to help! Dry it out thoroughly before testing, taking the batteries out should have been the 1st thing you did. That's your best bet. Incidentally, same thing happened to my A2e which works fine.

Take the polarizer, even (or rather especially) when shooting Velvia! In situation where it is most useful (sunlit), there is plenty of light so the 2-3 stops is often moot. You can always take it off and it doesn't occupy much space to pack. As far as safety, you'll be fine.

Hey Alex, underexposing by the likes of Steve McCurry is partially for the purpose of increasing saturation, but the overexposing for travel mags certainly does not because (1) they don't shoot print film and (2) the overexposing is to the point of blowing out all highlinghts. As Olivier pointed out, it is a style.

 

I think it is not purely for the purpose of bringing out the detail in the shadows either. Again, conventional photography, if there is such a thing, would dictate to shoot with the sun at your back, or during the golden hour, or using fill lighting (reflector or strobe) to balance out the contrast. The blown out higlights is sought after with this style.

 

I guess it falls in the same world as the ring light look with "Maxim" type fashion, it's a peculiar style within a genre. Not sure if I have a point (!) but I find it interesting that the "overexposed" look is so popular with travel mags but wouldn't work anywhere else.

..that travel photographers that shoot to publish books tend to

underexpose (ie Steve McCurry) while those who shoot for magazines

tend to overexpose (ie pick up any Conde Naste, Travel & Leisure)?

I'm kind of curious to the style that travel mags like where you

shoot into the sun and blow out the background as these photos

generally wouldn't work anywhere else. Thoughts?

Absolutely, this was my first inspiration also. I like to think serendipity is the key to good photography.

and if you want to make your own battery pack:

<br>

<a href="http://www.lumika.org/gear_a2e_batts.htm">http://www.lumika.org/gear_a2e_batts.htm</a>

Just because the use the same AF "modules" does not mean the AF speed is the same because the processors could be taxed at varying levels.

Actually it's a slight bit slower than the original 1Ds. I noticed a slight lag. Pop Photo measured it to be slower also. Then there is the delay when using flashes. There is an extensive discussion about it on Rob Galbraith's site. Great camera but dissapointed that the AF response is actually worse than the model it replaces.

Thanks for the responses. Yes, I will be using wireless E-TTL. I thought about using the foot that the flash comes with but need a smaller and "cleaner" solution. What I will be making is a ringflash array where the shoe mounts will be attached to an aluminum ring around the lens so I don't want to use anything that takes up much space and may cover the lens controls.

 

BTW, has anybody know definitively if shorting out the flash pins has an effect?