stevesint

<p>JW wrote:<br> "Well, thanks for preaching, some of the singers in this choir haven't learned that tune."</p> <p>My apologies JW, and it was Brooks who was preaching...:). For the singers in the choir who don't know the tune here are the notes:</p> <p>Most SLR (and consequently DSLR) users don't know this but one of the things you pay big bucks for when buying a DSLR is that the lens plane and imaging plane are locked into parallelism and centered one on the other. It's one of the reasons why high end/pro cameras have metal mirror boxes instead of plastic (excuse me, poly carbonate) ones. A metal mirror box, usually an aluminum or magnesium casting that has then been machined so that the front (where the lens goes) and the rear (where the imaging chip is) are perfectly parallel and centered, holds that parallelism better than a plastic casting does.</p> <p>But, before DSLRs there were view cameras (that were considered the standard studio, still life camera) that had the ability to move the imaging plane and lens plane out of parallelism and being centered one on the other. By doing so you could accomplish things a rigid camera just couldn't do. By moving the imaging standard (where the film or imaging chip is) independently of the lens standard (where the lens is) you can change the shape of the subject, and by moving the lens standard independently of the imaging standard you can extend depth of field from the lens' surface to infinity even when using the lens' maximum aperture. These movements are called swings and tilts and entire books have been written about their use - beyond what can be covered in an internet posting.</p> <p>Furthermore by decentering the lens and imaging standards (which is different than moving them out of parallel) you can accomplish other changes in how the final image looks. These movements are called rise, fall, and shifts. By using a camera that has a full set of movements (swing, tilt, rise, rise, fall, and shifts) on both the imaging and lens standards you can make your camera look like a pretzel (joke...:)) and create images that a rigid camera just can't.<br> There are many pages about this on the internet (many of them junk because it is becoming a lost art), but I can tell you that many high-end commercial studios in big cities are using view cameras with digital backs adapted to them because, as said above, it allows you to do things a rigid camera just can't.</p> <p>SS</p> <p> </p><div></div>

<p>No argument from me Brooks...you're preaching to the choir.<br> SS</p>

<p>Re: Back in the 1970's I was shooting 4x5 on shoots like this.<br> Me too, but this was shot on a Hasse with a 50 mm Distagon. I just eyeballed the back of the camera to get it almost parallel to the room's columns. The rag I was working for bitched about the cost of roll film and would've gone nuts if I billed for 4X5.</p> <p>RE: while converging/diverging verticals aren't quite so readily palatable.<br> Actually, I don't think that is still true. I think it has to do with the public just getting used to seeing converging verticals in the photographs they see everyday. But, I still think a box of cornflakes (or anything else) looks better squared up. The problem with the 24mm Nikon PC (and all the others of that ilk) is you can't do a swing and a tilt at the same time....it's one or the other.</p> <p>This particular picture had me over-exposing my B&W film and then under-developing it so the highlights wouldn't blow out...sort of like a seat of the pants zone system solution...:)</p> <p>SS</p>

<p>Hi All,</p> <p>I found this print while cleaning out a filing cabinet and I scanned it to show here. It's from a series I did on restaurant/piano bars a long time ago.</p> <p>Comments welcomed.<br />Steve<br />steve@stevesint.com</p> <div></div>

<p>Hi Hosteen,<br> Thanks for your interest. If you do get it, I'm very interested in your feedback.<br> S</p>

<p>Hi All,<br> I just uploaded Part 1 of a new tutorial about light modifiers for battery powered flash units to Amazon. You can see it here:<br />http://www.amazon.com/Light-Modifiers-Battery-Powered-Flash-ebook/dp/B00OL54H4K/ref=pd_rhf_gw_p_img_1<br> I hope it's helpful to those of you working with battery powered speedlights.<br />Steve Sint<br />steve@stevesint.com</p><div></div>

<p>I had two old Redwing stands and I loved them. When they finally died, not from a drunk but from being used for years, I replaced them with two of the Cheetah lightweight copies of the Redwing and they are both still soldiering on. I tried the heavier version (such as Mr Jiang is touting) made by Redwing and found they and the light on top of them made them too heavy to safely handle one-handed (which was the point of the lightweight Redwing and Cheetah versions).<br> Steve Sint</p>

<p>Christal wrote:<br> Nice effort....I like it. What was your surface, may I ask? I've never done much with still lifes, and I'd like to start.</p> <p>Thanks Christal. The surface is a piece 1/4-inch thick black acrylic (plastic). If you decide to try some yourself, you'll find it's expensive and an absolute nightmare to keep clean...the static electricity its glass smooth surface creates makes it a dust magnet and requires you accept (and follow) the rule that "cleanliness is next to godliness". I call it a black mirror effect and cover its use in chapter 8 of my book Digital Still Life Photography: Art, Business, and Style. Using it can give your images a crisp, modern look (see attached photo). As a hint (if you want to get into this type of photography) is to realize that you are responsible for everything within the image's frame because since the subject isn't going anywhere you have all the time in the world to think about how every element within the photograph looks and how they relate to each other. It's not like photographing a race car or a horse race; it's slow methodical work.</p> <p>Good Luck,<br> Steve<br> steve@stevesint.com</p><div></div>

<p>Hi Tim,<br> Yes, I liked them but I also felt they contained the viewer's eyes. On purpose, I made the right edge soft (and vertical) and the left edge hard (and slightly slanted) so it became a leading line to the stopper (which I felt was an important part of the decanter but easy to miss) Otherwise it would just be a very typical high key image of a translucent subject. My .02. Glad you like the image, thanks.<br> S</p>

<p>Hi all,<br> C&C welcomed.<br> Steve<br> steve@stevesint.com</p><div></div>

<p>I used Norman 2000's for a long time before switching to Dynalites. The Norman's were bigger and heavier. Peter Lu, of Flash clinic ib NYC made some mods to mine: he shortened (clipped) the #2 pin in the heads that stopped them from arcing and added a big resistor to the power switch circuit so the unit became electrically dead as soon as you turned the unit off. On a few heads that I used he changed out the female banana plug (with plastic outer cases) with all metal replacements after I melted the plastic casings on a few of them. After those mods the units became bulletproof and they were the only 2000 WS flash that would work on a 20 amp circuit without popping the breakers. BTW, the Norman 2000's lowest power setting was only 400 WS from a single head but you could lower it to 200 WS by plugging a capped head (that you removed the modeling lamp bulb from first) into the same bank as the head you are using. With today's DSLRs and their higher ISO's (especially on the D700) I get by very well with Dynalite 400's, 800's, and 1000's instead because I can drop their output to just a puff of light when I need to.</p> <p>I hope this hard earned info helps you.<br> SS<br> steve@stevesint.com</p>

<p>Whoops...I forgot the photograph...sorry.<br> SS</p><div></div>

<table width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td> <table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3"> <tbody> <tr> <td colspan="2"> <table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5"> <tbody> <tr> <td width="100%"> <p>Hi All,<br /><br />I found this old print while cleaning out a filing cabinet and I scanned it to show here. It's the first studio image I made that I was proud enough to show.<br /><br />Comments welcomed.<br />Steve<br /><a href="mailto:steve@stevesint.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">steve@stevesint.com</a></p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

<p>No need to apologize, I do it myself all the time..:)<br> Thanks for the vote, the winner looks like Light Modifiers!<br> SS</p> <p>Rodeo wrote:<br> Sorry, got on my soapbox a bit there Steve</p><div></div>

<p>Cover of Framing & Posing: Part 3</p><div></div>

<p>Cover of Framing & Posing: Part 2</p><div></div>

<p>Hi Tim,<br /> Thanks for the kind words. If you are interested, I have already done a three part tutorial on Framing and Posing that also covers composition. It is available on Amazon's Kindle but even if you don't have a Kindle, Amazon offers a free reading app download for it's Kindle books (like mine...:)) that lets you read Kindle books on your laptop computer. Search Amazon.com for "Kindle reading app" and you'll find it. Then you can search Amazon again for "Steve Sint" and you'll find the three part Framing and Posing Tutorial and download it to your computer. Again, thanks for the kind words.<br /> SS<br /> steve@stevesint.com</p><div></div>

<p>Beer, Beverage, and Liquor image</p><div></div>

<p>Hi All,<br> I’ve finished and published two different, 3-part tutorials on Amazon’s Kindle in the last two months; the first one on Framing and Posing and the second one on Still Life Photography and now I have started working on a third, new tutorial. The images for both exist already and are pretty much organized and I have been writing both tutorials simultaneously (a little on one, then a little on the other). The first tutorial is a 3-part one like the previous ones and is about Light Modifiers (using battery and AC powered flash units) and the second one will be 1 or 2 parts about Shooting Beverages, Beer, and Liquor. I’m getting to the point when I need to focus on one over the other and I was wondering if my friends on this site had a preference about which one should come first. So, if anyone has a preference, please speak up now! Your choices are:<br> 1. Light Modifiers (using battery and AC powered flash units) <br />Or… <br />2. Shooting Beverages, Beer, and Liquor<br> I am posting this message on 4 photo sites I hang out on and will go with the flow…:)<br />Thanks for helping me with your input.<br />Top Photo from Light Modifiers<br />Bottom Photo from Beer, Beverages, and Liquor<br> Steve<br />steve@stevesint.com</p><div></div>

<p>Jos wrote:<br> "The fact that they are public domain does not mean the he cannot sell them."<br> Of course he can sell them if they are in the public domain...the problem for him is the images can also be sold by a few billion other people too and that sort of kills their value. But, considering all the other images I've seen where a camera is remotely tripped by a wild animal subject (humming birds, tigers at a watering hole, etc) I don't think we've heard the last on this subject yet. I think it will go to court and then, depending on the outcome, this news story will need an update. </p>

<p>Monkey Business</p> <p>Hi All,</p> <p>Bad news for UK photographer David Slater. In 2011, he went to Indonesia to photograph endangered black Macaque (don’t ask me to pronounce it) monkeys. One of the monkeys swiped his camera and started pushing the shutter button eventually taking selfies of itself. Slater and his agency tried to register a copyright (©) on the images, Wikipedia said an animal took it so it wasn’t Slater’s to copyright and it was therefore in the public domain because an animal can’t own a copyright. A resulting disagreement between Slater (represented by his picture agency) and Wikipedia was settled when “in a recent <a href="http://copyright.gov/comp3/announcement.html">update</a> to its regulations, the US Copyright Office has ruled that it “will not register works produced by nature, animals, or plants,” and that it “cannot register a work purportedly created by divine or supernatural beings.” It even goes on to list a series of examples, the first of which specifically states that “a photograph taken by a monkey” could not be copyrighted by the agency.”</p> <p>The moral is: Don't let a monkey swipe your camera when you're in the jungle, and if one does and you get the camera back, don't mention it...:)</p> <p>Steve Sint<br> steve@stevesint.com</p> <div></div>

<p>Hi Ken,</p> <p>You might want to check out this tutorial I did for Set Shop in NYC. It is appropriately called "Cheap Lights".<br> http://setshoptutorials.com/item/22-cheap-lights</p> <p>Steve<br> steve@stevesint.com</p>

<p>Oops! Sorry.<br> SS</p><div></div>

<p>The cover of book 3</p>

<p>Book 2 Cover</p><div></div>