ben_s2

I've been using this flash as a secondary flash lately, but I'm wondering what the little 3-way switch on the

front does. As near as I can tell, it lowers the output by a few stops, but I'd like to know accurately what's

going on. I can't find any manuals or guides anywhere. It works great with my frankenstien diy setup (I cobbled

together my lighting system out of old stereo cables and some LumoPro syncs - no need for wireless here!) but I'd

like to know if this switch offers options that I may be interested in. Currently I use ND film to control its

output (my main flash has more control).

<p>Personally I've never been happy with batch processing. I don't see the point unless you know for a fact that your shooting conditions were <strong>identical</strong> from shot to shot. If you're taking the time and care to shoot RAW, then you should take the time and care to work with each image individually. Otherwise, you may as well shoot jpeg.</p>

<p>It looks like the Polariod camera sitting in the Salvation Army Store here in my town. I was contemplating buying it, but does anyone know if film for those types of cameras is still available?</p>

<div></div>

<p>What really annoys me is the cavalier way the "haves" converse with the "have nots". Seriously, on this and many other websites, the offhand manner in which someone casually suggests you buy an expensive lens to fix one problem you might be having is almost insulting.</p>

<p>However, someone mentioned this earlier: rent the lens. Whenever I'm hired to shoot a particular event that I feel needs something other than what's in my current arsenal, I'll rent it and bill the client. They never seem to mind (I include it on their invoice as "equipment rental") and I'm able to get the job done.</p>

<div></div>

<p>You can have fun with this particular style of image making with any camera that has interchangeable lenses; I use an Elan 7 with a 50mm f/1.8 II...the secret is a technique called "freelensing", where you detach the lens from the camera body and hold it slightly away from the camera body. Focusing is done by changing the orientation of the lens. This often results in extreme flaring and softness, hallmarks of some lomography I've seen. I wouldn't recommend this with a digital camera because of the risk of dust landing on your sensor. It's no big deal with film.</p>

<p>Alternatively, you can buy Diana lenses for Canon and Nikon SLR's.</p>

<p>It seems to me that the only way this could be happening in your longer exposure is that you are indeed getting light leaks from around your filter. If you're using a square system like you described, you may have a tough time fitting the lens hood over it. Get some opaque black fabric of some sort and wrap up the space between your filter mount and your lens, being careful not to get any fabric in the way of the FoV. Or, don't worry about that if vignetting is your thing.</p>

<p>Responses in this thread seem to have the right of it. Reduce depth of field behind the subject in order to bring your attention to the subject. This adjustment took me three minutes in CS3 and it's awful because I did it super fast, and with my laptop's touchpad. But, you get the general idea.</p>

<p>First, levels and USM to bring out brightness, detail and local contrast. Then, I blurred everything (using the Lens Blur filter) behind the subject while retaining the details in the bird and his rock. I slightly desaturated the birds in the background; they were far too distracting.</p>

<p>You can take these suggestions and practice with whatever blurs and adjustments suit your tastes. It would have benefited from a shallower DoF to begin with (i.e., wider aperture during the shot), but it's easy to make the adjustments with software.</p><div></div>

<p>Ambient only. Shoot wide with high ISO.</p><div></div>

<p>Ambient + flash.</p><div></div>

<p>I posted some examples in the other thread about concert photography, so here are a few different ones from the set. First, ambient light only.</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks for the reply. I was sorry to see that the math was so boring! I was hoping for some fun times with crazy calculations.</p>

<p>True, there are huge limitations to the coupled-lens macros, but I love the challenge. It's fun seeing what's down there on the small end of the world.</p><div></div>

<p>I have a question in two parts. I figured I'd post it for the enjoyment of those more inclined toward mathematics and optical engineering. Please, show your work!</p>

<p>I've been shooting some reverse-lens macros and some coupled-lens macros lately. What I want to know is:</p>

<p>1) How do you calculate the effective focal length of a reversed lens? For these photos I use a 50mm prime, but I'd be interested to know the analytical solution plus calculations for zoom lenses. If the answer turns out to be "50mm", please explain why. I'm curious!</p>

<p>and</p>

<p>2) How do you calculate the focal length of a coupled-lens system?</p>

<p>To clarify number 2: See attached image (awful quality, taken with my phone). I have a 28-135 mounted normally. In front of that is a macro reversal ring. To the front of this I mount my 50mm prime backwards. For the sake of argument, let's assume 10mm between the front elements of each lens, though for an analytic solution we can assign it a variable.</p><div></div>

<p>Daniel has it right. Not only is that lens an amazing lens to begin with, but it's cheap. Also, you can reverse it (there are tutorials everywhere on how to do this) to get some obscenely cool macros. I shot this with the 50/1.8 reversed on a 30D body (same crop factor as your 40D I believe).</p><div></div>

<p>#2. Working with the gel lights rather than against them, you're able to get interesting often multi-colored shadows on the subject. In this shot he's lit from above by the red gels while my flash brought the rest into natural color.</p>

<p>I should note that for any close-up shots of musicians, diffusing your flash and limiting its output is essential to not disrupt the performance. Also, talk with the band before the show and ask them if they mind if you use a flash. Often, you won't be able to. Shoot wide. I use a 50mm f/1.4 and a 70-200 f/2.8L. Sadly, I don't own the 70-200 (it's pretty pricey), but I rent it whenever I'm hired to shoot a concert.</p><div></div>

<p>Depending on the type of concert, the light show is an integral part of the whole experience. I always look for ways to play with the light show when photographing concerts. Of course, knowing the band you're photographing is a huge benefit, as most light shows are choreographed. If you know the music, you can better predict a dramatic lighting moment and work with it, rather than in spite of it.</p>

<p>Here are two shots I took back in 2005.</p>

<p>JDM is right. Some cameras (like mine) have a power save feature that shuts the camera off after a time, thus rendering it invisible to your computer. Check to see if your camera has such a feature, replace the cord, etc. If that fails, check to see if you've recently updated any drivers. Roll them back if necessary.</p>

<p>Then, buy a card reader.</p>

<p>I was under the impression that with the advent of the digital workflow, multiple-exposure on a dslr was unnecessary. I've done a few multiple-exposure-style shots by taking several normal shots (from a tripod, of course). Combining them just amounts to importing each shot into its own layer and then creatively masking and blending.</p>

<p>If you're doing it with film, I was taught that the sum of your individual exposures should add up to the total proper exposure for the entire scene. You can work this math out if you have basic knowledge of how aperture and shutter speed create your overall exposure.</p>

<p>I'm not sure if this is exactly what you're trying to accomplish, but I'm attaching an image I made from two correctly-exposed images blended in Photoshop. In the background, on my laptop, you can see my friend's multiple exposure image. How meta is that?</p><div></div>

<p>I have an aftermarket Chinese brand knock-off for my 30D, and it works just fine. The only feature it's missing is communication between the camera and the battery, so my camera always reports a full charge even after a week of shooting. As long as I'm vigilant on charging my batteries, there's no problem.</p>

<p>It has the main dial, exposure lock and af-point select button, half-shutter press AND it came with a slim-profile infrared remote release. It can hold two Lithium battery packs or, in an emergency, six AA batteries. I'm incredibly pleased with this purchase.</p>

<p>I paid $50 for it. Not a bad deal.</p>

<p>Nice shop on the first one, excellent capture on the second one!</p>

<p>I never considered it a stylistic choice to begin with. I'm there to capture the bride and groom's style, not mine.</p>

<p>A 400mm f/1.8 would have a maximum iris diameter of of 222mm, and the barrel diameter would be even larger to accommodate mechanical workings and the barrel itself.</p>

<p>For our less metric-savvy: 222mm is about 8 inches.</p>

<p>Imagine how heavy and expensive that would be.</p>

<p>Leslie: You don't have to be an engineer to ballpark diameters. Divide the focal length by your f-number to get approximate diameter. F-number is, after all, just a ratio of the focal length to aperture.</p>

<p>f/d=a, where f=focal length, d=aperture <em>diameter</em>, and a=aperture <em>number</em>, or f-number.</p>

<p>I'm confused by your math, Dave. I used my camera to count stops, and 6 2/3 stops over 1/250 is 1/4. 1/4=.25, while 1/2.5=.4.</p>

<p>I always under-expose slide film. It's more saturated this way, sure, but you also preserve more detail.</p>