jennifer_waak

As promised I did another set of exposures tonight using the bounce

flash. This time I did multiple exposures on a single sheet of film

rather than leaving the shutter open to avoid reciprocity failure; I

set the shutter speed to 1/125. I also took my bellows factor into

account this time as well. What I have concluded is that I think my

light meter is about one stop too slow under low-light conditions. I

metered the ambient light and got f2 at 1 second. I then metered with

my flash and got f16. I took a Polaroid, and one pop distinctly

underexposed it. 2 pops looked pretty good. I repeated this exercise

at f22 (this time with 5 pops -- doubling the 2 to get to 4 and

adding one for every 4 pops, per Ellis). f22 also looked pretty good.

<p>

This has been a tremendous learning experience for me -- thanks to

everyone who has replied.

<p>

Now that I have my exposure problem solved I promise to go back

tomorrow night and take one good photo of my subject ("good" being a

relative term here), scan it in, and post it.

I actually am synched, or can be. I have synch cables, which work

great for the first pop, but I have to unhook them for subsequent

pops (on the same exposure). I have an Arca-Swiss Discovery sitting

on some monster of a Gitzo tripod (I can't remember which one right

now) and an Arca-Swiss B2 ballhead, so I'd consider it pretty darn

sturdy. I'll try these exposures with the 5 and 10 pops using 5 and

10 exposures and report back this evening. Being synched should get

rid of my reciprocity failure problem and help my exposures presuming

I'm coordinated enough not to kick the tripod while recocking the

shutter. :-)

The end goal is actually a transparency. I'm using the polaroids for

doing things like checking shadows, verifying approximate exposure,

checking composition, and checking focus. I've read to expect the

colors to be off slightly and the exposure won't match quite right

either (I can't remember which way the exposure will be off and I

don't have my notes in front of me), but it is a good tool for

getting a good overall sense of how the final photo will turn out. Is

this a fair statement? Since I think sharp focus will ultimately be

my real challenge in large format should I be using a different type

of Polaroid or just bite the bullet and start shooting and exposing

more transparency film?

Huw, quick question for you. How did you determine that I should get

into focus around 15 feet? When I did the bellows factor calculation

I did think that that seemed quite short, but I just went back and

looked at the camera again, and it is definitely set at 22cm.

<p>

While the image isn't as sharp as I would like (and another thing to

work on), the focus is fairly good. Could the fact that I'm using

some tilts change how far my bellows needs to be extended?

I really appreciate the feedback from everyone, this has been great!

I calculated the bellows extension factor, which came to 1.1 since I

have 22cm of extension and a 210mm lens (22 squared divided by 21

squared).

<p>

I ran a new set of tests. First I set up my strobe so my light meter

in single-flash mode registered an aperture of f11. I took an

exposure -- looked pretty good. I skipped f16 and took another at f22

with 5 pops (it takes 2 to get to f16 plus one additional pop for

every four pops, per Ellis). Again, it looked pretty good. I took one

last exposure at f32, using a total of 10 pops. Again it looked

pretty darn good. To accomodate the bellows factor I actually used

approx. f20 and f29 instead of f22 and f32.

<p>

I know I haven't yet accounted for reciprocity failure, but at least

the subject matter is identifiable, which is a far cry from where I

was last night.

<p>

And, I'm still looking forward to getting a set of studio strobes for

faster recycling times and more sophisticated lighting setups.

<p>

Thanks again to all.

I completely forgot about the bellows factor! What I would give for

TTL metering right now. :-) That's probably part of the problem, but

not all of it since my single-flash, direct light source photos are

coming out more or less OK (minus the terrible shadows). I'm not

using any filters.

<p>

I do have my camera set to "T" -- I click it once to open the shutter

and a second time to close it (between time I'm sitting there and

repeatedly firing my strobe).

<p>

I'll try a new set of exposures with the bellows factor accounted for

later today.

<p>

Thanks for all the new ideas!

Thanks for all of the great responses so quickly!

<p>

Yes, it is a low-light situation. I turned off the light in that room

to avoid all of the reflections of the light bulbs.

<p>

Last night one pop gave me f11, 2 was f16, 3 was f22, 4 was f32. I

had remembered an old post of Ellis' stating that you basically

double the number of pops to open up a stop, so this didn't make

sense to me (hence the experiment last night).

<p>

I just went and re-tried testing my exposure. With good room light

the fstops went as follows: 45, 64, 90, 90, 128. When I turned off

the room lights (but I now I have a lot more ambient light because I

have windows) I got 32, 45, 45, 64, 64, 64, 64, 90.

<p>

Armin, BTW, you were right. I did have my light meter pointed towards

the ceiling -- when I re-ran my tests I found it made no difference

but it's still a good habit to get into.

<p>

I just ran a new set of Polaroids with the room lights off (so, the

32, 45, 45, 64, ... sequence). With 4 pops my photo was so dark it

was almost as if I left the lens cap on (I could just see shadows of

the subject). So, I took Ellis' advice and added 4 pops, for a total

of 8. Again, everything was really dark. I reshot once again with the

flash pointed directly at the subject, which got me back to the

problem of having too direct of a light source, but at least the

photo was well-exposed -- verifying that the light meter and I seem

to work correctly for a single flash.

<p>

I'm going to try Scott's advice and play with some sort of diffusion;

I knew that was an option, I just wanted to see how well my

Speedlight was going to hold up for this sort of work and I think my

conclusion is "not well".

<p>

This leads me to a follow-up question. I've been reading everything I

can about studio lighting and have basically decided on a head and

pack kit (because I want to have an overhead light and that seems

precarious with a monolight). I think something around 1000 w/s to

start and a couple of heads. I was leaning towards Dyna-Lite because

of the weight -- right now I have no plans to travel with it, but

less than a year ago I said I'd never shoot anything other than 35mm

and bought a 35mm darkroom so I don't want to make that mistake

again. But, Speedotron Black Line seems to have an advantage because

of the interchangable reflectors. I can't find much on Elinchrome or

Balcar, other than Ellis is currently using Balcar and loves it. I

can rent everything except Balcar to try, but never having used

studio lights I'm not sure of the value in that -- it took me a long

time after moving from point-and-shoot to SLR to figure out what I

liked and didn't like about my SLR and am sure it would be the same

way with studio lighting. Right now I'll only be using the lights for

table-top still life photography in my home; I'd also like to start

doing architectural photography (where I guess monolights would win

out). I have no intention of doing portraits, or at least not in any

sort of volume. While this is just a hobby now, I would like to

develop the skills and equipment to be doing this professionally (at

least part time) down the road. Can anyone help me sort through the

differences between the brands I listed above?

<p>

Thanks again!!!

I've just ventured into the land of strobe photography with a 4x5 and am having problems with underexposure. Right now I'm using a Canon Speedlight 550EX as my strobe, which I realize isn't ideal, but I was hoping with multiple pops I could get away with it for a while so I can choose a studio strobe system. I'm taking a simple tabletop photo of glass of wine and wine bottle. I'm using Polaroid Polacolor Pro 100. I have a Sekonic L-608 light meter.

<p>

If I point the flash directly at the subject and take the flash reading my exposure basically turns out right -- I just have really bad shadows. So, I decided to try a bounce flash -- I have 9-ft. white ceilings. I set the light meter for mutiple flashes and I did 3 pops to get an aperture of f22 (light meter sitting in the middle of my composition). So, I set the camera for f22 and took the photo -- because of the slow recycling times on the flash the total exposure ends up being a little over 1 minute. The photo came out seriously underexposed (I tried 3 or 4 photos, just to make sure it wasn't me doing something monumentally stupid), so I tried 4 flashes and the light meter told me f32 (but I left the camera set at f22 to minimize variables) -- the photos between 3 and 4 flashes look virtually identical.

<p>

I'm at a complete loss as to what I'm doing wrong. Any ideas are greatly appreciated -- I've been beating my head against the wall on this.

<p>

Thanks!

As animals became endangered on the main island of Australia many, including the Koala, were taken to Kangaroo Island for "safekeeping". I was there for a few days about a year ago and found an abundance of koala (we saw more there then the rest of my month in Oz), a variety of seals, kangaroo, wallabees, and an absolutely tiny penguin whose name I cannot remember. These penguins are mentioned in all of the tour books -- we went to see them at night and were NOT allowed to use a flash.

When I went I was part of a small tour, so I can't tell you much about where we were specifically. However, the island is fairly small, so traveling around it and finding the highlights should not be a problem. And, you will find Australians very friendly and easy to talk to and more than willing to tell you were the best viewing is.

Hope this helps!

I found a class to be invaluable since I could barely spell enlarger

when I decided I wanted to develop and print my own B&W film.

<p>

On that note, you might want to see if a local camera shop offers a

class. I took a 3-hour class from National Camera Exchange (listed in

a previous post) and it was a great way to spend 3 hours. It gave me

just enough info to get started and then I could use books and these

boards to learn more. NatCam is in MN, so not helpful since live in

NY, but check out some of your "prosumer" shops in the area and see

if any offer something like this.

<p>

I've also found that some places that rent darkroom space will also

offer classes on developing and printing, so be sure to check that

out as well.

<p>

Good luck!

The Balancing Rocks referred to in the previous post are located in Matobo National Park. Matobo is also famous for it's very friendly local wildlife, we had the warthogs steal our marshmallows and watched a monkey break into a tourist's car to steal an apple.

If you promise not to comment on the poor quality of my scanned photos you can get some ideas of what we saw on a similar tour in Sept/Oct of 1998 at http://www.jwaak.com/trips/africa/africa_start.htm. I have an online journal there of my trip as well as tons of photos.

Keep in mind that if you are going to do driving around for wildlife (the Big 5) that that happens at sunrise and sunset (5:30am and 6:30 or 7pm) and you may wish for a fair amount of faster film. If you don't intend to do any of that or will be able to set up a tripod please disregard.

If you get a chance, try to canoe the Zambezi for a bit. The area right around Vic Falls was a bit brutal (tough paddling), but downstream it is downright idyllic and we just floated downstream taking photos with a few strokes to keep us on course. But, do this with a guide who is familiar with the Zambezi and looking for hippos.

Have a great trip!

I was procrastinating about work a while back (and am again) and went

through the exact same debate. I finally called Jeff at Badger

Graphics convinced that the F-line was way better because it cost

more and he said that Arca-Swiss should be charging more for the

Discovery. By the time I hung up I had bought the Discovery (and then

told myself my light meter was effectively free because of all the

money I saved). Now if only that B-2 ballhead would come (production

problems in Switzerland according to Robert White, for those who

care) so I could use the silly thing. :-)

I've been going down to S. Padre every winter for the past 10+ years to visit my grandparents, and my first thought was: ugh, hot, humid. I took my camera down there this past year and found myself fairly disappointed, but I am not a bird photographer. The Gladys Porter Zoo in Brownsville is quite nice as the previous poster noted.

In terms of scenery, you are going to be in Mexican border towns, which are not known for being particularly scenic. Port Isabel is the city you go through to get to S. Padre and if you drive around on some of the back streets (try the last road to the right before you get onto the Causeway to go onto the Island, I know it well, I just can't think of the name) you will be able to see all sorts of shrimping boats on the right if that is of interest to you. I've also gotten some nice sunsets from that same road with the shrimp boats silhoutted in the foreground.

I would think you could get some great street photography in Matamoros if you are into that sort of thing (Matamoros is the Mexican border city across from Brownsville).

BTW, there is a pretty good brewery on the Island called Padre Island Brewing Company. I realize you are with your family, but it is actually a fairly nice restaurant with what I would consider high-end pub food. The Radisson on the Island has great Sunday brunches. There's a go-kart alley and putt-putt for the kids while you take photos and horseback riding on the beach as well, depending on the kid's ages.

Enjoy your vacation!!!

One more female LF photographer here. Well, my Arca-Swiss 4x5 arrived

this week (my first LF) but I haven't had time to take a shot with it

yet, so I guess I can't quite call myself a LF photographer yet. :-)

<p>

I tend to lurk on a lot of discussion groups covering a gamut of

topics. I rarely contribute because I don't mind researching to see

if my question has already been answered and typically find that it

already has. And given my experience level I'm not terribly

comfortable offering advice.

<p>

I basically use the forums to learn what I need to know to solve the

problem of the day and get out. I look forward to the day when I can

offer photographic advice feeling I have a wide enough range of

experience in the area to be confident in my decision. Until then

I'll continue to lurk.

<p>

Sorry for the rambling -- I'm "lurking" as I wait for the dryer to

finish so I can complete packing for my vacation to Romania

tomorrow!!! The A-S is staying home, but the Canon system is going

with me along with more film than I thought was humanly possible to

transport.

I just put my new Discovery on it's tripod today (next is figuring

out how to focus). It takes a 3/8" mount, not the standard U.S. 1/4"

mount. I picked up an adapter today for my Bogen/Manfrotto head for

$7 but am really going to need a plate that takes 3/8 natively since

I find the adapter quite wobbly.

I just bought the OLD 1.4 to go with my new 70-200 f/2.8 because I was under the impression (simply from reading on photo.net) that the 2x wasn't nearly as good as the 1.4 and thought the sacrifice in focal length was worth the higher quality. I would have liked the extra focal length and understand the trade-off with losing light. I also know that some of you will probably say that I am already sacificing image quality by using a zoom, but work with me here -- I own two shorter primes and am working on it.

What I'm debating about is whether I should return the 1.4 and get the new 2x (I just got the 1.4 on Thursday from B&H so have 7 days to decide). I'd rather spend the extra $100 now than learn in 6 months that I made a much more expensive mistake.

I'm also under the impression that it probably isn't worth it to get the new 1.4, but I could be wrong.

Thanks for any advice!!! What I've learned so far from photo.net has been amazing (if not conflicting, but it gives me things to think about).

I live in Minneapolis but admittedly have not been good about taking photos in my own backyard, so to speak. I've been pondering this exact topic however, and have constructed my own list of places to visit. Keep in mind, that it is still quite cold here (unseasonably so) -- the high for today is 27 and we still have quite a bit of snow on the ground (again, unseasonably so).

The Mississippi River runs between Minneapolis and St. Paul, offering some great photo opportunities, particularly heading south. If you have a car take Hwy 10/61 south towards Pepin and Red Wing -- there are great bluffs along the river and at Pepin is Lake Pepin (which is really just a wide part of the Mississippi). There is also some excellent hiking amongst the bluffs, but the trails will be quite muddy until probably the end of April.

Taylors Falls and Stillwater are less than a hour northeast of Minneapolis (they are outer suburbs if you use the term loosely) and have great scenics of the St. Croix River and Taylors Falls is well-known around here for the rock-climbing opportunities.

There is a Wildife Refuge in the southwest corner of the Metro area that I've been wanting to check out as well.

Minnesota is the land of 10,000 lakes, and there are a ton of them right within the city limits. You won't find much for exotic wildlife, but there are some nice scenics (Lake of the Isles comes to mind). Minnehaha Falls is also within the city limits, is a popular tourist attraction, and has some nice views.

With a car you can head north up to Lake Superior; there are some scenics to be taken up that way as well.

If you want more info or advice, drop me an email.