studio460

<p>John said:</p> <blockquote> <p><em>I am an ultrawide fanatic. Started on film with 24mm. Quickly switched to 17mm and then waited 15 years to get to the Nikon 14mm.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Me too! (Except for the 17mm part). I bought my first Ais Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 for my original Nikon FM way back when, then decades later bought my first FX ultra-wide, the AF Nikkor 14mm f/2.8D in 2005.</p>

<p>Shun said:</p> <blockquote> <p><em>Have you folks heard stories that backpackers saw off the handle of tooth brushes to save a few grams?</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Yes, we used to trim the food packaging when hiking when I was kid. I certainly am thinking lighter all-around this time for bodies <em>and</em> lenses (that's why the Tokina 11-16mm is out). I also wanted to mention that when I took my Nikon D800E/MB-D12/AF Nikkor 14mm f/2.8D on one trip, I recorded some video while hiking using the 14mm, and it looks fantastic. I held my camera, tensioned on its strap in front of me as we were hiking, and it gave a very nice GoPro-like perspective.</p> <p>So, I think I may need to consider a wider DX zoom since I'm only taking DX bodies this year. Thom's early review of the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM <a href="http://www.bythom.com/sigma10to20.htm">here</a>, is fairly positive, so I may get this "budget" DX ultra-wide in addition to the kit lens.</p>

<p>How wide do I need? It seems a never-ending question . . .</p> <p>The most successful wide-angle images I've taken were with the very first ultra-wide I bought: AF Nikkor 14mm f/2.8D. I chose it over the Nikkor 14-24mm zoom, primarily for its lesser weight and bulk. Still, it's a fairly weighty chunk of glass. At first, I was disappointed with its performance, but when DxO finally came out with a correction module for the Nikkor 14mm prime, it was a different story. DxO makes this lens shine.</p> <p>But, since the 14mm Nikkor doesn't readily take filters, I later bought the AF-S 16-35mm f/4.0 VR, primarily as a vacation lens. Although I really like the focal range, after lugging a D800E/MB-D12/16-35mm around on a bunch of hiking trips in Hawaii for 10 days, I think I've had it with bringing heavy, bulky wide-angles and full-frame bodies on vacation.</p> <p>So, I'm now thinking of my next trip to Hawaii, and (as usual), I've completely re-vamped my approach. Since the hikes are over rough terrain, I don't want to worry too much about damaging a $3,000 body anymore, so I've decided to downsize. Just a few minutes before typing this post, I ordered a refurbished Nikon D3300 with the new 18-55mm VR II kit lens for $399. The new 18-55mm is lighter and more compact that the original lens, and I really like its new retracting feature.</p> <p>So here's what I'm taking on my next vacation:</p> <p>• Nikon D3300 + AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II<br> • Nikon D3200 + AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED VR II</p> <p>All of the above was purchased as refurbs, so there's not the huge burden of worrying about theft or damage, which will be a welcome relief. Also, I really disliked having to change lenses on my D800E in the environments I was in (the 16-35mm to the 70-300mm and back), so I decided on going with two DX bodies instead, and zero lens changes (my D800E's sensor got really dirty last trip). The D3200/70-300mm will be holstered in a belt-worn lens pouch on my hip. I'll sling the D3300/18-55mm onto my Cabela's binocular strap (an excellent way to work, but only works with very light bodies/lenses).</p> <p>Will the 18-55mm (27mm-equivalent) be wide enough? Probably not as wide as I'd like. But for most uses (especially vacation photos), it should do just fine. I would, of course, love to have a new DX ultra-wide zoom, but I just can't justify the expense for a vacation kit. Here are the usual suspects:</p> <p>• AF-S Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED ($1,099).<br> • AF-S Nikkor 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED ($759)<br> • Sigma 8-16mm F4.5-5.6 DC HSM ($699)<br> • Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DC HSM ($649)<br> • Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM ($399)<br> <br> Of course, with the D3XXX-series bodies, I'm limited to AF-S lenses. I've excluded the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 since I already own the screw-drive version, which I think is just too big and heavy (but if I already owned the silent-drive version, I'd probably just take that and be done with it). The Sigma 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6's price is right ($399), and I still may consider buying that. But having the two Nikon VR-enabled lenses will also allow me to make up for their slow variable-apertures somewhat (I'm also taking my Nikon SB-400, so I'll be able to pull off some slow-sync shots with VR as well). But, mainly, my shooting will consist of 99% daylight exteriors, so having a fast-aperture lens, though nice to have, isn't as important.</p>

<p>Here's an example of a co-worker of mine, who I really don't know very well. When she came to my house to pose for some pictures, we both were initially very nervous. It took quite a few frames for both of us to relax. Her look was also highly variable from frame to frame, so I actually benefitted from shooting a lot of frames. Some subjects look almost exactly the same throughout a session, but some appear differently in almost every shot, sometimes, startlingly so.</p> <p>Also, while shooting, you're often so consumed by both the technical aspects, and with building rapport with your subject, that you often get a sort of tunnel-vision, and can easily overlook details which can compromise the shot. I just "found" the shot below, which I overlooked in the initial edit, and is an example of a very simple set-up--a single-source, placed a few feet to my right:</p> <p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/nancy-onelight-1.png" alt="" width="700" height="467" /></p>

<p>In my experience, the best learning occurs over <em>multiple</em> sessions. Shoot, assess, re-group, repeat. The more times you shoot, the more you will improve. The period between shoots gives you time to analyze both the experience and your technical approach. Shooting with different people also helps build your confidence and your people skills. With each successive shoot, you should see improvement in one area or another.</p> <p>To begin, just keep it simple. Use one large source, fairly close to your subject, and relatively close to camera. Try to resist the temptation to move your primary key too far away from camera; i.e., avoid "dramatic" lighting until you've mastered the basics. Plus, when using only a single source placed near camera (either just above, or beside your lens), you won't need a fill. This keeps things simple, yet still looks great.</p> <p>Here are a few basics to consider:</p> <p>• Lighting: A single large source often looks great just on its own.<br /> • Rapport: Try to relax. If you're relaxed, your subject will be more at ease.<br /> • Posing: Try searching "photography posing" in "books" on Amazon.</p> <p>Posing is perhaps the most difficult aspect of portraiture to perfect since there are so many variables. In general, when shooting head-and-shoulders portraiture, I always strive to introduce some asymmetry into the pose. For example, I never have the subject's shoulders square to camera; instead, I'll always bring one shoulder more forward to camera, and usually raise or drop one shoulder slightly. Plus, the triangle is a very strong compositional form, and if you can create a triangular form out of your subject's body (with the base at the bottom), using a raised forearm, a raised shoulder, or a slight tilt of the head, the photo usually comes out much stronger. Good luck!</p>

<p>Lex, I literally laughed out loud on that one! Hilarious!</p> <p>Bruce, I happen to work in television and often have access to celebrities. I was shooting Tara getting ready for her Sharknado party . . . from doing her make-up and hair in her hotel room, getting dressed, limo ride, etc. She was a total doll . . . very cool with us.</p>

<p>Ditto to what Craig and Lex have said. You have several options:</p> <p>• Modify the light with a large scrim (though not always practical).<br /> • Use flash or reflectors.<br /> • Wait for the light.</p> <p>Many daylight-exterior lighting issues can be more easily solved by simply waiting for the light. Note that due to atmospheric haze, late-afternoon sun can amount to as much as three stops less light than when the sun is high in the sky. If shooting in mid-day sun, you may need to resort to large scrims (e.g., Lastolite Skylite Rapid), reflectors, or brute-force flash power. It's often easier to just wait for the light.</p> <p>I believe low-contrast filters ("lo-cons") have mostly fallen out of vogue since the old days (e.g., 70s-80s), since modern film crews tend to solve these problems with brute-force amounts of lighting and grip equipment these days. Lo-cons also have the effect of bleeding highlights into shadow area (i.e., halation effects), which is sometimes desired for effect, but can look unnatural.</p>

<p>Mark, I don't think a single image of that girl adequately illustrates your point. You should probably post several dozen more of her.</p>

<p>That's great to hear, Bob! Glad it worked out, and you're more than welcome. Thanks for the shout out!</p>

<p>Finally . . . an excuse to post this picture!</p> <p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/taralimo-2.png" alt="" /></p> <p>Here's me and Tara in the back of her limo on the way to a Sharknado party. She is one cool chick! I look like crap, but Tara looked amazing that evening!</p>

<p>Sun:</p> <p>I initially bought a refurbished AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G VR I for $1,300, specifically for its closer-focusing ability; however it's ended up being one of my least-used lenses. I felt that it was simply too long and heavy for handheld portraiture, and I wanted something a bit lighter and shorter. So, I bought the Sigma 150mmm f/2.8 OS (optically-stabilized) because it's 0.36 kg lighter, and 5 cm shorter, making it noticeably easier to handhold. Once I began using it, I found the Sigma to be tack-sharp, with spot-on AF-accuracy.</p> <p>Thanks to the Sigma's excellent optical performance, it fast became my portrait lens of choice. Plus, at 150mm (on a full-frame body), it has a really nice amount of compression, visibly more so than an 85mm or 105mm. I shot some headshots recently, comparing a DC-Nikkor 105mm and the Sigma 150mm, and the 150mm focal length was clearly more flattering.</p> <p>The other cool thing about the Sigma is that since it's also a macro lens, minimum focus distance isn't an issue, so I'm also able to use it for extreme close-up beauty work. Working distance should be okay for head-and-shoulders portraits (e.g., 2-3 meters). I know you're hesitant to buy Sigma since you're without a local distributor, but it's really a great lens and focal length:</p> <p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/BRIT-150-1.png" alt="" /><br /> Nikon D800E + Sigma 150mm f/2.8 OS; ISO: 50; f/5.6 @ 1/200th.</p>

<p>By the way, there happens to be three Dynalite XP-1100s on eBay right now ranging from $350-$450 ("buy it now" price), I assume, based on varied cosmetic condition. They appear to be rental units from Samy's Camera in L.A. Even though the batteries are marked "good" in the photos, just assume you'll be buying new batteries. The Enersys PC-680 is a direct replacement for the OEM Genesis battery, and actually has a bit more capacity at 17 amp hours. The PC-680s are available from a ton of online battery suppliers for about $120 each. If you buy a replacement battery, you'll need to keep the Dynalite terminal posts and screw-downs from the original battery and attach them to your new Enersys.</p>

<p>Robert said:</p> <blockquote> <p><em>What specifications should I look for when trying to pair a monolight with a battery so that I don't damage either one? If the lights have a certain Ws spec, what should the battery be rated at if I want x-number of full power flashes? Can battery size affect flash speed?</em></p> </blockquote> <p>I just realized I didn't actually answer any of your questions! The exact answers are likely beyond my technical expertise, but at least I can cite some examples. Most manufacturers will rate their inverters in terms of peak current supplied: e.g., "750-1,400W peak" for the Dynalite XP-800. Dynalite also states a recycle time example for their own strobe product: "1.4 sec. to full power with Dynalite MP800, 800W/s pack." If you're in the US, you can call Dynalite and ask about your specific strobe (I've spoken to Dynalite before, and they're very helpful).<br /> <br /> Paul C. Buff lists detailed capacity ratings for their own strobes for both of their inverters on their website, but most manufacturers do not. As a very general rule, the larger the inverter and its battery, the larger the strobe it can support, and the faster it will recycle that strobe. For example, powering my 1,000Ws Speedotron monolight from a Paul C. Buff Vagabond Mini-Lithium takes about 9 seconds to recycle. Such a long recycle leads me to believe that this is probably not the best match for the VML since continuous large current-draws may eventually negatively impact the longevity of its small, Li-ion battery (again, I'm not an engineer, so I'm just guessing here). But when powering my 1,000Ws monolight from my Dynalite XP-1100, recycle time is virtually identical to house-power (1.6 seconds). Also, since the XP-1100 uses deep-cycle SLAs, I believe they're inherently more well-adapted to large current draws.</p>

<p>I think the old Dynalite XP-1100 AC inverter/batteries are excellent values. Although discontinued, they can often be found on the used market for $400-$500. New, 17-amp hour, better-than-OEM, replacement batteries for the XP-1100 can be had for only about $120 (Enersys PC-680). These are SLA-based batteries and are super-easy to maintain. Dynalite now sells the Li-ion based XP800 for $999 (which appears to be a re-branded Godox).</p> <p>Li-ions are more finicky than SLAs, and require you to store them at 50% power to maintain their maximum life. I've already killed two of my Paul C. Buff Vagabond Mini-Lithium batteries by not properly maintaining them (not always easy when you have multiple battery chemistries in inventory). The XP-1100s are heavy as heck (26 lbs.), but you get house-power like recycling times (<2 sec. for a 1,000Ws Speedotron monolight at full-power), and hundreds of full-power pops. I wrote a summary of AC inverters on my personal website here:</p> <p>http://lightbasics.com/portable-power/</p>

<p>Ha! No, it's Honolulu International!</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/757-1-700.png" alt="" /></p> <p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/757-2-700.png" alt="" /></p> <p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/INFLIGHT-1-700.png" alt="" width="700" height="467" /></p> <p>Nikon D800E + AF-S Nikkor 28mm f/1.8G</p>

<p>Rodeo said:</p> <blockquote> <p><em>That really isn't the point Ralph, and nor is it true. If you'd used the X-synch speed of 1/320th, then you'd have had to stop the aperture down to f/6.3 to keep the same flash exposure, and the background exposure would therefore be identical. OTOH if you'd kept the same aperture the flash exposure would have been brighter as well.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>That's simply not true. Changing shutter speed doesn't affect flash exposure, it changes ambient exposure. Can you post any photos which support your claims?</p>

<p>One more thing: If you do buy a Wheeleez cart, be sure to ditch the included bungee cord (it's overly complicated and not very useful), and buy a pack of assorted-length bungees instead (I like the flat, plastic-covered hook kind) from Target or Pep Boys, and use those to tie down your containers to the cart. Good luck!</p>

<p>Rodeo said:</p> <blockquote> <p><em>Ralph. I still don't see how it's possible to keep the same aperture while varying the shutter speed, and at the same time keep the flash exposure constant while the ambient exposure reduces . . .</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Here's an example: If shot at 1/250th (i.e., x-sync) instead, the background would've been brighter at same aperture.</p> <p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/bikini-hyper-4L.png" alt="" /></p> <p>The gray card tests shown here: http://lightbasics.com/hypersync-test-series-2-nikon-d800e-speedotron-force-10/ reveal that there is <em>not</em> a significant difference (other than slightly uneven exposure, which goes unnoticed in this image) in overall recorded flash output for this particular strobe when comparing shutter speeds of 1/250th (x-sync), and a range of higher shutter speeds (where 1/640th is a fairly moderate shutter speed).</p>

<p>Rodeo said:</p> <blockquote> <p><em>'HyperSync can in fact deliver higher-than x-sync shutter speeds, allowing you to knock down ambient light levels to a considerable degree.' - It's this statement that's being questioned. Since as soon as you raise the shutter speed in HyperSync you also have to open the aperture to compensate. Ambient exposure therefore stays the same.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>The <em>testing</em> goal of the gray-card image series was to show a range of equivalent exposures to reveal any delta in recorded flash exposure as shutter speed was increased. The <em>application</em> goal is enable higher shutter speeds (holding aperture constant) to reduce ambient exposure.<br /> <br /> Rodeo said:</p> <blockquote> <p><em>Probably more to the point is why you'd want to point the camera at the sun like that in the first place. A much better use of that backlighting would be to hide the sun behind the subject's hair so that it formed a nice 'halo' effect.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>The photo was only a test and had no intended "artistic" objective. The purpose of the photo was to frame the brightest part of the sky (which includes the sun) to demonstrate extreme daylight conditions. The objective was to compare the recorded output of a 1,000Ws strobe at a shutter speed of 1/8,000th. At that time of day, this part of the sky appeared pure-white to the naked eye.</p>

<p>I'd prefer to make this HyperSynced exposure, over an all-black frame any day:</p> <p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/shell700.png" alt="" /></p> <p>[HyperSync tests for the strobe used in creating the image above: http://lightbasics.com/hypersync-test-series-2-nikon-d800e-speedotron-force-10/ ]</p>

<p>Rodeo said:</p> <blockquote> <p><em>As it is, the flash exposure behaves precisely the same as does a continuous source; i.e. the aperture needed changes by one stop for every halving of shutter time. In other words reciprocity is maintained. Just as it would be for "ambient" or continuous lighting.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Which is exactly what you <em>don't</em> get when <em>not</em> employing HyperSync, where virtually anything shot above x-sync is completely unusable. Here are the results you get <em>without</em> employing HyperSync:</p> <p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/S250.png" alt="" width="700" height="466" /></p> <p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/S500.png" alt="" width="700" height="466" /></p> <p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/S1000.png" alt="" width="700" height="466" /></p> <p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/S2000.png" alt="" width="700" height="466" /></p> <p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/S4000.png" alt="" width="700" height="466" /></p> <p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/S8000.png" alt="" width="700" height="466" /></p>

<p>Note that only a balloon-wheeled cart will have any success in traveling over sand--any other type of cart will immediately sink into the sand.</p> <p>What you need is a Wheeleez beach cart, available from both Amazon and specialty online sellers. I bought the smallest one from Amazon to carry heavy AC inverters and batteries for a beach shoot, and it worked pretty well. I put two aluminum Hakuba cases and three plastic containers on it. Any of their models equipped with even larger wheels will work even better. Magliner also makes an excellent set of beach wheels for their own film/TV production carts, but they're fairly expensive.</p> <p>Magliner beach wheels:</p> <p>http://www.filmtools.com/backstage-mag-w-sand-dune-wheel-kit.html</p> <p>I also bought a couple of those $5 blue tarps from Home Depot, and put all my aluminum camera/lens cases and strobe gear on those while setting up. These worked great.</p> <p>I also sought out a specific brand of plastic storage containers, which I found at Office Depot. I selected these particular ones because they are "mostly" rectilinear in design, and hold small photo accessories better than the more-common "tapered" designs of other brands (e.g., Rubbermaid, Sterilite, etc.).</p> <p>They come in clear, black, and translucent blue, plus are available in a larger selection of sizes than other brands. They're also pretty well-designed, and containers of the same width and length stack perfectly. I bought two large containers, and one shallow (for RF triggers, etc.), but all in the same width and length, so they all stacked on top of each other very securely. I bought two clear, and one black (opaque).</p> <p>Office Depot containers:</p> <p>http://www.officedepot.com/a/products/452054/Really-Useful-Boxes-95percent-Recycled-Storage/<br /> http://www.officedepot.com/a/products/507990/Really-Useful-Boxes-Plastic-Storage-Box/</p> <p> </p>

<p>Addendum:</p> <p>Bowens Travelpak SLA battery replacements: Additional Yuasa OEM equivalents for NP7-12 [12v, 7.2AH].</p> <p>Yuasa: http://www.sears.com/yuasa-np7-12-12v-7ah-battery/p-SPM1176598614?hlSellerId=27954&sid=IDx20110310x00001i&kpid=SPM1176598614&kispla=SPM1176598614&kpid=SPM1176598614&mktRedirect=y<br /> Enersys: http://www.atbatt.com/genesis-np7-12-12v-7ah-sealed-lead-acid-battery-with-f1-terminal.asp?utm_content=Genesis-NP7-12F1&utm_term=NP7-12F1&utm_category=Sealed-Lead-Acid&utm_source=google-pla&utm_medium=cpc&gclid=CP6Og6Tai8ICFYZefgodEGAAH</p> <p>I'm still unsure if these fit the current Bowens' Travelpak batteries, or only the "first-generation" Travelpaks (and, if they do fit, do these replace the battery containers in the small or large Travelpacs).</p>

<p>Rodeo said:</p> <blockquote> <p>I'm not sure what those "HyperSync" test images are supposed to prove or show, apart from the expected fading of flash power over time. It's a bit pointless showing every shutter speed from 1/500th to 1/8000th, since the shutter transit time remains constant at about 1/320th of a second with the camera used.</p> </blockquote> <p>What these test images show is that you do <em>not</em> lose a significant amount of recorded flash output using this technique. The point in showing a range of shutter speeds is to both show any differences in recorded flash output using equivalent exposure values, and to determine the usable range of the technique.</p>