sam_mahmoud

I recommend switching from the evaluative meter to the

"partial area" meter, which is a spotmeter in all respects

except that the "spot" is too big to really call it a spot.

Then, aim the spot at an area of foliage where you

don't get any of those bright sky areas in the spot.

Take your meter reading there, and use that exposure

to shoot.

Thanks for the correction, Patrick.

I had forgotten that you can get limited by the max

flash sync speed. Obviously the pop-up flash won't

get far using really small apertures, yet the

combination of a relatively-slow shutter speed

and a bright day means the ambient exposure will

force you to use really small apertures.

My version of the calculations still makes sense

in lower light -- anywhere where you have the lens

wide open at slower than 1/200 seconds.

So Patrick, if you were using a big modern

Canon flash, what would be your strategy here?

Use the flash's full power at 1/200? Or open

up the lens, set a higher shutter speed, and

use the flash in hi-speed sync mode?

Even if the lens doesn't block the flash, the raw distance

to the subject is really pretty far for that little flash

unit. Pop-up flashes are not very powerful. Let's try a

little math.

According to the B&H site, the guide number for the A2's

pop-up flash (ISO 100, in feet) is 43-56. If that's

true, then with your lens wide open at f/4 your flash

will "fully" illuminate a subject fully at 10.75-14 feet

with ISO 100 film. (guide number divided by f-stop equals

distance).

The good news is that you don't need full flash.

Fill-flash is usually in the range of -1 to -2 stops

less than full flash, depending on whether you like a

stronger or a more subtle fill-flash effect. That

extends your range to about 15-20 feet for -1 stop

and 21.5-28 feet for -2 stops.

Using Velvia? You just lost a stop because the guide

number is quoted at ISO100 and Velvia is ISO 50 (arguments

about ISO 40 deferred to another thread), so your

distance is now roughly 11-14 feet for fill flash at

1 stop below full power and 15-20 feet for fill flash

at 2 stops below full power.

This sounds to me like it could work, if only barely,

for some applications. You'll have to find the best

combination of: 1) fast film, 2) tame loons, and

3) acceptance of subtle, rather than strong, fill flash.

Shoot wide open, and leave off the teleconverters.

And of course none of this matters if the flash is

blocked by the lens.

I have pushed Astia 2 stops (to 400) but usually not

just 1 stop. I find it very well behaved when pushed

I can't report a particular color shift nor an objectionable

increase in contrast because I found no such artifacts.

It basically acts like a film that hasn't been pushed.

Astia is almost identical to MS100/1000, the film

that Fuji expressly sells for its pushability. The

curves and parameters in the data sheets are indistinguishable,

as are the results I've found in the field. Astia

costs a lot less than MS100/1000, too.

I haven't used enough Provia F yet to know, but

from what I have seen so far it looks like that

would also be an excellent choice. Maybe better

for its finer grain.

The Kirk ball head is very similar to the Arca-Swiss.

Using mine side by side with a friend's Arca only

made me wonder if there isn't a copyright infringement

problem with these -- they're that similar.

<p><p>

It may interest you to know that Galen Rowell uses

the Kirk head. When I found that Kirk claimed his

endorsement on their web site, I was skeptical.

So I personally verified it, first by phoning Rowell's

company, <a href="http://www.mountainlight.com">Mountain Light</a>, and

speaking to his assistant, and later

by observing Rowell in the field during a workshop.

<p><p>

I chose the Kirk because I couldn't get the Arca

quickly, and I didn't think I would be using my

gear in harsher conditions than Galen Rowell.

<p><p>

Here are the differences that I know of:

<p><p>

1. The Kirk has a separate knob for tension control,

the Arca has it built into the main locking knob.

<p><p>

2. The Kirk doesn't have the aspherical ball. In

practice, I don't know what difference this really

makes.

<p><p>

3. The Kirk doesn't have the lockup problem.

<p><p>

4. The Kirk is a little cheaper.

The most complete (and virtually only) written commentary

I have seen about this is in the Norbert Wu book "how to

photograph underwater". <a href = "http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0811724522/qid=955476416/sr=1-7/002-2681783-1250623">Here is a link to it at Amazon.com</a>.

From rather hazy memory, I seem to recall that this book really

didn't offer a complete, organized how-to for this type of

picture, but did at least show some varying techniques

that you can put together to get what you want.

<p><p>

This type of picture seems to be done by relying heavily on

split filters because the magnification, focus distance,

and light level are all very different above and below the

water's surface.

<p><p>

My personal recommendation, depending on the clarity of

the water, would be to consider using one or more underwater

strobes to light the fish, especially if you want it to

gleam with its silver color.

<p><p>

As for equipment, you will find that the underwater

housings that divers use, along with their special

strobes and strobe arms and cables and such, are

outrageously expensive. As an alternative, you might

try the EWA-marine bags (not suitable for diving, but

should be good near the surface) or just rent some

underwater equipment. Check out Philip G.'s article

about underwater photography in the static content

on this site.

<p><p>

Sorry this is vague. I'm hoping someone who has actually

done some over/under shots can offer some more specific

advice.

Here's how I solved the problem:

Get one of those really cheap L-shaped flash brackets that

for some reason every camera store carries, even though it

is a mystery to me what they are actually good for. You

know the ones -- they fold in half when not in use, they

attach to the bottom of the camera and give you a vertical

grip up the left side of the camera body with a "cold" flash

shoe on top of that.

Once you've acquired this bracket, take it to the hardware

store and buy a wing nut and washer that will fit on where

the camera usually goes.

Mount the bracket to your tripod, add the washer and wing-nut

to where the camera is supposed to be, and you're done. You'll

have to use a PC-cord to connect the flash, of course.

Incidentally, other posters are right here -- really cheap

and small tripods that wouldn't be adequate for holding any

kind of camera and lens are perfectly fine for holding a

flash.

Bokeh (n) : 1. The subjective appearance of the out-of-focus areas

of a photograph, esp. when considered as a property of the lens

that took it. 2. One of those mysterious factors factors that,

despite being nominally a property of a photograph, seems to matter

more when discussing photography on the internet than when actually

practicing it.

I would second the recommendation for the small Gitzo

models -- they are surprisingly stable for their size.

However, instead of the 01, I recommend the 026, which

is almost the same but is a "performance tripod".

The difference is that the 026 (or any of the "performance"

models) can splay their legs out wide to get down to the

ground. You specifically asked about macro, and I find

that the ability to get down low is very helpful for macro.

The bad news is that the Gitzo 026 already costs over $200

and it isn't "dressed" yet. To assemble it to a usable

condition, you will need a short centerpost (Gitzo and

Kirk offer them) in order to get down to the ground, and

you will need an appropriate small ballhead and a

quick-release clamp such as the one from Really Right Stuff.

If you are like me, it will take a few field sessions

with this tripod before you master the techniques of

operating it quickly without catching your hands in any

of its pinch points.

I assume that you would be choosing Kodachrome 200 for its

ISO speed because you will not be able to use a tripod all

of the time?

Several people have mentioned E200, but I don't think the

thread would be complete without a mention of Fuji's

MS100/1000 as an alternative. I find MS100/1000 to be an

excellent travel film. Its "natural" ISO is only 100,

but it is really outstanding pushed to 200 or 400. Even

pushed to 400, the colors are natural and the grain is

not noticeable.

Fuji says you can push this film as far as ISO 1000, but

when I tried it at ISO 800, I found that while it was

still a nice, acceptable film, the colors were starting to

block up and the grain was starting to come out. On the

other hand, perhaps it was the increased contrast giving

the appearance but it seemed to me that at ISO 800 this

film was starting to give more saturated colors and look

more like a grainy Velvia. My conclusion was that at

ISO 800, images were still usable, but I was starting to

be able to tell that something wasn't quite normal.

Stop at ISO 400 if you can.

The main drawback of this film is that it is expensive, and

gets more so when you push-process it. If you want to

save a little money, try pushing Astia. Based on my own

tests and comparing the data sheets, I will claim that

Astia is almost the same film as MS100/1000 and that it

also pushes 2 stops (to ISO 400) quite well.

Denise,

To answer your latest question, the chosen aperture does affect an ND-grad filter in two ways.

First off, the "line" may move to a different location in the frame at a different aperture. To take an obvious example, if you put the line 1/4 of the way into the frame with the lens wide open, it may not be in the frame at all with the lens at f/22 -- at f/22, you are really only "using" the center part of your lens. The best approach is to always use your depth-of-field preview button when positioning the ND-grad filter. If you do not have a depth-of-field preview, you are pretty much out of luck on this, but you can mitigate the problem by using a softer ND-grad filter when appropriate and/or bracketing filter position.

The other effect the aperture will have is to make the "line" of your ND-grad harder or softer. The line of your ND grad is too close to the lens to ever be in focus, but it is always closer to being in focus at small apertures than at large apertures, so it will "spread out" less. The best way to handle this effect is probably to just not worry about it. It is fairly subtle and there are usually more compelling reasons to pick a particular aperture than to make the line of your ND-grad harder or softer. Once your usage of this tool has gotten sophisticated enough that you can take one glance at a slide and say "filter pulled down too far" or "filter not pulled down enough", then you can think about trying to use this effect to your advantage.

If you're really bored with the same old places, maybe what you need is the whackiest, most different thing possible, to jar the old creative juices back into action.

Northern Florida has many deep, clear, cold springs, that have the strangest and most surreal underwater landscapes. Take a cheap underwater camera and your snorkeling gear and try some underwater "moonscapes"!.

For specifics on where to go, try finding a guidebook at a local scuba shop.

What a coincidence that you should ask. That very question is being answered right now in <a href = "http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000bv1"> this thread.</a>

The simplest answer presented in that thread so far is to order from B&H, where they are called "Macro Coupling Rings".

I noticed the same thing, Dan. And at the same time, I noticed a note on Kirk's web site saying that they are currently "having trouble obtaining" all the Gitzo tripods that they sell.

Is Gitzo coming down with a case of Arca-Swiss disease?

Are you sure you aren't solving the problem from the

wrong end?<p>

I haven't done this, but have read a good bit about it.

It seems to me that most people doing this sort of thing

do not even try to speed up the reaction time of the

camera. Instead, they either hold open the shutter and

trigger the flash from an electronic sensor, like you

have been doing, or else they find clever ways to trigger

the camera a few mS _BEFORE_ the picture happens.<p>

As an example with made-up numbers, suppose a butterfly

is moving 20 feet per second and suppose your camera's

reaction time is 50mS. The butterfly will move about

1 foot between the time you trigger the shutter and the

time the picture is taken. So if you could predict

the flight path (yeah, I know) and put your IR-beam

where the butterfly will trigger it 1 foot before

it is where you want it for the picture, then bracket

everything liberally, then the camera's shutter delay

would be factored out. This seems to be how a lot

of bird-about-to-land pictures are taken.<p>

For jumping mice or frogs, why not use the bulb

technique that you have already been using? Put the

mouse or frog in a dark studio, incite it to jump using

a loud noise, and then trigger your flash from the

IR-beam when the animal jumps. You could also

trigger from a microphone that hears the same loud

noise as the animal -- but of course, then you

might fire too soon because the animal's reaction

time is finite.<p>

Or did you have in mind a setup where you could

capture the jump in a more natural setting or

without having to disturb the animal so much?<p>

<A href="http://www.woodselec.com/">Here</A> is the site of an IR-beam supplier

that explains how to measure the delay of your

camera, how to use various setups of IR-beam and

sound triggering, and even gives some typical

delays of various cameras.<p>

And <A href="http://www.pacsci.org/public/education/gallery/high_speed_photos/nfpaper.html"> here </A> is a paper with some circuits

and techniques for low budget do-it-yourself equipment.

And <A href="http://www.pacsci.org/public/education/gallery/high_speed_photos/student_photos.html">some of the results.</a><p>