william_wright3

<p>Ok thanks all, very useful indeed.</p> <p>Louis, I just got a silver umberella to go with the white one which I am looking forward to experimenting with.</p> <p>Ian - the Sunpak does indeed have a wide setting so will give that a go. Just curious when you say 'Your flash will need to be at the full length of the umbrella shaft for anything like even coverage' - so basically as far away from the umbrella on the stand as possible? <br> That's actually another thing I had been curious about, how close (or not) the flash should be to the umberella itself.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Hey,</p> <p>Possibly a very rudimentary question, but I have just acquired a couple of the original Thyristor Sunpak 120J hot shoe flashes that a little research suggests are well regarded, particularly for the price (I got my 2 for £150).</p> <p>I'm wanting to use them to fire into umbrellas, but having never used bare bulb speedlights before am curious about the set up for this - namely, do you leave the reflectors on the flashes, or take them off and just fire the unmodified bare bulb into the umbrella for best results?</p> <p>Any advice gratefully received! </p> <p> </p>

<p>Hi all,</p> <p>Just wondering if anyone knows if intervalometers were (or could have) been produced for cameras that take the traditional-style shutter release cable?</p> <p>Essentially I am looking for something I could use for a medium format camera or my Bessa T - to set up and and then leave the camera to take the pics at pre determined intervals. I had a search and found <a href="http://www.clubhasselblad.com/hasselblad-intervalometer-ii">this</a> made by Hasselblad, but don't fully understand how it would work. Would you still have to wind the film on manually, or do the models its produced for (500EL/M) do this automatically?</p> <p>Anyone info on this or any other older style intervalometers would be much appreciated!</p>

<p>Thanks Brian - got it :)<br> Just out of curiosity what size lens are you using for your shots?<br> I'm wanting to keep the shadow as tight to the models body as possible for the shots, so Im figuring a longer lens with both me and the light as far away from the model as possible will likely be best for this.</p>

<p>Thanks for the response Brian, that's definitely what I was thinking it might be - presumably the light is placed further behind the camera and not in front?<br> (If this is the case) Any good tips for shooting infront of the light without casting a shadow yourself?</p>

<p>Hi all,<br /> Perhaps a very rudimentary question, but am currently trying to work out a direct lighting set up that for photo and video use, in the style often seen in fashion editorials (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_yb0y_JNWg">example 1</a>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alX6LsZ7qXk">example 2</a>) and maybe to a lesser extent (as the light seems a little more diffused) music videos such as Robin Thicke's <a href=" Lines</a>.</p><p>My question isn't so much about the kit itself, which is pretty self explanatory (single direct light as close to the camera lens axis as possible), it's more how to do such direct lighting without it being blinding for the models and have them constantly squinting - something I've had problems with myself, although the models etc in the videos above seem fairly comfortable and able to look directly at the camera without any noticeable grimacing (although they could just be extremely professional in the face of eye-blinding agony!)</p> <p>i.e is it best to shoot on a long lens and have both light and camera as far back as possible, or just keep the light far back and try not to get in the way and cause a shadow (more informed and experienced opinions welcome of course!)</p> <p>I appreciate that for stills purposes its a lot easier to acheive this using a flash, but I really want something that will work for stills and video. Also I know diffusing the light would help but i really want to keep things as hard as possible for the purposes of this set up.</p> <p>Anyone that has advice or experience on this would be great to hear from you.</p>

<p>Hey BeBu,<br> Many thanks, that sounds like a good practical way of working this out - will give that a go.</p>

<p>Hey,</p> <p>I was wondering if anyone on the forum might be able to help with a problem I'm trying to get to the bottom of.</p> <p>I've been using this <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Neewer%C2%AE-Camera-Photo-Dimmable-Fluorescent/dp/B00U8H2EYK">ring light</a> for various photo/video projects, but if possible want to find something with a bit more throw and output power.</p> <p>I recently came across <a href="http://www.fvlighting.com/z720-ultracolor-led-ring-light.html">F & V's Z720 light</a> which looks good, seems to offer a more flexible and better quality light source, and is described as having a power draw of 57.6 watts and a lux of 3010. My current light is listed is having a 75watt/600w incandescent equivalent, so seemingly two separate measurements for different types of light - which is fair enough, I realise these things might not be directly comparable - but is there any way of working out within this (or even get a sense of) if the Z720 might offer more power/throw, or not? (or even anything I can test on my light to try and work this out).</p> <p>Would be pretty crushing to spendin the region of £800 for an upgrade only to find it didn't do what you had hoped, or worse still underperformed the item it was intended to replace.<br /> <br /> Any input very gratefully received!</p>

<p>Hi<br> Despite having read mixed opinions on them, I recently invested in a Gary Fong Lightsphere to use on my speelights as an alternative to bouncing light from the ceiling.</p> <p>I was pleasantly surprised (when shooting upwards at the ceiling) by the way it dispersed light to fill in the shadows on faces that you normally get when bouncing a speedlight off the ceiling.</p> <p>I was wondering, is this effect the same as I would get using my bare bulb Sunpak 120J with the reflector off (currently awaiting a new bulb for it so have been unable to try myself!), or would I need some kind of modifier on the sunpak to create this soft/evenly diffused effect (something like <a href="https://www.essentialphoto.co.uk/product/pixapro-12cm-180-diffuser-globe-for-hybrid360-bare-bulb-flash/?t=id30ecommerce">this</a> perhaps, but other recommendations that would acheive this effect very welcome)?</p> <p>To answer the obvious question of why do this with a 120J if I already like the speedlight & modifier effect - just generally prefer the quality of light and the Sunpak is more useful for the other flash set ups I use.</p> <p>Many thanks</p> <p>Will</p>

<p>Ok great, many thanks for the advice - c12 do sound like a good option, I had previously considered a redhead bootleg but was a bit worried about fire risk, particularly in a home environment</p>

<p>Hi,<br> I am looking into purchasing some kind of hard, continuos - and affordable! - light source (think Helmut Newton) for a home studio set up.<br> I am actually shooting on instant film, using a modified Polaroid 600se camera, and having not experienced tungsten lights etc previously am unsure on the need to colour balance (or not) in an analogue situation where white balance etc can't be set in camera (The 600se can take regular screw in filters if these would be needed).<br> I'm also keen not get anything that will ramp my electric bill through the roof (Although I also wouldn't ever plan on having the lights on for too long, particularly hot ones).<br> I see a lot of Hedler C12 lamps on ebay that people have recommended before, but I am curious of other hard light options that would give a reasonable spread, particularly any cool light alternatives (most likely fluorescent though as I fear HMI's are probably going to be out of my budget).<br> Any input greatly appreciated.<br> Will</p>

<p>Hi,<br> I am curious as to whether anyone knows what era camera hot shoe contacts were built only to take low voltage flashes (as most digital cameras seem to be), or does it apply to all electronic cameras, even film ones.<br> I ask as I recently purchased a Contax RX 35mm camera (produced in the mid nineties), and wanted to check safety when using a Sunpak 28sr thyristor flash. I believe the trigger voltage for the flash to be about 26 volts, however I have no idea whether or not this would be safe on the contax's hot shoe contacts. </p>

<p>I managed to find some cheap reading glasses on eBay with a variety of diopter strengths (I think my 600SE is too huge to take to the local drug store without attracting attention) so I will see if any of those help. If not then perhaps the silvering on the rangefinder prism is the next thing to look at as you suggest David.</p>

<p>Thanks both, that sounds like good advice, and I'm sure I could fashion some kind of diy diopter if one isn't readily available.<br /> Where do you suggest I be able to get my eyes tested for this - high street opticians or would I need to visit someone more specialist? I did actually recently get a prescription at Specsavers (!) but not sure if they would be equipt to advise or not</p>

<p>Hi<br> I recently purchased a Polaroid 600SE, which I had modified to take a Belair back, allowing me to use the camera to shoot Fuji Instax film (anticipating the demise of Fuji's excellent fp100c film, which it was originally built for).<br> I am very happy with the results, the camera and its lenses, however there is one problem. Whatever I try I seem to suffer with eyestrain problems from shooting, even when using with the camera for quite short periods of time. The rangefinder was initially quite cloudy so I recently had it cleaned, which has certainly made the viewfinder sharper (if not overhwelminngly lighter, although it's certainly not dark), but unfortunately it hasn't solved the problem. This strain isn't something i ever experience shooting with DSLR and film SLR's.<br> Having invested in the camera I'm reluctant to give it up, or rush into investing into another modded camera which might cause the same problems. I am wondering if there is anything I can do to help ease the strain, whether that's through a hack/further modification or a case of looking for diopters, viewfiner magnification things etc.<br> Nb have tried shooting with both eyes open etc and unfortunately the problem still persists.<br> Any help or advice gratefully received.<br> Will</p>

<p>Thanks Bill, again a very useful insight into how far images from the film are likely being manipulated to get these sort of results.</p>

<p>Thanks for the advice Bill, definitely explains why I am getting the results I'm getting. Am still relatively new to film so was not aware of the differences in possibilities with B&W film until now - it's certainly something I will give a try.</p> <p>Just out of curiosity/for own reference I have been looking at the work of photographers who have a 'high key' style (or at least one with a lot of visible flash) using portra film, and came across Juergen Teller, who shoots Portra 400 using a flash with a GN of 20 (Contax TLA 200 on top of a G2), which is a lot less powerful than some I have experimented with. <a href="https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&ved=0ahUKEwiX1Y7G2cPLAhWElQ4KHXYyBCkQFggyMAc&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wmagazine.com%2Ffashion%2F2005%2F06%2Fgisele-juergen-teller-june-2005-photoshoot-ss%2Fphotos%2F&usg=AFQjCNF6TikVGRrNJlGQjD1YGGkiDC2N4Q&sig2=wdm9ub--ESLcL_uQ8VAPsQ">Example shoot here</a>.</p> <p>My understanding is his film work is all derived from darkroom prints rather than photoshop - would this style be best defined by the sort of badly printed images (objectively speaking of course!) you are referring to, if the effect is not otherwise possible due to the latitude of the film?<br> Thanks again everyone for all the useful input.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Thanks Bill (Lynch) yes that's definitely an advantage of the scans coming in at that exposure level, there's enough detail on each end to be able to do what I want with it in post.<br> <br /> Bill C - thanks for that insight, that's definitely consistent with what I had heard - I guess the frustration that leaves me with is working out what kind of power lights i should be looking to use. I've found it hard to distinguish between the presence of a flash with a gn of 7 and one of 70 with the scans I've been getting, which leaves me wondering if the flash exposure is ultimately defined in post rather than the settings you shoot with, and that therefore metering etc doesn't really matter that much for this kind of photography.</p>

<p>Thanks both for the advice - definitely confirms what I've been thinking - that either scanning the negatives myself or printing might be a better (if more complex) way of achieving the results I'm looking for. I guess it might also be worth looking into film with a little less latitude than Portra too.<br> There is some disappointment in the sense that I feel I am unable to get the exposure right at source like I'm able to with digital, but I guess the payoff is I do have a general preference for the colour film provides compared to that provided by my 5dII.</p>

<p>Hi there,<br> I am an enthusiastic newcomer to shooting 35mm film with some previous experience shooting digital, and have been doing some test experimentation using film and digital cams with basic on camera flash set ups to try and gain an understanding of how to meter correctly for each, and also how film latitude works.<br> However, the results I am getting on my 35mm so far have been fairly fruitless. Shooting with a single flash against a white wall, and metering for one step over exposure on the flash and anticpating a 'high key' look , the scans I am getting back seem to my eye to be either at 0 or -1.<br> As an example (test shot with a ringflash at +1) and scanned by a lab with a good reputation:<br> <img src="https://40.media.tumblr.com/95007dae5cfc5be1f44ddf088865da13/tumblr_o43a5czAhU1qdsei8o1_1280.jpg" alt="" width="1272" height="1908" /></p> <p>Whereas I was anticipating something a little more like this (exposure of same scan set to +1 in lightroom with a slight contrast boost)<br> <img src="https://40.media.tumblr.com/d7358b417faa34159129ddceb4b04649/tumblr_o43a5s5aDC1qdsei8o1_1280.jpg" alt="" width="1272" height="1908" /></p> <p>When I enquired about how I might be able to acheive something a little closer to the second image the lab advised using 'more flash', however on subsequent text with flash set at levels which would nuke a digital sensor and produce a pure white image only I still got similar results back, albeit with streaks across the scan - see below.<br> <img src="https://41.media.tumblr.com/1039488aba52e3808ff27a35b29d886f/tumblr_o43ak2plsh1ugadpho1_1280.jpg" alt="" width="1280" height="853" /><br> Unfortunately all of this means I am, at this early stage, very much unaware of how to get my intended results, and if the fault is with the metering/lighting or the scanning. Having tried a variety of camera set ups/lenses and samey exposure results from settings that would produce vastly different effects on digital cams I am getting quite frustrated with it all but dont want to give up just yet - I do realise portra film which I use has a wide exposure latitude, but something still seems amiss.<br> Would it be common practice for a lab to reduce exposure to 0 regardless of how the photo is shot, and then is it just up to me to edit in post to how I want? Or is there a better way of getting a scan of the exposure as shot so I can tell when I am genuinely under/over exposing an image and learn to meter properly?</p>

<p>Hey<br /> Just wondering if anyone has experience using 120 film backs on the Polaroid 600SE and whether it's possible to compose intuitively through the rangefinder (which i'm presuming is set for polaroid sized shots), or, alternatively, if the regular ground glass back has guide lines for framing 6x7 and 6x9 shots.<br /> Just got the Mamiya M adapter and a film back but not keen on wasting too much film on awkwardly composed photos!<br /> Many thanks,<br /> Will</p>