brad_farwell

<p>No, or I'd have done it.</p>

<p>The goal was that the 580 (on a stand/etc) provides ambient room lighting off the ceiling. The 220, dialed down a little, provides direct light on the subject, filling in some of the shadows from the overhead lighting. For example, in the attached photo (it isn't a good photo, but was the first example I had handy), his face is being evenly lit by the 220, and the overall room is all being lit by my old manual flash. </p>

<p>It's something I've done a number of times with an old manual flash as the overall light, was hoping to retire it and use the 580. But no dice.</p><div></div>

<p>The answer is: it don't work. not off the PC post, not via the hotshoe, not at all. total BS.</p>

<p>Hi all - So, have tried to do my due diligence research before posting this, but have gotten conflicting answers. I have a 580ex ii (set to manual) that I want to trigger via optical slave (wein digital peanut) tripped by a small on-camera flash (canon 220ex). I used to use an old 'potato-masher' flash in this role, but since the 580 is more useful generally, I'd rather carry it around instead. </p>

<p>The question: Will the optical slave work, or will it 'lock up' the flash?</p>

<p>If it locks up (ie requires cycling the power on/off before it will fire again) is this only when you trigger from the hot shoe? </p>

<p>ie: Will the peanut attached via cable to the PC post on the flash (preferable to me) work?</p>

<p>I don't have time to get a sonia, would rather not spend the money, and don't want to carry the kid through the snow in to manhattan to hit B&H for the second day in a row (to buy a male-male PC cord, grumble grumble canon) if I'm just on a wild-goose-chase.</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>(to head off other suggestions: radio trigger doesn't work in this situation, as I need the TTL on the local flash.)</p>

<p>Heck, I use the 220ex all the time with my 5D2 and love it; it fits in my bag, and unlike the 270, it has the AF assist ruby lamp on it, which means I can turn off the flash feature and just use it get quick and sure focus in super-low light. (I also have the off-camera cord, which means I can get better flash position than I would on-camera. It's fabulous for snaps, and as fill, which are my two primary uses for it... anything more involved means getting the strobes.)</p><div></div>

<p>Agreed that it won't fly (so to speak) with TSA as carryon, but I have to disagree with Frank- I don't know what <em>your</em> tiniest bag is, but my tripod (not terribly large) won't fit in anything approaching small. That's the most annoying part of it; I have to check another damn bag with my tripod, and get hit with another fee.</p>

 

<p>Well, my abundance of caution caused them to run it by legal and subsequently not to use the images. Probably the legally prudent thing to do, but part of me still wishes I'd kept my mouth shut... I could use the exposure.</p>

<p>(FWIW, I'd also like to say that there is a difference, to me if not to the law, between using someone's vacation snap to sell toasters (or their sunset photo to sell beer) and using the art of someone who teaches at a school to promote the school. Perhaps not a courtroom-relevant difference, but it feels a lot less like a scam on my moral compass.)</p>

<p>Well, I believe (stop me if I'm wrong) that my artwork can be used, by me, to promote itself. ie- If I'm a street photographer and I have a show, I can use an image from that show on a poster. If I have a website I can use the images on that website. Etc. </p>

<p>I _believe_ that's different from using the picture above to sell, say, guidebooks or vodka. </p>

<p>After Philip-Lorca diCorcia's famous case with the rabbi, that image was still allowed to be in the exhibition catalogue, for instance. Also, Florian Bohm, who has a great book of NY street photos, has used those images on various promotional materials.</p>

<p>(and the links to people who have run into their images is well taken; those were the folks i was thinking of. Though a run in a small magazine (ala Gallery Guide) is less visible than an advertisement for a product.)</p>

 

<p>Hi Folks-</p>

<p>Perhaps this is a stupid question (I'm sure someone will let me know if it is) -</p>

<p>I'm teaching at a photo school in NYC. I have a body of work I shot in Rome, in the Pantheon, ( http://www.bradfarwell.com/proj/pantheon/ fwiw.). No model releases/location releases/etc (it's non-commercial fine art work, which I've shown over there).</p>

<p>The school wants to use one of the photographs in an a small-distribution print ad for their classes. It seems like it could be considered promotional (since i'm not getting paid for it & it's hyping my work) and therefore non-commercial. But it also seems like I could be deluding myself. Any thoughts? I know they've used other artists' work for the same purpose, street photogs doubtless among them. I would like them to use the photo, because it's free promotion for me, and from a realistic POV, the chances of these folks seeing the ad and coming after me are very very low. However, they're non-zero, and I wanted to make sure I knew what I was getting into.</p>

<p>They're looking for an answer soon, so any help appreciated!</p>

<p><br /> brad</p>

<p>---<br>

brad farwell<br>

www.bradfarwell.com</p><div></div>

<p>when you say 'lost a channel,' I assume you're talking about a hardware failure in the puck, not a setting screwup? The puck is only a year or two old, max... is this usual?</p>

<p>Hi folks-<br>

I have an imac 24" flatpanel, calibrated regularly with an i1d2 puck. A couple weeks ago (after a year or so of excellent color fidelity), I calibrated it again, and all of a sudden the highlights had a definite green cast. Seemed crazy, so I calibrated a couple more times, same result (tried with other variables as well - turning off ambient lights, etc., etc.)<br /> <br /> I notice that on the graph at the end of the calibration process, even the graph shows that it's going to be green- the green response is a nice straight 45-degree line, while the R and B channels fall off a bit at the high end.<br>

My questions-<br>

Isn't this what the calibration is supposed to notice and fix (knocking down G to match R and B, so I at least have a neutral, if slightly dimmer, highlight?)<br>

Am I misunderstanding calibration?<br>

Can I manually adjust this, or is there an obvious fix that I'm missing? I can 'see through' it a little, but it's really hard to edit photos with a lot of highlight area.<br>

Any help appreciated.<br>

Brad</p><div></div>

<p>Hi Dave-<br>

I don't have any direct experience with this mask, but I was told by a Canon rep at a trade show that the old screens would _not_ work on the 5dII, fwiw. (I think it's a slightly different shape?)</p>

<p>I like lightroom, but it's my understanding that Lightroom's keywords don't get written to the metadata until you export the file, meaning that its search capabilities are limited to the files within the catalog you're actually looking at. While this is fine for some things, a catalog with 5000 images in it seems a little unwieldy and nightmarish if it goes down.</p>

<p>Am I wrong about this, or is there a way for LR to add that keyword data to the .dng without exporting? Otherwise, that info won't be accessible to other programs or for search/etc. (?) That's a big reason (besides my own shooting style, which is project-based) that I haven't gotten much into the keywording game...</p>

<p>That's good to hear. Is there anywhere that you know of which has info on the recall? I just bought this from b&h, and i expect them to be rather disinclined to take it back without some sort of proof...</p>

<p>I'm doing some book work where it would be lovely to have a semi-shiny paper that could print double sided and be fairly thin. I ran across the (rather expensive for them) Inkpress paper the other day, and picked up a box of 4x6. </p>

<p>The print quality is, alas, horriffic.</p>

<p>I've tried their profiles, w/o their profiles, with a variety of paper/color settings, and I still get totally unacceptable results- ink pooling, print comes out totally wet, etc., etc. I'm using PK and haven't tried printing it as Matte, because I assume I'll just get even more ink laid down, and I have no desire to spend an hour cleaning rollers. <br /> <br /> Has anybody successfully used this paper with the 2400? Any suggestions?</p>

<p>Brandon-<br /> <br /> a) That's a pretty fast shutter speed. I mean, even at 1.4, 1/8000 should be enough... or at least if it isn't, maybe f2.0 isn't such a terrible aperture? But I digress.<br /> <br /> b) I believe that the point was that "ISO 50" is _actually_ just shooting ISO 100, then taking the raw file and pulling it down one stop. It isn't actually a different ISO. So you can use it, but it isn't really any different from shooting it overexposed at ISO 100 and pulling it back in RAW. No increase in quality, but actually the opposite. <br /> <br /> Or, that's what I interpret the previous message to mean. <br /> <br /> All that being said, I really enjoy my 5d2. I haven't run into the dots, and since it's a loss of quality instead of an increase, I simply don't use ISO 50.</p><div></div>

<p>Scott-</p>

<p>Sorry, I should be more specific.  I love the hasselblad, but there are several projects i'm working on that need things it just doesn't do (high ISO, more inconspicuous appearance, AF, AE, etc.). </p>

<p>Yes, I want high resolution (I guess printing 20x24 is high resolution) but I meant that I'm not pretending this camera is something it ain't- I know it doesn't _have_ ueber resolution- it isn't a leaf back, and any image won't be MF/LF quality, but I still have the 4x5 for that, while I'm selling the 'blad.  I don't have the camera, so I admit I haven't tried the fixes that are mentioned, and it sounds like they may fix this issue fairly painlessly for those of us with a workflow that involves a decent amount of post-production already, all of which is good.</p>

<p>But I'm less disappointed by this specific flaw, and more worried that this is a fairly blatant mistake, and that I should really wait until they've had a bit of time to work through the v1.0 bugs.  I would like to be more confident in the camera while I'm working with it, but this all makes me a bit nervous, and I'd rather put off the projects rather than begin with technology that I'm nervous about. </p>

<p>(Of course, at this point, perhaps i'm just sour graping, since availability is so limited.  grin.)</p>

<p>Scott- I would say that architectural photographers will have a really rough time of it. Very detail-oriented, lots of point sources of light. I would guarantee that some of the folks i have worked for in that industry would return the camera immediately if this were a hardware issue and not a firmware fix.</p>

<p>(of course, they're already shooting on the 1dsmkIII, but still. It wouldn't become a backup body.)</p>

<p>As someone who is looking to the 5dmkII to replace my hasselblad, I'm really disappointed. I don't need a perfect camera or ueber resolution, but I do need no obvious defects and the ability to print 20x24, and these dots would mean i was constantly worrying about missing something in the retouching process. It also is a bit of a confidence-buster, making one worry about 'what else will go wrong', though that seems a little silly. (once you have a 4x5 lens misfire a couple times, you're always worrying about it, and will probably end up replacing it, even if it works 98% of the time).</p>

<p>imho.  anyway, it has me really grumpy and very hesitantly postponing my purchase until next fiscal year.</p>

"It will neither track a speeding bullet nor focus on Ninjas fighting in a mine shaft on a moonless night"

 

WHAT? Dag! There goes all my freelance Hong Kong movie still work. sigh.

I think I see what you mean on this one, though it seems more subtle than the other examples...

@ Tudor- no offense, but that kit seems both too big to carry with you if you're student-style backpacking around, and waaaay outside the price range of someone who is buying a digital rebel.

Though I wish it weren't so, I've purchased two calumet batteries (on two different occasions) for my 30D, and they both are junk. Don't hold a charge, don't recharge properly. Totally sucks.

gah...

 

Sorry, tamron = tamrac. I think it's the "601 Expo 1" model, though I can't really tell from the shot on b/h's website...

I have a 30d, the 17-85 IS (IQ seems good to me), and a 50/1.4 and my kit fits in one of those little tamron bags that's probably 8x4x5, including two extra batteries, four extra cards, card reader, cable, charger, manual, and a little strip of CTO gel to tape over the flash. It's a really tight fit with the 50/1.4 (great for low light or portraiture, but you probably don't need it) but take that out and throw in a tiny folding tripod, and you've got all you need to travel around with in a package the size of a couple john grisham novels.

 

If you're going on safari to Africa, you might want a longer lens (you should at least have a lens shade), but if you want to be ready for anything and travel really light, this kit will totally do it for you. It's never too heavy or bulky to carry around, and I've never hit a situation that I couldn't at least kludge together a solution for. It's not a realistic setup for dedicated pro use, but it's fabulous for when you have priorities (like ease of travel, meeting folks, etc.) outside of just picture-taking.

So what exactly did you want in a 5Dii if not more sensor for about the same price as the 5D (was originally)? It seems like video was a feature canon threw in because it seemed kinda cool and was a relatively easy add, not because they thought people would accept an extra large pricetag for it.