Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > Studio Lighting, Flash & Other

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 14, 2004, 3:11 PM   #51
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,545
Default

FYI I posted this earlier on page 1 of this thread: http://www.vividlight.com/articles/1916.htm

My understanding is you want to be able to use your flash with the AB as well... The 550EX will let you do that; However it will only work from the camera or through a sync cord in the manual mode. No problem in the E-TTL mode - The Sigma has a built-in slave which will make this process a little more convenient that's all (ie one less adapter to buy/worry about!). :?
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 2004, 4:08 PM   #52
Senior Member
 
minutephotos.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 344
Default

The bid for a used 550X is at $250.00 already. I would much rather have a new Sigma than a Used Canon espeacially when the used Canon still costs $50+more. Also, the Canon does not have a PC plug or built in slave and has a slower recycle time than the Sigma.

The article on Ratio's was good I will try that out once I get the flash...

Thanks

PS

Can you believe the price of Canon's new 580EX. Man what is Canon thinking?
minutephotos.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 2004, 4:16 PM   #53
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,545
Default

minutephotos.com wrote:
Quote:
Can you believe the price of Canon's new 580EX. Man what is Canon thinking?
That's why the EF-500DG Super went up in price as well... (they were only $169 when I bought them!)

It's about right 2:1 ratio pun intended :-):-):-)
It has the new WB transfer a' la Nikon though !!!
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 2004, 9:08 PM   #54
Senior Member
 
minutephotos.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 344
Default

Hey I checked out thehistogram ofthat photo shot with the singe flash and reflectors.

Doesn't this histo indicate an underexposed photo with color spikes?


Attached Images
 
minutephotos.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 2004, 9:44 PM   #55
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

minutephotos.com wrote:
Quote:
Hey I checked out the histogram of that photo shot with the singe flash and reflectors.

Doesn't this histo indicate an underexposed photo with color spikes?
If you just grabbed the image off the Web & opened it in Photoshop to look at the histogram...you are seeing a much different histogram from the images original. Monitors normally display an image at 72 dpi. This isn't anything close to what an images actual resolution might actually be.
  Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2004, 5:24 AM   #56
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,545
Default

minutephotos.com wrote:
Quote:
Doesn't this histo indicate an underexposed photo with color spikes?
NO!

First of all the model's face is not 18% Gray (ie if you just use a meter without paying attention to tonality, you'll be completely off!)

All it says is the picture is mostly composed of dark hair and black top with some details being clip in the shadows... Ditto with a smaller area of overexposure on her hair from the flash reflection (ie the histogram just shows what the camera captured)






You can move the histogram right (by opening the aperture) at the expense of washing out her hair and cheek from the flash, but then you'll recover some details from the darker areas :sad:
-> I would use a 3rd reflector instead placed higher up angled down over the shadows area on the right side to 'shape' the histogram right, but that would 'create' a different effect from what the author/artist might have intended :?

:idea: You can always capture more details in both the highlight and shadow without touching the lightings, but you'll need to change to a film camera or buy a dSLR with a higher dynamic range like the new Fuji S3 or some Kodak's with ERI :-):-):-)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 17, 2004, 11:48 AM   #57
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 171
Default

Well, I'm in the "light meter is definitely useful" camp and won't rely just on a histogram, though I use them thoroughly. You may not realize it, but both sites you recommended earlier for explanation, also disagree with your apparent dislike for meters and recommend their use. Histograms are really only luminance indicators (RGB histograms are much more useful, but not available in-camera) and they are scene luminance indicators - not subject luminance indicators.

Fully informed and experienced photogs can make great use of them, but disdaining the use of a good flash meter in studio or out is unwise IMO when multiple flash is involved. There are many examples of histograms that cannot show whether a 1/3 stop increase or decrease in exposure is called for to obtain the desired ratio or effect. Relying solely on them is often a guessing game, especially considering doing so is usually done by comparing the reading with the tiny, poorly lit/contrasted LCD from the camera. I know Kalypso calls this guesswork "hogwash", but I completely disagree and suggest that the extensive use of flash meters by the vast majority of working pros would indicate otherwise as well. They are simply more efficient in many circumstances. This is not to dismiss histograms in any way. They are great for many things, but do not successfully replace flash meters. For instance, they are very good at indicating improper exposure - much better than indicating proper exposure. They are also very good for seeing clipping and dynamic range continuity. So, I agree that they are very useful - I just don't agree that they are so good that they totally replace a decent flash meter.

Also, saying that once a setup in a studio is used successfully a few times means it stays that way and would not benefit from a flash meter is just wrong IMO. I can, and have, found many different lighting setups that require re-metering a shot or many shots during shooting. Using a histogram alone would require some guesswork (no, it's not hogwash IMO) or trial and error and be very inefficient as well as often inaccurate, depending on the desired effect. NHL's studio setup example would only work if conditions were always the same or nearly so. That's simply not the way most studio photogs work.

I recognize this is one of those polarizing issues that neither side will agree to change. However, I find the dissmissive attitude of flash meters is less understanding than the approach that both have their uses - or why do so many pros insist on them? Just my opinion, YMMV.
flint350 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 17, 2004, 12:34 PM   #58
Senior Member
 
minutephotos.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 344
Default

I have not received any comment on the two photos I uploaded. In your opinions, are they properly exposed. If not, whay could I have done to make these photos better. I am refereing to the picture of the baby and the one immediately after that.

With the Sony F707 I could never take photos or a child close up with flash without getting red-eye. The Canon seems to do a much better job, espeaicially when mixing ambient light with flash.

PS

I like using the light meter more than the histogram while taking photos in studio. If I only have one chance to get it right the meter will generally put me in the ball park. Histo is nice to confirm the shot, but not to set it up.



minutephotos.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 17, 2004, 12:34 PM   #59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 171
Default

As for the trigger voltage question - you partly answered where it comes from in your own post (admittedly with seeming contradictions later). Canon tech support was directly quoted as saying: "Still, more phone calls to Canon USA reiterate their insistence that 6V is the limit for the G1 and EOS cameras"

Now, there is also anecdotal evidence that voltage higher than Canon's supposed limit can damage the thyristors in the new digital cameras. Can you get away with it for a while (if accurate), sure. But, it's cumulative damage that may not show up for a while, so, as the site you quoted also says - "It's your call" for all strobes listed over the 6v. IMO, suggesting to anyone that they are "safe" doing this is advising them to risk voiding their warranty and/or damaging their camera, until further evidence is available. Canon tech support also reports that one of the highest repair issues on modern EOS cameras is to the those thyristors. Your call, as they say.
flint350 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 17, 2004, 4:05 PM   #60
Senior Member
 
minutephotos.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 344
Default

So wha tis your recommendation on a Wireless trigger either IR or radio. The choices are the Interfit, or one referenced on Ebay $49.00 looks like a cheap pocket wizzard.

Or the Canon IR ST-E2 (low option - too expensive)

Do you still use the Interfit Transmitter at your own risk or do you now use something else.
minutephotos.com is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:34 PM.