Line break test.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Flash Technology: Black Straw Grids
Internal view from the rear showing the foam I used to give a snug slip-fit as well as the spacers that keep the flash from touching the straws. I used styrene square-rod from the hobby shop but almost anything similar from wood to strips of mat-board would work. Leftover frame mat board was used for the box since it cuts nicely with a sharp ExActo blade--make several shallow passes with the blade, and use a steel ruler.
It's durable, doesn't warp unless you get it wet, is lightweight, and very strong.
Measure Twice, Cut Once. Mine is tapered to fit the head of my flash correctly.
Foam, mat board, Aleene's Tacky Glue, steel rulers and ExActo knives are all available at your local Michael's or Hobby Lobby.
The mat board takes paint well. Use two coats. I highly recommend Krylon Semi-Flat Black spray--this is a fantastic paint that's easier to use than gloss and closely matches black plastic as seen here.
I keep this particular Krylon around at all times for many projects from model trains to high-power rockets and band gear, to name only a few.
WalMart sells it for $2.97 if you manage to find someone who can unlock the spray paint cabinets before you get bored and wander off to look at lawn mower blades or flashlights.
I built a cutting jig to get all of my straws (lifted from SA's only Panera) as close to 1 inch long as possible, but with the spacers or "Limit Bars" that keep the front of the flash from touching straws you have room to be sloppy, or even mill (OK, slice repeatedly) a slot in the top of the box for colored gels.
I've found that this 1" long grid is a great all-around tool, but I can imagine many situations where both shorter and longer ones would be useful.
In a perfect world I might have 3 of these at different lengths, but other projects are taking my time right now.
This photo was just for fun:
Results:
On this one the flash was about 3 feet directly above the table, attempting to simulate light spilling out from the lantern. As photographers it's easy to see the deception but I haven't had a single non-photographer notice, which is the whole point I think. 
Here I had the straw-gridded 383 fairly close--maybe 2.5 feet--and only wanted to light my shoulder and hood without contaminating the light coming from the Cube itself. It was the perfect choice to get the results I needed.
Friday, February 08, 2008
The "Ah-Ha" Moment?
An unpublished response to this thread at the Strobist Flickr Group:
The pertinent quotes:
I want to shoot say a family pet the lighting in the room is very dim...this is where I get into trouble my instinct tells me I want some depth of field say f11 and surely I will need a speed of at least 180th or 200th to freeze any movement.
Background info is that this is from A Landscape Photographer, capitals mine.
Where many photographers get themselves into trouble is when they learn just enough "facts" that are pertinent to their chosen type of photography but neglect to learn or try any other styles.
This creates myths.
Many times you'll read in a book or on the net that depth of field/depth of focus (hereafter DOF) is very important for landscapes because you get reasonably sharp focus from the nearest object to the clouds on the horizon.
First of all, who says so?
(I won't go into motion-blur @f22).
When I use my eyes to look at something not-too-far-away I fully expect the background to dissolve into a blur.
Such is the nature of lenses.
And I find landscape photos with focus throughout to be unnatural, sterile, boring, and less-sharply-focused in the important places than if the photographer had paid attention to the aperture range where maximum sharpness is found for his lens.
Un-Focused, in that my attention isn't drawn to any specific place by using the tools available to draw my eyes where the photograher wants them to go.
What's important is placing your DOF into a range within the image that works the best at conveying your intent.
You want to focus attention on parts of the image, not provide a clinical everything almost in-focus overview of the scene.
Good photos are less about the blade of grass right in front of you or the hilltop a mile away--those are just incidental to what the photo is supposed to be portraying.
So unlearn the Max-DOF fixation.
It hurts more than it helps.
As an example, just look at almost all of my night photographs.
I have no choice but to open my aperture up--my current favorite is f3.5--to get enough light to overpower sensor noise.
My highway series includes some deep scenes and they don't suffer one bit from a theoretically shallow DOF.
My DOF is fine, because I'm shooting in the real world instead of the theoretical one. A noisy photo with less lens sharpness due to small aperture diffraction wouldn't look nearly as good as the way I do things, and I have the testing and results to back this up.
A main reason for this is that shallow DOF is only a "problem" at long focal lengths or 'zoom' settings. Landscapes are usually done at the wide-angle range of the lens where they already have the most DOF.
It's kind of scary that a photographer has trouble going indoors and makes so many wrong assumptions that experience should have eliminated by now. Add the complexities of flash and we have a recipe for disaster.
The other side of this coin is a few photographers I've known who were taught the opposite "rule" that wide apertures give you blurry backgrounds.
Well...yes and no.
They do if you use lots of zoom, and especially as the distance between the camera and subject decreases and/or subject to background increases.
But this is not the main reason to use a wide-open aperture.
The aperture controls the light!
Concentrate on that.
Forget about the rest of this stuff until you know how to use your aperture to get a well-exposed and sharp exposure with your camera and lens under a wide variety of conditions.
Just forget all these "rules" you might have picked up because they are really only gross generalizations that will trip you up and get in the way of good photography.
The pertinent quotes:
I want to shoot say a family pet the lighting in the room is very dim...this is where I get into trouble my instinct tells me I want some depth of field say f11 and surely I will need a speed of at least 180th or 200th to freeze any movement.
Background info is that this is from A Landscape Photographer, capitals mine.
Where many photographers get themselves into trouble is when they learn just enough "facts" that are pertinent to their chosen type of photography but neglect to learn or try any other styles.
This creates myths.
Many times you'll read in a book or on the net that depth of field/depth of focus (hereafter DOF) is very important for landscapes because you get reasonably sharp focus from the nearest object to the clouds on the horizon.
First of all, who says so?
(I won't go into motion-blur @f22).
When I use my eyes to look at something not-too-far-away I fully expect the background to dissolve into a blur.
Such is the nature of lenses.
And I find landscape photos with focus throughout to be unnatural, sterile, boring, and less-sharply-focused in the important places than if the photographer had paid attention to the aperture range where maximum sharpness is found for his lens.
Un-Focused, in that my attention isn't drawn to any specific place by using the tools available to draw my eyes where the photograher wants them to go.
What's important is placing your DOF into a range within the image that works the best at conveying your intent.
You want to focus attention on parts of the image, not provide a clinical everything almost in-focus overview of the scene.
Good photos are less about the blade of grass right in front of you or the hilltop a mile away--those are just incidental to what the photo is supposed to be portraying.
So unlearn the Max-DOF fixation.
It hurts more than it helps.
As an example, just look at almost all of my night photographs.
I have no choice but to open my aperture up--my current favorite is f3.5--to get enough light to overpower sensor noise.
My highway series includes some deep scenes and they don't suffer one bit from a theoretically shallow DOF.
My DOF is fine, because I'm shooting in the real world instead of the theoretical one. A noisy photo with less lens sharpness due to small aperture diffraction wouldn't look nearly as good as the way I do things, and I have the testing and results to back this up.
A main reason for this is that shallow DOF is only a "problem" at long focal lengths or 'zoom' settings. Landscapes are usually done at the wide-angle range of the lens where they already have the most DOF.
It's kind of scary that a photographer has trouble going indoors and makes so many wrong assumptions that experience should have eliminated by now. Add the complexities of flash and we have a recipe for disaster.
The other side of this coin is a few photographers I've known who were taught the opposite "rule" that wide apertures give you blurry backgrounds.
Well...yes and no.
They do if you use lots of zoom, and especially as the distance between the camera and subject decreases and/or subject to background increases.
But this is not the main reason to use a wide-open aperture.
The aperture controls the light!
Concentrate on that.
Forget about the rest of this stuff until you know how to use your aperture to get a well-exposed and sharp exposure with your camera and lens under a wide variety of conditions.
Just forget all these "rules" you might have picked up because they are really only gross generalizations that will trip you up and get in the way of good photography.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
A Few Words
A short essay I'm storing here instead of opening Word
I enjoy showing that almost everything under the sun (and under a night sky or in a dark room) are possible, even with an old camera like my Sony F717 circa 2002.
In digital camera terms, that's ancient and many would say obsolete.
I hate it when people are led to believe that a DSLR will improve their photos, only to spend a lot of money and see no improvement beyond some pixel-level stuff. Sure they can shoot faster, and have lots of control, and can shoot RAW, but are any of those things really necessary for most amateurs?
Oh, then they're told they need better lenses because the ones that come with DSLRs are crap. (Yes, they actually are crap unless it's a Sony or Olympus).
Then they need a wide angle, and a fisheye, and a longer zoom.
And studio lights and backdrops and the newest Photoshop CS3.
It never ends, and in most cases the photos still don't get any better.
I try to inspire people to learn everything about their own cameras, and why each feature is important and how it can be exploited.
To shoot in manual mode and at night, so they are forced to really understand exposure and metering.
To use a tripod even during the day when appropriate.
And to learn about how flash really works.
Lastly, to study composition since that's the main thing that separates the artist from the snapshooter. A few moments refining composition can make all the difference between people liking a photo and ignoring it.
Then to just come up with some ideas, from simple to wild, and try to make them reality. It helps to try again later if it didn't work the first time since every little thing we learn can affect everything we already know.
My camera plus $150 worth of flash gear and a tripod can do almost anything my mind can conjure up.
Anyone with a DSLR should be able to do as well or better if they just put in a little effort.
I enjoy showing that almost everything under the sun (and under a night sky or in a dark room) are possible, even with an old camera like my Sony F717 circa 2002.
In digital camera terms, that's ancient and many would say obsolete.
I hate it when people are led to believe that a DSLR will improve their photos, only to spend a lot of money and see no improvement beyond some pixel-level stuff. Sure they can shoot faster, and have lots of control, and can shoot RAW, but are any of those things really necessary for most amateurs?
Oh, then they're told they need better lenses because the ones that come with DSLRs are crap. (Yes, they actually are crap unless it's a Sony or Olympus).
Then they need a wide angle, and a fisheye, and a longer zoom.
And studio lights and backdrops and the newest Photoshop CS3.
It never ends, and in most cases the photos still don't get any better.
I try to inspire people to learn everything about their own cameras, and why each feature is important and how it can be exploited.
To shoot in manual mode and at night, so they are forced to really understand exposure and metering.
To use a tripod even during the day when appropriate.
And to learn about how flash really works.
Lastly, to study composition since that's the main thing that separates the artist from the snapshooter. A few moments refining composition can make all the difference between people liking a photo and ignoring it.
Then to just come up with some ideas, from simple to wild, and try to make them reality. It helps to try again later if it didn't work the first time since every little thing we learn can affect everything we already know.
My camera plus $150 worth of flash gear and a tripod can do almost anything my mind can conjure up.
Anyone with a DSLR should be able to do as well or better if they just put in a little effort.
Friday, January 18, 2008
The Cube
I had this idea in my head all day yesterday and just knew I wouldn't be able to sleep until it was captured...
...but the picture wasn't complete in my head yet.
I had most of it, but the details were eluding me.
Then a look around Strobist and the Strobist Flickr Group brought it home--a hoodie!
All the cool guys are wearing hoodies in their shots these days, and adding the gloves put it over the top.
The Cube is a 5-sided white plastic box that in a former life held a Skagen® watch.
It's lit by my old battery-powered cheapo slave flash inside.
My new flash is gridded and lighting just my shoulder and hood from the side, while the cube is handling my face and everything else.
Balancing the two took a single test exposure--I think I shot a total of six.
Of course the main flash is triggered by my Cactus V2s and is in turn triggering the slave.
Now I have the fun task of reminding commenters on various sites that modern wizards don't wear cloaks; only posers do.
...but the picture wasn't complete in my head yet. I had most of it, but the details were eluding me.
Then a look around Strobist and the Strobist Flickr Group brought it home--a hoodie!
All the cool guys are wearing hoodies in their shots these days, and adding the gloves put it over the top.
The Cube is a 5-sided white plastic box that in a former life held a Skagen® watch.
It's lit by my old battery-powered cheapo slave flash inside.
My new flash is gridded and lighting just my shoulder and hood from the side, while the cube is handling my face and everything else.
Balancing the two took a single test exposure--I think I shot a total of six.
Of course the main flash is triggered by my Cactus V2s and is in turn triggering the slave.
Now I have the fun task of reminding commenters on various sites that modern wizards don't wear cloaks; only posers do.
New Gear
Two weeks ago this new Sunpak 383 flash arrived from B&H PhotoVideo. Full-manual operation is the way to go.
The next day I got the radio flash triggers from Gadget Infinity in Hong Kong. Transmitter is on my camera's hotshoe, receiver's hotshoe is attached to the 383.
Now I can put my flash pretty much anywhere (within reason) and fire it remotely with no wires to carry and plug-in and trip over and repair. Shutter synch speed is 1/400 using the triggers and 1/1000 when connected directly to the camera.
Camera (+transmitter) clamped to my new (used) bike. I can move fast and light but carry a lot of power and options now.
My new camera backpack and a lightweight spare POS tripod holding flash & receiver. Tripod bungees to the bike's frame.
An example of why getting the flash off of the camera is good. Sunlight from the left/rear balanced with flash from the right/front.
Sure doesn't look like a typical snapshot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
