 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / February 2007Macro shots with Norman Power Pack, D50 Nikon
These were all under one light which was fairly overwhelming for the situation. Next time I need to set the ISO to something lower but this show how the D50 handles ISO 1600. The raw files went through Lightroom, then were Photoshopped with some sharpening, auto level, auto color, and auto contrast (though not in that order). Flash synced through a Wein voltage converter, shutter speed 1/500, f/ stops various, f/18 to 32. The first shot is a reduction of the full frame that the shot of the screw reflecting the lever knob was taken from. I think the better choice is going to be to make a diffuser for the Sunpack flash as the Norman lights even reduced are overkill for macro shots. I had to back the light stand off a bit not to utterly wash shots out. http://pics.livejournal.com/mouseworks/tags/Norman+Power+Pack/ > These were all under one light which was fairly overwhelming for the > situation. Next time I need to set the ISO to something lower but this > show how the D50 handles ISO 1600. Way noisy. Of course you coulda/shoulda set the ISO to 100 or so.  SignatureJohn McWilliams > > These were all under one light which was fairly overwhelming for the > > situation. Next time I need to set the ISO to something lower but this > > show how the D50 handles ISO 1600. > > Way noisy. Of course you coulda/shoulda set the ISO to 100 or so. Yes, I suspect I'll be doing that in the future. Rebecca Ore schrieb: >>> These were all under one light which was fairly overwhelming for the >>> situation. Next time I need to set the ISO to something lower but this >>> show how the D50 handles ISO 1600. >> Way noisy. Of course you coulda/shoulda set the ISO to 100 or so. > > Yes, I suspect I'll be doing that in the future. D50 can handle ISO 200 to 1600. So 100 is not possible > Rebecca Ore schrieb: > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > D50 can handle ISO 200 to 1600. > So 100 is not possible I've added another shot taken with the on-camera flash and ISO 200. Went down in the menus and turned off Auto-ISO, which I'll remember to do next time I play with the off-camera flash. http://pics.livejournal.com/mouseworks/pic/000c4rr8/g52 and click down for the full 100 % crop. I like the light to the side better than what the on-camera flash gives, but I think the surface of the Leica (matt chrome) is causing some spectral colors. And I see a dust bunny that I didn't clone out. >> Rebecca Ore schrieb: >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > gives, but I think the surface of the Leica (matt chrome) is causing > some spectral colors. And I see a dust bunny that I didn't clone out. It's hard to care about the dust bunny with that huge, blaring highlight from the flash. Looks like a glob of white paint... Next time, how about a tripod, and more gentle, diffused light/slow shutter next time? SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > >> Rebecca Ore schrieb: > >>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Next time, how about a tripod, and more gentle, diffused light/slow shutter > next time? Most of what I like shooting closeups and macros of won't stand still while I set up a tripod. The on-camera flash *is* harsh, but I think I'd get better results with a diffuser on the Sunpak out from the camera (that's why I asked Rita about her/his set up). And I can lower the power on the Sunpak in steps to 1/12 power. I could probably set up in the living room for a daylight shot, but I don't have a focusing rail so I can't guarantee one-to-one and it will have to be tomorrow because the house lights are all weirdly mixed. I've been debating getting a focusing rail. Most of what I've tried in closeup and macro has come from John Shaw's older books from the 70s and 80s. >>>> Rebecca Ore schrieb: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Most of what I like shooting closeups and macros of won't stand still > while I set up a tripod. Do your camera subjects have legs or something?? :) >The on-camera flash *is* harsh, but I think > I'd get better results with a diffuser on the Sunpak out from the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > have to be tomorrow because the house lights are all weirdly mixed. > I've been debating getting a focusing rail. Just set up the tripod next to a table...set a custom white balance...and then it won't matter what funky lighting you've got indoors. I use a focussing rail, which does help a lot, but I wouldn't think a still shot of a camera part would be all that difficult... -You could even set the camera on something smooth, and move IT a bit, rather than your camera. > the camera on a movable something or other, and > > Most of what I've tried in closeup and macro has come from John Shaw's > older books from the 70s and 80s. It was John Shaw that helped get me into photography years ago...with his books on various photo basics, and other more specific stuff. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > >>>> Rebecca Ore schrieb: > >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Do your camera subjects have legs or something?? > :) My favorite subjects have fins, but I'm not keeping fish anymore. The current favorite subjects have six to eight or more legs. > >The on-camera flash *is* harsh, but I think > > I'd get better results with a diffuser on the Sunpak out from the > > camera (that's why I asked Rita about her/his set up). And I can > > lower the power on the Sunpak in steps to 1/12 power. Saw your set-up in the other post. I think I prefer one spot for the critters, and that rig looks a bit cumbersome. > > I could probably set up in the living room for a daylight shot, but I > > don't have a focusing rail so I can't guarantee one-to-one and it will [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > a camera part would be all that difficult... -You could even set the camera > on something smooth, and move IT a bit, rather than your camera. I spent time playing with film, so I'm done for the night (two 35 mm rolls and one medium format roll developed in Diafine). They're drying as we speak. I've got a tripod -- I'll try it that way next really free day I get (school work to do tomorrow and promotional material for my publisher by the 14th). > > the camera on a movable something or other, and > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It was John Shaw that helped get me into photography years ago...with his > books on various photo basics, and other more specific stuff. I have two of his books. My first foray into photography with a SLR was in 1966. I've been an off and on amateur and once upon a time quarter time PJ (for a little less than a year and the rest of the job was reporting) photographer, and am rather not interested in getting too intense about it because I know how intense I can get with things like this. >>>>>> Rebecca Ore schrieb: >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > getting too intense about it because I know how intense I can get > with things like this. Ya, if you can get that intense over "crop factor" I can only imagine what you'd do with an issue that actually mattered... :) SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > Ya, if you can get that intense over "crop factor" I can only imagine what > you'd do with an issue that actually mattered... :) <tries to look put out while laughing> I tend to feel that the digital folks sometimes believe there has been no other photography before them, much less in parallel with them. >> Ya, if you can get that intense over "crop factor" I can only >> imagine what you'd do with an issue that actually mattered... :) > > <tries to look put out while laughing> I tend to feel that the > digital folks sometimes believe there has been no other photography > before them, much less in parallel with them. I think it will help if you try to stop thinking in terms of a single "digital folks" category. Just as is/was true with film users, you have digital users that range anywhere from total ignoramus types...to VERY knowledgable folk using DSLRs (and even a very few without them). If you can try to create these sub-categories in your mind, you'll discover there is a lot worth talking about...and even a lot of folks worth listening to. :) SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > >> Ya, if you can get that intense over "crop factor" I can only > >> imagine what you'd do with an issue that actually mattered... :) [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > is a lot worth talking about...and even a lot of folks worth listening to. > :) Okay, some digital folks. Thing is that some of the problems had been the same in large and medium format, but it looks like the "crop" concept is infiltrating there. :) > In article <qkdxh.20543$u92.6...@newsfe16.phx>, > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > :) Rebecca, 1) When shooting shiny objects, use a diffuser on your strobe. This will flatten out your lighting and make for a much more pleasing picture. ROSCO makes a lot of diffusion material so you don't have to buy something Norman. There are some tents made for macro photography too. I always likes the Balcar Igloo. The rule of thumb in studio photography is that the light source should be twice the size of the subject to get even illumination. Flash bare bulbs are considered point sources. 2) If you are shooting little critters with macro with flash and not going above 1:1 mag you can handhold as the flash exposure is generally 1/300 (studio flash) of a second or faster, some small flashes have a speed of 1/5000 of a second. 3) Auto exposure only works whan the flash is auto compatible with the camera, the Norman should be used on manual to get the propper exposure. Tom > Rebecca, > 1) When shooting shiny objects, use a diffuser on your strobe. This [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > subject to get even illumination. Flash bare bulbs are considered > point sources. I had a 36 inch Photek Softlighter, strobe pointed back at the umbrella and bounced through the diffuser, so it was quite a bit larger than the Leica. The power pack was set at 200 w/s. I had to back the Softlighter off to about three or four feet away from the camera before I wasn't completely glared out. The power pack was a bit light for large format, but it's rather overkill, even diffused, for macro. Perhaps if I'd set the ISO lower. I was curious to see if it would work on manual with the D50 as one place told me the old Norman power packs weren't compatible with digital. A B&H salesman said the Norman lights would be fine for anything. The other guy had been pushing Comets. The lights are a bitch to rig and a bitch to put up, so I don't run them that much. I should buy some cheap sheets and just leave them up all the time in the basement. The Sunpak is a bit more adjustable and not quite the intensity, I just need a better diffuser for it -- make it or buy it. I had a Metz handle flash earlier, but sold it. > 2) If you are shooting little critters with macro with flash and not > going above 1:1 mag you can handhold as the flash exposure is > generally 1/300 (studio flash) of a second or faster, some small > flashes have a speed of 1/5000 of a second. I was handholding. I haven't tested the heads against the flash meter to see at what point the meter would want me to open the lens. > 3) Auto exposure only works whan the flash is auto compatible with the > camera, the Norman should be used on manual to get the propper > exposure. I've got a flash meter, but I didn't bother with it since I had the camera speed as fast as it would synch and the lens as stopped down as I could without getting some diffusion effects. I chimped and backed the lights off as far as I could in the space. You didn't see the shots where the Leica was practically white. :). The power pack I have only has 800 w/s to one head, or 200 w/s per head whether you have one or four heads hooked up. The power pack really is overkill for macro without maybe a couple more layers of diffuser over the umbrella. I'd been thinking about selling the power pack and strobes, but I don't know what they'd be worth these days and I don't think I could justify getting them again. >> Ya, if you can get that intense over "crop factor" I can only imagine what >> you'd do with an issue that actually mattered... :) > > <tries to look put out while laughing> I tend to feel that the digital > folks sometimes believe there has been no other photography before them, > much less in parallel with them. Oh dear, there you go again, "them". Signaturejohn mcwilliams > >> Ya, if you can get that intense over "crop factor" I can only imagine what > >> you'd do with an issue that actually mattered... :) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Oh dear, there you go again, "them". I qualified it, didn't I? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.