Want to buy a new digital camera to replace my Nikon 5700,..

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Dave commented courteously...

> Try this to eliminate as many variables as possible.
>
> Put the camera in manual mode, center weighted
metering
> and STANDARD *NOT MATRIX* TTL.Set your shutter speed
> to around 1/125 and F stop as desired taking into
> consideration subject distance and flash range.
> See if that doesn't get you close. My experience
> with the earlier SB80DX is that you probably will
> have to dial in about +1 stop of compensation on
> the flash (NOT ON THE CAMERA) for best results.

Dave, I tried this already. First with my 5700 and
Sunpak 433D and again more recently with the 8800 and
SB-800. I tried Programmed Auto, Aperture Priority (to
play with DOF), and Manual. And, I tried TTL, Auto, and
Manual on the flash.

No combination of flash and camera settings would do the
job most of the time (>70% were badly underexposed). I
know that sounds impossible, but I have the images on my
HD to prove it, with carefully documented shooting notes
to augment what is in EXIF.

Still, to stay on point, I've given up on the 5700 and
already taken the 8800 back. What I'm looking for right
now is what I should try /next/.

> Nikon (my area of experience) wants to try to do
> balanced fill flash most of the time. You have to
> almost beat them to death to get plain old TTL flash.

That's putting it mildly, Dave! My less complimentary
term would be "incompetant engineering". I can't
understand why all that money and brain power would
require you or I to "beat them to death" - it should
just plain work - 99 44/100% of the time.

> I'm interpreting here from my SB80 experience which
> is that standard TTL is set on the flash by making
> sure that only TTL shows not TTL with the little
matrix
> symbol. With the matrix thing showing you're going to
> get auto balanced fill flash.

Thank you. Tried this also, and tried Matrix, Center
Weighted and Spot in the 8800. No effect whatsoever that
I could detect while shooting 4 different times in the
Walter P. Chrysler Museum.

> I have not used the 8800, but from all I've read
> in the Nikon groups I frequent, it works just fine
> as does the SB800. The SB800 gets rave reviews by
most.

I read the same rave reviews in dpreview and other
places, hence my purchase decision. Yet, /no one/
commenting /anyplace/ I've read has direct real-world
car museum experience, so they in effect don't speak
with authority to me.

> By the way, the only info I could find on the Sunpak
> 433D indicated it was dedicated for Minolta cameras.
> There are 433AF units dedicated for Nikon, Canon and
> others, but all I found on the 433D was Minolta.

No. The 433D is specifically designed for the 5700 TTL
system and has the 3 extra hot shoe contacts. It
wouldn't work on the 8800 because of its new tech iTTL
system.
>
> I also am of the opinion that the store manager either
> has an ax to grind with Nikon or is getting a better
> profit margin from Canon or someone else. Canon and
> Nikon are both very capable systems and either the
> Canon Rebel or Nikon D70 would suit your needs.

I can see why you'd suspect the camera dude, but iffn he
had an ax to grind, why would he let me shoot 500+ pics
on the 8800 and still cheerfully give me my money back?
Yeah, he'd like to sell a Rebel XT but he's also got
Minolta, Fuji, and others, yet still says the Canon is
best for his understanind of my flash needs.

But, to be sure there's no bias towards Canon, I posted
this message. I don't want to buy from a "bigot-
anything", although you can imagine I'm pretty soured by
two really back Nikon buys.

> All that being said, from what you've said in your
previous
> posts, I'd give the 8800 another try. Specs seem to
meet
> all you requirements.

Specs don't mean anything if the camera can't perform in
real picture taking situations. And, no, there's no
second chance for the 8800. I had it over a week and I'm
convinced I did everything possible to make it work,
including some excellent advice I got on this NG the
last time I posted.

> Once you solve the flash exposure thing it should be
> perfect for you. (I know solving the flash thing is
you
> major concern, but I believe that it's more operator
> error/confusion than camera/flash problems. Just MHO.)

Dave, I've /never/ dismissed operator error! And,
solving flash /is/ a major concern. I'll stay with my
minimally reasonable 5700 until I can find something
which is demonstrably better.

So, again, can /anyone/ tell me what to look at next,
and /please/ stop playing "Monday morning QB" on what I
shoulda/coulda done?

Thank you, all.

--
ATM, aka Jerry

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

All Things Mopar wrote:
[]
> For brevity I didn't mention my year-2000 FujiFilm 4900,
> which did an outstanding job being it only had a small
> built-in speedlight. I also tested my wife's Kodak 6330
> ($150) and my daughter's Kokak 7000 ($200) - each
> performed flawlessly in the same museum shoots that both
> my Nikon 5700 and the 8800 failed so miserably at
> (within their flash range, of course).

Is it at all possible that the Fuji and Koday cameras had a longer shutter
opening time, so that areas which were not lit by the flash appeared
brighter, because the natural illumination had chance to register more
photons? Perhaps these cameras had the equivalent of what the 5700 calls
"slow flash" (IIRC)? I know that sometime with the 5700 I would
deliberately set slow flash to capture both a sharp flash picture together
with some natural lighting or movement - exposures could be quite slow
under those circumstances (say 1/10..1/2 second).

Cheers,
David

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J Taylor commented courteously...

> Is it at all possible that the Fuji and Kodak
> cameras had a longer shutter opening time, so
> that areas which were not lit by the flash
> appeared brighter, because the natural illumination
> had chance to register more photons?

No, David, these little P&S cameras are /not/ using long
shutter speeds. Puleeze! These aren't sophisticated
machines, I just mentioned them to make my point that
good flash /is/ possible with even a cheap camera, so
why not an expensive one?

And, backgrounds are lit by whatever light there is, it
makes no difference whatsoever what the camera is used.
I shot these test shots one-after-the-other in identical
situations.

> Perhaps these cameras had the equivalent of what
> the 5700 calls "slow flash" (IIRC)? I know that
> sometime with the 5700 I would deliberately set slow
> flash to capture both a sharp flash picture together
> with some natural lighting or movement - exposures
> could be quite slow under those circumstances
> (say 1/10..1/2 second).

No. You're doing it again, I'm afraid. Do you really
think I'd not notice a 1/10 second shutter? Puleeze,
again! I may not be the sharpest tool in the box, but
I'm also not an idiot.

--
ATM, aka Jerry

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Sorry, I can't answer on experience with car museum photography

I can say that with my 3 Olys - C750, C5050, and new C8080 -- I have had no
underexposures with the use of their built in flashes on a variety of indoor
shots, but without trying them in your environment I have no idea if the
camera would work for you. I have an exteranl flash for the Olys coming to
try some more fill/bounce techniques for indoors just to learn

Although I'm buying a Canon 20D by September, I recently picked up a C8080
at $500 and it is so far a great camera for it's niche

I moving to dSLRs for variety of reason hand held, lowlight, IS lenses to do
some tough indoors w/o flash is one use. There are time flashes are not cool

I'll be retiring from the military in a few years and want to get better
with a variety of photographic skill, to perhaps supplemental my retirement
with some income generated by various photography projects, if no income is
realized, it's a fun hobby anyway


"All Things Mopar" <noneofyour@busi.ness> wrote in message
news:Xns966C67EEFA1FFReplyToken@216.196.97.131...
> Steven Toney commented courteously...
>
>> You can also get very nice IS (image stabilized)
>> lens that give you more stops (latitude) for hand
>> held low light that complements the ability to use
>> fast lenses and higher ISOs with reasonably low noise
>
> Thanks, Steven.
>
> Please stick to my question: what camera/lens/flash
> combo(s) should I be looking at given that I /want/ to
> shoot flash?
>
> I know I can shoot high ISO at low shutter speeds with
> an IS lens, preferably with a tripod, I just don't want
> to! When I go to a museum, I'm looking to take several
> hundred "documentary" pictures in a few hours. I don't
> have time for a tripod. And, if the place is at all
> busy, setting up a tripod is problematical; in fact, the
> curator may balk since it disrupts his museum for the
> other visitors.
>
>> I wonder if you could rent some DSLR combo to test
>
> Possibly. I'm hoping to home in on a "better mouse
> trap" and take advantage of my local store's liberal
> trial buy. The problem I'm having with this thread is
> that everyone is telling my I can't do what I want to do
> for this, that, and the other reason.
>
> What I would really like to hear is "given that you
> understand the limitations of flash, here's the
> cameras/lenses/flashes you should look at". Then, I
> could read the reviews on dpreview.com and go to my
> local store to see how the various cameras "feel", get
> an idea on total price, etc.
>
> Can you help me in my quest? Thanks again.
>
> --
> ATM, aka Jerry

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

All Things Mopar <noneofyour@busi.ness> writes:
> So, please stay and home and play with your toys. I was
> educated as an engineer, not a theoretical
> mathematician, so I've lived the life of a pragmatist. I
> simply don't care what the "best" method of taking
> pictures is, I only want a better camera/flash. And, I
> never claimed to be any kinda great photographer. I
> /only/ want to buy something that is /reliable/.

It could simply be that if you want results like professionals
produce, you're going to have to get them using the same methods and
equipment that professionals use. If professionals take photos like
that with tripod-mounted cameras firing studio flashes on stands with
exposures set using incident flashmeters, instead of using handheld
cameras with on-camera flashes and automatic metering, then maybe
you'll have to do the same.

 

[user]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

All Things Mopar wrote:
> Dave commented courteously...
>
>
>>Try this to eliminate as many variables as possible.
>>
>>Put the camera in manual mode, center weighted
>
> metering
>
>>and STANDARD *NOT MATRIX* TTL.Set your shutter speed
>>to around 1/125 and F stop as desired taking into
>>consideration subject distance and flash range.
>>See if that doesn't get you close. My experience
>>with the earlier SB80DX is that you probably will
>>have to dial in about +1 stop of compensation on
>>the flash (NOT ON THE CAMERA) for best results.
>
>
> Dave, I tried this already. First with my 5700 and
> Sunpak 433D and again more recently with the 8800 and
> SB-800. I tried Programmed Auto, Aperture Priority (to
> play with DOF), and Manual. And, I tried TTL, Auto, and
> Manual on the flash.
>
> No combination of flash and camera settings would do the
> job most of the time (>70% were badly underexposed). I
> know that sounds impossible, but I have the images on my
> HD to prove it, with carefully documented shooting notes
> to augment what is in EXIF.
>
> Still, to stay on point, I've given up on the 5700 and
> already taken the 8800 back. What I'm looking for right
> now is what I should try /next/.
>
>
>>Nikon (my area of experience) wants to try to do
>>balanced fill flash most of the time. You have to
>>almost beat them to death to get plain old TTL flash.
>
>
> That's putting it mildly, Dave! My less complimentary
> term would be "incompetant engineering". I can't
> understand why all that money and brain power would
> require you or I to "beat them to death" - it should
> just plain work - 99 44/100% of the time.
>
>
>>I'm interpreting here from my SB80 experience which
>>is that standard TTL is set on the flash by making
>>sure that only TTL shows not TTL with the little
>
> matrix
>
>>symbol. With the matrix thing showing you're going to
>>get auto balanced fill flash.
>
>
> Thank you. Tried this also, and tried Matrix, Center
> Weighted and Spot in the 8800. No effect whatsoever that
> I could detect while shooting 4 different times in the
> Walter P. Chrysler Museum.
>
>
>>I have not used the 8800, but from all I've read
>>in the Nikon groups I frequent, it works just fine
>>as does the SB800. The SB800 gets rave reviews by
>
> most.
>
> I read the same rave reviews in dpreview and other
> places, hence my purchase decision. Yet, /no one/
> commenting /anyplace/ I've read has direct real-world
> car museum experience, so they in effect don't speak
> with authority to me.
>
>
>>By the way, the only info I could find on the Sunpak
>>433D indicated it was dedicated for Minolta cameras.
>>There are 433AF units dedicated for Nikon, Canon and
>>others, but all I found on the 433D was Minolta.
>
>
> No. The 433D is specifically designed for the 5700 TTL
> system and has the 3 extra hot shoe contacts. It
> wouldn't work on the 8800 because of its new tech iTTL
> system.
>
>>I also am of the opinion that the store manager either
>>has an ax to grind with Nikon or is getting a better
>>profit margin from Canon or someone else. Canon and
>>Nikon are both very capable systems and either the
>>Canon Rebel or Nikon D70 would suit your needs.
>
>
> I can see why you'd suspect the camera dude, but iffn he
> had an ax to grind, why would he let me shoot 500+ pics
> on the 8800 and still cheerfully give me my money back?
> Yeah, he'd like to sell a Rebel XT but he's also got
> Minolta, Fuji, and others, yet still says the Canon is
> best for his understanind of my flash needs.
>
> But, to be sure there's no bias towards Canon, I posted
> this message. I don't want to buy from a "bigot-
> anything", although you can imagine I'm pretty soured by
> two really back Nikon buys.
>
>
>>All that being said, from what you've said in your
>
> previous
>
>>posts, I'd give the 8800 another try. Specs seem to
>
> meet
>
>>all you requirements.
>
>
> Specs don't mean anything if the camera can't perform in
> real picture taking situations. And, no, there's no
> second chance for the 8800. I had it over a week and I'm
> convinced I did everything possible to make it work,
> including some excellent advice I got on this NG the
> last time I posted.
>
>
>>Once you solve the flash exposure thing it should be
>>perfect for you. (I know solving the flash thing is
>
> you
>
>>major concern, but I believe that it's more operator
>>error/confusion than camera/flash problems. Just MHO.)
>
>
> Dave, I've /never/ dismissed operator error! And,
> solving flash /is/ a major concern. I'll stay with my
> minimally reasonable 5700 until I can find something
> which is demonstrably better.
>
> So, again, can /anyone/ tell me what to look at next,
> and /please/ stop playing "Monday morning QB" on what I
> shoulda/coulda done?
>
> Thank you, all.
>
Jerry,

One last thing to try. Put your flash on auto (camera on manual) and see
if that works. Should eliminate the cameras from the issue or point
directly at them. This assumes the 433D does auto flash. i.e. uses the
sensor on the flash unit itself.

You could also try getting Thom Hogan's excellent Nikon Flash Manual at:
http/www.bythom.com/
Much better written than any camera/flash manuals I've ever read.

He also responds to E-Mail questions if needed.

Hope this all works out for you.

Best,
Dave

PS - I'm quite happy with my Nikon D100 with the SB80DX flash once I
read the Hogan manual and got rid of all the manual confusion.

D

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"All Things Mopar" <noneofyour@busi.ness> wrote in message
news:Xns966C7059A4EA8ReplyToken@216.196.97.131...
> Skip M commented courteously...
>
>> Lumiquest makes a couple of flash "bouncers,"
>> the MiniBounce and the PocketBounce. These allow
>> you to bounce flash when not in an environment that
>> would normally allow it, like outdoors or with tall
>> ceilings.
>
> That's very interesting, I'll investigate. In the meantime, what
> do these "bounce" flash aids bounce off if there's nothing above
> the scene? Museumes are bad enough, but outdoors?

A diffusing panel. Bounce flash is not as harsh ... looks more natural and
reduces the shadows.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

All Things Mopar wrote:
[]
> No. You're doing it again, I'm afraid. Do you really
> think I'd not notice a 1/10 second shutter? Puleeze,
> again! I may not be the sharpest tool in the box, but
> I'm also not an idiot.

OK, Jerry - I was simply trying to see what it might have been about the
Fuji and Kodak cameras that allowed them to produce successful pictures
when others did not. It seems to go against reason that better kit
produces worse pictures, everything else being equal.

I appreciate your frustration with this.

Cheers,
David

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

All Things Mopar <noneofyour@busi.ness> writes:
> Many of you are aware of the problems I've had getting
> well-exposed, consistent exposed pictures when using
> flash on my Nikon Coolpix 5700 with Sunpak's excellent
> 433D external when shooting cars in dark museum
> settings. A few weeks ago, I bought a Nikon 8800 with
> Nikon's SB-800 external, but results were even worse,
> despite my best efforts, help from the camera store and
> help on this NG. So, I returned it for a charge credit.
>
> In a nutshell, I have no problems whatsoever in
> daylight, but when I shoot car pictures in museums,
> results vary considerably. About 1/3 are OK, another 1/3
> are underexposed by 2 f/stops, while the rest are under
> by 5-6 stops. I really don't want to get into another
> long discussion about why I'm shooting flash and not
> available light on a tripod, suffice that I want to.

Hmmm.. I've used noth Nikon's and Canon's dedicated
flash systems - and in my opinion, this is an area
where Nikon's technology is better than Canon's.

Still - TTL flash photography is difficult, and both
Canon's E-TTL and Nikon's iTTL bodge a shot sometimes.

I've no explanation for the bad results you're getting.
Some bad results can be expected if you run on fully
auto, but 1/3 of the shots underexposed by 5-6 stops
are unheard off.

Shooting cars in a dark museum is a difficult assigment.
I assume the museum too large for bounce flash to
work. A single, on-camera flash and shooting something
as big as a car will give you ugly light whatever you do,
but the exposure should be right.

However, getting the exposure right shouldn't be a problem.
Just make a test shot, look at the histogram, and dial
in the required compensation for the actual shot. That
should sove the exposure problems you mention. I assume
the cars are stationary, so you have time for tests.

> I've long been enamored with EVF cameras because I could
> see instantly if I did or did not get a decent exposure.
> But, I'm being lobbied by the camera store and by others
> that I'll /never/ get good flash with /any/ Nikon EVF
> because their underlying flash exposure systems just
> aren't up to the task. Maybe this is bunk or maybe
> somebody's DSLR really is the best camera for me.

Yeah, that's a loot of bunk. Nikon's iTTL is the best
dedicated flash system there is (IMHO). I think you
need to work on your technique.

If I were shooting cars in a dark museum, and had to
use battery operated flash guns, I would bring at
least 5 or 6 strobes, as well as modifiers such as
umbrelleas or soft boxes. This is what you really
need to get a evenly lit shot of an object as large
as a car inside a huge, large room.

Replacing the camera - but sticking to a single, camera
mounted flash - is not going to solve your lighting
problems on this assignment.
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http/folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gisle Hannemyr commented courteously...

> Hmmm.. I've used noth Nikon's and Canon's
> dedicated flash systems - and in my opinion,
> this is an area where Nikon's technology is better
> than Canon's.

Hi, Gisle! Couldn't prove the above by my experience!
<grin> Still, I have /no/ flash problems with my 5700 in
"normal" environments, such as my home or local church,
where there are low ceiling and walls, even when
shooting with the flash straight ahead. It's /only/ a
problem in museums. My too fav ones are the Walter P.
Chrysler in Auburn Hills, Michigan, and The Henry Ford
Museum in Dearborn, Michigan.

I have the really bad images to "prove it" from both
places. And, to avoid you're having to read all the
replies-to-replies-to-replies, I've tried Programmed
Auto and full Manual on my current Nikon 5700 and the
8800 I had for a week. And, I've ran my Sunpak 433D on
manual (with the 5700 on manual, of course), plus I ran
the Nikon SB-800 on all of its modes, to no real
advantage.

> Still - TTL flash photography is difficult, and
> both Canon's E-TTL and Nikon's iTTL bodge a shot
> sometimes.

Given the obvious challenges of a dark museum, I'd
expect maybe 10-15% to need something at the
camera/flash end, such as a change in EV, but haven't
been able to find a good solution.

I discovered only recently that upping the ISO on my
5700 from 100 to 200 or 400 produces /much/ better flash
pictures, albeit with significantly more noise. I need
to do some more work to see if turning the camera's NR
feature on works. Or, if I clean up the noise with PSP
9's DCNR.
>
> I've no explanation for the bad results you're
> getting. Some bad results can be expected if you run
> on fully auto, but 1/3 of the shots underexposed by
> 5-6 stops are unheard off.

Unheard of for me, too, on my first digital, a FujiFilm
4900 4MP I bought in January, 2001. For its day, the
Fuji was a fine camera, with very low noise, good
sharpness, and reasonable color balance.

I didn't encounter this unusual "1/3 are bad" problem
until I bought the Nikon 5700 last July. I even sent it
back to Nikon service thinking it was broke. Then, when
I evaluated the 8800 for a week and 500+ museum shots -
over 60% were severely underexposed, I just gave up.

I'd posted a "cry for help" here on this NG while I was
testing the 8800 and got some good ideas, none of which
worked well enough for me to keep the camera. I only had
10 days for the eval, and the store manager wanted me to
keep the total number of shots taken to around 500.
Naturally, the camera store manager was motivated to
help me to avoid a return-for-credit. But, he couldn't
explain it, either, so he gave me my money back.

I'd thought I'd researched the 8800 and SB-800 enough to
have made an intelligent buying choice based on Nikon's
new iTTL technology, so it pained me badly to have to
return it. /Everything/ about the 8800 was better than
the equivalent feature on my 5700, principally better
sharpness and noticeably less noise.

But, iffn I can't get good flash, the $1,400 800/SB-800
is useless to me.

> Shooting cars in a dark museum is a difficult
> assigment. I assume the museum too large for bounce
> flash to work.

Yes, both the WPC and HF museums have very high ceilings
- over 12', and there's no walls to bounce the flash
off.

> A single, on-camera flash and shooting something as
big
> as a car will give you ugly light whatever you do,
> but the exposure should be right.

Yes, you're right. I can deal with the uneven lighting
across the length of the car in PSP 9 and can even fix
the deep underexposures, albeit with quite a bit of
work. I just want better exposures first time through
and less post-processing work.

(my calculator says that the rear of an 18' car should
be about 2 stops under compared to the fender if
shooting at a 30-45 degree angle).

> However, getting the exposure right shouldn't be a
> problem. Just make a test shot, look at the histogram,
> and dial in the required compensation for the actual
> shot.

About the only thing I didn't try was a histogram
adjustment. I tried every other photometric parameter
available on the flash and 8800. I certainly had enough
time, and I took good notes to inspect the images once I
got home. But, I never discovered a combination of
settings that would get me to the 85-90% range for
exposure +/- 1 stop or two that I desire.

> Yeah, that's a loot of bunk. Nikon's iTTL is the
> best dedicated flash system there is (IMHO).
> I think you need to work on your technique.

I commented on that to other poster. Again, I sought
help on this NG, implemented what people suggested, and
went back to the store 3 times. Everyone's advice was
sound but I couldn't make it work for me. As I said
earlier, I have /never/ dismissed "operator error", but
couldn't lock onto solution(s) that I could readily use
in the field.
>
> If I were shooting cars in a dark museum, and
> had to use battery operated flash guns, I would bring
> at least 5 or 6 strobes, as well as modifiers such as
> umbrelleas or soft boxes. This is what you really
> need to get a evenly lit shot of an object as large
> as a car inside a huge, large room.

What you say is exactly right, if you're a pro and have
plenty of money and plenty of time. But, again, my
complaint /wasn't/ uneven lighting or flash glare, it
was (and still is with the 5700) severe underexposures
way too much of the time.

> Replacing the camera - but sticking to a single,
> camera mounted flash - is not going to solve your
> lighting problems on this assignment.

Your experience is superior to mine, but I can't accept
it completely since my crummy old Fuji worked so well.
Even my wife's Kodak $150 6330 worked well at the WPC
side-by-side with the 5700 and 8800 (so long as I stayed
under its 10' flash range).

Frankly, I have no explanation for any of this. I don't
now nor have ever expected anything approaching
"perfection" for a camera-mounted strobe, but I /do/
have an expectation for at least /reasonable/ exposures.

Meanwhile, my investigation continues. Thanks for your
insights.

--
ATM, aka Jerry

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> writes:
> Lumiquest makes a couple of flash "bouncers," the MiniBounce and the
> PocketBounce. These allow you to bounce flash when not in an
> environment that would normally allow it, like outdoors or with tall
> ceilings.

That is unfortunately not the case.

The LumiQuest devices only spread the light. This works fine in
an environment with a light walls and ceilings, which then will
reflect the light spread by LumiQuest back on the scene. But
with no reflective surfaces, the light spread by the LumiQuest is
just wasted. Outdoors, for intstance, it is useless.

These diffusers doesn't magically turn the strobe from a point light
source to an area light source. Modifiers that actually has area,
such a soft boxes and umbrelleas, will do that.
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http/folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Gisle Hannemyr" <gisle+news@ifi.uio.no> wrote in message
news:q5hdgc9tk0.fsf@viisi.ifi.uio.no...
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> writes:
>> Lumiquest makes a couple of flash "bouncers," the MiniBounce and the
>> PocketBounce. These allow you to bounce flash when not in an
>> environment that would normally allow it, like outdoors or with tall
>> ceilings.
>
> That is unfortunately not the case.
>
> The LumiQuest devices only spread the light. This works fine in
> an environment with a light walls and ceilings, which then will
> reflect the light spread by LumiQuest back on the scene. But
> with no reflective surfaces, the light spread by the LumiQuest is
> just wasted. Outdoors, for intstance, it is useless.
>
> These diffusers doesn't magically turn the strobe from a point light
> source to an area light source. Modifiers that actually has area,
> such a soft boxes and umbrelleas, will do that.
> --
> - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http/folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gisle, it is not wasted any more than any other light source. It is just
more diffuse, that is all. True, they are not as diffuse as an umbrella,
but far more practical for putting on a shoe mounted flash. And
considerably softer than a direct source.

--
Skip Middleton
http/www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gisle Hannemyr commented courteously...

> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> writes:
>> Lumiquest makes a couple of flash "bouncers,"
>> the MiniBounce and the PocketBounce. These allow
>> you to bounce flash when not in an environment that
>> would normally allow it, like outdoors or with tall
>> ceilings.
>
> That is unfortunately not the case.
>
> The LumiQuest devices only spread the light. This
> works fine in an environment with a light walls and
> ceilings, which then will reflect the light spread
> by LumiQuest back on the scene. But with no
> reflective surfaces, the light spread by the LumiQuest
> is just wasted. Outdoors, for intstance, it is
> useless.

Well, at least my early-onset Alzheimer's isn't too bad
yet! <grin> I Googled for "lumiquest" and looked at a
number of sources of info. I was befuddled by the claims
of bounce working when there was nothing to bounce the
light off, so I gave up.

--
ATM, aka Jerry

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

All Things Mopar <noneofyour@busi.ness> writes:
> > The LumiQuest devices only spread the light. This works fine in
> > an environment with a light walls and ceilings, which then will
> > reflect the light spread by LumiQuest back on the scene. But with
> > no reflective surfaces, the light spread by the LumiQuest is just
> > wasted. Outdoors, for intstance, it is useless.
>
> Well, at least my early-onset Alzheimer's isn't too bad yet! <grin>
> I Googled for "lumiquest" and looked at a number of sources of
> info. I was befuddled by the claims of bounce working when there was
> nothing to bounce the light off, so I gave up.

The Lumiquest pocket bouncer is a small umbrella-like thing about 8
inches across. This is enough to get some diffusion for small
subjects (say a portrait) even outdoors. The usual wisdom about
softboxes is to use one about the same size as the subject you're
shooting, which means an enormous one (or several merely large ones
with multiple strobes) if you're shooting a car. For a shot of
someone's face, the Lumiquest is enough to make a big improvement over
direct flash.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Rubin commented courteously...

> The Lumiquest pocket bouncer is a small umbrella-like
> thing about 8 inches across. This is enough to get
> some diffusion for small subjects (say a portrait)
even
> outdoors. The usual wisdom about softboxes is to use
> one about the same size as the subject you're
shooting,
> which means an enormous one (or several merely large
ones
> with multiple strobes) if you're shooting a car.
> For a shot of someone's face, the Lumiquest is enough
> to make a big improvement over direct flash.

Thanks for the quick clarification! I can easily see the
use of an 8" umbrella for portaits but fail to see how
that would help an 18' car in a dank musuem...

And, once more, diffusion of light vs. flash glare is
/not/ one of my complaints. I understand why I get glare
with a straight-on blast of light, but I accept it for
"documentary" shooting. A pro attempting to get an
artistically pleasing, evenly lit car would not accept
this, and would take the steps you and others a have
suggested.

--
ATM, aka Jerry

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

All Things Mopar <noneofyour@busi.ness> writes:
> John, I agree that museums nor anyplace else are not
> good places to shoot with only one flash mounted atop
> the camera. But, at the risk of sounded like an ingrate
> for refusing your help and advice, the problem /still/
> is underexposure.

That a Nikon 8800 with an dedicated SB-800 flashgun in
auto iTTL mode should give you underexposure in 2/3 of
the images is unheard off.

I would say this is either a case of operator error, or
faulty equipment.

> I apologize again for perhaps being abrupt with you, I
> really don't mean to sound like a twit. It is just that
> I am /so/ frustrated in not being able to explain what I
> need/want without people giving me Photography 101
> lessons. I appreciate that, of course, but it doesn't do
> much for me if I can't get reliable exposures in the
> first place.

I appeciate your frustration, but there are too many people
out there that get excellent exposure with similar equipment
under similar circumstances. That is why I doubt that just
buying new gear will solve your problems.

Btw. did you try to use the SB-800 in "auto" mode (as opposed
to iTTL)? Auto is simpler, and in some situations it works
out better than iTTL.
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http/folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gisle Hannemyr commented courteously...

> I appeciate your frustration, but there are too many
> people out there that get excellent exposure with
> similar equipment under similar circumstances.
> That is why I doubt that just buying new gear will
> solve your problems.

I've not "talked" to anyone actually shooting cars, but
your general statement makes sense. See my other reply
to you about my possible operator error.
>
> Btw. did you try to use the SB-800 in "auto" mode (as
> opposed to iTTL)? Auto is simpler, and in some
> situations it works out better than iTTL.

Yes, I did. It was the camera store manager who first
suggested Auto rather than TTL. Results were sometimes
better, sometimes worse than TTL.

The only basic difference between under- and correct-
exposures seemed to be the amount of ambient light
available. That is, cars lit by the WPC museum's large
2-story windows were fine, but ones lit by only the dim
overhead spots were dismal. And, while light colored
cars were generally better than dark one, paint color
wasn't the only factor.

Back to operator error for a moment. What is so
difficult about pointing the camera at the car, making
sure the flash has recharged fully, verifying that all
the flash and camera settings are correct, then
expecting a "good" exposure "most" of the time?

To be as sure as I could be, I reset both the SB-800 and
the 8800 to factory defaults and reshot a series. Total
junk. From an operator error standpoint, what obvious
thing(s) am I missing here?

--
ATM, aka Jerry

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

All Things Mopar <noneofyour@busi.ness> writes:
> Back to operator error for a moment. What is so difficult about
> pointing the camera at the car, making sure the flash has recharged
> fully, verifying that all the flash and camera settings are correct,
> then expecting a "good" exposure "most" of the time?
> To be as sure as I could be, I reset both the SB-800 and the 8800 to
> factory defaults and reshot a series. Total junk. From an operator
> error standpoint, what obvious thing(s) am I missing here?

If some highlight on the car is confusing the flash sensor, you'll get
an underexposed shot. That has been explained to you several times
already. Try setting the exposure manually, either from a guide
number calculation, or by taking repeated test shots until you get to
an exposure that looks good on the LCD.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Rubin commented courteously...

> If some highlight on the car is confusing the flash
> sensor, you'll get an underexposed shot. That has
> been explained to you several times already.

Paul, I'm getting tired of your style comments on my
technique. Go back and re-read my posts in this thread,
as well as the ones I made while I had the 8800 two
weeks back, then tell me again why I'm all wet.

> Try setting the exposure manually, either from a guide
> number calculation, or by taking repeated test shots
> until you get to an exposure that looks good on the
LCD.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem or do you
just enjoy "taking me on"? I already discussed this -
several times, and I think I did it right.

If there's something bright on the car, e.g., the old-
fashioned wide WSW tires, that will definitely confuse
the flash, but flash glare shouldn't be that big a deal
normally. And, for the lurkers who may also be learning
impaired/can't read English, why is it that my old Fuji
4900 did just fine, as did my wife's little Kodak? Same
cars, same "confusing" glare.

I've used "manual" strobes for 35 years, and flash bulbs
before that, with a Konica SLR and a 1969 Nikon FTN SLR.
Never had a bit of trouble with flash in museums or auto
shows. It wasn't until the world became "automatic" did
the problems start, and even then I had 4+ good years
with my Fuji 4900.

Can't say the same "why don't you try manual?" works for
either the 5700/Sunpak 433D or the 8800/SB-800. Full
manual on the flash and camera simply didn't work. But,
how could you possibly know what the images look like or
what it said in EXIF?

And, I paced off the distance to the cars. Even if I
blew that by twice, I'd still be within 2 f/stops,
right? (flash power falls off as the square of the
distance - twice as far away is 1/4th the light).

Perhaps I'm better off just not asking for help. It's
like engaging in those rediculous off-topic threads I
see so often here. It seems that if anyone - not just me
- doesn't do things the way you "experts" dictate,
they're written off as some sort of mental deviate who
has no "skill". Well, this is America (where I'm
sitting, at least), and you're entitled to your opinion
- even if its wrong...

--
ATM, aka Jerry

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

All Things Mopar <noneofyour@busi.ness> writes:
> Can't say the same "why don't you try manual?" works for
> either the 5700/Sunpak 433D or the 8800/SB-800. Full
> manual on the flash and camera simply didn't work. But,
> how could you possibly know what the images look like or
> what it said in EXIF?

Set the SB-800 to 1/1 (full power), manual mode, and take a picture.

Is it underexposed? If yes, you need a more powerful flash. If no,
you are on the right track, so adjust exposure until the picture looks good.