Vionna

rwells · June 7, 2009

This model said she needed some dramatic bold pictures for her portfolio.

I said, that's my kind of thinking!

Shot with 5DMkII ~ All hand-held at 1/2 sec.

All shots except the last one were shot:

ISO 3200 ~ f/4 ~ 1/2 second

580EXII through 43" shoot-through umbrella triggered via ST-E2 (yes, I finally broke down and bought one - against my gripes about it)

________________________________________________________________

dlplumer · June 7, 2009

I don't see any photos.

rwells · June 7, 2009

dlplumer wrote:

I don't see any photos.

Sheez, you'd think I'd learn about this by now

Sorry

VayCayMom · June 7, 2009

WHAT FUN !! I think #10 is the money shot! But 3 and 4 are awesome too.

rwells · June 7, 2009

VayCayMom wrote:

WHAT FUN !! I think #10 is the money shot! But 3 and 4 are awesome too.

Thanks VayCayMom

She hasn't seen them yet. I hope she likes them.

We were out till 1:30am shooting these

~ She just couldn't wait to get into the water.

jeffreaux2 · June 7, 2009

I REALLY like 3 and 4.

I think #3 could be improved by using the cloning tool to get rid of the stray reflection at upper right.....but its very nice as is as well.

Welcome to the STE2 club!!!

I would be willing to bet that it helped you to achieve solid focus here, aside from firing the flash. That is another of it's welcome features.

Thanks for sharing!

rwells · June 7, 2009

jeffreaux2 wrote:

I REALLY like 3 and 4.

I think #3 could be improved by using the cloning tool to get rid of the stray reflection at upper right.....but its very nice as is as well.

Welcome to the STE2 club!!!

I would be willing to bet that it helped you to achieve solid focus here, aside from firing the flash. That is another of it's welcome features.

Thanks for sharing!

Thanks for looking Jeff,

I had cloned out those reflections, but it kind of made the top too heavy, with nothing there at all, so I left them there. I guess I could waffle back and forth on that one. That's why its nice to get feedback, to see what other think.

Yeah, the ST-E2: I really bought the thing because I'm giving classes at our strobist meetings and since its so popular, well, I needed one to show. It does have its redeeming qualities though, (light weight, doesn't take-up much room in the bag, ease of use, works good), but I'm still erked about its shortcomings.

Oh, I should add, as you mentioned: There is NO WAY these shots could have been taken without the focus assist. As stated, it was so dark to the naked eye that I couldn't even tell if she was looking my way. I just placed the center focus point on what I believed was the middle of her head, the ST-E2 put up the pattern, focus lock and WALA, perfectly focused shots!

Thanks again for looking and commenting

jeffreaux2 · June 7, 2009

rwells wrote:

Thanks for looking Jeff,

Oh, I should add, as you mentioned: There is NO WAY these shots could have been taken without the focus assist. As stated, it was so dark to the naked eye that I couldn't even tell if she was looking my way. I just placed the center focus point on what I believed was the middle of her head, the ST-E2 put up the pattern, focus lock and WALA, perfectly focused shots!

Thanks again for looking and commenting

That focus assist makes it hard to beat for dimly lit event shooting. I dunno what Id do without it!

rwells · June 9, 2009

These must have been worse than I thought...

218 views and only two comments

I was hoping for some more C&C

Are they that far out in left field for most of you? ~ It's OK to say they stink, or whatever. Just like some feedback on them.

kdog · June 9, 2009

I like the compositions and the lighting. And being a pool owner, your comps are giving me some ideas.

On the other hand, while I appreciate the fact that they're hand-held at 1/6 second, the fact is, most of them are blurry. It's a tough shot to make though, which I understand. A tripod would only solve half the problem -- camera motion, not model motion. I guess the only alternative would have been to greatly underexpose the pool to increase shutterspeed. But you'd know better than I.

Shots 9-12 are great shots all the way around.

Cheers,
-joel

rwells · June 9, 2009

kdog wrote:

I like the compositions and the lighting. And being a pool owner, your comps are giving me some ideas.

On the other hand, while I appreciate the fact that they're hand-held at 1/6 second, the fact is, most of them are blurry. It's a tough shot to make though, which I understand. A tripod would only solve half the problem -- camera motion, not model motion. I guess the only alternative would have been to greatly underexpose the pool to increase shutterspeed. But you'd know better than I.

Shots 9-12 are great shots all the way around.

Cheers,
-joel

Hey Joel,

What looks blurry, the model or the bg? If it's the bg, thats understandable @ 1/2 sec hand-held. I do know that on a couple of pics her extremities show some motion blurr.

Thanks a bunch, gives me something to look at closer

kdog · June 9, 2009

rwells wrote:

What looks blurry, the model or the bg?

Actually I was speaking of the model. I don't mind the bg being blurry. I just looked at them again, and maybe I was being too hasty. Some of them do indeed have the model sharp. But look at this one.

Maybe I'm crazy, but she looks soft, especially her right eye and hair on the right side of her head. Funny though, her left side (viewer right) looks sharp. At any rate, she's so beautiful, but I'm having trouble focusing on her for whatever the reason. Could be the blurred bg is making it hard for me to focus which would make it a personal problem.

I do have a question for you. You said that the bg being blurred is understandable, implying that the model should have been sharp. Is that because the flash should have frozen any movement, being faster than the shutterspeed? I'm a bit of newbie to flash, but I've certainly gotten motion blur with a flash before using slow shutter speeds like this. Just put it in AV mode and take a few shots. DAMHIK. :cry

rwells · June 9, 2009

kdog wrote:

I do have a question for you. You said that the bg being blurred is understandable, implying that the model should have been sharp. Is that because the flash should have frozen any movement, being faster than the shutterspeed? I'm a bit of newbie to flash, but I've certainly gotten motion blur with a flash before using slow shutter speeds like this. Just put it in AV mode and take a few shots. DAMHIK. :cry

Yes Joel, that is exactly what should have happened. The bg was at least 4 stops under the flash exposure, there should not have been any ghosting.

If your ambient & flash exposure are less than 2 stops apart, you will run the risk of getting a "ghost" image from the ambient light.

I think what you might be seeing as blur, is some post processing blur that I did add to some of the images. That tells me you've got a good eye

I certainly appreciate your taking the time and effort to comment/critique my images.

kdog · June 9, 2009

rwells wrote:

If your ambient & flash exposure are less than 2 stops apart, you will run the risk of getting a "ghost" image from the ambient light.

Aha! (A little lightbulb goes on in my head.) Thanks, Randy! You just solved a little mystery that's been bugging the heck out of me.

Cheers,
-joel

Tim Kamppinen · June 9, 2009

FWIW I didn't think "blurry" when looking at any of these. Some may be slightly soft but it's not motion blur... as you said maybe it was PP or even having the focus point SLIGHTLY off but in any case I don't think it is anywhere near bad enough to matter. I think these are great and it's a good example of how you can utilize the ambient even when it's almost non-existent. #4 is my favorite... when I read Jeff's comment about #3 I thought "what? I like the reflection" but then I went back and noticed that it did pull my attention away from the model, so... As you said, it could go either way.

rwells · June 9, 2009

Tim Kamppinen wrote:

FWIW I didn't think "blurry" when looking at any of these. Some may be slightly soft but it's not motion blur... as you said maybe it was PP or even having the focus point SLIGHTLY off but in any case I don't think it is anywhere near bad enough to matter. I think these are great and it's a good example of how you can utilize the ambient even when it's almost non-existent. #4 is my favorite... when I read Jeff's comment about #3 I thought "what? I like the reflection" but then I went back and noticed that it did pull my attention away from the model, so... As you said, it could go either way.

Tim,

I really appreciate you taking the time and effort to look through all these images and give me feedback. These images were somewhat different than what I normally do, and I don't normally shoot in almost complete darkness. It's nice to get some feedback, to give some outside balance to them. I also love hearing which photo is someones favorite (that may be a little presumptuous). That helps me gage what my views/likes are to others views/likes.

Thanks again

Antonio Correia · June 10, 2009

rwells wrote:

...There is NO WAY these shots could have been taken without the focus assist. As stated, it was so dark to the naked eye that I couldn't even tell if she was looking my way. I just placed the center focus point on what I believed was the middle of her head, the ST-E2 put up the pattern, focus lock and WALA, perfectly focused shots! Thanks again for looking and commenting

This is what I was going to say about the ST-E2: it helps the focus

However, I think that the ST-E2 has it's limits outside, as we do know.
The new Pocket Wizard with all that range should/must be a wonder...

The ones I like best:
3 for the roundness of the light,
5 for the ambiance and also for the ambiance and the roundness of the light I like number 8.
In this one the light is restricted / contained / limited and I do like that. Not strange to the quality of this photo is the background.
We can also see at the right a "foot" of the light stand. You could clone it, couldn't you ?

Number 12

rwells · June 10, 2009

Antonio Correia wrote:

This is what I was going to say about the ST-E2: it helps the focus
However, I think that the ST-E2 has it's limits outside, as we do know.
The new Pocket Wizard with all that range should/must be a wonder...

The ones I like best:
3 for the roundness of the light,
5 for the ambiance and also for the ambiance and the roundness of the light I like number 8.
In this one the light is restricted / contained / limited and I do like that. Not strange to the quality of this photo is the background.
We can also see at the right a "foot" of the light stand. You could clone it, couldn't you ?

Number 12

Antonio,

I'm holding off on the new PW's due to the RF interference issues with the 580EX series flash units. A lot of people are only getting about 30'~40' range due to that. PW has a new "shield" that will correct that, but who wants to lug around a big ol' shield in their bag? IMHO, that's a pretty sorry way to go about the problem. Were not fixing the issue, let's just provide a band-aid for it.

NOTE: The issue on the RF interference is only on the US units due to the frequency that they are using here. I understand the European units do not have this issue.

I'll probably go with the RadioPopper PX units. They have been getting really good reviews out in the real world.

Thank you for your comments about my images.

Image #8: I just posted those SOOC (straight out of camera) to show how dark it was, not as a final image. Please note, even the dark one was shot at ISO3200 f/4 1/2sec, so it was very dark there.

#12

--- You going to keep me guessing? What's on your mind with that photo? Inquiring minds want to know...

Antonio Correia · June 11, 2009

Hello Randy !

I read today somewhere that the ST-E2 can - with advantage - be used with the PW.:D
About photo number 12:
Excuse me Randy but I don't like it. :cry
The pose of the girls mainly, the lights...

Sorry to say so. May be I shouldn't ...

But we can't please everyone can we ? Did the client like it ?
Yes ! Good then !

Regards:D

jeffreaux2 · June 11, 2009

rwells wrote:

Antonio,

I'm holding off on the new PW's due to the RF interference issues with the 580EX series flash units. A lot of people are only getting about 30'~40' range due to that. PW has a new "shield" that will correct that, but who wants to lug around a big ol' shield in their bag? IMHO, that's a pretty sorry way to go about the problem. Were not fixing the issue, let's just provide a band-aid for it.

NOTE: The issue on the RF interference is only on the US units due to the frequency that they are using here. I understand the European units do not have this issue.

I'll probably go with the RadioPopper PX units. They have been getting really good reviews out in the real world.

Thank you for your comments about my images.

Image #8: I just posted those SOOC (straight out of camera) to show how dark it was, not as a final image. Please note, even the dark one was shot at ISO3200 f/4 1/2sec, so it was very dark there.

#12 --- You going to keep me guessing? What's on your mind with that photo? Inquiring minds want to know...

I too plan to go with Radio Poppers rather than the flawed "new" PW's.....and theres more to it than a simple loss of range.

Many of the reports I have read state that the PW's do not allow for the full + or - 3 stops FEC that we can dial in on a 580EX. You are limited to the +/- 2 stops available via the camera menu. That's a deal killer for me right there as I often shoot daylight portraits with less than -2 FEC.

The Radio Poppers on the other hand reportedly offer ALL of the goodness that ETTL has to offer. Every single funtion and at the fullest range.

Speaking of range.....I do very little indoor work unless it is a rewception of some sort. Indoors, the range limitation and line of sight requirement for the STE2 is almost moot since the signal easily bounces around the room to fire the flash even when you think it shouldn't. With a little forethought it works fine as is in all but ENORMOUS spaces.

Outdoors?

I frequently use the STE2 and single 580EX at distances of 30 feet and more. Here, line of sight is key, but I have yet to encounter a situation where I couldn't get a flash to fire outdoors unless there was something between myself and the flash. I commonly use a 70-200mm zoom for portraits. For full length and 200mm bokeh goodness....well that puts you AT LEAST 30 feet away from an adult subject.

Now....why would I want to spend $$ for an added 5 or 10 feet AND limited funtionality for FEC?

No Way!

To me, the only thing really good about the new PW is the fact that you can get a full power flash at faster than spec'd synch speeds. Goodbye sunshine, eh?

...and Randy, check out what these folks are doing with ETTL.
http://tricoastphoto.com/blog/

rwells · June 11, 2009

Antonio Correia wrote:

Hello Randy !
I read today somewhere that the ST-E2 can - with advantage - be used with the PW.:D
About photo number 12:
Excuse me Randy but I don't like it. :cry
The pose of the girls mainly, the lights...

Sorry to say so. May be I shouldn't ...
But we can't please everyone can we ? Did the client like it ?
Yes ! Good then !
Regards:D

Antonio,

You don't have to be excused. It's perfectly OK to not like one, or any of my photos

I appreciate any and all C&C on my work. BTW, yes, the girls did like it.

I'm still not convinced about the new PW's yet. At this point it doesn't really matter anyway. Just drained the piggy bank "again" for more off-camera lighting equipment.

Vagabond II, Kasey Beauty Reflector, etc...

Take care my friend!

Vionna

Comments