No more doubts about the SB900 power !!! (sample photos)
Bertram Paul
tele!) and ISO 400:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bertram-paul/3596302086/in/set-72157619252249256/
--
---
Bertram Paul
Steven Green
> Taken in the biggest caves of Portugal, with the flash set at normal (not
> tele!) and ISO 400:
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/bertram-paul/3596302086/in/set-72157619252249256/
>
I have been looking for flashes for my Nikon, but the SB900 is too big
and too expensive, but your post makes me a little curious.
Do you have a shot without the flash at the same settings to compare it to?
Steven Green
DMac
> Taken in the biggest caves of Portugal, with the flash set at normal (not
> tele!) and ISO 400:
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/bertram-paul/3596302086/in/set-72157619252249256/
>
Now if you can just repeat that 20 time and not fry the flash...
I'm the silly one who took Nikon's advice when I complained about that
flash shutting down for 15 minutes after 15 or so continuous shots.
They told me to upgrade the firmware, turn off the thermal nanny and buy
a remote battery pack to get the battery heat away from the flash
head... Just remember that last piece of info.
So off I trundled to my favourite camera store and bought a SD-9 battery
holder for $400 (AUD)and $50 (AUD) worth of Enloop batteries for it.
Guess what?
It won't work without batteries in the flash too!
Can you imagine how much extra weight a D700 carries when you bolt an
SD-9 under it? Only to find out it still craps itself but without
shutting down. Just keeps going until it fries it's innards.
$390 for a new circuit board later... I realised the power you tried to
demonstrate with that shot, is only available with a cold flash and you
only get a handful of hits before it overheats. Probably quite OK for
your use but out in the bright sun... Uh, uh.
Shelling out $1390 (AUD) for a Metz 76MZ-5 teaches me that toys like the
SB900 can never equal the professional gear they try to impersonate.
SB 900 = $760
SD battery pack = $400
Repairs (no warranty) $390
Total minus batteries, $1550
Cheaper to have bought the Metz in the first place! Which incidentally
overheats too but not anywhere as fast as the Nikon does.
C J Campbell
> Taken in the biggest caves of Portugal, with the flash set at normal (not
> tele!) and ISO 400:
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/bertram-paul/3596302086/in/set-72157619252249256/
The SB-900 is certainly an impressive flash for its size. I use mine
constantly.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
ASAAR
> So off I trundled to my favourite camera store and bought a SD-9 battery
> holder for $400 (AUD)and $50 (AUD) worth of Enloop batteries for it.
>
> Guess what?
> It won't work without batteries in the flash too!
I'm surprised that you didn't know that. The SB-900's hardly uses
the internal batteries when connected to the SD-9, so you could put
in a set of lightweight lithium AA cells and they'd last just about
forever and wouldn't contribute any measurable heating.
> Cheaper to have bought the Metz in the first place! Which incidentally
> overheats too but not anywhere as fast as the Nikon does.
Doesn't it have the same ratings as Nikon's SB-800 and SB-900 for
how many full power shots you're advised to take (within the same
time period) as well as how much time you should take to let the
flash cool off? If the SB-900 overheats more quickly (and it's not
due to aperture differences) it may be because it can recharge more
quickly, facilitating photographer abuse.* After reading many
tales of Metz non-support and broken promises, I think I'll avoid
that brand on general principles. Have fun with yours.*
* Insert Cheshire smiley
C J Campbell
> Bertram Paul wrote:
>> Taken in the biggest caves of Portugal, with the flash set at normal
>> (not tele!) and ISO 400:
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/bertram-paul/3596302086/in/set-72157619252249256/
>>
>
> Now if you can just repeat that 20 time and not fry the flash...
What on earth are you doing that for? The SB-900 is not built for that
kind of work; no small strobe is. However, the SB-900 is perfectly
adequate for most wedding and portrait photography, especially if you
use multiple units. Heck, I could get by most of the time with a simple
video light.
Or you could just get the Metz. :D But if I need that kind of power I
generally go with real strobes controlled by Pocket Wizards. I plug
them into walls or rent serious battery power.
ASAAR
Paul wrote:
> Taken in the biggest caves of Portugal, with the flash set at normal (not
> tele!) and ISO 400:
What doubts were you trying to dispel? That shot isn't as
illuminating as you imply (p.i.). The little SB-400 could have
provided as much light as the SB-900 did for that shot. Many P&S
cameras could have taken that shot too, assuming that they had a
lens/adapter with a wide angle of 24mm. And you really did use a
tele setting for the flash (relatively speaking). That picture was
taken with the lens at 16mm and the SB-900 was zoomed to 24mm. At
16mm, my tape measure says that those tourist spelunkers were much
closer to the camera than it might otherwise appear. More
interesting to me is how the SB-900 was used. Wireless or using a
cord? On some kind of mount or bracket, or held in your left hand?
Fill us'ns in on the big picture, big guy.
DMac
You got it. Photographer abuse* That's me. The Santa shooter capable of
taking 30 pics every 2 minutes(my best effort in 30 years of doing it).
Hell man, I ran a Panasonic FZ50 with a little Metz on it continuously
for hours at a time without issues. Use some Nudge, Nudge, wink, wink
"Professional" cameras and wasn't I glad I kept a couple of Panasonics
as mementos?
I don't dispute the fantastic recycle time or the colour correctness of
the output of an SB900. A huge leap in usefulness compared to the SB800,
even with the 5th battery and a remote battery pack.
I have a problem - and on a s5 you could hardly call it abuse to fill
the buffer at 3 fps - with a company like Nikon putting out a product
like this that every paparazzi in the world wants and cripple it with
such a design flaw.
My D700 will run at 8 Fps (battery pack for the camera). That allows
less than a minute of shooting before the thing has to be rested for 15
minutes or more! Not good enough in anyone's language.
The enloop batteries in the flash BTW, get just as hot whether or not
the external pack is connected. The Metz recycles a bit slower and
withstands "Photographer abuse*" without (so far) frying the electronics
like the Nikon has done.
I know all about the reported issues with Metz service. The Germans
don't respond too kindly to being abused and yelled at by people who
think 2 weeks for repairs is ridiculous. They ought to try the month it
took and the denial of warranty (Photographer abuse*)it took to replace
my circuit board in the SB 900. It fried again on a D90 last weekend and
now resides at the local garbage tip. The rest of them will go the same
way if the same thing happens.
I've had Metz 'lights for over 20 years. OK so I had to send a few to
Germany for repairs. They came back in a reasonable time and I have no
complaints with Metz. I have plenty of complaints with Japanese
manufacturers and many to do with speedlites and flash guns.
Call me an abuser of gear if you like. When I pay over a grand for a
flash after following instructions and running past the refund date by
doing so ...and the thing still won't do the work it is bought for,
Don't you think I've got a right to be cheezed off? At least the D700's
will work at a high enough ISO I can get away (most of the time) without
a flash.
And BTW... You don't need to run them at 100% output to get them
shutting down on a hot day from heat exhaustion. The Metz has to used
flat out to invoke an overheating warning.
DMac
Different strokes for different folks.
I don't know where you reside but in Queensland Australia, on a beach at
midday or thereabouts in spring, summer and autumn, the harshness of the
light needs plenty of flash to overcome the shadows unless it's one of
those rare days that is overcast. I used s5 Pro Fujifilm cameras for a
while but even their dynamic range isn't enough.
In a cathedral. Even a small one, late in the afternoon, try to light
the alter and beyond from mid distance without plenty of flash power.
I've mostly overcome the need to use ISO 100 (the Fuji's base setting)
by changing to Nikon cameras.
Sort of forced onto me with the flash issues. The D700 and D3 will work
at a high enough ISO I can mostly get away with no flash or reflected
light except on the beach. I expect that problem will return late in
November but the Metz will (hopefully) solve that issue.
But let's not overshadow Paul's photo. I get panicky in caves so I'm
never likely to go into one. This is as close as I'll get to seeing one.
and yes, the SB 900 is a wonderful piece of kit for his sort of use.
C J Campbell
> C J Campbell wrote:
>> On 2009-06-04 15:46:59 -0700, DMac <d-...@d-mac.info.delete> said:
>>
>>> Bertram Paul wrote:
>>>> Taken in the biggest caves of Portugal, with the flash set at normal
>>>> (not tele!) and ISO 400:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/bertram-paul/3596302086/in/set-72157619252249256/
>>>>
>>>
>>> Now if you can just repeat that 20 time and not fry the flash...
>>
>> What on earth are you doing that for? The SB-900 is not built for that
>> kind of work; no small strobe is. However, the SB-900 is perfectly
>> adequate for most wedding and portrait photography, especially if you
>> use multiple units. Heck, I could get by most of the time with a simple
>> video light.
>>
>> Or you could just get the Metz. :D But if I need that kind of power I
>> generally go with real strobes controlled by Pocket Wizards. I plug
>> them into walls or rent serious battery power.
>>
>
> Different strokes for different folks.
> I don't know where you reside but in Queensland Australia, on a beach
> at midday or thereabouts in spring, summer and autumn, the harshness of
> the light needs plenty of flash to overcome the shadows unless it's one
> of those rare days that is overcast. I used s5 Pro Fujifilm cameras for
> a while but even their dynamic range isn't enough.
I know exactly what you mean. Although I live in the Puget Sound
region, I have done some considerable shooting in places like Phoenix
and Las Vegas. You need a lot of light.
>
> In a cathedral. Even a small one, late in the afternoon, try to light
> the alter and beyond from mid distance without plenty of flash power.
> I've mostly overcome the need to use ISO 100 (the Fuji's base setting)
> by changing to Nikon cameras.
I prefer multiple flash units for that sort of thing. But again, that
is one of the places where I would use the big strobes and Pocket
Wizards.
>
> Sort of forced onto me with the flash issues. The D700 and D3 will work
> at a high enough ISO I can mostly get away with no flash or reflected
> light except on the beach. I expect that problem will return late in
> November but the Metz will (hopefully) solve that issue.
>
> But let's not overshadow Paul's photo. I get panicky in caves so I'm
> never likely to go into one. This is as close as I'll get to seeing
> one. and yes, the SB 900 is a wonderful piece of kit for his sort of
> use.
I know what you mean about caves. I got myself stuck real good in a
lava tube in Idaho. Then destroyed my wife's pocket camera dragging it
around in there. I have been forbidden to enter caves ever since.
Bob Larter
> On 2009-06-04 15:46:59 -0700, DMac <d-...@d-mac.info.delete> said:
>
>> Bertram Paul wrote:
>>> Taken in the biggest caves of Portugal, with the flash set at normal
>>> (not tele!) and ISO 400:
>>>
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/bertram-paul/3596302086/in/set-72157619252249256/
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Now if you can just repeat that 20 time and not fry the flash...
>
> What on earth are you doing that for? The SB-900 is not built for that
> kind of work; no small strobe is.
I've hammered my 550-EX pretty damn hard, & have never had it shut down,
much less cook itself.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
abo mahab
By Magdy Abd Al-Shafy
I know that my article is not related to this group ,but it might be
useful.
PLEASE read it.
The Holy Quran , the last revealed Holy book, carries within its holy
verses the evidence toits Divine source .Among the many mitacles that
the holy Quran contain is the scientific miracles , more than 1400
years ago ,
The Holy Quran gives scientific facts that have been discovered
already and now are scientifically established . When the Holy Quran
gives such facts it adds many dimensions to the question of faith in
God ; in addition to the faith dimension there is a spiritual
dimension that Only Moslems and reasonable non -moslems can feel . The
Holy Quran stands in the face of the atheism claims . The other Holy
books , being distorted and pregnant with scientific errors that may
feed sckepticism , are no longer able to face atheism . Atheism are
breeding and taking people away from the right path . The Holy Quran ,
being the most authenticated book , can be the challanger - No one can
believe that a book with such astounding scientific miracles that
revealed 1400 years ago can be man-mad . Such facts lead you to
believe in God and to believe that the Holy Quran is God’s book …it is
up to you to decide ………
Now to our scientific miracle
The Holy Quran ststes in one of its Holy verses that ( iron ) we send
down from high skies , i.e, it is not formed in the ground . That what
science has aleady discovered . Let’s read this short verse .
God says in the Holy Quran what means "And We sent down iron in which
there lies great force and which has many uses for mankind…. (Surat al-
Hadid: 25)
Modern astronomical findings have disclosed that the ****l of iron
found in our world has come down from the giant stars in outer space.
The Holy Quran verse used The Arabic word " Anzlna " which could be
rendered " and we sent down " . Iron needs so high temperature to be
formed ;
Professor Armstrong works at NASA, otherwise known as the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, where he is a well-known
scientist here. He was asked about Iron and how it was formed. He
explained how all the elements in the earth were formed.
He stated that the scientists have come only recently to discover the
relevant facts about that formation process. He said that the energy
of the early solar system was not sufficient to produce elemental
Iron. In calculating the energy required to form one atom of iron, it
was found to be about four times as much as the energy of the entire
solar system. In other words, the entire energy of the earth or the
moon or the planet Mars or any other planet is not sufficient to form
one new atom of iron, even the energy of the entire solar system is
not sufficient for that. That is why Professor Armstrong said that the
scientists believe that iron is an extraterrestrial that was sent to
earth and not formed therein.
Unlike most of ****ls , iron needs so high temperature to be formed .
such high temperature is found no where in our solar system .
"Nova" and "supernova.
Temperature in the Sun is inadequate for the formation of iron. The
sun has a surface temperature of 6,000 degrees Celsius, and a core
temperature of approximately 20 million degrees. Iron can only be
produced in much larger stars than the Sun, where the temperature
reaches a few hundred million degrees. When the amount of iron exceeds
a certain level in a star, the star can no longer accommodate it, and
it eventually explodes in what is called a "nova" or a "supernova."
These explosions make it possible for iron to be given off into space.
All this shows that iron did not form on the Earth, but was carried
from Supernovas, and was "sent down," as stated in the verse. It is
clear that this fact could not have been known in the 7th century,
when the Qur’an was revealed. Nevertheless, this fact is related in
the Qur’an, the Word of Allah, Who encompasses all things in His
infinite knowledge.
Science says that iron and other materials were attracted to the earh
when enetered the earth garvity field ; iron fell down on the earth as
if it were rain . the earth at that time was like ash , not completely
solid as it is now . Iron found its way deep to the core of the
earth .
And We sent down iron in which there lies great force and which has
many uses for mankind….
what is meant by ( and in which there lies great force and which has
many uses for mankind….
In his book Nature’s Destiny, the well-known microbiologist Michael
Denton
Of all the ls there is none more essential to life than iron. It is
the accumulation of iron in the center of a star which triggers a
supernova explosion and the subsequent scattering of the vital atoms
of life throughout the cosmos. It was the drawing by gravity of iron
atoms to the center of the primeval earth that generated the heat
which caused the initial chemical differentiation of the earth, the
outgassing of the early atmosphere, and ultimately the formation of
the hydrosphere. It is molten iron in the center of the earth which,
acting like a gigantic dynamo, generates the earth’s magnetic field,
which in turn creates the Van Allen radiation belts that shield the
earth’s surface from destructive high-energy-penetrating cosmic
radiation and preserve the crucial ozone layer from cosmic ray
destruction…
in this connection the Holy Quran , to show God’s blessings , in
another verse which implies anew scientific miracle says " And we have
made the heavens as a canopy well guarded: yet do they turn away from
the Signs which these things (point to)!( Al-Anbyaa :32 )
Without the iron atom, there would be no carbon-based life in the
cosmos; no supernovae, no heating of the primitive earth, no
atmosphere or hydrosphere. There would be no protective magnetic
field, no Van Allen radiation belts, no ozone layer, no l to make
hemoglobin [in human blood], no l to tame the reactivity of oxygen,
and no oxidative *bolism.
The intriguing and intimate relationship between life and iron,
between the red color of blood and the dying of some distant star, not
only indicates the relevance of this ls to biology but also the
biocentricity of the cosmos…
This account clearly indicates the importance of the iron atom. The
fact that particular attention is drawn to iron in the Qur’an also
emphasises the importance of the element. In addition, there is
another hidden truth in the Qur’an which draws attention to the
importance of iron: Surat al-Hadid 25, which refers to iron, contains
two rather interesting mathematical codes.
"Al- Hadid" is the 57th sura in the Qur’an. The abjad of the word "Al-
Hadid" in Arabic, when the numerological values of its letters are
added up, is also 57.
The numerological value of the word "hadid" alone is 26. And 26 is the
atomic number of iron.
Moreover, iron oxide particles were used in a cancer treatment in
recent months and positive developments were observed. A team led by
Dr. Andreas Jordan, at the world famous Charité Hospital in Germany,
succeeded in destroying cancer cells with this new technique developed
for the treatment of cancer-magnetic fluid hyperthermia (high
temperature magnetic liquid). As a result of this technique, first
performed on the 26-year-old Nikolaus H., no new cancer cells were
observed in the patient in the following three months.
This method of treatment can be summarised as follows:
1. A liquid containing iron oxide particles is injected into the
tumour by means of a special syringe. These particles spread
throughout the tumour cells. This liquid consists of thousands of
millions of particles, 1,000 times smaller than the red blood
corpuscles, of iron oxide in 1 cm3 that can easily flow through all
blood vessels.42
2. The patient is then placed in a machine with a powerful magnetic
field.
3. This magnetic field, applied externally, begins to set the iron
particles in the tumour in motion. During this time the temperature in
the tumour containing the iron oxide particles rises by up to 45
degrees.
In a few minutes the cancer cells, unable to protect themselves from
the heat, are either weakened or destroyed. The tumour may then be
completely eradicated with subsequent chemotherapy.43
In this treatment it is only the cancer cells that are affected by the
magnetic field, since only they contain the iron oxide particles. The
spread of this technique is a major development in the treatment of
this potentially lethal disease. In the treatment of such a widespread
disease as cancer, the use of the expression "iron in which there lies
great force and which has many uses for mankind" (Qur’an, 57:25) in
the Qur’an is particularly noteworthy. Indeed, in that verse, the
Qur’an may be indicating the benefits of iron for human health. (Allah
knows best.)
For more information about Islam
http://english.islamway.com/
http://www.islamhouse.com/
http://www.discoverislam.com/
http://www.islambasics.com/index.php
http://english.islamway.com/
http://www.islamtoday.net/english/
http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/MainPage/indexe.php
http://www.sultan.org/
http://www.islamonline.net/
Contact Us At
Imanw...@gmail.com
Chris Malcolm
> Bertram Paul wrote:
>> Taken in the biggest caves of Portugal, with the flash set at normal (not
>> tele!) and ISO 400:
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/bertram-paul/3596302086/in/set-72157619252249256/
> I have been looking for flashes for my Nikon, but the SB900 is too big
> and too expensive, but your post makes me a little curious.
Where you simply need as much portable flash power as possible in
places without mains sockets and where you don't want to lug huge
power packs around, big old second hand Metz hammerheads are great
value for money. For example, a pair of old Metz 45s (running off 6
AAs each) will put out three times the power of an SB 900 at a third
of the price. No, you can't attach them to your camera, but you can
attach your camera to them :-)
--
Chris Malcolm
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>C J Campbell wrote:
>> On 2009-06-04 15:46:59 -0700, DMac <d-...@d-mac.info.delete> said:
>>
>>> Bertram Paul wrote:
>>>> Taken in the biggest caves of Portugal, with the flash set at normal
>>>> (not tele!) and ISO 400:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/bertram-paul/3596302086/in/set-72157619252249256/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Now if you can just repeat that 20 time and not fry the flash...
>>
>> What on earth are you doing that for? The SB-900 is not built for that
>> kind of work; no small strobe is. However, the SB-900 is perfectly
>> adequate for most wedding and portrait photography, especially if you
>> use multiple units. Heck, I could get by most of the time with a simple
>> video light.
>>
>> Or you could just get the Metz. :D But if I need that kind of power I
>> generally go with real strobes controlled by Pocket Wizards. I plug them
>> into walls or rent serious battery power.
>>
>
>Different strokes for different folks.
>I don't know where you reside but in Queensland Australia, on a beach at
>midday or thereabouts in spring, summer and autumn, the harshness of the
>light needs plenty of flash to overcome the shadows unless it's one of
>those rare days that is overcast. I used s5 Pro Fujifilm cameras for a
>while but even their dynamic range isn't enough.
A few years ago, as part of my engineering work, I had to photograph a
burned out 320 BMW where it lay in a dump in sand hills. The light was
brilliant and the shadows were almost black. I set the D70 on A
(probably about f8) and the D600 on fill-flash. I then juggled
exposures on the basis of the exposure histogram. I do remeber I was
very grateful for all the light I could get out of the flash
>
>In a cathedral. Even a small one, late in the afternoon, try to light
>the alter and beyond from mid distance without plenty of flash power.
>I've mostly overcome the need to use ISO 100 (the Fuji's base setting)
>by changing to Nikon cameras.
>
>Sort of forced onto me with the flash issues. The D700 and D3 will work
>at a high enough ISO I can mostly get away with no flash or reflected
>light except on the beach. I expect that problem will return late in
>November but the Metz will (hopefully) solve that issue.
>
>But let's not overshadow Paul's photo. I get panicky in caves so I'm
>never likely to go into one. This is as close as I'll get to seeing one.
>and yes, the SB 900 is a wonderful piece of kit for his sort of use.
Eric Stevens
Chris Malcolm
> C J Campbell wrote:
>> On 2009-06-04 15:46:59 -0700, DMac <d-...@d-mac.info.delete> said:
>>
>>> Bertram Paul wrote:
>>>> Taken in the biggest caves of Portugal, with the flash set at normal
>>>> (not tele!) and ISO 400:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/bertram-paul/3596302086/in/set-72157619252249256/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Now if you can just repeat that 20 time and not fry the flash...
>>
>> What on earth are you doing that for? The SB-900 is not built for that
>> kind of work; no small strobe is. However, the SB-900 is perfectly
>> adequate for most wedding and portrait photography, especially if you
>> use multiple units. Heck, I could get by most of the time with a simple
>> video light.
>>
>> Or you could just get the Metz. :D But if I need that kind of power I
>> generally go with real strobes controlled by Pocket Wizards. I plug them
>> into walls or rent serious battery power.
> Different strokes for different folks.
> I don't know where you reside but in Queensland Australia, on a beach at
> midday or thereabouts in spring, summer and autumn, the harshness of the
> light needs plenty of flash to overcome the shadows unless it's one of
> those rare days that is overcast. I used s5 Pro Fujifilm cameras for a
> while but even their dynamic range isn't enough.
In bright sun you can use the sun to light the shadows. A large
spring-out folding reflector is a lot cheaper and lighter than a big
flash, has no overheating problems, and incorporates modelling
illumination :-) For face portraits even something as simple as a
nearby white shirt can do it.
> In a cathedral. Even a small one, late in the afternoon, try to light
> the alter and beyond from mid distance without plenty of flash power.
> I've mostly overcome the need to use ISO 100 (the Fuji's base setting)
> by changing to Nikon cameras.
You can also get close to Nikon's noise performance with noisier DSLRs
with the same size of sensor if you use one of the sophisticated
computer noise reducers and work from RAW.
--
Chris Malcolm
Bertram Paul
news:clrg25t4cjn9qgpvi...@4ax.com...
OK, I'll fill you in.
No I didn't "set" the flash at all. It was on 16mm, iTTL. The fact that you
read somewhere 24mm, is because that's the value converted to 35mm size. 1.5
X 16 = 24.
Besides that, I was referring to the ability of the 900 to change the light
bundle from wide to standard to tele (or CW as Nikon calls it) and in this
case I just used standard. With tele it would likely throw the light even
further.
Your tapemeasure is not going to help you much if your not there to measure
anything, will it?
I was and I can tell you the flash lit up those caves up to about 70 mtr.
I'm not sure why; it might be some reflective metal or other stuff in the
rocks, but fact is, that it was pretty awful dark. Barely enough light to
see the steps.
And no, not even Ken Rockwell would get those shots with his over rated 400
or the best P&S.
The 900 was just sitting in the hotshoe. How else?
Go see:
http://bertram-paul.blogspot.com/
to know some interesting things about flashes..
--
---
Bertram Paul
Matt Clara
news:0vGdnduZG_De0LXX...@giganews.com...
> Bertram Paul wrote:
>> Taken in the biggest caves of Portugal, with the flash set at normal (not
>> tele!) and ISO 400:
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/bertram-paul/3596302086/in/set-72157619252249256/
>>
A little Photoshop work to even out exposure, perhaps? Or are those
foreground walls further away than they appear? It certainly looks like an
impressive flash, in any case. I've owned many Nikon flashes, and I've been
impressed with all of them.
ASAAR
> "ASAAR" <cau...@22.com> wrote in message
> news:clrg25t4cjn9qgpvi...@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 23:08:21 +0100, Sosumi, aka Focus, aka Bertram
> > Paul wrote:
> >
> >> Taken in the biggest caves of Portugal, with the flash set at normal (not
> >> tele!) and ISO 400:
> >
> > What doubts were you trying to dispel? That shot isn't as
> > illuminating as you imply (p.i.). The little SB-400 could have
> > provided as much light as the SB-900 did for that shot. Many P&S
> > cameras could have taken that shot too, assuming that they had a
> > lens/adapter with a wide angle of 24mm. And you really did use a
> > tele setting for the flash (relatively speaking). That picture was
> > taken with the lens at 16mm and the SB-900 was zoomed to 24mm. At
> > 16mm, my tape measure says that those tourist spelunkers were much
> > closer to the camera than it might otherwise appear. More
> > interesting to me is how the SB-900 was used. Wireless or using a
> > cord? On some kind of mount or bracket, or held in your left hand?
> > Fill us'ns in on the big picture, big guy.
>
>
> OK, I'll fill you in.
> No I didn't "set" the flash at all. It was on 16mm, iTTL. The fact that you
> read somewhere 24mm, is because that's the value converted to 35mm size. 1.5
> X 16 = 24.
According to the EXIF data the lens was set to an actual focal
length of 16mm, equivalent to 24mm on your D90. When I use the
16-85mm Nikkor on my D90 (which is what you used) and zoom the lens
from 16 to 85mm, the SB-900 zooms along with it, showing
approximately the same focal lengths, not the 1.5x DX corrected
range of 24 through almost 130mm. The same EXIF shows that the
SB-900 was set to 24mm and doesn't indicate that this was based on a
"DX" correction factor. Perhaps it was, but I can't check this at
the moment. But I will within a few days. :)
> Besides that, I was referring to the ability of the 900 to change the light
> bundle from wide to standard to tele (or CW as Nikon calls it) and in this
> case I just used standard. With tele it would likely throw the light even
> further.
If you invent your own misleading terminology nobody will
understand what you mean. Nikon actually describes their three
illumination patterns as standard, center-weighted and even. Saying
that the illumination patterns range from wide to tele, and brag
"with the flash set at normal (not tele!)" shows that you don't
understand how your SB-900 works.
>> At 16mm, my tape measure says that those tourist spelunkers were
>> much closer to the camera than it might otherwise appear.
> Your tapemeasure is not going to help you much if your not there to measure
> anything, will it?
> I was and I can tell you the flash lit up those caves up to about 70 mtr.
The best illumination was on the last (closest to the camera)
person. The EXIF data shows that the D90 was focused at 5.01 meters
and the lens was wide open at f/3.5. Based on this aperture and
focusing distance, the SB-900 didn't fire at full power. When a
16mm lens is used on a DX camera the guide number is higher than if
an FX camera is used. With the D90 at 400 ISO, the SB-900's guide
number was 54(meters, standard illumination). The center-weighted
and even illumination patterns would have given you 64(m) and 44(m),
respectively. With the lens wide open (f/3.5) this gives you a
maximum shooting distance of 15 meters. The SB-400 which can't
sense whether it's being used on a DX or FX camera has an ISO 400
guide number of 42. Less than the SB-900 to be sure, but good for
up to 12 meters at f/3.5, far more than was necessary when your
camera to subject distance was only 5 meters. So when you
essentially say "Wow, my SB-900 puts out an amazing amount of light
- see what it did in this shot!", it's fair to point out that your
shot was well within the little SB-400's capabilities, and that of
almost any small, cheap flash as well.
As for being able to provide illumination up to 70 meters, I think
that you're probably mistaking providing enough light to recognize
something in the image with providing enough light to produce a good
exposure. If the SB-900 can provide good illumination up to 15
meters with the gear you used at ISO 400, it could provide the
equivalent exposures up to 30 meters at ISO 1600 and up to 60 meters
at ISO 6400. Not quite 70 meters, but close enough. Your theory of
some special reflectivity of the rocks doesn't really work. Look at
your image - you don't see any lots of bright sparkles in the rocks
surrounding the people on the trail, who are more highly illuminated
than the surrounding rocks. I hope you don't think that the rock
walls contain the equivalent of tiny mirrors that aren't randomly
angled, and reflect light from your SB-900 only on those people, not
back to the lens.
> I'm not sure why; it might be some reflective metal or other stuff in the
> rocks, but fact is, that it was pretty awful dark. Barely enough light to
> see the steps.
Nope, I'm afraid not. And the most distant person in that cave
was much closer to your camera than 70 meters. Maybe 15 or 20
meters I'd guess.
> The 900 was just sitting in the hotshoe. How else?
Look at the large rock in the lower left corner. It has a large,
clearly defined shadow that shows that the SB-900 was to the left of
the camera. I suppose that if it was mounted on the hotshoe and the
D90 was rotated 90� it could have produced those shadows, but to do
such large shadows you'd have to be extremely close to those rocks,
which appears to be the case. That "large boulder" is probably
closer in size to a pebble. :)
> Go see:
> http://bertram-paul.blogspot.com/
> to know some interesting things about flashes..
Not much of interest there. Trying to show that cheap bits of
colored plastic can replace the gels that are used with the SB-900
only shows that you don't understand the purpose of the gels.
They're primarily used by photographers to provide matching color
temperatures for flash and ambient light, not to make images blue or
red, which is how you used the bits of plastic. Your enthusiasm and
industry are admirable. Your photo knowledge is woefully inadequate
to present yourself as any kind of photo guru.
> Next I hope to give you some cheap ideas on how to DIY
> very good and cheap reflectors!
Spare us, please, Focus Fong.
> If you want to help me, help you, any donation is greatly
> appreciated!
I'm sure, but I resisted the urge to exercise my credit card by
clicking on your "Donate" button. Most good photo websites are
produced by experienced photographers that have considerable
knowledge and experience in the subjects that they cover. You,
instead attempt to be a tutor for subjects that you've just become
acquainted with, and have only a partial knowledge of. You're
website is no Strobist. When your "Strobist" link is clicked :
> http://bertram-paul.blogspot.com/search/label/strobist
it takes the browser to what appears to be identical to your blog
home page : "http://bertram-paul.blogspot.com/". Care to explain?
ASAAR
> A little Photoshop work to even out exposure, perhaps? Or are those
> foreground walls further away than they appear? It certainly looks like an
> impressive flash, in any case. I've owned many Nikon flashes, and I've been
> impressed with all of them.
They're closer than they appear. 16mm lens focused at 5 meters
(probably the distance of the person closest to the camera)
according to the EXIF data and supported by the illumination.
Bob Larter
> In bright sun you can use the sun to light the shadows. A large
> spring-out folding reflector is a lot cheaper and lighter than a big
> flash, has no overheating problems, and incorporates modelling
> illumination :-) For face portraits even something as simple as a
> nearby white shirt can do it.
<grin> I've used someone's white shirt / T-shirt as a reflector more
than once. ;^)
DMac
The problem with your suggestions Chris are several: The software - I
use noise ninja for preference - all rub out the noise right enough but
they also leave a creamy look on people's faces with all the fine detail
lost. An s5 is a good example of a noisey camera. Even at ISO 160!
I found it a little invasive to ask the priest to move around until the
reflection off his white robes lit the area under a bride's eyebrows. I
have a reflector. I've got several actually but never anyone over 3 feet
tall to hold it when I need it!
A 1.2m reflector doesn't go too well when you spring it open in the
middle of an outdoor beach ceremony either! (insert a little grin here).
The picture in this page:
http://www.brisbaneweddingphotographers.com/gallery/Aspect-ratio.htm
demonstrates some of the nightmares of using natural light. The walls
were a natural grey yet some of it turned out green.
The child's dress was white and that's the white balanced point. The
rest of the colours might be OK if you consider this artistic lighting -
certainly not unpleasant if that is the look you aimed for... But, it is
not accurate colour and the dynamic range is at the upper extreme of
what a D700 can handle! Shot at ISO 1600. Out of the question for a s5
but in the middle of a D 700's happy zone.
Lit with even a small, hand held flash, the dynamic range would have
narrowed and the ISO could have come down inside the happy range of
older cameras like the s5.
If you want to colour in the picture later, do it with Photoshop!. My
belief is that it might be OK for me or you to pull shots like this
after setting them up but keep in mind my shooters take as many as 600
frames in under 5 hours. They have limited time to change lighting. I
would much prefer to have this sort of shot lit by bounce off the
ceiling or a reflector.
I need a safety margin in every one of my shooters shots. Shots like
this take away that margin and as little as half a stop wider in the
highlights will remove my ability to recover the shot in post.
DMac
>
> I'm sure, but I resisted the urge to exercise my credit card by
> clicking on your "Donate" button. Most good photo websites are
> produced by experienced photographers that have considerable
> knowledge and experience in the subjects that they cover. You,
> instead attempt to be a tutor for subjects that you've just become
> acquainted with, and have only a partial knowledge of. You're
> website is no Strobist. When your "Strobist" link is clicked :
>
>> http://bertram-paul.blogspot.com/search/label/strobist
>
> it takes the browser to what appears to be identical to your blog
> home page : "http://bertram-paul.blogspot.com/". Care to explain?
>
I bet you waited all year to make a post like this! :)
Alan Browne
> Taken in the biggest caves of Portugal, with the flash set at normal (not
> tele!) and ISO 400:
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/bertram-paul/3596302086/in/set-72157619252249256/
Ignores the reality that a flash shot from a camera mounted flash only
gives correct exposure at a given distance from the flash. Further is
under; closer is over-exp.
This has nothing to do with brand or model.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
Bertram Paul
<CUT, lot of bla, bla, but no facts>
I should have know better than to take a clown serious....
--
---
Bertram Paul
DMac
Welcome to world of Usenet. It really should be promoted more as a 3
ring circus than anything serious!
ASAAR
>>> OK, I'll fill you in.
>>> No I didn't "set" the flash at all. It was on 16mm, iTTL. The fact that
>>> you
>>> read somewhere 24mm, is because that's the value converted to 35mm size.
>>> 1.5
>>> X 16 = 24.
>
> <CUT, lot of bla, bla, but no facts>
Ha. Lots of facts presented ("Just the facts, ma'am") and not a
one disputed or disproved. Big guy's acting like a little baby. :)
> I should have know better than to take a clown serious....
We all discovered that you don't deserve to be taken seriously
when we found out that most of the comments posted to Focus's
website (or was it Sosumi's? so hard keeping those socks separated)
were from one Mssr. Bertram Paul, who was just seeding his own
website with fake activity. Very seedy, Berty. And you couldn't
even get that part right. The sock puppets should have been the
shills, not you. Or is it possible that you're not really the good
old Berty you now claim to be?
ASAAR
>>> http://bertram-paul.blogspot.com/search/label/strobist
>>
>> it takes the browser to what appears to be identical to your blog
>> home page : "http://bertram-paul.blogspot.com/". Care to explain?
>>
>
> I bet you waited all year to make a post like this! :)
Ahh . . . it takes very little to make a clown smile, and poor old
Berty is more and more starting to resemble Emmett Kelly. <g>
Fact: Emmett Kelly once appeared in the Bertram Mills Circus. Do
ya think . . . nah, couldn't be . . .
Hi ASSar-The-Troll!
Oh dear. The resident pretend-photographer, basement-living, net-stalking
troll ASSar has gone psychotic once again. He's again imagining that anyone
that voices an experienced opinion on the net that is contrary to his
arm-chair-photographer, downloaded-manuals, net-knowledge is all the same
person.
Someone up his meds, STAT.
Let us all know when you actually hold a real camera someday, ASSar. We
might all applaud. Tell your mommy to buy you a "Barbie Cam" the next time
that she's getting a case of Twinkies to throw down the basement-stairs at
you, because she too has given up on wanting to know you. It'll at least be
a start. Your mother's not rolling in her grave, she just wish she could
find one after expelling after-birth like you.
Chris Malcolm
No experience with Noise Ninja, but that's certainly true of Neat
Image -- if you simply leave it on the default standard settings.
I have the notoriously horribly noisy Sony A350. I discovered that if
I took care in noise profiling the image, a combination of reducing
the luminance noise reduction and increasing sharpening a bit would
bring back most of the detail with only a light dusting of very fine
grained luminance noise, like film grain. Before that discovery I
avoided going higher than ISO 400 on the A350. Now I routinely bang it
up to 3200 if the the lighting and shutter speed requires it. With a
sharp lens, good exposure, and careful use of Neat Image I can get
enough detail from ISO 1600 that it's an aesthetic choice whether to
down size to remove the residual fine grained dusting of noise, and
some of the finest detail, or to leave it in.
The result is clearly not quite as good as Nikon, but an astonishing
improvement over what the camera or Sony's RAW processor's noise
reduction can do. You do have to move away from the default standard
settings and do a bit of fiddling.
Of course there's not as much detail as at ISO 100, but at ISO 800 I
can do a head and shoulders portrait of a woman and see the very fine
facial hairs at the edge of the face. For many women that's way too
much detail :-)
> I found it a little invasive to ask the priest to move around until
> the reflection off his white robes lit the area under a bride's
> eyebrows. I have a reflector. I've got several actually but never
> anyone over 3 feet tall to hold it when I need it!
> A 1.2m reflector doesn't go too well when you spring it open in the
> middle of an outdoor beach ceremony either! (insert a little grin here).
If the client insists on making things difficult for the photographer
they don't get the best images :-) It's just easier to carry around a
couple of those reflectors in bright sun than enough flash power
to match the sunlight.
> The picture in this page:
> http://www.brisbaneweddingphotographers.com/gallery/Aspect-ratio.htm
> demonstrates some of the nightmares of using natural light. The walls
> were a natural grey yet some of it turned out green.
Because they were shaded and you had to pull up the exposure? It's
very hard to keep greys pure when you bring up exposure more than
a little.
> The child's dress was white and that's the white balanced point. The
> rest of the colours might be OK if you consider this artistic lighting -
> certainly not unpleasant if that is the look you aimed for... But, it is
> not accurate colour and the dynamic range is at the upper extreme of
> what a D700 can handle! Shot at ISO 1600. Out of the question for a s5
> but in the middle of a D 700's happy zone.
Our eyes (and brain) do extremely sophisticated white balancing across
very wide dynamic ranges. The idea of "natural colour" in a print is a
simplified fiction, because quite apart from the technological
limitations of the best cameras the print is viewed by the eye and
brain in another lighting context. It's like trying to get the sound
fromn a single loudspeaker to sound like being in a concert
hall. Perfect reproduction isn't enough to do the job because of the
acoustic context in which the speaker is heard.
> Lit with even a small, hand held flash, the dynamic range would have
> narrowed and the ISO could have come down inside the happy range of
> older cameras like the s5.
> If you want to colour in the picture later, do it with Photoshop!. My
> belief is that it might be OK for me or you to pull shots like this
> after setting them up but keep in mind my shooters take as many as 600
> frames in under 5 hours. They have limited time to change lighting. I
> would much prefer to have this sort of shot lit by bounce off the
> ceiling or a reflector.
> I need a safety margin in every one of my shooters shots. Shots like
> this take away that margin and as little as half a stop wider in the
> highlights will remove my ability to recover the shot in post.
Fair enough. And if you're doing high production rate images you can't
afford to fiddle around for twenty minutes optimising the noise
reduction. But I would hope that Noise Ninja was customisable enough
that you could at least devise a profile for your camera at a specific
high ISO to get away from the standard heavily painted look of the
default noise reduction.
I don't know why people in general today are so terrified of a little
noise. In the days of film a little fine grained dusting in the image
was often held to be aestheticaly pleasing. And leaving a little
similar purely luminance noise in a digital noise reduced image allows
a lot of the fine textured detail to remain.
--
Chris Malcolm
Bertram Paul
news:5m6k25t2dg694e0e0...@4ax.com...
Ah, leave the poor guy alone. This is the only pathetic excuse for a life
that he has.
--
---
Bertram Paul
Bob Larter
> I don't know why people in general today are so terrified of a little
> noise. In the days of film a little fine grained dusting in the image
> was often held to be aestheticaly pleasing. And leaving a little
> similar purely luminance noise in a digital noise reduced image allows
> a lot of the fine textured detail to remain.
When I'm shooting bands, (usually at ISO 1600) I don't worry too much
about it, because people are used to some grain. I try to avoid in other
situations, though.
Bob Larter
Your comments might carry some weight if you hadn't posted them through
a sock-puppet.
Savageduck
Check the headers.
"Hi 'ASSar-The-Troll'" is our old pal the P&S troll.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Bob Larter
<checks>
Yeah, you're right.
michael adams
"Bertram Paul" <do...@mail.me> wrote in message
news:K-qdnUari8lHa7XX...@novis.pt...
> The 900 was just sitting in the hotshoe. How else?
If so, then you have yet to explain how the rock at the bottom left of 090517120,
the first in the sequence
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bertram-paul/3596302086/in/set-72157619252249256/
shows very strong illumination coming from the left.
A point made by another poster which you've chosen to ignore.
michael adams
...
Eric Stevens
<mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
>"Bertram Paul" <do...@mail.me> wrote in message
>news:K-qdnUari8lHa7XX...@novis.pt...
>
>
>> The 900 was just sitting in the hotshoe. How else?
>
>If so, then you have yet to explain how the rock at the bottom left of 090517120,
>the first in the sequence
>
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/bertram-paul/3596302086/in/set-72157619252249256/
>
>shows very strong illumination coming from the left.
>
>A point made by another poster which you've chosen to ignore.
>
>
I know how I would take a photograph like that using a 900. I would
have the 900 off to one side and aimed towards the left while using
the camera's built in flash as a master. But I don't suppose Bert' did
that at all.
Eric Stevens
Floyd L. Davidson
>"Bertram Paul" <do...@mail.me> wrote in message
>news:K-qdnUari8lHa7XX...@novis.pt...
>
>> The 900 was just sitting in the hotshoe. How else?
>
>If so, then you have yet to explain how the rock at the bottom left of 090517120,
>the first in the sequence
What's to explain?
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/bertram-paul/3596302086/in/set-72157619252249256/
>
>shows very strong illumination coming from the left.
Certainly. Just where to you think the hot shoe is when the
camera is oriented as it is in that shot?
>A point made by another poster which you've chosen to ignore.
You should have too... :-)
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
michael adams
"Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote in message news:877hzd5...@apaflo.com...
> "michael adams" <mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> >"Bertram Paul" <do...@mail.me> wrote in message
> >news:K-qdnUari8lHa7XX...@novis.pt...
> >
> >> The 900 was just sitting in the hotshoe. How else?
> >
> >If so, then you have yet to explain how the rock at the bottom left of 090517120,
> >the first in the sequence
>
> What's to explain?
>
> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/bertram-paul/3596302086/in/set-72157619252249256/
> >
> >shows very strong illumination coming from the left.
>
> Certainly. Just where to you think the hot shoe is when the
> camera is oriented as it is in that shot?
Assuming that the centre of the flash is one foot away from the lens
just how wide a shadow could you expect to be thrown, by say a six high
foot rock from even just ten feet away ?
Try drawing it out paper substituting inches for feet. This is the width
of the shadow as can be seen from the viewpoint of the centre point of
the camera lens. It's certainly a much narrower shadow than appears on
that shot.
michael adams
...
ASAAR
>> Certainly. Just where to you think the hot shoe is when the
>> camera is oriented as it is in that shot?
>
> Assuming that the centre of the flash is one foot away from the lens
> just how wide a shadow could you expect to be thrown, by say a six high
> foot rock from even just ten feet away ?
>
> Try drawing it out paper substituting inches for feet. This is the width
> of the shadow as can be seen from the viewpoint of the centre point of
> the camera lens. It's certainly a much narrower shadow than appears on
> that shot.
I went over how the SB-900 might have been used (mounted
somewhere, on a bracket, handheld) but Bertie said "The 900 was just
sitting in the hotshoe. How else?". That's possible, because as I
earlier also said, the distances in the picture were misleading,
making objects appear to be much farther from the camera than they
actually were. The 16-85mm lens was at 16mm focal length, and the
camera was apparently focused on the last person on the path, the
one closest to the camera, and the EXIF data said that it was
focused at 5 meters, so that "boulder" was a much smaller rock than
it appeared to be, and was very close to the SB-900.
When I first saw the "boulder"s shadow, I also at first thought
that it was further away and the SB-900 would have been maybe a foot
or two to the left of the camera. Guess not. Still, Bertie was
entirely wrong about the SB-900 being so amazingly powerful that it
could illuminate subjects at 70 meters. Nobody on that trail was
remotely close to 70 meters from the camera, but Bertie is unable to
stifle his imagination when it veers off into never never land. As
I showed (and Bertie ignored) the little SB-400 puts out more than
enough light to duplicate Bertie's cave shot, and the SB-900, with
the same lens, could provide sufficient illumination for shots up to
60 meters, but that would have the camera using ISO 6400, so I
wouldn't care to shoot 70 meter shots without, say, a 70-300mm lens
and something like a Better Beamer in front of the SB-900. Even
then, the ISO would need to be pretty high.
Chris Malcolm
> "Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote in message news:877hzd5...@apaflo.com...
>> "michael adams" <mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>> >"Bertram Paul" <do...@mail.me> wrote in message
>> >news:K-qdnUari8lHa7XX...@novis.pt...
>> >
>> >> The 900 was just sitting in the hotshoe. How else?
>> >
>> >If so, then you have yet to explain how the rock at the bottom left of 090517120,
>> >the first in the sequence
>>
>> What's to explain?
>>
>> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/bertram-paul/3596302086/in/set-72157619252249256/
>> >
>> >shows very strong illumination coming from the left.
>>
>> Certainly. Just where to you think the hot shoe is when the
>> camera is oriented as it is in that shot?
> Assuming that the centre of the flash is one foot away from the lens
> just how wide a shadow could you expect to be thrown, by say a six high
> foot rock from even just ten feet away ?
> Try drawing it out paper substituting inches for feet. This is the width
> of the shadow as can be seen from the viewpoint of the centre point of
> the camera lens. It's certainly a much narrower shadow than appears on
> that shot.
You're confusing the issue by making the assumption about size of
rock. It's a question of relative distances and subtended angles in
the view derived from the base triangle of flash offset from lens, and
in proportion to the subtended angle of view of the wide lens in use.
There's not enough information be sure about the distances, but
there's enough to bound the distances, and the subtended angle of the
shadow offset falls within the bounds derived from an on-camera flash.
--
Chris Malcolm
J. Clarke
Does it fall within the bounds derived from an on-camera flash for the
person in the mid-ground as well?
ASAAR
> Does it fall within the bounds derived from an on-camera flash
> for the person in the mid-ground as well?
Note that the EXIF says that the camera was focused at a distance
of 5 meters. The SB-900 would provide good illumination at this
distance if it was set up correctly. It appears to me that this
coincides (approximately) with the last person on the trail, i.e.,
the one closest to the camera. That would make the "boulder" more
of a rock that's fairly close to the camera, and explain it's large
shadow. If the 5 meter point coincides with one of the other more
distant people on the trail, that would make the "rock" even closer,
perhaps not too much larger than a pebble!
Eric Stevens
There is also the question of the shadow of the righthand of the two
stone walls bounding the path. Yet what about the apparent lack of
shadow of the lefthand stone wall?
Eric Stevens
Chris Malcolm
Looks like it to me. I've taken plenty of on-camera flash shots which
look like that :-)
--
Chris Malcolm
Chris Malcolm
It's the difference in distance between edge and the background on
which it falls. The right edge falls off downwards.
--
Chris Malcolm
michael adams
"Chris Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:79rrnrF...@mid.individual.net...
Are you saying that because the path running down the middle is flat,
then despite it's being well to the right of the lens, and even further to the
right of the flash, that the left hand wall will cast no visible shadow ?
For 80% of its length anyway.
michael adams
...
>
> --
> Chris Malcolm