Lighting Test

PeterN wrote:

>On 3/5/2011 8:52 PM, Dudley Hanks wrote:
>> Well, I dragged out an old light stand, an umbrella, and a couple
>> of flashes -- a Canon Speedlite 430ex II and a 580ex
>> II.
>>
>> The 430 was set to wireless remote and mounted on the stand with
>> the umbrella while the 580 was the master and camera
>> mounted.
>>
>> The ratio was set to 1:2, and the fill was angled to bounce off
>> the ceiling with the white card extended. It was angled so that
>> it should leave a bit of a sparkle in the eye, though probably
>> not a square.
>>
>> I think my daughter was getting a bit bored by the time I took
>> this shot; still, she was a great helper, giving me a chance to
>> test several different configurations and ratios.
>>
>> Just wondering how the exposure / lighting turned out
>> ...
>>
>> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/images/LightingTestLarge.jpg (full
>> size)
>>
>> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/images/LightingTestSmall.jpg (fast
>> loading)
>>
>> Appreciate any comments ...
>>
>
>She looks adorable, with a nice natural sparkle in her eyes.
>Betcha she is a fun person.
>
>As to the lighting it's a bit flat for my taste and I would have shown
>her face should have been a tad softer. Yes, you know I recognize your
>issue. Perhaps you could have focused a tad behind her and use a wider
>aperture.
>
>--
>Peter
>


Thanks, Peter, your comments help a lot.

I should have set the picture style to something a little less
sharp, as I had previously set one of the custom picture
styles to produce an overly sharp, highly saturated image for
some still life shots I'd been doing. I was in such a hurry
to test the 580ex that I forgot to change the style to
something a bit more suited to a female portrait.


I want to try a bit higher ratio, maybe a 1:3 or 1:4 for some
shots I'll do next week, which should produce a bit more of a
moulded look.

Still, it seems as though the basic wireless flash metering is
working. For portraits, I'll just have to work on light
placement and style traits.

Once again, thanks for your thoughts.

Take Care,
Dudley
 >> Stay informed about: Lighting Test 

On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 21:20:11 -0600, Dudley Hanks
wrote:

> PeterN wrote:
>
>>On 3/5/2011 8:52 PM, Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>> Well, I dragged out an old light stand, an umbrella, and a couple
>>> of flashes -- a Canon Speedlite 430ex II and a 580ex
>>> II.
>>>
>>> The 430 was set to wireless remote and mounted on the stand with
>>> the umbrella while the 580 was the master and camera
>>> mounted.
>>>
>>> The ratio was set to 1:2, and the fill was angled to bounce off
>>> the ceiling with the white card extended. It was angled so that
>>> it should leave a bit of a sparkle in the eye, though probably
>>> not a square.
>>>
>>> I think my daughter was getting a bit bored by the time I took
>>> this shot; still, she was a great helper, giving me a chance to
>>> test several different configurations and ratios.
>>>
>>> Just wondering how the exposure / lighting turned out
>>> ...
>>>
>>> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/images/LightingTestLarge.jpg (full
>>> size)
>>>
>>> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/images/LightingTestSmall.jpg (fast
>>> loading)
>>>
>>> Appreciate any comments ...
>>>
>>
>>She looks adorable, with a nice natural sparkle in her eyes.
>>Betcha she is a fun person.
>>
>>As to the lighting it's a bit flat for my taste and I would have shown
>>her face should have been a tad softer. Yes, you know I recognize your
>>issue. Perhaps you could have focused a tad behind her and use a wider
>>aperture.
>>
>>--
>>Peter
>>
>
>
>Thanks, Peter, your comments help a lot.
>
>I should have set the picture style to something a little less
>sharp, as I had previously set one of the custom picture
>styles to produce an overly sharp, highly saturated image for
>some still life shots I'd been doing. I was in such a hurry
>to test the 580ex that I forgot to change the style to
>something a bit more suited to a female portrait.
>
>
>I want to try a bit higher ratio, maybe a 1:3 or 1:4 for some
>shots I'll do next week, which should produce a bit more of a
>moulded look.
>
>Still, it seems as though the basic wireless flash metering is
>working. For portraits, I'll just have to work on light
>placement and style traits.
>
>Once again, thanks for your thoughts.
>
>Take Care,
>Dudley

Why don't you just hand the camera and gear to someone else. Then you won't
have to ask others all the time to do all your own basic "Photography 101"
work for you. Besides, they'll at least be able to frame the subject so it
doesn't look like some blind-man was still aiming by using random-chance
while using auto-everything gear again.

I know ... maybe you can get one of those "helper monkeys". Only one that's
been specially trained to have an eye for focus, lighting, and composition.
Then you won't have to constantly use your own children and all these other
people as your helper-monkeys for all those requirements you sorely keep
proving that you need.
 >> Stay informed about: Lighting Test 

Gilford Brimly wrote:

>On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 21:20:11 -0600, Dudley Hanks
> wrote:
>
>> PeterN wrote:
>>
>>>On 3/5/2011 8:52 PM, Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>>> Well, I dragged out an old light stand, an umbrella, and a couple
>>>> of flashes -- a Canon Speedlite 430ex II and a 580ex
>>>> II.
>>>>
>>>> The 430 was set to wireless remote and mounted on the stand with
>>>> the umbrella while the 580 was the master and camera
>>>> mounted.
>>>>
>>>> The ratio was set to 1:2, and the fill was angled to bounce off
>>>> the ceiling with the white card extended. It was angled so that
>>>> it should leave a bit of a sparkle in the eye, though probably
>>>> not a square.
>>>>
>>>> I think my daughter was getting a bit bored by the time I took
>>>> this shot; still, she was a great helper, giving me a chance to
>>>> test several different configurations and ratios.
>>>>
>>>> Just wondering how the exposure / lighting turned out
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/images/LightingTestLarge.jpg (full
>>>> size)
>>>>
>>>> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/images/LightingTestSmall.jpg (fast
>>>> loading)
>>>>
>>>> Appreciate any comments ...
>>>>
>>>
>>>She looks adorable, with a nice natural sparkle in her eyes.
>>>Betcha she is a fun person.
>>>
>>>As to the lighting it's a bit flat for my taste and I would have shown
>>>her face should have been a tad softer. Yes, you know I recognize your
>>>issue. Perhaps you could have focused a tad behind her and use a wider
>>>aperture.
>>>
>>>--
>>>Peter
>>>
>>
>>
>>Thanks, Peter, your comments help a lot.
>>
>>I should have set the picture style to something a little less
>>sharp, as I had previously set one of the custom picture
>>styles to produce an overly sharp, highly saturated image for
>>some still life shots I'd been doing. I was in such a hurry
>>to test the 580ex that I forgot to change the style to
>>something a bit more suited to a female portrait.
>>
>>
>>I want to try a bit higher ratio, maybe a 1:3 or 1:4 for some
>>shots I'll do next week, which should produce a bit more of a
>>moulded look.
>>
>>Still, it seems as though the basic wireless flash metering is
>>working. For portraits, I'll just have to work on light
>>placement and style traits.
>>
>>Once again, thanks for your thoughts.
>>
>>Take Care,
>>Dudley
>
>Why don't you just hand the camera and gear to someone else. Then you won't
>have to ask others all the time to do all your own basic "Photography 101"
>work for you. Besides, they'll at least be able to frame the subject so it
>doesn't look like some blind-man was still aiming by using random-chance
>while using auto-everything gear again.
>
>I know ... maybe you can get one of those "helper monkeys". Only one that's
>been specially trained to have an eye for focus, lighting, and composition.
>Then you won't have to constantly use your own children and all these other
>people as your helper-monkeys for all those requirements you sorely keep
>proving that you need.
>
>
>
>
>
>


Or, you could PayPal a donation to: dhanks RemoveThis @blind-apertures.ca


I still need at least one more flash, preferably another 580,
but I may have to settle for a 430. Also, I'm still hoping to
get one of those nice 7D or 5D2 cams. With the higher ISO
performance, I could most likely do a better job of framing
shots. Once framed, I'd just have to drop down the ISO to a
lower, less noisey, speed and take the shot. It would really
help me maximize the usefulness of what light perception I
possess.

BTW, thanks, a whole bunch, to those of you out there who
helped me with the two flash units I've purchased lately. I
am quite happy with them, especially in that I can make a few
of the setting changes myself. I have to admit, Canon has
done a good job with their speedlites, although I'd really
like to see them add a Sony-esque beep capability to their
menu systems.

Take Care,
Dudley
 >> Stay informed about: Lighting Test 

On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 22:03:35 -0600, Dudley Hanks
wrote:

> Gilford Brimly wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 21:20:11 -0600, Dudley Hanks
>> wrote:
>>
>>> PeterN wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 3/5/2011 8:52 PM, Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>>>> Well, I dragged out an old light stand, an umbrella, and a couple
>>>>> of flashes -- a Canon Speedlite 430ex II and a 580ex
>>>>> II.
>>>>>
>>>>> The 430 was set to wireless remote and mounted on the stand with
>>>>> the umbrella while the 580 was the master and camera
>>>>> mounted.
>>>>>
>>>>> The ratio was set to 1:2, and the fill was angled to bounce off
>>>>> the ceiling with the white card extended. It was angled so that
>>>>> it should leave a bit of a sparkle in the eye, though probably
>>>>> not a square.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think my daughter was getting a bit bored by the time I took
>>>>> this shot; still, she was a great helper, giving me a chance to
>>>>> test several different configurations and ratios.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just wondering how the exposure / lighting turned out
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/images/LightingTestLarge.jpg (full
>>>>> size)
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/images/LightingTestSmall.jpg (fast
>>>>> loading)
>>>>>
>>>>> Appreciate any comments ...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>She looks adorable, with a nice natural sparkle in her eyes.
>>>>Betcha she is a fun person.
>>>>
>>>>As to the lighting it's a bit flat for my taste and I would have shown
>>>>her face should have been a tad softer. Yes, you know I recognize your
>>>>issue. Perhaps you could have focused a tad behind her and use a wider
>>>>aperture.
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Peter
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Thanks, Peter, your comments help a lot.
>>>
>>>I should have set the picture style to something a little less
>>>sharp, as I had previously set one of the custom picture
>>>styles to produce an overly sharp, highly saturated image for
>>>some still life shots I'd been doing. I was in such a hurry
>>>to test the 580ex that I forgot to change the style to
>>>something a bit more suited to a female portrait.
>>>
>>>
>>>I want to try a bit higher ratio, maybe a 1:3 or 1:4 for some
>>>shots I'll do next week, which should produce a bit more of a
>>>moulded look.
>>>
>>>Still, it seems as though the basic wireless flash metering is
>>>working. For portraits, I'll just have to work on light
>>>placement and style traits.
>>>
>>>Once again, thanks for your thoughts.
>>>
>>>Take Care,
>>>Dudley
>>
>>Why don't you just hand the camera and gear to someone else. Then you won't
>>have to ask others all the time to do all your own basic "Photography 101"
>>work for you. Besides, they'll at least be able to frame the subject so it
>>doesn't look like some blind-man was still aiming by using random-chance
>>while using auto-everything gear again.
>>
>>I know ... maybe you can get one of those "helper monkeys". Only one that's
>>been specially trained to have an eye for focus, lighting, and composition.
>>Then you won't have to constantly use your own children and all these other
>>people as your helper-monkeys for all those requirements you sorely keep
>>proving that you need.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>Or, you could PayPal a donation to: dhanks RemoveThis @spammers_and_con-artists.ca
>
>
>I still need at least one more flash, preferably another 580,
>but I may have to settle for a 430. Also, I'm still hoping to
>get one of those nice 7D or 5D2 cams. With the higher ISO
>performance, I could most likely do a better job of framing
>shots. Once framed, I'd just have to drop down the ISO to a
>lower, less noisey, speed and take the shot. It would really
>help me maximize the usefulness of what light perception I
>possess.
>
>BTW, thanks, a whole bunch, to those of you out there who
>helped me with the two flash units I've purchased lately. I
>am quite happy with them, especially in that I can make a few
>of the setting changes myself. I have to admit, Canon has
>done a good job with their speedlites, although I'd really
>like to see them add a Sony-esque beep capability to their
>menu systems.
>
>Take Care,
>Dudley

Maybe you can sit on a street corner with a cup in your hand. Because
you're obviously incapable of making a living on your own and buying your
own things anymore. I guess all blind people are as pathetic as you are.
(Actually? No. You're the very first one I've ever seen this sad and
pathetic and useless. All the ones I've known have JOBS and make their own
money for their own toys. It must suck to be the most helpless blind person
on earth, eh? The ones I've known would spit on you.)

But really, if this is the route you want to take, just sit there on the
street-corner looking all pitiful, with a sign asking for donations for a
bus to drive. You'll create just as many disasters by driving a bus. The
only difference is that more people will take notice of those disasters
than the ones you are creating now.
 >> Stay informed about: Lighting Test 

Gilford Brimly wrote:

>On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 22:03:35 -0600, Dudley Hanks
> wrote:
>
>> Gilford Brimly wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 21:20:11 -0600, Dudley Hanks
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> PeterN wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 3/5/2011 8:52 PM, Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>>>>> Well, I dragged out an old light stand, an umbrella, and a couple
>>>>>> of flashes -- a Canon Speedlite 430ex II and a 580ex
>>>>>> II.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The 430 was set to wireless remote and mounted on the stand with
>>>>>> the umbrella while the 580 was the master and camera
>>>>>> mounted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The ratio was set to 1:2, and the fill was angled to bounce off
>>>>>> the ceiling with the white card extended. It was angled so that
>>>>>> it should leave a bit of a sparkle in the eye, though probably
>>>>>> not a square.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think my daughter was getting a bit bored by the time I took
>>>>>> this shot; still, she was a great helper, giving me a chance to
>>>>>> test several different configurations and ratios.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just wondering how the exposure / lighting turned out
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/images/LightingTestLarge.jpg (full
>>>>>> size)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/images/LightingTestSmall.jpg (fast
>>>>>> loading)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Appreciate any comments ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>She looks adorable, with a nice natural sparkle in her eyes.
>>>>>Betcha she is a fun person.
>>>>>
>>>>>As to the lighting it's a bit flat for my taste and I would have shown
>>>>>her face should have been a tad softer. Yes, you know I recognize your
>>>>>issue. Perhaps you could have focused a tad behind her and use a wider
>>>>>aperture.
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>Peter
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Thanks, Peter, your comments help a lot.
>>>>
>>>>I should have set the picture style to something a little less
>>>>sharp, as I had previously set one of the custom picture
>>>>styles to produce an overly sharp, highly saturated image for
>>>>some still life shots I'd been doing. I was in such a hurry
>>>>to test the 580ex that I forgot to change the style to
>>>>something a bit more suited to a female portrait.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I want to try a bit higher ratio, maybe a 1:3 or 1:4 for some
>>>>shots I'll do next week, which should produce a bit more of a
>>>>moulded look.
>>>>
>>>>Still, it seems as though the basic wireless flash metering is
>>>>working. For portraits, I'll just have to work on light
>>>>placement and style traits.
>>>>
>>>>Once again, thanks for your thoughts.
>>>>
>>>>Take Care,
>>>>Dudley
>>>
>>>Why don't you just hand the camera and gear to someone else. Then you won't
>>>have to ask others all the time to do all your own basic "Photography 101"
>>>work for you. Besides, they'll at least be able to frame the subject so it
>>>doesn't look like some blind-man was still aiming by using random-chance
>>>while using auto-everything gear again.
>>>
>>>I know ... maybe you can get one of those "helper monkeys". Only one that's
>>>been specially trained to have an eye for focus, lighting, and composition.
>>>Then you won't have to constantly use your own children and all these other
>>>people as your helper-monkeys for all those requirements you sorely keep
>>>proving that you need.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>Or, you could PayPal a donation to: dhanks DeleteThis @spammers_and_con-artists.ca
>>
>>
>>I still need at least one more flash, preferably another 580,
>>but I may have to settle for a 430. Also, I'm still hoping to
>>get one of those nice 7D or 5D2 cams. With the higher ISO
>>performance, I could most likely do a better job of framing
>>shots. Once framed, I'd just have to drop down the ISO to a
>>lower, less noisey, speed and take the shot. It would really
>>help me maximize the usefulness of what light perception I
>>possess.
>>
>>BTW, thanks, a whole bunch, to those of you out there who
>>helped me with the two flash units I've purchased lately. I
>>am quite happy with them, especially in that I can make a few
>>of the setting changes myself. I have to admit, Canon has
>>done a good job with their speedlites, although I'd really
>>like to see them add a Sony-esque beep capability to their
>>menu systems.
>>
>>Take Care,
>>Dudley
>
>Maybe you can sit on a street corner with a cup in your hand. Because
>you're obviously incapable of making a living on your own and buying your
>own things anymore. I guess all blind people are as pathetic as you are.
>(Actually? No. You're the very first one I've ever seen this sad and
>pathetic and useless. All the ones I've known have JOBS and make their own
>money for their own toys. It must suck to be the most helpless blind person
>on earth, eh? The ones I've known would spit on you.)
>
>But really, if this is the route you want to take, just sit there on the
>street-corner looking all pitiful, with a sign asking for donations for a
>bus to drive. You'll create just as many disasters by driving a bus. The
>only difference is that more people will take notice of those disasters
>than the ones you are creating now.
>
>
>
>


Da Vinci had a patron; the world remembers him fondly...


Da Vinci's spirit dwells within my soul. The impact of his
innovative quest lives on, currently conquering obstacles in
keeping with his courage.

I have several patrons, with room for more. It feels nice to
know that people respect my drive to not only push, but pop,
the envelope.

After posting my last flower pic, there is even a minor amount
of interest in my work from a couple of galleries. Perhaps,
after enlarging my portfolio, I might even have a showing.


So, if you would like to help, simply PayPal a donation to:
dhanks DeleteThis @blind-apertures.ca

Thanks for your interest.

Take Care,
Dudley
 >> Stay informed about: Lighting Test 

On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 22:44:15 -0600, Dudley Hanks
wrote:

>
>
>Da Vinci had a patron; the world remembers him fondly...
>

Da Vinci had talent, and could actually produce something worthwhile.

>
>Da Vinci's spirit dwells within my soul. The impact of his
>innovative quest lives on, currently conquering obstacles in
>keeping with his courage.
>

Translation: Psychosis has set in too deeply.

>I have several patrons, with room for more. It feels nice to
>know that people respect my drive to not only push, but pop,
>the envelope.

Translation: You have several suckers that you successfully manipulated.

>
>After posting my last flower pic, there is even a minor amount
>of interest in my work from a couple of galleries. Perhaps,
>after enlarging my portfolio, I might even have a showing.

See, this is why people shouldn't lie to a blind man out of sympathy and
pity. Your flower photo SUCKED. The flower was hidden behind some
out-of-focus foliage. Something that ANY blind person could have figured
out just by touching the damn thing. The flower was badly lit and also out
of focus, as well as hidden in annoying and distracting shadows. And the
composition was no better than anything you have produced in the past,
randomly framed with no reason for being. Anyone could have taken a similar
photo by closing their eyes and pushing their automatic camera into some
shrubbery.

You sure are teaching your children a valuable lesson aren't you. If you
just whine and act pitiful enough someone will hand you a toy to shut you
up, instead of working for a living and earning what you want. What a "man"
you are. How "adult" of you.
 >> Stay informed about: Lighting Test 

Gilford Brimly wrote:

>On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 22:44:15 -0600, Dudley Hanks
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Da Vinci had a patron; the world remembers him fondly...
>>
>
>Da Vinci had talent, and could actually produce something worthwhile.
>
>>
>>Da Vinci's spirit dwells within my soul. The impact of his
>>innovative quest lives on, currently conquering obstacles in
>>keeping with his courage.
>>
>
>Translation: Psychosis has set in too deeply.
>
>>I have several patrons, with room for more. It feels nice to
>>know that people respect my drive to not only push, but pop,
>>the envelope.
>
>Translation: You have several suckers that you successfully manipulated.
>
>>
>>After posting my last flower pic, there is even a minor amount
>>of interest in my work from a couple of galleries. Perhaps,
>>after enlarging my portfolio, I might even have a showing.
>
>See, this is why people shouldn't lie to a blind man out of sympathy and
>pity. Your flower photo SUCKED. The flower was hidden behind some
>out-of-focus foliage. Something that ANY blind person could have figured
>out just by touching the damn thing. The flower was badly lit and also out
>of focus, as well as hidden in annoying and distracting shadows. And the
>composition was no better than anything you have produced in the past,
>randomly framed with no reason for being. Anyone could have taken a similar
>photo by closing their eyes and pushing their automatic camera into some
>shrubbery.
>
>You sure are teaching your children a valuable lesson aren't you. If you
>just whine and act pitiful enough someone will hand you a toy to shut you
>up, instead of working for a living and earning what you want. What a "man"
>you are. How "adult" of you.
>


Fortunately, art is a rather individualistic realm: what
appeals to one doesn't always appeal to others. You are
entitled to your opinion, as are others to theirs. I can
think of a few random ear and nose placements that have been
scorned by many, yet commanded high returns from others.


My work doesn't appeal to you, so be it. There are numerous
others to make up for your scorn. Indeed Justice is blind,
and Poetic Justice compensates me sufficiently.


As for my children, the lesson they have learned from me is
not to quit, no matter what your circumstances. Be creative,
take the initiative, and command your own destiny. If one
avenue closes, take an alley and get to your destination via a
quicker route.

The interesting part of this is that someone who can't even
keep a friend, even though friendship has been offered,
presumes to offer life-skill advice to a physically limited
man who has earned the love and respect of a beautiful woman
for more than twenty years, and who has raised a family,
without having to resort to applying for welfare.


Donations to my posts go to support my passion, entirely. I'm
up front about that, and people appreciate that. They also
like the idea of helping somebody who has more than a bit of
imagination.

Join the club, PayPal a donation to: dhanks@blind-apertures.
ca

Once again, thanks for your interest.

Take Care,
Dudley
 >> Stay informed about: Lighting Test 

On 3/5/11 7:52 PM, in article i7mdnaVnirZbde_QnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d.DeleteThis@giganews.com,
"Dudley Hanks" wrote:

>
> Well, I dragged out an old light stand, an umbrella, and a couple
> of flashes -- a Canon Speedlite 430ex II and a 580ex
> II.
>
> The 430 was set to wireless remote and mounted on the stand with
> the umbrella while the 580 was the master and camera
> mounted.
>
> The ratio was set to 1:2, and the fill was angled to bounce off
> the ceiling with the white card extended. It was angled so that
> it should leave a bit of a sparkle in the eye, though probably
> not a square.
>
> I think my daughter was getting a bit bored by the time I took
> this shot; still, she was a great helper, giving me a chance to
> test several different configurations and ratios.
>
> Just wondering how the exposure / lighting turned out
> ...
>
>
> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/images/LightingTestLarge.jpg (full
> size)
>
> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/images/LightingTestSmall.jpg (fast
> loading)
>
> Appreciate any comments ...
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley

Very well done, Dudley!

While some would be concerned by the double catch lights in the eye, the
overall lighting is excellent.

I would suggest the background not be as noticeable - perhaps by sitting
your daughter a little more distant. There the b/g is less defined and the
shadow isn't there.

Otherwise, a great capture.
 >> Stay informed about: Lighting Test 

On 3/5/11 10:25 PM, in article hg26n6dg4gc7pf9d2pdbna8fhfufauvktt.RemoveThis@4ax.com,
"Gilford Brimly" wrote:

> On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 22:03:35 -0600, Dudley Hanks
> wrote:
>
>> Gilford Brimly wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 21:20:11 -0600, Dudley Hanks
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> PeterN wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/5/2011 8:52 PM, Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>>>>> Well, I dragged out an old light stand, an umbrella, and a couple
>>>>>> of flashes -- a Canon Speedlite 430ex II and a 580ex
>>>>>> II.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The 430 was set to wireless remote and mounted on the stand with
>>>>>> the umbrella while the 580 was the master and camera
>>>>>> mounted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The ratio was set to 1:2, and the fill was angled to bounce off
>>>>>> the ceiling with the white card extended. It was angled so that
>>>>>> it should leave a bit of a sparkle in the eye, though probably
>>>>>> not a square.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think my daughter was getting a bit bored by the time I took
>>>>>> this shot; still, she was a great helper, giving me a chance to
>>>>>> test several different configurations and ratios.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just wondering how the exposure / lighting turned out
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/images/LightingTestLarge.jpg (full
>>>>>> size)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/images/LightingTestSmall.jpg (fast
>>>>>> loading)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Appreciate any comments ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> She looks adorable, with a nice natural sparkle in her eyes.
>>>>> Betcha she is a fun person.
>>>>>
>>>>> As to the lighting it's a bit flat for my taste and I would have shown
>>>>> her face should have been a tad softer. Yes, you know I recognize your
>>>>> issue. Perhaps you could have focused a tad behind her and use a wider
>>>>> aperture.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Peter
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Peter, your comments help a lot.
>>>>
>>>> I should have set the picture style to something a little less
>>>> sharp, as I had previously set one of the custom picture
>>>> styles to produce an overly sharp, highly saturated image for
>>>> some still life shots I'd been doing. I was in such a hurry
>>>> to test the 580ex that I forgot to change the style to
>>>> something a bit more suited to a female portrait.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I want to try a bit higher ratio, maybe a 1:3 or 1:4 for some
>>>> shots I'll do next week, which should produce a bit more of a
>>>> moulded look.
>>>>
>>>> Still, it seems as though the basic wireless flash metering is
>>>> working. For portraits, I'll just have to work on light
>>>> placement and style traits.
>>>>
>>>> Once again, thanks for your thoughts.
>>>>
>>>> Take Care,
>>>> Dudley
>>>
>>> Why don't you just hand the camera and gear to someone else. Then you won't
>>> have to ask others all the time to do all your own basic "Photography 101"
>>> work for you. Besides, they'll at least be able to frame the subject so it
>>> doesn't look like some blind-man was still aiming by using random-chance
>>> while using auto-everything gear again.
>>>
>>> I know ... maybe you can get one of those "helper monkeys". Only one that's
>>> been specially trained to have an eye for focus, lighting, and composition.
>>> Then you won't have to constantly use your own children and all these other
>>> people as your helper-monkeys for all those requirements you sorely keep
>>> proving that you need.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Or, you could PayPal a donation to: dhanks.RemoveThis@spammers_and_con-artists.ca
>>
>>
>> I still need at least one more flash, preferably another 580,
>> but I may have to settle for a 430. Also, I'm still hoping to
>> get one of those nice 7D or 5D2 cams. With the higher ISO
>> performance, I could most likely do a better job of framing
>> shots. Once framed, I'd just have to drop down the ISO to a
>> lower, less noisey, speed and take the shot. It would really
>> help me maximize the usefulness of what light perception I
>> possess.
>>
>> BTW, thanks, a whole bunch, to those of you out there who
>> helped me with the two flash units I've purchased lately. I
>> am quite happy with them, especially in that I can make a few
>> of the setting changes myself. I have to admit, Canon has
>> done a good job with their speedlites, although I'd really
>> like to see them add a Sony-esque beep capability to their
>> menu systems.
>>
>> Take Care,
>> Dudley
>
> Maybe you can sit on a street corner with a cup in your hand. Because
> you're obviously incapable of making a living on your own and buying your
> own things anymore. I guess all blind people are as pathetic as you are.
> (Actually? No. You're the very first one I've ever seen this sad and
> pathetic and useless. All the ones I've known have JOBS and make their own
> money for their own toys. It must suck to be the most helpless blind person
> on earth, eh? The ones I've known would spit on you.)
>
Your mother denied breast milk and fed you saltwater, Tonto.

God, you are one bitter anguished excuse for protoplasm...
 >> Stay informed about: Lighting Test 

George Kerby wrote:

>
>
>
>On 3/5/11 7:52 PM, in article i7mdnaVnirZbde_QnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d.RemoveThis@giganews.com,
>"Dudley Hanks" wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, I dragged out an old light stand, an umbrella, and a couple
>> of flashes -- a Canon Speedlite 430ex II and a 580ex
>> II.
>>
>> The 430 was set to wireless remote and mounted on the stand with
>> the umbrella while the 580 was the master and camera
>> mounted.
>>
>> The ratio was set to 1:2, and the fill was angled to bounce off
>> the ceiling with the white card extended. It was angled so that
>> it should leave a bit of a sparkle in the eye, though probably
>> not a square.
>>
>> I think my daughter was getting a bit bored by the time I took
>> this shot; still, she was a great helper, giving me a chance to
>> test several different configurations and ratios.
>>
>> Just wondering how the exposure / lighting turned out
>> ...
>>
>>
>> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/images/LightingTestLarge.jpg (full
>> size)
>>
>> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/images/LightingTestSmall.jpg (fast
>> loading)
>>
>> Appreciate any comments ...
>>
>> Take Care,
>> Dudley
>
>Very well done, Dudley!
>
>While some would be concerned by the double catch lights in the eye, the
>overall lighting is excellent.
>
>I would suggest the background not be as noticeable - perhaps by sitting
>your daughter a little more distant. There the b/g is less defined and the
>shadow isn't there.
>
>Otherwise, a great capture.
>
>


Thanks, George, that helps a lot.

Indeed, we just hung a backdrop in the kitchen and set up the
lights there, so we were a bit cramped for space. I'm
thinking of setting up a more permanent studio in a spare room,
in which case the background would be set back a bit.


As for the double catch-lights, I'm torn on that debate. Back
when I could see more, I kind of liked multiple highlights,
feeling it helped to give a bit more roundness to the eye, and
helped draw the viewers attention there. But I appreciate why
others go for the single spot, as I realize the degree of
skill required to get the lighting right for that look,
especially when using minimal equipment.

For now, though, I'm just playing around with the new wireless
system, which I really like. It's a hell of a lot easier
setting up the stands, strobes and reflectors when one doesn't
have to string all those wires, or schedule the time to take
all those readings ...

Take Care,
Dudley
 >> Stay informed about: Lighting Test 

On 3/6/11 11:10 AM, in article
hvudnTgeeJlkIu7QnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d DeleteThis @giganews.com, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:

> George Kerby wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/5/11 7:52 PM, in article i7mdnaVnirZbde_QnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d DeleteThis @giganews.com,
>> "Dudley Hanks" wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Well, I dragged out an old light stand, an umbrella, and a couple
>>> of flashes -- a Canon Speedlite 430ex II and a 580ex
>>> II.
>>>
>>> The 430 was set to wireless remote and mounted on the stand with
>>> the umbrella while the 580 was the master and camera
>>> mounted.
>>>
>>> The ratio was set to 1:2, and the fill was angled to bounce off
>>> the ceiling with the white card extended. It was angled so that
>>> it should leave a bit of a sparkle in the eye, though probably
>>> not a square.
>>>
>>> I think my daughter was getting a bit bored by the time I took
>>> this shot; still, she was a great helper, giving me a chance to
>>> test several different configurations and ratios.
>>>
>>> Just wondering how the exposure / lighting turned out
>>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/images/LightingTestLarge.jpg (full
>>> size)
>>>
>>> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/images/LightingTestSmall.jpg (fast
>>> loading)
>>>
>>> Appreciate any comments ...
>>>
>>> Take Care,
>>> Dudley
>>
>> Very well done, Dudley!
>>
>> While some would be concerned by the double catch lights in the eye, the
>> overall lighting is excellent.
>>
>> I would suggest the background not be as noticeable - perhaps by sitting
>> your daughter a little more distant. There the b/g is less defined and the
>> shadow isn't there.
>>
>> Otherwise, a great capture.
>>
>>
>
>
> Thanks, George, that helps a lot.
>
> Indeed, we just hung a backdrop in the kitchen and set up the
> lights there, so we were a bit cramped for space. I'm
> thinking of setting up a more permanent studio in a spare room,
> in which case the background would be set back a bit.
>
>
> As for the double catch-lights, I'm torn on that debate. Back
> when I could see more, I kind of liked multiple highlights,
> feeling it helped to give a bit more roundness to the eye, and
> helped draw the viewers attention there. But I appreciate why
> others go for the single spot, as I realize the degree of
> skill required to get the lighting right for that look,
> especially when using minimal equipment.
>
> For now, though, I'm just playing around with the new wireless
> system, which I really like. It's a hell of a lot easier
> setting up the stands, strobes and reflectors when one doesn't
> have to string all those wires, or schedule the time to take
> all those readings ...
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley

Yep, that debate is as old as artificial lighting. But I had to find
*something* to be critical of, right?

<BFG!>

Tell your puppy Mitch hello from Texas.
 >> Stay informed about: Lighting Test 

George Kerby wrote:

>
>
>
>On 3/6/11 11:10 AM, in article
>hvudnTgeeJlkIu7QnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@giganews.com, "Dudley Hanks"
> wrote:
>
>> George Kerby wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/5/11 7:52 PM, in article i7mdnaVnirZbde_QnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d.RemoveThis@giganews.com,
>>> "Dudley Hanks" wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, I dragged out an old light stand, an umbrella, and a couple
>>>> of flashes -- a Canon Speedlite 430ex II and a 580ex
>>>> II.
>>>>
>>>> The 430 was set to wireless remote and mounted on the stand with
>>>> the umbrella while the 580 was the master and camera
>>>> mounted.
>>>>
>>>> The ratio was set to 1:2, and the fill was angled to bounce off
>>>> the ceiling with the white card extended. It was angled so that
>>>> it should leave a bit of a sparkle in the eye, though probably
>>>> not a square.
>>>>
>>>> I think my daughter was getting a bit bored by the time I took
>>>> this shot; still, she was a great helper, giving me a chance to
>>>> test several different configurations and ratios.
>>>>
>>>> Just wondering how the exposure / lighting turned out
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/images/LightingTestLarge.jpg (full
>>>> size)
>>>>
>>>> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/images/LightingTestSmall.jpg (fast
>>>> loading)
>>>>
>>>> Appreciate any comments ...
>>>>
>>>> Take Care,
>>>> Dudley
>>>
>>> Very well done, Dudley!
>>>
>>> While some would be concerned by the double catch lights in the eye, the
>>> overall lighting is excellent.
>>>
>>> I would suggest the background not be as noticeable - perhaps by sitting
>>> your daughter a little more distant. There the b/g is less defined and the
>>> shadow isn't there.
>>>
>>> Otherwise, a great capture.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks, George, that helps a lot.
>>
>> Indeed, we just hung a backdrop in the kitchen and set up the
>> lights there, so we were a bit cramped for space. I'm
>> thinking of setting up a more permanent studio in a spare room,
>> in which case the background would be set back a bit.
>>
>>
>> As for the double catch-lights, I'm torn on that debate. Back
>> when I could see more, I kind of liked multiple highlights,
>> feeling it helped to give a bit more roundness to the eye, and
>> helped draw the viewers attention there. But I appreciate why
>> others go for the single spot, as I realize the degree of
>> skill required to get the lighting right for that look,
>> especially when using minimal equipment.
>>
>> For now, though, I'm just playing around with the new wireless
>> system, which I really like. It's a hell of a lot easier
>> setting up the stands, strobes and reflectors when one doesn't
>> have to string all those wires, or schedule the time to take
>> all those readings ...
>>
>> Take Care,
>> Dudley
>
>Yep, that debate is as old as artificial lighting. But I had to find
>*something* to be critical of, right?
>
><BFG!>
>
>Tell your puppy Mitch hello from Texas.
>


Of course, I understand, George, and your criticism hurt me to
my very core ...

And, of course, Mich gives you a big woof back from the frozen
North.

Take Care,
Dudley
 >> Stay informed about: Lighting Test 

On 3/6/11 12:03 PM, in article a5i7n65dpg3ul5gsbitepau4ls183765tq.DeleteThis@4ax.com,
"Gilford Brimly" wrote:

> On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 11:29:16 -0600, George Kerby
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Yep, that debate is as old as artificial lighting. But I had to find
>> *something* to be critical of, right?
>>
>> <BFG!>
>
> Yes, you're so observant that you didn't even notice nor mention that the
> subject was too far off the left side and far too low with half the image
> taken up with the blank background.

Finally! Some constructive criticism. I KNEW you could do it. Despite
YOURSELF!
 >> Stay informed about: Lighting Test