On 23 Apr 2013 01:52:57 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:

On 2013-04-22, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 08:09:09 +0700, J.B.Slocomb
wrote:

A light box is handy but it only serves to light the entire object and
eliminate shadows. You can use reflectors and diffusers to do
essentially the same thing with, probably, more bother.

Try some diffusers made from thin white plastic in front of your flash
and (probably) three or four flash heads and see if you can't get the
effects that you want.

Or one flash head, moved around and popped three or four times.

This works fine with film -- but keeping the shutter open on
digital keeps the sensor active, and thermal noise builds up with long
exposures. Some have a noise reduction system which matches the
exposure time with shutter open with an equivalent exposure time with
shutter closed, and subtracts the latter from the former. This cancels
some of the thermal effects of long exposures, but also slows down the
shot rate. I turn that feature off when doing things like capturing
town fireworks on the 4th, so I can go to the next shot more quickly.

Well, I don't own a good digital camera. When I'm in Chicago, where I
do most of my photography, I borrow my nephew's Nikons. g

I thought that some of them will take multiple exposures? Again, I
don't own a good one, so I don't know.

With film, I try to do it with one of my two cameras (Calumet 4 x 5,
and a Yashicamat 6 x 6) that allow it without moving the film. My F2
won't allow it; they started that with the F3.

However, I did a series of nightime architectural shots, for a
portfolio, with my F2 and a 28mm shift lens. I left the shutter open
in the dark and just had my assistant cover the whole camera with the
dark cloth (from my Calumet) between flashes. One of those involved 13
different flash shots on one frame of film.

It really is a good technique where you can use it. With a good
flashmeter, you can plan the shot very precisely.

BTW, I used to work with a guy who specialized in making still photos
of theater sets, without the cast present. He "painted" with a single
photoflood. One light, but it looked like a dozen when he was done.
Very impressive.


[ ... ]

An electronic camera is nice as you don't need to waste all the trial
shots that you do with film.

'Second that. I even use one for doing test shots, to balance the
lights, when I'm doing the final on 4 x 5 film and using a Minolta
Flashmeter IV for exposure.

So you have not depended on the results from the digital, except
as a rough guide -- so you may not have seen the effects of the long
open shutter time, since you probably did not bother blowing up the
image on your computer monitor.

Enjoy,
DoN.

Actually, for that Amada brochure, I wound up using the digital shot
from a Nikon D5000. Not having used the camera before, I didn't trust
it for a one-day shoot that cost me $1,000 in travel costs. You don't
want to go home from one of those without good photos. g I previewed
it on my laptop, but I wanted to see how it stacked up against film.

So I used three cameras; one each for the slide and the negative film,
and the digital. They were all useable but the negative shot was quite
a bit grainier than either the digital or the transparency. I shot the
negative film in case the daylight fluorescents required some color
correction. They did not.

Otherwise, except for a Web publication (Fab Shop Magazine Direct), I
use my wife's very good, but smallish Fuji pocket camera to check
composition and light balance. For the Web, I use that camera for my
final shots.

I'll buy a good digital some time, but I haven't had enough need to
justify it. I don't shoot for fun like I used to, and I haven't shot a
magazine cover for around a decade now. I rent when I need to.

--
Ed Huntress