You _might_ be able to rig a light ring on those.
The 3000 for sure, but I didn't see enough of the others
to be able to tell for sure.

I had several of these on hand...
http://www.batteryspace.com/ufoportablecamping24ledshangerlight-white.aspx
and converted one for my Fuji S8100.

The trick to that was to lay up a mounting tube that fit snuggly
around the camera bezel (fiberglass cloth and epoxy).
And to drill out the lamp case so that tube passes through it.

The lens bezel on all of those cameras is small enough that you
could easily retain the internal batteries of the lamp.

That center hole is 1.5" diameter.
Measure the outer part of the lens and see if it will fit through?

On 4/21/2013 10:39 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 19:10:03 -0400, Joe
wrote:

In , Gunner Asch
wrote:

Anyone have any good suggestions for types of lightboxes for product
photography?

I do NOT have a hip slick and cool digital SLR, and even the external
strobe connections are a *******.

Id like to build a lightbox..but it needs to be big enough/rugged
enough.. to put in a dirty, oily part or piece.

Something for shooting photos for Ebay for example.

Ive seen how some Ebay companies like Reliable Tools do it..but I dont
have that kind of floor space (theirs is 50'x50' with huge movable
fill lights in towers on wheels.

So Im going to need something useable with at least 3 strobes and
operational via slave flash.

You don't need strobes, Gunner. Proper lighting is essential, and
setting your camera to work with the lights chosen is a must. A pair
of 200w (45w actual) 5000k daylighter CFLs go for $7ea on eBay
http://tinyurl.com/cd2pa7a

Or buy a kit with softboxes or umbrellas. Mine was about $40
delivered with umbrellas, light holders, 5000k CFLs, and stands.
I wish I'd bought the background and stands, too.
http://tinyurl.com/bpo9d2r

This is one HELL of a deal: http://tinyurl.com/d3d5suj


Anyone have any links etc etc for simple designs suitable for what we
do?

I think you are actually asking for a light *tent*: a tent made of some
translucent white material like nylon or dacron sail-cloth or frosted
mylar drafting film. One puts the object inside the trnt and set the
lights up to illuminate the outside of the tent, then snaps away.
Tents are particularly good for shiny objects.

White muslin can come in BIG sizes for fairly cheap, too.
http://tinyurl.com/c9fo6hs $32 includes bg& stands, delivered!



They are easy to make, but can also be bought.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Te...410/N/42945507
97

http://digital-photography-school.co...ensive-light-t
ent

Yes, indeedy.

--
Stain and poly are their own punishment.


Betcha a plug nickel it doesn't sell for that!

Anyone have any good suggestions for types of lightboxes for product
photography?

I do NOT have a hip slick and cool digital SLR, and even the external
strobe connections are a *******.

Id like to build a lightbox..but it needs to be big enough/rugged
enough.. to put in a dirty, oily part or piece.

Something for shooting photos for Ebay for example.

Ive seen how some Ebay companies like Reliable Tools do it..but I dont
have that kind of floor space (theirs is 50'x50' with huge movable
fill lights in towers on wheels.

So Im going to need something useable with at least 3 strobes and
operational via slave flash.

Anyone have any links etc etc for simple designs suitable for what we
do?

Gunner

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 14:20:04 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

Anyone have any good suggestions for types of lightboxes for product
photography?

I do NOT have a hip slick and cool digital SLR, and even the external
strobe connections are a *******.

Id like to build a lightbox..but it needs to be big enough/rugged
enough.. to put in a dirty, oily part or piece.

Something for shooting photos for Ebay for example.

Ive seen how some Ebay companies like Reliable Tools do it..but I dont
have that kind of floor space (theirs is 50'x50' with huge movable
fill lights in towers on wheels.

So Im going to need something useable with at least 3 strobes and
operational via slave flash.

Anyone have any links etc etc for simple designs suitable for what we
do?

Gunner


Oh..I use Olympus Camedia C-4000s, C-3030s and C-3000 cameras.

Cheap, take good photos and are rugged as hell.

Gunner

Gunner Asch fired this volley in
:

Anyone have any links etc etc for simple designs suitable for what we
do?



Gunner, It's a BOX with LIGHTS shining on the object to be photographed!
It ain't rocket science. You don't need plans.

I have taken thousands of product photos of pyrotechnic products for
catalogs. I never built a 'box'. I just hung a neutral, mottled
backdrop (you can buy them fairly inexpensively, or get some mottled
wallpaper) in a gentle sweep under and behind the products (so you can't
see a corner in the bottom of the shot), and put various work lights on
stands around the product until I got the illumination and shadows I
wanted at the resolution I wanted.

Rarely, after seeing a series of pictures, I'd have to go color-balance
them in some software, because they came out a little too blueish or
reddish, and I always cropped and framed them for the catalogs -- but
that's all software. All you need for the raw photo is white light and
several sources, so you can kill shadows.

A couple of pieces of Thermoply, or cardboard with aluminum foil taped to
it, will help kill unwanted shadows in places the lights can't reach.
Spring clamps do the holding work. Pipe stands do the job of getting it
all in the air.

LLoyd

In article , Gunner Asch
wrote:

Anyone have any good suggestions for types of lightboxes for product
photography?

I do NOT have a hip slick and cool digital SLR, and even the external
strobe connections are a *******.

Id like to build a lightbox..but it needs to be big enough/rugged
enough.. to put in a dirty, oily part or piece.

Something for shooting photos for Ebay for example.

Ive seen how some Ebay companies like Reliable Tools do it..but I dont
have that kind of floor space (theirs is 50'x50' with huge movable
fill lights in towers on wheels.

So Im going to need something useable with at least 3 strobes and
operational via slave flash.

Anyone have any links etc etc for simple designs suitable for what we
do?

I think you are actually asking for a light *tent*: a tent made of some
translucent white material like nylon or dacron sail-cloth or frosted
mylar drafting film. One puts the object inside the trnt and set the
lights up to illuminate the outside of the tent, then snaps away.
Tents are particularly good for shiny objects.

They are easy to make, but can also be bought.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Te...410/N/42945507
97

http://digital-photography-school.co...ensive-light-t
ent

Joe Gwinn

Gunner Asch wrote:
Anyone have any good suggestions for types of lightboxes for product
photography?

I do NOT have a hip slick and cool digital SLR, and even the external
strobe connections are a *******.

Id like to build a lightbox..but it needs to be big enough/rugged
enough.. to put in a dirty, oily part or piece.

Something for shooting photos for Ebay for example.

Ive seen how some Ebay companies like Reliable Tools do it..but I dont
have that kind of floor space (theirs is 50'x50' with huge movable
fill lights in towers on wheels.

So Im going to need something useable with at least 3 strobes and
operational via slave flash.

Anyone have any links etc etc for simple designs suitable for what we
do?

Gunner


Simple method is the foam sheet sold in home centers. Spray one side
with neutral gray and use spring clamps to hold it together. Lights in
the front corners with angles to help stabilize the box.

Couple of pieces of the thinner stuff with foil for use as reflectors to
get light in odd places.

--
Steve W.

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 14:20:04 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

Anyone have any good suggestions for types of lightboxes for product
photography?

I do NOT have a hip slick and cool digital SLR, and even the external
strobe connections are a *******.

Id like to build a lightbox..but it needs to be big enough/rugged
enough.. to put in a dirty, oily part or piece.

Something for shooting photos for Ebay for example.

Ive seen how some Ebay companies like Reliable Tools do it..but I dont
have that kind of floor space (theirs is 50'x50' with huge movable
fill lights in towers on wheels.

So Im going to need something useable with at least 3 strobes and
operational via slave flash.

Anyone have any links etc etc for simple designs suitable for what we
do?

Gunner

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.

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


--
Cheers,

John B.

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

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 14:20:04 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

Anyone have any good suggestions for types of lightboxes for product
photography?

I do NOT have a hip slick and cool digital SLR, and even the external
strobe connections are a *******.

Id like to build a lightbox..but it needs to be big enough/rugged
enough.. to put in a dirty, oily part or piece.

Something for shooting photos for Ebay for example.

Ive seen how some Ebay companies like Reliable Tools do it..but I dont
have that kind of floor space (theirs is 50'x50' with huge movable
fill lights in towers on wheels.

So Im going to need something useable with at least 3 strobes and
operational via slave flash.

Anyone have any links etc etc for simple designs suitable for what we
do?

Gunner

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.

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


Thats what I figured. Its been years since I did it with film...a
stroke got in the way..and I dont remember much about what/ how I did
it.

I know this question doesnt show it..but I used to be a fairly
competent semi-pro photographer. Shrug.

The ability to break it down and set it up quickly would be nice as
well. Im running out of floor/shop space.

Anyone have any good links to "inexpensive" slave strobes? Or anyone
have any older slave strobes that they have outgrown?

Gunner

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 19:10:03 -0400, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

In article , Gunner Asch
wrote:

Anyone have any good suggestions for types of lightboxes for product
photography?

I do NOT have a hip slick and cool digital SLR, and even the external
strobe connections are a *******.

Id like to build a lightbox..but it needs to be big enough/rugged
enough.. to put in a dirty, oily part or piece.

Something for shooting photos for Ebay for example.

Ive seen how some Ebay companies like Reliable Tools do it..but I dont
have that kind of floor space (theirs is 50'x50' with huge movable
fill lights in towers on wheels.

So Im going to need something useable with at least 3 strobes and
operational via slave flash.

You don't need strobes, Gunner. Proper lighting is essential, and
setting your camera to work with the lights chosen is a must. A pair
of 200w (45w actual) 5000k daylighter CFLs go for $7ea on eBay
http://tinyurl.com/cd2pa7a

Or buy a kit with softboxes or umbrellas. Mine was about $40
delivered with umbrellas, light holders, 5000k CFLs, and stands.
I wish I'd bought the background and stands, too.
http://tinyurl.com/bpo9d2r

This is one HELL of a deal: http://tinyurl.com/d3d5suj


Anyone have any links etc etc for simple designs suitable for what we
do?

I think you are actually asking for a light *tent*: a tent made of some
translucent white material like nylon or dacron sail-cloth or frosted
mylar drafting film. One puts the object inside the trnt and set the
lights up to illuminate the outside of the tent, then snaps away.
Tents are particularly good for shiny objects.

White muslin can come in BIG sizes for fairly cheap, too.
http://tinyurl.com/c9fo6hs $32 includes bg & stands, delivered!



They are easy to make, but can also be bought.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Te...410/N/42945507
97

http://digital-photography-school.co...ensive-light-t
ent

Yes, indeedy.

--
Stain and poly are their own punishment.

In article ,
Gunner Asch wrote:

Anyone have any good suggestions for types of lightboxes for product
photography?

I do NOT have a hip slick and cool digital SLR, and even the external
strobe connections are a *******.

Id like to build a lightbox..but it needs to be big enough/rugged
enough.. to put in a dirty, oily part or piece.

Something for shooting photos for Ebay for example.

Ive seen how some Ebay companies like Reliable Tools do it..but I dont
have that kind of floor space (theirs is 50'x50' with huge movable
fill lights in towers on wheels.

So Im going to need something useable with at least 3 strobes and
operational via slave flash.

Anyone have any links etc etc for simple designs suitable for what we
do?

Gunner

If you have a tripod or whatever (sandbags sometime work) that will keep
your camera still, you can get very good results, probably with stuff
you already have on hand. If the camera (and subject) are held
absolutely still, longer exposures can be used at will, reducing the
need for big lights... within reason. For shooting small stuff small
table top 'set' can be cobbled up on most anything.

First, get in tight, fill the frame.

If your tripod isn't rock solid, also use the camera's self timer so it
can settle down before the actual exposure. Any camera/subject movement
is a big deal when your in tight with limited lighting.

For lights, a couple of goose neck lamps work well, and are nimble
enough to maneuver around as necessary. If to harsh, a sheet of white
printer paper or cut up milk jug/s over the lamp/s can help soften
things up. Similarly, a sheet of vertically folded paper standing near
the subject out of frame can/will reflect enough to fill in shadows if
necessary.

Read your camera manual and see if it's 'white balance' can be
set/adjusted. This is often done by shooting a white surface in the
setting mode illuminated by whatever you'll be using as a light source.
Doing so will allow most any lights you wish, but try not to mix them.
Most modern camera's try to automatically adjust the WB, but if misses,
your colors can really be goofy. Regular tungsten incandescent lights
will make everything look orange, fluorescents green and so on.

Also read the manual for exposure compensation info, so your
predominantly light or dark shots come out properly exposed. Camera
light meters always try to get a overall average (B&W) tonal value of
about 18% grey. (Ever notice how many snow/beach scenes come out under
exposed/dreary looking?) So if your subject/background have a lot of
white, override the light meter, and tell it to over expose by a stop or
two. The opposite if your dealing with a lot of dark.

Bracketing go's a long way too... shoot a bunch of shots of each item,
playing with different framing, lighting, exposure compensation and
whatever... so you can pick out the shot/s you like best. You can learn
a lot doing so as well.

The above won't put your work on the cover of National Geographic, but
will go a long way. The next step would be a basic copy of Photoshop or
equivalent, and boning up on cropping, setting white and black levels, &
'unsharp mask'.

The good tripod is a must... remember you can even make up one. It's
only purpose is to is to keep the camera stationary. Camera tripod
sockets are 1/4-20, use your imagination!

Could go on but those are the biggies, I'm sure others will also have
good suggestions as well.

Good luck!

Erik

Strobes.. 3 of them, yeah, no ****.

If everyone had just supported his dimwit proposed method, it would've (at
least) been fun to read about all the failures he was having.. and cries for
more help.

If Gummer ever bothered reading here instead of posting useless fanatic
bull**** (any time that he's not pleading for help!), he might have noticed
this topic (and a multitude of other useful topics) have been answered
previously here in RCM.

He sure can find misguided, biased politcal info easily enough, to spamcast
across multiple newsgroups, but when it comes to any real topics.. well,
better ask in RCM.

He lives in sunny SoCal FFS and needs lighting for pictures. Pics of rusty
broken/worn out junk, most likely. Al Babin wannabe.
Perhaps install some skylights in the salvaged sheeting shanty out back.

It's likely he was thinking of all those lingerie model/supermodel shoots
he's been on that had him thinking he's a pro photographer.

--
WB
..........


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

You don't need strobes, Gunner. Proper lighting is essential, and
setting your camera to work with the lights chosen is a must. A pair
of 200w (45w actual) 5000k daylighter CFLs go for $7ea on eBay
http://tinyurl.com/cd2pa7a

Or buy a kit with softboxes or umbrellas. Mine was about $40
delivered with umbrellas, light holders, 5000k CFLs, and stands.
I wish I'd bought the background and stands, too.
http://tinyurl.com/bpo9d2r

This is one HELL of a deal: http://tinyurl.com/d3d5suj

White muslin can come in BIG sizes for fairly cheap, too.
http://tinyurl.com/c9fo6hs $32 includes bg & stands, delivered!

Yes, indeedy.

--
Stain and poly are their own punishment.

In article ,
Erik wrote:

In article ,
Gunner Asch wrote:

Anyone have any good suggestions for types of lightboxes for product
photography?

I do NOT have a hip slick and cool digital SLR, and even the external
strobe connections are a *******.

Id like to build a lightbox..but it needs to be big enough/rugged
enough.. to put in a dirty, oily part or piece.

Something for shooting photos for Ebay for example.

Ive seen how some Ebay companies like Reliable Tools do it..but I dont
have that kind of floor space (theirs is 50'x50' with huge movable
fill lights in towers on wheels.

So Im going to need something useable with at least 3 strobes and
operational via slave flash.

Anyone have any links etc etc for simple designs suitable for what we
do?

Gunner

If you have a tripod or whatever (sandbags sometime work) that will keep
your camera still, you can get very good results, probably with stuff
you already have on hand. If the camera (and subject) are held
absolutely still, longer exposures can be used at will, reducing the
need for big lights... within reason. For shooting small stuff small
table top 'set' can be cobbled up on most anything.

First, get in tight, fill the frame.

If your tripod isn't rock solid, also use the camera's self timer so it
can settle down before the actual exposure. Any camera/subject movement
is a big deal when your in tight with limited lighting.

For lights, a couple of goose neck lamps work well, and are nimble
enough to maneuver around as necessary. If to harsh, a sheet of white
printer paper or cut up milk jug/s over the lamp/s can help soften
things up. Similarly, a sheet of vertically folded paper standing near
the subject out of frame can/will reflect enough to fill in shadows if
necessary.

Read your camera manual and see if it's 'white balance' can be
set/adjusted. This is often done by shooting a white surface in the
setting mode illuminated by whatever you'll be using as a light source.
Doing so will allow most any lights you wish, but try not to mix them.
Most modern camera's try to automatically adjust the WB, but if misses,
your colors can really be goofy. Regular tungsten incandescent lights
will make everything look orange, fluorescents green and so on.

Also read the manual for exposure compensation info, so your
predominantly light or dark shots come out properly exposed. Camera
light meters always try to get a overall average (B&W) tonal value of
about 18% grey. (Ever notice how many snow/beach scenes come out under
exposed/dreary looking?) So if your subject/background have a lot of
white, override the light meter, and tell it to over expose by a stop or
two. The opposite if your dealing with a lot of dark.

Bracketing go's a long way too... shoot a bunch of shots of each item,
playing with different framing, lighting, exposure compensation and
whatever... so you can pick out the shot/s you like best. You can learn
a lot doing so as well.

The above won't put your work on the cover of National Geographic, but
will go a long way. The next step would be a basic copy of Photoshop or
equivalent, and boning up on cropping, setting white and black levels, &
'unsharp mask'.

The good tripod is a must... remember you can even make up one. It's
only purpose is to is to keep the camera stationary. Camera tripod
sockets are 1/4-20, use your imagination!

Could go on but those are the biggies, I'm sure others will also have
good suggestions as well.

Good luck!

Erik

Mo

If you have some good natural light available, you can go a long way
with it too.

Check this (overpriced) Craigs list ad I have up:

http://losangeles.craigslist.org/wst...722004257.html

The first 5 shots are in direct sunlight, either right on the cement, or
handheld above it. Some exposure compensation was necessary on the ones
showing a lot of light colored cement.

They were taken with a cheap Pentax SLR, but on auto mode as I was in a
hurry.

Notice how only filled frame sharper images were used? Diagonally
sometimes to take advantage of available frame area. IIRC, I shot maybe
15 total images, so I could pick/choose the best.

The size comparison 'gag' quarter was lit by a single compact
fluorescent bulb in a goose neck lamp. The camera was on a tripod, and
the back of my hand supported still on the table. The white balance was
adjusted before hand, and the dark red background is literally just a
colored file folder I'd put on the table. I did rotate/crop & adjust the
exposure a little in Photoshop... but not all that much. Wish my hand
was cleaner.

Here's some more direct sunlit handheld shots. They also got some minor
Photoshop attention:

http://losangeles.craigslist.org/wst...719656633.html

See my BBQ in the first shot? It's in the lower RH corner, but
camouflaged in the 'Bokeh':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

No particularly fancy lens was used, but focused in close like this,
everything in the distance gets blown way out of focus... desirable in
this case.

You really don't need any strobes for eBay like product shots... as you
likely have no motion to stop... unless in low light, but that's what
the tripod is for.

Erik

On 4/22/2013 1:34 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:

True indeed. Low f-stop and slow shutter for a minimum depth of field.



I think you have that backerds, hoss.

Higher F numbers mean smaller aperture diameter.
Depth of field increases with f-number

Reducing _aperture_ increases depth of field.

An shutter speed is not involved (directly, anyway)

On 4/22/2013 4:35 PM, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
fired this volley in news:s4CdnUvUw4tXN-
:

I think you have that backerds, hoss.

Higher F numbers mean smaller aperture diameter.
Depth of field increases with f-number

Reducing _aperture_ increases depth of field.

An shutter speed is not involved (directly, anyway)

I think you completely mis-read what he said. You just _repeated_ it
(correctly), except for disallowing that small apertures require longer
exposure, which he had wrong and you correct.

But you were wrong about one thing: For a given 'speed' (film, CCD,
anything), shutter speed IS directly involved. The smaller the aperture,
the longer the exposure for a given level of illumination.

LLoyd


LLoyd


For a given light level, yes, but more light can overcome that issue easily.

Low f-stop?

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 22:29:41 -0700, Erik wrote:

In article ,
Gunner Asch wrote:

Anyone have any good suggestions for types of lightboxes for product
photography?

I do NOT have a hip slick and cool digital SLR, and even the external
strobe connections are a *******.

Id like to build a lightbox..but it needs to be big enough/rugged
enough.. to put in a dirty, oily part or piece.

Something for shooting photos for Ebay for example.

Ive seen how some Ebay companies like Reliable Tools do it..but I dont
have that kind of floor space (theirs is 50'x50' with huge movable
fill lights in towers on wheels.

So Im going to need something useable with at least 3 strobes and
operational via slave flash.

Anyone have any links etc etc for simple designs suitable for what we
do?

Gunner

If you have a tripod or whatever (sandbags sometime work) that will keep
your camera still, you can get very good results, probably with stuff
you already have on hand. If the camera (and subject) are held
absolutely still, longer exposures can be used at will, reducing the
need for big lights... within reason. For shooting small stuff small
table top 'set' can be cobbled up on most anything.

First, get in tight, fill the frame.

If your tripod isn't rock solid, also use the camera's self timer so it
can settle down before the actual exposure. Any camera/subject movement
is a big deal when your in tight with limited lighting.

For lights, a couple of goose neck lamps work well, and are nimble
enough to maneuver around as necessary. If to harsh, a sheet of white
printer paper or cut up milk jug/s over the lamp/s can help soften
things up. Similarly, a sheet of vertically folded paper standing near
the subject out of frame can/will reflect enough to fill in shadows if
necessary.

Read your camera manual and see if it's 'white balance' can be
set/adjusted. This is often done by shooting a white surface in the
setting mode illuminated by whatever you'll be using as a light source.
Doing so will allow most any lights you wish, but try not to mix them.
Most modern camera's try to automatically adjust the WB, but if misses,
your colors can really be goofy. Regular tungsten incandescent lights
will make everything look orange, fluorescents green and so on.

Also read the manual for exposure compensation info, so your
predominantly light or dark shots come out properly exposed. Camera
light meters always try to get a overall average (B&W) tonal value of
about 18% grey. (Ever notice how many snow/beach scenes come out under
exposed/dreary looking?) So if your subject/background have a lot of
white, override the light meter, and tell it to over expose by a stop or
two. The opposite if your dealing with a lot of dark.

Bracketing go's a long way too... shoot a bunch of shots of each item,
playing with different framing, lighting, exposure compensation and
whatever... so you can pick out the shot/s you like best. You can learn
a lot doing so as well.

The above won't put your work on the cover of National Geographic, but
will go a long way. The next step would be a basic copy of Photoshop or
equivalent, and boning up on cropping, setting white and black levels, &
'unsharp mask'.

The good tripod is a must... remember you can even make up one. It's
only purpose is to is to keep the camera stationary. Camera tripod
sockets are 1/4-20, use your imagination!

Could go on but those are the biggies, I'm sure others will also have
good suggestions as well.

Good luck!

Erik

Tripods I have. Probably 5-6 of them. I used to shoot a lot of 4x5
film...and good tripods are pretty important.

I guess one of my big problems..is both the after effects of the
stroke..and most of my creative stuff was done on film. When I was
reading the posts about using Florescent lights..my hackles started
rising up and I was thinking.."these guys are ****ing nuts!!"...then
it dawned on me...digital..aint film. Green photos/florescent
light... with film...aint necessarily green with digital.

And for that..I want to thank all of you for knocking me on my ass and
making me think. Truely.

Ive never done more than taken "snapshots" with digital...so its
something Im going to have to remember....digital..isnt film.

I have a degree in photography..shrug..but it was 25 yrs ago. Hell..I
taught classes at the local JC.

I spent most of my time doing B&W with some color mixed in...all film
since then. Granted..I won a number of awards and took the county fair
prizes a few times...but...it wasnt with digital. I wasnt half bad at
all. And I still have the "eye", still remember what the "rule of
thirds" is and so forth.

I just read an ad that was pushing a rather neat folding lightbox in a
briefcase and they were using florescent tubes...and a small Sony
digital camera..and it just simply CLICKED..that all that film stuff
I learned..doesnt apply today. That ad for the backround setup that
you guys posted..had spiral florescents..wondering what the hell those
were for..not bright enough for primary lighting..and Im scratching my
head looking for the strobes..and..there wasnt any. CLICK!!

Thanks guys. It took a bit..but..I think Im catching on...finally.

Gunner

On 4/22/2013 5:50 PM, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
fired this volley in
m:

Low f-stop?

commonly-used term for small F-number... ALL the film guys used that
term.

"low f-stop" means "large aperture" -- Always has, but probably has no
meaning at all to kids who've never used a real camera.

I'm an 'all digital' shop now, but there was a time when I had a full
darkroom with all the toys. You had to, if you wanted really custom
work. The local Rexall drug store wasn't going to do it for you!

LLoyd


I'm sorry, Lloyd.
I can't brain today.
I have dumb.

On 4/22/2013 6:32 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
As the son of a (retired) photography instructor, I must stand with Richard
on this point.
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
.
wrote in message
...
On 4/22/2013 1:34 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:

True indeed. Low f-stop and slow shutter for a minimum depth of field.



I think you have that backerds, hoss.

Higher F numbers mean smaller aperture diameter.
Depth of field increases with f-number

Reducing _aperture_ increases depth of field.

An shutter speed is not involved (directly, anyway)



Yeahbut...

The common expression "Stop Down" really does mean to
reduce aperture size (although it also means a higher
F-stop number)...

Thinking about it since, I'm sure that's what Gunner meant.

On 4/22/2013 6:40 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

"Steve W." wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 22:29:41 -0700, wrote:

Tripods I have. Probably 5-6 of them. I used to shoot a lot of 4x5
film...and good tripods are pretty important.

I guess one of my big problems..is both the after effects of the
stroke..and most of my creative stuff was done on film. When I was
reading the posts about using Florescent lights..my hackles started
rising up and I was thinking.."these guys are ****ing nuts!!"...then
it dawned on me...digital..aint film. Green photos/florescent
light... with film...aint necessarily green with digital.

And for that..I want to thank all of you for knocking me on my ass and
making me think. Truely.

Ive never done more than taken "snapshots" with digital...so its
something Im going to have to remember....digital..isnt film.

I have a degree in photography..shrug..but it was 25 yrs ago. Hell..I
taught classes at the local JC.

I spent most of my time doing B&W with some color mixed in...all film
since then. Granted..I won a number of awards and took the county fair
prizes a few times...but...it wasnt with digital. I wasnt half bad at
all. And I still have the "eye", still remember what the "rule of
thirds" is and so forth.

I just read an ad that was pushing a rather neat folding lightbox in a
briefcase and they were using florescent tubes...and a small Sony
digital camera..and it just simply CLICKED..that all that film stuff
I learned..doesnt apply today. That ad for the backround setup that
you guys posted..had spiral florescents..wondering what the hell those
were for..not bright enough for primary lighting..and Im scratching my
head looking for the strobes..and..there wasnt any. CLICK!!

Thanks guys. It took a bit..but..I think Im catching on...finally.

Gunner


There is a lot of film stuff that applies to digital. But these days
it's really easy to do editing outside the lab. One of the great things
with digital is it almost eliminates the old exposure bracketing of
film. No need to shoot over/under and then search for the correct one in
a stack of film. Instead you can see the image you have real time and
deal with it.

As far as color shifts caused by lights. There can be an entire new set
of rules depending on the sensors in the camera, the color settings of
the monitor and printer. There are also finite color settings to deal
with, unlike film with it's infinite color spectrum. Same issue with B/W.


Small, color corrected halogen lamps& diffusers do a nice job. My
background is in TV studio lighting and live TV camera work. You can
buy 150W lamps in rectangular housings, but I want to see how the 10W
LED versions will work. Mount them from the ceiling of the shop, and
paint part of the wall a light color.


One of these:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/111057953751


Not necessary anymore for digital work.

But if we wanted to be really anal about light color,
three circuits of LEDS (RGB) with PWM control for each
would give darned good color control.

On 4/22/2013 5:50 PM, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
fired this volley in
m:

Low f-stop?

commonly-used term for small F-number... ALL the film guys used that
term.

"low f-stop" means "large aperture" -- Always has, but probably has no
meaning at all to kids who've never used a real camera.

I'm an 'all digital' shop now, but there was a time when I had a full
darkroom with all the toys. You had to, if you wanted really custom
work. The local Rexall drug store wasn't going to do it for you!

LLoyd


Now that you mention it, I'm kinda wondering how to get reprints made
from negatives.

Is there a way to scan 35 mm negatives to photo quality? Inexpensively?

On 4/22/2013 7:18 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:32:10 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

As the son of a (retired) photography instructor, I must stand with Richard
on this point.

As a retired photography instructor..I stand by my statement

G.


As long as you don't sit on it in your underwear. Ugh,

And on that subject, I saw today that Futurama is not
being picked up for another season.

Sigh...

On 4/22/2013 7:20 PM, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
fired this volley in
news
The common expression "Stop Down" really does mean to
reduce aperture size (although it also means a higher
F-stop number)...


yup... all kinds of 'trade expressions' in photography.

How about 'push'?G

LLoyd


Oh man...

Haven't heard that one in a century or so.
One of my Dad's favorite tricks.

On 4/22/2013 7:21 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 14:46:01 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Gunner sed...

Tripods I have. Probably 5-6 of them. I used to shoot a lot of 4x5
film...and good tripods are pretty important.

I guess one of my big problems..is both the after effects of the
stroke..and most of my creative stuff was done on film. When I was
reading the posts about using Florescent lights..my hackles started
rising up and I was thinking.."these guys are ****ing nuts!!"...then
it dawned on me...digital..aint film. Green photos/florescent
light... with film...aint necessarily green with digital.



Yeah, a solid tripod was pretty important with a film pak-backed Press
Grafix on the stand!

Green is green, Gunner... even in digital. The boon, though, is you can
re-balance the colors in "post edit" (call it "the digital darkroom").

I keep forgetting "post processing". Film sometimes COULD be
balanced..but it always was a hit or miss proposition.

I've done tons of product photos. Thousands. You don't need a light
box; just a good seamless backdrop and several stand-mounted floods.
They don't even have to be "photo floods" -- just lights. Use foil
reflectors for unwanted shadows.

LLoyd

Ayup..Im catching on now.

Thanks!

Gunner


You can't create content that is not in the original file
Well, I take that back, you can with Photoshop.

But post processing digitally has an amazing about of flexibility.

But green really is still green!

On 4/22/2013 7:24 AM, Richard wrote:
On 4/22/2013 7:20 PM, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
fired this volley in
news
The common expression "Stop Down" really does mean to
reduce aperture size (although it also means a higher
F-stop number)...


yup... all kinds of 'trade expressions' in photography.

How about 'push'?G

LLoyd


Oh man...

Haven't heard that one in a century or so.
One of my Dad's favorite tricks.


He was fabulous at dodging too.

On 4/22/2013 7:58 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:

Just get a can of air..or a good film brush. As enlarging/scanning
will show dust, fingerprints etc etc

I've tried scanning with my printer/scanner.
It takes more than a can of air.
I've had to wash the negatives - soap and water!

Then I started experimenting.
Black and white might work ok - on a better scanner.
I've gone to 4800 DPI, but still get a lot of artifact.
And huge files!

As for color, it's problematic doing it this way.
Of course the color has to be inverted, but getting any
control of saturation, hue, or balance depends purely on the
tools used. They work best if reduced to BW.


I have thousands of negatives. 35 MM and Instamatic.
And I've given away most of the really good prints.

That 7200 DPI dedicated scanner looks interesting...

wrote in message
m...

How about 'push'?G

LLoyd


Oh man...

Haven't heard that one in a century or so.
One of my Dad's favorite tricks.


He was fabulous at dodging too.


On 4/22/2013 8:04 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
I've got you there. Done both dodging, and burning.

Dad and I used to do sepia tone, too.
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

All of that (except vignettes)are pretty much single click operations now.

Vignettes take a few more clicks to make a mask and all...


I'm very much in favor of the digital camera though.
In spite of the loss of the learning experience accorded by film.

Expense, room for equipment, flexibility...

It's pretty amazing how the technology has developed.

On 4/22/2013 8:14 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:10:35 -0500,
wrote:

On 4/22/2013 6:32 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
As the son of a (retired) photography instructor, I must stand with Richard
on this point.
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
.
wrote in message
...
On 4/22/2013 1:34 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:

True indeed. Low f-stop and slow shutter for a minimum depth of field.



I think you have that backerds, hoss.

Higher F numbers mean smaller aperture diameter.
Depth of field increases with f-number

Reducing _aperture_ increases depth of field.

An shutter speed is not involved (directly, anyway)



Yeahbut...

The common expression "Stop Down" really does mean to
reduce aperture size (although it also means a higher
F-stop number)...

Thinking about it since, I'm sure that's what Gunner meant.


Correct. Historically...the bigger the number meant the smaller the
hole. 1 is on the top....64 is on the bottom...when you "stopped
down"...you were going farther down the list..and making the hole
smaller...letting in less light...

Im just an old fart.

Gunner



You would have not enjoyed the lecture from my Dad...

Words have meaning - jargon doesn't!

But it took him a LOT longer (and many more words) to say it.

On 4/22/2013 8:08 PM, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
Gunner fired this volley in
:

I do have an Olympus..but its got a scuzi interface and I no longer
use it very often


Is that the Apologetic Italian version of SCSI?

G
Look... no common desktop scanner will give you anything even close to
the resolution that's on the film. 3600 or 4800dpi will look pretty
good, but a 35mm negative is small... that doesn't end up being a lot of
X by Y.

There are excellent lens-adapter attachments that will fit or be adapted
to most SLR-type digital cameras that will allow the negative or slide to
fill the frame, and give you better resolution than a flatbed scanner
can.

Also, most photo shops (the few there are) usually have high-resolution
slide scanners for doing exactly what you want.

If from prints... it depends upon what you have. You can do a pretty
good job on a cheap desktop scanner on formats as large or larger than
5x7.

I wish I could haul a scanner and my computer/software back to 1969. I
made nice money (for a kid) back then hand-retouching damaged or
carelessly printed original prints. It would've been a 'miracle shop' if
I'd had the digital tools of today!

LLoyd





Someday, high on my wish list, is a flat bed scanner built into a laptop
or tablet. Why not?

I think the idea first came from "the book" in the book "Roadmarks" by
Roger Zelazny.

"Just slip that note into the book - any page will do..."
http://www.amazon.com/Roadmarks-Roge.../dp/0345345150

On 4/22/2013 8:52 PM, DoN. Nichols wrote:

'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.



Ran into that one head on when I was trying to take pictures of the
lunar eclipse with my Fuji. I got a couple - ok decent. Nowhere near
as nice as those from a 200" telescope (wonder why) but I burned a lot
of ones and zeros getting anything usable.

On 4/22/2013 8:44 PM, DoN. Nichols wrote:
On 2013-04-22, Lloyd E. Sponenburghlloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

[ ... ]

Green is green, Gunner... even in digital. The boon, though, is you can
re-balance the colors in "post edit" (call it "the digital darkroom").

Or -- at least with some digital cameras (Nikon D-70 and D-300s
in my personal experience) you can set a menu item and then shoot an 18%
gray card in the same lighting, and use that as a color balance setting
in the camera so you don't have to do much in the post-processing.

I've done tons of product photos. Thousands. You don't need a light
box; just a good seamless backdrop and several stand-mounted floods.
They don't even have to be "photo floods" -- just lights. Use foil
reflectors for unwanted shadows.

And for really small subjects (bugs, small components, screws,
etc), you can drape a hankerchief over a wire frame (bent up from a
couple of coathangers), put two or three lights outside it, and get very
smooth and even lighting. Use the in-camera white balance to adjust for
light color -- with the 18% gray card if you need it. Usually the
automatic white balance will be pretty good -- unless your subject is
predomently a single color and a large percentage of the frame.

Enjoy,
DoN.



Old hat.

I just use my home-made light ring now.

I shared a few thread pics a while back.

This camera is very not too bad...

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 22:29:41 -0700, Erik wrote:

Tripods I have. Probably 5-6 of them. I used to shoot a lot of 4x5
film...and good tripods are pretty important.

I guess one of my big problems..is both the after effects of the
stroke..and most of my creative stuff was done on film. When I was
reading the posts about using Florescent lights..my hackles started
rising up and I was thinking.."these guys are ****ing nuts!!"...then
it dawned on me...digital..aint film. Green photos/florescent
light... with film...aint necessarily green with digital.

And for that..I want to thank all of you for knocking me on my ass and
making me think. Truely.

Ive never done more than taken "snapshots" with digital...so its
something Im going to have to remember....digital..isnt film.

I have a degree in photography..shrug..but it was 25 yrs ago. Hell..I
taught classes at the local JC.

I spent most of my time doing B&W with some color mixed in...all film
since then. Granted..I won a number of awards and took the county fair
prizes a few times...but...it wasnt with digital. I wasnt half bad at
all. And I still have the "eye", still remember what the "rule of
thirds" is and so forth.

I just read an ad that was pushing a rather neat folding lightbox in a
briefcase and they were using florescent tubes...and a small Sony
digital camera..and it just simply CLICKED..that all that film stuff
I learned..doesnt apply today. That ad for the backround setup that
you guys posted..had spiral florescents..wondering what the hell those
were for..not bright enough for primary lighting..and Im scratching my
head looking for the strobes..and..there wasnt any. CLICK!!

Thanks guys. It took a bit..but..I think Im catching on...finally.

Gunner



There is a lot of film stuff that applies to digital. But these days
it's really easy to do editing outside the lab. One of the great things
with digital is it almost eliminates the old exposure bracketing of
film. No need to shoot over/under and then search for the correct one in
a stack of film. Instead you can see the image you have real time and
deal with it.

As far as color shifts caused by lights. There can be an entire new set
of rules depending on the sensors in the camera, the color settings of
the monitor and printer. There are also finite color settings to deal
with, unlike film with it's infinite color spectrum. Same issue with B/W.

--
Steve W.

On 04/21/2013 02:20 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
Anyone have any good suggestions for types of lightboxes for product
photography?

I do NOT have a hip slick and cool digital SLR, and even the external
strobe connections are a *******.

Id like to build a lightbox..but it needs to be big enough/rugged
enough.. to put in a dirty, oily part or piece.

Something for shooting photos for Ebay for example.

Ive seen how some Ebay companies like Reliable Tools do it..but I dont
have that kind of floor space (theirs is 50'x50' with huge movable
fill lights in towers on wheels.

So Im going to need something useable with at least 3 strobes and
operational via slave flash.

Anyone have any links etc etc for simple designs suitable for what we
do?

I've always used white bed sheets cobbled on to some type of frame, with
a half-dozen 100W bulbs placed around outside of the sheet enclosure.

You get a well-illuminated interior, without shadows or glare, and the
whole thing breaks down into a small package.

Might have to adapt different bulbs, now that the 100 watters are no
longer available.

Jon

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

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 14:20:04 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

Anyone have any good suggestions for types of lightboxes for product
photography?

I do NOT have a hip slick and cool digital SLR, and even the external
strobe connections are a *******.

Id like to build a lightbox..but it needs to be big enough/rugged
enough.. to put in a dirty, oily part or piece.

Something for shooting photos for Ebay for example.

Ive seen how some Ebay companies like Reliable Tools do it..but I dont
have that kind of floor space (theirs is 50'x50' with huge movable
fill lights in towers on wheels.

So Im going to need something useable with at least 3 strobes and
operational via slave flash.

Anyone have any links etc etc for simple designs suitable for what we
do?

Gunner

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.

There are machine tool brochures still out there with big, overall
shots of the machines shot by yours truly with one Vivitar 202 pocket
flash and a piece of drafting paper for diffusion. I've added up as
many as ten separate flashes that way.

This is after I got tired of lugging two Bowens Monolights and huge
diffusers and stands through airports...


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.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:05:48 -0400, "Steve W."
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 22:29:41 -0700, Erik wrote:

Tripods I have. Probably 5-6 of them. I used to shoot a lot of 4x5
film...and good tripods are pretty important.

I guess one of my big problems..is both the after effects of the
stroke..and most of my creative stuff was done on film. When I was
reading the posts about using Florescent lights..my hackles started
rising up and I was thinking.."these guys are ****ing nuts!!"...then
it dawned on me...digital..aint film. Green photos/florescent
light... with film...aint necessarily green with digital.

And for that..I want to thank all of you for knocking me on my ass and
making me think. Truely.

Ive never done more than taken "snapshots" with digital...so its
something Im going to have to remember....digital..isnt film.

I have a degree in photography..shrug..but it was 25 yrs ago. Hell..I
taught classes at the local JC.

I spent most of my time doing B&W with some color mixed in...all film
since then. Granted..I won a number of awards and took the county fair
prizes a few times...but...it wasnt with digital. I wasnt half bad at
all. And I still have the "eye", still remember what the "rule of
thirds" is and so forth.

I just read an ad that was pushing a rather neat folding lightbox in a
briefcase and they were using florescent tubes...and a small Sony
digital camera..and it just simply CLICKED..that all that film stuff
I learned..doesnt apply today. That ad for the backround setup that
you guys posted..had spiral florescents..wondering what the hell those
were for..not bright enough for primary lighting..and Im scratching my
head looking for the strobes..and..there wasnt any. CLICK!!

Thanks guys. It took a bit..but..I think Im catching on...finally.

Gunner



There is a lot of film stuff that applies to digital. But these days
it's really easy to do editing outside the lab. One of the great things
with digital is it almost eliminates the old exposure bracketing of
film. No need to shoot over/under and then search for the correct one in
a stack of film. Instead you can see the image you have real time and
deal with it.

As far as color shifts caused by lights. There can be an entire new set
of rules depending on the sensors in the camera, the color settings of
the monitor and printer. There are also finite color settings to deal
with, unlike film with it's infinite color spectrum. Same issue with B/W.

I switched to a pair of Smith Victor 4-bulb heads that use
150-Watt-equivalent daylight fluorescents. The suckers were pricey as
hell but they're saving my back. That's 1200 Watts of equivalent light
(from incandescents) at 280 actual Watts (efficiency is lower for the
daylights) and maybe 25 pounds instead of close to 100. I'm also using
one of those bulbs in an overhead kicker.

Last September I shot a cover for Amada's S-10 multi-function machine
brochure using those lights, in digital, in Fuji slide film, and in
Fuji negative film. The colors were just fine in each. The lab did a
densitometer analysis of my film for me, and found no significant
spectral holes.

I'm a convert.

--
Ed Huntress

On 4/22/2013 11:45 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 08:17:05 -0500,
wrote:

On 4/22/2013 7:58 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:

Just get a can of air..or a good film brush. As enlarging/scanning
will show dust, fingerprints etc etc

I've tried scanning with my printer/scanner.
It takes more than a can of air.
I've had to wash the negatives - soap and water!

Then I started experimenting.
Black and white might work ok - on a better scanner.
I've gone to 4800 DPI, but still get a lot of artifact.
And huge files!

As for color, it's problematic doing it this way.
Of course the color has to be inverted, but getting any
control of saturation, hue, or balance depends purely on the
tools used. They work best if reduced to BW.


I have thousands of negatives. 35 MM and Instamatic.
And I've given away most of the really good prints.

That 7200 DPI dedicated scanner looks interesting...

You can save them in any file size you like.

I assume you have heard of..or are using Irfanview

www.irfanview.com

HIGHLY recommended..and it will indeed sort out and save in any
format/file size etc etc you want as well as doing all the editing
functions you might need.

Be sure to get the add on pack as well

And of course...its free.

Gunner

Highly recommended - and way over rated...\

IMHO

On 4/22/2013 11:53 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 08:25:25 -0500,
wrote:

On 4/22/2013 8:14 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:10:35 -0500,
wrote:

On 4/22/2013 6:32 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
As the son of a (retired) photography instructor, I must stand with Richard
on this point.
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
.
wrote in message
...
On 4/22/2013 1:34 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:

True indeed. Low f-stop and slow shutter for a minimum depth of field.



I think you have that backerds, hoss.

Higher F numbers mean smaller aperture diameter.
Depth of field increases with f-number

Reducing _aperture_ increases depth of field.

An shutter speed is not involved (directly, anyway)



Yeahbut...

The common expression "Stop Down" really does mean to
reduce aperture size (although it also means a higher
F-stop number)...

Thinking about it since, I'm sure that's what Gunner meant.


Correct. Historically...the bigger the number meant the smaller the
hole. 1 is on the top....64 is on the bottom...when you "stopped
down"...you were going farther down the list..and making the hole
smaller...letting in less light...

Im just an old fart.

Gunner



You would have not enjoyed the lecture from my Dad...

Words have meaning - jargon doesn't!

But it took him a LOT longer (and many more words) to say it.


Indeed. But in my world...it wasnt jargon..it was technical. Maybe it
was regional..but..it was in all the magazines/ads

When you stopped down..you made the iris smaller.

Shrug

Gunner



But...

You stop down _TO F(?)_

Like I said, Dad was always fussy about that.

On 4/22/2013 11:49 PM, anorton wrote:

"Richard" wrote in message
...
On 4/22/2013 8:52 PM, DoN. Nichols wrote:

'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.



Ran into that one head on when I was trying to take pictures of the
lunar eclipse with my Fuji. I got a couple - ok decent. Nowhere near
as nice as those from a 200" telescope (wonder why) but I burned a lot
of ones and zeros getting anything usable.




A common technique for digital astrophotography is to average many
frames instead of or in addition to using long exposures. There are
several software packages that automatically register the images and
combine them.

The same technique can be used for multiple positions of the flash. Take
several images and overlay them in photoshop. I believe the Nikon D-SLRs
allow you to take multiple exposures and combine them in the camera.


WAY beyond my pay grade.
I wouldn't have a clue how to flash the moon.
(Well....)


My worst problem that night was vibration.

It's really touchy at 36X - even on a tripod.

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 00:08:17 -0700, Erik wrote:

In article ,
Erik wrote:

In article ,
Gunner Asch wrote:

Anyone have any good suggestions for types of lightboxes for product
photography?

I do NOT have a hip slick and cool digital SLR, and even the external
strobe connections are a *******.

Id like to build a lightbox..but it needs to be big enough/rugged
enough.. to put in a dirty, oily part or piece.

Something for shooting photos for Ebay for example.

Ive seen how some Ebay companies like Reliable Tools do it..but I dont
have that kind of floor space (theirs is 50'x50' with huge movable
fill lights in towers on wheels.

So Im going to need something useable with at least 3 strobes and
operational via slave flash.

Anyone have any links etc etc for simple designs suitable for what we
do?

Gunner

If you have a tripod or whatever (sandbags sometime work) that will keep
your camera still, you can get very good results, probably with stuff
you already have on hand. If the camera (and subject) are held
absolutely still, longer exposures can be used at will, reducing the
need for big lights... within reason. For shooting small stuff small
table top 'set' can be cobbled up on most anything.

First, get in tight, fill the frame.

If your tripod isn't rock solid, also use the camera's self timer so it
can settle down before the actual exposure. Any camera/subject movement
is a big deal when your in tight with limited lighting.

For lights, a couple of goose neck lamps work well, and are nimble
enough to maneuver around as necessary. If to harsh, a sheet of white
printer paper or cut up milk jug/s over the lamp/s can help soften
things up. Similarly, a sheet of vertically folded paper standing near
the subject out of frame can/will reflect enough to fill in shadows if
necessary.

Read your camera manual and see if it's 'white balance' can be
set/adjusted. This is often done by shooting a white surface in the
setting mode illuminated by whatever you'll be using as a light source.
Doing so will allow most any lights you wish, but try not to mix them.
Most modern camera's try to automatically adjust the WB, but if misses,
your colors can really be goofy. Regular tungsten incandescent lights
will make everything look orange, fluorescents green and so on.

Also read the manual for exposure compensation info, so your
predominantly light or dark shots come out properly exposed. Camera
light meters always try to get a overall average (B&W) tonal value of
about 18% grey. (Ever notice how many snow/beach scenes come out under
exposed/dreary looking?) So if your subject/background have a lot of
white, override the light meter, and tell it to over expose by a stop or
two. The opposite if your dealing with a lot of dark.

Bracketing go's a long way too... shoot a bunch of shots of each item,
playing with different framing, lighting, exposure compensation and
whatever... so you can pick out the shot/s you like best. You can learn
a lot doing so as well.

The above won't put your work on the cover of National Geographic, but
will go a long way. The next step would be a basic copy of Photoshop or
equivalent, and boning up on cropping, setting white and black levels, &
'unsharp mask'.

The good tripod is a must... remember you can even make up one. It's
only purpose is to is to keep the camera stationary. Camera tripod
sockets are 1/4-20, use your imagination!

Could go on but those are the biggies, I'm sure others will also have
good suggestions as well.

Good luck!

Erik

Mo

If you have some good natural light available, you can go a long way
with it too.

Check this (overpriced) Craigs list ad I have up:

http://losangeles.craigslist.org/wst...722004257.html

The first 5 shots are in direct sunlight, either right on the cement, or
handheld above it. Some exposure compensation was necessary on the ones
showing a lot of light colored cement.

They were taken with a cheap Pentax SLR, but on auto mode as I was in a
hurry.

Notice how only filled frame sharper images were used? Diagonally
sometimes to take advantage of available frame area. IIRC, I shot maybe
15 total images, so I could pick/choose the best.

The size comparison 'gag' quarter was lit by a single compact
fluorescent bulb in a goose neck lamp. The camera was on a tripod, and
the back of my hand supported still on the table. The white balance was
adjusted before hand, and the dark red background is literally just a
colored file folder I'd put on the table. I did rotate/crop & adjust the
exposure a little in Photoshop... but not all that much. Wish my hand
was cleaner.

Here's some more direct sunlit handheld shots. They also got some minor
Photoshop attention:

http://losangeles.craigslist.org/wst...719656633.html

See my BBQ in the first shot? It's in the lower RH corner, but
camouflaged in the 'Bokeh':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

No particularly fancy lens was used, but focused in close like this,
everything in the distance gets blown way out of focus... desirable in
this case.

You really don't need any strobes for eBay like product shots... as you
likely have no motion to stop... unless in low light, but that's what
the tripod is for.

Erik

True indeed. Low f-stop and slow shutter for a minimum depth of field.

Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:05:48 -0400, "Steve W."
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 22:29:41 -0700, Erik wrote:

Tripods I have. Probably 5-6 of them. I used to shoot a lot of 4x5
film...and good tripods are pretty important.

I guess one of my big problems..is both the after effects of the
stroke..and most of my creative stuff was done on film. When I was
reading the posts about using Florescent lights..my hackles started
rising up and I was thinking.."these guys are ****ing nuts!!"...then
it dawned on me...digital..aint film. Green photos/florescent
light... with film...aint necessarily green with digital.

And for that..I want to thank all of you for knocking me on my ass and
making me think. Truely.

Ive never done more than taken "snapshots" with digital...so its
something Im going to have to remember....digital..isnt film.

I have a degree in photography..shrug..but it was 25 yrs ago. Hell..I
taught classes at the local JC.

I spent most of my time doing B&W with some color mixed in...all film
since then. Granted..I won a number of awards and took the county fair
prizes a few times...but...it wasnt with digital. I wasnt half bad at
all. And I still have the "eye", still remember what the "rule of
thirds" is and so forth.

I just read an ad that was pushing a rather neat folding lightbox in a
briefcase and they were using florescent tubes...and a small Sony
digital camera..and it just simply CLICKED..that all that film stuff
I learned..doesnt apply today. That ad for the backround setup that
you guys posted..had spiral florescents..wondering what the hell those
were for..not bright enough for primary lighting..and Im scratching my
head looking for the strobes..and..there wasnt any. CLICK!!

Thanks guys. It took a bit..but..I think Im catching on...finally.

Gunner


There is a lot of film stuff that applies to digital. But these days
it's really easy to do editing outside the lab. One of the great things
with digital is it almost eliminates the old exposure bracketing of
film. No need to shoot over/under and then search for the correct one in
a stack of film. Instead you can see the image you have real time and
deal with it.

As far as color shifts caused by lights. There can be an entire new set
of rules depending on the sensors in the camera, the color settings of
the monitor and printer. There are also finite color settings to deal
with, unlike film with it's infinite color spectrum. Same issue with B/W.

I switched to a pair of Smith Victor 4-bulb heads that use
150-Watt-equivalent daylight fluorescents. The suckers were pricey as
hell but they're saving my back. That's 1200 Watts of equivalent light
(from incandescents) at 280 actual Watts (efficiency is lower for the
daylights) and maybe 25 pounds instead of close to 100. I'm also using
one of those bulbs in an overhead kicker.

Last September I shot a cover for Amada's S-10 multi-function machine
brochure using those lights, in digital, in Fuji slide film, and in
Fuji negative film. The colors were just fine in each. The lab did a
densitometer analysis of my film for me, and found no significant
spectral holes.

I'm a convert.


Yeah, digital is getting better all the time. Now if they would get it
to where a good photo-printer didn't cost as much as a car...

I was looking at digital enlargers as a possible alternative. At least
until they price the chemicals out of reach...

--
Steve W.

Gunner sed...

Tripods I have. Probably 5-6 of them. I used to shoot a lot of 4x5
film...and good tripods are pretty important.

I guess one of my big problems..is both the after effects of the
stroke..and most of my creative stuff was done on film. When I was
reading the posts about using Florescent lights..my hackles started
rising up and I was thinking.."these guys are ****ing nuts!!"...then
it dawned on me...digital..aint film. Green photos/florescent
light... with film...aint necessarily green with digital.



Yeah, a solid tripod was pretty important with a film pak-backed Press
Grafix on the stand!

Green is green, Gunner... even in digital. The boon, though, is you can
re-balance the colors in "post edit" (call it "the digital darkroom").

I've done tons of product photos. Thousands. You don't need a light
box; just a good seamless backdrop and several stand-mounted floods.
They don't even have to be "photo floods" -- just lights. Use foil
reflectors for unwanted shadows.

LLoyd