@Vers thanks for the tip. Not sure how to defuse it seeing as to how it sits around the lens. It has a white translucent plastic defuser already over the bulbs, but as for defusing it further Im not exactly sure how to go about doing that.
You would have to cut some type of diffusion material to fit the ring, and use something like gaffer tape to mount it. Knowing how to ratio properly is another important factor (4:1 is said to be a good ratio for more dynamic lighting). Personally I use a 580 with a minisoftbox mounted on a straight bracket, which works very well, IMO, albeit its a lot larger and relatively less convenient. Here is a shot of my setup in case your wondering (for the most part I do not use a tripod while shooting, btw) And a few shots taken with said setup
This caterpillar was incredibly incredibly hard to take because it was hanging from a tree on a 2m+ long thread of silk. The wind was blowing and he was swinging around like crazy so it was hard to keep it in frame let alone in focus. I took about 50-60 shots of this guy and this was the only one that turned out reasonably sharp. the rest were blurry blobs. 200mm f/5.6 1/500 ISO 640
Click for Bigger My maths teacher is really quite wealthy, and lets me lend his gear when I ask. It has been awesome to use awesome equipment, like the 5dMkII, 135 f/2, 70-200 f/4 IS, 35 f/1.4, 17-40 and recently he bought the new canon macro (100 f/2.8L IS USM Macro). The sharpness wide open, and stopped down is the best of any lens used so far. Very high contrast too. Focus is slow(ish) for a USM lens, but im guessing thats caused by the huge amount of focal travel, due to it being a macro lens. Photo Details : 5d MkII, aforementioned 100mm macro, 1/320, f/2.8, Handheld, natural light.
Is it just me, or is there too much light on the wall behind, and not enough on the subject? Finally got my new, used Nikon 180mm f2.8 IF ED, AF fine tuned (was front focusing), and am happy with it now; D700 F2.8 Iso 250 1/320th D700 f2.8 Iso 250 1/640th
Well, I suppose I could have lit Leslie and Renate more; particularly Leslie's eyes. And the edits the client will get won't look like this. But it's a poorly lit gym, and it's supposed to convey that atmosphere. I like my images to have some personality. I'll add some more involved edits after I make some coffee.
Large Large The car was in Bristol on our way in. Grabbed a couple of shots with the new K-x and kit with the intention of desaturating everything but the car. The cat just happened to be on the fish tank. She's slightly out of focus, going by the eyes, but I think that's my fault. Just need to tweak the AF mode and get used to the camera in general.
Female Male Male and Female Bullfinch in my garden, taken through my dads telescope with my Casio Exilim EZ1080
I like the gritty quality of the initial edits, it fits the subject matter but the second two are much more commercially viable. You need that much light on the wall, IMO to separate the subjects from the background, especially with those dark shirts.
I have better ones now, in the line of the first 2. Better, more smoothly edited. They'll likely go up on the website. This makes 4/6, and on monday I'll do the last 2. I want to get them all together before the put them up in a "current projects" folder.
Disagree about too much light on the bg, but agree that the subjects are both under lit, specifically the faces. I'm not sure what the shots are for but there are a few things that jump out at me--mainly the lighting but also the subjects expressions. IMO, of course.
Have you used his 135 yet? If so, and you still think the 100 has better IQ, I think he better send it in
They are part of a series of personal trainers I was asked to do. Mainly for promotional stuff on their website. Once I have all 6 done, I'll edit them side by side to get the over all look uniform. But here are some of the others:
You should have post the one of the lady in all black serving. #34, and #6. Ahh, I see #6 is already up there. Nice.