«

All Things Mopar wrote:

> Hi, All.
>
> Many of you are aware of the problems I've had getting
> well-exposed, consistent exposed pictures when using
> flash on my Nikon Coolpix 5700 with Sunpak's excellent
> 433D external when shooting cars in dark museum
> settings.


Yep.

Did you say you got good results with family's $200 digicams? Heh, why
not do that then?

I do think your expectations are unreasonable. Flash is awfully
difficult to use effectively from what I see around here and doubly so
for highly reflective subjects. For the kind of particular requirements
you want, I don't think auto exposures on a small sensor camera with an
on-camera flash are going to work.

The advantage of a DSLR is the larger pixel size and ability to shoot in
low light with high ISO. This is real. Outdoors in full sun you can get
great shots with a smaller pixel camera but the ISO adjustment can make
a big difference with a DSLR in low light.

But don't think a DSLR is going to be easy and you are correct in
worrying about needing a bunch of lenses for different situations
because the whole system is bigger, the lenses are bigger & less
adaptable than a small pixel camera. The kind of subject matter you are
talking about is very difficult being very reflective you will have
highlights from the flash blowing out and illumination simply will
bounce off & be lost.

Cars being rather large and three dimensional, depth of field is also a
serious issue. If you got a fast lens you could still only get a narrow
slice in focus which would only be capable of rather 'artsy' looking
pictures like the front fender in focus & the rest a blurry mirage.

I can only relate to folks talking about shooting small model cars &
similar products like jewelery where it's common to build a tent of
translucent fabric with big hot lights on all sides in order to get
suitable illumination for a reflective subject like that. The equivalent
for flash would be bouncing off the ceiling at relatively low 'fill'
levels and boosting ISO to make use of the available light in reasonable
proportions. Something that special is unlikely to work reliably with
auto metering though so you will still be looking at manual metering and
careful experimentation.

I will mention again though if it's at all possible to set up a tripod,
the museum lighting is probably great and the results could be
exquisite, just like you see with your naked eye.

unexpertly yours,

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants

You can also get very nice IS (image stabilized) lens that give you more
stops (latitude) for hand held low light that complements the ability to use
fast lenses and higher ISOs with reasonably low noise

I have 3 Olympus P&S that work well for specific environment (hand held -
low light indoors is not one of them) and will be getting a Canon 20D and
some good lenses prior to my september vacation - partly to have more lens
choice, partly due to the aggrevation of shutter lag, partly to use in low
light environment

I wonder if you could rent some DSLR combo to test


"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:3NednT_twsXzDj_fRVn-...
> All Things Mopar wrote:
>
>> Hi, All.
>>
>> Many of you are aware of the problems I've had getting well-exposed,
>> consistent exposed pictures when using flash on my Nikon Coolpix 5700
>> with Sunpak's excellent 433D external when shooting cars in dark museum
>> settings.
>
>
> Yep.
>
> Did you say you got good results with family's $200 digicams? Heh, why not
> do that then?
>
> I do think your expectations are unreasonable. Flash is awfully difficult
> to use effectively from what I see around here and doubly so for highly
> reflective subjects. For the kind of particular requirements you want, I
> don't think auto exposures on a small sensor camera with an on-camera
> flash are going to work.
>
> The advantage of a DSLR is the larger pixel size and ability to shoot in
> low light with high ISO. This is real. Outdoors in full sun you can get
> great shots with a smaller pixel camera but the ISO adjustment can make a
> big difference with a DSLR in low light.
>
> But don't think a DSLR is going to be easy and you are correct in worrying
> about needing a bunch of lenses for different situations because the whole
> system is bigger, the lenses are bigger & less adaptable than a small
> pixel camera. The kind of subject matter you are talking about is very
> difficult being very reflective you will have highlights from the flash
> blowing out and illumination simply will bounce off & be lost.
>
> Cars being rather large and three dimensional, depth of field is also a
> serious issue. If you got a fast lens you could still only get a narrow
> slice in focus which would only be capable of rather 'artsy' looking
> pictures like the front fender in focus & the rest a blurry mirage.
>
> I can only relate to folks talking about shooting small model cars &
> similar products like jewelery where it's common to build a tent of
> translucent fabric with big hot lights on all sides in order to get
> suitable illumination for a reflective subject like that. The equivalent
> for flash would be bouncing off the ceiling at relatively low 'fill'
> levels and boosting ISO to make use of the available light in reasonable
> proportions. Something that special is unlikely to work reliably with auto
> metering though so you will still be looking at manual metering and
> careful experimentation.
>
> I will mention again though if it's at all possible to set up a tripod,
> the museum lighting is probably great and the results could be exquisite,
> just like you see with your naked eye.
>
> unexpertly yours,
>
> --
> Paul Furman
> http://www.edgehill.net/1
> san francisco native plants

Paul Furman commented courteously...

> I do think your expectations are unreasonable.
> Flash is awfully difficult to use effectively from
> what I see around here and doubly so for highly
> reflective subjects. For the kind of particular
> requirements you want, I don't think auto exposures
> on a small sensor camera with an on-camera flash
> are going to work.

If flash is so unreasonable, why does Nikon get $330 for
their external and Canon get up to $370? /Somebody/ must
think this is double plus good!

> The kind of subject matter you are talking about is
> very difficult being very reflective you will have
> highlights from the flash blowing out and illumination
> simply will bounce off & be lost.

I know that! I'm not concerned about flash glare or lost
highlights nearly as much as I am about severe
underexposure and inconsistant exposure. Can you please
stay on-point?
>
> Cars being rather large and three dimensional, depth
of
> field is also a serious issue.

Not really. For a front 3/4 view of an 18' car using a
50mm equivalent lens at f/3.5, I can get enough of
entire car "in focus" by doing the AF lock at the A-
pillar and taking advantage of the 1/3-2/3 DOF rule. I
don't at all care about the background, for DOF or
exposure. It's the car, the car, the car!

I do appreciate people's attempts to help me, but again,
it is most frustrating for me to see the talented folks
to go off into the tall weeds (to my very specific
needs/wants), and begin telling me I'm all wet. I know
that, too!

Now, what I'd /really/ like to hear are what the /best/
camera/lens/flash combos I should look at in order to
get the best overall flash /exposures/. I'm sure there
are experts here on all brands and models of digitals
and I look forward to some good suggestions on how to
improve my car pictures.

--
ATM, aka Jerry

All Things Mopar wrote:
[]
> For brevity I didn't mention my year-2000 FujiFilm 4900,
> which did an outstanding job being it only had a small
> built-in speedlight. I also tested my wife's Kodak 6330
> ($150) and my daughter's Kokak 7000 ($200) - each
> performed flawlessly in the same museum shoots that both
> my Nikon 5700 and the 8800 failed so miserably at
> (within their flash range, of course).

Is it at all possible that the Fuji and Koday cameras had a longer shutter
opening time, so that areas which were not lit by the flash appeared
brighter, because the natural illumination had chance to register more
photons? Perhaps these cameras had the equivalent of what the 5700 calls
"slow flash" (IIRC)? I know that sometime with the 5700 I would
deliberately set slow flash to capture both a sharp flash picture together
with some natural lighting or movement - exposures could be quite slow
under those circumstances (say 1/10..1/2 second).

Cheers,
David

Steven Toney commented courteously...

> You can also get very nice IS (image stabilized)
> lens that give you more stops (latitude) for hand
> held low light that complements the ability to use
> fast lenses and higher ISOs with reasonably low noise

Thanks, Steven.

Please stick to my question: what camera/lens/flash
combo(s) should I be looking at given that I /want/ to
shoot flash?

I know I can shoot high ISO at low shutter speeds with
an IS lens, preferably with a tripod, I just don't want
to! When I go to a museum, I'm looking to take several
hundred "documentary" pictures in a few hours. I don't
have time for a tripod. And, if the place is at all
busy, setting up a tripod is problematical; in fact, the
curator may balk since it disrupts his museum for the
other visitors.

> I wonder if you could rent some DSLR combo to test

Possibly. I'm hoping to home in on a "better mouse
trap" and take advantage of my local store's liberal
trial buy. The problem I'm having with this thread is
that everyone is telling my I can't do what I want to do
for this, that, and the other reason.

What I would really like to hear is "given that you
understand the limitations of flash, here's the
cameras/lenses/flashes you should look at". Then, I
could read the reviews on dpreview.com and go to my
local store to see how the various cameras "feel", get
an idea on total price, etc.

Can you help me in my quest? Thanks again.

--
ATM, aka Jerry

"All Things Mopar" <> wrote in message
news:Xns966BB24DA84B0ReplyToken@216.196.97.131...
> Charles Schuler commented courteously...
>
>> Car museums allow flash photography whereas art
>> museums do not (each, of course, sets their own
> rules).
>> In those that do allow flash, a diffuser or the use
>> of bounce flash is worth considering.
>
> Thanks again, Charles, but a diffuser won't help, as
> what I encounter is /deep/ underexposure. Likewise,
> bounch flash is infeasible as there isn't anything
> overhead to bounch off - ceilings typically 12-15 feet
> above the floor.
>

Lumiquest makes a couple of flash "bouncers," the MiniBounce and the
PocketBounce. These allow you to bounce flash when not in an environment
that would normally allow it, like outdoors or with tall ceilings.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Sorry, I can't answer on experience with car museum photography

I can say that with my 3 Olys - C750, C5050, and new C8080 -- I have had no
underexposures with the use of their built in flashes on a variety of indoor
shots, but without trying them in your environment I have no idea if the
camera would work for you. I have an exteranl flash for the Olys coming to
try some more fill/bounce techniques for indoors just to learn

Although I'm buying a Canon 20D by September, I recently picked up a C8080
at $500 and it is so far a great camera for it's niche

I moving to dSLRs for variety of reason hand held, lowlight, IS lenses to do
some tough indoors w/o flash is one use. There are time flashes are not cool

I'll be retiring from the military in a few years and want to get better
with a variety of photographic skill, to perhaps supplemental my retirement
with some income generated by various photography projects, if no income is
realized, it's a fun hobby anyway


"All Things Mopar" <> wrote in message
news:Xns966C67EEFA1FFReplyToken@216.196.97.131...
> Steven Toney commented courteously...
>
>> You can also get very nice IS (image stabilized)
>> lens that give you more stops (latitude) for hand
>> held low light that complements the ability to use
>> fast lenses and higher ISOs with reasonably low noise
>
> Thanks, Steven.
>
> Please stick to my question: what camera/lens/flash
> combo(s) should I be looking at given that I /want/ to
> shoot flash?
>
> I know I can shoot high ISO at low shutter speeds with
> an IS lens, preferably with a tripod, I just don't want
> to! When I go to a museum, I'm looking to take several
> hundred "documentary" pictures in a few hours. I don't
> have time for a tripod. And, if the place is at all
> busy, setting up a tripod is problematical; in fact, the
> curator may balk since it disrupts his museum for the
> other visitors.
>
>> I wonder if you could rent some DSLR combo to test
>
> Possibly. I'm hoping to home in on a "better mouse
> trap" and take advantage of my local store's liberal
> trial buy. The problem I'm having with this thread is
> that everyone is telling my I can't do what I want to do
> for this, that, and the other reason.
>
> What I would really like to hear is "given that you
> understand the limitations of flash, here's the
> cameras/lenses/flashes you should look at". Then, I
> could read the reviews on dpreview.com and go to my
> local store to see how the various cameras "feel", get
> an idea on total price, etc.
>
> Can you help me in my quest? Thanks again.
>
> --
> ATM, aka Jerry

Skip M commented courteously...

> Lumiquest makes a couple of flash "bouncers,"
> the MiniBounce and the PocketBounce. These allow
> you to bounce flash when not in an environment that
> would normally allow it, like outdoors or with tall
> ceilings.

That's very interesting, I'll investigate. In the meantime, what
do these "bounce" flash aids bounce off if there's nothing above
the scene? Museumes are bad enough, but outdoors?

--
ATM, aka Jerry

David J Taylor commented courteously...

> Is it at all possible that the Fuji and Kodak
> cameras had a longer shutter opening time, so
> that areas which were not lit by the flash
> appeared brighter, because the natural illumination
> had chance to register more photons?

No, David, these little P&S cameras are /not/ using long
shutter speeds. Puleeze! These aren't sophisticated
machines, I just mentioned them to make my point that
good flash /is/ possible with even a cheap camera, so
why not an expensive one?

And, backgrounds are lit by whatever light there is, it
makes no difference whatsoever what the camera is used.
I shot these test shots one-after-the-other in identical
situations.

> Perhaps these cameras had the equivalent of what
> the 5700 calls "slow flash" (IIRC)? I know that
> sometime with the 5700 I would deliberately set slow
> flash to capture both a sharp flash picture together
> with some natural lighting or movement - exposures
> could be quite slow under those circumstances
> (say 1/10..1/2 second).

No. You're doing it again, I'm afraid. Do you really
think I'd not notice a 1/10 second shutter? Puleeze,
again! I may not be the sharpest tool in the box, but
I'm also not an idiot.

--
ATM, aka Jerry

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 15:12:15 -0500, All Things Mopar
<> wrote:

>Hi, All.
>
>Many of you are aware of the problems I've had getting
>well-exposed, consistent exposed pictures when using
>flash on my Nikon Coolpix 5700 with Sunpak's excellent
>433D external when shooting cars in dark museum
>settings. A few weeks ago, I bought a Nikon 8800 with
>Nikon's SB-800 external, but results were even worse,
>despite my best efforts, help from the camera store and
>help on this NG. So, I returned it for a charge credit.
>
>In a nutshell, I have no problems whatsoever in
>daylight, but when I shoot car pictures in museums,
>results vary considerably. About 1/3 are OK, another 1/3
>are underexposed by 2 f/stops, while the rest are under
>by 5-6 stops. I really don't want to get into another
>long discussion about why I'm shooting flash and not
>available light on a tripod, suffice that I want to.
>
>I've long been enamored with EVF cameras because I could
>see instantly if I did or did not get a decent exposure.
>But, I'm being lobbied by the camera store and by others
>that I'll /never/ get good flash with /any/ Nikon EVF
>because their underlying flash exposure systems just
>aren't up to the task. Maybe this is bunk or maybe
>somebody's DSLR really is the best camera for me.
>
>The camera most often recommended to me right now is
>Canon's Digital Rebel XT with DIGIC II. My local store
>recommends that I also buy Canon's Speedlite 550EX,
>because it has the power I need and is fully adjustable
>for EV. I'm not worried about buing a "pig in a poke"
>because the store manager will give me a 10-day trial,
>as he did with the Nikon 8800.
>
>I'm looking for a recommendation for a new digital
>camera, flash. 8 mega pixels is more than enough, I'll
>actually be shooting at only 3 or 5 MP. I'm, of course,
>interested in sharpness and low noise, which I would
>normally expect in any camera in the price range of the
>Canon Rebel XT.
>
>I'm also looking for recommendations for a zoom lens for
>the Rebel (or other EVF or DSLR) longer than the 28-85mm
>equivalent that comes with the Rebel "kit". I'm looking
>for something that is at least 35-150mm, preferably 28-
>200mm equivalent.
>
>Canon apparently has a wide angle-to-zoom lens to fit my
>needs/wants but is pricey (sorry, I can't remember the
>model number). I don't want to be "penny wise but dollar
>foolish" and buy somebody else's glass, but would like
>to get the best quality I can at a reasonable price (who
>doesn't, right?)
>
>I'll keep this post short for brevity but will gladly
>answer any questions you may have to help guide me in my
>quest. Thanks so much in advance.

I don't do cars, but I have had recent experience with museum
photography as an amateur, and, like you, I'm a "documentary" shooter.
These were taken in the Air Force Mueum in Dayton, Ohio. This museum's
director (an AF General) specifically wants the lighting to be
"dramitic", which means low ambient light, with the planes spotlit.
This means low light levels, even on the planes. On-camera flash
leaves most with unsatisfactory pics.
My camera is a Digital Rebel/300D, with a Sigma EF 500 DG Super flash.
These pics were shot using the kit lens.

Ambient light, ISO 800, 1/15 sec, F:3.5, handheld:
http://pippina.com/misc/no-flash1.jpg
http://pippina.com/misc/no-flash2.jpg

Flash, ISO 100, 1/60 sec, F:3.5:
http://pippina.com/misc/flash1.jpg

In my opinion( considering the fact that I took over 300 pics there),
ambient light is better. And that means (IMO) a DSLR, fairly
obviously.

Now, I don't do cars. But I do do museums. Sometimes the flash (with a
little quick 'n dirty post processing - in this case, PSP's One Step
PhotoFix - is pretty good. Not pro quality by any means, but very
serviceable for my needs.

From the Carillon Historical Park:

Using Flash:
http://pippina.com/misc/flash2.jpg

Ambient light, ISO 400, 1/80 sec, F:5.0, handheld:
http://pippina.com/misc/no-flash3.jpg

The ability to use higher ISO numbers, IMO, lets you shoot ambient
light with good results, if you're steady enough.
But flash or no flash, a DSLR is much better than even something like
the Oly C-8080 for this type of photography.

And, a hint: shoot at full resolution; get another card or two if
that's what it takes. You never knowwhat might come along, or if,
after viewing your pics, you really wish you'd shot *that* pic at full
res. As well, in the future, you may full well kick yourself for
shooting at low res when you had hi res available. Your next printer
may be able to use that resolution.

--
Big Bill
Replace "g" with "a"