«

All Things Mopar wrote:

> Paul Furman commented courteously...
>
>>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.


I'm suggesting that maybe the flash light is bouncing off the reflective
surface and not really doing much or behaving in extreme ways that
confuse the metering. Can you post examples of these troubled
mis-metered flash shots? Email a few to me & I'll post them. Maybe there
is some glare that throws off the metering or the contrast with the
background. Is the problem with light or dark colored cars?


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

Paul Furman commented courteously...

> I'm suggesting that maybe the flash light is
> bouncing off the reflective surface and not really
> doing much or behaving in extreme ways that confuse
> the metering. Can you post examples of these
> troubled mis-metered flash shots? Email a few to me
> & I'll post them. Maybe there is some glare that
> throws off the metering or the contrast with the
> background.

Thanks for the offer to look at some of my baddies and
post them for others to review. But, life's too short to
worry about spilt milk any longer.

What I'm concentating on with this thread is /what/ I
should buy now. I really don't want to debate
photographic issues as you've described above. You're
right, in theory, but I've tested for all that stuff
many, many times and still cannot come up with a
definite root cause.

> Is the problem with light or dark colored cars?

Worse with dark cars, but by no means limited to them.
If anything, the lower the ambient lighting in the
museums, the greater the challenge. But, even that isn't
always the case. And, if it is dark, what can be done,
other than more flash and/or tripod and available light.
Again, as best I can determine, the TTL flash pulse of
both Nikon's shut down prematurely, hence underexposure.

I have a few more tricks to try, but again, what I'm
looking for is people recommendations where they /know/
the particular camera/lens/flash will work in a museum
environment. Doesn't have to be cars, but I'd like
opinions based on experience in shooting museums. The
rest of this is just so much theory that can be debated
from several angles without any meaning to anyone.

If you have ideas of what camera(s) to investigate
/based on personal experience/, I'd be very attentive
and thankful!

--
ATM, aka Jerry

Big Bill commented courteously...

> 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.

I've been to the AF museum and hope to go back some day.
I completely agree with your assessment of shooting
conditions there, which mimmick what I'm suffering with
with car museums.

> 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.

Why specifically were your flash pictures
unsatisfactory? Under/over exposure, too much flash
glare, problems with uneven lighting down the length of
the plane? Something else?

> 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.

Agreed that a DSLR is much preferred for available
light, but I just plain do /not/ want to shoot that way.
Sorry, but I'm stubborn because I refuse to accept
apparent shortcomings of "good" (read: expensive)
equipment when I could get el crapola cameras to work
much better. And, so, the quest continues...
>
> 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.

I use PSP 9 and can "save" many of my badly underexposed
images, but OSPF just isn't enough when they're 5-6
stops under. Besides noise, colors get all distorted.
Plus, I don't /want/ to spend 30 minutes on each image -
I want a camera/flash that works, at least 80-90% of the
time.

I'm willing to pay anything reasonable to get what I
want/need, but I'm most interested in real-world
experience like yours. The other folks, though they are
very competant photographers, "read" like a camera
review - its all theoretical.

Thanks muchly for the links. I'll take a look and re-
reply depending on what I see.

> 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.

I'm not going to debate this issue, either, nor the JPEG
vs. TIFF vs. RAW issue. I've shot 5,000+ images at 2MP
which work perfect for me, even when I need to print.
I've upped my Nikon 5700 to its full 4.7MP (it really
isn't a 5MP), but I'm cutting them down to 3MP before
post-processing.

Yeah, CF cards are cheap, but for me, there just ain't
any point. So, while I want a "good" camera, I'm not at
all interested in 8MP+. For them that does need/want
this, I'm all for it, just not for me!

BTW, keep in mind that the first commercially successful
digital was the Kodak job built upon a Nikon SLR body
and lenses. Although only 1MP when first sold, it still
cost a very steep $20,000. And, nobody had trouble with
that! I just feel personally that "the more mega pixels
the better" is just so much marketing hype from the
camera makers.

Incidently, I've ran exhaustive tests with my 5700 at
all the resolutions for both TIFF and JPEG "Fine",
before I settled on my shooting size. Then, I re-ran my
tests recently to see if anything had changed. Thus, my
current 5MP as-shot, 3MP as-saved.

--
ATM, aka Jerry

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 11:27:21 -0500, in rec.photo.digital All Things Mopar
<> wrote:


>always the case. And, if it is dark, what can be done,
>other than more flash and/or tripod and available light.
>Again, as best I can determine, the TTL flash pulse of
>both Nikon's shut down prematurely, hence underexposure.

What metering option were you using?
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog...ral/index.html

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 09:05:56 -0700, Big Bill <>
wrote:

....
>This museum's
>director (an AF General) specifically wants the lighting to be
>"dramitic", which means low ambient light, with the planes spotlit.
....
Wow! If I could spell...
"dramitic" should be "dramatic".
Also, I'm using a laptop, as my desktop's mobo is at Gigabyte for an
exchange. I hate the laptop's keyboard!

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

Paul Furman wrote:
> All Things Mopar wrote:
>
>> Paul Furman commented courteously...
>>
>>> 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.
>
>
> I'm suggesting that maybe the flash light is bouncing off the
> reflective surface and not really doing much or behaving in extreme
> ways that confuse the metering. Can you post examples of these
> troubled mis-metered flash shots? Email a few to me & I'll post
> them.
> Maybe there is some glare that throws off the metering or the
> contrast with the background. Is the problem with light or dark
> colored cars?


Reprise:
I'd suggest a Nikon CoolPix 5000 with the .68X Wide Angle converter,
or its newer equivalent, which is outside my ken, but may be the
CP8400. Here are a few from 11 Nov 2004 at the Petersen Automotive
Museum:

========
http://www.fototime.com/inv/4C7B4D180AEE178

There are 21 images, three versions each of seven exposures. None has
been manipulated in any way, other than resized in 10% decrements
(first seven) and Saved For Web at Photo Shop 30 quality (first seven
and second of each of the remaining pairs), or simply Saved As at full
size and Photo Shop jpg quality 5, to maintain EXIF data (first of
each of the pairs).

My philosophy, beyond preferring to photograph cars in motion and in
their natural habitat, has something to do with recording what you
found the way you found it. I pretty much avoid flash photography
unless there is no alternative. I'm not very assertive, so I don't
often try to push people out of the way, nor do I use a tripod in the
field, unless there is no alternative.

You'll see five hand-held (propped when possible) available light
exposures, two with a "digital slave" flash held high and
supplementing the on-camera flash. I don't like the flash pictures,
and am not much tempted to perfect the technique, given the
satisfactory nature of the first two photos in the album: I think the
GT40 and the Porsche fairly represent what was there, and is of
sufficient quality to meet my requirements, which include Web and
other monitor viewing, and low likelihood of big ol' prints.
======

I believe the flash-assisted examples show potential for fulfilling
the OP's specs: the flash was GN92:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ist&sku=293955
or
http://tinyurl.com/7tzu4

--
Frank S

"Never give a sucker an even break, or smarten-up a chump."
-William Claude Dukenfeld

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 11:40:04 -0500, All Things Mopar
<> wrote:

>Big Bill commented courteously...
>
>> 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.
>
>I've been to the AF museum and hope to go back some day.
>I completely agree with your assessment of shooting
>conditions there, which mimmick what I'm suffering with
>with car museums.
>
>> 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.
>
>Why specifically were your flash pictures
>unsatisfactory? Under/over exposure, too much flash
>glare, problems with uneven lighting down the length of
>the plane? Something else?

They were too stark, if that means anything. The flash makes for too
much contrast; maybe that's a better way of putting it.
>
>> 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.
>
>Agreed that a DSLR is much preferred for available
>light, but I just plain do /not/ want to shoot that way.
>Sorry, but I'm stubborn because I refuse to accept
>apparent shortcomings of "good" (read: expensive)
>equipment when I could get el crapola cameras to work
>much better. And, so, the quest continues...

I would think the3 results mattered more than a desire to do it a
certain way.
But that's just me.
>>
>> 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.
>
>I use PSP 9 and can "save" many of my badly underexposed
>images, but OSPF just isn't enough when they're 5-6
>stops under. Besides noise, colors get all distorted.
>Plus, I don't /want/ to spend 30 minutes on each image -
>I want a camera/flash that works, at least 80-90% of the
>time.
>
>I'm willing to pay anything reasonable to get what I
>want/need, but I'm most interested in real-world
>experience like yours. The other folks, though they are
>very competant photographers, "read" like a camera
>review - its all theoretical.
>
>Thanks muchly for the links. I'll take a look and re-
>reply depending on what I see.
>
>> 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.
>
>I'm not going to debate this issue, either, nor the JPEG
>vs. TIFF vs. RAW issue. I've shot 5,000+ images at 2MP
>which work perfect for me, even when I need to print.
>I've upped my Nikon 5700 to its full 4.7MP (it really
>isn't a 5MP), but I'm cutting them down to 3MP before
>post-processing.
>
>Yeah, CF cards are cheap, but for me, there just ain't
>any point. So, while I want a "good" camera, I'm not at
>all interested in 8MP+. For them that does need/want
>this, I'm all for it, just not for me!
>
>BTW, keep in mind that the first commercially successful
>digital was the Kodak job built upon a Nikon SLR body
>and lenses. Although only 1MP when first sold, it still
>cost a very steep $20,000. And, nobody had trouble with
>that! I just feel personally that "the more mega pixels
>the better" is just so much marketing hype from the
>camera makers.

Nobody had trouble with that because it was the only game in town.
Technology marches on.
>
>Incidently, I've ran exhaustive tests with my 5700 at
>all the resolutions for both TIFF and JPEG "Fine",
>before I settled on my shooting size. Then, I re-ran my
>tests recently to see if anything had changed. Thus, my
>current 5MP as-shot, 3MP as-saved.

No one knows what the future holds. Shooting at less than the max
resolution may leave you wanting in the future. Some of those shots
you take now could be once-in-a-lifetime shots; it's a shame to limit
them needlessly.
And your exhaustive tests may well be fine today, given your wants
today. But time, too, marches on, and most of us look back at some
decisions we made in the past with regret, especially those made
needlessly.
But it's your choice.

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

All Things Mopar wrote:
> eatmorepies commented courteously...
>
>
>>My own flash experience is limited, but I do know
>>that the 350D is an excellent camera. I have just
>>bought the Canon 580EX flash - and expect to get
>>some decent pictures in the right circumstances.
>
>
>>I'm not sure that the museum environment is the
>>right place for a camera mounted flash.
>
>
> John, I agree that museums nor anyplace else are not
> good places to shoot with only one flash mounted atop
> the camera. But, at the risk of sounded like an ingrate
> for refusing your help and advice, the problem /still/
> is underexposure. I have no complaints whatsoever with
> flash glare or any of the other limitations of the way I
> choose to shoot my cars.
>
>
>>If you can't bounce the flash off an adjacent surface
>>then you are going to have harsh shadows.
>
>
> Yes, I will, but I am a "documentary" photographer, not
> an artist. Hence my goal is to capture the car "in all
> its glory" without regard to how "dramatic" or well-
> composed the photos are. Thus, while I don't like harsh
> shadows better than the next person, they don't bother
> me nearly enough to do anything about them.
>
>
>>Try the 350D body with a high specfication wide angle
>>lens. I have bought an L series lens and they really
>>are much much better than the cheaper lenses (a
>>second is on order). Also. the 350D has a sensor
>>that is capable of using high ISO without too much
>>noise. A high spec lens and high ISO may help by
>>allowing you to use flash as fill in only.
>
>
> I don't understand what you mean by "high
> specificication wide angle lens". What I want is
> something in the range of 35mm-200mm equivalent. The
> long end is for outdoor shooting of both cars and
> general subjects, not the cars in the museums, where
> wide angle-to-normal is normally necessary. I just don't
> want buy nor haul around a bunch of lenses.
>
> Please explain your take on "fill flash". I understand
> the term and can do it but, again, the /issue/ is a
> given camera's ability to properly expose images
> consistently, /not/ reducing harsh shadows or much
> anything else.
>
> I apologize again for perhaps being abrupt with you, I
> really don't mean to sound like a twit. It is just that
> I am /so/ frustrated in not being able to explain what I
> need/want without people giving me Photography 101
> lessons. I appreciate that, of course, but it doesn't do
> much for me if I can't get reliable exposures in the
> first place.
>
Apology considered, for someone not meaning to sound like a twit, you
sure are doing a good job of it.

Try this to eliminate as many variables as possible.

Put the camera in manual mode, center weighted metering and STANDARD
*NOT MATRIX* TTL.Set your shutter speed to around 1/125 and F stop as
desired taking into consideration subject distance and flash range. See
if that doesn't get you close. My experience with the earlier SB80DX is
that you probably will have to dial in about +1 stop of compensation on
the flash (NOT ON THE CAMERA) for best results.

Nikon (my area of experience) wants to try to do balanced fill flash
most of the time. You have to almost beat them to death to get plain old
TTL flash. I'm interpreting here from my SB80 experience which is that
standard TTL is set on the flash by making sure that only TTL shows not
TTL with the little matrix symbol. With the matrix thing showing you're
going to get auto balanced fill flash.

I have not used the 8800, but from all I've read in the Nikon groups I
frequent, it works just fine as does the SB800. The SB800 gets rave
reviews by most.

By the way, the only info I could find on the Sunpak 433D indicated it
was dedicated for Minolta cameras. There are 433AF units dedicated for
Nikon, Canon and others, but all I found on the 433D was Minolta.

I also am of the opinion that the store manager either has an ax to
grind with Nikon or is getting a better profit margin from Canon or
someone else. Canon and Nikon are both very capable systems and either
the Canon Rebel or Nikon D70 would suit your needs. All that being said,
from what you've said in your previous posts, I'd give the 8800 another
try. Specs seem to meet all you requirements. Once you solve the flash
exposure thing it should be perfect for you. (I know solving the flash
thing is you major concern, but I believe that it's more operator
error/confusion than camera/flash problems. Just MHO.)

Hope some of this has helped.

Best Regards,
Dave

All Things Mopar wrote:
> Paul Furman commented courteously...
>
>
>>I'm suggesting that maybe the flash light is
>>bouncing off the reflective surface and not really
>>doing much or behaving in extreme ways that confuse
>>the metering. Can you post examples of these
>>troubled mis-metered flash shots? Email a few to me
>>& I'll post them. Maybe there is some glare that
>>throws off the metering or the contrast with the
>>background.
>
>
> Thanks for the offer to look at some of my baddies and
> post them for others to review. But, life's too short to
> worry about spilt milk any longer.
>
> What I'm concentating on with this thread is /what/ I
> should buy now. I really don't want to debate
> photographic issues as you've described above. You're
> right, in theory, but I've tested for all that stuff
> many, many times and still cannot come up with a
> definite root cause.
>
>
>>Is the problem with light or dark colored cars?
>
>
> Worse with dark cars, but by no means limited to them.
> If anything, the lower the ambient lighting in the
> museums, the greater the challenge. But, even that isn't
> always the case. And, if it is dark, what can be done,
> other than more flash and/or tripod and available light.
> Again, as best I can determine, the TTL flash pulse of
> both Nikon's shut down prematurely, hence underexposure.
>
> I have a few more tricks to try, but again, what I'm
> looking for is people recommendations where they /know/
> the particular camera/lens/flash will work in a museum
> environment. Doesn't have to be cars, but I'd like
> opinions based on experience in shooting museums. The
> rest of this is just so much theory that can be debated
> from several angles without any meaning to anyone.
>
> If you have ideas of what camera(s) to investigate
> /based on personal experience/, I'd be very attentive
> and thankful!
>
See my post above please.

All Things Mopar wrote:
[]
> 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.

OK, Jerry - I was simply trying to see what it might have been about the
Fuji and Kodak cameras that allowed them to produce successful pictures
when others did not. It seems to go against reason that better kit
produces worse pictures, everything else being equal.

I appreciate your frustration with this.

Cheers,
David