Photography Thread

[The Professor]

Originally Posted by Blueface

SB900 Guide number:
34/111.5 (ISO 100, m/ft), 48/157.5 (ISO 200, m/ft)

SB800 Guide number:
38/125 (at 35mm) to 56/184 (at 105mm) (ISO 100, m/ft.)

SB600 Guide number:
30/98 (ISO 100, m/ft), 42/138 (ISO 200, m/ft) (at 35mm zoom-head position, 20 C/68 F)

Based on this, the 900 is a bit weaker than the 800. Seems it falls right in between the 600 and 800.

Well that's an odd naming choice, then. Figures Nikon would do something like that.

[DBall]

Originally Posted by DBall

Do any off-brand ones work close to as good? That flash is more expensive than my 55-200 lens!

Originally Posted by DBall

And another question... what's the difference between the SB600 and the SB400 and/or something like this:

http://www.amazon.com/318AF-Digital-...1433097&sr=8-9

or

http://www.amazon.com/Bounce-Coolpix...433097&sr=8-10

Now that the topic is back to flashes, I'll bump my previous questions...

[The Professor]

Originally Posted by DBall

Now that the topic is back to flashes, I'll bump my previous questions...

In the world of Canon (which is the only world I know) the answer is "no."

[Blueface]

Originally Posted by DBall

Now that the topic is back to flashes, I'll bump my previous questions...

Dan,
I am not familiar with these units but will tell you this about flashes and digital SLRs. While many aftermarket ones will work, I am old school and believe each brand/manufacturer makes the flashes specifically for their equipment. I learned this the hard way when I went from a Canon camera to Nikon. While my Canon flash, comparable to the SB800 worked with my Nikon camera, I noticed many occasions where the flash and the camera did not communicate properly.

To me, flash makes your picture more times than not. If you have money tied up on a good camera, good lenses and so on, why cut short in the area this many times will make your pictures great pictures.

I have often used many aftermarket brands for flashes but have always slaved them, meaning they were not the primary source of light. They were additional lighting. Don't skimp on the flash. Remember, the more power you have, the happier you will be. These two don't look like they have a very high output at all.

[Blueface]

Originally Posted by The Professor

Well that's an odd naming choice, then. Figures Nikon would do something like that.

I would venture to think they have not eliminated the SB800 based on the 900 having a lower rating.
I did wonder the same though. Why not name the darn thing the SB700 if in between the 600 and 800? They just want to mess with us.

[Wolfgang]

Originally Posted by DBall

Now that the topic is back to flashes, I'll bump my previous questions...

It depends on your camera and the particular release volltage of the flash.

For instance. The Canon G10 can handle a flash voltage around 7.5v and my SB-600 flash ahs a release voltage of 12v It will work but it can also fry your camera.

This article HERE. Will give you some great info.

HEREare lists of safe trigger voltages for your camera.

[Blueface]

Originally Posted by Wolfgang

It depends on your camera and the particular release volltage of the flash.

For instance. The Canon G10 can handle a flash voltage around 7.5v and my SB-600 flash ahs a release voltage of 12v It will work but it can also fry your camera.

This article HERE. Will give you some great info.

HEREare lists of safe trigger voltages for your camera.

Failed to mention that critical information.
Glad you said it.
Go OEM on flash and happy you shall live.

[Wolfgang]

Im glad to whrow my when ever I can. (needed or not)

[s15driftking]

The photography thread has a lot of talking going on currently... and not a lot of photo posting.

[Blueface]

Originally Posted by s15driftking

The photography thread has a lot of talking going on currently... and not a lot of photo posting.

Pot calling the kettle black?

[The Professor]

Originally Posted by s15driftking

The photography thread has a lot of talking going on currently... and not a lot of photo posting.

I posted 5 this morning.

[Blueface]

To support what I have said about a strong flash and bounce lighting, here is an example of a zoom mode (where normally you lose the background and darkens when using flash), where the background is well lit and the subject looks natural, without harsh flash light in his face and shadows all over.

This was done with the SB800, aimed straight up at a 14' ceiling and a Gary Fong Light Sphere (Cloud). Just a quick, random candid shot as he got his haircut.

[Wolfgang]

I post atleast one every day. Posting 30 pictures in one post (like someone here) put a restriction on pictures per post.

Instead of going out and taking a picture of everyhting in sight uncomposed I enjoy making my pictures (more or less) worth looking at. After all its a photography thread not necessarily a snapshot thread.

[Blueface]

Originally Posted by Wolfgang

I post atleast one every day. Posting 30 pictures in one post (like someone here) put a restriction on pictures per post.

Instead of going out and taking a picture of everyhting in sight uncomposed I enjoy making my pictures (more or less) worth looking at. After all its a photography thread not necessarily a snapshot thread.

What is neat about it is that it has evolved to not only a photo thread but one that folks can learn from also, myself included. In spite of all my years as a professional, having put my medium format equipment away nearly 14 years ago, I too can learn today from the digital world.

[Blueface]

Lighting was what I prided myself in.
Here is an example of a photo many would have taken with a flash straight on.
That would have caused a dark background and harsh lighting on the subjects, making it look unnatural.
I always prided myself in attempting to illustrate on film, exactly what my eyes saw.
I took this photo on a slower shutter, using my SB800 in a straight up bounce mode, with the Gary Fong Sphere, toning the flash down considerably to allow a more natural light look. I just wanted the flash to fill in the eye sockets that would have been unavoidable from the church ceiling lights.
I feel I got exactly what I was seeing at the time.

Moral..................GET A STRONG FLASH!!!!!!

[Giant & 49er Fan]

I wish I had the gift and ability to share personal shots of my own. I don't. However, I would like to contribute to this thread by sharing the work of my cousin in Seattle. He is an award winning photographer and I hope you all enjoy his domestic and international work. His name is Tom and here is the link to his website.
I know if you take the time to look at his work, you'll be amazed!

www.thomashurst.com

Enjoy!

[Blueface]

This shot that was posted earlier on this thread is an example of extreme strength in flash photography.
I used a Lumedyne (which only those of you that are professionals will likely recognize) that was a 400 watt per second unit. As flashes go, let's just say I was carrying around the equivalent of at least 10 of the strongest you will find for average Joe's.
I bounced that power straight up, using a reflector to fill in eye sockets. What you get is a soft, detailed photo, illustrating all the fine details in her dress.
Straight on flash would have burned out the gown and the details would have been lost, not to mention, shadows all over the place would have also resulted.

Hopefully, via these past few posts, I have illustrated why I support a strong flash so, so much.
Of course, having beautiful subjects such as these ladies certainly inspires one.

[Blueface]

One last one.

Who says Pit Bulls are mean?
Layla lost this battle for the ball. Actually got a smack from him to go along with it after he pulled the ball out of her mouth. Poor dog. She is such a sport.

Here is another, just fumbling around candid as I followed my wild and crazy grandson. Again, bounce lighting with the Gary Fong light sphere. Again, just a simple concept of a good flash, bounced off ceilings, using a diffuser to spread soft light forward, hence no shadows and not harsh flash burns on subjects. Accomplishes my goal of capturing a photo that illustrates what the eye was seeing.

[Blueface]

OK, maybe one more while I am on a roll.
Here is a candid taken with my camera, same set up of a bounced flash, this time in a catering hall, with the Gary Fong Sphere. Even this girl who knows little about photography took a great shot. Nice, open background. No darkness. No harsh light at the subjects.
Note my eyeglasses - doesn't even appear that have any on.

So, hopefully the message I instilled today is never fear your flash.
Buy a strong one.
Throw the light up in the air.
Use a diffuser to push some highlight forward.

Happy flash photography folks!

Three generations of "Blueface".

[Blueface]

I have talked about it so much, here is an online photo (not mine) that I found to illustrate what the Gary Fong Light Sphere looks like.
I often use the lid on it when in a low ceiling setting.
What is neat about it is it allows you to bounce regardless of whether in horizontal or vertical frame mode.
Best $49 you will spend.