Check out Digital Artistry section of our forum.
Final Seasoned Nude (Bonus)
May 3, 2018 16:33:47 #
Don't like this one due to deep shadows and squinting eyes because of bright sun, etc. but for you that like bodacious, big hair, red heads, only other shot I have located, again scanned off of a print from around 1972-75. If I remember correctly I left my flash unit at home this day, knowing it was going to be a sunny day. Immediately regretted it because I had a Honeywell Strobonar, with the new (at the time) Thyristor circuitry that you could control the dump of the flash by changing the ASA and/or distance setting. So, I would often use it as a fill light by indicating my lens was wide open (when it wasn't) so it would only give a partial flash, not washing out the subject but covering the shadows.
May 3, 2018 16:40:30 #
Stardust wrote:
Honeywell Strobonar, with the new (at the time) Thyristor circuitry that you could control the dump of the flash by setting your F-stop. So, I would often use it as a fill light by indicating my lens was wide open (when it wasn't) so it would only give a partial flash, not washing out the subject but covering the shadows.
Anyone else use one of these? Long handle was just for the quick release mount to the camera, no batteries. The head had 4 batteries and I had a spare head to get thru weddings. You would set the ASA and distance and it would extend or shorten the length of the flash, so by manipulating those settings you could also use it as just a fill flash, especially if you had backlighting. Think it cost around $150 even back in the 1970s, probably near $600-700 in today's dollars but it was a great investment for my photography at the time.
May 3, 2018 17:53:19 #
Back in the days, I had a couple of these Honeywell strobe flashes. I used them attached to a Kowa Super 66 2-1/4" square format camera, for Weddings. Brings back a lot of memories.
Check out Video for DSLR and Point and Shoot Cameras section of our forum.
May 3, 2018 23:10:19 #
DHooch wrote:
Back in the days, I had a couple of these Honeywell strobe flashes. I used them attached to a Kowa Super 66 2-1/4" square format camera, for Weddings. Brings back a lot of memories.
I attached mine to a twin-lens Rolleiflex 2-1/4" square format camera (film came 12 or 24 exposures) for weddings. Only had one unit but two battery heads. Still remember clamp had a red button for quick release from camera bar and had to plug cord from flash to camera, but I don't remember what I had for lunch yesterday. (lol)
May 4, 2018 00:14:52 #
May 4, 2018 02:45:18 #
I forwarded you pic and my advice was "go straight to the pic". Because it speaks for itself.
May 4, 2018 07:44:21 #
Check out Street Photography section of our forum.
May 4, 2018 08:16:52 #
I have one, but unfortunately I overused it in my home studio and the electronics are fried. Do you, or anyone else know where I can get it fixed?
May 4, 2018 09:26:15 #
May 4, 2018 09:51:58 #
May 4, 2018 10:20:21 #
jsmangis wrote:
I have one, but unfortunately I overused it in my home studio and the electronics are fried. Do you, or anyone else know where I can get it fixed?
Don't know about fixing but when I googled name to get some images off the Internet eBay had them for $15 or so. A couple stated they still fired great from plug in cord but batteries were dead. Supposedly one was available new for $30, dead batteries. That might be your best source.
And I used mine in the studio too, with one of their strobe lights that you could pull a little clear tube out that turned it into a slave unit.
Check out Black and White Photography section of our forum.
May 4, 2018 10:37:52 #
By the way, they were called mallet flashes, because of their shape. I used mine with a holder that attached to my camera and allowed me to rotate the flash head so it was directly over my camera, to minimize shadows. The flash holder had a handle, which made photographing very convenient. Since my camera had a square format, I didn't have to rotate the camera rig.
May 4, 2018 10:45:09 #
JD750 wrote:
I forwarded you pic and my advice was "go straight to the pic". Because it speaks for itself.
I agree with you completely and most of us here are experienced photographers and can totally determine our own pro/con with photos posted, no commentary needed. But I like that this is a forum with discussions about the photo, both from the source and viewers, and we get information directly from each, unfiltered. It is background info, compliments and constructive complaints, along with sharing memories of that moment in time, that makes this catergory worthwhile in my mind. Otherwise I could just Google "nude candids" or "redhead standing naked in water" versus waiting for the next exciting post from the person who shot it. Just my viewpoint.
May 4, 2018 15:04:59 #
I've commented earlier on her big...hair. Was she from Texas?
I like the shot and know that the eye shadows could be fixed easily.
I like the shot and know that the eye shadows could be fixed easily.
May 4, 2018 15:55:09 #
davefales wrote:
I've commented earlier on her big...hair. Was she from Texas?
I like the shot and know that the eye shadows could be fixed easily.
I like the shot and know that the eye shadows could be fixed easily.
Don't know her origins but that was/is definitely "big hair" Texan beauty pageant on the top and 1960-70s on the bottom (lol). And, yes, these could be fixed in PP but all the postings of mine in this area are how they came out of the camera back in the 1970s in the days of film.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Traditional Street and Architectural Photography section of our forum.