Posts: Blasthoff | Ugly Hedgehog

Basil wrote:

I have read in some of the "Answered Question... (show quote)

I have some of the "high capacity" (Black) AA 2400mah Amazon Basics which I have tested and they truly are 2400mah capacity. I was going to get the white ones (lower capacity) but these were not much more at the time. The Amazon's may very well be made by Panasonic, since physically they look identical to Eneloops, including the vent holes, and the charge capacities when tested, are right up there with the Eneloops.

These low self discharge batteries will out perform the best alkaline batteries in every respect in a flash unit. The flash will charge faster and you'll get more flashes. Get yourself a good "smart charger" and become a battery "geek" and do your own testing, conditioning and reconditioning. I strongly recommend the OPUS 2400 (about $30 ebay or Amazon), it is both BETTER and cheaper then similar LaCross and MAHA units and I can confirm that first hand.

(Main Photography Discussion)

DX "portrait" lens

Manglesphoto wrote:

The standard for portraits with 35mm was 100 mm.
anything shorter and you are crowding yous subject to get a closeup.
99% of my portraits/ full body shots have been done using a 24 - 120mm nikon dx
Have recently aquired a D800 and a 24-120mm f4 fx lens hope to be doing some portrait work soon.

Experience and I beg to differ. For film use I used a 100mm (2x) extensively and it does a fine job where I could use it. What I myself often found in situations where I wanted photos of people at gatherings, party's and such, was that the 100mm prime was often constricting, especially when shooting couples. For the longest time I wished for something slightly shorter, yet longer (tighter) then "normal". The 85mm (1.6x) proved to be the sweet spot for a single prime lens for such photography. I love the 100mm when it's an option, I love how it "snaps" into focus and such, but the 85mm is much more practical to have on the camera when taking varied shots and it is a very fine lens itself. Today, when using a DX camera, a 55mm has taken the duties of the 85 used with FF/film.

(Main Photography Discussion)

DX "portrait" lens

mikedent wrote:

Thinking of getting a prime lens that would work well for portrait-type photos on DX Nikon. I've read good reviews on the FX 50mm 1.8 af-s. I already have an older FX 60mm micro 2.8D that could work also. Any ideas on which of these or others would give best images? Is there a DX lens designed for this? Thanks!

"designed for.."?? You already have a 60mm Micro, that outside of being a stop slower, is superior in every other respect to any 1.5x-2x (DX portrait length) lens you would get. What more do you want? :?:

I have to ask this, why haven't you already used this lens for that purpose? Do it!!! You don't need printed affirmation to use the tools you have. Then, you can ask questions, if you still have any, that might actually be useful or meaningful about shooting portraits.

(Main Photography Discussion)

35 or 50mm?

rehess wrote:

Traditionally, street photographers used 35mm lenses, even when 50mm was "standard", because they wanted to be up-close-and-personal; doesn't using a 50mm lens with a crop sensor camera almost give you the perspective of a voyeur, observing from a distance, when doing street photography??

Street photographers used the 35mm (wide angle) lens for a number of reasons. One main reason was the increased depth of focus which allowed them to "zone focus" the camera for faster shots with manual focus lenses. An example would be, a 35mm film camera/35mm lens focused at 8ft @f/11 would give you a zone of aprox. 6ft-13.5ft in focus, if memory serves me. This was a carryover skill of news photographers from days using 4"x 5" press cameras. If you wanted to shoot fast with MF lenses you were compelled to learn to zone focus with a "short" lens.

PS: I see your from South Bend also so I'll give a, "Hi Neighbor, enjoying the snow?". Can't wait for Spring!

(General Chit-Chat (non-photography talk))

The Return of Hydrox!

jerryc41 wrote:

No, they will be as good as the "oldies." the new owner has put a lot of work and research into getting them just right.

Sometimes you have to take that with a grain of salt. I doubt they would use some of the bad fats that were used years ago. Heck, Oreo's used to to be made with lard, your just not going to see anything like that in a modern product. A lot of the old products were made with "bad" fats and oils.

(General Chit-Chat (non-photography talk))

The Return of Hydrox!

Brucej67 wrote:

They have changed it several times and reduced the quantity of the filling. Back when Kraft owned Nabisco they stated that they were not in the business to make quality only money and if the public settles for 60% quality that is what they will make.

That doesn't surprise me. In today's larger markets, the name of the game is selling a "name", product is secondary. Proof of this is obvious when corporations routinely cut quality or labor to save 2 cents, yet have no problem paying 9 figure$ for a "name" that will sell, at least until they milk it dry. I suspect this is true with the resurrection of "Hydrox" as well. This has become so common that today when I now see an old "brand name" being "emphasized", it is a safe bet on seeing either a quality decline, large price increase or worst of all, BOTH.

The corporate world knows it's numbers. They've learned it's far easier and cheaper to "buy" a name then to establish a reputation. Going further, I seems to me their "idea" of establishing reputation, if in fact they go that route, is one that is created more in marketing departments and ad spending. It costs a lot to "build" a reputation that doesn't actually exist.

(General Chit-Chat (non-photography talk))

The Return of Hydrox!

Back when, I preferred and loved Oreo's. Today, Oreo's quite frankly, suck since they changed the recipe. Maybe the new Hydrox can be an alternative. Of course nothing in a package can compare to my own cookies. The only problem is if I bake them, I end up eating most of them. OK, I lied, sometimes I eat all of them. :D

(Main Photography Discussion)

exposure compensation

AP wrote:

I chose your written statement to work with Blasthoff, concerning "exposure compensation". Wheather you're using a film camera, or digital camera. Their are only two colors that you have too correct for during exposure. BLACK and WHITE!

If you do not make a correction for these colors, your picture will show your exposure is incorrect. To better under this your light reading through the camera is reading reflective light. If you're making an exposure in winter of children sliding down the hill in bright white snow, your camera's meter is being misled. Because of such bright white light the camera is seeing, your exposure is way higher than it should be and has to be corrected.

By looking through the camera you can use the overide correction turning the + dial until the under exposed gray snow becomes bright white as it should be.

This - & + composation built into your camera is an asset to making a perfect exposure and corrections in your photography. Try using this - & + correction instead of auto bracketing, you'll have full control.

In saying that your white horse or black horse is not correct. That statement is not true. Perfect exposures can be made using a hand held light meter. As you know light meters Measure Light!

The big difference in a hand held light meter from the one in your camera, it can measure incident light. And your camera cannot!

Using a hand held light meter if you slide the white dome over the meter cell and hold it up to the sun you are making a incident light reading. All the light from the sun is falling into your meter. It does not matter weather your making a picture of a snow scene or sail boats in the ocean or reading hot lights in gym or pro basketball game. The meter reads light falling into the meter. NO CORRECTIONS HAVE TO BE MADE!

If you use this incident light reading Blasthoff, both horses black & white horse would be perfectly exposed. Your digital only reads REFLECTED LIGHT, a hand held light meter reads both incident and reflected light. If you want to go further, you can buy a light meter that adds flast as well. A big deal if you use studio strobe lighting. AP

I chose your written statement to work with Blasth... (show quote)

Just one correction to what your saying AP, what I said about the white and black horse IS correct. The camera meter IS a "reflected light meter" and that is how it works and what it reads. It is what MOST photographers rely on. You bring up using an incident light meter which is a horse of a completely different feather. Apples and oranges. You are correct in explaining the "incident light meter" and how it is used, but it has nothing to do with using the "in camera" reflected light meter which is what is being discussed here. Similar result to using an incident meter, would be to use an 18% grey card to meter with the reflected light meter in camera.

NOTE: For those that need an explanation, an "incident light meter" is a special meter with a diffuser that is used at the position of the subject facing toward the camera that measures the light falling on the subject. "Reflected light meters" include built in camera meters, hand held "spot" meters etc. These meters measure the actual reflected light going through your lens. You can look up more about meters if your interested.

(Main Photography Discussion)

Epson old 4870 scanner

willdenise wrote:

I brought this scanner several years ago. Do I loose a lot from not buying the epson v850 or v800 epson scanner.

Just my 2 cents, but Epson makes great scanners. I have a much older Epson Perfection 1200U that after all these years, still more then meets my needs. I've even scanned negatives with it and made prints at least as good as those made from the negs at a local photolab. I'm not sure what your needs are but I'm thinking your fine with what you have.

(Main Photography Discussion)

Nikon Teleconverters 2x

I believe the new Nikon TC's are only for specific lenses, so your decision may already decided.

(Links and Resources)

If you have Seagate hard Drives...Read This

Nikon_DonB wrote:

Check this out.....Seagate has had so many failure... (show quote)

For your reference, about 15 years ago it was just the opposite. WD went through a period when their drives were failing left and right and those that didn't sounded like they were about to. For a long time I wouldn't consider one. Maxtor was very good for a few years and then it was Seagate making very dependable drives. I have at least a couple 10+ years old. Since I've been around computers I've seen hard drive brands go up and down with reliability. You just have to stay on top of things to know whats up and whats not.

(Main Photography Discussion)

exposure compensation

Apaflo wrote:

Ahhh... because it works very well and is extremel... (show quote)

OK, I can see that as an option. I'm not quite fully adapted to the digital slr, but I'm getting there. Thanks.

(Main Photography Discussion)

exposure compensation

bdk wrote:

thanks all I understand how to get a good exposure ( most of the time) I almost 100% of the time shoot in manual.
So if I set the EC button, someplace down the line its changing maybe ISO or Aperture or what ever, which is what I would have done anyhow. kind of making the button useless in manual mode... am I right???? or am I still not getting....

A word of advice, I can not for the life of me understand why anyone would use exposure compensation when shooting in manual mode. I know people do it but I can't fathom WHY? To me, that amounts to YOU telling the camera to tell YOU right back to compensate!@#$ :| That's insane! Why not just set your camera above or below? You are in manual mode after all. To me the whole idea behind shooting manual was to avoid having to press buttons. Personally, I usually use Aperture preferred mode as I can ignore the meter altogether keeping mindful of shutter speed and simply compensate above or below from experience viewing scenes.

(Main Photography Discussion)

exposure compensation

bdk wrote:

To get a proper exposure, when looking at the mete... (show quote)

The meter is a mindless instrument. It reads the light intensity but has no idea of what the subject being measured is and can only assume it is medium grey or average in tone and that is what it is calibrated to do. Even "smart" matrix modes will do an "average" which could still be wrong.

Imagine metering on a white horse in the center of your frame. Take a meter read. Now replace the white horse with a black horse. Take another meter read. Your readings will be several stops apart. Only one exposure can be correct for both, so which reading is correct?

Answer: Neither reading is correct. The white horse will be under exposed and the black horse over exposed, because the camera doesn't know if the horse is white or black and "assumes" the horse to be medium grey thus the meter will offer up an exposure to record each as 18% grey, which of course would be wrong in either instance. That is where YOU are supposed interpret the scene and compensate.

I hope this at least lights a bulb in your mind.

(Main Photography Discussion)

Vivitar lens

Linda Ewing wrote:

Someone has given me a Vivitar lens.1:3.8. 1=85-20... (show quote)

I believe this is an old, old zoom that is not very good optical quality by today's standards (or even 1980's standards). It is NOT a "Series One" lens as some have intimated. Play with it if you like, but it isn't worth much of anything.

Back in the day, I knew a photographer who sometimes used cheap Vivatar zoom lenses for portraits specifically because they were not sharp. They would give sort of a mild "soft focus" affect.