D7000 and a 40Mz3i.

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
news
Life is much better than it used to be. In the good old days (e.g. 1970 or
so), you used to have a flash head, a capacitors bank (in the handle), a
monster bracket/grip, wires all over the place, a battery pack over your
shoulder. And for exposure, you prayed...

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/119152038/large

AKA: Proof that I've been doing bounce flash for over 40 years...

Still have my OM1, QA300 and bounce grip from 1973. Of course it wasn't the
only camera/ bounce flash option with remote sensor auto exposure at the
time. But by 1976 I had an OM2, QA310, same bounce grip, but with TTL auto
cord instead. (first camera with TTL flash) No more fixed apertures or
guessing games, even with bounce :-)
I also had an interesting gadget, a flash cube-hot shoe adapter which gave
amazing power with no shutter speed sync limitations. Hard to find flash
cubes these days though :-)

Trevor.

First, thank you for all the responses.

Here I'll explain the setup I used (and some questions about that).

Non flash
On the D7000 on U1 set up the non flash. (Aperture mode, iso 6400, F 6.3),
this gave varying but acceptable shutter speeds).
(All with jpg large/fine but no RAW).

Flash.
On the D7000 on M iso 1250 f7.1 shutter 1/125 (Metz iso 1600 / F8). (All
with jpg large/fine AND RAW)
Instead of using the M setting for this I should have used the U2 setting
for this. Because I made some shifts in the settings
which I did not notice and did not always reset them immediately. (With
switching from and back to U2 everything is set again).
Almost all the flashes were taken by bouncing of the walls. (And partly of
the ceiling) Walls were fairly neutral in colour.
(I used the 1250 iso so that when bouncing there is still enough light
available).


Both (U1 and M) were set to auto white balance.
Should I have set the M (or U2) setting to a white balance with Flash ? (Or
other).

Using the U1 and M (should have used U2) setting made switching between Non
flash and flash quick and all settings were directly set correctly.

Few photo's were taken were the flash was not ready.
Few photo's were taken with the flash on but the settings on the camera for
Non flash.
One photo was taken with the flash on and the non flash setting.

Flash photo's were not completely consistent because of shifts in settings
which I noticed a bit late. (little change in iso or f value).
The automatic Mode of the Metz does tend to overexpose on wide angled shot's
from people close up.
The automatic Mode of the Metz does tend to underexpose on zoomed in shots
of people.

I tried to use the mini flash on the 40Mz3i, but that did not deliver a
pleasing result so I stopped that immediatly. There I should have used the
4x neutral density filter on the mini flash, that filter is even stored on
the flash but I did not think of using that.

Next time ?
should I use M and U2 both for a slightly different flash setting.
(wide/close-up -- and zoom/distance++)?
Should I set the white balance to another setting than auto?
Maybe I should take all the pictures in Raw mode?
(Raw mode was used as an insurance but I only had viewNX for raw pictures.
Now I am learning to use lightroom, it is not easy to make the right choices
for adjustments).
Use the miniflash with the neutral density filter?
Buy a SB700 ?

Again thanks for your time and attention.
Remarks and additions are welcomed.

Ben Brugman

On 2012-04-06 22:40 , Trevor wrote:
"Alan wrote in message
...
On 2012-04-06 19:06 , Trevor wrote:
"Alan wrote in message
news The Metz should meter itself well, but may need to be biased up a bit in
a
formal High Tea setting (hotels, spas, etc) which tend to be in bright
(white to pale pastels) rooms which in turn will meter high resulting
low
flash output. About +1.5 - +2 should do it.

I would take advantage, however, of the soft/bright lighting in such
rooms
and try to shoot without flash if possible.

Exactly why I wouldn't "bias it up a bit". I'd want it as fill flash
only,

My comment assumed the Metz was the main exposure light (the 1/200
exposure you snipped out).

My comment assumed it didn't HAVE to be.

Gee, let's just assume the case presented.





The OP was not clear about what his specific issues were.

If shooting available light, then from the formal tea rooms I've been in
(many) one would not need any fill anywhere. A tripod would be best,
subject (people) permitting.

Rarely use a tripod (since IS lenses anyway) when shooting people that can
move are involved ! (and when tripods can get in the way as well)
Having perfectly sharp backgrounds with blurred people works occasionally of
course, but not too often. For some shots without people perhaps.


High ISO (800-1600) acceptable on most digital cameras (not much dark or
shadow content to reveal noise).

Right, or even more for some camera's these days.


Fill would reduce the sparse contrast to the point of flattening the
image. There is little if any directional lighting. It is soft, diffuse,
reflected. Nothing to fill if one shoots available light.

I'll bow to your obviously superior knowledge of all existing tea rooms and
their lighting. Seems the OP thought he needed his Metz for some reason
however.


and would be more likely to bias it down a bit, but the use of soft
boxes,
bounce flash etc. means all decisions would be made after looking at a
few
pictures on the LCD.
THAT is a great benefit of digital over film when using mixed lighting.

The LCD provides universal benefits except "by the book" lighting ratios -
for that nothing beats an incident meter.


If you prefer "by the book" to your own artistic ability and experience,
sure. And asuming you have time to take those readings without getting in
peoples way. It wasn't just a professional photo shoot as I read it, but I
could be wrong.

I was referring to cases where specific, old school, if you like,
lighting ratios are desired.

--
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Exactly why I wouldn't "bias it up a bit". I'd want it as fill flash
only,

My comment assumed the Metz was the main exposure light (the 1/200
exposure you snipped out).

My comment assumed it didn't HAVE to be.

Gee, let's just assume the case presented.

Sorry you'll have to point out where he said fill flash WASN'T an option!
Obviously you really mean "the case as YOU read it", and no one else is
allowed an alternative opinion.

Trevor.

On 2012-04-07 18:56 , Trevor wrote:
"Alan wrote in message
...
Exactly why I wouldn't "bias it up a bit". I'd want it as fill flash
only,

My comment assumed the Metz was the main exposure light (the 1/200
exposure you snipped out).

My comment assumed it didn't HAVE to be.

Gee, let's just assume the case presented.

Sorry you'll have to point out where he said fill flash WASN'T an option!
Obviously you really mean "the case as YOU read it", and no one else is
allowed an alternative opinion.

Obviously you need therapy, drugs or both.

Or just heed the words of the great Guru and chill.

--
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.

On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 20:48:18 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:
: On 2012-04-06 19:06 , Trevor wrote:
: "Alan wrote in message
: news : The Metz should meter itself well, but may need to be biased up a bit in a
: formal High Tea setting (hotels, spas, etc) which tend to be in bright
: (white to pale pastels) rooms which in turn will meter high resulting low
: flash output. About +1.5 - +2 should do it.
:
: I would take advantage, however, of the soft/bright lighting in such rooms
: and try to shoot without flash if possible.
:
: Exactly why I wouldn't "bias it up a bit". I'd want it as fill flash only,
:
: My comment assumed the Metz was the main exposure light (the 1/200
: exposure you snipped out).
:
: The OP was not clear about what his specific issues were.
:
: If shooting available light, then from the formal tea rooms I've been in
: (many) one would not need any fill anywhere. A tripod would be best,
: subject (people) permitting. High ISO (800-1600) acceptable on most
: digital cameras (not much dark or shadow content to reveal noise).
:
: Fill would reduce the sparse contrast to the point of flattening the
: image. There is little if any directional lighting. It is soft,
: diffuse, reflected. Nothing to fill if one shoots available light.
:
: and would be more likely to bias it down a bit, but the use of soft boxes,
: bounce flash etc. means all decisions would be made after looking at a few
: pictures on the LCD.
: THAT is a great benefit of digital over film when using mixed lighting.
:
: The LCD provides universal benefits except "by the book" lighting ratios
: - for that nothing beats an incident meter.

By Jove, "incident meter". There's a term out of the past. Does anyone still
use such? I can't remember the last time I heard the idea proposed. But as I
sit here trying to come up with a plausible white balance for the pictures I
took in our City art gallery the other day, the device has a visceral appeal.
Who makes incident meters these days? Which ones are any good? Do they really
work? With the weird lighting mixtures we see these days, does "color
temperature" have much residual meaning? Enquiring minds want to know!

Bob

On 2012-04-08 11:11:04 -0700, Robert Coe said:

On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 20:48:18 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:
: On 2012-04-06 19:06 , Trevor wrote:
: "Alan wrote in message
: news : The Metz should meter itself well, but may need to be biased up a bit in a
: formal High Tea setting (hotels, spas, etc) which tend to be in bright
: (white to pale pastels) rooms which in turn will meter high resulting low
: flash output. About +1.5 - +2 should do it.
:
: I would take advantage, however, of the soft/bright lighting in such rooms
: and try to shoot without flash if possible.
:
: Exactly why I wouldn't "bias it up a bit". I'd want it as fill flash only,
:
: My comment assumed the Metz was the main exposure light (the 1/200
: exposure you snipped out).
:
: The OP was not clear about what his specific issues were.
:
: If shooting available light, then from the formal tea rooms I've been in
: (many) one would not need any fill anywhere. A tripod would be best,
: subject (people) permitting. High ISO (800-1600) acceptable on most
: digital cameras (not much dark or shadow content to reveal noise).
:
: Fill would reduce the sparse contrast to the point of flattening the
: image. There is little if any directional lighting. It is soft,
: diffuse, reflected. Nothing to fill if one shoots available light.
:
: and would be more likely to bias it down a bit, but the use of soft boxes,
: bounce flash etc. means all decisions would be made after looking at a few
: pictures on the LCD.
: THAT is a great benefit of digital over film when using mixed lighting.
:
: The LCD provides universal benefits except "by the book" lighting ratios
: - for that nothing beats an incident meter.

By Jove, "incident meter". There's a term out of the past. Does anyone still
use such? I can't remember the last time I heard the idea proposed. But as I
sit here trying to come up with a plausible white balance for the pictures I
took in our City art gallery the other day, the device has a visceral appeal.
Who makes incident meters these days? Which ones are any good? Do they really
work? With the weird lighting mixtures we see these days, does "color
temperature" have much residual meaning? Enquiring minds want to know!

Bob

Not that far out of the past;

At the low $$ end B&H has the Shepard/Polaris at $168. They also have
the Gossen at $131.80

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...tal_Meter.html

or
http://tinyurl.com/28sshw


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...htmeter.ht ml


Then at the higher end they have a $449 or $613 Gossen as well as a
full range of Sekonic priced from $199 to $1338.

....and check this opinion regarding the subject:

http://www.naturescapes.net/docs/ind...al-photography

or
http://tinyurl.com/7bv8gkt


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2012-04-08 14:11 , Robert Coe wrote:
On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 20:48:18 -0400, Alan Browne

: The LCD provides universal benefits except "by the book" lighting ratios
: - for that nothing beats an incident meter.

By Jove, "incident meter". There's a term out of the past.

Hardly.

I rarely set studio lights without one, esp. when for specific "old
school" lighting ratios, or when offsetting the BG significantly from
the key.

Does anyone still
use such? I can't remember the last time I heard the idea proposed. But as I
sit here trying to come up with a plausible white balance for the pictures I

Incident metering has nothing to do with white balance. It is solely
about exposure, most specifically lighting ratios.

took in our City art gallery the other day, the device has a visceral appeal.
Who makes incident meters these days? Which ones are any good? Do they really

Sekonic and Gossen. Several others.

They are usually very good. Some, like mine, also have a reflected
light meter in them which is useful when I shoot the 'blad.

work? With the weird lighting mixtures we see these days, does "color
temperature" have much residual meaning? Enquiring minds want to know!

Of course it does. Rather than the hit and miss of "White Balance", I
determine the light source and set the source temperature and a mired
offset in the green-magenta axis. The key light is the temperature that
is set. For me that comes down to a few, most of the time:

- outdoor: 5500K (can run to 20000K or more - but 5500K is
fine to shoot. For sunsets I want the
warmth of the lower temp light IAC).
- studio: 5500K (strobe)
- indoor: 3800K (incandescent - fine tune in ACR).

- fluorescent: I try to guess at the kind of fluorescent that it is as
fluorescent can run warm (4000K) to cold (6500K). (Careless custodians
also mix fluorescent lighting with warm and cool tubes in the ceiling,
so that can smear the range). It doesn't matter much if I'm off as I
can correct in ACR.

I also bump up the mired in in the magenta axis (when I remember to -
otherwise in ACR). Chimping will reveal a problem if there's a severe
mixed light issue. However, it's often nice to shoot mixed incandescent
and fluorescent at a cooler temp (5500K) and let the incandescent areas
show warm in the photo. The reverse looks cold and eerie (which could
work in some images).

Since I process from raw, that can always be fine tuned in ACR.

As I don't use in-camera JPG's, WB is something I pretty much ignore as
an un-needed complication to the process.

Summary: incident meters are very useful and knowing source color
temperatures too.

--
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.

In article , Robert Coe
wrote:

: The LCD provides universal benefits except "by the book" lighting ratios
: - for that nothing beats an incident meter.

By Jove, "incident meter". There's a term out of the past.

no it isn't.

Does anyone still use such?

definitely. how else can you get certain lighting ratios?

I can't remember the last time I heard the idea proposed. But as I
sit here trying to come up with a plausible white balance for the pictures I
took in our City art gallery the other day, the device has a visceral appeal.
Who makes incident meters these days? Which ones are any good? Do they really
work? With the weird lighting mixtures we see these days, does "color
temperature" have much residual meaning? Enquiring minds want to know!

incident light meters have nothing to do with white balance, unless you
have one that is designed to measure ambient colour temperature (a few
do but not many).

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Exactly why I wouldn't "bias it up a bit". I'd want it as fill flash
only,

My comment assumed the Metz was the main exposure light (the 1/200
exposure you snipped out).

My comment assumed it didn't HAVE to be.

Gee, let's just assume the case presented.

Sorry you'll have to point out where he said fill flash WASN'T an option!
Obviously you really mean "the case as YOU read it", and no one else is
allowed an alternative opinion.

Obviously you need therapy, drugs or both.

Does everyone need therapy or drugs in order to put up with you?


Or just heed the words of the great Guru and chill.

Surely you should heed that advice yourself before jumping on anyone
offering reasonable comments next time.

Trevor.