Canon 60D Users, Unite! (3)

Re-edit:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/str0ntium/69474​51183/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/str0ntium/67987​51362/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/str0ntium/67987​51302/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/str0ntium/67987​51234/

David, I don't know if you have posted elsewhere so forgive if this is a redundant question. What are the dimensions of your studio space?

Rivest wrote in post #14000180
Think I found the 5D2 thread : https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1154022

MakisM1 wrote in post #14000204
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1154022

David, meant to write about your latest set. Very nice and the floor... wow! I've been in a studio like this once (6 white sides) and the family pics we got were phenomenal!

http://cielphoto.blogs​pot.com …-first-dslr-rebel-xt.html


lol

mwsilver wrote in post #14000325
Yeah, she's really boring.

babel_fish wrote in post #14000332
David, I don't know if you have posted elsewhere so forgive if this is a redundant question. What are the dimensions of your studio space?

IIRC, I've got 8 foot ceiling ( ), 12 feet wide (not bad) and around 25 feet on the long side (very great, but one can never have too much!).

Rivest wrote in post #14000392
...8 foot ceiling...

Free hair lights

...thats about what I thought, that length though, is working out nicely.

babel_fish wrote in post #14000490
Free hair lights

...thats about what I thought, that length though, is working out nicely.

Yeah, yellow hair lights... Nah!

I like the length I have, but would love more. I always have my back against the wall. If I don't, the model becomes ''taller'' than the background and PP becomes a pain.

Rivest wrote in post #14000275
Thanks Makis. But sadly, my studio isn't as great as it looks like

Messy BTS shot:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

An extra from the same shoot (sorry to those who are bored from her):

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Awesome setup! I have been toying around with the idea of getting some continuous lighting.

I don't think anyone gets tired of good work

Jay-Bird wrote in post #14000633
Awesome setup! I have been toying around with the idea of getting some continuous lighting.

Skip that. Not powerful enough. Start with a speed light. Than two. Than three. A strobe. Another. You get the idea.

But I'd really skip continuous lighting. Read around the lighting section, you'll understand why. Basically, it's a waste of money.

skwirnmn wrote in post #13995651
see when i take pictures with that lens, it looks terrible.. when you take pictures with the lens, they come out amazing.. hope you enjoy it man!

taken with the 200, and my 5d

Hah you're giving me way too much credit. I definitely have to get used to it. I can't wait to start using it for my normal shooting style. I'm just worried that the lens hood wont be sufficient enough to properly shade the front element. I have a sneaking suspicion that the sun is going to shine on half of the lens and give some weird effects. But I guess we'll see how it goes.

PS, you should let me borrow that 5D.

Rivest wrote in post #14000778
Skip that. Not powerful enough. Start with a speed light. Than two. Than three. A strobe. Another. You get the idea.

But I'd really skip continuous lighting. Read around the lighting section, you'll understand why. Basically, it's a waste of money.

I just looked at your website. Very nice work. Very vibrant use of color. Do you ever use monochrome?

Rivest wrote in post #14000392



IIRC, I've got 8 foot ceiling ( ), 12 feet wide (not bad) and around 25 feet on the long side (very great, but one can never have too much!).

That's the size of my living room!...

I will not say I'll trade you...

mwsilver wrote in post #14000266
Exactly. That's not the first picture I've seen of a cracked magnesium body. Using magnesium may be "sexier" and more expensive, but the shell is very thin and magnesium is much more brittle than polycarbonate. I think a magnesium shell gives buyers of higher end cameras, and the people who review those cameras, the illusion of higher quality and robustness to justify the significantly higher cost.

There's a reason they use that tough plastic on the stocks of assault rifles.

michaelnel wrote in post #14000970
There's a reason they use that tough plastic on the stocks of assault rifles.

As I've stated several times in various threads, the most popular handgun in the world, the Glock 17, has a polycarbonate body. When I was in the army in the 1970's my M16's body was made out of engineered plastic. If those same parts had been made from magnesium, they would have cracked and dented more easily. In a discussion with my my brother who is a physicist but knows nothing of cameras, he was surprised that anyone would want a camera with a thin brittle magnesium body over one made of polycarbonate.

Rivest wrote in post #14000778
Skip that. Not powerful enough. Start with a speed light. Than two. Than three. A strobe. Another. You get the idea.

But I'd really skip continuous lighting. Read around the lighting section, you'll understand why. Basically, it's a waste of money.

Yeah I have 430EX, another Manual Flash, triggers, umbrella and stand; but could never get the power settings to groove. So that is why I was leaning towards continuous.

Now that I have the 60d, it can control the 430ex, I used it the other day and its night and day difference on me shooting manually. Maybe i need to look into getting a 580 or the new 600EX.