Another DIY light box, with build and test pics

ewheeler20 wrote in post #13447466
Then you should have said "prime lens" instead of "macro lens". You said that unless you have a macro lens, you can't get a sharp photo.

I suppose so. Moments like these remind me why I'm not a teacher.

SuperHuman21 wrote in post #13451783
I suppose so. Moments like these remind me why I'm not a teacher.

Except that's not what I read from your post at all.

The manual focus ring range on a zoom, even 'L' quality lenses, is a whole lot smaller from MFD to ∞ than it is on a macro lens.

It's simply harder to be that precise with a zoom lens because a turn of 10° on one lens may change the focus distance 3 ft instead of say, half a foot.

I finally got around to building one of these. It's just foamcore held together with pins, and a couple of lamps pointing into it, but I'm reasonably pleased with my results. I'm pretty sure I haven't quite got the color balance right, yet, but I'm also working on a new laptop with an uncalibrated screen, so I'm not really sure what these will look like when I get them uploaded.

As a side question: is there a good short prime that's cheap? The 50/1.8 is the one I hear about all the time, but I'd like to find something similar that's shorter -- maybe around a 35mm? It's not worth a whole lot to me at the moment, but if I can at least keep an eye out for a used one, that would be nice...

Comments and constructive criticism are always welcome!

1) The box. Just a quick snapshot.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/amckenzie4/6407​649871/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/amckenzie4/6407​649537/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/amckenzie4/6407​650411/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/amckenzie4/6407​680615/

drew wrote in post #13454649
Except that's not what I read from your post at all.

The manual focus ring range on a zoom, even 'L' quality lenses, is a whole lot smaller from MFD to ∞ than it is on a macro lens.

It's simply harder to be that precise with a zoom lens because a turn of 10° on one lens may change the focus distance 3 ft instead of say, half a foot.

Disclaimer: This is my understanding and my opinion may change if proven otherwise but until then, hear out how I understand this.

Objection! Primes are more sensitive when focusing close-up (not necessarily micro) and of course, they're very sensitive at macro. I get what you're saying but what I'm saying is that macro lenses are simply more sensitive for this kind of work. You can just feel the difference yourself when you focus at macro; the ring is stiffer and loosens up more as your object is further out.

Saying that, I never said zooms can't give sharp photos in studios, that'd just be absurd; they just can't achieve the same sensitivity. And you proved my point, such a tiny degree of movement changes the focus much more for a zoom and that's what I mean by sharp, and not that zooms can't attain sharp images. I hope I conveyed my thoughts well enough.

Here are a couple of quick snaps from today

Setup:

White foam core underneath subject and behind (Obvioously). 1 150 watt light bulb pointed towards background and 1 Metz 58 AF-2 bounced off of the ceiling to illuminate the subject.

Ideally I would have used three strobes, 2 subject and 1 background and altered the setup a bit to remove the glare from the foam core.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/iigq4u/64749356​49/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/iigq4u/64738958​43/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/iigq4u/64749357​41/

touji wrote in post #13451460
I don't know much about whiskey (not old enough yet :P) but is Johnnie Walker considered expensive for whiskey of its caliber?

Depends on the color of the label (age of the scotch)

Not sure if this counts.

Nice, now we are getting creative!

Hmmm. I wonder what the rule is for copyrighting an image that includes someone else's trademark?

runninmann wrote in post #13581435
Hmmm. I wonder what the rule is for copyrighting an image that includes someone else's trademark?

I'm not copyrighting Manfrotto, I am copyrighting the image I created. I just did not want people thinking I just took the image from Manfrotto.

7D_Sniper wrote in post #13582043
I'm not copyrighting Manfrotto, I am copyrighting the image I created. I just did not want people thinking I just took the image from Manfrotto.

I know. That's what I said.

runninmann wrote in post #13581435
Hmmm. I wonder what the rule is for copyrighting an image that includes someone else's trademark?

Happens all the time. If it is done for journalistic or editorial/comentaty purposes it is exempted. It is a non issue. However if he decided to sell the image as a postcard or whatever then there will be some strong words to come.

It was for a blog post / review I did on the head.

I bought 2 of 500W halogen work lights for 16$.

http://www.northerntoo​l.com …oduct_200309783​_200309783

The price is fairly good and it has strong light. However the bulbs and the spare bulbs are yellow, i'll try to find white ones. But my real concern is they are getting really hot. So i only tried them for about half a minute, but couldn't dare to use them with my DIY lightbox. I have 3 flashes and triggers. In fact i would prefer continuous light but i didn't feel safe, so wanted to ask here. My question is what's the point in using these lights? I also use giant tissues that i bought from Walmart as the side papers(which i allow to get the light in). Is it suitable or shall i look for a specific material for that?

This is the first shot with my new DIY lightbox btw (using my flashes).

hmmm....been looking at many pics of the diy boxfor example , i went through closer to 80 threads so far...cant find the diy instructions

i will find it though....but pics are simply amazin....