Elinchrom Quadra or Ranger?

telles75 wrote in post #10703718
Whoa..this is a completely untrue statement. Every time you resize to a smaller size a considerable amount you need to sharpen your image again either using unsharp mask (the noobs way, which sucks), HP Mask with selective masking (the intermediate way) or using the Separation of spatial frequency data method (best way I know). Just using bicubic sharper as an option while reducing will not be sufficient. You can use the best camera and best lens in the world and you still need to sharpen the image, ask any good image retoucher and he/she will confirm what I am saying here.

The default way which PS resize is WITH sharpening. Bibcubic sharpening (best for reduction). Remember i stated for the WEB.

For output i always sharpen accordingly, or for larger reproductions the printhouse do it. I had clients made 10x3meter canvas of a 12MP file which of course was handled by the printhouse.


As for your NEED, as its been stated its very subjective. But for web (800x600 px) a highres image resized with bicubic sharperning will be plenty sharp for prensentation on the web. Now you can add sharpening with whatever method you want some better some worse you will still run at the risk of introducing halos. Sure some of you like the the sharper look with hard edges , i dont.

Ask any PHOTOGRAPHER who dont have time using selective sharpening,blurring backgrounds or pop eye action and dont want to oversharpen their image to look "i have digital camera" and they will confirm what im saying here....

When it comes to camera and lenses, they certainly play a big role in the appearance of sharpness and micro contrast thats affect it.

Never have to sharpen my images when outputting for web ...in fact often dial it back using bicub-smoother when resizing. That digital razor over-sharpened look is so overdone.

phamster wrote in post #10705651
@ Telles..

the light was just out of frame about 8 feet or so..

but you are right.. i probably got some mix from that super warm light like 7000K..

3000k would be like ice cold blue! haha.. but i know what you were saying..

Pham I think you have colour temperatures understood the wrong way. I know it does not make sense, especially if you were used to deal with degrees Kelvin for temperature in College or University (I studied Mechanical Engineering and to me the higher the degrees Kelvins the hotter the temp was). But in photography when we refer to colour temperature is actually the opposite, the warmer the light the smaller the K are.. check on some books or even Google it and you'll see what I am talking about. So yes that lamp still is less than 3000K.. 7000K would be super cool light (fluorescent maybe).

Rai33 wrote in post #10706679
Never have to sharpen my images when outputting for web ...in fact often dial it back using bicub-smoother when resizing. That digital razor over-sharpened look is so overdone.

Oh well I guess there is no right and wrong then... Personally I hate all the softness that reducing size creates and hence go for the selective sharpening, specially in the eyes and jewelry (I hate over sharpened hair and skin pores, so I am with you in that one). Is not that I am creating sharpness where there was none, I am just bringing back the original sharpness I see in the Original size file, that's all.

But coming back to why the Quadra gives sharper images than the ABs well the answer is very simple the t.1 on the Quadra is way shorter. My images got sharper (of course when shooting handheld) when I switched from Elinchrom DLites 4 to 300RX cause the flash duration is way shorter. I used to shoot a lot using tripod with the DLites, now I rarely use the tripod, except for when I am doing composites or when shooting Beauty.

phamster wrote in post #10705728
yes.. sir.. best little 30 dollar piece of hardware yet !

the pole i am using is a water hose handle extender for a broom mop thingy..
pretty light weight set up..

any mother can handle it ! haha..

Hey Phamster

I am drawn between Quadra and Ranger RX, you are starting to drag me towards the Quadra. What do you need to use the Quadra on a pole with regular Elinchrom modifiers? Quadra to Elinchrom adpater + pole adapter?

Marius

at marius I am @ at a rehearsal but I will gather all that info for you when I get back on a pc. And not my phone ha ha

Marius B wrote in post #10710101
Hey Phamster

I am drawn between Quadra and Ranger RX, you are starting to drag me towards the Quadra. What do you need to use the Quadra on a pole with regular Elinchrom modifiers? Quadra to Elinchrom adpater + pole adapter?

Marius

i bought that pole adaptor thingy and went to a hard ware store and bought an aluminum pole that has the popular 5/8 thread (used for brooms and mops and painting)

the quadra is the perfect solution for on the run type locations shoot.. pretty much all i do..

i would recommend this lighting system to anybody.. of course it is pricey but to me it is an investment and i am now more efficient because of this light.

Deep Oct and the Quadra is really spoiling to work with..

light was about 7 feet boomed downwards from the left side.. and i was about 1.6-1.9 in power

CameraCanon EOS 5D Mark II
Exposure0.008 sec (1/125)
Aperturef/2.5
Focal Length85 mm
ISO Speed320
Exposure Bias0 EV
FlashOff, Did not fire
File Size362 kB
File TypeJPEG

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

I got my Ranger RX Quadra set yesterday and they are AMAZING! So small yet they throw out tons of light. I can also synch at 320 without any solid black bands! I love these things.

telles75 wrote in post #10707880
Pham I think you have colour temperatures understood the wrong way. I know it does not make sense, especially if you were used to deal with degrees Kelvin for temperature in College or University (I studied Mechanical Engineering and to me the higher the degrees Kelvins the hotter the temp was). But in photography when we refer to colour temperature is actually the opposite, the warmer the light the smaller the K are.. check on some books or even Google it and you'll see what I am talking about. So yes that lamp still is less than 3000K.. 7000K would be super cool light (fluorescent maybe).

see that goes to show you how you learn everyday! thanks for this info..no matter how confusing it is!

phamster

JDubya wrote in post #10711680
I got my Ranger RX Quadra set yesterday and they are AMAZING! So small yet they throw out tons of light. I can also synch at 320 without any solid black bands! I love these things.

what camera body?

phamster wrote in post #10711740
what camera body?

30D and there's only a slight shadow at the very bottom edge. Nothing that can't be corrected or cropped if it's too apparent.

JDubya wrote in post #10711791
30D and there's only a slight shadow at the very bottom edge. Nothing that can't be corrected or cropped if it's too apparent.

I get clean 320 and maybe 8th frame @ 400 on a 1d mk11

Deep Oct and the Quadra is really spoiling to work with..

light was about 7 feet boomed downwards from the left side.. and i was about 1.6-1.9 in power


CameraCanon EOS 5D Mark II
Exposure0.008 sec (1/125)
Aperturef/2.5
Focal Length85 mm
ISO Speed320
Exposure Bias0 EV
FlashOff, Did not fire
File Size362 kB
File TypeJPEG

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/-phamster-/4886711925/

great shot, Phamster! I've always wanted to try shooting in rain. What is she sitting in/on? It almost looks like rippling water. I love the look.

JDubya wrote in post #10712324
great shot, Phamster! I've always wanted to try shooting in rain. What is she sitting in/on? It almost looks like rippling water. I love the look.

i photoshopped all that water and rain and dreary look.. took about 2 hours of my time.. but this was just an exercise of me learning photo shop.. but now that you mention it.. haha..
i need to make a reflection.. haha..