9th Grade VB C & C

Big K wrote in post #8708713
Nice work Phil.

You didn't fool me, Phil. Skin tones that don't look like they have hepatitis are a dead giveaway that good light was in use.

A couple of suggestions. You might try shooting the 135 at f/2.8. While it is solid at f/2 it really sings at f/2.8. You have plenty of room to up the ISO and be just fine. I'm guessing f/2.8 at ISO 400 would also have fixed your slight overexposure problem.

You might also try setting a custom white balance. It looks like you are bouncing off something not totally white which is contributing to the color being off just slightly.

Last suggestion, I find my images are just a bit better when I am at one of the "natural" ISO breaks (100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, etc.) The between ISO's are actually adjusted via camera software and I find a slight increase in noise even at lower ISO's. Very minor and might just be my perception and would be curious if you try it to hear your thoughts.

Keep up the good work.

Kevin is very good at lighting, but the statement, "You didn't fool me..." is soooo "I knew BYU would beat Oklahoma. I knew it all along." Kidding of course Kev.

This thing about in-between ISO's is somewhat interesting. Although I have never noticed a difference, I've never paid attention either. Could it be true? What about all the ISO stops between 1600 and 25,600? Would all of those be 'Unnatural' ? Shouldn't the rule of exposing to the right override the 'Natural ISO' factor for noise? I guess we should start a new thread so we don't steal the attention from Phil's stuff... but it's kinda pertinent to the post...

johndevane wrote in post #8709699
Kevin is very good at lighting, but the statement, "You didn't fool me..." is soooo "I knew BYU would beat Oklahoma. I knew it all along." Kidding of course Kev.

This thing about in-between ISO's is somewhat interesting. Although I have never noticed a difference, I've never paid attention either. Could it be true? What about all the ISO stops between 1600 and 25,600? Would all of those be 'Unnatural' ? Shouldn't the rule of exposing to the right override the 'Natural ISO' factor for noise? I guess we should start a new thread so we don't steal the attention from Phil's stuff... but it's kinda pertinent to the post...

I know Kevin is correct on nearly all of the Canon line (40D, etc) but there was a thread where someone maintained the 1D III was different. I checked the white paper and the manual but was unable to find a definitive answer. Perhaps a techno-camera-geek will chime in... ... ...

I'll try 400 till I find out for sure.

techno-camera-geeks are the new cool. When I picture them in my head I see Fonzie and Elvis and James Dean, all wearing Sauk Moustaches...

johndevane wrote in post #8709796
techno-camera-geeks are the new cool. When I picture them in my head I see Fonzie and Elvis and James Dean, all wearing Sauk Moustaches...

My head hurts from that image.

_______________

One thing that is under appreciated about great lenses is that the image quality is so good that they can be cropped aggressively and still produce a usable image. Image #1 is a nice image but here is the original RAW image from the Canon 300mm f/2.8 IS, SOOC. Nothing special.

Very nice Phil. How long does it take you to set up everything? I've been itchin for some Bees for a while now. Also not sure if you will know but can the Bees be fired with Skyports?

johndevane wrote in post #8709796
techno-camera-geeks are the new cool. When I picture them in my head I see Fonzie and Elvis and James Dean, all wearing Sauk Moustaches...

JD,has someone changed your medication lately? You are unstoppable man! Simply magic!

Dan-o wrote in post #8709926
Very nice Phil. How long does it take you to set up everything? I've been itchin for some Bees for a while now.

Setting up 2 Alien Bee B800s takes me 10-15 minutes, including running power cords or 2 Vagabond IIs. That is for the case where I've been to the school before and know if I'm going to super clamp or use light stands or set them up on a flat surface. Triple that if I've never been to the venue before. You do have to haul the stuff in and out but you get over that. The worse the ambient light, the better the results for the Bees.

I use Plus II Pocket Wizards and don't know about other triggers.

How do the Vagabond II's perform Phil? Recycle time? Do they get old and slower through the game? How long have you pushed them, say during a bkball tournament? How many hours are they good for with constant use? I've read reviews, but it would be nice to hear the eval from someone we can trust.

The most I've tried to push them is when I used 2 Vagabond IIs to charge 4 B800s (2 each) for about 150-200 shots (ie 300-400 full power charges for each battery) over 5 hours. No problems and I did not notice a longer charge time (about a second or so) but I wasn't really checking. I've owned mine for a year. They are heavy at 18 lbs each but they eliminate cords which could cause a trip hazard.

They are also really sweet when you want to take a Bee and a Beauty Dish on location for some on-site portraits with off camera lighting. Let the sun be a naturally backlit 'hair light' and have the Bee provide directional soft light for the face that will have your subject pop off the page. Use your Bees at the picnic, the alley, the forrest or the beach. Portable power can be handy.

Thanks Phil, nice to hear they work as advertised.

Nice stuff Phil.

I did some research last night and could not find a definitive answer on how the Mark III handles the 1/3 stop increments with ISO or which way they are applied to the higher end ISO's.

I also did a quick test to see if I could isolate the noise at different ISO settings with other factors being similar. Here is what I did.

I manually set the camera to 1/500 at f/13 and shot frames with the lens cap on the camera at each of the ISO settings in RAW. I then made the same adjustments to all images in Aperture to try and accentuate the noise. I pushed the exposure +4 stops, reduced the black point to 0.5, increased brightness to .6 and contrast to .25.

Below are 400 pixel 100% crops from the same position of each image. I thought the results were very interesting and was surprised how significant the change in noise was even at the lower ISO change of 160 to 200. It also seems like the +2/3 increments show the most significant differences.

I am sure there are more scientific ways to test this but modeled this after a method I saw that someone did for the 1Ds Mk III.

Phil, Hope you don't mind me piggybacking this onto your thread.

ISO 100

ISO 640

Great Shots Phil,
I love #1

good shots