Show us your setup and the final result!

Hinson wrote in post #16699182
I'm not a sports shooter so I have a question about the set-up. Why lower the strobes to 1/4 power and have to shoot at the higher ISO. Wouldn't it have been better to lower the ISO and shoot the strobes at full power? Or was the 1/4 power to enable the strobes to recharge faster?

Couple of reasons.

Since the strobes are used to stop the action and not shutter speed, the flash duration on Einstein strobes gets faster at lower power settings (like speedlights). Better for stopping action without getting ghosting (as long as the ambient is close to 2 stops under exposed). And the long throw reflectors are good for about a stop of light getting bounced where I need it over the standard 8" reflectors.

With any other strobes (like alien bees), the flash duration increases at lower power settings. A reason Einsteins are a favourite of sports shooters.

As was mentioned, the 1/4 power allowed much quicker recycle times. Also, I could pop off 3 quick shots in succession without any loss of light.

And, since it was a remote camera, focus was fixed and I wanted to shoot at f/4 to increase my DOF to make sure I got faces in focus pretty much anywhere in the frame.

The cameras I was shooting with on the floor I had set at 1/250, f/2.8 and ISO 640-800 firing the same strobes.

Nice work rdalrt. You don't see many posts with this type of info often in this forum, thanks.

rdalrt wrote in post #16699626
Couple of reasons. Since the strobes are used...

Thank you for the informative response. I hadn't considered stopping the action. Your explanation helps.

Hinson

Tapeman wrote in post #16699705
Nice work rdalrt. You don't see many posts with this type of info often in this forum, thanks.

+1, good stuff

My boys seem to be moving from soccer to basketball, so I may be looking at some Einsteins in the future... much cheaper than the 400mm f/2.8 I've been trying to talk myself into one day for H.S. soccer -- now I won't have to worry about that

katodog wrote in post #11624651
Another "setup" which I don't have any more, and never got shots of it with the camera attached...

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/katodog/8669362​303/
Scopes 001 by Ed Durbin (Katodog), on Flickr

And a few resulting shots...

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/katodog/6969589​714/
Moon 001 by Ed Durbin (Katodog), on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/katodog/6969589​728/
Moon 002 by Ed Durbin (Katodog), on Flickr

This is proof that the moon is not made out of cheese. Or is it? Pictures look like Swiss cheese.

It's cheese, I know, the aliens told me...

skilsaw wrote in post #16702350
This is proof that the moon is not made out of cheese. Or is it? Pictures look like Swiss cheese.

Incredible shots!

I bet if you got a clean shot of tranquility base you could see remnants of the moon landing! Awesome detail and clarity in your lunarscapes!

Now that's a tripod!

I like your tripod's trolley.
May I ask how much you paid and who sells them?

testing my modifier again... one more flash bounce to the ceiling for the hairlight. no dodging and burning.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/vinzmunoz/12649​469783/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/vinzmunoz/12649​469873/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/vinzmunoz/12649​470263/

Buylongterm wrote in post #16702478
Incredible shots!

Thanks.

Point-n-shoot-n wrote in post #16703075
I bet if you got a clean shot of tranquility base you could see remnants of the moon landing! Awesome detail and clarity in your lunarscapes!

There isn't a land-based telescope large enough to resolve that kind of detail.

samsen wrote in post #16703170
I like your tripod's trolley.
May I ask how much you paid and who sells them?

JMI - Wheely Bars. I replaced the wheels with larger wheels and the leveling bolts with longer threaded rod. The wheely bar came with small wheels, 2" I think, and the rods weren't very long either.

katodog wrote in post #16703667
There isn't a land-based telescope large enough to resolve that kind of detail.

Not even close. To resolve the 3m rover on the surface would require at minimum a 75m telescope at this distance. That would only give you a dot though, but would contain no detail to identify it as the rover. So it would take a telescope on the order of 300m-400m diameter to render enough detail to identify it, and that would be from a telescope orbiting the Earth. To overcome the atmospheric distortion that plagues a ground-based telesope, you're probably going to need something like 500m-600m.

Since our current largest optical primary is 10m, we are talking about something with 3600x the surface area of our current state of the art. So we're a looong way from this kind of technology. I imagine it would cost an order of magnitude more than the surface area multiplier, so like 40,000x as much money to build such a telescope, compared to what it cost to build Keck. So, $140 million starting point for Keck would end up at $5.6 trillion or so O_o

^ So, you're saying with $6T, it may be possible?

96whiteknight wrote in post #16703956
^ So, you're saying with $6T, it may be possible?

Would be fun to work on something like that. Hopefully we could look at some other stuff besides a few domestic concept vehicles from the 60s and 70s. It would probably be too bright though, so you'd have to look during a new Moon and use earthshine as a light source.