Some Q&As From Last Week
So sorry for the late post today; more on why next week: I had a number of questions from the past week or so (on the Ring Flash review and other stuff as well) that I thought I’d address to get this week rolling. Here we go:
Q. I think the Ring Flash looks kind of harsh. Do you really like this look?
A. Honestly, I’m not a big fan of the Ring Flash look. In fact, my buddy Matt Kloskowski and I were just talking about how we weren’t crazy about the flat look it gives. and that it is kind of hot and harsh. Now, that being said; please don’t judge the effect of Ring Flash by the first time I really gave it a go—it takes practice (and I probably wouldn’t use it as my only light, as I did in the shots you saw last week–I use it as more of a fill). So, why am I buying one? Because despite the fact that I personally don’t like the look, it is the “hot” look in fashion right now, so I figured I’d better get up to speed on it so I can answer questions about it from my readers, and the only way to get good at any of this is to practice, practice, practice. So, hopefully I’ll be able to post some shots I like much better once I get to do just that.
Q. Do you get red eye from using a flash so close to the lens like this?
A. I sure did. Not on every shot mind you, but there were a handful of shots that had red eye.
Q. Isn’t $299 a lot to pay for a plastic adapter?
A. Yup. I thought the same thing when I paid $400+ for a 1-inch by 1-inch memory card made of plastic. It’s not the material it’s made out of that matters; it’s what it does that really matters. If it gives you a ring flash look, in a lightweight, easy-to-use solution; then it works. I think it’s probably ideal for anyone shooting ring-flash here-and-there, but of course, if you think ring-flash is your future, you might want to spend the money and get a higher-end unit.
Q. Do you think it costs too much for what it is?
A. Do I think $299 is the “right” price for the unit? No. I think it’s a bit over-priced, but the market will determine if their price is really “right”. If you see them drop the price, or start to offer rebates, etc. you’ll know the original price was too high. Personally, I think the “right” price would be between $149 and $199, and at that price I think they’d sell three times as many, but that’s easy for me to say—I have no idea what their arrangement with the UK manufacturer is; or how they’re selling, etc. If they’re selling like hotcakes at $299, expect the price to stay the same or go up. Again, the market will decide if the price is right, but if you’re asking me; $199 would be the sweet spot for starters.
Q. Is there any problem mounting the Ray Flash to a Canon flash?
A. None whatsoever. In fact, David (the Ray Flash Demo Guy), used a Canon 580 EX II for his demo, and it didn’t even need the little wedge thingy, like the Nikon’s do.
Now–on to other “Non-Ring Flash” Topics:
Q. What software do you use for your Blog?
A. I use WordPress, which seems to work just great, but I’m no WordPress expert. I am very thankful to have an excellent Web team behind me, in particular the wonderful Fred Maya, who customized the original template for me, and adds the plug-ins I need. I don’t know much “under the hood” stuff about WordPress, so I’m not going to be much more help than that, but you can learn more at the WordPress site (click here).
Q. What do you use for your picture header. Is that some sort of Plugin for WP?
A. It’s a plug-in Fred found for me. I really like it, but I run into people all the time and didn’t realize you can click on the little arrow in the lower right corner to expand the image downward. That kind of drives me nuts, but other that that—I think it’s pretty cool.
Q. I subscribe to many of the Photoshop World instructor blogs and I noticed that everyone “mattes” their photos differently. By “digital matting” I mean adding the extra space around the photo itself and usually includes adding a stroke to the photo to separate it from that space. I have experimented with many different kinds of digital mattes most of which I learned from your or Matt’s classes at Photoshop World in Orlando but not sure how to determine if a specific matte is appropriate for a specific photo. Is there a rhyme or reason behind the different formats of the matte and colors or is it all personal preference?
A. For me; it’s personal preference, and I usually go with a white matte, but then again, it always depends on the photo. If I add the matte in white, and it doesn’t look right, then I switch to black, and that’ll usually do the trick.
Q. If you add a digital signature to your “digital matte” does that make it a “signed print”?
A. If I sell a print, I always sign it by hand, and I think you should, but that’s just me—there are probably arguments on both sides. If I output the print myself, then I add an “A/P” on the bottom, on the opposite side of my signature, indicating that it’s an “Artist Print.”
Q. Scott, now that Lightroom 2.0 Beta has been out for a bit. How about an assessment against your wish list. As a participant in the forum, it would be nice to see your assessment of what they got right.
A. I’ve been kind of holding out for the final shipping version to be released. If Lightroom 1.0 was any indication; remember how they added additional features in the full release that weren’t there in the final public beta? I’m waiting until they ship the final version to see if that happens again, then I’ll give a blow-by-blow of how the features stack up with my very long wish list.
Q. Scott. If it won’t get you into too much trouble with sponsors, what do you think is the best digital camera under $2,500, body only? I want to take up photography for the first time. So far, from what I’ve seen, the D300 looks best.
A. My opinion is, of course, going to be biased because I’m a Nikon shooter, and I bought the D300 (no, Nikon didn’t give me one), so I think that pretty much tells you where I’m at. I think the D300 smokes, especially for the money, and (Nikon will hate me for saying this), I think it’s FAR superior to the Nikon D2Xs which was selling for around $5,000, body only, at the time the D300 came out (in fact, I sold my Nikon D2Xs after having my D300 for about two weeks). So, D300—that’s what I’d recommend to a friend (and have in many instances, and have gotten nothing but love in return).
Q. As long as I’m making long shot requests, the best indoor people lens that’s still fairly versatile for under $1,000.
A. If you want to shoot people indoors; I’m assuming you mean in natural light, in which case you’ll want a “fast” lens (meaning one that can shoot in lower light situations, like an f/2.8 lens), this is tougher, because there’s so many ways to go. I like the compression of a longer lens, so I shoot a lot of people with my 70-200mm f/2.8 VR, but if I want a wider portrait (like more of an editorial look), I use my 17-55mm f/2.8 VR lens. I also have the new 24-70mm f/2.8 lens that came out when the D3 came out, but I haven’t had a chance to try it with the D300, because one of my friends dropped it (accidentally of course) and it killed the lens; four days after I got it (the friend shall remain nameless, because you would know who it is, and I will spare him the shame—-oh the shame—-etc., blah, blah, blah). So, I guess it’s up to what kind of portraits you like to take, but I can tell you for the most part; if I was walking out the door and could only take one lens, it would probably be the 70-200mm f/2.8 (it’s not cheap, and it’s not lightweight, and it’s not small either. In fact, everything about it is bad; expect for the wonderfully crisp images it delivers). Hope that helps.
Well, that’s it for now. Sorry for the late posting. I’ve been struggling with Internet issues (more on this next week), but for now, have a great day (or what’s left of it anyway).