www.photomacrography.net :: View topic - Need help with strobes.
www.photomacrography.net Forum Index
An online community dedicated to the practices of photomacrography, close-up and macro photography, and photomicrography.
Photomacrography Front Page Amateurmicrography Front Page
Old Forums/Galleries
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Need help with strobes.
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.photomacrography.net Forum Index -> Equipment Discussions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
tevans9129



Joined: 30 Nov 2017
Posts: 126
Location: TN

PostPosted: Sun Jan 07, 2018 5:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Saul wrote:
tevans9129 wrote:
... Now, what is the best way to avoid, or limit the artifacts, IOW, what should I be aware of?


I can tell what I'm doing only - right RAW conversion with lots of the adjustment brush use, afterwards -combining PMax/DMap, retouching, cloning, high frequency retouching, dodging/burning, TKactions, etc...


Certainly cannot argue with your results Saul but not likely to happen for me anytime soon. I am still trying to figure out lighting and the technical aspects of shooting. I just finished another one that I think is better but still a long way from being there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tevans9129



Joined: 30 Nov 2017
Posts: 126
Location: TN

PostPosted: Sun Jan 07, 2018 6:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is another go at it but still not crisp, especially toward the back. More slices seemed to not make it any better, it is still fuzzy.

D800e, PB6 140-about 5x, Amscope 4x, 1/200, ISO 100, Controlmynikon, 160 slices, 15 microns, two strobes at 1/128, Styrofoam cup for diffusion.



Next, I want to try a different background and base for the subject.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mawyatt



Joined: 22 Aug 2013
Posts: 1200
Location: Clearwater

PostPosted: Sun Jan 07, 2018 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Certainly looks like you are off to a great start with everything working!!

I'm not qualified to critique images, only offer a comment like, that looks really good to me!!

I use the D800E often, it's great camera. A couple of things that I found useful with the D800E if you use TIFF. The D800E can produce these in the camera instead of RAW or JPEG. On long stacks this can save some time since you don't have to convert RAW to TIFF in LR, before going to Zerene for stacking. While the camera is creating the TIFF (takes a few seconds) you can move the stacking rail to help keep the overall image capture time down.

An interesting thread on the Nikon TIFF is here:

https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35277&highlight=nikon+tiff

If you get tired of having to replace & recharge the EN-15 battery, a AC powered adapter is convenient. Here's one that I use that's compatible with the D500 and D850, and D800. Some of the older adapters won't work with the D500 and D850, so be sure to check if you want upward compatibility.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/EP-5B-DC-couple-For-Nikon1-V1-D500-D7200-D610-CameraAC-adapter-replace-ENEL15-/111043801184?hash=item19dab9f060

Best,

Mike
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tevans9129



Joined: 30 Nov 2017
Posts: 126
Location: TN

PostPosted: Mon Jan 08, 2018 6:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mawyatt wrote:
Certainly looks like you are off to a great start with everything working!!

I'm not qualified to critique images, only offer a comment like, that looks really good to me!!

I use the D800E often, it's great camera. A couple of things that I found useful with the D800E if you use TIFF. The D800E can produce these in the camera instead of RAW or JPEG. On long stacks this can save some time since you don't have to convert RAW to TIFF in LR, before going to Zerene for stacking. While the camera is creating the TIFF (takes a few seconds) you can move the stacking rail to help keep the overall image capture time down.

An interesting thread on the Nikon TIFF is here:

https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35277&highlight=nikon+tiff

If you get tired of having to replace & recharge the EN-15 battery, a AC powered adapter is convenient. Here's one that I use that's compatible with the D500 and D850, and D800. Some of the older adapters won't work with the D500 and D850, so be sure to check if you want upward compatibility.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/EP-5B-DC-couple-For-Nikon1-V1-D500-D7200-D610-CameraAC-adapter-replace-ENEL15-/111043801184?hash=item19dab9f060

Best,

Mike


Good morning Mike, and thanks for the links. Yes, I use an AC adapter for the camera and batteries was one of the incentives for going with strobes.

At the present time, while experimenting and going through the education process, I am using JPEG fine for convenience sake. I normally shoot exclusively in RAW and when first began using Zerene I shot in TIFF. However, they are huge files, over 100mb, from my camera. That adds up quickly on large stacks. I would use TIFF if on a project where IQ was the number one priority. However, it makes no sense to me to shoot 100mb+ files to reduce to 300k for posting.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mawyatt



Joined: 22 Aug 2013
Posts: 1200
Location: Clearwater

PostPosted: Mon Jan 08, 2018 6:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mawyatt wrote:
tevans9129 wrote:
mawyatt wrote:


Yes it does! However at 1/128 it should be black compared to the 1/16 image!!

Try an exposure with both the strobes OFF and see what you get, then at 1/128, 1/64, 1/32, 1/16, 1/8, and 1/4.


OK, starting with strobe off and then progressing up from there.










The only change was to reduce the size and convert from RAW to JPEG, what are your thoughts?


This is quite surprising, you can certainly see that the exposure is dropping, although doesn't look like a full stop for each step after 1/16.

Maybe your versions of the Studio 300 are different than mine, or maybe the Xpro is somehow invoking a "hidden" feature within these strobes that is not accessible from the strobe panel nor the remote R2. The Adorama site shows the strobe range as 1/16~1/1.

Makes you wonder if this is a marking ploy to purchase the Xpro remote??


Ted,

I just tested a new Studio 300 AC Strobe and the R2 Pro N Remote (my colleague/friend got these for Christmas per my recommendations, Santa was nice to him Very Happy

I used the R2 Pro N with my older Studio 300 and got the same result I get with the R2, no change in output past 1/16. Then I tested the new Studio 300 and got the same exact result, no change in output after 1/16 even though the R2 Pro was programmed to go down to 1/128. Same result using my R2 with the new Studio 300.

This is exactly as I would expect them work, as I stated earlier. I used the Sekonic L308-DC Light Meter to verify output.

You apparently must have some special version of the R2 Pro and/or Studio 300, or some magic you are using

I can't figure this out, but wish I could coach my Studio 300 Strobes to go below 1/16

Anyway, more power to you sir!!!

Now I've got to go watch the SEC win another National Championship

Go Tide and Go Dawgs

Best,

Mike
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tevans9129



Joined: 30 Nov 2017
Posts: 126
Location: TN

PostPosted: Mon Jan 08, 2018 7:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mawyatt wrote:

Ted,

I just tested a new Studio 300 AC Strobe and the R2 Pro N Remote (my colleague/friend got these for Christmas per my recommendations, Santa was nice to him Very Happy

I used the R2 Pro N with my older Studio 300 and got the same result I get with the R2, no change in output past 1/16. Then I tested the new Studio 300 and got the same exact result, no change in output after 1/16 even though the R2 Pro was programmed to go down to 1/128. Same result using my R2 with the new Studio 300.

This is exactly as I would expect them work, as I stated earlier. I used the Sekonic L308-DC Light Meter to verify output.

You apparently must have some special version of the R2 Pro and/or Studio 300, or some magic you are using

I can't figure this out, but wish I could coach my Studio 300 Strobes to go below 1/16

Anyway, more power to you sir!!!

Now I've got to go watch the SEC win another National Championship

Go Tide and Go Dawgs

Best,

Mike


Perhaps this will make you feel better Mike. I did another test with the L-478DR and the readings were close, not the same but close from 1/16 to 1/128. I then decided to take image shots in NEF rather than JPEG that I had used previously, here are the results. The exposures look the same to me. Perhaps I should try the test in TIFF.






I then took images with the same settings in JPEG fine, there is a noticeable difference in exposure. So now the question is why would there be a difference in JPEG? I can post the JPEG files if you care to see them but they about the same variation as the JPEGs that I posted previously.

So your technical expertise was correct all along. ROLL TIDE!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mawyatt



Joined: 22 Aug 2013
Posts: 1200
Location: Clearwater

PostPosted: Mon Jan 08, 2018 8:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks, the light meter may show a slight variation between flashes, even flashes at the same output, but not a big change like it does between 1 /1 to 1/16.

That does look like the image is constant from 1/16 to 1/128 with NEF, so maybe some Auto exposure in JPEG or Auto ISO??

Not a good 1st half for the Tide offense!

Best,

Mike
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rjlittlefield
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 18506
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA

PostPosted: Mon Jan 08, 2018 8:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tevans9129 wrote:
So now the question is why would there be a difference in JPEG?!

That's a really, Really good question.

Do you have the option to capture raw + JPEG in the same exposure?

If so, then I suggest to do that, re-running this series.

If you get the same difference in raw versus JPEG, then if possible a) I would like to have access to all the files, and b) I would like to know exactly how you processed the raws to make the images that look so similar to each other.

My curiosity is highly aroused.

--Rik
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
rjlittlefield
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 18506
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA

PostPosted: Mon Jan 08, 2018 8:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

By the way, did you see my comments/questions/suggestions from a couple of days ago, at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=224971#224971 ?

I'm concerned they sort of got buried near the end of a page that promptly got hidden by more posts.

--Rik
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mawyatt



Joined: 22 Aug 2013
Posts: 1200
Location: Clearwater

PostPosted: Tue Jan 09, 2018 6:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tevans9129 wrote:
mawyatt wrote:

Ted,

I just tested a new Studio 300 AC Strobe and the R2 Pro N Remote (my colleague/friend got these for Christmas per my recommendations, Santa was nice to him Very Happy

I used the R2 Pro N with my older Studio 300 and got the same result I get with the R2, no change in output past 1/16. Then I tested the new Studio 300 and got the same exact result, no change in output after 1/16 even though the R2 Pro was programmed to go down to 1/128. Same result using my R2 with the new Studio 300.

This is exactly as I would expect them work, as I stated earlier. I used the Sekonic L308-DC Light Meter to verify output.

You apparently must have some special version of the R2 Pro and/or Studio 300, or some magic you are using

I can't figure this out, but wish I could coach my Studio 300 Strobes to go below 1/16

Anyway, more power to you sir!!!

Now I've got to go watch the SEC win another National Championship

Go Tide and Go Dawgs

Best,

Mike


Perhaps this will make you feel better Mike. I did another test with the L-478DR and the readings were close, not the same but close from 1/16 to 1/128. I then decided to take image shots in NEF rather than JPEG that I had used previously, here are the results. The exposures look the same to me. Perhaps I should try the test in TIFF.






I then took images with the same settings in JPEG fine, there is a noticeable difference in exposure. So now the question is why would there be a difference in JPEG? I can post the JPEG files if you care to see them but they about the same variation as the JPEGs that I posted previously.

So your technical expertise was correct all along. ROLL TIDE!!!


Great game Very Happy

So the JPEGs show the variation and the RAW/NEF don't?? Are these from the same stack??

Best,

Mike
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tevans9129



Joined: 30 Nov 2017
Posts: 126
Location: TN

PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 12:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rjlittlefield wrote:
That's a really, Really good question.

Do you have the option to capture raw + JPEG in the same exposure?


First, I apologize for not getting back to the comments promptly, I have been absent for a few days.

Yes, and I did that Rik. Both the NEF and JPEG files came out very similar to one another and with only expected minor differences. I then did a series with TIFF and they were basically the same as the NEF files. So, one more with JPEG and they were no different than the ones taken with the NEF. Now I am really wondering how those earlier files, as I posted previously, showed a noticeable difference, not a whole stop but definitely a difference.

It was decided to go back to the setup that I was using when I first noticed a difference from 1/128 to 1/16, which was….

D800e, Vivitar 2x TC, PB6 at full extension and Amscope 4x.

There was no discernable difference with the NEF files but there was in the JPEG files, not a full stop but definitely a difference in exposure. It seemed to be more pronounced when underexposed for some reason.
rjlittlefield wrote:
If so, then I suggest to do that, re-running this series.

If you get the same difference in raw versus JPEG, then if possible a) I would like to have access to all the files, and b) I would like to know exactly how you processed the raws to make the images that look so similar to each other.


All files were opened in PS6, image sized to 900 pixel width, saved for web and at the highest resolution that was 300k or less.

My curiosity is highly aroused.

--Rik[/quote]

I really appreciate all the comments/suggestions from everyone however, I feel badly that my ignorance caused so much consternation for Mike.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tevans9129



Joined: 30 Nov 2017
Posts: 126
Location: TN

PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 12:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rjlittlefield wrote:
It's very odd that the manual doesn't spell that out. Maybe I got the wrong manual? Can you check the manual that came with your meter to see if you can match up what you see on the display?

Clearly the "s" can't mean seconds, because this is flash we're talking about. For flash I'd really expect a power indication to be provided in something like f# at specified ISO. So I'm completely baffled about what sort of reading you're getting.

The mathematician in me has the crazy thought that the s# might refer to step number, as in powers of 2. Under that conjecture, 1.6s3 might mean 2.7 or 3.3 steps down from 1.3s0. We'd expect 1/16 and 1/128 to be 3.0 steps apart, so anything around 3 is tantalizing. On the other hand that notation would seem arcane enough that it would have to be spelled out in the manual. So I'm also wondering if the meter is even measuring the flash, or something else -- not that I would understand the notation then either!

Perhaps we could figure it out if we had 478DR-U numbers for all the flash powers: 1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, and so on, all the way down to 1/128.

--Rik


I could not find anything in my manual either. I have no idea if this will help but it appears to me that it is a finer number for T and or F.

T------F----ISO
4-----25---1000
.3s---25---800
.4s---25---640
.5s---25---500
.6s---25---400
.8s---25---320
1s----25---250
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tevans9129



Joined: 30 Nov 2017
Posts: 126
Location: TN

PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mawyatt wrote:
Thanks, the light meter may show a slight variation between flashes, even flashes at the same output, but not a big change like it does between 1 /1 to 1/16.

That does look like the image is constant from 1/16 to 1/128 with NEF, so maybe some Auto exposure in JPEG or Auto ISO??

Not a good 1st half for the Tide offense!

Best,

Mike


See my comments in response to Rik, you were absolutely correct in your analysis of the 300s.

Now I see why Saban gets paid the big bucks, quite a gutsy call going with that freshman QB.

BTW, I really appreciate all of your time trying to figure out my issue and I apologize for my ignorance that was the cause of the confusion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mawyatt



Joined: 22 Aug 2013
Posts: 1200
Location: Clearwater

PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 3:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tevans9129 wrote:
mawyatt wrote:
Thanks, the light meter may show a slight variation between flashes, even flashes at the same output, but not a big change like it does between 1 /1 to 1/16.

That does look like the image is constant from 1/16 to 1/128 with NEF, so maybe some Auto exposure in JPEG or Auto ISO??

Not a good 1st half for the Tide offense!

Best,

Mike


See my comments in response to Rik, you were absolutely correct in your analysis of the 300s.

Now I see why Saban gets paid the big bucks, quite a gutsy call going with that freshman QB.

BTW, I really appreciate all of your time trying to figure out my issue and I apologize for my ignorance that was the cause of the confusion.


Ted,

Great game, kinda felt bad for the Dawgs since they haven't won a Football National Championship in some time, and now Bama has 6 of the last 10 I think. Agree about the call, and the young man made Saban look like genius Rolling Eyes Wish the Gators would wake up Sad

No need for an apology, electronics is something I know quite well. When in elementary school at 9 I had my parents take me to the library to get every book on electricity I could find, by 12 my room looked like something from Back to Future and had my ham rig, by 13 had a oscilloscope and fooling around with transistors, so on (wait I don't even have a scope now Crying or Very sad

I've been teaching (hiring my best students!!) and mentioning for a long time.

Anyway, glad you've got this all sorted out and getting some great images with your WeMacro setup, AmScope 4X and SK300II's!!

Best,

Mike
_________________
-Mike
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tevans9129



Joined: 30 Nov 2017
Posts: 126
Location: TN

PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 3:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mawyatt wrote:


Ted,

Great game, kinda felt bad for the Dawgs since they haven't won a Football National Championship in some time, and now Bama has 6 of the last 10 I think. Agree about the call, and the young man made Saban look like genius Rolling Eyes Wish the Gators would wake up Sad

No need for an apology, electronics is something I know quite well. When in elementary school at 9 I had my parents take me to the library to get every book on electricity I could find, by 12 my room looked like something from Back to Future and had my ham rig, by 13 had a oscilloscope and fooling around with transistors, so on (wait I don't even have a scope now Crying or Very sad

I've been teaching (hiring my best students!!) and mentioning for a long time.

Anyway, glad you've got this all sorted out and getting some great images with your WeMacro setup, AmScope 4X and SK300II's!!

Best,

Mike


Thanks Mike, your interest in electronics is 180 degrees out of phase with mine. I have always been handy with my hands but never had an interest in electronics beyond turn the switch on and something happens...hopefully good. So what did I do as a career....30 plus years in information technology. I had a fellow tech that was very skilled with electronic equipment that I played guitar with so naturally asked him to look at my amp that stopped working. He called me up laughing about my profound problem....a blown fuse.

Who was that writer that claimed the SEC was overblown and the Big 10 was thumping everyone...I wonder how he liked the championship game.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.photomacrography.net Forum Index -> Equipment Discussions All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 5 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group