playing with strobe

On 8/6/2016 3:02 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-08-06 18:07:34 +0000, PeterN said:


I should have known better. My purpose was to start a discussion on
use of strobe as a creative tool, for unusual effects.

Good luck with that. At least Floyd responded sensibly

Indeed he did. The rest of my expectations were misplaced.

and the "expert
of all things" arrived on scene. ;-I




--
PeterN

Floyd L. Davidson:
What does "ordinary strobes" mean to you?

To me a strobe runs directly from AC power...

Davoud:
To me a "strobe" runs on battery power.

Okay, what do you call all those studio flash units that
run on AC power? :-)

They're also studio "strobes." But they're not *my* studio strobes
because that's not the kind that I have.

Technically a "strobe light" is any triggered flash. A
speedlight is a subset of strobes that can be mounted
physically directly on the camera, as a builtin or on
the hotshoe. It's all sort of an arbitrary set of
distinctions.

Agreed.

Certainly the Profoto B1 and B2 models are strobes.

Agreed. Though I don't use the term "strobe" so much, as it points back
to "stroboscope," a light-source designed especially for rapid firing
to photograph and study periodic motion. Yes, my studio flashes (which
is what I call them to distinguish them from on-camera flashes, or
"speedlights," or, in Canon-speak, "Speedlites") can do that, but
that's not their primary purpose. They're just flashes to me.

Obviously for someone who uses Profoto strobes the
concept of extra functionality is important! The
average camera user is perhaps a little horrified
at the idea of spending that much money, but for
work that pays the rent it's a no-brainer too.

Only $4k per pair, plus light stands and modifiers.

I don't do work that pays the rent. I retired from that 22+ years ago,
at age 49 Once in a blue moon someone licenses one my photos, but
mostly they don't have to because I publish my photos under a Creative
Commons license that gives interested persons wide latitude to use my
photos for non-commercial purposes.

It's an odd thing for me, as I have never really cared
to use flash. But I own maybe 15 on camera speedlights...

For someone who doesn't care to use flash, you sure own a passel of
them.

I went through my "natural light" phase many years ago (when I couldn't
afford a decent flash). Now I seldom make a photo without a flash,
including outdoors in the sunshine. That's why I like the portability
of the Profoto B1 with radio remote. Example of a type of photo I call
"Small subject, big flash:" an ant photographed using a Profoto B1 in a
2' x 2' softbox https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/15852579501/.
You cannot make such a photo without one or more cold, powerful light
sources of some kind: LED or flash. The large flash-to-subject size
ratio, combined with reflectors (white foamcore, cut to size as
appropriate) around the subject provides soft light that eliminates
shadows to illuminate and elucidate the nooks and crannies in a small
arthropod.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On 8/6/2016 7:38 PM, Davoud wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson:
What does "ordinary strobes" mean to you?

To me a strobe runs directly from AC power...

Davoud:
To me a "strobe" runs on battery power.

Okay, what do you call all those studio flash units that
run on AC power? :-)

They're also studio "strobes." But they're not *my* studio strobes
because that's not the kind that I have.

Technically a "strobe light" is any triggered flash. A
speedlight is a subset of strobes that can be mounted
physically directly on the camera, as a builtin or on
the hotshoe. It's all sort of an arbitrary set of
distinctions.

Agreed.

Certainly the Profoto B1 and B2 models are strobes.

Agreed. Though I don't use the term "strobe" so much, as it points back
to "stroboscope," a light-source designed especially for rapid firing
to photograph and study periodic motion. Yes, my studio flashes (which
is what I call them to distinguish them from on-camera flashes, or
"speedlights," or, in Canon-speak, "Speedlites") can do that, but
that's not their primary purpose. They're just flashes to me.

Obviously for someone who uses Profoto strobes the
concept of extra functionality is important! The
average camera user is perhaps a little horrified
at the idea of spending that much money, but for
work that pays the rent it's a no-brainer too.

Only $4k per pair, plus light stands and modifiers.

I don't do work that pays the rent. I retired from that 22+ years ago,
at age 49 Once in a blue moon someone licenses one my photos, but
mostly they don't have to because I publish my photos under a Creative
Commons license that gives interested persons wide latitude to use my
photos for non-commercial purposes.

It's an odd thing for me, as I have never really cared
to use flash. But I own maybe 15 on camera speedlights...

For someone who doesn't care to use flash, you sure own a passel of
them.

I went through my "natural light" phase many years ago (when I couldn't
afford a decent flash). Now I seldom make a photo without a flash,
including outdoors in the sunshine. That's why I like the portability
of the Profoto B1 with radio remote. Example of a type of photo I call
"Small subject, big flash:" an ant photographed using a Profoto B1 in a
2' x 2' softbox https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/15852579501/.
You cannot make such a photo without one or more cold, powerful light
sources of some kind: LED or flash. The large flash-to-subject size
ratio, combined with reflectors (white foamcore, cut to size as
appropriate) around the subject provides soft light that eliminates
shadows to illuminate and elucidate the nooks and crannies in a small
arthropod.


Have you tried LED for macro work?

--
PeterN

Davoud wrote:


I went through my "natural light" phase many years ago (when I couldn't
afford a decent flash). Now I seldom make a photo without a flash,
including outdoors in the sunshine. That's why I like the portability
of the Profoto B1 with radio remote. Example of a type of photo I call
"Small subject, big flash:" an ant photographed using a Profoto B1 in a
2' x 2' softbox https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/15852579501/.
You cannot make such a photo without one or more cold, powerful light
sources of some kind: LED or flash. The large flash-to-subject size
ratio, combined with reflectors (white foamcore, cut to size as
appropriate) around the subject provides soft light that eliminates
shadows to illuminate and elucidate the nooks and crannies in a small
arthropod.

Maybe too powerful in that situation if the burnt out bits on the wing, body
and head are anything to go by. I would have thought with a dead insect in a
studio environment you should be able to achieve rather more even lighting
than that.

--
sid

Davoud:
Example of a type of photo I call
"Small subject, big flash:" an ant photographed using a Profoto B1 in a
2' x 2' softbox https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/15852579501/.
You cannot make such a photo without one or more cold, powerful light
sources of some kind: LED or flash. The large flash-to-subject size
ratio, combined with reflectors (white foamcore, cut to size as
appropriate) around the subject provides soft light that eliminates
shadows to illuminate and elucidate the nooks and crannies in a small
arthropod.

sid:
Maybe too powerful in that situation if the burnt out bits on the wing, body
and head are anything to go by. I would have thought with a dead insect in a
studio environment you should be able to achieve rather more even lighting
than that.

No, not too powerful. A different problem. I should have used more
diffuse lighting. I erred in saying that I had used a 2'x2' softbox. As
an experiment I used a bare head, thinking that it was so much larger
than the subject that it wouldn't matter. It did matter; some diffusion
was necessary. Still, you forgot to note "great photograph, anyway."
Good enough that the Encyclopedia of Life and the Maryland Biodiversity
Project included it their permanent collections and several educators
requested permission to use it, along with this frontal view
https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/15852579431/. Also of possible
interest, the lighting setup that shows the bare Profoto head
https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/15854582555/. Finally, here's
a macro of an arthropod where I did use a 2'x2' softbox and achieved
the soft, penetrating light that I wanted
https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/15581578349/.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

Davoud wrote:
Davoud:
Example of a type of photo I call
"Small subject, big flash:" an ant photographed using a Profoto B1 in a
2' x 2' softbox https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/15852579501/.
You cannot make such a photo without one or more cold, powerful light
sources of some kind: LED or flash. The large flash-to-subject size
ratio, combined with reflectors (white foamcore, cut to size as
appropriate) around the subject provides soft light that eliminates
shadows to illuminate and elucidate the nooks and crannies in a small
arthropod.

sid:
Maybe too powerful in that situation if the burnt out bits on the wing, body
and head are anything to go by. I would have thought with a dead insect in a
studio environment you should be able to achieve rather more even lighting
than that.

No, not too powerful. A different problem. I should have used more
diffuse lighting. I erred in saying that I had used a 2'x2' softbox. As
an experiment I used a bare head, thinking that it was so much larger
than the subject that it wouldn't matter. It did matter; some diffusion
was necessary. Still, you forgot to note "great photograph, anyway."
Good enough that the Encyclopedia of Life and the Maryland Biodiversity
Project included it their permanent collections and several educators
requested permission to use it, along with this frontal view
https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/15852579431/. Also of possible
interest, the lighting setup that shows the bare Profoto head
https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/15854582555/. Finally, here's
a macro of an arthropod where I did use a 2'x2' softbox and achieved
the soft, penetrating light that I wanted
https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/15581578349/.

That last image, shot with the 2'x2' softbox, works
because the subject has entirely different
characteristics, not because a softbox is all that great.
The image still does not show much of the more subtle
textures. Look at the legs for example. Any part that
actually is reflective is again just a shiny reflection,
and most of the actually white areas are lacking any
texture at all. It works because of the subject, which
looks nice even when fine detail in the texture is not
obvious. The bug has lots of high contrast "texture" as
part of the body coloring, and that (like a zebra) is
attractive.

The diffuser needs to be much much smaller! Not so
large that the light comes from literally every
direction. A single speedlight with a small diffuser
would work. Or if these had all been shot using a
microscope illuminater with a pair of fiber light guides
the images probably would have been much more dramatic.

Folks who want to compare scales on insect wings (for
identification purposes) don't do it with a large
softbox. The cross lighting of surface contours with a
slightly diffused point source directional light is what
shows the detail that creates the drama!

Here is a forum article showing images of DIY small
diffusers suitable for shooting insects.

http://www.photomacrography.net/foru...ic.php?t=10842

This link shows a device made by Novoflex, that is no longer
available new but might be found used.

http://www.adorama.com/nvcls.html?discontinued=t

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article , wrote:

Davoud:
Finally, here's
a macro of an arthropod where I did use a 2'x2' softbox and achieved
the soft, penetrating light that I wanted
https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/15581578349/.

Floyd L. Davidson
That last image, shot with the 2'x2' softbox, works
because the subject has entirely different
characteristics, not because a softbox is all that great.
The image still does not show much of the more subtle
textures. Look at the legs for example. Any part that
actually is reflective is again just a shiny reflection,
and most of the actually white areas are lacking any
texture at all. It works because of the subject, which
looks nice even when fine detail in the texture is not
obvious. The bug has lots of high contrast "texture" as
part of the body coloring, and that (like a zebra) is
attractive.

Hmmm. On my Macs' displays, all six of them, the photo at
https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/15581578349/ shows no whites
whatsoever (and there were no whites in the subject) and no blown-out
areas. The face is cream-colored and shows fine detail in both the
setae and the dimple-like structure. Even the very light area to the
right of the wasp's eye shows fine setae (it's a wasp, not a "bug,"
BTW: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemiptera). The legs show full
detail, including in the microscopic setae that are seen head on.

The diffuser needs to be much much smaller! Not so
large that the light comes from literally every
direction. A single speedlight with a small diffuser
would work.

Not for me. For my purposes, illustrating the anatomy, I need big light
hitting from all directions, and no dark crevices.

Folks who want to compare scales on insect wings...

The photos that I linked in my post are not intended to show the scale
of insect wings. This photo is
https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/7411121060/.

If you meant scales as in fish scales, to my knowledge, among
arthropods only Lepidoptera have such scales, and perhaps not all of
them. I haven't examined the wings of Hemaris diffinis, Snowberry
Clearwing moth up close.

Here is a forum article showing images of DIY small
diffusers suitable for shooting insects.
http://www.photomacrography.net/foru...ic.php?t=10842

That's a lot of bother, bellows and attachments and support brackets,
and all, quite clumsy, for results that a simple ring flash could
provide in most instances.

This link shows a device made by Novoflex, that is no longer
available new but might be found used.
http://www.adorama.com/nvcls.html?discontinued=t

Ideal, no doubt, for those who want dramatic lighting of a tiny subject
with deep shadows. Mostly obsolete these days, maybe. Think of a
performer on stage illuminated by a single, tight spotlight.

I started with a technique from Sam Droege of the USGS Bee Inventory
and Monitoring Laboratory https://www.flickr.com/photos/usgsbiml/. He
uses a method that he adapted from a technique developed by Anthony G.
Gutierrez and Graham Snodgrass at the U.S. Army Institute of Public
Health. Droege's technique is explained in this public-domain document
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/..._Photography.p
df.

I have used this method myself with good results
https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/7749871750/, but I find it
better suited for a permanent setup in Droege's laboratory than in my
sometimes kitchen-island laboratory. I found that I could achieve
pretty much the same results with a studio flash and appropriate
modifiers and reflectors (white foamcore, dull-side of aluminum foil)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/18768309452/ and
https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/20796308243/, e.g.


Furthermore, my setup is easily portable
https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/27098962364/ and
https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/27098961464/, lighting setup
for both photographs here
https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/27098961904/. Both photographs
were one-shot deals in a light breeze, no stacking possible, therefore
the need for big light and a small aperture. For my purposes the broad,
soft light eliminated shadows and illuminated the crevices without
giving a flat appearance to the photographs.

Disclaimer: I have described what works for me and I make no claim that
my methods will work for any other person.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

Davoud wrote:
Still, you forgot to note "great photograph, anyway."

I didn't forget anything. It's not that great. There are better ones on your
flickr though.

Good enough that the Encyclopedia of Life and the Maryland Biodiversity
Project included it their permanent collections and several educators
requested permission to use it, along with this frontal view
https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/15852579431/.

Their interest obviously isn't technically great photos although they do
have better ones than those two, for instance

http://www.marylandbiodiversity.com/...p?species=9078

--
sid

sid wrote:
Davoud wrote:
Still, you forgot to note "great photograph, anyway."

I didn't forget anything. It's not that great. There are better ones on your
flickr though.

Good enough that the Encyclopedia of Life and the Maryland Biodiversity
Project included it their permanent collections and several educators
requested permission to use it, along with this frontal view
https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/15852579431/.

Their interest obviously isn't technically great photos although they do
have better ones than those two, for instance

http://www.marylandbiodiversity.com/...p?species=9078

Looks like they'll accept anything with a visible bug in it... :-)

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)