From: And Now For Something Completely Different - A Person With Actual Knowledge and Experience on 11 Dec 2009 16:09
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 20:31:30 +0000 (UTC), Toxic <staring(a)my_hd.tv> wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:11:34 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>> Bart Bailey <me2(a)privacy.net> wrote:
>>> 20:15:05 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: Begin
>>>>Nice preflashes does that P&S have.
>>> Wouldn't simply turning OFF the red-eye reduction eliminate all but the
>>> one flash?
>> Not necessarily.
>Other than zapping the retina to reduce 'red-eye',
>why else would there be more than the single flash?
>FWIW: My P&S only uses multiple flashes if the red-eye reduction is
>turned on, otherwise it's a single flash.
Handles any and all pre-flash of the built-in flash from any camera in any
Surprisingly sturdy construction for so little money. And the lock for
tilting any flash for bounce-flash methods is secure and solid. I tested it
with all modes on all my cameras. Works flawlessly in both of its
pre-flash-rejection and manual modes.
I own several for wildlife-photography in remote and rugged locations where
long-distance zoom images are fraught with red, green, orange, yellow, and
blue-eye effects from distant nocturnal animals when using focusable
flash-units (of my own design). A wide separation of flash from camera is
mandatory to prevent retina reflections from animals at those greater
distances. Animals' eyes also being much more highly reflective than
human's eyes. To prevent any of the camera's own flash from reflecting from
their eyes I simply mount a very small v-shaped reflector on the face of
the camera's flash. A tiny strip cut from a piece of polished aluminum
sheeting and bent at 90 degrees in the middle. The bottom of V oriented
flat against the flash's face. It now redirecting the light of the camera's
flash to either side, with none showing forward. You could even use a small
strip of white or foil-coated card-stock in a pinch, but my shooting is
often in adverse weather conditions and I need something more durable.
Studio photographers (and newsgroup trolls) aren't very experienced, nor
knowledgeable. They take photos, imaginarily or otherwise, of the most
simplest and boring of subjects using century-old textbook methods. Using
only the ideas and equipment they can find in ads on the net or in their
badly written how-to books and favorite blogs. They haven't a clue in any
real-world conditions. Exactly like all the role-playing trolls that
desperately pretend to be experts in these photo-newsgroups. They're so
easy to spot, by anyone who has ever held a real camera before.
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on 11 Dec 2009 19:13
Scott W <biphoto(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 10, 9:58 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgt...(a)sneakemail.com>
>> Chris Malcolm <c...(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> > If the minimum flash power which will trigger the studio flashes is
>> > bright enough to have any noticeable effect on a subject lit by the
>> > minimum power of the studio flashes I'd demand my money back on the
>> > grounds that such excessively feeble flashes with such insensitive
>> > triggers were not fit for their advertised purpose!
>> Try it with a reflective surface or shooting straight into a mirror.
> So you are saying
I am giving an example where studio flashes on their minimum
power will not drown out all effects of the minimum flash needed
to trigger them. That's all there is to it.
> I am wondering how
> often someone would want a hand held photo of themselves holding their
Where does 'handheld' and 'of themselves' come into play?
Never heard of tripods and self-timers?
Maybe you should try to photograph glossy coated porcellan
figurines ... with on-camera flash under the conditions given