Hi there Barry … there’s no appreciable noise at that high an ISO, because I used a D3. The current series of cameras like the 5D, 5D mk2, 1D mk3, D700 and D3 all have pretty remarkable high-ISO noise performance.

And from experience I know that the D3 gives clean 1600 ISO images, so I just took it one notch down to 1250 ISO. So in that sense the choice of ISO isn’t a specific one like f2 would be a specific choice. I just wanted to work in a certain range of ISO settings where I wouldn’t have to deal with noise, but I’d still get a near-hand-holdable shutter speed.

Neil vN

Probably a stupid question… Why did you decide to shoot the first picture of Priscilla at ISO 1250 and at that ISO setting why isn’t there any noticable noise?

For those who want to see a few more images from this photo session, my friend Steve Z just posted some on his blog:

Fashion : Priscilla pt1
Fashion : Priscilla pt2

Neil vN

Great work! I’m particularly impressed by the wonderful color contrast.

I’ve no experiences with Expo Disc, greycards or such. I’ve read about a new tool from datacolor.com – the SpyderCube. It’s designed as a calibration tool for RAW processing. Seems to be the allrounder.

A review can be found here:
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/photography/spydercube.html

Thomas
Germany

Wayne,

A tool like the Expo Disc would work well here. I also recently bought the ColorRight disc, but haven’t had the opportunity to play with it yet.

So I am sure there are other tools like these as well that will help in these situations .. but no recommendations yet. I still have to explore this.

Neil vN

Thank you for all the great tips; just wonder if you have tried the Expo Disc and any good feed back. I like to get the WB right at first time with the mix lights and I know Raw will take care of the WB. Would you recommend this product or you have other product in mind? Thank you and keep up the GREAT work.

Wayne Lam
Canada

Your previous post also mention trying highlight recover and fill light. To test it effectively between JPEG and RAW, you’ll need an image with really over/underexposed parts, close to highlight/black clipping. RAW would be better in these situations because JPEG would have lost more information around these highlight/black clipping areas.

Like I said before it is pretty much a personal preference. It will depend on what you need the image for and if you want convenience or flexibility. If you think JPEG from you camera is good enough for you, then feel free to use it.

There are a number of posts here that have mentioned gelling the flash for Tungsten, and there are (at this point) two specific articles here about gelling for tungsten:

• flash and tungsten light
• embracing tungsten light

.. but I will continue to add more on the topic.

Fluorescent is notoriously difficult though to get specific Kelvin values for, because their colour temperature vary so much. Now, Tungsten also varies a lot and gelling for a very specific Kelvin setting is for the most part beyond what I want to, or need to, achieve.

But there is less concern with accurately gelling for Tungsten, because tungsten lighting is warm, and we’ll happily accept a warm colour cast … as opposed to accepting a greenish-tinted colour cast as you might get from some fluorescent lights. And, in my opinion, that makes specific gelling for fluorescent more difficult.

But this is definitely an area I need to investigate much more, as shown by the results above, which was a surprise to me.

Specific Kelvin settings? Generally, I would use the default WB settings in my camera .. and then fine-tune it as part of my usual raw workflow.

Neil vN

Have you done a series on flash filter use?

Also, is there any references to read re kelvin numbers? I’d never have known to start at X say for tungsten or Y for flourescent etc.,

As for your teaching style, works for me – keep up the terrific work.