<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Why Bother With Lighting Equipment?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://photographyforrealestate.net/2007/01/23/why-bother-with-lighting-equipment/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://photographyforrealestate.net/2007/01/23/why-bother-with-lighting-equipment/</link>
	<description>Helping Real Estate Photographers Be Successful</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 04:10:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: real money</title>
		<link>http://photographyforrealestate.net/2007/01/23/why-bother-with-lighting-equipment/comment-page-1/#comment-34638</link>
		<dc:creator>real money</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Apr 2011 15:21:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://photographyforrealestate.info/?p=36#comment-34638</guid>
		<description>Many thanks for taking this possibility to talk about this, I feel strongly over it and I reap the benefits of learning about this subject. When possible, when you gain data, please update this website with new information. I have discovered it extremely useful.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Many thanks for taking this possibility to talk about this, I feel strongly over it and I reap the benefits of learning about this subject. When possible, when you gain data, please update this website with new information. I have discovered it extremely useful.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aaron Leitz</title>
		<link>http://photographyforrealestate.net/2007/01/23/why-bother-with-lighting-equipment/comment-page-1/#comment-161</link>
		<dc:creator>Aaron Leitz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Jan 2007 21:16:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://photographyforrealestate.info/?p=36#comment-161</guid>
		<description>OK - Someone please help me with inserting links! I used the a href tag correctly I think.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OK &#8211; Someone please help me with inserting links! I used the a href tag correctly I think.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aaron Leitz</title>
		<link>http://photographyforrealestate.net/2007/01/23/why-bother-with-lighting-equipment/comment-page-1/#comment-160</link>
		<dc:creator>Aaron Leitz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Jan 2007 21:14:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://photographyforrealestate.info/?p=36#comment-160</guid>
		<description>Marc - I will concede the raw vs jpeg debate to you. Shooting raw does not make that big a difference. However, considering that it costs me almost nothing in the way of time or money to shoot in raw, I see no reason to let the camera degrade the original image in to a jpeg when I can do it myself later if and when I want. Every so often, a client needs a .tiff as well.

My point with synch speed is that it&#039;s not that important (like raw vs jpeg) when discussed in the context of real estate photography. It ranks low on my personal hierarchy of needs of things that help me take better images. This is what I mean by &quot;academic.&quot; I just have not encountered any instances where setting my camera beyond 1/250 and f18 or so and using a single on-camera flash has produced acceptable results when shooting real estate. Even in broad daylight, those settings underexpose the sky in my opinion. Above these settings, the ability of the flash comes in to play more than the synch limits of the camera. I&#039;d rather hold a second flash in my other hand than up the shutter speed. This would still be keeping with KIS way of working.

You use on camera flash more than me so maybe you have some anecdotes to share of when you needed higher synch. Maybe if I were shooting indoor sports or something where I had to open up and increase shutter speed to freeze action. Or maybe if I were getting paid to shoot something like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/azrehman/357399358/in/pool-strobist/&quot; title=&quot;this&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;!

The fact that most pro cameras can&#039;t synch above 1/250 suggests that it&#039;s a fairly low priority to most as well (I am, of course, speculating on this). Perhaps the durability and reliability of mechanical shutters outweigh the cost of a reduced flash synch.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Marc &#8211; I will concede the raw vs jpeg debate to you. Shooting raw does not make that big a difference. However, considering that it costs me almost nothing in the way of time or money to shoot in raw, I see no reason to let the camera degrade the original image in to a jpeg when I can do it myself later if and when I want. Every so often, a client needs a .tiff as well.</p>
<p>My point with synch speed is that it&#8217;s not that important (like raw vs jpeg) when discussed in the context of real estate photography. It ranks low on my personal hierarchy of needs of things that help me take better images. This is what I mean by &#8220;academic.&#8221; I just have not encountered any instances where setting my camera beyond 1/250 and f18 or so and using a single on-camera flash has produced acceptable results when shooting real estate. Even in broad daylight, those settings underexpose the sky in my opinion. Above these settings, the ability of the flash comes in to play more than the synch limits of the camera. I&#8217;d rather hold a second flash in my other hand than up the shutter speed. This would still be keeping with KIS way of working.</p>
<p>You use on camera flash more than me so maybe you have some anecdotes to share of when you needed higher synch. Maybe if I were shooting indoor sports or something where I had to open up and increase shutter speed to freeze action. Or maybe if I were getting paid to shoot something like <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/azrehman/357399358/in/pool-strobist/" title="this" rel="nofollow">!</p>
<p>The fact that most pro cameras can&#8217;t synch above 1/250 suggests that it&#8217;s a fairly low priority to most as well (I am, of course, speculating on this). Perhaps the durability and reliability of mechanical shutters outweigh the cost of a reduced flash synch.</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marc Lacoste</title>
		<link>http://photographyforrealestate.net/2007/01/23/why-bother-with-lighting-equipment/comment-page-1/#comment-151</link>
		<dc:creator>Marc Lacoste</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Jan 2007 18:25:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://photographyforrealestate.info/?p=36#comment-151</guid>
		<description>You get 3% more overhead with raw for such a thing. The corrections will be marginal. If it starts to matter, it&#039;s because there was an error shooting the actual picture and it&#039;s beyond the recoverable.

The sync speed isn&#039;t only an academic discussion. Camera manufacturers wrestle to gain a few hundreds of seconds. Having two or three times the external/internal light ratio liberty matters more than the 3% gain from raw. Since I&#039;m willing to assert what I say, I will shoot an example of shadow recovery tomorrow.

Getting a stronger strobe isn&#039;t a very good solution, because stronger means wired, and it&#039;s not the good KIS way for our work. But adding another strobe is good, it solves the range problem and diffuses more the added light.

I&#039;m not sure about the future made of electronic shutters : new cameras are using mechanical shutters while older DSLRs like the 6Mpix Nikons, the Canon EOS 1D or the Nikon D1 were electronic. I regret that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You get 3% more overhead with raw for such a thing. The corrections will be marginal. If it starts to matter, it&#8217;s because there was an error shooting the actual picture and it&#8217;s beyond the recoverable.</p>
<p>The sync speed isn&#8217;t only an academic discussion. Camera manufacturers wrestle to gain a few hundreds of seconds. Having two or three times the external/internal light ratio liberty matters more than the 3% gain from raw. Since I&#8217;m willing to assert what I say, I will shoot an example of shadow recovery tomorrow.</p>
<p>Getting a stronger strobe isn&#8217;t a very good solution, because stronger means wired, and it&#8217;s not the good KIS way for our work. But adding another strobe is good, it solves the range problem and diffuses more the added light.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not sure about the future made of electronic shutters : new cameras are using mechanical shutters while older DSLRs like the 6Mpix Nikons, the Canon EOS 1D or the Nikon D1 were electronic. I regret that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aaron Leitz</title>
		<link>http://photographyforrealestate.net/2007/01/23/why-bother-with-lighting-equipment/comment-page-1/#comment-173</link>
		<dc:creator>Aaron Leitz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jan 2007 21:05:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://photographyforrealestate.info/?p=36#comment-173</guid>
		<description>Not to get in to a raw vs. jpeg argument again... but: &quot;Shooting raw won&#039;t solve anything.&quot;  I disagree. Shooting raw allows one to preserve more shadow and highlight information, thus allowing one greater flexibility to adjust shadow and highlight levels, thus allowing one to tweak the outside (highlights)/inside (shadows) light ratio.

The issue of flash synch is pretty much an academic discussion when it comes to shooting interiors with small speedlights. I can shoot directly in to the morning sun at 1/250 and f16 and still get decent fill with an on-camera SB-24 at full power. If I planned on doing this often (which I don&#039;t) I&#039;d just buy another/stronger strobe.

That said, I don&#039;t even know why a digital camera even needs a physical shutter. I&#039;m sure that in 10 years (or less) there will be some new, better way to protect/expose the sensor to light than a little door made of black fabric.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not to get in to a raw vs. jpeg argument again&#8230; but: &#8220;Shooting raw won&#8217;t solve anything.&#8221;  I disagree. Shooting raw allows one to preserve more shadow and highlight information, thus allowing one greater flexibility to adjust shadow and highlight levels, thus allowing one to tweak the outside (highlights)/inside (shadows) light ratio.</p>
<p>The issue of flash synch is pretty much an academic discussion when it comes to shooting interiors with small speedlights. I can shoot directly in to the morning sun at 1/250 and f16 and still get decent fill with an on-camera SB-24 at full power. If I planned on doing this often (which I don&#8217;t) I&#8217;d just buy another/stronger strobe.</p>
<p>That said, I don&#8217;t even know why a digital camera even needs a physical shutter. I&#8217;m sure that in 10 years (or less) there will be some new, better way to protect/expose the sensor to light than a little door made of black fabric.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marc Lacoste</title>
		<link>http://photographyforrealestate.net/2007/01/23/why-bother-with-lighting-equipment/comment-page-1/#comment-159</link>
		<dc:creator>Marc Lacoste</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jan 2007 13:42:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://photographyforrealestate.info/?p=36#comment-159</guid>
		<description>Shooting raw won&#039;t solve anything : it&#039;s the outside/inside light ratio, not the exposure which needs tweaking.

The Nikon i-TTL works pretty well. In most cases, it chooses the same settings as me in manual in 1/100 the time and hassle. The Canon e-TTL is less reputed. I have to try the Nikon CLS wireless to see if it does well in full auto.

Too bright ceilings are distracting, even more because shooting levelled to get vertical verticals brings a lot of ceiling in the frame. Plus with an ultra-wide angle, you can see the walls (I often shot from the outside, with a remote) so there isn&#039;t any place to put the light reflectors. So the only place left to put a flash is on the camera. And then I see the shadow of the chandelier each time.

But on camera lighting, with its characteristic look of fading with the distance doesn&#039;t satisfy me. Reducing the field of view to put some lights isn&#039;t satisfying neither because I need to sell a big place :). Vicious circle.

As for the D70/50/40, they have an unlimited X-sync (but it&#039;s useless after 1/500 because the duration of the flash burst itself is nearly that) because below 1/90s the shutter is entirely electronic. Here is a demonstration of its usefulness : http://www.flickr.com/photos/croco/236761118/
The point isn&#039;t to nuke everything, but to have extended choices. Note that I was 4 meters away from the wall, one would need that power for bigger rooms.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Shooting raw won&#8217;t solve anything : it&#8217;s the outside/inside light ratio, not the exposure which needs tweaking.</p>
<p>The Nikon i-TTL works pretty well. In most cases, it chooses the same settings as me in manual in 1/100 the time and hassle. The Canon e-TTL is less reputed. I have to try the Nikon CLS wireless to see if it does well in full auto.</p>
<p>Too bright ceilings are distracting, even more because shooting levelled to get vertical verticals brings a lot of ceiling in the frame. Plus with an ultra-wide angle, you can see the walls (I often shot from the outside, with a remote) so there isn&#8217;t any place to put the light reflectors. So the only place left to put a flash is on the camera. And then I see the shadow of the chandelier each time.</p>
<p>But on camera lighting, with its characteristic look of fading with the distance doesn&#8217;t satisfy me. Reducing the field of view to put some lights isn&#8217;t satisfying neither because I need to sell a big place <img src='http://photographyforrealestate.net/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> . Vicious circle.</p>
<p>As for the D70/50/40, they have an unlimited X-sync (but it&#8217;s useless after 1/500 because the duration of the flash burst itself is nearly that) because below 1/90s the shutter is entirely electronic. Here is a demonstration of its usefulness : <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/croco/236761118/" rel="nofollow">http://www.flickr.com/photos/croco/236761118/</a><br />
The point isn&#8217;t to nuke everything, but to have extended choices. Note that I was 4 meters away from the wall, one would need that power for bigger rooms.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: larrylohrman</title>
		<link>http://photographyforrealestate.net/2007/01/23/why-bother-with-lighting-equipment/comment-page-1/#comment-180</link>
		<dc:creator>larrylohrman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Jan 2007 19:00:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://photographyforrealestate.info/?p=36#comment-180</guid>
		<description>Re posting Photos in comments. Yes, I&#039;m pretty sure you can do a &quot;&lt;a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re posting Photos in comments. Yes, I&#8217;m pretty sure you can do a &#8220;<a></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aaron Leitz</title>
		<link>http://photographyforrealestate.net/2007/01/23/why-bother-with-lighting-equipment/comment-page-1/#comment-163</link>
		<dc:creator>Aaron Leitz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Jan 2007 17:39:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://photographyforrealestate.info/?p=36#comment-163</guid>
		<description>Well...I totally fudged that whole XHTML stuff. sorry</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well&#8230;I totally fudged that whole XHTML stuff. sorry</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aaron Leitz</title>
		<link>http://photographyforrealestate.net/2007/01/23/why-bother-with-lighting-equipment/comment-page-1/#comment-154</link>
		<dc:creator>Aaron Leitz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Jan 2007 17:38:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://photographyforrealestate.info/?p=36#comment-154</guid>
		<description>Mark - I have some of the cheap &quot;ebay triggers&quot; too and they work pretty well for how little money they cost. I got mine from &lt;a href=&quot;http://stores.ebay.com/Gadget-Infinity&quot; title=&quot;GadgetInfinity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;. Here&#039;s a &lt;a href=&quot;http://cgi.ebay.com/4-Channels-Wireless-Flash-Trigger_W0QQitemZ170073201762QQihZ007QQcategoryZ64354QQtcZphotoQQcmdZViewItem&quot; title=&quot;link&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt; to the ones I have. There have been lots of problems with people using them with the Canon 430ex flashes so be ready to do some DIY tinkering. They work fine with my Nikon stuff ;-)

That said, I think I&#039;m gonna buy a pair of Pocket Wizards this week. This from the guy who doesn&#039;t like using flash!

Larry - Is there a way to post pictures in our responses?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mark &#8211; I have some of the cheap &#8220;ebay triggers&#8221; too and they work pretty well for how little money they cost. I got mine from <a href="http://stores.ebay.com/Gadget-Infinity" title="GadgetInfinity" rel="nofollow">. Here&#8217;s a </a><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/4-Channels-Wireless-Flash-Trigger_W0QQitemZ170073201762QQihZ007QQcategoryZ64354QQtcZphotoQQcmdZViewItem" title="link" rel="nofollow"> to the ones I have. There have been lots of problems with people using them with the Canon 430ex flashes so be ready to do some DIY tinkering. They work fine with my Nikon stuff <img src='http://photographyforrealestate.net/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>That said, I think I&#8217;m gonna buy a pair of Pocket Wizards this week. This from the guy who doesn&#8217;t like using flash!</p>
<p>Larry &#8211; Is there a way to post pictures in our responses?</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott Hargis</title>
		<link>http://photographyforrealestate.net/2007/01/23/why-bother-with-lighting-equipment/comment-page-1/#comment-172</link>
		<dc:creator>Scott Hargis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Jan 2007 16:40:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://photographyforrealestate.info/?p=36#comment-172</guid>
		<description>Hi Mark,

Yeah, I&#039;m working on the hot ceiling issue... it comes up mostly in places that have curved plaster cove ceilings. They&#039;re really great because it&#039;s like having a giant white satin umbrella overhead, but they definately show up hot. I have a couple of ideas about this, I&#039;ll see how they work next time it comes up.

The radio triggers I use are sold on eBay under the name Magic Trigger. Also popular are ones made by GadgetInfinity. Tons of information (more than you&#039;ll want, actually) is on the Strobist Flicker site.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Mark,</p>
<p>Yeah, I&#8217;m working on the hot ceiling issue&#8230; it comes up mostly in places that have curved plaster cove ceilings. They&#8217;re really great because it&#8217;s like having a giant white satin umbrella overhead, but they definately show up hot. I have a couple of ideas about this, I&#8217;ll see how they work next time it comes up.</p>
<p>The radio triggers I use are sold on eBay under the name Magic Trigger. Also popular are ones made by GadgetInfinity. Tons of information (more than you&#8217;ll want, actually) is on the Strobist Flicker site.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

