Dual Flash Pics !!!!

[rkm rdt]

Yes I have

Sorry for the lousy pic but you get the idea...

Robert K Milligan RDT Dental

 

[rkm rdt]

I make alot with my piccolo(Nobel).I like the fact that the zirconia is much thicker along the axial walls and that they are retrievable just in case.

 

[JonB]

Hes right it is dust and it drives me crazy.
I dont know how to get it off because it is inside the cam not on the lens.

I heard from some body else it was probably on the sensor,
Ill get my instruction book and see if it is on there anywhere how to clean it.

I'm jumping in here without reading the whole thread - but there are a couple ways to "fix" the dust problem.
1) glue your lens on and never take it off... after you've cleaned the sensor.
2) clean your sensor - first get a giotto hand blower (Giottos Large Rocket-air - Lens blower ) and blow the loose stuff off, then an Arctic butterfly (Products — DSLR sensor cleaning) to dust off the sensor - those two steps may be all you need. If the dust is stubborn, you need to buy sensor cleaner solution like "Visible Dust Plus" and some appropriately sized sensor swabs (on rebels and all prosumer cameras like the 10D through the 60D series and most Nikons, I believe they are 1.5 or 1.6 sensor size) and follow the online instructions on the Visible Dust website. If you're careful - you can do it. If you're not, you will scratch the clear plate that covers your sensor.
I clean my own sensors all the time - even on all of my Pro cameras. (1D Mark IV, 1D Mark III, 5D Mark II, and the old 20D and 10D) If i nitwit like me can do it on $15,000 worth of cameras...
3) send it in to Canon and they will clean it for you for not much money - but the next time you change lenses - be prepared to have to do it all over again.

I deal with changing lenses all the time on the flightline or between the ramps where there is a lot of FOD and oil smoke flying around - so sometimes changing lenses out there is just part of the job. I shoot about 8000 to 10000 shots a day and have to clean the sensors on at least three cameras every night during show season.

Best advice... super glue! ... so you never have to change lenses.

Nice work to start the thread off - for sure!

 

[JonB]

***snip***

The only place to get that telescoping mount is from photomed.

This just barly or loosely fits on to the sigma lens, Canon has a adapter that screws on to make it fit for $40+ shipping but I think I am going to hold out and get photomeds telescoping mounting setup but that thing is almost $300 and I dont know if it is worth it, I think they make filters you can put over the flash to do the same thing?

try Really Right Stuff for all kinds of flash extensions and mounts - they make some fantastic gear. - FA-EX1: Flash Extender

 

[JonB]

dust or no dust
you posted some fantastic work

we have a EOS 10 D- dirt on the sensors is known problem with cannons

it's a known problem with ALL cameras with sensors and interchangeable lenses. A friend of mine bought a new top of the line Nikon last summer and loaned it to me to shoot a series of Patty Wagstaff in her Extra. The camera wasn't a week old and I had over 90 dirt spots to clone out in photoshop before i could present her with an image. It comes with the territory! Its digital.

 

[JonB]

Al.

I did some digging and some experimenting. Spots sometimes appear on the sensor and sometimes they dont. Depends on the settings of the shutter. Look at photos of the same object photographed where one has spots and the other dont, then look at the exif data the settings are probably different. The smaller the aperature the more resolved the spots. I experimented and found when I used a higher f-stop setting(f/36) there were spots; and when I used lower f-stop setting(f/5.6) there were no discernable spots. Mind bogling, I know. I think I learned something from this though. Hope this helps.

You are correct - the smaller the aperture (larger the number) the more depth of field there is and dust on the sensor shows up much more clearly. No smoke and mirrors... literally... the mirror merely reflects the image up through the viewfinder - it has nothing to do with the junk on the sensor.
The shutter speed also has nothing to do with showing the dust - except that the slower the shutter - the smaller the aperture - the smaller the aperture - the more dust shows up. back to point one.

I shoot intra-orals at ƒ-22 for depth of field and just clone out the dirt spots in photoshop if I'm between cleanings.

Basic settings that just work...
ISO 200 - always. 100 isn't necessary with what we are shooting and 400 or more - even with the newer cameras introduces grain so 200 is a good medium.
Don't shoot on P or any other auto mode! Shoot Aperture priority with ƒ-22 for intra-orals and ƒ5.6 for full face or head and shoulders shots. The only two settings dental photography ever really needs. Forget about the shutter speed - just let it float.
Whether you use a ring light or the macros-twin lite (i have both) usually you can adjust the light output up to 3 stops over or under. Usually not necessary but if your images are a bit dark - check your histogram to see where the "hump" is and add light until it is in the middle or subtract light if the hump is too far to the right.

 

[dmonwaxa]

Thanks for the tips JonB, much appreciated. Here goes,,,D90, D7000,
D60 or 7D and why?

 

[paulg100]

A really simple and obvious trick i learnt recently:

Twin flashes are considered better than a ring for the way they distribute light so if you have a ring, just mask the top and bottom of the ring with tape and you kinda have a cheap twin solution

 

[Al.]

A really simple and obvious trick i learnt recently:

Twin flashes are considered better than a ring for the way they distribute light so if you have a ring, just mask the top and bottom of the ring with tape and you kinda have a cheap twin solution

Paul, thats a good idea.

As far as the other tip, THANK YOU sooo much for the bazoka you added to my tool box !!!!

I love it !

I did these two 100% per what you suggested. Not quite as "floaty" or defined but it will get there.

Again thank you.

 

[paulg100]

No prob, looking good as always :whoo:

 

[JonB]

A really simple and obvious trick i learnt recently:

Twin flashes are considered better than a ring for the way they distribute light so if you have a ring, just mask the top and bottom of the ring with tape and you kinda have a cheap twin solution

That is a good tip on ring flashes - any light modifiers will definitely take you out of the flat lighting that rings give off. But you still deal with both lights coming from about the same distance. You can modify the output a little to add depth to the shot.

That's the beauty of the macro-twin light - not only can you adjust the output on each light - but you can move the flash heads off the camera and give more dimension to the shot.

Think like a portrait photographer for a minute. Traditional Rembrandt lighting has a key light and a fill light. One lights the subject - the other adds a hint of fill to soften the shadows and to control how the eye sees the subject. Its a very flattering lighting scenario.

Now take that to the twin light - its all the same principles as the big studio lights - its just sized down to the macro world. Once your exposure is set for adequate lighting, you add in the fill to soften the shadows or illuminate areas to give depth. Usually you have a 2:1 ratio of key to fill light.
You can still adjust a ring light to 2:1 - but they are directionally challenged.

Hope this helps.

Here is a good tutorial on lighting a 3D object. (its for three light setups - but the points on two lights is still valid)
Three Point Lighting Tutorial

 

[JonB]

When you tape over the ring light - you may need to compensate for the exposure. Even though ETTL is supposed to do that for you, it's not always the best. Be sure to take a first shot and look at your histogram. (Info button should bring it up) Make sure the "hump" is middle right so the exposure is adequate. Your images will never be under-exposed if you make it a habit of checking the histogram. This shows an average histogram... i prefer to see the hump a little more to the right.

I prefer it for two reasons - 1) it follows the principles of exposure that Ansel Adams set down years ago that are tried and true - and 2) in the digital world -unlike film - there is far more data captured in the lighter end of an exposure than in the darker end. Hence - you have far more detail in your image - even if you have to darken it a little in PS. You also don't add any digital noise to the shot as you do when you try to lighten something that is under-exposed.

 

[JonB]

Thanks for the tips JonB, much appreciated. Here goes,,,D90, D7000,
D60 or 7D and why?

I'm a Canon shooter - so I can't be much help on Nikon. (I used Nikon film cameras for many years and still have my F3HP) But switched to Canon when I went digital.

As to your question though - its a good one. The problem is it only matters to your budget and intended use. I have a full frame 21 megapixel 5D Mark II, a 1.3 crop sensor 1D Mark IV pro series with 16 megapixel and 10 FPS with 90 shot burst mode, a similar 10 megapixel 1D Mark III plus my old 20D 8 megapixel and and 10D 6 megapixel.

It's a pile of money and each has its uses they are best suited for. The pro Mark IV and Mark III are great sports and action cameras - but a little too heavy to hold over a patient's mouth for any length of time. Same with the 5D Mark II with a battery grip - too heavy - but it takes beautiful landscapes and makes movies that are Hollywood standard quality.

My 20D is still my lab workhorse even at only 8 megapixels and 3 FPS and no movies. The 10D sits alone in a quite room enjoying its retirement.

None of that answers your question directly - but all of it answers it.

Let me address it this way... since I'm in the Canon camp - first there is a difference between a D60 and a 60D - i know its confusing but the D60 is an early version of a Rebel while a 60D is a very advanced prosumer level camera. The 7D is a little more advanced than the 60D. I've heard good things about both cameras.
FOR DENTAL - INTRA-ORAL - PHOTOGRAPHY... A 10D IS ALL YOU REALLY NEED!!!. Anyone telling you any different - is selling you smoke.
You can buy a good used 10D for about 250 bucks at KEH.com

That means any more modern Rebel or prosumer camera from the 10D, 20D, 30D, 40D, 50D, or 60D is fine. Its all in what you want to spend and how you are going to use it. Or if your ego won't let you buy anything but the best... then you better be ready to pop for a 1Ds Mark III for arouund 8 grand.

A couple years ago, a technician called me with a similar question. he was convinced he had to have the latest greatest camera and was ready to pop for a ton of money at one of the usual suspects when it comes to dental photography. No offense - those guys need to make a profit too - but there just isn't any need to get soaked. You just don't need it!

I did an experiment a couple years ago. I shot four images with four different cameras, enlarged and cropped each image to the same size and combined them into one poster sized print. Then I asked people to pick which camera did which image - from the 21megapixel to the 6 megapixel. One guy got them right and he admitted he was guessing - you can't tell the difference in image quality blown up a 100 times and we just don't blow up images that big for any reason in dentistry... unless you're printing a billboard.
See if you can pick them out of this lineup...

(you can go to the page and download the original if you want full resolution - go here: Camera Comp - Jon Berry Photography - Jon Berry - Atlanta)

My advice - buy a good Rebel if you want "new" and get a 100mm ƒ2.8 macro lens and a Canon macro twin light or a Canon ring light and be done with it.

No real need to pop for the new version of the 100mm either - the older one is a fine piece of glass. Its slower focusing - but its a lot less expensive.
When possible - buy used from a trusted source.