I've moved my blog address, which really won't effect most of you. I've moved it from http://blog.corykerr.com/blog.html to http://mythidiot.blogspot.com.
I've done this for several boring technical reasons, but mainly because google offers ways for me to avoid hand-coding stuff into my blog this way. I hate code.
So, if you've linked to this blog, CHANGE YOUR LINK TO http://mythidiot.blogspot.com
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Small Flashes Strike Again
Darien Chin has come up with a really cool idea for reflective stationary objects... like this car. I found the link to his post on Strobist and you can see Darien's original explanation here.
Its a pretty ingenious use of light really. He claimed to use only 3 flashes (his fourth died), which doesn't seem to make sense. I can see 17 columns of 3 lights, not just three lights. You can tell that the lighting is a complete wrap-around if you look at the reflection on the car.
That begs the question: How do you take a picture that looks like you've used hundreds of lights when you only have three? The answer was quite simple (I was thinking a complex system of mirrors... I tend to make things more complicated than they should be sometimes) leave your shutter open. This leaves the sensor open to receive each flash and each reflection as they fire off one AFTER the other, not all at the same time.
How do you do this? Take some $30 ebay manual flashes and some radio triggers. Attach the flashes to something movable (He duct taped them to a stand). Set your camera to BULB and open your shutter. Quickly circle your subject triggering your strobs and moving your lights. I imagine you'll have to do this several times because I can't even begin to figure out the equation that you would need to figure you settings mathematically. Starting with a GN calculator may help here, though your shutter speed is measured in seconds for this effect, not fractions of a second... and remember, you're firing multiple strobes multiple times. So I'd imagine that the snap and check method will most likely be better.
Darien discribes his settings, " What I think I ended up with was a 38 second exposure at f/11 and iso 200. I had my strobes set at 1/16th power..."
I'm putting this on my list of experiments to hit in 2008. I'll post 'em when I do. Merry Christmas everyone!
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Canon 10-22mm Wide Angle Review
I'll save you the trouble of reading this review if you don't feel like it by saying: I love this lens and I'll recommend that you have one in your bag. Buy it here.This is not going to be a full review, just a few thoughts and a few pictures.
Ok, so basically this is the widest you should get for "normal" photography. There is a massive difference between 12mm and 10mm. I rented this lens for a recent wedding that I shot. I got this lens for several reasons: 1. The wedding venue is a large beautiful building with a very close fence surrounding it (see the little clipped google map), 2. weddings normally have groups of people in the shots and 3. I really wanted to fire a few off on this lens out before deciding to buy it.
Cons
There are a few cons to this lens. If you are shooting a full frame sensor camera, this lens will crop it. There is a lens this wide that is made for full frame sensor, but the reviews are horrible for it... but if you are shooting any prosumer digital SLR, this won't be a problem. You also have your normal distortion in the edges of the frame that you get with any wide angle, but with the 10-22, its not as much as you would expect. Its not a fisheye lens, so you don't get the "cartoonish" distortion that you would get looking through the peep-hole in a door... the straight lines seem to stay pretty straight. Try to avoid putting any part of a human in the corners of the shot as it seems to enlarge them; Instead, let streets, horizons, and buildings run off of the edge of frame.
Pros
I love this glass! Most of the cons happen when you are using this lens for something that its not intended to do. The issue to overcome in this shoot, as stated above, was that the fences caused me to need to be within several feet of the large groups of people that I was shooting. The main pro of this lens is that will very little distortion in angles, you can shoot a very wide subject without having to stand 300 feet back. From 10-20 feet, I was able to get some extremely wide shots that turned out great. I found the focus to be accurate and quick. The zoom ring is smooth. The minimum of f3.5 doesn't really inhibit you outside at all, though I'd imagine you'd have to throw some extra light around a bit inside. The curvature of the actual glass at the top of the lens doesn't protrude out so far that you can't use filters. I'll let the pictures speak for themselves, but long story short: I'll be adding this glass to my bag as soon as I can put another $600 together.
This is with my back smashed up against the fence a few feet away.
A good example of why you should keep people out of the corners of the shot on the lower right and lower left. You can also see the extreme vanishing perspective... this table is a small round table and the people on the other side look dwarfish.
Notice the lines of the Temple behind him. There is only a slight magnification of the edges spreading the parallel lines apart, not the drastic distortion that you would expect.
Notice again the lines on the ground only slightly curving. I think it works really well with this shot.
This shot shows you the reason I needed this lens for this shoot as it was taken in very close quarters.
Another close quarters shot still gets the gold statue/capstone in the picture.
Small groups shots are possible from very close. I'm less than 5 feet away leaning against the fence.
I really like the effect of this lens on the ground tiles.
At 22mm. I took this shot again with a different lens, but I leave it here to illustrate some of the cons of this lens. The magnification at the bottom of this shot is unappealing. I think the rest of this shot looks great.
The planters are actually concentric circles, not distorted. An extremely close wide shot, the camera is 4ft from this group of sisters.
Thats all for now. I may do a review of the Tameron 28-75 that I rented for this same shoot, but I wasn't as impressed.
Monday, December 24, 2007
LensRentals.com Review
I recently shot a wedding that required me to have a wide angle lens. It was at an LDS Temple, which are beautiful buildings. The one in Fresno, CA doesn't have a lot of room around it to get back far enough to get the whole building in the shot without a wide angle. I would normally rent from a local shop for the weekend and wouldn't have a problem.
This particular time, I was in the middle of moving from California to Idaho. We had all of our stuff in a uhaul trailer in the parking lot of the temple as I was shooting the wedding. Well, for a variety of reasons, this situation caused some problems with what I would "normally" do.
I started looking on line for a Netflix for cameras or something. I came across a few sites that offer various things, but one really stuck out. www.lensrentals.com claims to be a photographer's co-op. All the proceeds of the rentals go into news lenses and camera bodies. Thats all fine and dandy, but what I was really interested in was getting the lenses in good condition, on time and for a good price. I needed the lenses for the 22nd, so I ordered them to show up for the 19th. You have two options with lensrentals, you can choose a date to have them ship to you or you can just ask to have them ship the lens when it becomes available. I reserved two lenses for 7 days starting on the 19th. I received the package at work (you need to sign for it, it ships UPS) a week early. I emailed lensrentals just to make sure that I wasn't going to pay extra and got a response within an hour that they are just paranoid and knew I needed the lens for an important shoot and wanted to get it there early.
So even though had the lenses for two weeks, I only reserved them for a week and only paid for a week. I rented the Canon 10-22mm and the Tameron 28-70mm which I will right reviews of later. They showed up in a small box packed with what seemed to be memory foam. Each lens had a carrying case and the wide angle had a lens hood. Shipping both ways is included in price and they even enclose a return address label in the package. In total the cost was $88. This seems like a lot of money, but truly, its not. I had two lenses for 14 days. This is $3.14 per lens per day including shipping. On top of that, renting certain lenses that you aren't going to shoot on every day makes a lot more sense than buying them (espesially the "L" series lenses they offer). I've also heard my friend lament that he wishes that he would have rented his macro lens before buying it. Even though the reviews all gave 5 stars, he hates that lens and dropped a grand on it. I'll be renting any lens I'm thinking of buying from now on... and since I'll be in the middle of nowhere Idaho, I'll probably do that with LensRentals.com.
Their selection is fantastic for both Canon and Nikon shooters. They have the lenses categorized in helpful groups like tele, standard, wide, macro, etc. "Roger" also adds his two cents on some of the lenses, which is helpful if you don't feel like searching amazon or bhphoto for reviews. They even have rack mounts, ball heads, camera bodies, pocket wizards, and other randomness.
All in all I found the service to be fantastic and quick, the prices to be reasonable and the website/ordering process to be very straight forward. I will continue to rent from them for some time as I am moving to an area of no real photo shops.
This particular time, I was in the middle of moving from California to Idaho. We had all of our stuff in a uhaul trailer in the parking lot of the temple as I was shooting the wedding. Well, for a variety of reasons, this situation caused some problems with what I would "normally" do.I started looking on line for a Netflix for cameras or something. I came across a few sites that offer various things, but one really stuck out. www.lensrentals.com claims to be a photographer's co-op. All the proceeds of the rentals go into news lenses and camera bodies. Thats all fine and dandy, but what I was really interested in was getting the lenses in good condition, on time and for a good price. I needed the lenses for the 22nd, so I ordered them to show up for the 19th. You have two options with lensrentals, you can choose a date to have them ship to you or you can just ask to have them ship the lens when it becomes available. I reserved two lenses for 7 days starting on the 19th. I received the package at work (you need to sign for it, it ships UPS) a week early. I emailed lensrentals just to make sure that I wasn't going to pay extra and got a response within an hour that they are just paranoid and knew I needed the lens for an important shoot and wanted to get it there early.
So even though had the lenses for two weeks, I only reserved them for a week and only paid for a week. I rented the Canon 10-22mm and the Tameron 28-70mm which I will right reviews of later. They showed up in a small box packed with what seemed to be memory foam. Each lens had a carrying case and the wide angle had a lens hood. Shipping both ways is included in price and they even enclose a return address label in the package. In total the cost was $88. This seems like a lot of money, but truly, its not. I had two lenses for 14 days. This is $3.14 per lens per day including shipping. On top of that, renting certain lenses that you aren't going to shoot on every day makes a lot more sense than buying them (espesially the "L" series lenses they offer). I've also heard my friend lament that he wishes that he would have rented his macro lens before buying it. Even though the reviews all gave 5 stars, he hates that lens and dropped a grand on it. I'll be renting any lens I'm thinking of buying from now on... and since I'll be in the middle of nowhere Idaho, I'll probably do that with LensRentals.com.
Their selection is fantastic for both Canon and Nikon shooters. They have the lenses categorized in helpful groups like tele, standard, wide, macro, etc. "Roger" also adds his two cents on some of the lenses, which is helpful if you don't feel like searching amazon or bhphoto for reviews. They even have rack mounts, ball heads, camera bodies, pocket wizards, and other randomness.
All in all I found the service to be fantastic and quick, the prices to be reasonable and the website/ordering process to be very straight forward. I will continue to rent from them for some time as I am moving to an area of no real photo shops.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
2008: The Year of Light
So my life is in boxes... again. The wife and I are moving back to Rexburg, Idaho so she can finish up her degree in music. I was talking to my grampa this morning as we were taking apart our four-poster bed and moving furniture and I thought that the topic of our conversation would make for a good entry. The main reason is so that I have a record of the direction I'm taking.
My Composition
As I've mentioned before, one way to look at photography is composition and lighting. I think I've got a really good handle on composition. F 'n PARC as I used to teach it in my graphic design lab. Proximity, Alignment, Repetition and Flow. The rules of design, illustration and layout carry over into video and stills very well. I used to look through the lens and layout the shot as if it was in the computer in my mind. Anywho, I feel I can compose a good shot more often than not.
My Lighting
Now lighting is a different story. Thus far I've spent most of my lighting time reverse engineering the lighting set up of Evanescence music videos by looking at the shape of the reflection in Amy Lee's eyes. I was also unaware of Strobist until recently and thus, was unaware that I didn't have to take out a loan to be able to afford lighting equipment. I'd bought a couple of light discs to reflect direct sunlight into people's eyes for extended periods of time. This worked pretty well if you don't mind very well lit squinting people. I experimented with white core board as an alternative, but thats bulky and on a windy day you're basically screwed. So after a while I was left just to pray for a cloudy day so that when I popped open my reflectors I wouldn't be creating a large SOS signal mirror.
Renewed Vigor
I've gained some renewed excitement about light again. After reading some, I've rediscovered light. I've got composition under my belt (there is always room to improve and learn) and now its time to get serious; I'm going to learn lighting. Next year at this time I'm going to be not only much more knowledgeable about lighting a scene, but I'm also going to be fast. I'm giving myself a year to hone my lighting skills. I'm going to read everything I can get my hands on and experiment several times a week with different techniques. I'm going to keep a lighting journal. And I'm going to run myself through drills. At the end of 2008 I'm going to be better than I am now.
So if you happen to see me climbing a tree and bungeeing a strobe to a branch, don't call homeland security, I'm just running lighting drills.
My Composition
As I've mentioned before, one way to look at photography is composition and lighting. I think I've got a really good handle on composition. F 'n PARC as I used to teach it in my graphic design lab. Proximity, Alignment, Repetition and Flow. The rules of design, illustration and layout carry over into video and stills very well. I used to look through the lens and layout the shot as if it was in the computer in my mind. Anywho, I feel I can compose a good shot more often than not.
My Lighting
Now lighting is a different story. Thus far I've spent most of my lighting time reverse engineering the lighting set up of Evanescence music videos by looking at the shape of the reflection in Amy Lee's eyes. I was also unaware of Strobist until recently and thus, was unaware that I didn't have to take out a loan to be able to afford lighting equipment. I'd bought a couple of light discs to reflect direct sunlight into people's eyes for extended periods of time. This worked pretty well if you don't mind very well lit squinting people. I experimented with white core board as an alternative, but thats bulky and on a windy day you're basically screwed. So after a while I was left just to pray for a cloudy day so that when I popped open my reflectors I wouldn't be creating a large SOS signal mirror.
Renewed Vigor
I've gained some renewed excitement about light again. After reading some, I've rediscovered light. I've got composition under my belt (there is always room to improve and learn) and now its time to get serious; I'm going to learn lighting. Next year at this time I'm going to be not only much more knowledgeable about lighting a scene, but I'm also going to be fast. I'm giving myself a year to hone my lighting skills. I'm going to read everything I can get my hands on and experiment several times a week with different techniques. I'm going to keep a lighting journal. And I'm going to run myself through drills. At the end of 2008 I'm going to be better than I am now.
So if you happen to see me climbing a tree and bungeeing a strobe to a branch, don't call homeland security, I'm just running lighting drills.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
My Road to Strobism
Ok, so I have recently had a revelation... its a little later than it should be, but late is better than never. The basic revelation is this, "Good photos are not created by the gear, but by the photographer."
My Back-Story
Ok, so I've known this for a while. For instance, every time I take a great picture and people compliment my camera instead of my ability to take pictures... now I can see where people are coming from, but seriously, give me some credit. There is a huge marketing push right now to convince us that if we only buy this really expensive camera, then POOF, you'll take amazing pictures. As I type this, I know that it sounds silly, but I fell into the same trap when I first got into "stills." I came from video, I knew all about this stuff and photography should be easier because its not even a moving picture... any way, when I opened my first SLR, I was shocked to find that I sucked at photography until I spent the time to research and learn all kinds of new things. Its funny to me now, but I was amazed that I didn't magically know how to use my new camera. Well, through hard work, podcasts, tutorials, and failed experiments, I now know how to use my camera.
Quality
I did however, fall into a little trap of thinking that I needed top quality equipment to do this... which is partially true. I'm a big fan of buying the best, because cheaping out is usually more expensive in the long run. When I cheap out, I usually end up buying the best later anyway, which now costs me more since I paid for the best and a cheap piece of crap... but, expensive equipment doesn't trump knowledge and experience. Its difficult to get the notches on your belt without being heavily funded by a rich uncle dieing or something... well, I don't come from old money, so that leaves me in a bit of a tough spot.
I'm on the road to Strobism!
Photography is the manipulation and capture of light. The basic concept of a Strobist is that you can get light cheaper and its still light. What does this mean? Well, a while ago I bought a Canon Speedlite 430ex Flash. The guy at the photo store convinced me that the 430 and the 580 where the gold standard of flashes. After carefully (and with very little knowledge) judging between the features of the two, I decided that I didn't need the 580. I was happy that I only spent $250.
Now fast forward to a few weeks ago. I was talking to Justin about Composition Vs. Light and which is more important in taking a picture. We both had been heavily composition based in our photography up to this point. As a side note: I don't think that composition can be taught, I think it can be explained and analized, (you can draw # on all day talking about the rule of thirds) but you've either got the eye or you don't. Light is different. It isn't an innate skill, its learned, studied, takes decades to master and involves math... which is kind of a turn off.
A Touch of Strobist
I had been on the Strobist site a few times to build light boxes out of cardboard and stuff. I came up with images like this.
I had also listened to a podcast interview with David Hobby, the leader of the Strobist "Movement," so I wasn't completely unfamiliar with the site, but I hadn't as of yet, dove in.
Money
Well, that conversation got me thinking about light more. I figured, that if people are going to pay me to shoot pictures, then I should know more about the other side of photography. The problem is, I don't have that kind of money. I can pick up a studio light set and some remote triggers and things and already I'm into it thousands of dollars before I even set one flash off.
Strobist and Ebay
So I started reading strobist's lighting 101. The basic concept is to take the flash off of the camera. Well, I've known that for a while, thats nothing new. Then the next concept hit me like a ton of bricks: you don't need a $300 flash to get good light. David, in his interview with LightSource, says (I'm paraphrasing), "I use manual flashes and radio triggers. As long as the laws of physics are in force, my lighting equipment will never be obsolete." He goes on to say that you can buy a flash on ebay that would work better than my Canon flash. Then you can pick up some radio triggers and your set. Any journey starts with the first step.
On my road to Strobism, I purchased a 20 year old Nikon SB-20 on Ebay for $18 plus $8 for shipping. I've ordered some Cactus V2s radio triggers from Gadget Infinity for $52 including shipping. So $78 later, I have a complete lighting system that is light years ahead of my previous $250 flash... Now I just need to run to the hardware store and pick up some duct tape and a few clamps.
Radio Vs. Proprietary Infrared
Most brand name camera flash systems work off of infrared line-of-sight systems of remote triggers. This is pretty dang limiting for a variety of reasons. In addition to that, they charge a lot of money for a inferior triggering system (Canon doesn't even put a PC sync port in their flashes!). Radio travels around corners and you can put the flash at any angle you want anywhere you want within the signal range. Plus you can use any manual flash you find on ebay. Let freedom ring... or flash.
My Next Flash
The next flash I'm going to buy after I've mastered my SB-20 is the recently re-released Vivitar 285HV. One downside to Strobists being so popular is it is very difficult to get SB-24's now on ebay for less than $100. You can now pick up a brand-spanking-new manual flash for $90! Way to go Vivitar. I love companies that read the market and give us what we want rather than force us to use what they want us to.
Radio Triggers
A little about radio triggers. This is where I've cheaped out. Gadget Ininity's Cactus V2s are cheaply made Japanese plastic. The gold standard is the Pocket Wizard plus ii. The pocket wizards are more reliable and have a farther reach than the V2s. So why did I go with the V2s? I don't have $400... well I do have $400, but my wife likes to buy food and gas. At $375 for a pair of wizards and $190 for each additional reciever, the wizards are pretty pricey. I grabbed $50 worth of V2s and can fire two strobes remotely with each additional receiver at $18. I'm not fooling myself. I will go to the pocket wizard eventually, but I'm ok with the $18 cheap-o version for right now. Besides, I've got a soldering gun, so maybe I can extend that reach a few feet more.
A New Chapter
So basically, I've opened a new chapter in my life as a photographer. I'm excited. I'll have a lot more money to play with because I'll be spending a lot less on things now... I'll keep you updated.
A Note On Cost
I had a conversation with my wife about this the other day and I feel like I need to add this note. I don't think that the cheap way is always the way to go. For instance, I think you should buy good fast quality glass. I don't think you should cheap-out on your cases either. There is nothing worse than having your expensive equipment destroyed because you didn't spend a few extra bucks on a Pelican or something. But as for lighting: Knowledge, not price, is king. Start here.
My Back-Story
Ok, so I've known this for a while. For instance, every time I take a great picture and people compliment my camera instead of my ability to take pictures... now I can see where people are coming from, but seriously, give me some credit. There is a huge marketing push right now to convince us that if we only buy this really expensive camera, then POOF, you'll take amazing pictures. As I type this, I know that it sounds silly, but I fell into the same trap when I first got into "stills." I came from video, I knew all about this stuff and photography should be easier because its not even a moving picture... any way, when I opened my first SLR, I was shocked to find that I sucked at photography until I spent the time to research and learn all kinds of new things. Its funny to me now, but I was amazed that I didn't magically know how to use my new camera. Well, through hard work, podcasts, tutorials, and failed experiments, I now know how to use my camera.
Quality
I did however, fall into a little trap of thinking that I needed top quality equipment to do this... which is partially true. I'm a big fan of buying the best, because cheaping out is usually more expensive in the long run. When I cheap out, I usually end up buying the best later anyway, which now costs me more since I paid for the best and a cheap piece of crap... but, expensive equipment doesn't trump knowledge and experience. Its difficult to get the notches on your belt without being heavily funded by a rich uncle dieing or something... well, I don't come from old money, so that leaves me in a bit of a tough spot.
I'm on the road to Strobism!
Photography is the manipulation and capture of light. The basic concept of a Strobist is that you can get light cheaper and its still light. What does this mean? Well, a while ago I bought a Canon Speedlite 430ex Flash. The guy at the photo store convinced me that the 430 and the 580 where the gold standard of flashes. After carefully (and with very little knowledge) judging between the features of the two, I decided that I didn't need the 580. I was happy that I only spent $250.
Now fast forward to a few weeks ago. I was talking to Justin about Composition Vs. Light and which is more important in taking a picture. We both had been heavily composition based in our photography up to this point. As a side note: I don't think that composition can be taught, I think it can be explained and analized, (you can draw # on all day talking about the rule of thirds) but you've either got the eye or you don't. Light is different. It isn't an innate skill, its learned, studied, takes decades to master and involves math... which is kind of a turn off.
A Touch of Strobist
I had been on the Strobist site a few times to build light boxes out of cardboard and stuff. I came up with images like this.
I had also listened to a podcast interview with David Hobby, the leader of the Strobist "Movement," so I wasn't completely unfamiliar with the site, but I hadn't as of yet, dove in.
Money
Well, that conversation got me thinking about light more. I figured, that if people are going to pay me to shoot pictures, then I should know more about the other side of photography. The problem is, I don't have that kind of money. I can pick up a studio light set and some remote triggers and things and already I'm into it thousands of dollars before I even set one flash off.
Strobist and Ebay
So I started reading strobist's lighting 101. The basic concept is to take the flash off of the camera. Well, I've known that for a while, thats nothing new. Then the next concept hit me like a ton of bricks: you don't need a $300 flash to get good light. David, in his interview with LightSource, says (I'm paraphrasing), "I use manual flashes and radio triggers. As long as the laws of physics are in force, my lighting equipment will never be obsolete." He goes on to say that you can buy a flash on ebay that would work better than my Canon flash. Then you can pick up some radio triggers and your set. Any journey starts with the first step.
On my road to Strobism, I purchased a 20 year old Nikon SB-20 on Ebay for $18 plus $8 for shipping. I've ordered some Cactus V2s radio triggers from Gadget Infinity for $52 including shipping. So $78 later, I have a complete lighting system that is light years ahead of my previous $250 flash... Now I just need to run to the hardware store and pick up some duct tape and a few clamps.
Radio Vs. Proprietary Infrared
Most brand name camera flash systems work off of infrared line-of-sight systems of remote triggers. This is pretty dang limiting for a variety of reasons. In addition to that, they charge a lot of money for a inferior triggering system (Canon doesn't even put a PC sync port in their flashes!). Radio travels around corners and you can put the flash at any angle you want anywhere you want within the signal range. Plus you can use any manual flash you find on ebay. Let freedom ring... or flash.
My Next Flash
The next flash I'm going to buy after I've mastered my SB-20 is the recently re-released Vivitar 285HV. One downside to Strobists being so popular is it is very difficult to get SB-24's now on ebay for less than $100. You can now pick up a brand-spanking-new manual flash for $90! Way to go Vivitar. I love companies that read the market and give us what we want rather than force us to use what they want us to.
Radio Triggers
A little about radio triggers. This is where I've cheaped out. Gadget Ininity's Cactus V2s are cheaply made Japanese plastic. The gold standard is the Pocket Wizard plus ii. The pocket wizards are more reliable and have a farther reach than the V2s. So why did I go with the V2s? I don't have $400... well I do have $400, but my wife likes to buy food and gas. At $375 for a pair of wizards and $190 for each additional reciever, the wizards are pretty pricey. I grabbed $50 worth of V2s and can fire two strobes remotely with each additional receiver at $18. I'm not fooling myself. I will go to the pocket wizard eventually, but I'm ok with the $18 cheap-o version for right now. Besides, I've got a soldering gun, so maybe I can extend that reach a few feet more.
A New Chapter
So basically, I've opened a new chapter in my life as a photographer. I'm excited. I'll have a lot more money to play with because I'll be spending a lot less on things now... I'll keep you updated.
A Note On Cost
I had a conversation with my wife about this the other day and I feel like I need to add this note. I don't think that the cheap way is always the way to go. For instance, I think you should buy good fast quality glass. I don't think you should cheap-out on your cases either. There is nothing worse than having your expensive equipment destroyed because you didn't spend a few extra bucks on a Pelican or something. But as for lighting: Knowledge, not price, is king. Start here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)