I have it on good authority that this picture can't be made.

[flamin lib]

[DisgustipatedinCA]

1. OK, I'll fall for it. It looks like the picture was, in fact, made.

Why is this an unmakeable picture?

[flamin lib]

2. Because . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10364837

The portrait was made with two 42 watt CFLs (300 watt tungsten equivalent) and some jury rigged floor lamps. Exposure was ISO 400, 1/45 @ f5.

It's not my best work (try handling a two year old all by yourself AND operate the camera) but it makes the point that a cheap ($100-125) cold light setup with either 800 watt or 1200 watt equivalent total output can produce results.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

3. Now I understand.

It looks good to me, although I'm no expert on lighting. Maybe the moral of the story is that we should not listen so much to those who tell us something just can't be done. Remember when they used to tell us that, due to the design common to all DSLR's, no Live View-type function would ever be available? Well, it sure is available, and I'm happy those Canon and Nikon engineers didn't listen to the conventional wisdom on that point.

[flamin lib]

4. Uh. that would be the Olympus 330. nt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

5. Uh. After reading about it more...

...it looks like the Fuji S3 Pro came before, as did a specialized 20D (Canon). Wikipedia does mention that the 330 is the first general use DSLR to have the feature. I'm outta this thread. Have fun correcting anyone else who shows up.