My group is starting a Sea based campaign and the gunslinger character (Matt Mercer Homebrew) is asking about how being in the Crow’s nest will affect his range. Since he will be targeting creatures significantly below him (~110′) that are only 25′ horizontal to his position he is asking how he should adjudicate weapon range.
I’m experimenting with filters over on-camera flash to better match the ambient light. I’m having good results using CTOs with sunlight, for example.
When I’m tasked with shooting indoors, I have an anxiety about confronting older fluorescent lighting that produces a green cast. It hasn’t happened yet, but I’d like to be prepared just in case it does. So, I’m wondering what is the best general purpose daylight-to-fluorescent flash filter to carry?
Lee offer a “219 Fluorescent green”; however, the description is this: “General tungsten to fluorescent correction for use when fluorescent colour temp is unknown, to provide medium correction.” Although, on the Lee website the colour seems to appear as a pale green, in actually the filter is much darker. I’m assuming this is because the filter has to changing orange tungsten lighting to green fluorescent-coloured light. So, I expect the 219 will be overkill on a daylight-balanced flash.
From googling I see a “Lee 244 Plus Green” is perhaps a possibility. However, the description on Lee’s website — “Used on daylight and tungsten light sources to provide green cast when used in conjunction with discharge lighting. Approximately equivalent to CC30 green camera filter” — makes little sense to me. There’s no mention of using it to balance flash for fluorescent lighting.
Can anyone with experience say, which general-purpose daylight to fluorescent filter, or filters, it’d be wise to carry?
(I’m using digital, so I don’t need to worry about a compensating filter over the lens. And, I have a preference for Lee as their filters are available in large sheets, cost next to nothing, weigh even less, and, equally importantly, there’s a stockist just around the corner from me!)
I am homebrewing a post-apocalypse style world for D&D 5E, intended to be a mashup of Mutant Year Zero and D&D 5E. Thematically, one major point is that the world has been thrown into a perpetual night. I want this to matter to the player characters, and be central to problems they face. That means more emphasis on managing light sources and that special forms of vision that bypass darkness should be exceptional.
I’d like to alter the standard playable races with darkvision, replacing it with low-light vision (the ability to see normally in areas with dim light), plus some compensating factor, which I will probably choose thematically for each race. The goal is that these races should still be solid choices, as valid as before, but that they don’t overshadow (no pun intended) races without darkvision due to the setting.
I am not quite sure what the downgrade darkvision -> low-light vision is worth in terms of reasonable compensation from an extra race feature. A proficiency? A known language? A situational bonus? I’m guessing that it is around this level in a normal setting.
In the setting, areas with dim lighting will be a very common adventuring environment (basically outside at night on 50% of nights), so low-light vision is still a noticeable benefit. Perhaps this fact means that I should not need to compensate anything? As despite the fact that I am strictly downgrading the ability, in the setting the new ability will be relevant a lot of the time, perhaps just as much as darkvision would be in most other settings.
I have seen the question What would happen if I removed darkvision? and that helps me understand that removing darkvision entirely makes for a workable game. However, I don’t want to short-change players choosing a Dwarf or Half-orc PC at the start of the game. I will of course be sharing homebrew changes and setting details before play starts . . . so this is more about having players who would naturally choose, say, a Dwarf, feel that the race was just as viable as in any non-homebrewed setting.
I’m fairly new to photography, and I own a Canon Rebel T6i. Besides manual mode I’ve learned about Tv and Av modes, which to be honest I really liked, mainly when I’m shooting on events with changing lighting conditions and I’m find myself too slow to change the settings for every shot. I like the idea of the Av mode very much for event photography, however the last time that I tried I had a huge problem, the shutter speed was too slow (I was using a 24mm f2.8 pancake lens) so when I got home I find out that most pictures were taken at 1/25 sec, even some at 1/60 were blurry, given that I don’t have super steady hands and people were moving.
After some research I found out that some cameras allow you to set a minimum shutter speed when in Av mode. However my camera doesn’t seem to have that option. I would like to set the minimum shutter speed to at least 1/125 (1/200, would be the best for me right now), but I can’t. So I often find myself shooting events at Tv with a shutter speed of 1/125 or 1/200, but the results aren’t ideal since I can’t control the aperture.
What I’ve tried lately to try to compensate for the lack of a minimum shutter speed in Av mode is to set the camera to manual with ISO on auto. This way I can set the minimum shutter speed (but I’m stuck to it, if the lighting conditions improve I could be taking pictures at a higher shutter speed) and I have the control of the aperture, leaving the ISO to balance the exposure. Far from ideal, I would guess, however is there a better way to achieving this with my Rebel T6i?
I know I could just be using full manual, but as a beginner it can get pretty awkward to have people in events posing and waiting for the to find the best exposure in full manual. Is there a better way to do this or should I just embrace full manual.