djthomas

I’ve started shooting more close-up work lately and have been considering adding a macro lens to my kit. I shoot a D500 and have recently been shooting flowers, the insects on them and other detail work. I can only get so much out of my current lenses, so a macro seems in order. I’ve been looking at write-ups on both the 60mm and 105mm and find myself leaning to the 105. The cost difference between the two is not an issue. What experiences have any of you had with these lenses? Are there other lenses worth looking at that will provide good results, even off brands? How does the 105 perform as a 105 telephoto lens. On a DX it’s probably a bit long for portraits, but other than that, any comments? I also saw something about additional screw on lenses that can go on these lenses to reduce minimum focusing distance; anyone using these? Thanks, David

I am looking for a good recommendation on a battery charger for my D500 that can be used in a car. I have two batteries--one that I keep in the grip the other in the body. However, for some extended trips where I am likely to be on the road and camping I may not always have access to running electricity--not that batteries die at inconvenient times--so I was wondering what some of you folks may use. Also, what is the typical recharge time using the car charger? Thanks!

I just checked out his website after performing a quick Google search on his name and found a site http://www.johnbellenis.com/ that appears to show architectural photography.

<p>I have keep one of these tools ($6) for this purpose and it has always worked for me. From <a href="https://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=807009&gclid=CJnJoP3WztECFY61wAod0YkCLg&is=REG&ap=y&m=Y&c3api=1876%2C92051677562%2C&Q=&A=details">B&H</a></p>

<p>From Adobe: You can deactivate a Creative Cloud app simply by signing out. Launch any Creative Cloud app and choose Help> Sign Out <em>(your Adobe ID)</em>. You can also sign out from the Creative Cloud desktop app or deactivate a device from your <a href="https://accounts.adobe.com/" target="_blank">account page</a> on adobe.com. <br> Info on the deactivation process: <a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/policy-pricing/activate-deactivate-products.html">https://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/policy-pricing/activate-deactivate-products.html</a> <br> Deactivating the product essentially frees up that license so it can be used elsewhere. Do this prior to changing out you computer.<br> </p>

<p>Regarding the first two images, can you provide what f/stop you were shooting? If the aperture of your lens was wide open (or only reduced by a stop or two) the background will be rendered out of focus as Edward points out. In many instances this is a desired effect because it allows the viewer to direct his/her gaze on the primary subject. When everything is in focus, the image can look rather cluttered, giving your subject less impact. </p> <p>As for the the cloning, if you mean to eliminate the branches and create a whole face, it might be possible, depending on how much of the man's face is not obscured and could be used to fill in the missing areas. It is difficult to see in this instance because the image is rather small. If you have other photos with this man in them with an unobstructed face, that could be utilized as well. In fact, if you don't particularly need <em>this</em> man, you could use someone else's face/head from another photo to give you the appearance you may be looking for.</p>

<p>When you are using the Pen tool, you are creating a Path which shows up in the Paths Palette --which is usually nested with the Layers Palette. If you don't see it, click on the 'Windows' heading in the menu bar and click on Paths. when you look at this palette, you will see the path you created with the pen--it will be highlighted if the path is still showing up on your image. Simply click off this path (by default it will be named Work Path) and it will no longer show up in your image. You can make a whole collection of paths, name them and save them for future edits as well. Any one left highlighted will appear on your screen.</p>

<p>I get this often when I export images that I want to go to a jpg after I change the size of the original file--which is what you are doing here--taking the TIF file down to 75% of original size and performing a series of steps after that. Photoshop is asking you if you want to keep the change in image size (now at 75% of original size). Even if you 'undo' the size change, PS is going to ask you if you want to save the change. Nowhere do you show the (original) file size change going back to 100% (to its original size) after you reduced it to 75% -- hence the question about saving the change. If you do accept the change, your original TIF file will be saved at 75% of its original size, so be careful here.</p>

<p>Just out of curiosity, what is the point/advantage of having two totally different types of media cards in a camera with dual slots? I will be getting a D500 sometime this year, but personally think it would be more advantageous if both cards matched as they do with the D5. </p>

<p>Hi Stephanie--what equipment do you have now (camera/lenses)? Do you have any lighting equipment now (flash--other than what may be built into your camera)? How is the room lit now--i.e., do you have any window light that you can take advantage of as well (assuming you can use it and not worry about having to draw the blinds to prevent sidewalk on-lookers)? Is this one big room with lots of empty/blank wall space that you can take advantage of -- both for the plain background and reflecting light, or are there doorways, widows, furniture on those walls? How high is the ceiling? If it is at a standard 8', you might be pressed for vertical space when going for a clean look (without floor and ceiling). Are you looking to shoot elsewhere as well -- where you might want to consider equipment that can be easily packed up and transported as needed?</p>

<p>Depending on the intensity of the modeling lamp, especially through a softbox, it could be that an ND filter on the lens may make it difficult to both focus and compose (or accurately determine some aspect of the image--say, a smile for instance) -- both of which would be apparent only after the photo was taken. Of course, this would also depend on the ND grade that was being used as well which might alleviate these issues.</p>

<p>Upon closer inspection and after serious deliberation I have come to the conclusion that the dress is black and blue. Oh, I <strong>don't</strong> see a moire pattern as well.</p>

<p>Also agree with Jos; the D700 does, however come with a pop-up flash (it is not an external/removable attachment) so I'm not sure what you mean by your comment about your friend's camera not having a built in flash. Perhaps this is a typo?</p>

<p>I don't recall Adobe ever packaging Lightroom with Photoshop, however, if you still have the original media (DVD/CD) from CS5, and LR was included you should easily be able to install it and download any subsequent LR5.x updates. Photoshop CS5 came out in April 2010, followed by CS5.5 a year later. Lightroom 5.0, however did not come out until June 2013, so it is hard to see how these would be bundled together.</p> <p>There used to be two flavors of Photoshop: one that supported 3D related functionality (extended version) and the standard version that did not. The extended version of Photoshop had nothing to do with Lightroom though. Typically the upgrade cost to the extended versions cost a bit more. From your description, it sounds like you have Photoshop CS5 Extended.</p> <p>If you had Lightroom installed, registered the software and you no longer have the original discs, you can download your previous version from the Adobe site. When you registered, you would have supplied a serial number which is also available from Adobe under your account. If you purchased a copy of LR5, you can still upgrade that to version 6.x (not subscription based like LRCC) for around $70 (in that ballpark).</p> <p> </p>