paul_k1664875007

Have used SB800's and SB910's for years for high volume shoots like catwalk and event Basically no problems, faster recycle times than with just the standard 4 AA's (obviously) or with the additional 5th AA, or even the Nikon SD 8A battery pack (a way overpriced item, easily be replaced with the cheap knock offs twidely found) You will need dedicated Godox to Nikon power cables though, which will fit the three prong entry in the front of the SB800 (and 910) unlike the SD 8A which can't be used with the SB910 Since the PB 960 has 2 power sockets (unlike tyhe cheaper PB 820), you can connect two speedlight to one pack (without negative effects for the recycle time) saving from the cost of having two SB960 packs Warning though, Since the recycle time is much shorter, it's easy to shoot at a much higher rate, and at further distance Since the SB800 has no thermal protection, there is a real risk of overheating (andf consequently even melting) the plastic front element of the flash Have run into it myself, but having several SB800's never was, apart from the esthetics, a real problem While the SB910 does have a thermal protection, which slows the recycle time down, that works much harsher on the SB900, where it simply shuts the flash down completely utill it thinks it cool enough (which is a lot longer then convenient)

i want know if i can get like this results below with Yongnou 50mm F1.8 if yes, how can i? https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2017/05/DSC00068-Edit-800x534.jpg https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1494/26628490566_257a0f7907_b.jpg Realistically speaking, no, not possible with a 1.8/50mm The images reffered to are not only taken with the lens at most likely the widest possible aperture, but given the ' optical compression' or 'flatness' also with a lens with focal length (much) long(er) then a 50mm While a 50mm 'translates' into a virtual 75mm on a Nikon DX thanks to the 1.5 crop, even with a FX body getting a similar OoF background is hard to achieve with a 1.8/85mm, shallow DoF yes, but 'flatness' no And that's not even taking into account that, due to the 1.5 crop an image shot on a DX body at a certain aperture and lens will, compared to an image shot at the same aperture and lens result in a, at least when looking at the final image, deeper DoF compared to the image taken with a FX body Based on my own experiences (next to my FX bodies I still have a D7100 I at times use with a 1.4 AF D lens) I have found it will take a 1.4 50mm, rather then a 1.8 50mm, wide open to get that kind of shallow DoF Similarly I have found that on an FX body it will take at least a 2/135mm wide open to be create both the shallow DoF and optical compression as shown in the enclosed image (D800 2/135mm DC 1/320s f/2.5 at 135.0mm iso1000 ) I would recommend to try and get hold of a 1.8/85mm, which on a DX body will become a virtual 135mm and when used wide open very likely will give both the shallow DoF and desired 'compression' on a DX body

Using a digital camera as a 'substitute' lightmeter is simple, and far easier then using a 'regular' lightmeter The latter, because, unlike using a 'normal' lightmeter where you take a reading of the light and that hopefully will be correct (but could well be completely wrong if you didn't take take into account/balance the readings for the high light and shadow parties in the scene) with a digital camera you can take a try out picture to see if the reading was correct, and based on what you see on the LCD if necessary make a correction/ adjust your settings. In the film days that was common practice too, although back then we used Polaroids for that purpose At the cost a lot of extra money just for the Polaroids alone, plus for the madatory additional Polaroid backs for large and medium format camera's, and if you had the money eg NPC backs for 35mm bodies (which basically meant you had to have an extra 35mm body just for use with the NPC back) Just dial in the ISO of the film you are using on Hasselblad on the digital Set your lightmetering in the digital camera on Manual as described in page 41 of manual of the OMD E1 (found an official free download one here Downloads - Olympus) Assuming you want as much DoF as possible and therefor put priority on the aperture number (and based on the film and available light will have to adjust your shutter speed) dial in the same aperture you have set on the Hassy on the Oly Then change the shutter speed on the Oly faster or slower until you get a 'correctly' exposed image on the LCD of your Oly Copy that shutter speed on the Hassy And you're done If you instead want to use the shutter speed as leading instead, eg when taking a shot of a fast moving subject where you want to 'freeze' the action procedure would be slightly different Copy shutter speed selected on the Hassy on the Oly, and play around with the aperture of the digital camera untill you get a 'correct' image, and copy that aperture number on the Hassy

Nope, not possible On Kickstarter a project for an injection molded back for Hasselblad V type camera's using Instax film was launched, but it was called off very soon after the launch and never turned into reality There are several videos on Youtube on (trying?) to do so including this DIY apparently succesfull one but that's about it There also was an article on DPreview on how someone 'converted' a Fuji Instax Mini camera for use on a Bronica How to hack a Bronica ETRS to shoot Fuji Instax Mini film but it's a lot of wofk and the endproduct looks a bit wonky (apparently the images taken with it are OK) Pproblem is the structural difference in developing technique used, the type 100 and 4x5 inch Polaroid back can be operated fully manual, while the Instax Wide camera's use an electrically operated developing system

Have shot professionally (fashion/catwalk, but mainly sports/surf) in the past with single digit D bodies starting with the D1, then D1H/D1X/D2X and finally D3 in 2008 (early adapter) Agree with the observation nothing handles as good as them (apart from the size and weight) Didn't upgrade from the D3 to the D3 as the improvements were too incremental (for me) to justify the expense (and financial hit if I would trade in my D3 in the process) for upgrading By the time the D4 hit the market my main market had shifted to fashion, so I didn't need its superior AF and high ISO anymore and got a couple of higher megapixel D800's instead The DF admittedly was a camera I didn't really needed, but I liked the smaller size, and button and dials set up reminding me of my F2AS and FE shooting days Justified the purchase to myself pointing at the manual focus glass I still had lying around from that era :) Of the three bodies you mention, the D4 is the 'best', not only for the high ISO (although some reports claim the D3s betters it in that area by a small margin), but also low light AF Agree with the reservations about the QXD cards Having recently bought a (2nd hand, low clicks )D850 I was unpleasently surprised how costly those are (although fortunately for me they were included in the 'package' of body, 2 QXD cards, extra battery and a QXD reader I got for a surprisingly low price) Having had the D3 myself for I guess a decade (only recenly sold it, also to partly finance the purchase of the D850, as I had not used in earnest for years after I got my D800's in 2012), I'm convinced the D3s still is an amazing body depite how 'old' it is. But the 12 MP leave little room for error/cropping, and the AF is (by modern standards) showing its age. Love the DF, basically has the same sensor, and consequently high ISO capabilities and beautifull IQ, as the D4 But the AF with the 39 points 4800 FX AF module definitely is a step back compared to the 51 points Multi-Cam 3500 FX in the D3S and D4, something you'll inevitably run into when shooting under low light/;ow contrast conditions (why otherwise invest in a 'crazy' high ISO capable body) Hard to make a definitive recommendation But assuming you are considerng the buy one of them for actual low light shooting and not just GAS, I would say D4 if you have the money (for the body, but also the QXD cards) Best, most recent (of the 3) low light AF, great 'crazy' high ISO capable sensor with beautiful IQ D3s in 2nd place, not just because it's the cheapest, but also because despite its age and 'low' megapixels it still is a very body that still delivers impressively well both in the AF and high ISO areas despite its age And last but not least the DF, although as said love the DF, will never part with mine But apart from the great sensor, the AF is a bit disappointing especially when shooting (fast) moving low contrast subjects under bad light (basically only the center AF point can handle those conditions well) so for that reason for me for practical reasons ends as 3rd of the 3 bodies you mention Still, for 'sentimental' reasons love the form factor, the dials, and its capabilty to handle any Nikon F lens, even the few pre Ai ones I have HTH

Funny how little people nowadays know about the real world high ISO options of film, nor have realistic expectations of what is possible with with While the IQ at ISO 3200 is quite acceptable and and good IQ at that level is attainable with a high end digital camera, with film it's a whole different story To begin with, don't know what lab you're planning to send your film to, but for this type of work the standard lab on the corner of the street or at your drugstore won't do You'l have to send it to a 'black and white film only' specialized one And of course push processing any of the three films mentioned to 3200 ISO will demand special processing, and of consequently cost a substantially more then 'just' standard development In my film shooting days push processing would cost 100% per stop, so eg Tri-X - standard ISO 400 - at ISO 3200 would mean 3 stops extra, is 4 times the standard development costs (and no TMZ 3200 isnt standard ISO 3200 and needs special developemnt to be used at that level too) But more importantly, it can without a doubt can already be said that with neither of the three films mentioned a similar IQ can be achieved at ISO 3200 as in the images shown, not as far as grain is concerned, nor sharpness, not variety of b/w/graytone Have been a long time Tri-X user (well over 30 years) in my film shooting days, and based on that real world experience (as opposed to reading what the flyer with the film claims that supposedly is possible) dare say that unless you use very, very specialized developers, ( which as a rule most labs don't, apart from the question whether any of those developers are still available), ISO 800 realistically is the best you can get with it before IQ and grain start to deteriorate Going towards IS) 1600 the grain will become probably way too much for modern days viewers who already start complaining when they see ANY grain in their digital files And ISO 3200 simply is a no go area no go with Tri X, unless you can live with extreme grain and consequently unsharpness, similar to what happens when shooting a digital camera way past its stated max ISO ceiling (eg a Nikon D3 at ISO 25600) TMY is a similar story, great between ISO 100 and 400, still pretty good at ISO 800, but above that grain and IQ will take a hit too TMZ is very grainy to begin with. While ISO 3200 theoretically is possible, grain will show even at ISO 400, and rapidly become excessive and image IQ will severely suffer going higher Personally I used TMZ exactly for that reason (see enclosed image), developed in Rodinal would give 'pebble sized' grain. But back in the 80's there was room and appreciation for such 'creative' very coarse grain) I would start to look for a different, much faster lens A 4.5-5.6/70-300 is nice for shooting digital on a sunny day, but an unrealistic option to use with low level 'lighting' (and that includes the 'golden hour', I shoot fashion on the beach at that time of day regularly) Given that for the three images shown in each picture a different lighting was used, no sensible suggestion can be given for that either. You will first have to decide yourself what look you want the pictures to have befor any advise can be given what lighting set up to use In short, re adjust your expectations on what you think you can achieve with film as far as high ISO use is concerned, get a better - faster - lens to shoot the job, and decide/determine more clearly what you want your picture to look like, right now you are giving three different examples

The one thing that is a step back is the battery usage. I get maybe 250-300 shots out of a charge, if that. Rear display is off unless activated. With the D700 I would get 3 times that .... Maybe it's the way it is. Same behavior on both batteries, both real Nikon batteries. The batteries also run down when not used. Often I will see 94% or so when they were added to the camera a few days earlier after a full charge. They were 100% when they went in. Wifi is off etc. No extraneous usage or "leakage" that I can think of. Haven't shot as little as 250 to 300 shots per battery since the D1/D1H/D1X days Since then with the D2/D3/D800 never fully depleted any battery despite at times shooting several 1000's of shots That number may sound a bit excessive, but refers to while surf and catwalk, i.e. repeated short bursts of several shots eg when a surfer makes/might make a possibly spectacular acton or a model while he/she walks the length of the catwalk Must admit with the D800 and D850 I always have a spare battery at hand (a grip with another EN EL 15/15a) which I as a matter of precaution swap about halfway a shoot (by changing the battery sequence between body and grip in the menu) But the 'first battery' as a rule always shows to still have 60% (and usually more) left despite that I always have the control image ON, use auto ISO and AF-C on. Obviously no Wifi, Blue thingie and other frivolities switched on Don't do much fiddling around with the settings nor play around with Live View all the time to get the 'perfect' set up before shooting/with each shot though, which obviously also avoids draining the battery a lot. And I always take it out when I'm not using the camera Haven't really put my D850 to the test with many shoots yet But with the one catwalk show I did shoot with it (perfect testing ground to find your way with a new camera) ended up with around 1350 shots in the setup as described above. The battery still showed around 70% charge left achterwards

Sold my long time owned D70S a couple of years ago and 'upgraded' to a D7100 (I use full frame for my 'real' pictures) I constantly ran into the relative slow AF, limited high ISO and small problem, and the difference between the menu's of the D70S and my more recent D3/D800/s/DF were driving me crazy While the D710 similarly only has a 5 RAW buffer (although that can be doubled when only shooting compressed 12 bit RAW's) the IQ, faster AF, improved high ISO and menu's were a big step upward (and away from frustration) That said, in all honesty my 'upgrade' was rather based on a luxury 'problem' then on having real working life issues with the D70S The IQ is actually quite good for 'only' 6 megapixels, just like the IQ if you stay below ISO 800 Similarly the AF is still well up to the job under good light, and under bad light still holds its ground surprisingly well (used it for catwalk, which often is under only so so lighting, and even at one time found myself shooting a wedding with it, including the 'church' shots) As far as a 'new' camera is concerned, plenty of (also Nikon) alternatives around under $1000 Eg a 24 megapixel D3400 kit (body plus kitlens) will only cost as little as Eur 399 where I live (In the Netherlands) and around US 400 at B&H. While the UI is simpler, it has as mentioned more pixels, better IQ, video and all the goodies that have become kind of standard on DSLR's For Eur 739 you can get the very recent D5600 brand new with a kitlens over here, and there even a big photo chain has a special deal on the D7200 (after Eur 200 cashback and depending on the price for a trade in body possibly as low as Eur 732) So plenty of options: keep the old workhorse, it's quite up to the job within its limtations, or buy a new Nikon, quite possible while staying well under the max $1000 you have in mind (leaving enough money for eg a mirrorless, although I never would go on holiday, or a job, with a new camera I not used to yet/am not sure about yet)

I think you're concentrating on the wrong thing if you are worried about your photography, especially fashion, because someone is better at retouching IMO that's a technical skill that can be taught with enough time and exercise And if you do lack the talent, there are plentyof excellent programs for that (eg Portrait Pro), or else simply hire a specialized retoucher for it (back in the film shooting days photographers who could afford it had their personal 'printers' just like nowadays some photographers have their 'own' retouchers) To become a proficient fashion photographer, you need not only to have photographic skills, but also, and IMO more importantly affection and knowledge about fashion And that is more then just ogling at the images in fashion magazines regularly and dreaming about making similar images Or just like a madman shoot (literally) thousands of images in a one hour shoot (I remember well/with horror one of your earlier posts Portrait composition... :( ) When originally when I made my first steps into photography I was only indirectly interested in fashion photography. I liked the beautiful images and pictures, but basically considered it way over my head But shortly after I in the early 80's started my professional photography at the Royal Academy of Arts in The Hague, I got a girlfriend who was a aspiring model As more or less standard with aspiring models, especially in those pre digital days when not everyone with a camera declared himself a professional photographer and gave away his pictures for free, she didn't have the money for paid testshoots (test shooting was still a serious business back then, again unlike nowadays when everyone with a digital camera thinks he can shoot 'model pictures') So I soon found myself to be the 'Chinese vrijwillger' to take pictures for her portfolio, for free of course (In Dutch we have a saying "een Chinese vrijwilliger" - literal translation: Chinese volenteer - which we often use figuratively. When we use it in that way, we imply that we simply pick someone out of a crowd, very often against his will, to perform an unpopular job) (Being a Chinese/Indonesian/Thai/Dutch mix myself, can appreciate a little self-depreciation. So don't take it too seriously, and don't feel offended by it:)) But to get there I didn't just focus on the photography (although that was an obvious mandatory part, although not taught even at my then school) I started eg to try and pick up knowledge about make up, to be able to easier/better communicate with MUAh's regarding the look of a make up they had applied and perhaps wanted adjusted Rather then just blur out 'I don't like that' or give nonsensical 'instructions "do a a natural make up with big lips and false eyelashes' Along with that I started collecting books on the history of fashion photography, to see how it started, came from and what directions it has taken over the years And to get to know the really important names that stood out and lasted throughout the years, rather then as nowadays too often is the case be 'impressed' with every new kid on the block who makes ' a name' on an internet site or has gathered likes on Facebook (and fades away just as fast after some time) Also found some books about styling, again learning that way the several 'eternal' looks that always come back in some shape or form, like 'the little black dress' , the 'gamine', or 'classic' (30's, 40's 50's) look So I would become better at /able to easier see/recognise what a model was wearing or tried to convey with her clothes, and communicate with a stylist about before and during a shoot And pick a style of photography that would best go along with it, eg a high fashion look may most likely not go well with a grungy shooting style, nor 'Heroin chic' with a main street catalog shooting approach And I didn't just start shooting 'fashion' despite my model girlfriend I started modestly, well aware of my limits and the (low) quality of the 'fashion' images I shot at that time But I tried getting to know (networking as that is called knowadays) other people who shot fashion, or did something in fashion, to observe and learn what they did, and how Admittedly being Europe based, especially in those days it was easier to go to Paris to try and meet people and hear their opinion on what I did Bback then the treshhold was much lower in that respect. Nowadays everybody is an expert whose 'valued' opinion can only be begged for) But oh yes, I did get slaughtered the first couple of times ;) I did finish my school succesfully eventually, and after some years, and in the meantime having spent 'apprentice' time in London and Milan, eventually made my steps into fashion photography But it wasn't just going to school 'learning photography' and then automatically being a succesful photographer just because/after I had graduated

In my experience and opinion backlight is (much) better With sidelight you'll have a lit and a shadowside Which strong light (mid day sun or sunset) will risk giving / most likely though will give a deep shadow and thus high contrast between the lit and shadow side Especially when shooting a large group, is again IMO (and experience) it's better to find a high position to shoot the group from With a low position you will have the people in front shielding the people behnd them, who then only will be visible with their face, or worse only part of their face Sure, could be solved with the people in the front lying down, next line on thier knees, third line standing up straight, line in the back standing on benches or someting similar But getting all of them in those positions, and the risk of getting clothes dirty eg when the ground is dirty, or people simply not willing to get their clothes dirty make it less easy and obvious then it seems The times I've had to shoot a large group (business meeting with around 300 participants) I had them standing next to each other, in three lines behind each other, and shot from several feet high standing on a collapsible stairs I then asked to look at me, due to my position that meant upwards, and thus avoided the risk of people getting hidden by the ones in front of them As they were looking to the sky and basically were lit frontally, it also meant less double chins, and less risk of unflattering shadows in or under noses, eyesockets etc (and looking up makes making a grumpy face harder) Also due to the higher position, I was getting more of the surroundings in the shot, and less sky, and automatically less risk of a lot of burned out sky My two cents

I have to ask though, TIFF? Really? They're only capturing 8-bit data, so you're losing a lot of ability to perform retrospective edits - to white balance as you suggest, but also for highlight and shadow recovery. Well, not "losing" as such, just not having very much information to do it with. Is it not worth at least using Adobe's DNG converter to get raw files to a standard format for your older software to use? If your main reason for using NX2 is the U-point interface (and I've never used it at all, so I appreciate it may not be), it's available with current raw conversion in DxO's software. Must admit I was concerned for the possible loss in IQ and room for corrective processing using TIFF instead of NEF's But admittedly I'm a bit of a sloppy photographer more cooncerned with capturing the mood/moment of a picture and less (far too little :p) concerned to get the ultimate IQ out of every pixel Also I'm a bit of a cheapskate and despite laying down several thousands of Euro's for a new body, if possible prefer not to spend too much extra cash for a piece of software (eg reason why I never went full scale into Photoshop, and only grudgingly bought Nikon NX2 long time ago) But as they say 'The proof is in the eating' so as my first ''real world' shoot I last weekend went to shoot a catwalk show Catwalk shows are my preferred subject to put a new camera to a serious test : fast moving subjects, often gad/dodgy lighting, constant, in a split second (re)framing and consequently refocusing on the subject (perfect to find out how fast/responsive the AF really is) Here are links to two original pictures (apart from converting to a smaller JPG untouched) and their processed versions (for some unknown reason I can't upload all ofthem) KABK_0610_20180616_Orig.jpg by Paul K KABK_0610_20180616_Processed.jpg by Paul K KABK_0633_20180616_Orig.jpg by Paul K KABK_0633_20180616_Processed.jpg by Paul K Coud have done worse I think

Recently started using XQD cards, had two Sony XQD G 64GB cards included with the almost 10K clicks 2nd hand D850 I recently bought Also included were an extra EN EL15a and a QQD card reader, pricetag was Eur 3300 for the whole package (original purchase price Eur 4400), which left after deduction of the MRSP price of the 'extras' basically left a purchase price of around Eur 2800 Eur for the body. As I was able to very soon after that sell my old 2nd hand bought 120K clicks D800 for Eur 650, it actually cost me Eur 2150, so not complaining :) For my first outing, shot a speed cycle race in my local town, to put the AF and buffer to the test (together with the improved High ISO those were the main reasons why I bought the camera; coming from the 36 Mp D800, I'm not that impressed with the step up to 45Mp's) Found the AF setting I got the best results with was good old 153 Dynamic AF with 1 manually selected AF point 3D and Group AF couldn't keep up with the moving fast (45 to 50 kmph) toward me cyclist (admittedly lighting wasn't ideal, late in the afternoon, overcast after rainshowers) The buffer clearing (and writing speed) due to the XQD G cards was a noticeable huge step up from the D800, even despite that I was shooting Medium sized TIFF's As I am a die hard NX2 user - which doesn't work with eg Mac OS Sierra -, my computer runs on OS 10.8.x, and consequently can't run the latest edition of NX D required for D850 NEF's either (don't have/use any other 3rd party RAW processing software like CS or Capture One etc) The 77 Mb Tiff's are size wise roughly in the middle between a Medium and a Large format 14 bit NEF, and can be processed on my I7 Mac Pro (with a SSD) without any problems/slow down compared to processing eg my 45 to 50 MB 14 bit lossless compressed D800 NEF's Only option I 'lose' is the ability to change the WB in Capture, but fortunately as I found out the Auto WB of the D850 has very much improved and can be relied on (stayed far away from it in the past on eg my D800's, DF and D3) I did run out of buffer at certain moments, but that was only when shooting high fps (with a clone MB-D18 with the 2nd EN EL15a, so at least 7 fps) series of cyclists coming toward me, usually after around 35-ish shots Based on that, I don't expect any 'buffer' problems for the real life shooting I intend to use the D850 for, like catwalk, outside location fashion etc. (shot a large vent catwalk show last Saturday and as expected didn't) I'm not using the SD slot as I'm not shooting JPG's (with the D800 I shoot NEF + Basic JPG, and store the NEF's on the CF, and JPG's on the SD card) although I found a use for it to hold my Eye Fi card I can use that card to, after reformatting a TIFF in camera to a (smaller sized) JPG which I then store on the Eye Fi Card, be able to send a JPG to my tablet without running into the well known and much discussed (and complained about) problems with the Nikon Bluetooth and Snapbridge options

Bought my copy of the 43-86 back in 1979 a.o. together with my F2AS, still have it myself, although just for nostalgic reasons In its days it was, despite the limited zoomrange (not really wide at the short side), useful as an affordable short zoom But from an optical and IQ point of view it wasn't the best one around and consequently has little value 2nd hand nowadays The 2.5/105 P already was kind of legendary for its IQ in the film days, and still is nowadays There basically are based upon the lens design two versions of the P series 105mm, the Sonnar design P, and the later (since 1971) Gauss PC version See eg Bjorn Roslett's review at NÆRFOTO Bjørn Rørslett (you'll have to do some scrolling and clicking to find the short review) Based on the #198xxx serial number you mention I after some research on Nikon Lens Versions and Serial Nos get the impression your copy is a pre 1971 Sonnar version Value can between well over $200 for a mint one, to maybe little over $75 for a dingy one ( I recently got an early 1971 Gauss one for Eur 120) The sales value for your copy probably will take a hit though since it's a non Ai and consequently can't be used on most modern Nikon DSLR's, so IMO don't expect too much

Seems a bit of a weird proposal to me The party that has approached you is an 'international dating site' Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's a fair assumption their core business is getting interested parties in contact with each other / creating a platfom where interested parties have the opportunity to see each others 'profile' and if desired get in contact with each other 'to make a date' So the most essential/important content of the site is the (personal) info of the subscribers, and a picture of them I fail to see what the real added vaue of pictures of places where you and your girlfriend travel to, so basically images of landscapes and cities, is. They can get images like that just as easy, assuming you're paid a fair price probably cheaper, and with far less possible legal issues from a stock agency If they nevertheless still want to use the pictures of the places you and your girlfriend travelled to, it's standard to agree upon in writing about the intended use, period of the intended use, ownership and copyrights of the images used (during and after the period of use agreed upon, to avid the 'dating site' eg selling your images to other parties during that period ) Of course a clear term should be included for the period (beginning at, and finishing at) during which the pictures (landscapes and cities) can be used (only for the intended use of course) Likewise it should also contain a waiver (from them to you) shielding you from any possible claims of people that might be visible on the pictures The latter normally is a 'problem' for the photographer, especially in the light of the recent 'upgrade' of the International Privacy rights, basically something which is/should be taken care of in/with a 'Model Release'. But as they will now become the user of the images, and responsible for a wider distribution of the images, it should be/become theirs It becomes a different story though if they're really after images featuring you and/or your girlfriend, the two of you basically becoming the face/posterboy/girl/couple of the site From a privacy point of view, do you/does your girlfriend wish to so? From a money point of view, how much do you/does your girlfriend get, in addition for the fee agreed upon for the use of the pictures, paid for the use of your/her portrait rights? Please note that for a 'model' (eg from an agency) there always is an extra fee (in addition for the shooting day) to be paid for the right to use the images eg for a campaign, poster, TV, etc. and in this case 'profile' of the dating site At such occasion it's as mentioned before also standard that apart from the price, a fixed term is agreed upon (in writing) for the duration of the period the images to be used, as well as provisions on ownership of the images and copyright, and possible reselling of them And not to forget for the intended and agreed upon purpose of that use, in particuler important for avoiding to your surprise see the images of you/your girlfriend featuring on other sites then the one you thought only to given permission for And is there a provison in the contract for the responsibilty of the 'international dating site, for, in case of such abuse, undertaking the necessary legal and otherwise necessary action(s) - by them- to have such abuse ceased and terminated, and payment of damages (by them to you, independent of the payment of the parties caught in that abuse to the 'dating site') as compensation in case of such abuse? I know, a lot of legal issues nowadays looked over in this age of image stealing from Facebook (who in its own right already is notorious for appropriating the copyrights of images posted on its site) and simply the Internet at large, but no less important to look into nevertheless

It reduces the shutter speed to 1/focal length (it knows what focal length the zoom is set at) and then starting to raise the ISO. That I know for sure. Did a quick and dirty test with my D7100 and 3.5-5.6 DX 18-55 kitlens Camera behaves as described above, when using A(perture) mode in combination with Auto ISO it dials down the shutter speed to 1/focal lenght and then raises the ISO depending on the amount of light (in the case of the 18-55 it chose 1/60th, probably due to the slow max aperture) I believe more modern bodies (then the D7100 and D5300) take the focal length used into account when calculating the shutterspeeds if Auto ISO is used with A mode, but don't have a more modern one around to verify that That said. while I use Auto ISO a lot, I always set my camera on M (Manual) exposure That way I always have control of both Aperture and shutterspeed, unike A (Aperture) mode where I control the aperture (and DoF) but risk getting a too low shutterspeed in case there's too little light Sure, if it's 'dark' I risk ending up using higher ISO values, but I still prefer a slightly more noisy sharp image over a low noise but due to camera shake blurry one