Nikon Flash Question

My definition is if you can claim your photographic equipment and expenses for taking photographs on your Income Tax, you are a "Professional".

This bar is low because writing off some photo equipment is easy, and the $35 flash mentioned above would be an interesting item in this regard. The Washington Post defines a professional photographer as “anyone who earns more than 50 percent of his or her annual income from photography.” I would only change "annual income" to "annual living income."

Don't get me wrong, I love my Nikon cameras, they let me control my Cameron flashes remotely without extra flash triggers, my 50 dollars 55/2.8 Micro-Nikkor just as sharp as Nikon newest 58/1.4 available for $2000, $1950 in savings for me:)

Problem for Nikon started when photography gone digital, its not just camera or lenses anymore, its whole system , their software cumbersome and actually cost money, when competitors provide better programs and for free.

As for lighting, Godox and Profoto went really long way in quality since inception, they present way better value now.

Glad you are pleased with your great values, but other people may be pleased with what they have. If value is all one needs and wants, everyone would just about drive the same cars, wear similar clothing from Walmart. Re Nikon, they are fine, though not "perfect" in some people's minds. They will continue to stay for a long time IMO.

To op

Nikon SB-910 I-TTL Speedlight Flash [GN111, 35mm] {Bounce, Swivel, Zoom} $160 KEH.

Edited August 10, 2021 by Nick D.

This bar is low because writing off some photo equipment is easy, and the $35 flash mentioned above would be an interesting item in this regard.

 

I did write "off your TAXES" not just write it off the books. That requires you derive a certain percentage of your income from photograph. So inexpensive or expensive, you still have to make at least 50% of your income from photography or the IRS will not allow it. There are other requirements as well, but I am not a CPA.

Retirement comes to us all, eventually. So while I and I'm sure others here may no longer make a living 'doing' photography, I still like to take pictures. In fact (re)becoming an amateur is very liberating.

 

But, there's now no VAT reclaim, tax write-off, nor any other government perk to ease the price-tag or excuse overspending on equipment.

 

There are also youngsters just starting out in the 'game' that simply cannot afford the finest of everything, especially when it comes to simple stuff like lighting equipment. Clients just don't care what brand is written on your speedlights or studio strobes, as long as it gets the result. The photons coming out of the flash-tube have no Nikon, Canon or Leitz logo emblazoned on them!

 

Be that as it may. Those 3 well-known and widely used 3rd party flash manufacturers, named above, make entirely well put-together and useable equipment, and at a considerable saving over the comparable marque item. Plus their triggering systems are now, and have been for some time, entirely RF connected. Unlike Nikon's flakey 'Advanced' (hah!) Wireless Lighting optical communication.

Edited August 10, 2021 by rodeo_joe|1

BTW, and WRT the DIY aspect. You might want to look at some of Steve Sint's excellent video tutorials on studio lighting. Bits of string, gaffer tape, knocked-up wooden frames, cardboard baffles and tracing paper everywhere, but his end results were superb.

 

I was a great admirer of his postings on PNet and elsewhere on the web. Well worth seeking out.

WRT the DIY aspect

Ah, OK.

 

So, nothing to do with DIY flash-guns, as such. Big capacitors can kill you....:eek:

 

Just the light modifying bits and pieces everyone I know makes themselves ....:)

Retirement comes to us all, eventually. So while I and I'm sure others here may no longer make a living 'doing' photography,

What type of photography were you in? May we see some of your work?

Err, why are they RED, so as not to ruin peoples night vision when you use it for portraits? :p

Good question Mike.

Since lenses generally aren't designed to have their optimum focus in the deep red part of the spectrum, it makes no sense whatsoever to use red light for autofocus.

 

It might have its roots in the fact that early LEDs were only available in red, or that early silicon detectors were more sensitive to red. Who knows? But it's almost certainly not the best option these days..... Unless maybe you want a slightly mis-focussed picture.

What type of photography were you in? May we see some of your work?

I've posted plenty of my private stuff here.

 

My professional involvement was with industrial recording and promotion. Very boring but steady, and with employed or commissioned work you don't even own the copyright of the pictures you take. That belongs to your employer or whoever commissioned the work.

Unless maybe you want a slightly mis-focussed picture.

Soft focus portraits?

 

:cool:

My professional involvement was with industrial recording and promotion.

So mostly documentary where accuracy is important.

I've posted plenty of my private stuff here.

Don't see much other than some casual illustration. May be I am not looking everywhichway. Anyway, it's OK.

That belongs to your employer or whoever commissioned the work.

Yup, same here.

 

If I put up any of my 'paid-for' work, I wouldn't get any more.... It's a very small niche and everyone knows everyone. :(

 

Luckily, I have the time to do hobby stuff (usually natural history) too....:)

 

For lighting big interiors, think churches, having a bunch of YN-560iii or iv s that are all individually controllable in power and flash angle from the camera position is very handy indeed.

 

Oh, and very affordable....:cool:

Edited August 10, 2021 by mike_halliwell

It would be great if hobby photography makes a living wage.

For lighting big interiors, think churches, having a bunch of YN-560iii or iv s that are all individually controllable in power and flash angle from the camera position is very handy indeed.

Good if you have special permission to do the setup in private. Most famous churches and cathedrals - the ones most people would like to shoot - would not afford that kind of luxury. Some churches would not even allow flash. To me flashes are not necessary and may not even work well. Well-composed wide angle shots in slower shutter speed can yield respectable results.

Edited August 10, 2021 by Mary Doo

I didn't say hobby photography makes a living wage.

I didn't say hobby photography makes a living wage.

Mike, I was not referring to you in particular. I know several nature and wildlife photographers who make a good living from the "hobby". I won't include wedding photographers because most consider it as a job to be retired from some day.

Since lenses generally aren't designed to have their optimum focus in the deep red part of the spectrum, it makes no sense whatsoever to use red light for autofocus.

 

I am not sure that having light at the optimum focus is necessary. In phase detection autofocus, the camera is comparing the phase of light from two different sides of the lens. If the wave fronts are in phase, the image is in focus. Since the camera is looking for a difference, whether the focus at that wave is optimal should not matter. The suboptimal lens performance should be the same for both sides of the lens hence both images and cancel as far as focus is concerned.

 

The same should apply to contrast detection AF; the camera is simply trying for the best possible contrast. In fact some flashes use the red light to project a pattern, like a hash symbol, to aid contrast detection.

 

I think the reason a red light is used is to disturb the subject and others in the area as little as possible. It is the same reason red lights are used at night to keep night vision - think of the lighting on automobile dash boards or aircraft instrument lighting (at least on older aircraft), or World War II era submarines.

Due to chromatic aberration, different wavelengths are focused at different positions relative to the sensor plane. Thus there would be expected some focus error from using red light for focusing vs the ambient light without the focus assist light. But this may be a minor issue compared to not being able to focus at all. If the lens has no CA, all the better.

Due to chromatic aberration, different wavelengths are focused at different positions relative to the sensor plane. Thus there would be expected some focus error from using red light for focusing vs the ambient light without the focus assist light. But this may be a minor issue compared to not being able to focus at all. If the lens has no CA, all the better.

 

I see what you are saying, but I am not sure it will matter. Here is a link to the way I understand autofocus works (it saves me from writing it out and doing a poorer job of explaining) LINK: Autofocus - Wikipedia .

 

Since what is being compared is the phase of the beam from either side of the lens, the color should not matter, Red light from the left will have the same error as from the right and since the phases are compared (subtracted) the error will be subtracted out. Will it be perfect? Probably not, but it will be close enough not to make any difference and as you write it is "a minor issue compared to not being able to focus at all" or I would add, being so slow to focus you miss the shot.

The point I'm trying to make is if the lens has longitudinal chromatic aberration, you cannot get all the colours in focus at the same time. If you focus based on a subject lit by a red / infrared light, and achieve perfect focus using that light, then switch to another colour spectrum (white LEDs, for example) to illuminate the subject for taking of the actual picture, the red parts may still be in focus while the blue parts of the scene will be out of focus. However, as said before, whether this is a significant issue is not clear given the difficulty of obtaining a useable picture in very dim conditions in the first place. I know that some of my DSLR cameras (especially D800) had obvious focus errors dependent on the color of the light in the scene when using certain lenses that have significant LoCA, but this has since been alleviated in newer models. But ultimately if you have LoCA in the lens, then it is debatable, which colour should be used for focusing, and a well-corrected lens is inherently easier to use because of this.

 

I don't use the AF assist light because it is only active in single shot autofocus mode and I'm always in continuous mode and to go to single shot to get the light would throw off my shooting routine. Additionally some cameras have white light focus assist lights which are quite distracting to the subjects. The red / infrared light is much less noticeable, and that's what I'd use if I could get my head around switching to AF-S instead of AF-C, and then I'd have to remember to switch back - not going to happen. ;-)

Guys, OP was asking about some flash, isn't it?:)

Guys, OP was asking about some flash, isn't it?:)

 

I've got the SB-700 and like it a lot as a compact on-camera flash that can bounce the light. I haven't used the SB-500 or SB-400 so I wouldn't be able to give advice on those.

To me flashes are not necessary and may not even work well.

So I don't know why you chimed in with an 'unprofessional' snipe at those that prefer to use other than Nikon speedlights. Anyone that relies on flash lighting in a professional capacity wouldn't even consider that underpowered little SB-500 toy to be professional kit in any way, shape or form.

 

Even the likes of a couple of SB-910s, once they're inside softboxes, are only just powerful enough for something like a head-and-shoulders portrait at fairly close quarters and with an ISO of 100.

 

So what would someone sensibly spend a budget of about £600 on? Two SB-910s that'll barely get the job done? Or 5 or 6 YongNuo YN-560 IVs together with a radio trigger, offering more power, flexibility, backup redundancy and greater triggering reliability?

 

And which is the more 'professional' decision?

So what would someone sensibly spend a budget of about £600 on? Two SB-910s that'll barely get the job done? Or 5 or 6 YongNuo YN-560 IVs together with a radio trigger, offering more power, flexibility, backup redundancy and greater triggering reliability?

No contest.

 

I have an SB-800, which I use, but hate the menu structure. It's daft.

 

and a YN-685 when I occasionally need hi-speed sync.

Anyone that relies on flash lighting in a professional capacity wouldn't even consider that underpowered little SB-500 toy to be professional kit in any way,

Hmm, you are still hung up on this? I commended only because OP was mentioning it. OP did not ask for info about unproven and unverified DIYs and you supplied plenty. Are these the things your normally use?

 

So I don't know why you chimed in with an 'unprofessional' snipe at those that prefer to use other than Nikon speedlights.

Not sure what you are talking about. Of courses flashes are necessary in many situations and Nikon is a reliable resource for such equipment which are surely better than cheap DIYs in general. I have used and owned/own non-Nikon speedlights such as Metz, Olympus, even Godox, cube lights, LEDs...

Edited August 16, 2021 by Mary Doo