Can't afford fast lens, should I overexpose for now??

<p>Hello photog friends, I have a D60 with a kit 17-55g 3.5-5.6. I want to get a faster lens, but cannot afford it at the moment, but have photo/portrait shoots coming up. Should I just overexpose slightly for brighter images in the meantime to get a closer result as to a fast lens?? I already have my saturation set to custom/vivid.</p>

<p>Don't overexpose your images whatever lens you are using.<br>

If you are taking portraits of people, it is generally a bad idea to have particularly highly saturated colours. It will make the people's skin look weird.<br>

Whatever choices you make, try to take some test shots before the date of people with similar skin complexions. That way you can choose appropriate saturation and exposure.<br>

If you shoot in RAW then you can apply the saturation afterwards in software like Nikon Capture NX2. That way, you don't need to make choices that you get stuck with.<br>

Good luck.</p>

<p>I would adjust saturation during post so as not to distort the colour and then have a harder time bringing it back to normal.</p>

<p>If indoor shoot: how about more lights. It's easy to rent from a local camera store.</p>

<p>If outdoor: If you can't afford to rent a portable strobe, then a bounce board and good reflector will help as well.</p>

<p>Hmm - there are assumptions in your posting that are not correct Christina. Just because a lens is faster does not mean the final image is brighter - you can make the final image from a fast lens as black as coal without difficulty believe me. It seems to me you need to do some reading on some of the fundamentals of exposure, depth-of-field etc and get to know what your exisiting lens does before embarking on other acquisitions.</p>

<p>I'm a bit confused with your goal, but here's some ideas:</p>

<p>First, shoot raw, and don't worry about your in-camera saturation levels. IMHO Vivid is way too strong, especially for portraits. Shooting raw will enable you to have much more flexibility with your highlights and shadows after the fact if you're unhappy with the original exposures.</p>

<p>Second, a faster lens simply gets you faster shutter times and the ability to put the background even more out of focus with larger apertures. Overexposing would take slower shutter speeds, increasing the chance of your subject moving (but probably not to big an issue with portraits). You can adjust the exposure compensation either up or down, just make sure that you are keeping you histogram from maxing out on either end, especially the highlights. Once blown, you cannot repair those, even shooting raw.</p>

<p>Also, a problem with very fast lenses, is at the widest apertures (1.4-2.8) you can sometimes put a portion of your subject's head out of focus, especially when shooting close. Definitely a feature some use in certain situations, but I think often portrait photogs shoot around f4 to make sure their subject is fully in focus.</p>

<p>One more idea, buy the 50mm/f1.8. Very inexpensive, beautiful and fast portrait lens. I've been shooting with the slightly nicer 50mm/f1.4 for years, and it never ceases to stun me with its quality.</p>

<p>A Fast lens will give you the same exposure as a slow lens only you can make pics with less light and with less DOF.<br>

1/500 at 2.8 50mm 100 iso will be exactly the same as 1/1000 4 50mm 100iso or 1/500 4 50mm 200 iso only the the DOF will be different and probably the sharpness too, but not the exposure.<br>

BTW a Tamron 17-50 2.8 isn't that expensive and a Nikkor 50mm 1.8 is even cheaper than that.</p>

<p>Two things a faster lenses will give you if quality is the same. The ability for proper exposure at lower light with the same shutter speed, the lense will allow more light if the aperture is faster, ie f2 instead of f2.8 or higher. Second the depth of field will be less if the lens is set to f2 verus f2.8 or higher. If you add light then the first is not an issue. If you want a narrow depth of field you have a problem that needs to be resolved. </p>

<p>Ok. So, then it seems maybe I'm going down the wrong avenue for results. Maybe a new, better, faster lens really isn't what I need at this point. Maybe I need to focus and just better understand and improve on just exposure in itself. </p>

<p>For a portrait you may be shooting around the 40-55 range where the max aperture will be f.4 to f/5.6 (for your lens). If you are worried that the images will be too dark, how about getting a flash? An SB 600 is around 220-230 bucks. The SB 400 is even cheaper but I've seen people strongly recommend the 600 over the 400.</p>

<p>Another alternative is to shoot at higher ISOs (perhaps even 1600).</p>

<p>yeah, I do have the SB600 but I'm just really ignorant with it yet, lol - Can't seem to figure it out!! guess I just need to practice ALOT more with it, and do more research on using it. Just don't like how sometimes it seems to "blow out" some of the details, even when I lower the strength.</p>

 

<p>If you use it directly, it will blow out details. You should bounce it - though even that needs a lot of practice to get it done right. I am still working on my bounce techniques :-)</p>

<p>Right, I agree fully with the bounce flash, but how do you bounce when you're outdoors?? guess I need to get one of those handy dandy attachment bounce covers for the flash.<br>

Thanks so much for your help Nish .... and everyone else. GOD BLESS :)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>You might confuse bounce from diffuse of the flash. You can do both. You diffuse the flash by either attaching one as you said, or bounce it against a reflector like a white background to make it softer.</p>

<p>You bounce your light source against a white board which you can grab at any art supply store or purchase a relatively inexpensive reflector (i.e. Photoflex) at a camera store. You will need extra help or a C-Stand/Light Stand that can clamp the board.</p>

<p>Ok. Got it. But what's your two different takes on diffused vs. bounced?</p>

<p>Christina, that's a subjective aspect which depends on the intent and artistry of the photographer. It just depends on the "quality" of light that you (as the photographer and which means how you see it) would want to achieve. How soft and indirect you want your light.</p>

<p>Also diffusion of light can also be achieved by bouncing it. The objective of both is to filter the specular highlight down to a softer look.</p>

<p>The best answer is to practice and try both on the same subject. Shoot with bare flash or any "direct" light source. Then try to cover with a diffusion material. Now try to turn the light source 90 degrees, then 180 degrees and let a white bounce board/particle board/etc be the source of reflection for that light source. You can then be more creative and try raising and lowering the angle and height of the light.</p>

<p>But ultimately is that there is no one correct way to creating a photo. What you have to know and be confident is what your eye sees and how you go about achieving it.</p>

<p>I know you said you don't have budget for another lens, but the 50mm f/1.8AF is only $125USD new and much cheaper used. It would give you a shallower depth of field which is usually desirable for portraits.<br>

Are you shooting full body, half body, or head shots? </p>

<p>You might want to pick up an 50.mm.1.8 E series lens!saved the day on my daughters wedding,& you can pick them up on the cheap</p>

<p>Brooks, that lens won't auto focus on her D60.</p>

<p>i would not use vivid for people pics unless you want unnatural skin tones.</p>

<p>that 50mm wont autofocus on any camera. but i second that motion. but it also may not meter, which might be a problem for the OP. but sounds like a great way to learn a camera.</p>

<p>Christina,<br /> <br /> If you want a lens for portraits that has a larger maximum aperture (faster), then look into the Nikon 50 f/1.8D. They generally go for about $100. I think this is pretty affordable. It is a nice sharp lens, and will give you the control of DOF that you want.<br /> <br /> Also, for sharp portraits in lower light situations, you might also consider a tripod. You can get a decent aluminum tripod with a tilt/pan head for around $250 (or less).</p>

<p>I great book is Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson. I highly recommend it for everyone to read. It teaches a lot of different techniques and helps you set up your camera for different shots.<br /> Ideally it's best to have the proper exposure but if you had to err on one way or the other, I would err on the side of underexposure (especially in RAW). With the exception of it sometimes adding noise to the shadows, it is easier to correct without losing highlights. Overexposure often loses highlights to the point of becoming white. Once the highlights are gone they are pretty much gone. Underexposing allows for a faster shutter speed which would simulate a faster lens. Overexposing generally would make the shutter speed slower.</p>

<p>Ok. well, the Understanding Exposure is definately something I will add to my library right away. I no doubt have far more to go into fully grasping exposure. Thank you. The 50 1.8D is definately a bargain, but I wouldn't have a good time without the autofocus on it. and I think my D60 only works with a G, right? However, I'm not sure what the E series is. Sounds like it's the same as the D though. As for diffuse and bounce, I will positively take that advice on experimenting between those 2 along with direct flash. Also will reconsider the Vivid choice for my camera's saturation. ~ I certainly appreciate ALL of the great advice, comments & suggestions from everyone. Photographers Are Good People :) :)</p>

<p>Can i suggest a book?<br>

john hedgecoe intro to digital photography.</p>

<p>Oh yes. Understanding Exposure is an absolutely brilliant book. Actually in my first 2 months with a DSLR I deliberately just read one section every few days and went out and practised the concepts till I got them right. So Christina I strongly recommend it.</p>