scott_blair1

Also, yes you can set exposure comp and flash comp. exp comp rules, sorta like changing the ISO. A common adjustment is negative exp comp for ambient, positive matching flash comp. This is great for outdoor portraits in shade with mottled sunlight on face. The result is to preserve the background, but remove the mottling. Or in bright sunlight to combat strong shadows on face, and get that old timey Kodak ad look.

Very simple with a N80 and ANY Nikon compatible flash. Simple, but requires a specific flash with the F100. I don't know what AV is, but I'll guess it is Aperture Priority. With the Nikon, set it to A for aperture priority. Select the spot metering pattern, choosing one of the five that best suits the composition (probably the center for a portrait). On the N80, set flash comp to -1.7 (which is absurdly ridiculous, but it's your picture. Nikon excels at subtle flash without adjustment. Stop reading so much ByThom.) On the F100, you will need to set it on the flash. (Shop wisely for the flash.) Less flexible, but the advantage is that the F100 has 1/250 synch, which may be important outdoors, especially if you use absurdly ridiculous ISO 400 film outdoors. That's it. To recap, select spot, turn on the flash, and shoot. Easy enough?

Oh, my, look at all this math to prove a point of aesthetics. It is entirely dependent on the picture; not the image, the <I>picture</I>.

I have the N2000, non-AF version. I think AI-S lenses are required for Program mode, but you won't be using that. AF lenses are AI-S anyway. So are the old Series E lenses. Good camera.

Without doubt, this is the most controversial Nikkor. I think anyone who has it and uses it regularly must spend little time online. As often as threads like this appear, we never see a follow up. Did they get it, did they get the 24mm instead, did they get an old manual body to use the old manual 28mm? Are they glad, are they sad, are they mad, were they had? Did they photograph a fox, did they keep it in the box?

Pierre makes a valid point. For some, B&W photography is an art form, a medium for personal expression, and the developing/printing a relaxing hobby/craft. What do you (Robert) plan to do with the pictures? For you, digital B&W might be a better way to produce a product, or communicate. These questions cannot be discussed out of context.

I don't know about a high power pack, but I bought the Vivitar AC adapter from B&H a couple of years ago. I don't know why they wouldn't still carry it. It was only about 25-30 clams.

Actually, I like the lighting. I don't like the black background, though. It doesn't fit the subject or his attire. Also, the pose doesn't fit, either. There is nothing wrong with black backgrounds, and any pose can work; this just doesn't look quite right. Sorta like the way a guitar sounds when one string is a tiny bit out of tune. Again, the light is just right for the subject, as far as I'm concerned.

<B>She</B> wants a digital point and shoot. <b>She</B> doesn't care about brand. The seven month old won't be seven months old in a few years. Get a Fuji or Olympus, 2 MP, that uses AA batteries. Whatever it costs, it will be less than child support.

Possibly you did not switch the camera to MF to disengage the AF drive?

It is little and light--that's why you get it. It has a definite sweet spot at f8/f11. It takes 52mm filters, a common size. There is little to recommend it above all other lenses, but if you can get one for a good price, and you want a zoom that you can wear around your neck, that's the one.

Throw out the dictionary. Words mean what people use them for. The dictionary is an ever-evolving record of that. I see the term voyeur used a lot in Photo.net discussions, and it seems to refer to something beyond curiosity--something more obsessive. <P>If that is Lisa's point, then there is indeed a quality about much of today's photojournalism that feeds voyeurism. Consider a tragedy that includes much death and destruction. Rarely will you see "police gazette" style photos of mangled corpses. That leaves the destruction itself, survivors, their families, and emergency personnel. Of the destruction itself, there may be many pictures to satisfy the curious, but there is little of interest for the voyeurs. For <I>them</i> will be the exhausted workers, the crying loved one, the horrified onlooker, etc. Those shots make up the bulk of images of a disaster, of any type, anywhere. They are basically the same anywhere. Strip away the attendant photos of damage and emergency efforts, leaving the screaming widow, the catatonic parents of lost children, the weeping officer mourning his partner, and you have the voyeuristic side of photojournalism. The photographers who shoot this stuff don't make the editorial policy, it's true; but these guys are always on the lookout for a prize-winning shot, literally, for their own purposes.

You are being stubborn about the Olympus cable. I have bought four of them in all--two different types, two each. All are in great shape after much use. You would buy all that other stuff to avoid buying something that costs less than any of it? Obviously you can afford it. You just feel it's a ripoff for that "little wire". You cannot slave any of the flashes you have with the Olympus. And a digital compatible flash will cost a bunch more than the cable. I use option number one above quite a bit. Remember you will need a Nikon PC cord for the Nikon flashes. SC19 I think it is.

The camera will need to be in aperture priority or manual. The flash in AUTO or manual.

1) Resize and crop<BR>2) Duplicate layer<BR>3) Bottom layer, unsharp mask, 150/2/10<BR>4) Top layer, Median, 2 pixels<BR>5) Blend layers, "Soft Light", top layer @ 50% opacity<BR>6) Flatten<BR>7) Just above left shoulder (his right shoulder) using Levels set black point<BR> 8) Duplicate layer<BR>9) Bottom layer, Sharpen Edges<BR>10) Blend layers, "Darken"<BR>10) Flatten<P>This workflow, with variations, works well on underexposed digital files, whether scanned, or digital capture. You could have scanned with different parameters, such as higher contrast, to supress the blue graininess in the background, but it's better to scan the way you did--low contrast and light enough for shadow detail, even if it brings in noise.

WRONG. I have the SB24 and N60. The flash will work for standard TTL, and you do not need to enter the ISO or aperture into the flash. However, you DO need to enter these values if you want to have the distance range chart to be correct. The "F" does blink continuously. If you press the select button to move to the ISO, it will also blink there. You will have to manually zoom (there is a button for that) with the N60. Flash compensation is not supported, but you can always switch the flash to AUTO. Then you certainly will need to enter the correct ISO and F.

Is the 7960 a larger format printer (12")? Epson's 1280 etc. are, and sure don't cost $100. I like the prints my Epson makes, when it's not clogged. I'm certainly looking at HP next time around.

Meaningless headshot: a close up of a skidrow bum's face, etched with "character", which makes the photograph "powerful".

It's called nostalgia. A few years ago it was about autofocus bodies versus the old rugged F's, when men were men and all that.

What makes people respond to a question like this when they have no experience with the lens? I thought that was the question.

To call a know-it-all an idiot is a bit smug.

I have gotten such an effect with an Olympus C4040 in two situations. One is going outdoors from AC into heat and high humidity, and the lens fogs up on the outside surface. The other is in cool misty conditions when the lens fogs up on the inside surfaces. The first clears up pretty quick, but the second case needs an overnight airing out.

Use slow film. Slow film equals wider aperture equals more flash power on tap. A common mistake shooting deep shade/sunny background portraits is to leave fast film in the camera, requiring a tiny aperture to expose the background (and add too much DOF), necessitating maximum flash output, compounded by extra flash-to-subject distance from probably using a moderate telephoto for the portrait. Then you have a well exposed, detailed background and dark subject. <P>Take a centerweighted reading of the background, and set it manually. Use the maximum synch shutterspeed. Then switch the camera's meter to spot (to control the flash--the ambient exposure is already set), flash to TTL, and you should have a perfect exposure.

If I have to shoot at such close distances (receptions, events, etc.), I turn the flash head around and tilt the head BACK to the first click. At any rate, I doubt the background will be uniformly white.

Exposure compensation does not magically select the background and ignore the subject. It adjusts the exposure, period. It's as if you switched to slower or (in your example) faster film. How could it NOT affect flash exposure?