marshall

There are lots of good papers. The big difference between the 1290 and the 2880 is the difference between dye inks and pigment inks, and those do respond differently to different papers. The second big difference is that there weren't as many really good generic profiles for the 1290 available. Most people profile their papers for the K3 inksets.

 

I like the Epson papers quite a lot - I frequently use their Premium Lustre, which I much prefer to pure gloss for glossy prints. For matte/rag papers, I've used Hahnemuhle's happily, but I also am interested to do some more experimenting with the newer variety of papers that have matte-like surface but use the photo black inks for deeper blacks.

Perhaps it didn't turn out so well for the guards, but it also sounds from the article like these photographers were trespassing? Correct?

 

Look, everyone should be able to be free from violence. And I don't pretend to know the facts on any side of this story. But if they in fact did dress up and sneak onto someone's property to try to get pictures, then I think they were pretty likely breaking the law already, and behaving in a way that would probably by general agreement be unethical.

Wow. Definitely jump on evaphotography right now.

First things first: if it's still available, register your name. Then if someone does know your name, s/he can find you.

What, you didn't mean to describe Mike as a curmudgeonly book lover who's so misguided as to believe that good cameras come from someone other than Canon or Nikon?

 

Jes' kiddin' there, Mike. Welcome back...

If you're shooting in Manual modes, and use the SB800s in SU-4 mode, they'll just be triggered by the on-camera flash or PWs. In that scenario, you can use the SB80 alongside them exactly the same way. (I have done this with a D300, two PWs, two SB800s, and an SB80, so I know it works.)

 

However, if you want to do ANYTHING with CLS (which I think is your real question), then the SB80 will not work, since it doesn't understand CLS, and won't fire correctly in optical slave mode, because the CLS pre-flashes will (usually) trigger it, so it won't be going off during the main exposure.

That would certainly be a stretch. The license agreement allows two copies provided they are not in use at the same time, with the intent to allow a photographer to run it, for example, on a home/office machine when there and a laptop when in the field.

Not enough information. The venue's rules may matter. Mostly, though, the purpose for which you are selling the pictures matter. You probably cannot license for commercial use without permission, but what is it that you're considering?

There are a couple Actions available to help mimic Velvia from a digital file. Fred Miranda had one that cost money. Paul Bleicher wrote one that was free and did a pretty good job starting with original dRebel files. With a little tweaking, it does a pretty good job on other files. I think it's still available at Action Central.

The sensationalism of the subject line of this thread will probably make it challenging to find reasonable conversation in it.

 

As I see it, the only thing that Nikon is behind in is the a high-megapixel competitor to the 1DsMiii. By all reports, one should be out soon. Nonetheless, Nikon's sensor technology is up to speed, as evidenced by the D3, and now the D700, as well as arguably (within its segment) by the D300. In several other ways, some folks argue that Nikon's technology is superior (e.g., the iTTL system, though I'm not experienced enough with Canon's system to get into that argument).

 

So, I don't think it's as simple as saying that Nikon is clearly and generally behind. If you are simply sticking to pixel counts, and to that one high-end offering, then yes, Nikon does not have an effective competitor in the 20MP range yet.

"Originality" as a score is what it is: a little hard to work with.

 

Lots and lots of subjects are so well-photographed, and photographs are so easy to display, that the subject itself becomes a cliche, even when photographed very well indeed. That doesn't lower the quality of the next photograph. I mean, does the world need another photograph of an Eagle, or Antelope Canyon, or whatever? Possibly not, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep shooting, either.

If you want sharp with no blur, you need a faster shutter, which in this case, given the light levels you describe, means at least a faster ISO (try at least 800 if not 1600) and maybe faster lens as well. Your other alternative is to use flash to feeze action.

Concert shooting is written up a few places, and yes, that photo.net article definitely needs a refresh.

 

Short form of a couple things to think about: Lighting designers love fog because it shows off their lights. It wrecks the value of flash because you're just lighting up a wall of fog.

 

Stage lights tend to be 3200 degree lights, except that they really aren't because they're usually so strongly gelled, plus they don't stay consistent when dimmed. The stuff I've done tends to result in relatively decent color converted from raw anywhere between 2800 and 3300. Even then, just embrace the color.

 

Some shows are using LED-based lights that are brutal to work with because they're all one wavelength. Ok, not quite, but those lights aren't really correctable to "normal".

 

Like Jeff, I find that this kind of stuff requires higher ISOs. Rare is 800, likely is 1600, and sometimes required is 3200. Most of the time I've gotten away with 1600, but it depends a lot on the venue and lighting.

 

Lenses is totally dependent on access and what you are trying to do, so I won't get into it other than to say that I quite like the 17-50 when I'm close, a fast 85, and sometimes you can get away with something like an 80-200/2.8, but it'll often be pushing the limits of handholdability.

 

Not sure how much any of that helps...

Aren't we all in it to be loved?

 

It's gotta be near impossible to sort out the conflicting advice in this thread, but some of it at least explains the rationale, too, and the real question is what rationale fits best with your situation.

What is it that you are trying to do?

Strobist is a .com. strobist.com.

If it looks too good to be true, it probably is.

 

A lot of the others are scams. This has been discussed a lot in this forum and others.

Just in case it isn't evident, the "Av" mode that our Canon-toting friends are rightly mentioning is just called "A" on the Nikon.

I'm not quite sure I'm either "veteran" (one trip to Tanzania) or "seasoned" (except by allergies), but...

 

Gallon-size ziplock bags. Light, cheap, highly multi-purposeable, a minor slow-down in exchange for pretty good protection from an extremely dusty environment. The more durable solution is a drybag, but I find them to be much more of a slowdown because of the way most of them seal.

Is your monitor calibrated?

 

If just changing the color settings doesn't solve it, that would be the ideal next step.

Um, if you want the best possible quality, shoot the highest bit depth in raw. As to whether it will always make a noticeable difference, well, your mileage may vary.

"Seeing as though I live on the PLANET EARTH, I have seen so many complaints of d300 camera failure that I am now having misgivings as to whether I should invest a few thousand dollars in this system."

 

Please cite where you are seeing the complaints. I'm not saying there aren't any. However, as compared with the banding firestorm from the D200 release, I haven't seen much at all to suggest there are significant problems with the D300 and I haven't noticed any with mine or those owned by the people I'm familiar with.

 

Your mileage may vary, of course. On the other hand, there are SOME complaints about every new camera. (D200 banding, 1DmIII AF, D70 "BGLOD", the 1DsmIII has too much resolution, the D3 is too good at high ISOs, whatever...)

Can you establish that these are problems in significant numbers for D300s? I haven't had any trouble so far with mine. The mount has been fine, and the battery life has been excellent. I've heard that some folks have had a battery issue specifically when using the 70-200VR lens, which I don't own, but aside from some complaint threads on dpreview, I haven't seen it discussed much.

You're not calibrating to a specific color space. You're calibrating to a set of standard parameters and measuring the color performance of the device, which has its own, unique space.

 

Essentially, you pick a target white point (usually 6500k) and brightness level (varies, but is typically much dimmer than the monitor comes out of the box). The rest of it is measuring the device and creating a specific profile for its performance. No device specifically matches aRGB, sRGB, or other synthetic color spaces, and we shouldn't try to make them.

 

That's extreme shorthand for what happens, of course. There's a lot more specific information at www.digitaldog.net, in Real World Color Management, or in the forums here on a search.

And now I realize that you were specifically asking about the Nikon 12-24. D'oh. Anyway...