douglas lee

<p>Good advice from Nadine and Alex. I'll just add that I like ThinkTank. Nadine has mentioned the downside of them.</p>

<p>#1 -- seek out an accountant familiar with your state's tax laws.</p>

<p>#2 -- See answer to #1. However, consider that insurance may be cheaper and provide all the protection you need.</p>

<p>#3 -- Cash or checks, IMO. While you want to make it easy for clients to do business with you, there are downsides to credit cards. The fees are one. Another is that the client can initiate a charge back after the fact. I am aware of photographers who don't accept CCs for the retainer, but do for the final payments.</p>

<p>Bottomline, seek professional advice from a professional.</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This lens has substantial vignetting even on DX so I would very much doubt its usefulness on FX.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for clearing that up, Ilkka.</p>

<p>I don't think this is an either/or question. Generally one uses gels to match existing lighting. If your flash is going to be the dominate light source, thee isn't much need to gel. But that is just my limited experience.</p>

<p>Flipping it around, using a grey card won't help balance different light sources.</p>

<p>In your position, I'd go for the D300/D300s and something in the 80-200 range, if you can swing it. However, even though the 55-200 is a DX lens, it may actually cover the FX sensor at the long end. Perhaps someone else can confirm this? I know the 18-70 DX from my D200 could cover the FX sensor on my D700 past about 24mm. Just a thought.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>With your image/s open in LR go to the top menu ~ File >> Export ... you will then see some options ..follow them through. The most important one for you is the 'Post-Processing' section at the very bottom. That should already have Adobe Photoshop showing ... if not, choose your chosen application and then hit the 'Export' button. This will fire up Photoshop (if it is not already open) with your chosen image ready for Processing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>While that may be a work-around, it is not as useful as what the OP is trying do as you would have to re-import the files once you have completed your editing in CS4.</p>

<p>Are LR and CS4 up to date? Sorry, no help otherwise.</p>

<p>Just export the file as Summer recommended.</p>

<blockquote>

 

<p>I assume you cant upgrade just the ACR plug-in from 3.7 to whatever the version is that reads the D5000 nef files ?<br /> Do you have to have CS4 for a newer ACR ?</p>

 

 

</blockquote>

<p>You can't just upgrade ACR (in this case.)</p>

<blockquote><br /></blockquote>

<p>Reread Tom's reply and then follow his suggestion to not use BL indoors and try again.</p>

<p>Here is some info on the NiZn batteries in an SB-900 --</p>

<p>

<p>

<p>This was on the Strobist Flickr site, too.</p>

<p>Nadine, good point. The OP's SB-900 would be fine, since it has thermal cut-off. However, if one is using the flash that much, I would question the flash technique. But, that is me.</p>

<p>Mike, I have the D700 and indoors, with flash, I am at 1600-3200 ISO (as Nadine suggested.) I use MAHA and enloop batteries. I charge them with the MAHA C801C (?) and 2 C9000 chargers. The C9000 are the intelligent chargers from MAHA. If you want really fast recycle times, try the new NiZn(?) batteries. Reports are they are great with the SB-900.</p>

<p>I currently do more events than weddings. I did weddings back in the MF days with a Metz 45CL and Quantum battery packs (I mean the big ones you could stack together.) Never again. YMMV.</p>

<p>Not sure what your budget is, but given your current gear, I'd do this -- add another camera (D300, D300s, d90, or a used D200) plus the 17-55 (or 3rd party equivalent.) For get the turbo battery pack, for now. You can pick up a 70-200 later.</p>

<p>Even though the d700 has great high ISO and I would chose it over the D300(s) (I did), you are still going to need flash and know how to use it.</p>

<p>good luck!</p>

<p>Are you a guest or the photographer. You can't be both. They need to understand that. So, while you would be going to Boston on your own dime as a guest, you would have to charge them for it as the photographer. This is tough. Good luck.</p>

<p>Tal, I am not familiar with the Sigma version. Sorry. I have heard there is sample variation, but have no personal experience with that. </p>

<p>I own the 24-70, 50 1.4G and the 70-200 VR. I only buy nikon lenses. That is my personal choice. The 24-70 lives on my D700. I have never had a lens I have been so satisfied with. (Well, I used to own Leica, but we won't go there. :-) ) I bought the 50 as a back-up. I do weddings and other events on occasion, and need a back-up. Also, when I want to light, I remove the battery grip and put on the 50.</p>

<p>I am not clear on the details. do you still own the D700? If so, why downgrade? Doesn't make sense, IMO.</p>

<p>I have no issues with the 24-70, nor the Nikon 50 1.4. I use both on a D700.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And the ones that realllly need to care can afford high power strobes (i.e. not SBs) to get around the problem.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Rob, not sure what you mean by this as power has nothing to do with sync speed. Perhaps I am mis-understanding?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Don't forget to check the histogram and the blinking highlights displays. Any blinking must be compensated for immediately unless you're willing to lose most or all of the detail in those areas of the photo.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For JPG. Not necessarily for NEF.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Thanks for all your valueable feedback so far.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1 on that. I, too, appreciate it. Thanks.</p>

<p>PPA</p>

<p>Agree and would add the D3 supports high speed (FP?) flash allowing 1/8000 shutter speed, if need be. Although flash output is reduced.</p>

<p>Also, didn't the D70 support 1/500 flash sync? It has something to do with shutter design (other than size/weight.) But I forget the specifics.</p>

<p>Edited to add: Thanks Shun. We were posting at the same time.</p>

<p>Oh Great! Marc if you have a headache, imagine what mine feels like. :-) I gotta get another pot of coffee on and then re-read the thread.</p>

<p>My head is spinning! :-) Good info. Need more time to digest.</p>

<p>Nadine, not sure if anyone answered this part of your question re Nikon flash -- with Nikon, flash exposure compensation (FEC) and expsoure compensation work together, unlike the Canon system. e.g., you can set FEC on both the flash and the body. (I am assuming a D700, because it has a built-in flash.) So, if you set +1/3 on the flash and +1/3 on the body you get a +2/3 flash expsoure. (I am talking FEC.) Now, if you set exposure compensation to +1, the D700 will adjust the overall exposure +1 while maintaining the same ratio between flash and ambient. Canon doesn't work this way. Put another way, as you adjust exposure compensation up or down, the Nikon system will increase/decrease flash output accordingly to maintain the ratio of flash to ambient.</p>

<p>A neat thing with the Nikon system is that if you have the camera set to manual mode, then the exposure compensation button will affect flash compensation. Confused, yet? :-)</p>

<p>Hope this helps. Oh, I wouldn't use TTL BL indoors, usually.</p>

<p>That is the catch-22 of becoming a wedding photographer. The traditional route of assisting, 2nd shooting, primary shooting is going away as more and more people with cameras decide to become wedding photographers. Why would someone want to train their competition? Someone (on another forum) said they read statistics that the number of wedding shave declined 10%, but the number of photographers has increased 300% in recent years.</p>

<p>This is a problem for me, too. I did weddings several years ago for a local studio (back in the MF film days.) I am trying to break back into the field. I would love to work for someone to help me improve my photographer (a never ending process.) It is unlikely, however. I am viewed as potential competition. In actuality, I don't want to be. I would prefer to work for an established pro, improve my skills to the point where I could shoot on my own and then partner with the pro to grow their business, not mine. I am a very good 2nd fiddle and would prefer not to have the responsibility of running my own photography business in the Philadelphia/South Jersey area.</p>

<p>Well, I've rambled, sorry. But, as you can see, it is not easy. I wish you the best of luck in your pursuit of wedding photography.</p>

<p>-Doug</p>