jettlich

<p>Thanks for your honest opinion, John. No - they are not paying me, and don't expect much. In fact, they had just said, "could you take a couple pictures?" So, I just wanted to ATTEMPT to do a bit more than that and at least know a bit than I do right now, going into it. Again, thanks for your honesty . . . </p>

<p>A friend and her fiancé are having a small, brief wedding this Saturday. I have been asked to photograph.<br>

I usually do portraits of children and families (mostly amateur, but some professional). I'm very comfortable with outside photography with available light only. This event will be inside a church (with very few windows), which puts me a bit out of my zone of comfort and experience.<br>

Here is the equipment I have. Could you please give me any hints and insights? Not exactly sure what the best combo would be. Thanks a ton in advance!!<br>

Nikon D600 (love it!!)<br>

Nikkor 85mm 1:1.8D<br>

Nikkor 50mm 1:1.8G<br>

Nikkor 24-85mm 1:3.5-4.5G<br>

Nikon Speedlight SB-800 (which I rarely use)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hello at Photo.net.<br>

I'd been using a D90 for 4 years, and recently upgraded to the <strong>D600</strong>. I'm really happy with it!<br>

I'd been using the <strong>50mm 1.4</strong>D w/ my D90 for portraits. Unfortunately, it dropped off a shelf a few weeks ago and the AF no longer works. We sent it to Nikon for a repair estimate to find that $220 is the prediction. Seems it might be more economical to just buy a new one from BH or an excellent-condition used one on BH or KEH.<br>

Anyway, any other suggestions on the 50mm? Should I change to the G instead?<br>

Also, I'm considering getting an <strong>85mm</strong>, likely the 1.4. I know the D will work on the D600, and is much more affordable than the G. I'm not a 'pro' but do a lot of portraiture of family, friends, and as a hobby. Love it. So, I'm thinking the 85mm D might be the best choice for me. Thoughts?<br>

Any feedback on D600 in combo w/ my broken 50mm (and whether to fix, buy new/used, etc.) and which 85mm to choose would be MUCH appreciated.<br>

Thanks a bunch!</p>

<p>Unfortunately, the other day, my Nikkor AF 50mm 1:1.4D lens that I've been happily using for 4+ years dropped off a shelf, about 4 feet down onto a wooden floor. When I examined its appearance, things looked fine, I didn't think much about it and counted myself thankful that it didn't get damaged. However, today I got out the lens and the thing will not AF at all. The outer focus ring on the lens seems stiff and like it won't loosely, naturally turn to adjust to the focus. Yikes. I'm assuming it's a goner. But wondered if anyone else may have had a similar experience, and if you got it fixed - how much might something like this cost? Thanks! Jenna</p>

<p>Thanks, Tony. My husband ended up reinstalling the Plug-in and now all the D600 icons in Bridge, Lightroom and PS are viewable again. I don't know what went wrong, but somehow the D600 icons went from present and viewable, to present but not picture-viewable (just the word "NEF" in the picture view area of the icon), and now to viewable again after a reinstallation of the Plug-in. I'm just writing this response in case someone else has a similar problem in the future; perhaps viewing what we did to get the icons back will help them! Thanks.</p>

<p>I JUST got the D600 and am so excited. We also just invested in a Mini-Mac. We have updated to Bridge & Photoshop CS6, and are just starting Lightroom 4. Lots of new things around here. Fun, but definitely a learning curve.<br>

Anyway, I uploaded some NEF's from my D600 on Saturday, edited a few and changed them over to jpeg's to send a few in an e-mail. Things seemed to be fine. In the mean time, I've done some editing of of past images from my D90 in LR and in PS.<br>

Today I uploaded more D600 NEF's to my server to work on on my Mac via the aforementioned photo programs. For some reason now, NONE of the D600 NEF icons are viewable (not just today's, but Saturday's too), and oddly - in one of the folders like 20 NEF's randomly copied into jpeg's too. Just don't get it, since I was able to see D600 NEF preview icons 3 days ago.<br>

Any clue of what might have happened? I have tried purging my cache in one of the folders to try that. Didn't work. My husband wondered if he didn't remember to do all the Photoshop set-ups (plug-in's?), but I said that can't be it b/c it worked fine on Saturday.<br>

Thoughts? I'm a bit frustrated. Hoping things get better! Thanks, Jenna</p>

 

<p>If I were to just go forth w/ a new Nikon DSLR for the purpose of taking my (mostly outdoor portraiture & spontaneous photographs of people) photos, and not worrying about video, which Nikon which you recommend? I'm ready to step up from the D90 level.<br>

And, if we were to get another unit, which was JUST a video camcorder, any recommendations?<br>

@Leon Chen . . . what do you mean by a DSLR HD video recording being "not as comfortable?"<br>

Thanks all.</p>

<p>I started my SLR life in 2001 with an N80. Since then, I have used the D70 (2004-2008) and the D90 (2009-now). We have a somewhat old-school Sony videocamera that uses the Mini-DV tapes. We'd like to consolidate our efforts and sometime in the next 6-8 months, buy a new Nikon DSLR that succeeds at both photography and video. I'm wondering if you have recommendations.<br>

I was recently on the Nikon site to explore my options. Photography is more my forte and interest, but being w/ have several kids, it seems it would make things easier to use one unit that could accommodate both photographic and video needs. There will likely be events where we need to simultaneously photograph & video. So in that case, perhaps my D90 could do one or the other, and a new DSLR could do the other job.<br>

Thoughts on options & ideas?<br>

Thanks!</p>

<p>I didn't quite know where to post this, so hopefully I'm in the right place.<br>

I use Adobe Bridge and Photoshop CS4.<br>

Things were working fine for a few years. Now, lately, after I've made all my exposure, cropping, etc. corrections in Adobe Camera Raw, and I hit "done," I go back to Bridge and NONE of my edits show up in the thumbnail. The thumbnails also have a black thin line around them, as though they're not quite loaded, but there is no "loading" activity going on. IF I right click on each photo & pick "generate high quality preview," THEN it will show the right/corrected preview. However, it used to just automatically update the thumbnail so I could see in Bridge which files I had edited and which I hadn't. Now, it's just a fully arduous process.<br>

My husband and I have done a lot of looking into it and researching online, and have purged all Caches related to Bridge, we have moved the Cache, we have started and restarted the computer several times, etc.<br>

What can we do? This is SO frustrating b/c now my whole year's (well, many years) worth of photos look as though they've never been edited when I see the edited-in-ACR preview thumbnails in Bridge.<br>

THANKS for ANY help! Jenna <br>

P.S. Some say I just need to get Lightroom. Who knows . . .</p>

<p>Thanks again.<br>

Yes, I now have my images set to sRGB, which is what Shutterfly uses. I just calibrated again. Again - the color looks just about right on. But the prints, even in a controlled viewing light, look darker (about .25-.5 exposure) than what I see on my screen.<br>

Do I dare keep my monitor luminance controlled at 90 but over-brighten or over-expose my images during editing to accommodate the printer's seeming darkness?<br>

I don't want to edit all my pictures just to match one company's seeming darkness, but what else to do?<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p>Thanks for your responses thus far.<br>

I should make note of my workspace: My work area is in the basement office/schoolroom w/ only a 2'x3' window, on the wall of the monitor. So there's not varying, big window light to have to account for each time I'm editing. However, the one light we have in this room is on the upper wall to the left of the workspace and it's a typical four-flourescent-tube light, flattened horizontally on the wall. It's a consistent light, though, no matter what time of day I'm working! And in theory, shouldn't Color Munki (which I have adjusting every 5 mins., I believe) be always adjusting to this constant light source in the room? Anyway, just wonder if my workspace lighting may be accounting for any of this, or if my calibration tool would be adjusting with that.</p>

<p>I saw an October forum discussion called "Proper luminance for print matching." My question goes a bit further so I thought I'd post my own inquiry, as somewhat related to the last.<br>

I just got a new monitor, the <strong>HP ZR24W 24" Wide LCD Computer Display</strong>. A couple months ago, I also just started color calibrating with the <strong>ColorMunki Display by X-rite</strong>.<br>

I recently got pictures back from Shutterfly. Some were auto-corrected and some had no-correction so I could see the difference and compare both color and luminance.<br>

In comparing the prints to the images on my monitor, with Color Munki at the 120 luminance level (which is how I had it set at first), my monitor was WAY brighter than both the auto-corrected prints, and the non-corrected prints (especially brighter than the non-corrected prints).<br>

I then redid my color calibration and <em>chose</em> 90 as my luminance. It's much, much closer now. In fact, I'm satisfied with the <em>color matching</em>. But my question is - should I go as low as 80 on <em>luminance</em>, JUST to attempt to match this batch of Shutterfly non-corrected pictures? Or, should I always have my monitor set to some 'low' industry standard (like 90-110, and never go below)?<br>

I know I shouldn't adapt to wrong luminance or wrong color to match a printer that may be totally out of whack! But where's the balance? <br>

Thanks a ton for your help.</p>

<p>I am an amateur (sometimes professional :)) photographer, who's been using a DSLR (Nikon D90 at the moment) since 2004. I mostly shoot images of people outside, spontaneously, currently using the 50mm 1:4 lens. I love natural lighting and am thus not a fan of often using my mount-on flash nor my flash-on-camera. I wanted to get a Reflector to fill in with some light on faces when necessary.<br>

What kind, color, size, brand of reflector would you recommend? I thought it would be easy to just add a white general reflector to my Christmas wishlist, but whether on BH or amazon, there is a massive slew of options!<br>

Thanks for your help.<br>

Jenna</p>

<p>Thought I'd follow-up with a response so that future viewers of this post might know how things ended up!<br>

I ran my ColorMunki a few more times on my old (ViewSonic VX900, purchased in 2002) monitor, and then also on our 2-year old SONY laptop. The calibration result on the laptop was GREAT and very consistent w/ what I see on my shutterfly hard-copy prints when ordered. So . . .<br>

The conclusion is that our PC monitor brightness has definitely faded in time such that it can't even get up to the brightness required/recommended by ColorMunki to match the calibration needs. This conclusion affirmed by some more research my husband did on the specs of the monitor, etc.<br>

We plan to buy a new monitor in the next week and are hopeful this will help some if not all of the problem.<br>

Thanks for your help.</p>

<p>Thank you. So, on my ViewSonic VX900 monitor, I can only adjust brightness by going up and scale and down a scale. I have no idea what the NUMBERS are for where I'm at on the brightness scale (e.g., 100 cd/m2 v. 140 cd/m2). Would this be a benefit of a newer monitor, namely - that I could adjust the brightness by actual number?<br>

Also, when I recently started to recalibrate w/ my Color Munki Display, the screen said, "the ambient measurement taken was very low . . . " I adjusted my lighting a few different ways in our office, and got values ranging from 90 all the way up to 190 lux. Are either of these, or somewhere in between, a more ideal number?<br>

My PC, where I do my editing, is in a basement room w/ a small window on the same wall as my computer (so there's no window reflection), with two tall lamps and then a flourescent light fixture on the side wall. Maybe not ideal, but shouldn't my Color Munki account for all that in its calibration if this is the set-up I'm using each time I'm at my PC/<br>

Thanks again. I really appreciate everyone's help.<br>

Andrew - I'm in the process of slowly reading & soaking in the website you sent me.</p>

 

<p>I've been into digital photography and using Adobe Photoshop (now CS4) for over seven years. I started out w/ a D70 (was never really happy w/ it), but have been mostly happily using a D90 for 3 years now. As I get more and more experienced in my photography and my ability to see the "right" colors, exposure, etc., I'm understandably becoming more critical of printing.<br>

I use 3rd party printing as the cost to buy my own true photo printer right now is just not feasible (although, make an argument for me, and maybe I'll consider it!). I have chosen Shutterfly for prints, as one of my goals is sharing many photos with extended family (on the share sites) and giving my family their own ability to order straight off the website. The cost is also very affordable, especially when making large/long photo books, which I do once-twice/year.<br>

Recently, we bought the new Color Munki Display so my monitor would be calibrated constantly. I even changed my processing to sRGB images so the profile of my images would be consistent w/ Shutterfly's sRGB when I order. I also turned off their "ViviPics" automated color/exposure correction so it would just be my original edits. I'm still frustrated w/ the look of the prints I get.<br>

Here are then my questions:<br>

1) We have a 9-year old LCD monitor, the ViewSonic VBX900. Would having a higher resolution, newer monitor make things more accurate?<br>

2) Do I need to MAKE a color profile on my Color Munki Display to accommodate to the difference I see between my printed pictures from Shutterfly, v. what I see on the screen after editing? My pictures are turning out way too dark, though on the screen they're nice and open/bright.<br>

3) Do I need to download and then import the sRGB_v4_ICC from a website I saw discussing shutterfly's printing, so it's the exact sRGB they use?<br>

Thanks for humoring me. I'm frustrated, as all this time I feel I'm getting better and better at editing, and then I get my prints and I can't figure out why it's so off.</p>

<p>Thanks, Sandy. Great idea. The problem is that my photos are both horizontal and vertical, which messes things up if I dictate a certain pixelage each way. I believe that's the reason we never adjusted the H & W pixelage nor the inches, but instead - the overall resolution. Hmmmm . . .<br>

The other thing I thought of is that when I take my photos in the Image Processor from NEF to jpeg, I have the option to click on "resize to fit" (but I think again that'd be messed up, due to horiz. & vert. pics). I also have the option to just reduce the jpeg quality from 12 down to say 9 or 10. What would that do to the image sizes and to the overall appearance of the pics? Thanks.</p>

<p>I just got PS CS4. I also just got the Nikon D90 in Sept. I take all my photos in NEF/RAW format. After viewing them on CS4, I delete the pics I don't want, then process all the remaining RAW pics into jpegs (using the Scripts Image Processor option). My next step is that I want to reduce the jpeg file size by about half, so as to post pics online or onto a website to print in a photobook. I know I can/should create an action of reducing my file size, and then run the action on a folder of pics. I've been trying for the last two hours & even had S. Kelby's book on CS4 (which doesn't tell me much on this topic). I don't know what I'm doing wrong & it's driving me nuts b/c now I can't share my pics b/c I can't reduce the resolution. My action thus far has been to open a photo, go to Image-Size & change the resolution from 240 pixels/inch to 170 (keeping the bicubic sampler on). Then I close the image, then do a general save function, then close the pic. I then hit stop recording. Each time I look back either my new photos aren't there. Or, if they are, they aren't reduced, they're just extra copies of the original resolution pics. THANKS FOR HELP! I can't find anything on the Adobe forums either. Appreciatively, Jenna</p>

I just got the Nikon 50MM F/1.4 fixed lens. Love it, but am having trouble adjusting to it after having mostly used

zoom lenses w/ my D70, and now w/ my new D90. Wondering how to get the best focus & clarity w/ this fixed lens?

Most of my shots are candid . . . children playing, exploring, etc. Other day, pics of my son up close & his eyes

were in focus, but not his nose! Thanks for hints. Shall I step back & not have him as close-up? Love the effect of the

blur in front & back, but want to ensure my photos are still good in quality & clarity where it counts! Shall I use M, P,

A, S-priority? Thanks a lot!

I just got my D90 last week. SO excited w/ the results thus far, after having enjoyed but outgrown my D70 in the last

4+ years.

 

One problem - I'd never shot in RAW+jpeg-fine on my D70. Thought I'd try it w/ some 1-year-old shots of my son on

my D90.

 

Unloaded all 100 (well, 200 b/c of the duplicate formats) through Nikon Transfer & went to view all in Adobe

Photoshop CS, and the NEF versions won't open as thumbnails or in the Raw viewer. A box comes up that says it

cannot view these photos. However, it CAN view the jpeg ones.

 

If I just choose NEF for my format on my D90, it's all fine for viewing on PS CS. Wonder if there's some glitch b/t

double-version (NEF & jpeg) pictures & its being transferred onto the computer & viewed in PS CS.

 

Thanks! I know the D90 is super new so not many may have experience w/ it, but thought I'd ask.

I have been using the D70 for four years now. I used to go through ALL my .NEF files, change to jpeg & label each

photo w/ date-taken & small comment about subject. It's taking me WAY too much time; time I don't have anymore.

 

Does anyone know of a program or function in Adobe Photoshop CS (not CS 2), where I can automatically "extract"

the dates embedded in my photos so the names of the photos themselves. I.e., instead of just being called

DSC_0079, it would be called something like 20080530 DSC0079.

 

It seems to me there just HAS to be an easier way of logically, chronologically storing & naming my files. I have 3

kids under age 6, and do lots of photo work on kids/families, mostly amateur. I just don't have the time to rename

every single photo individually.

 

Thanks. If I should post this question on a different forum, please let me know! Jenna

I've been using a Nikon D70 for nearly 4 years now. I've never been totally

satisfied w/ the color saturation, hues, etc. from my prints. Most of my work

is amateur; lots of my prints are 4x6 color, matte for photo albums, scrapbooks

& framing. A little professional work on/off.

 

I recently ordered a stack from shutterfly.com - UGH! They all looked so

bad . . . hints of orange/yellow in all the pictures. I then ordered the same

pics from Costo, which looked a lot better, but not the greatest.

 

I've now received a calibration kit from mpix.com, so that I can try to set-up

my monitor to look like the print they provide. But now I'm starting to wonder,

is all this happening b/c my Adobe PS CS is set-up w/ Adobe RGB (1998) [i shoot

in NEF but open my pics in Adobe RGB], but most every place you/I get printed

at (including mpix) use the sRGB color space? Ideally, I think I'd like to

color correct on my own, after my monitor's calibrated to whatever printing co.

I use, and they ask for "no auto correct."

 

I'm so frustrated. I just want my pics to look as decent in print as they do on

the monitor! Is it all a color space problem? And, if so, where in the world

can I actually PRINT at a place that uses Adobe RGB?!

 

Lastly - anyone know of a good BASIC, BEGINNER's book for color space info &

managemnt? Thanks SO much for any help/encouragement. Jenna (P.S. I've perused

the photo.net discussions on related topics, but didn't find the answers, thx)

Yes, we format the cards in the camera. Thanks.

Two months ago I posted a message on this forum stating a problem I was having

w/ my D70 LCD screen stating "No Image Available" for some shots periodically.

We came to the conclusion I should buy a new SanDisk.

 

We've had a new SanDisk for two(+) months now. It seemed to be working fine

until a few wks ago. The "No Image Available" message is starting to come up

again - only periodically. But unacceptable if you can't afford to lose photos!

My husband was able to recover them w/ the SanDisk recovery software.

 

Obviously there must be something wrong w/ the CAMERA itself, not the two disks

we've tried. Perhaps the pins that connect the disk to the camera brain are not

working or are bent (doesn't look that way w/ a simple glimpse w/ unmagnified

human eye).

 

The question is: Is it worth it to send Mr. D70 away to get a quote and then

perhaps fixed? I'd be w/o my camera during Thanksgiving, Christmas, and likely

daughter's birthday, so would have to use my N80 as a back-up (yes, film! I

haven't done film in 3 years!!). OR - would it just make more sense to move on

and buy the D80? Don't know when Nikon may release the next in the line of D70,

D80, etc. . .

 

Thanks for any feedback. I'm curious to know if others have had this experience

and if so, what they did. Also, your thoughts on what I should do.

Appreciatively, Jenna

I've had my D70 for over 3 years now, and have used the same SanDisk ultra II

1.0GB memory card the whole time. I download my pics (I take them in NEF)

monthly and change them to JPEG to show online & order. Anyway, after taking

some pictures this first half of the month, I went to download today & noticed

some of my pics in the LCD screen show "FILE DOES NOT CONTAIN IMAGE DATA."

 

Further, many of the pictures that DO show-up are the normal "DSC_0001.NEF"

(for example), but some are in this format I've never seen,

i.e., "DSCW0042.NEF" . I know I didn't change anything in my menu set-up.

However, I did notice at one point last w/e, when I went to take a photo, my

door to my memory disk area, just to the right of the LCD screen, was slightly

open (don't know if one of the kids did it, or what . . .). But, as soon as I

saw it, I put it back in and shut the door. Hence, the pics taken after that,

I'd assume should've been back to the typical file (i.e., DSC_0001.NEF), but

they weren't. Still had the FILE DOES NOT CONTAIN IMAGE DATA, mixed w/ DSCW

pictures. (I don't even know what DSCW means!).

 

Any thoughts? Time for a new memory card? Or, shall I download what I can off

of the camera & reformat the disk? Thank goodness I'm looking at and noticing

this now, as if it has to be fixed, we have only 1 month until our next baby is

born, and of course we'll need a camera then!

 

Thanks for your help!