edverosky

Will, if you can't see the difference, it's not working. I typically move the reflector in very close, not bounce from a far distance. At the very least, you should see a little more illumination -- sounds very obvious, but only because it's simple. There's no magic to it.

Don't use the reflector to bounce direct sunlight onto your subject (especially the face/eyes). Use the reflector to bounce the ambient light--light that simply exists outdoors. Also, depending on the lighting conditions, sometimes it's better to use a simple white reflector, like a piece of foamcore, rather than a silver or gold reflector.

Call that a "cropping" factor to be more accurate. Your lenses aren't magically multiplied in terms of reach with a smaller image area on the receiving end of your lens. You can use the same lense with a full-frame sensor (or film), and simply crop it to whatever you want -- if you want to call that "multiplication" then you can.

Get what you can afford, even if you're just starting off with one strobe and a light/flash meter. I suggest something in the range of B800s - B1600s, with modeling lights, and power adjustments -- those lights are good for that.

 

Start with one light only, as you're learning, and see what you can do with it and and available white walls, ceiling, reflectors/bounce cards. Learn to really control that light. Then bring in a second light (fill), then bring in a hairlight, etc.

 

Learn about lighting ratios (the power adjustment controls come in handy here). Learn about proper catchlights in the eyes, and highlights in the hair and edges of the subject.

 

Remember that light is light, no matter where it comes from. Strobes are just a convenient way to control it. Not as easy as continuous, but more comfortable, certainly.

Frank, I like yours much more than some of the others. However, what does keeping the image in its original form really mean in the digital photo context -- or in the photography context in general?

 

Everything after hitting the film/sesor plane is different from the light the hits the lense. We selectively choose depth of field, color vs. b/w, amount of light, etc. Then, the image recorded is often processed by the camera (digital) even before it is saved to memory, when RAW is not the only output.

 

Even RAW files are eventually processed to be useful, and so on. The image a photographer sees in front of his camera is eventually going to be adjusted to the photographer's tastes for tone, contrast, and more -- and this includes skin tones.

 

Now, I understand why you'd want to strive for complete photographic accuracy in forensic or scientific documentation, but wedding pictures are rarely about capturing the flaws in skin accurately. Wedding pictures are about emotion and what the mind and heart see and remember.

 

I imagine soft focus, and occasional color correction are part of your technique occasionally? Why not remove a blemish that might have been gone by the next day or week anyway?

 

But yes, aside from these observations and perspective, I do agree, real is better than plasic, manniquin looking skin any day.

Todd K, I think what Sandro is trying to say is that he would like to learn how to take professional looking portraits. He's asking for a little advice on lighting. Hopefully he doesn't take a "give it up" attitude just because he's not there yet. We all had to start somewhere. A beginner who sounds humble enough -- let's be encouraging, huh?

Quick cloning for acne on one layer, gaussian blur with her average skin color painted all over the face on another layer, blended to soft light. A little tweaking of the brightness/contrast. The idea is to provide a little improvement, not really hide the sun tanned areas of the face or "fix" the unfortunate flash effect. Keep things real, just better.<div></div>

When I think of landscape photography, I imagine a large scene, with most of the subject at a great distance from the shooter. Most photography is made "intersting" by the photographer's choice of perspective, composition, etc. But, taking a picture of a landscape might be more like taking a picture of a large mural. The picture is in front of you, you just have to figure out how much of it to record. Less room for creativity in some respects.

 

A nature photo, however, can be an image of one or more objects (flowers, trees, animals) that you have more control over where it comes to perspective and composition. More room for creativity.

 

All landscapes shots aren't boring, but the boring ones are!

If you're a Nikon shooter, that's probably the way to go. To some, the difference in MPs might be significant, but that will depend on your usage. However, Canon's DIGIC II processor is likely better than the D70's because it's newer technology. The XT also has a wider ISO range and from what I understand is better image quality in the higher speeds (800 - 1600).

 

Because they'll both give you excellent results, it's going to be how comfortable you are holding and using the the camera that's going to make the difference. I'd go down to the photo retailer and try them both out. Think about how you'll be using your camera before you walk into the store, then see if it feels right.

 

The goal is to get something you'll be happy with. Something that puts less hassle between you and each subject you encounter. You'll get the best results out of the camera that feels right, and second nature.<div></div>