nsfbr

Thank you all for your thoughts! I just want to see if I can bring this back around to the question I asked. Does anyone know if Capture NX2 will run under OS X, after 10.10. Holy Grail would be someone who knew it ran on High Sierra, but I'm just trying to know if it runs on any version after my 10.10. Thanks again.

To answer why not NX-D, I really like the way things are done in NX2, and appreciate the control point feature. I don't want side cars. I tried NX-D when it was introduced and felt it was a big step backwards. The way I see it, I will stay with NX2 as long as my D800 is my primary camera. At least that is my current thinking. Ironically, the only reason I am looking to upgrade anything is that I'm also captive to Turbo Tax, which now requires 10.11. If I could install El Capitan my life would be much, much easier. Unfortunately, Apple has made that impossible as I never downloaded it. Because, well, Apple is Apple you can no longer obtain 10.11 if you never downloaded when it was readily available. Ugh.

High all. I've not been around in quite a while. Having now 8 year old twins can have that effect. Equipment wise I am probably a rather odd duck, D800 + Capture NX2 + Mac user. I am even stranger in that I prefer Capture NX2 over everything else I've used and that is part of the reason I'm still shooting with my perfectly great D800. Anyhow, it looks like the time has come to update my OS to something later than OS X 10.10. There seem to be no options for me other than the latest OS, 10.13. I know that Nikon doesn't support Capture NX2 anymore, but does anyone know if it will run? Any idea if it will run on 10.11, or 10.12? Thanks to any and all folks to might offer some info here.

<p>Apart from the antennae, an easy way to tell the difference between moths and butterflies is by how they hold their wings when not flying. Butterflies hold them together above them, moths hold them, well, like moths. </p>

<p>Canon 9000 series are great printers. They have a huge print capability and don't consume a great deal of ink. Combined with top quality Canon paper and shots from my Nikon D800 come out looking unbelievable. Mine is a Pro9000 Mark II and I got it in 2012, so I don't know what they are up to now.</p> <p>There is no way I'd buy an HP printer, as much out of disgust for what one of the finest companies ever created has become as for the fact that their business model mimics disposable razor blades - they make the money on the ink. The printer is just a vehicle, so of course they eat ink. That is the point.</p>

<p>My honest feedback done sort of stream of consciousness:</p> <ul> <li>I think your photography is pretty good. Better than quite a few beginning wedding shooters I've seen, and indicate you have a decent hand at post processing.</li> <li>I really don't get the website at all. A couple of pages that let me look at images. The weddings page is the same as the default landing pages. </li> <li>I would completely lose or redo the About page. From the first part where I learn you were bored and photography was your second choice to pottery to the completely unneeded and quite pretentious list of random "facts." I'll say it again, for a photographer who started in 2013 you are not bad at all. Do not sell yourself short. You want a polished, professional image, not a 38 (38!) item list of fun facts. </li> <li>The contact page is a loser. You really expect people to give you their information but you will not give them yours? Just give your email address if you don't want phone calls, although I'd have a business phone # given as well. </li> <li>As others have mentioned, you need to tell people where you are. Although I know that you are an RN, and love beer and coffee, I don't know if you are in my time zone, my state or my city. I'd gladly trade the first three for the latter three.</li> <li>A positive thing that I would advocate generally for others as well, I do like that you have a single photo of yourself. That lets me know a great deal and does establish that you are a person I could relate to. </li> <li>All the other about stuff could be edited down to current info. I don't care nearly as much about the history as the present - tell me what I can expect from you, how you work, what you will do to make sure things work. Are you focusing in the photojournalistic approach, retro/b/w, classic posed, not posed, engagements? I'm trying to find a person to hire for an important event. Potentially one of the most important events in my life. I'm not going to go down a rabbit hole in hopes that I'll eventually find out what I need to know from you. You need to give it to me clearly, succinctly, and professionally.</li> </ul> <p>Good luck, please don't take my criticisms personally. You're an RN, you can do anything and take anything I can throw your way. This much I know.</p>

<p>I know I'm late to the party, but I'm an owner of an 85mm f/1.4 G who if doing it over again would save the money and get the 1.8G. It is a fantastic lens. Better or as good in many way and certainly a better value. </p> <p>One thing to understand, and is often missed (I'm not sure as I have read every posting in this thread) is that the difference in T-stops between the 1.4G and 1.8G is MUCH less than the difference in f-stops would have you believe. If I recall correctly, the 1.4G is a 1.7 T-stop lens. While the 1.8G is a 1.9 T-stop lens. So, while you do get to have the razor thin focal plane of f/1.4 in the former, it really isn't letting that much more light in. </p> <p>Don't get me wrong, I love the lens I own. I do. I'm not selling it any time soon and it helps me do some really great things in portraiture. But if I had to do it again, I'd buy the 1.8G and put the rest of the money towards something else I could use, like a lighter tripod or in the fund to eventually get the super tele I'd like some day. Get the 1.8G. Out of those choices it is the best lens for almost any application.</p>

<p>It's a passport. Anything that meets their requirements is fine. Paying more than $5 is too much. I used my inkjet printer and photo paper. Cost...~$0.25</p>

<p>3 of 3</p><div></div>

<p>2 of 3</p><div></div>

<p>-</p>

<p>I haven't processed any holiday shots, but did make a trip recently to one of my favorite discoveries of 2014, the B&O Railroad Museum in Baltimore, MD. My nearly five year olds love it more than I can convey in writing. I love it because it is filled with amazing behemoths of iron and steel to shoot. If you are within an hour or so of Baltimore and have kids, the family membership is worth every penny.</p><div></div>

<p>A peaceful and beautiful park encountered while walking from the Residenz Museum to the Englisher Garten. 2 of 2</p><div></div>

<p>A peaceful and beautiful park encountered while walking from the Residenz Museum to the Englisher Garten. 1 of 2</p><div></div>

<p>A few more shots from my recent trip to Munich.<br> First up, the exterior of BMW Welt with the factory and the iconic 4 cylinder engine building in the reflection of the windows.</p><div></div>

<p>If I am seeing correctly, the image of the lens at photosynthesis makes me think that it is on the metal mating flange.</p> <p>http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/afd6028.jpg</p>

<p>Lew, Joel here, in NoVA. Like your blog and your work. And I have to say, I love this:</p> <blockquote> <p>...like collecting snakes or weaving macrame birthing chairs, it is a personal interest rather than 'the only way'.</p> </blockquote> <p>Welcome. Hope you get past your Oly phase and join us in the Nikon forum!</p>

<p>Thanks to my reason for going to Munich (my better half was attending a conference on automotive safety at BMW Wert (World) we got a both a tour of the factory (where cameras are not allowed) and the BMW museum (where they very much are.)</p><div></div>

<p>One of the fun things to shoot (or do if so inclined) in Munich is the surfing at the south end of the Englisher garten.</p> <p> </p><div></div>

<p>I got to visit one of my favorite cities last month, Munich/München. Took a bunch of photos but am just getting around to processing them now. If you haven't been, you should. </p><div></div>

Mag - you have to understand, the launch site is a hundred miles or so away from DC and the vehicle barely cleared the tower at its highest. So, no, there was nothing to shoot, other than The Jefferson just after sunset which is pretty much stock photo territory for someone who has lived here for 30 years or so.

Well that sucked. Work is not going to be a very happy place tomorrow or for a while. Unfortunately, once I know more, I won't be able to share anything unless and until it becomes public, and since much of what becomes public is about half wrong, I probably won't discuss those things either. I will share one thing though. After Antares blew up, one of my four year old boys said, "The rocket isn't supposed to do that, right?" Right. There is no feeling that compares to a launch failure. It is hard to describe. I'm on the spacecraft side, so it is primarily one of being helpless while also being filled with both rage and sorrow. I imagine the rocket guys hurt just as bad if not worse. Got some halfway decent pictures of the Jefferson though.

Bob - Antares MECO is L+235. 2nd stage ignition is L+281, so 46 seconds later. I'm not sure, but I don't think that would allow for this to happen. I will definitely err on the side of trying to capture it. The only other launch I've seen in person was at Vandenburg. In that one, the very first spacecraft I ever worked on, the COBE, went up on a Delta. As a reward for the work I'd done, I got to ride the moveable part of the gantry back from the vehicle from the very top - ostensibly to make sure nothing was hung up. Great treat for a young engineer. I got to watch the vehicle go (what seemed to be) overhead after dashing outside where we were monitoring the spacecraft via hardline. Once the screens stopped updating my job was done. We got outside just in time to see it rise above the hills that were between where we were and the pad. Andrew - yes I know the lens is varifocal. I'm hoping it won't impact what I'm doing, although the af-on only focusing should do the job. I was mainly concerned with putting the lens on manual focus and I'm not going to do that.

Tim - thanks, that is exactly what I should do. I never do that as I it is not how I learned a long time ago. Perfect. Craig - the rocket is very, very bright. The central part of the plume will be blown out completely unless I make the rest of the image pure black. My goal is to just reduce the blown out portion to the core of the plume, which is why I want to shoot at low ISO (maybe 200, but not higher). The launch last night was scrubbed because of a sailboat having gotten into the restricted zone down range. But the vehicle and everything else was perfect and ready to go. And it sounds to me like you should avoid traffic and watch the launch.

This evening Orbital Sciences will launch its Antares launch vehicle in order to deliver Orb-3, the fourth of its Cygnus spacecraft to deliver cargo to the ISS. This will be the first ever night time launch of Antares. What makes this a great thing for me is that owing to the launch site, the DelMarVa peninsula, and my location, Northern VA, combined with a stretch of perfect weather, the launch should be visible and I'm planning on viewing it from down by the tidal basin in DC. The 10 minute launch window opens at 6:22. Sunset will be at 6:12, so the launch will be during civil dusk - a not completely dark sky, but nothing directly illuminated on the ground. So...I will have my D800, my tripod, 70-200 VRII, and TCE1.4 II (though I'm not sure I want to use it.) My thoughts are to shoot at f/4 - f/5.6, since I'm planning on being across the tidal basin from the Jefferson memorial, I was going to prefocus there, which should be a bit further than the hyperfocal distance away (I think, I'll check first using Google Maps.) I do love the high ISO performance of my camera, but I am thinking to use ISO 100, in order to get the widest possible dynamic range. I would truly love to shoot Manual, but don't want to completely screw it up. One thought I had, since we will be able to also watch the launch on a ipad until it gets high enough (about 90 seconds into flight is when we will be able to see it) is to take a few exposures right after launch in manual and pick the exposure for the environment I like (dark but showing the memorial, etc., against the fairly dark sky) and then just be ready to frame the image and shoot away. So the point of this is to solicit guidance from the combined knowledge base here. Does that make sense? I am a bit fearful of switching to manual focus as I have, on occasion done that and then either tweaked focus or adjusted zoom. But assuming I'm focused at 2000' to start at, I would hope that everything of interest would stay focused no matter the zoom - is that flawed thinking? Anyhow, I'll check on this thread when I can today. Thanks all for any thoughts at all. (By the way, the plan is to be at the MLK memorial or the FDR. If you are close, you should be too!)