dan_south

<p>Understand your basics first - shutter speed, aperture, and sensitivity. It's critical to understand this before you can understand how lighting will modify or enhance an exposure.</p> <p>Flashes and strobes mean the same thing. They are devices that produce quick bursts of light when triggered. Speed lights are small flash units that are designed to be portable and can be used anywhere rather than just in a studio.</p> <p>(Note: An example of a non-strobe light source would be a video light which casts a light of steady intensity on the scene.)</p> <p>Umbrellas and soft boxes are modifiers. They diffuse the light of the flash unit and make it look softer (i.e. more flattering on faces), with less contrast.</p> <p>Some umbrellas reflect the light on the subject after spreading it out over a larger surface. Other umbrellas let light pass through them like a big screen or filter.</p> <p>Soft boxes case a more directional light on the subject. Think of umbrellas as flood lights and soft boxes as spotlights, and you'll have the general ideal of their basic function.</p> <p>A soft box (of the flash unit itself housed in a reflector) can be fitted with something called a grid which makes the directional (spotlight like) effect even more focused in a single direction.</p> <p>Setting up lights involves deciding on where to place the light - at subject level, higher, or lower, in front of or behind the subject or off to the side at some angle - which modifiers to use, and the relative power of each light (i.e. some brighter than others). </p> <p>Be prepared to experiment. Even if you have only one speed light (and a special cord for off camera use PLEASE!), you'll learn the most by setting it up, taking shots, and evaluating your results. </p> <p> </p>

<p>Something has "gone viral" when it becomes well known or widely seen/experienced in a short amount of time, particularly when publicized primarily by word of mouth or social networking.</p> <p>The term is often applied to videos which, when posted online, receive a large number of views (a.k.a. "hits") very quickly.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I don't find the sample pics of the D810 that impressive</p> </blockquote> <p>Instead of basing your impression on files created and processed by someone else in unknown conditions, take a memory card into your local dealer and ask them if you can take a few test shots of your own. </p>

<p>I'd like to know what advantage one gets from shooting at ISO 64 (outside of video applications where a slower shutter speed is desirable in some instances, especially in bright sunight).</p> <blockquote> <p>The white balance seems to be better behaved.</p> </blockquote> <p>I'll assume that you mean auto white balance. I'm not sure what other WB feature can misbehave. Auto WB on the D800 and E models always struck me as being quite reliable when compared with other bodies and brands. I don't see any need for improvement in the WB department, especially since there are so many options for setting WB before shooting or in post processing.</p> <p> </p> <blockquote> <p>Is metering in general any better-behaved? (I found the matrix in my D800 less reliable than in my D700.)</p> </blockquote> <p>Again, I think that the D800 models do a spectacular job of metering. They have proven to be more accurate and consistent than my Canon 5D series bodies, plus the D800 has more dynamic range for recovery when necessary. I don't see any reason to expect improvement in this area, but I am curious about how well the highlight priority mode works. If it works well, it might be useful when photographing challenging subjects such as brides in white wedding dresses.</p> <p>BTW, I wasn't a big fan of the D700. Everything on the D800 (E) works better, IMO.</p> <blockquote> <p>Is autofocus significantly improved?</p> </blockquote> <p>This would be a welcome improvement. Phase Detection AF is one of the D800's few weakness. (But for reference, the D700 wasn't any better.) Hopefully, the group area AF will help.</p>

<p>I take funny pictures all the time. Sometimes, I'll post one or more of these photos in online discussions in an effort to lighten the mood. It doesn't always go over so well. Occasionally, my efforts at levity are met with hostility. Perhaps the intent wasn't as clear as I had assumed. I guess I'll just never be as funny as Lex.</p> <p>So, yes, perhaps there is an anti-humor bias in the photography community. The OP may be onto something.</p> <div></div>

<p>Interesting discussion. I agree that a camera is just a tool in the sense that the vision, skill, and work ethic of the photographer is more important to the final result than a bag full of trendy gadgets.</p> <p>However, not all tools are created alike. The quality of the output of one tool can vastly surpass another even in the hands of a skilled practitioner.</p> <p>Brand loyalty is a strange phenomenon. Identifying as a Nikon shooter or a Canon shooter doesn't make sense to me. The function of these cameras is nearly identical. The menus contain the same options, albeit in a different arrangement. Even many of the buttons are in the same place. If an hour before an important shoot someone stole all of your gear, and someone else said, "Here, use my Brand X camera and lenses," you'd probably take the same pictures in the same way that you would have with your own gear. You might have to stop and look for a button or a menu option occasionally, but the pictures original in your BRAIN. The camera just translates light and ideas into a sharable image.</p>

<p>I hadn't noticed the somewhat contentious progression of the 'Two Nuns' discussion, as I had left my comment early on. But that instance seems to be an outlier.</p>

<p>Go big. Shoot raw.</p>

<p>In my opinion, this has been one of the best ideas and most successful theme series ever. I'm sad, Fred, that you seem to be disappointed. I enjoy these discussions very much, and I have tried to participate every week. The material has been outstanding!</p> <p>I'm sure that it's a bit tiresome tracking people down and making sure that they are available to post something, but the results have been thoughtful, educational, and very worthwhile. What's more, I can't remember a single "flame war" or other out of control discussion. </p> <p>You've done a top notch job with this, Fred, and I hope that the series will continue regardless of whether or not you decide to turn over the directorship to a successor. (Psst! I wish that you would stay on!)</p>

I love the symmetry of the two figures, each an upright, rounded black mass capped with a black umbrella. I also love the contrast between the black and the snow, both on the ground and the flakes that fall between the nuns and the camera. This is a beautiful example of the impact of multiplication of subjects. One figure standing alone would have made a fine photo, but the symmetry between the two figures provides our eyes with a magical treat to parse, comprehend, and savor. Thanks for posting! This is one of my favorite selections so far in this interesting and thought-provoking series.

<p>Nice!</p>

<p>I like photographs. I enjoy looking at good photographs. I like cameras. Actually, I'm fascinated by gadgets of all types, but cameras have always held a particular fascination for me.</p> <p>When I use a CAMERA to make a PHOTOGRAPH that APPEALS to me, I feel a sense of satisfaction. </p> <p>I don't seek validation, but if I take photos for someone and they like the result, I do feel a sense of relief that I didn't let them down.</p> <div></div>

<p>Ebony SV45Ti - Despite the name, it's made of beautiful mahogany. I own the Ebony wood version (SV45TE), but I've always felt that the lighter mahogany wood makes this camera look absolutely gorgeous.</p> <p><a href="http://www.ebonycamera.com">Link to the Ebony Camera website</a></p>

<p>A tasteful and inspiring short film that is as beautifully executed as the photograph. Thanks so much for posting this!</p>

<blockquote> <p><em>Lex</em>: I suppose I'm not particularly concerned about photographers snapping pix in public because we're under almost constant surveillance anyway.</p> </blockquote> <p>That's a great point and a subject that has been on my mind quite a bit recently. "Excuse me! You can't take photos here!" "Oh, really? What about that camera over there? And that one over there? And that tourist who's filming us right now from across the street?" :-)</p> <p>I apologize, but I forgot about this thread. Lots of interesting ideas have been posted since I last looked. I promise to read every post when I get some time. All of your contributions are appreciated!</p>

<blockquote> <p>While the article doesn't specify, I think they are clearly talking about current and active photographers.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> How about "current and active" landscape, wedding, fashion, portrait, sports, and commercial photographers?How about the folks who work for Sports Illustrated, Vogue, National Geographic (granted McNally has done work for Nat Geo), and countless magazines and news services? How about the photographers who go to war zones and win Pulitzers and other prestigious prizes? <br> <br> There are lots of excellent photographers working today in all of these genres. </p>

<p>If you're just getting started, consider the D610 (as others have suggested). Use it for a while. Later, you can add the D7100 (or whatever model is available) if you'd like the extra crop for distant objects (wildlife). Or look into a D810 if you need the extra resolution.</p> <p>The 24MP of a D610 is a lot of resolution. You might not need more. Many of my favorite photos were captured with a 21MP Canon sensor. People always comment on the level of detail that they see in the prints from those files.</p>

<blockquote> <p>How can a professional woman pay a photographer to take partial nude artistic photographs and not worry they will end up on some amateur nude/porn website someday or appear in a tabloid if she becomes a well known figure in the community?</p> </blockquote> <p>1. Hire a reputable professional with a track record of satisfied clients and discreet business practices.</p> <p>2. Agree to the terms of the contract before any photos are taken.</p> <p>3. Don't "date" the photographer. (If your case is ever litigated, this decision might raise some questions.)</p> <p>4. If your reputation is that critical, don't pose for nude photographs.</p>

There are some good photographers in the list (McNally and Hurley). And to be fair, i haven't heard of most of these folks. But I have heard of some amazing photographers who AREN'T mentioned here. Kelby has created a respectable training empire. He's sort of a special case. But the list as a whole seems more like a marketing stunt than a definitive list of influential photographers. Perhaps it's based on hash tag counts. In a world that make celebrities via Reality Television, perhaps that's what really matters. :-)

<p>I've seen wonderful photos by Gordon Parks - Malcolm X, Muhammad Ali, Ingrid Bergman, poverty in Rio, etc.</p> <p>I understand the message that this week's photo selection was trying to convey, but in my opinion some of the technical elements distract from that message. The shadow on the side of the woman's face, for instance. Perhaps is has some symbolic meaning, but to me, it just seems like lighting that didn't effectively tell the story. There are other details, but I won't belabor the point.</p> <p>I hope that this contrasting viewpoint will be taken as a critique not of Mr. Parks, but only of the execution of this one image. Mr. Parks did amazing work throughout a long career, and I fully appreciate his skills and his vision.</p>

<p>What is the subject's essence? The subject's essence is that it reflects light. What light and how it's captured is the creative domain of all photography.</p> <blockquote> <p>Since Avedon has been brought up, I think it is a good idea to watch the PBS "American Masters" portrait "Richard Avedon - Darkness and Light" and the 1999 Charlie Rose interview with Avedon. Both are on YouTube.</p> </blockquote> <p>I saw the Charlie Rose interview when it first aired. Avedon's words have inspired me every day since.</p>

<p>You're going to need to use the lens to get even 1/3 of your questions answered, but for what it's worth (again from my experience with the current Nikon PC-E 24mm only) -</p> <blockquote> <p>Does the metering just work?</p> </blockquote> <p>Nikon recommends that you meter before you apply movements. This is common with all PC/TS lenses. The camera's meter won't work properly once movements have been engaged. </p> <p> </p> <blockquote> <p>Mostly I'll be using my strobes</p> </blockquote> <p>You'll need a flash meter. (Sekonic makes good ones.) Or you need to set exposure by trial and error using the camera's histogram. Either will work flawlessly once you get the hang of the technique.</p> <p> </p> <blockquote> <p>What about the aperture? "Lens aperture can be preset by using aperture ring and aperture stop-down button"... I never got that. </p> </blockquote> <p>My PC-E 24 has an aperture ring. You control the aperture manually. I prefer this design in a PC/TS lens. The more manual, the better. The meter responds to the aperture that you set. I assume that the 85 shares this design, but I'm not sure.</p> <blockquote> <p>I've read somewhere that the movement gears are made of nylon. Has anyone ever had issues with them? What about drifting?</p> </blockquote> <p>It's not the most robust design. (Canon's latest TS-E lenses are better in this regard.) It's difficult to lock the knobs down fully without breaking them or getting them stuck. I have had problems with drifting. On the other hand, I have taken many long exposures successfully. No one can predict whether it will be a problem for your application.</p> <p> </p> <blockquote> <p>Tube extensions</p> </blockquote> <p>Do you mean extension tubes? I haven't tried them with my Nikon gear. There's no optical component to an extension tube, so as long as it fits the lens and the camera, it should work fine.</p> <p> </p> <blockquote> <p>I sometimes create super-resolution images... What about teleconverters? Kinda interesting.</p> </blockquote> <p>Teleconverters always have a negative impact on image quality. Always. If "super resolution" is your goal, I would avoid them.</p> <p> </p> <blockquote> <p>I'm aware that there is quite a bit of vignetting involved when the 'shift' is employed but how does that affect image sharpness? Does the vignetting also bring on softness?</p> </blockquote> <p>It's a valid concern, because I notice both vignetting AND softness as I approach the limits of the lens' shift capability. The outer edges of the image circle are not as sharp as the unshifted image, which is sharp edge to edge.<br> <br /><br /></p> <p> </p>

<p>I use the PC-E 24 on a D800E. The image quality is excellent. The build is a little flimsy, and it's not as flexible as the Canon TS-E24II. Oddly, the Canon gives a slightly wider angle of view, even though they're supposed to be the same focal length.</p> <p>I haven't used the 85, so I can't comment on that lens in particular. </p>

<p>To reiterate - try shooting in Live View, which uses a different type of autofocus (contrast detection). Even if the lens is out of adjustment with your camera, contrast detection autofocus will still work properly. If the camera is tripod mounted and he image is still soft, then I would conclude that the lens has an issue.</p> <p>Personally, I wouldn't use third-party zooms with a D800, but it you already own the lens, you might as well try to get the best out of it.</p>

Creative expression and the fulfillment of an obsession that I cannot fully explain.