pete_s.

Set up your camera in the menus so that you can shoot without a lens. Then take off the lens and put a piece of tape on the aperture lever on the lens so it won't close. It's a spring that closes it. Put on the lens again but not all the way. If the lens contacts aren't engaged the camera doesn't know what lens you have and doesn't try to open or close the aperture. This is what you want. Set exposure and shoot in manual mode.

Photo.net is using XenForo, a forum software. Any coding done by photo.net would only be modifications. I doubt there is more than one developer working on these modification. Which means that problems can only be resolved by XenForo, not by photo.net. Expect it to take a long time to get this show on the road. My first post on this new forum. Wonder if it works...it did!

<p>I just like to add that as Will said, the light doesn't change all the time. But to answer your question I'd say it's knowledge/experience more than practice, even if the two go hand in hand.</p> <p>If you look at the camera meter in auto it will change the exposure a lot but the light doesn't change as much. It's the camera that can't determine the difference between a black subject in bright light or white subject in low light. This is of course especially apparent in weddings where people are often dressed in all white or all black.</p> <p>My suggestion to fast track learning manual exposure is to <strong>become a student of light</strong>. Buy a small light meter, one that can take <strong>incident readings</strong> and show <strong>light levels in EV</strong>. I have the Sekonic L308. On that particular one you want to set it to ISO 100 to get the correct EV readings.</p> <p>Simplified, EV is light levels measured in stops. So if you take a reading outside and it shows 14.3 and you go into the shade and it shows 12.3 the difference is 2 which is two stops. So the shade in this case was 2 stops darker. So if you were shooting with a camera you had to increase the exposure two stops going from sun to shade. That could be done with aperture, shutter speed or ISO. Either way it would still be two stops.</p> <p>On older SLRs that has an aperture ring on the lens, changing aperture is the fastest way to change the exposure and only takes fractions of a second. On DSLRs with dials for aperture or shutter speed these can be changed relatively fast while change ISO usually requires some extra maneuvers.</p> <p>Step one for the student of light would be the incident light meter and EV readings. And study all different scenarios. No need for a camera yet.</p> <p>Step two would be <strong>learning spot metering</strong> in the camera. Camera in manual exposure of course. When you learn how reflectivity affects the spot meter you could easily adjust your exposure and not be fooled like the automatic modes of the camera.</p> <p>Another tips for the manual shooter is to only have <strong>constant aperture zooms</strong>. It's a hassle when you dial in your exposure and have to change it every time you zoom in.</p> <p>When you have the knowledge how light levels change in a room and outside you already know what you need to change in the exposure before even being in that situation. That means you can change the settings while moving and have them be right before you even raise the camera. That makes it very fast.</p> <p>With the spot meter you can easily double check your exposure without firing a frame. It's the most precise use of the in-camera meter. It's especially useful for weddings where you have a lot of black and white where you don't want to blow out the white and you don't want to underexpose the black. If you know the light and understand light levels, the spot meter would mostly be for fine tuning and double checking your estimates. A quick sweep over some black and white in the scene will take no time and then you can shoot in that light with the settings you have until something changes. </p> <p>And obviously after firing off a shot you can use the histogram, blinkies etc.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I have a number of 50mm Nikkor lenses - f2, f1.8, f1.4 and f1.2, some of them in several versions.</p> <p>My advice is to buy one of the AI lenses. Actually the 50mm f1.4 AI would be the best option for a combined low-light, travel, portrait lens IMHO.</p>

<p>As you can see most online forums are kind of dead. The wedding photography boom that was born out of the advent of the cheap dslr is over, so a lot of online resources and communities have disappeared. I think the PJ trend is dead as well.</p> <p>I would take a trip to WPPI conference in Las Vegas for a couple of days. That will let you know what is going on, what trends are going and coming and also interact with other professionals. I think they have workshops and stuff going on too so you can learn how other pros are working. Tap into what people are doing today and see what you can use or what you want to try.</p> <p>http://www.wppionline.com/index.shtml</p> <p> </p>

<p>They are different tools for different things.</p> <ul> <li>Rucksacks are for transporting gear over uneven terrain, stairs etc.</li> <li>Shoulder bags are for shooting out of. Meaning reaching inside picking out gear as you shoot. This goes for carrying pouches, vests and similar stuff too.</li> <li>Hard cases are for rugged transportation.</li> <li>Rolling bags (soft) are for less rugged transportation over even terrain.</li> </ul> <p>When I shot weddings i used a combination of methods. I'd sling two cameras with lenses as I shoot with both at the same time and I carry a shoulder bag with two more lenses and hot shoe flashes. Then I'd have a hard case with additional strobes and radio triggers. A bag with tripod and monopod and small light stands. Another bag with larger light stands, umbrellas and light modifiers. And then I'd just have monolights and other things like a hand truck in the car as well as some backup gear. If I used rented gear they would often come in real flight cases.</p> <p>What you choose to use depends on how much equipment you have and what you need to carry with you (versus have in the car) and what you need immediate access to. It's about having the right tool for the job you want it to do. It's basically a matter of how you solve your logistics. There is no right or wrong.</p> <p>PS. Another vote for ThinkTank roller bags. I do like lowepro for shoulder bags though because weight is more important.</p>

<p>She paid the 50% retainer right? So she has retained your services for the day.</p> <p>I think it's easy. Go a head and shoot the wedding. Don't do anything beyond that until you have the rest of the 50%. </p> <p>I assume you have a bunch of editing to do after the wedding. When she pays the last 50% you can proceed with editing and delivering. If against all odds she doesn't pay, she doesn't get anything and you don't have to do the editing either. </p> <p> </p>

<p>Ebay versions => Very, very low quality focusing screen. Not worth anything. Crap.</p> <p>Other split image focusing screens made for other cameras and modified to fit => Well worth it. For instance Nikon K3 (from FM3 camera) and Canon EB-C (from 1D series) are both very good.</p> <p>AF is unaffected, metering might be a little affected (depends on metering mode, aperture etc).</p> <p>Nikon don't sell any split-image focusing screens for their digital cameras. Canon does.</p> <p>It's easy to change if you're careful and reasonably technical. Since the split image screen is way more accurate than the standard screen you might need focus screen adjustment. That's a job for a service center since it's often means re-adjustning the AF as well. I've had this done on several cameras.</p>

<p>Krista,<br> Since you haven't picked up the technical details despite doing photography for years I think you might have just tried it the wrong way. My guess is that you would learn the best by taking photography workshops and classes, not online stuff, but face to face training. Second best would be to learn photography from watching DVDs. </p> <p>The good thing is that there are world class wedding photographers who have a very weak understanding of the technical details but still manages somehow to take great shots. </p> <p> </p>

<p>I'm sorry to say but it's user error. Actually a very common error and so nothing to be ashamed of. Also it's a hard one to catch unless you are more or less expecting it to happen.</p> <p>The camera is focusing on the background because the background is brighter and it's easier for the camera to find something there to focus on. There are several technical reasons for that but I won't go into it. To avoid it happening, you need to know how all the focusing settings on your camera works and find out what settings works for you in situations like this.</p> <p>You will get the highest level of control if you select the single focus point mode, and select one of the cross focus points in the center to focus with. You don't have to focus on the head or eye at all, actually in this case I would advice against it. Focus on something that is high contrast but the same distance then recompose and shot.</p> <p>With af-on focusing (backbutton) you can focus one time, then recompose and shoot several images without having to hold the shutter button half pressed the entire time. The technique doesn't make your camera focus better, it only allows more control of when you want to focus and when you want to shoot images.</p> <p>Single focus point, af-on focusing, af-c focusing mode, release priority and using a split-image focusing screen is how I choose to solve this problem. It allows me full control of when and where I allow the camera to focus and I can easily verify that the focus is spot-on right in the viewfinder. However that may not be the right solution for you.</p> <p>You have a couple of other secondary problems going on. But I wont go into that more detail than saying that you need to control exposure and also shutter speed.</p> <p>PS. I wrote this post while a couple of posts above this one where posted so sorry for repeating some of what was said.</p> <p> </p>

<p>First of all the image is done with flash or even a reflector (even though it is unlikely). And shot with a large aperture.</p> <p>Secondly, you can accomplish the rest in a hundred different ways. Background is a little warm which in part comes naturally from using flash on the subject and also shooting when the sun is on it's way down. and desaturated.</p> <p>Heavy smoothing/retouch of face. Clean colors comes from using flash but it's also very easy and common to selectively change the skin color when retouching. Classic technique for white silkysmooth skin is to desaturate slightly and then increase the brightness. It depends on what skin color the subject had from the beginning. If you use the color picker in whatever you edit in you can see the R,G,B values of the skin and replicate it in another image.</p> <p>For advanced users sometimes showing skin colors in CMYK can be easier when you aiming for something. Photoshop for instance can show values in CMYK without actually editing in CMYK.</p> <p>It's actually a good idea to have a sample image side to side with your own image when you are trying to get the same look. Also as I mentioned remember to use the color picker to check RGB values in the sample image. Use it on whatever you want to check, not only the skin.</p>

<p>As said above to avoid it in the future you have to have faster lenses when shooting without flash, at least f2.8. But preferably primes at f2 or f1.4.<br /> ISO 6400, f5.6, 1/100s is around EV 5 which is normal indoor lighting levels.<br /> Crop cameras can't handle ISO 6400 much better than this. Full frame cameras are about one stop better so if you find yourself often in situations like this you might consider upgrading the camera as well as getting some faster lenses.<br> ...<br> Regarding fixing the image you should use the raw file to start from (if you shot raw). You can tweak a little in lightroom if you use that but dedicated software can do a better job. I found in the past that Topaz Denoise does a good job on heavy noise, especially on jpeg files. Otherwise Imagenomics Noiseware produces more natural results for noise reduction. As mentioned above Focus Magic can fix image blur better than most.<br> Most of these software you can try before you buy.<br> ...</p> <p> </p>

<p>If you need more precise color matching also look at Rosco's calcolor gels.</p>

<p>The K3 have the center weighted metering ring engraved in the focus screen (look below).</p> <p>AF and everything else will work the same. You might get a little change in metering as most manual focus screens are darker than the originals. They also scatter the light slightly different. I don't think you will notice anything though.</p> <p>I have put K3 screens in my F80 cameras. I mostly shoot B&W and I didn't notice anything.<br /> <img src="http://cdn-4.nikon-cdn.com/e/Q5NM96RZZo-MRItDefY8uS3cNHsVS3bpm3NYPzZUKnZTdOoOwHT5oDP9Zwrc3iAhlOyrdhGxQh2EVtMVfC4HcHq6npHLX6DLPsYXDTDF9b4=/Views/2696_FM3A-K3-Screen_front.png" alt="" width="700" height="595" /></p>

<p>You are missing one thing to consider - image quality. The 18-35mm f1.8 has nowhere near the same optical performance at f1.8 on a crop camera as a 24-70 f2.8 does at f2.8 on a full frame.</p> <p>Also regarding sensors, Dxomark measures sensor performance and top five of <strong>all</strong> Nikon cameras are D810, D800E,D800,D610,D600.</p> <p>Another thing to consider is weight and size. FX cameras are a little larger and their lenses heavier in general.</p>

<p>I agree with providing a minimum number of images based on the number of hours.</p> <p>Also you have to have an efficient workflow because images are not free. Every image shot has to be inspected and rejected or used. That takes time and time is not free. Every image you deliver takes additional time and effort. The better you are at shooting, the faster your post processing will become.</p> <p>So when you decide how many photos you want to deliver you have to factor it how many images will you shoot and how many images will you deliver and how much post processing will your delivered images have. Basically how much additional time will I spend on the wedding besides shooting it?</p> <p> </p>

<p>On large format inkjet printers the paper usually comes in rolls and they curl up as well. The trick is to roll it by hand the other way. Then it becomes flat.<br> You might need a small paper roll or something to roll the print around. You could also use a sheet of small plastic and roll it inside that. Search for flatten inkjet prints on the net and you'll find lots of examples.</p> <p>I assume dye sub prints will behave the same.</p>

<p>Don't do business with untrustworthy people. Ever. I would send them a backup of their images for free.</p> <p>It's just too costly to involve lawyers and make something "bulletproof" when we are talking about $500. How much is your time and peace of mind worth?</p> <p> </p>

<p>Look for the AI lenses if you are on a budget. Cheaper and better for manual focusing too. On most lenses the optical formula are the same but not on all. </p> <p>AI or AI-s has with the aperture linkage to do. It makes AI-s more suitable to use in program mode and shutter priority. Most manual focus cameras don't have those modes so money could be saved by picking the AI version.<br> <br /> You can check serial numbers to see exactly what version something is here: http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html#28<br /> Check other data like optical design here: http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html#28</p> <p> </p>

<p>> Edit: Pete, where do you get the per-area figures? I'm extrapolating, and may be wrong.<br /> You have to calculate those by yourself. Dxomark's "print" numbers take the whole sensor into account by using a common print size (8x12" 300 dpi), while dxomark's "screen" numbers only take one pixel into account.</p> <p>But what I did was to calculate that the difference between FX and DX is 2.25 times area which equals to about 1.1 stop - calculated by ln(2.25)/ln(2).</p> <p>If you take both the D500 and D800 and look under Measurements > SNR 18% and "print" comparison.<br /> http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D500-versus-Nikon-D800___1061_792<br /> If you pick a noise level like 24 dB and you follow that from the D500 to the D800 (left to right) you can see how many stops better the D800 is. As you'll see, it's a little more than one stop until you get under 24dB. Since the theoretical difference between FX and DX is 1.1 stops (and that is the difference we are seeing) it means that D500 and D800 are equal in noise per area.</p> <p>It would also be possible to take the "screen" numbers and compensate for the difference in pixel size between the two cameras. I haven't tried it that way before though but it should give the same result. Let's try.</p> <p>The D500 has 5599 pixels on the long side (DX: 24mm) and the D800 7424 pixels (FX: 36mm). That means the D500 has 233 pixels per mm and D800 has 206 pixels per mm. So the D800 pixels are 13% bigger and 1.28 times larger in area. That equals 0.35 stop, calculate by ln(1.28)/ln(2).</p> <p>So the D800 has 1/3 of a stop advantage per pixel because it has larger pixels. Looking at the "screen" comparison D500 versus D800 the difference is about 1/3rd of a stop until we get down to about ISO 12800.</p> <p>So we are seeing the same thing as our earlier comparison. Per square area the sensors noise levels are about the same down to ISO 12800 or so. Then the D500 is about 1/3rd of stop better (per area).</p> <p> </p>

<p>S/N ratio on D500 and D7200 are exactly the same down to ISO 12800. D500 is only improved below ISO 12800, actually about 1/3rd of a stop at ISO 25600. (source dxomark).</p> <p>D800 has exactly the same S/N ratio per square area of sensor as those two cameras. But the FX sensor is bigger of course, about 2.2 times. That equals about 1.1 stop of noise advantage to the D800.</p> <p>When we crop DX 1.3x the total crop becomes 1.5x1.3=1.95. Essentially we are now shooting m43 sensor size, 110 film for you old timers. 1.95x crop means FX area is 3.8 times larger which equates 1.9 stop noise advantage to D800 - if we are shooting down to ISO 12800 on the D500. Say roughly 1.5 stops if we are lower. It's hard to beat the advantage of a larger sensor.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I pretty sure long exposure reduction is using a black frame technique, which means that it affects the raw file.</p> <p>High ISO noise reduction on the other hand is probably just software manipulation of the jpeg file.</p> <p>I say probably because sometimes camera manufacturers provide us with a "half-cooked" raw file. Nikon for instance, does some truncating of the lowest signals in the raw file. Makes the noise closest to black less visible. So you never know for sure if it affects the raw file or not. </p> <p>I suggest trying to shoot with it and without it and then processing the raw files. If you can't see any difference then for all practical purposes the raw file is unaffected.</p> <p> </p>

<p>The problem with family photos, museums, birds and street photos is that it covers almost all focal lengths. So unless you want to carry everything in Nikon's catalog, compromises needs to be made.</p> <p>The 28 and 85mm on the D750 will do fine for family photos, actually way more than fine. But you're most serious lack is a wide angle. IMHO something as wide as 20mm on FX or 16mm on DX. That is wide enough but doesn't cause comical perspective distortion.</p> <p>My preference is actually for the 20, 35 and 85 together, and not the 28, but the 28 would also work in a pinch. It's about a doubling of focal length between each prime (20/40/80). Since you can move a little bit closer or step back I never feel the need for any focal lengths in between. Your camera to subject distance is often short.</p> <p>Having both DX and FX for these kinds of shot makes no sense to me. With the primes you have and the focal length you need for most shots I would only bring the FX camera. If you just bring DX you really need more lenses.</p> <p>I know nothing about shooting birds. But NYC, Orlando and family vacation doesn't sound anything like bird photography to me. I've been to both Orlando and NYC and I can't remember seeing any birds. To me that means leaving the 300mm at home.</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>this is where i'm at right now. got the 24-70+70-200+ fast primes in various focal lengths, considering 24-120 for those times i dont need my full pro kit and/or want a one-lens solution with extended reach. i would definitely check off the 2.8 boxes first if you are doing paid work and event shooting or planning to do it down the line.</p> </blockquote> <p>I agree with you there Eric.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"After a number of years" is the key here :) As I'm building my collection of gear, I have to decide what is most important now, regardless of where I might be in the future. Of course it would be nice to have all of those lenses, but due to budget, I have to pick what I need right now. As I just booked my first "legit" wedding gig in a little less than a year from now, I'm trying to focus on what key things I will need. From everything I've read, a 24-70 2.8 is a must-have for weddings. I figure I can supplement that with my 50mm 1.8 and the 35mm 1.8 fixed on my backup D5000. I would LOVE to also have an 85mm 1.4 in my bag, but alas, $$$. You do make some valid points and I do think I will end up missing the extra reach of the 24-120, but I think at this point the 24-70 will better fit my immediate needs. Thank you for the thoughtful reply!</p> </blockquote> <p>Always glad to help Andrew.<br> <br />If you would have said the magic word "wedding" before then I'd say you must have the f2.8.</p> <p>There are ways to shoot a wedding without having a midrange zoom like the 24-70 f2.8, for instance using primes, but it does require lots of shooting experience with primes and many also use two cameras at the same time. The classic combination being a 35mm on one and a 85mm on the other camera. Another option is to forgo the midrange zoom 24-70mm and use a wide zoom on one camera and a telephoto zoom on the other, for instance 17-35 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8.</p> <p>One very experienced and capable photographer who often posted in the wedding forum was the late Al Kaplan. He had many decades of experience as a professional photographer and photojournalist and I consider him as one of my mentors. He said that all you need to cover something like a wedding is a 20mm, a 35mm and a 90mm. If the 90 mm isn't long enough, you are too far away. I think he was spot on with the focal lengths even though there are situations where you are not allowed to move and then you really need a longer lens that 90mm.</p> <p>Problem with the 24-70 is that it isn't wide enough and it's not long enough so it can't do it all. You could get by without having something like a 20mm as that would only be used for a small number of shots. However you really need a longer lens than 70mm on full frame. Some go for the 70-200 f2.8, other uses a prime lens, like the 85mm or even a little longer like 105mm or even 135mm. Easiest to use is of course the 70-200 f2.8, unfortunately it's kind of heavy and expensive. If you do other types of events a long zoom lens is often a must have.</p> <p>With all said I think the 24-70 f2.8 is a good choice and it should be your first pick. However you really must have a budget for a long lens as well before you take on any wedding work.</p>