niccoury

<p>for B&W, you might want to try something like T-Max or Tri-X 400 and pushing it to 1600.</p>

<p>It works wonders for keeping noise down, but still producing nice images.</p>

<p>Anything that continues to allow me to produce good photos for my workflow as a newspaper staff photographer.</p>

<p>Currently that set up is a D700, 17-35, 70-200 and a handful of primes.</p>

<p>For my ideal film set-up, it would have to be:</p>

<p>- (2) Nikon F6's (I have 2 F100's, which are great)<br>

- Nikon 20 f/2.8D<br>

- Nikon 28-70 f/2.8D<br>

- Nikon 85 f/1.4D (which I already own)<br>

- Nikon 135 f/2 DC<br>

- Nikon 300 f.28 AF-S I</p>

<p>All crammed into a brown Domke F-2.</p>

<p>Oh and all the Acros 100 and Ektachrome 100VS you could handle... </p>

<p>Get the F100. No questions asked.</p>

<p>It's a pro model and much more solid than the N's. I use two for weddings and they expose perfectly. </p>

<p>They go for about $200 on the used market.</p>

<p>I preferred my Domke F-2 for working at the newspaper, that is until I got a ThinkTank system...</p>

<p>I still use my Domke for weddings to haul everything. It's great.</p>

<p>"And, it's really easy to make tons of money."</p>

<p>"Getting business is easy too. All you have to do is tell a friend or two you have a DSLR and you want to shoot weddings."</p>

<p>Two horrible statements. No one should get into any job, because it makes lots of money. That's an insult to many of us (myself included) who do it for the love of photography and it's all we do.</p>

<p>Also, having a DSLR doesn't make you a photographer (I'm not going to get into that convo), but again it cuts into the pros and there's a lot of really bad wedding photography out there. No wonder there's always a ton of "HELP! I messed up!" posts here...</p>

<p>End of Rant...</p>

<p>I do it, because capturing the moment—whether it be weddings or PJ-work (I staff at a newspaper full-time) is my way of understanding life. The emotion captured in a still moment can help me see the world in the most real sense possible and no two days on the job are the same. God knows I don't do it for the money...</p>

<p>Hey Gabe,</p>

<p>This photo was shot with a D2H (ISO 400) with a 24 f/2.8 prime.</p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>~ nic</p>

<p>For the paper I staff for: Monterey County Weekly.<br>

Sanctuary Rock Gym, Sand City, Calif.<br>

~ nic</p><div></div>

<p>Print 8x12 (which is a standard anyways for artwork) as it's a full 4x6.</p>

<p>For framing it, just put an 8x10 fit mat over it.</p>

<p>Victor,</p>

<p>Look at what's in the background, it's shiny, metal stuff, so its not the best background.</p>

<p>darn near everything on my page was done with a well-worn D2H. I love the camera.</p>

<p>I work for a newspaper and it's flawless. With a flash its fantastic. To me, it has near-film grain and cooler colors like Fuji.</p>

<p>I shoot at about 1000 and 1600 in a pinch, even used 3200 in the squeeze.</p>

<p>It's a great camera for certain applications. I also own a D2X for hi-res stuff.</p>

<p>check out Bjorn's review of it.</p>

<p>http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html</p>

<p>He thinks its aces. </p>

<p>I'm looking to get the same lens on a D700 for my work as a newspaper photographer, so I think it will be just perfect.</p>

<p>The way I see "pro" gear is two-fold and how I think most of "pro" gear from the companies is made:</p>

<p>1.) It needs to withstand (for me as a PJ) the daily beatings of working for a newspaper. All's I know is that my D2H has taken a hell of a lot of beatings and my old D50 didn't handle the lifestyle.</p>

<p>2.) The image quality is apparently there. I think between good lenses and bad lenses there is a huge difference and lenses ultimately make a bigger difference than the camera.</p>

<p>The "L" lenses for Canon and the gold ring Nikon lenses are built better, are faster (focus and speed) and usually more contrast-y that consumer lenses and that is why many of us pros opt for this glass. I still like some of my older optics, which work perfectly fine like the 50 f/1.4D and an 85 f/1.8D and I produce fantastic images with them.</p>

<p>Of course there are going to be gray areas like with a D90, D300 or the 40D and 50D, but whatever. Alls I know is that my F100's, D2H and D70s (and soon to be D700) have made me some very happy customers, a nice paycheck and a career which is the best job in the world.</p>

<p>I'd also had my share of malfunctions (film "err" messages, card failures, etc.), but backups prevented a total disaster.</p>

<p>Agreed, but everyone thinks wedding photography (and professional photography in general) is easy work, which it is not at all to be a pro photog. Hell, look at the newspaper industry right now, even some of the best PJ's out there are getting laid off.<br>

<br /> Not every single piece of camera equipment I own is state-of-the-art, brand new, like my 35-70 f/2.8D, which I love on my F100, but I never take chances with having not enough memory, batteries, etc. Gear can change for each photog, like I never use a tripod, because I just don't and never have, but I never take chances with something so important that I'm being paid good money for.<br>

<br /> It's just part of the current state of digital workflow, everyone thinks PS can fix their problems and feel that their skill is based on menial things like post-pro. A lot of craft has gone out of the business.<br>

<br /> On the other hand, some amateur photographers think all that is needed for good wedding photography is strictly the gear. Whereas they overlook things like a place to work, a business model, contracts and standard business practices.</p>

I think you may have a bad copy. I use my 85 at f/2 all the time at the newspaper I staff at and usually primarily at f/2 and it's perfect.

I've also made numerous wedding shots for clients with it and it's sharp.

I like and prefer Lightroom to Bridge/ACR. It can also be used as a web upload tool.

I dunno, I just got hooked on it...

The 16-85 and 70-300 is a nice combo. i used the 70-300 as a pj for a quite a while and it performed very nicely.

~ nic<div></div>

the 18-35 is a great lens, esp on digital.

the d100 is a classic Nikon as well and both can be had pretty cheap.

It's really how you want to light your photos. I prefer as little artificial light as possible, so I use a few SB-800's for fill and

maybe an asst. holding a reflector for the formals and that's it.

It's up to you.