hm1

<br>One of my models is leaving the country shortly and she likes to be painted

in gold for a photo shoot that's coming up in a few days. The idea just came up

and I only have a few days to get the paint (I have plenty of brushes, sponges

and other supplies but I can get any new items needed to do the job).</br>

<br>I'm an experienced painter and I've worked with a lot of different types of

paint but mostly on canvas, etc. I've never painted the entire body.</br>

<br>I need the following info:</br>

<BR> A. Name of brands / manufacturers that offer gold paint, (preferably

metallic) - </br>

<br>I'd like to get the type of paint that can be applied WITHOUT using an

airbrush (i.e. by brushes, sponges, or I could use safe, specialty-made spray

cans, if available.)</br>

<br>B. Local place in California (especially Bay Area/ North Calif.) that

sells them</br>

<br>C. Tips on Techniques</br>

<Br>D. Water based paint vs. grease-based paint</br>

<BR>E. How much paint would be needed to cover the entire body (she is slim but

tall)</br>

<br>Feel free to add anything else that you think might be helpful. </br>

<br>Thanks.</br><div></div>

Thanks for the info Montgomery.

Edward:

I'm curious, do you use Nikon NEF or other types of RAW?

I worked with different releases of Photoshop over the years and currently I'm

using Photoshop CS.

I just got Nikon Capture 4.3 for NEF files and I was a bit disappointed by its

limitations.

A very good photographer who owns a Canon system tells me that he uses Nik

Professional Suite and it allows him to make a lot of adjustments on RAW

files, sometimes up to 2 f stops, without any significant loss of quality.

He's usually very excited by the Nik Software, and I like to learn more about

it.

I know the ins and outs of Photoshop CS, but I'm always looking to expand my

horizons and use other software, if they have capabilities that Photoshop CS

doesn't have.

Has anyone else used Nik Professional Suite to process RAW (NEF) files?

When it comes to processing RAW files, how does it compare to Photoshop CS,

especially for underexposed shots?

Your input is appreciated.

"My recomendation: ... buy a piece of good glass, take some photos with both the Nikon and Sigma lens and compare them buy printing them, not in camera or on a screen but printed by a good lab and you'll see what I mean. Then by all means buy at least one back up body.

Hope this helps you."

It helps a lot.I agree that Sigma 28-90 that I got is not the best lens for my needs.

I care about quality, I need to come up with the funds to buy a couple of Nikkor lenses,

1. a WIDE ANGLE Nikkor

2. another for PORTRAIT , since I'm doing a lot of figurative work indoors.

Next step after that would be D200, I need two main digi cameras anyways. The D70 can serve as a backup once I get that one.

Has anyone else used Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 that Todd recommended for shooting portraits?

A lot of great advice and ideas here ... Thanks to everyone who has so far contributed to this thread.

I'm making a list of all the items and suggestions so far, especially lenses .... most of you seem to suggest that I should start with some glass first and it makes sense.

Your point is well taken that lens is a very important part of the overall camera and that it has a big impact on the quality of the image. But the size and quality of the pixels are also very important.

That was one of the things that surfaced during the so called "pixel wars" when every major and minor manufacturer was advertising that their cameras offered "more pixels" without revealing the fact that often their 9 mega pixel camera had a sensor that was sometimes 1/6 of the sensor in some of their 4 mega pixel cameras!

Some sensors are only twice the size of a tic tac and they have millions of pixels on them, when the manufacturers advertise or publish the size of the sensors they usually only indicate the overall size of the sensor and not the image area and people are led to believe that the image area is bigger than what it really is. I have tried to get the image size of some models by calling the manufacturers and the support people knowingly and unknowingly tell me the overall size and insist that it is the image size. Anybody who has some knowledge of the digital cameras knows that there is a huge difference between the two. If this piece of information was not so important, they would not have to resort to either hiding the actual size or making consumers believe that they are larger than what they are.

During the past year and half, the industry people and researchers have become more aware of these factors and the rest of us are also realizing the importance of different components in a digital camera, factors such as the quality and quantity of pixels.

Your point that the more the number of the pixels, the sharper the image is quite true. But if the sensor image area is not big enough that means the pixels are going to be very small and that can affect the quality. We are talking about millions of very minuscule "wells" on an area about 23.6mm x 15.8mm (DX-size), where each well is supposed to collect light information and pass it to the memory. Both the quantity and quality of pixels matter and the bigger the sensor size, the better your chances of cropping a photo to a smaller size and still getting the desirable quality.

Type of sensors are important too, so just ?switching to a Canon system? (that someone else brought up) would be a bit too hasty.

Even though Canon uses larger sensors in some of their models. There are major differences between Canon & Nikon sensors, Nikon uses CCD sensors and Canon uses CMOS, each have their advantages but traditionally CCD's, that are produced in specialized plants, have superior quality. True, CMOS chips nowadays are much better than the old CMOS and less expensive to produce, but I would still bet on a CCD when it comes to quality.

There are several factors that come to make a quality photo, the lens and the total image processing that is done inside the camera are important factors. But the sensor is the heart of the digital camera and it plays a huge role.

I like to see Nikon moving toward a larger sensor size, I think once they start offering sensors are the size of the traditional negative, I'll be a happy camper.

I know, we don't even have to mimic the design and shape of a traditional film camera when it comes to digital cameras. We're doing it basically because we're familiar with that form/design and it has the added advantage of using your lenses on both the film and digital cameras as well. Now that we're doing this, we might as well make the sensor size bigger (as big as the traditional negative) so we don't have to deal with the factor 1.5 or 1.6 and such.

Let's make it a round number, shall we? I hope Nikon people are listening !

It?s not a question of technological feasibility, it?s rather a question of economics. CCD sensors are more expensive and Nikon has to keep the sensor size smaller than the comparable ones in Canon cameras, because it costs more to ?super-size? the sensors.

OK, it's late and I'm punching keys on the keyboard without much proofreading. Hopefully, tomorrow morning I won't have to do major revisions in what I wrote tonight!

Arnab:

I have so much respect for that old X700 that I can not even put it in words. That camera traveled with me to farthest places and even though I was a novice back then, it never let me down. I was always amazed at the quality of slides that it produced, not to mention the prints.

But, in all fairness comparing Minolta X700 with Nikon D70 would be comparing apples w oranges, because one is film & the other a digi camera. I share your reverance for X700 though. It was a breakthrough when it first came to market. D70 is also a unique camera in many respects. But it's time to go higher for me.

Matt:

My photography has really improved since the 90's and from the response I've received from the viewers and pros, it seems that I'm producing some good work.

Thanks for the suggestion on taking photos of artworks, these days I'm not photographing artworks anymore, but it's always good to know a variety of techniques.

Susan McCartney, the well-known photog who has many books in her name has some good advice for photographing art in her book "Photographic Lighting Simplified", that I've successfully used (with some modifications to fit my needs.)

But like I said that's not my focus anymore. I photograph people, models, landscapes, do some still life & photojournalism too.

I've done fashion, glamour, nude, portrait, cosplay, and various other works and my photography has become a body of work in its own right, side by side my old artworks. And as you know there's always room for learning & expanding.

Todd:

You're absolutely right, I do need a Wide(er) Angle Lens, something wider than 28.

Why I need another camera. Good Question.

In a nutshell better picture quality which requires more pixels (both in quantity & quality.)

The sensor image area on D70 is much larger than some other digital cameras but I could still use more pixels.

From what I understand D80 has 10.2-Megapixel , but if it has the same size sensor as a D70, then it basically produces the same quality images: more pixels crammed in the same size sensor should not make much difference.

I care about quality of images a lot. I love my D70, but I'd like to make it my second camera.

Besides, a recent mini-disaster reminded me that I should start thinking about another digital camera.

After years of casual work with a Minolta X700 (mainly documenting my artwork

by taking slides), I got a brand new Coolpix 990 & its accessories as payment

for a painting and I fell in love with digital photography, head over heels.

I then taught myself photography by purchasing a Nikon N80.

And finally I got a D70 with a couple of Sigma lenses

A - Focal point 28-90 (w macro capability) and

B - " " 70-300

I'm thinking about upgrading to another Nikon camera body and possibly a Nikon

Lens.

I just got a SB-800 and a Manfrotto Pro tripod, so price tag is going to be a

factor.

What are the options and what would you recommend?

<<I have personally had very good luck recovering images using 'photorec': http://www.cgsecurity.org/photorec.html >>

Thank you for the info Joshua<

I just recovered all my files (I had similar problem) from a Lexar CF using this program.