michael_s10

<p>It might also be useful to post a link to an image that you are currently producing in an attempt to get this look.</p>

<p>I must say that once I figured out the intricacies of color printing with the R3000, I am *very* happy with results. And by intricacies I mean that when using Photoshop managed colors the Epson print preview window looks absolutely atrocious, but the print matches what was shown in PS (or lightroom).</p>

<p>I'm not sure how switching to a film based workflow would help me out. I'd still need a bunch of equipment to develop the negative and make the print. And I'd still need to be able to dodge and burn. Most of all, I'd still need to have expertise in different types of film, developers, etc. And I guaranteed you that the first results would be muddy, off color, and god knows what else.</p>

<p>In the end, making a print takes effort and knowledge - I'm doing the former and working on the latter. It's really a rewarding endeavor.</p>

<p>Dan - </p>

<p>That's kind of why I bought a printer. Economically, it doesn't really make sense compared with the inexpensive options for printing out there - but it satisfies my inner-control-freak (as well as my lack of patience to wait for the prints)</p>

<p>I've found some online options that allow quite a range of customized art and frame sizes - I haven't done an economic analysis yet, but I think I will try doing some online and see what happens.</p>

<p>Mike</p>

<p>Craig - <br>

Getting one of those $400 digital cameras is how this whole mess started. Then it was a $1000 camera. Then lenses. Then lights. Then another camera body. Then books. And seminars. And software. And wide gamut monitors. And calibrators. And retouching videos. </p>

<p>Does it ever stop? :)</p>

<p>I recently purchased an Epson R3000 printer, and having figured out the in and outs of color management with it (as well as a few finicky communications issues), I have some nice prints to hang on the walls.</p>

<p>Are there any options that are less expensive than taking them to a frame shop that are better than scotch tape and thumbtacks?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm looking to get started with at home printing - not to save money necessarily, but to "learn the art" so to speak.</p>

<p>There are a lot of options for printers - I think I want something that will do 11x17 prints.</p>

<p>Does anyone have any suggestions (including that I'm insane for wanting to print at home).</p>

<p>JC - </p>

<p>Already took a look at your website. I'd highly recommend it to anyone that wants to create images like those that are posted there.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>JC Uknz - </p>

<p>I didn't say it was impossible - just difficult in the context of the look she is trying to achieve - natural light (and the phrasing of your remark is rather disparaging which I do not appreciate). In small spaces, even with larger subjects, one can use cutters, grids, snoots and achieve acceptable portrait results, except that they won't look at all like natural light - at least not to me.</p>

<p>But anyways, in short, you know how to do it and I don't, and I'd love to know how to achieve a natural light looking bust up portrait of a 5'8" female subject in a 10'x10' room with 7'6" ceilings with light blue walls and a hardwood floor (medium ok), assuming no usable ambient light. I have a pretty good lighting kit (5 mono's, 3 speed lights, soft boxes, plm's, beauty dish , grids for everything, cutters/flags, bounce cards from small to 4'x8', reflectors in silver white gold and combos, seamless stands, lots of seamless in black, white, and a couple of shades of gray etc), so unless this needs fresnels I'm probably in good shape to try out the solution.</p>

<p>Where should I stand when I shoot, where should the subject be, where do the lights and cutters go relative to the subject, and how do I meter them, what will need to be done in post, and what should I expect for a final look?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Ashley - </p>

<p>Just to set expectations, getting a natural light look - especially window light - with studio strobes is pretty hard. At least for me it is, and I've seen a number of people ask a similar question and the easiest answer usually seems to be to go find a nice window.</p>

<p>Big factors in this decision include both the size of the room that you are shooting in, and the subject material that you are shooting. If you are shooting small products, like jewelry, there's a whole set of techniques and technology that you can use in a relatively small space to get very professional results. Now, if you are shooting people, things get really tricky.</p>

<p>The difficulty becomes in controlling the light. The light from the strobes is going to be difficult to control - it will bounce off walls and ceilings.</p>

<p>But that can be a good thing. In the case of trying to create a broad even lighting, the walls and ceilings can be your friend, especially if you get to choose the color of the walls (for example, white). You can bounce small inexpensive light sources off the walls to create a relatively even light source, and you don't need a lot of money to get a rig that will do that.</p>

<p>For tight spaces, I would recommend that you check out strobist.com. You can get an inexpensive off camera flash, umbrella, lightstand and radio triggers that will have more than enough power for a bedroom sized studio.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I actually like the method used by the DataColor lens cal - the focus target is parallel to the sensor of the camera, but there's a ruler angled at 45 degrees off to the side. </p>

<p>There are a couple of tests that I can run with this setup.</p>

<p>1. I can test to make sure that there isn't a generic back or front focus issue that is independent of focus sensor placement by focusing on the larger parallel target.</p>

<p>2. I can then use the angled target to check individual focus sensors (on rare occasion it's possible to have a focus sensor as it appears in the view finder to not correlate exactly with the location that the camera is using to focus).</p>

<p>Shun - </p>

<p>Of course when I sent it in to Nikon for repair the lenses went with it :)</p>

<p>I think some of the problem in discussing this topic is that it has so much to do with shooting conditions. For example, in the low light photo of Rafal Nadal you posted indicating the focus is just fine, I'd estimate that you are between 50 and 100 feet away from the subject. At that distance, the depth of field is anywhere from 4 to 8 feet. I recently shot a high school graduation under similar conditions - low light, long distance to subject and had no focus issues in a single frame (over 200 frames). Why? Because the DOF is so large, that it will mask all but the most out of focus errors. </p>

<p>It's also important to understand that the existence of photos that are in focus from other d7000 cameras doesn't mean even those cameras that produced those photos would work for me. As a portrait photographer, I have *very* specific requirements, and that is tied into my workflow. When I am shooting a subject, I'm trying to capture something special. When the shoot is done, before I actually look at the images, I need to know one of two things - either I have the shot I want, or I don't. The shoot ends for one of two reasons - either have the shot, or I've determined that the subject isn't going to give up the shot I need within the time constraints of the shoot (in which case it's a busted shoot).</p>

<p>In terms of my workflow, I basically expect that if I take 100 pictures, 100 pictures are print quality. The subjects are not moving (materially at least) and the lighting conditions are generally static. All I need to do is put the focus point on a high contrast area, hold the camera steady and squeeze.</p>

<p>The more "randomness" there is in the process, the more I need to push the length of the session to ensure that there will be enough print quality images in the bunch. </p>

<p>The other thing about portrait photographers is that we tend to shoot backlit subjects. Facing the subject into the sun creates unpleasing facial expressions. While often we mitigate the contrast issues that can confuse AF systems with the use of reflectors, there are times when this doesn't work out. It would be nice if under those conditions I could get 100% in-focus shots.</p>

<p>So, usually my first question to any d7000 owner is "Tell me about what you shoot and how you shoot it?".</p>

<p>And that's my question to you :)</p>

<p>Regards,<br>

Michael</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Shun - </p>

<p>I appreciate your efforts to cover the basics - it's where one should look first most of the time. </p>

<p>Since it's been back to Nikon twice, I don't hold out a lot of hope that sending it back a third time is going to get me any better results. </p>

<p>I've come to the conclusion that probably the only way I'll ever reach peace on my copy of the d7000 is to rent another d7000 and see whether or not I get the same behavior from both copies. Alternatively, I am thinking about trying out a 70/200 VRII to see if I get better results on a lens with an internal focus motor.</p>

<p>It may be that my expectations are too high - I'll have to see.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have a correction programmed in for that lens. It's important to understand that this is not a consistently off problem on the lens - it's simply the behavior of the autofocus system in difficult focusing conditions.<br>

Is my copy different from most of the others? I don't know. Is the behavior of the autofocus system generally a bad thing? I don't know that either. All I know is that it's different than my copy of the d90.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Shun - </p>

<p>The camera is in focus priority mode.</p>

<p>To be clear, we are not talking about being a "a lot out of focus" - but being an inch or two off with a shallow DOF can make a big difference.</p>

<p>Is the camera that bad? I'm still keeping mine, but I do a lot more work with it to understand how the AF engine behaves than I did with my d90 or d50 - but that could also just be an effect of both higher expectations as I get better at this.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I've had a d7000 with autofocus issues that had been sent back to Nikon twice for repair of the autofocus system. Still, I'm not 100% satisfied with it. </p>

<p>An earlier poster in this thread said something that I had been beginning to suspect, which was that lenses with internal focus motors work really well, and AF-D lenses give lesser results, and that some of this is directly related to the time it takes to acquire focus. My prior camera (which I still own - a d90) would refuse to let the shutter open until the subject was really in focus. The D7000 seems to give a best guess and let the shot go through. When using the camera in challenging focus situations with relatively static subjects, I would get better results from the d90 in terms of focus than the d7000, since the d90 would give me better feedback. In situations with fast moving subjects and challenging focus situations, the d90 would get lesser results since it just would not acquire the target at all, and the shutter would not release.</p>

<p>I only have on pro lens - 105 f2.8 VR - and I get outstanding results with that lens consistently in a variety of lighting conditions. </p>

This started off as chasing a focus

issue ... Considering that's a shot from

15 ft away (cropped) should the non

live view shot be more in focus ?

<p>On friday I took some pictures in some challenging lighting situations (back lit outdoors) with my d7000 and 851.8D. I've generally had some focus issues - and it's a matter of a little practice to get things reasonable. (Been shooting indoors during the colder months).<br>

<br />So, I took my camera outside to the exact same spot today, and started to shoot some tripod shots with auto focus, live focus, and manual focus (both through the viewfinder and with live view). <br>

<br />It looks like I am seeing that when LiveView is on, and autofocus is on, I'm getting considerable CA at F2.8. When autofocus is off, there's no CA, regardless of whether LV is on or off. <br>

<br />Does anyone have an explanation for this?</p><div></div>

<p>"and I would really like them to have that white tone to them".....</p>

<p>There's been a lot of advice here given (and a little debate) - all in all, most of the points are well taken. HOWEVER....</p>

<p>There is a danger that you are asking the wrong question by assuming that manual mode is the means to end of the image that you'd like to create.</p>

<p>Toning images is often done after the fact - using post processing techniques (Photoshop/Lightroom etc). A solid exposure is a necessary starting point - but depending on the quality of the final image you'd like to achieve, it may be impossible to achieve the results you want strictly "in camera". Or it may be possible. The point is, without actually having a sample of an image that's similar to the one you'd like to create, it's going to be hard for anyone to actually give you advice that will move you in the right direction.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think I understand what you are looking for, but I'm not 100% sure.<br>

My guess is that what you are looking for is a combination of proper skin preparation, proper lighting, and proper post work. Proper skin preparation means makeup that is more reflective than matte and lotion or some sort to increase the reflective properties of the other skin. Proper lighting is placing the lights in the position and distance so that the highlights and shadows appear in the proper place in the image (avoid dark/lifeless eyes by making sure you can see the catch lights in the subjects eyes - the reflection from the primary light source). Proper post work often includes enhancing the highlights and shadows to create greater depth in the image.<br>

It's hard to do and takes practice. </p>

<p>But it would be most helpful if you posted an image of what you are creating right now - that would make it clearer what you are trying to achieve.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Frank is right - the photographer is taking vertical portraits and it's a shutter speed issue.</p>

<p>Reduce your shutter speed.</p>

<p>Also, if you are using cheap-y triggers (I have some myself), you may find that you are OK at 200 - for a while - and then you'll get off sync part way through the shoot. Keep checking your work as you go paying careful attention to the right side, especially if you are using dramatic lighting (you might not notice the bar if it's a dark area and you are moving quickly). </p>

<p>I ended up dropping to 1/160 and haven't had a problem there. </p>