michael_s10

I've upgraded my d90 to a d7000 (d90+saltwater+time=d7000), and in the process, picked up 10 more cross point sensors, and new focusing hardware/software etc.

For the most part, I shoot portraits.

With the d90, my focusing technique was to select the nearest focus sensor point to the nearest eye, and, having the camera in single point focus mode, with the AE/AF lock button mapped to AF-ON, press that button, and then recompose (in general, minimally). This technique was "ok" - between my own inconsistencies, and shortcomings of the technique (especially when shooting narrow DOF and something moved in between focusing and pressing the shutter button), I would get my share of shots that other than focus, would have been keepers.

With a more advanced camera like the d7000, is there a better technique to be using?

Additionally, sometimes I swear I was using proper technique, but would come up with out of focus shots (by just a hair) - I've always wondered if I had a back/front focus issue with the d90 or one of the lenses I was using (all Nikon primes).

For those camera owners out there that own models with per lens micro adjustment (and especially those with nikon lenses) - do you find that microadjustment is more often than not required to get top notch results?

<p>I'm actually not a wide angle guy - most of my work is portrait/beauty type stuff. I'm sitting on a d90 with a pop up flash that doesn't work any more (having taken on a few drops of ocean water about a year ago), and I get the feeling the body is on its way out.</p>

<p>If money were no object, I'd have a d700 and 70-200 2.8 in my hands right now, but boy, is that combination expensive. (D700 so that I can shoot low light for event photography - kids theatre and the like).</p>

<p>Thanks - the 35 I have is a DX lens. But it looks like I'm good with the 50, 85, and 105. My 18-200 is dx, so that's no go, as is my Tokina 12-24. <br>

So I'm batting .500.... :)</p>

<p>I have the 35, 50, 85, and 105 "D" primes from Nikon. </p>

<p>Does anyone know if those work on a d700 at full resolution?</p>

<p>I agree that purchases of more camera/lighting gear are not going to help - there are certainly photographers out there that have done fantastic extremely creative work with less. When I'm in a rut, the thing that helps me most usually are books. </p>

<p>One thing might be to set aside the creative aspect for a moment, and concentrate on skill development. If you are not producing large prints, trying making some, and see how they come out. If there weaknesses in the technicals, they will definitely show up when you try to make large prints.</p>

<p>You could also try to learn retouching yourself (if you aren't already doing it). I found that my photography improved when I started doing my own retouching. It forced me to look at my own images in great detail, and get a much better core understanding of why things look good or why things look bad. That understanding gives me more creative reach.</p>

<p>Cally - </p>

<p>I think a lot depends on what you are shooting. Lightroom for me, shooting portraits, works great for getting through a lot of images and picking out the money shot - but after that, it's still *way* more time in PS (mostly because I'm slow) to retouch just one image.</p>

<p>When I need to be efficient, I send the retouching out to be done by people who are efficient at it.</p>

<p>Mike</p>

<p>The best investments I've made to improve my portraits are actually books. I've invested a lot of money in proving that more equipment doesn't automatically make better portraits :).</p>

<p>It would be helpful to anyone providing advice if you had some examples of portraits you'd like to recreate. Depending on the number of people, and the type of shot (tight headshot, head and shoulders, full length, multiple people etc) that you need to light, recommended equipment might change.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Is there a way to make an image appear identical in Chrome and FF?</p>

<p>I'm running into an issue where images viewed in Chrome, on the web, have a red cast to them. My monitor is hardware calibrated - I suspect I have a color management workflow issue.<br>

Anyone have any ideas?</p>

<p>(BTW, I edit in PS, imported into lightroom, and then export to disk retaining metadata)</p>

<p>I have the 35 1.8, 50 1.4D, 85 1.8 and 105 2.8. For shooting people, the 50 and 105 get the most use. The 35 and 85 have not been on my camera for a year. I used to use the 85 all the time - but the 105 works much better for tight head shots.<br>

This is all on a d90.</p>

<p>Brittany - <br>

If you want to add film effects - you might try ColorEfx Pro/SilverEfx Pro from Nik Software - it has a number of customizable pre-set effects that mimic certain film processes (cross processing, bleach bypass, etc). It also has some interesting auto selection capabilities ("control points") that work pretty well in a lot of circumstances to target modifications to particular elements of the image.<br>

I would also recommend Natalia Taffarel's Beauty Retouching DVD. Even though it focuses a lot of beauty retouching (skin, hair, eyes, lips, etc), the concepts that I've learned from it really helped me in other areas of PS manipulation.<br>

Mike</p>

<p>I agree with Brian above - doesn't fit the subject - that plus, the arm leading out of the frame makes this not work for me.</p>

<p>Are you talking about saturation?</p>

<p>I'm not sure it this is the right place to post this - someone let me know if it should go someplace else.</p>

<p>I got into shooting models on that you-know-which site simply because I like photographing people, and it seems that models actually liked to get photographed (as opposed to my children). It's been a great resource to get me out with my camera and do something creative, and I have learned quite a bit just by doing.</p>

<p>I've read some advice (not here) that says one's portfolio should have the strongest shot from each shoot, or even each look at a single shoot. </p>

<p>However, for me, since I don't have a really consistent "style" per se, I think it looks haphazard. </p>

<p>Basically, I like the look of my portfolio when I have a few related (same subject, same outfit) shots grouped together. It seems to give some rhythm and weight to things, and more dimensionality to the subject.</p>

<p>But that flaunts advice I've been given - (I think the root of that advice is that viewers don't want to look through lots of images).</p>

<p>I could use a little advice here!</p>

<p>(BTW, I'm not planning on becoming a fashion photographer, so I won't be shopping this portfolio for commercial work per se. Really, I just want it to be something that people enjoy viewing.)</p>

<p>I just had the same experience last weekend. Last minute male model is added to an all female shoot - I had never photographed a male model before, and was really worried that I'd impart a real feminine look to the photos (I've been shooting models for about the last year). Some take aways from the experience for me...<br /> 1. Be prepared to vary things up a lot. New male models are no different than new female models - many will just stand there. Do what ever it takes to get them moving.<br /> 2. Keep it simple. I started out shooting with strobes against seamless/white wall, but it really got tired very quickly. Switching to just natural light and a reflector helped get things moving, since we could walk around the building a bit, which helped the model. I shot probably 5 different series (same wardrobe, just different backgrounds). Two series I liked. One photo from one series I kept. This is it.<br>

PS - Michael - if you want to see the whole series, mistakes and all, let me know and I'll send you a link to the gallery.</p>

<p><img src="http://www.inbalancephoto.com/photos/1013985547_DtcDb-L.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Thanks for all the responses - I've recalibrated my monitor to 6500, which is yielding better results, but I'm seeing color changes when uploading/downloading to/from smugmug. This definitely seems to be color profile related.<br>

Again, thanks for the pointers - I think I"m on the right track to solve this now.</p>