bob_bill

I tend to use the 85 at events and weddings where weight is a factor but not determinative. Heck the 70-200 2.8 is 3 lbs and that is on a body over my shoulder for such shoots with another body around my neck with 24-70 or 85 or 50 1.4 swapped in. Like Ilkka, it is one of my favorite lenses.

I have one Sigma lens, a 50 1.4 and the bokeh is fantastic. I shoot the Nikon 85 1.4 and it's bokeh is gorgeous. Now for me, the 135 dc bokeh is magical. That said, I probably use the 85 more than the 135. Both Denis Reggie and Joe Bussink are canon guys and use their 85 1.2 extensively when shooting weddings for $30-50k. Can be used for head shots but I use it for 1/2 to 3/4 shots. Puts you far enough away and includes some of the environment to tell a story yet has a usable shallow dof. Have to watch getting the eyes on multiple people on the same plane though. I would not shoot a wedding without one. I often don't have room to use the 135. The 1.4 combined with cranking the ISO really helps with bouncing flash as well allowing it to function as the main light up to 160 foot round trip bounces.

You have the potential to control subjects and background independently in your gear. So drive the train. Adjust shutter speed in manual not exceeding your max sync speed to get the desired background density with the flash off. Then turn flash on and try approximately -2 on the flash compensation for fill. Take a test shot and adjust the flash compensation. If for some reason the flash can't be adjusted any further down, use the inverse square law and move a step or 2 back. That won't change the bg exposure controlled primarily by shutter speed.

For real world as opposed to test chart shooting, the 135, like DB's 105 shot above, produces a stellar image. I use it on an FM2n or d700. It produces a gorgeous image if used within it's limitations. I am usually shooting at at least 2.8, but for headshots, 3.2 to get both eyes in focus. By then the color fringing is gone or instantly controllable in post. I rarely use it above f/4 unless f8 for a traditional head shot. Do you need more skin sharpness than the above image? The bokeh on this lens is magical. Google photos taken with this lens. Put a 70-200 shot next to it and there is a difference. When I am forced to move up to 36 or more MP's with the d810 replacement, it may spare me lugging the 70-200 beast, I'll just crop the 135. Of course, that seems light weight now that I lug a 10 lb 400 mm 2.8 and gimbal/heavy tripod for nature and sports. Yes, it would be nice to see this lens updated. However, I don't want to trade the gorgeous bokeh for more sharpness I don't need.

I like to walk so I add some extra effort to it and train at the same time to have the bag on my shoulder. It's nice to just go for a walk and be in the creative zone mentally letting what ever presents itself inspire the photo.

Looks more like the main light is spilling on the bg. It is darker camera right and with a grid if the main is aimed at her or feathered to camera left it could explain the darker area on the r side of the background and lighter on the left side. Personally, if I have the time and space, I prefer the subject further from the bg so I can control the bg separately with a light or two. I like softening but leaving skin texture, not the plastic look. It is easily done.

It is a function of skin surface efficiency that can be altered with makeup to either minimize or increase. The specular highlight to diffused (properly exposed) skin edge transfer reveals how smooth a surface is. (like shadow edge transfer reveals the hardness of the light) Shallow dof, eyes lips sharp, ears out of focus as is arm nearest to the camera. Skin not softened much if at all, more texture than I would like. Looks like rectangular soft box placed at camera right at about 45 degrees right and up from the catch lights. At first considered whether the light iris color was from a low reflector, but I don't think it is catch lights but instead either the color of her eyes or some work on them in post. That's my guess.

Hal, open the pod bay doors.

It certainly is spring. Romance is in the air.

Mary, ask a carpenter about a basic table saw and he probably won't know much beyond the professional model he uses and the one he is looking forward to purchase. Had someone hand me a canon slr at the Kennedy space center this weekend and he told me what it was as he asked me to take a photo. I don't have a clue about it. I do know where to find the shutter button but he was using live view hand held. That was different.

I agree, Shun. The first image is a tough one to top. We often see in car photography they flood the pavement to get the reflection. This looks like the ominous skies took care of that. Wasn't there a song, it never rains in California... it pours. I can't remember ever seeing an airplane photo with a reflection like that which makes it unique for me and Dieter nailed the composition of it and the amount of detail and contrast. The reflection makes the plane loom on the viewer and that is reinforced with the wonderful, brooding sky. Almost feels like this airplane has been or is about to be up to no good.

Seem to be a number of posts on gear and how much is necessary. Here, 5 lights including one doing double duty. Needed a beauty dish, 3' octa, a couple of strip boxes-all with grids and used one modifier fabricated from cinefoil. Also, needed a main hard enough to bring out the muscle definition especially the "christmas tree" in the lower back. The key was getting the desired wrap of rim light on triceps and forearms to emphasize the < > which was a major part of the composition framing the sweeping lats and locking the eye there. It should look easy but positioning was precise as was the lighting ratios on all 5 lights. D700 85 mm 1.4 iso 200 f/11 1/250 "The V"

Dieter, and the plane reflection in the water, wonderful unusual addition to an aircraft shot.

Fishing. D700 400 2.8 w/1.7 tc iso 500 @f/8 1/640

Dieter, I like the foreboding skies. Really adds to the impact of the shot.

Following on above image, What happens in FL, stays in FL. D700, 400 mm 2.8, 1.7 tc. 680 equiv, on gimbal. Still working on long lens technique and loss of IQ from the tc.

I see your post. So it was a composite. Interesting. I think a single shot would have been better but, I don't know if he didn't have them all available for a group shot and was forced to the composite. Or was trying to allow them to pick a pose. Bottom line, I don't like the composite or the individual shots but what is really important is beauty is in the eye of the checkbook holder, so if the parents liked it, so be it. I would suggest if you are going to do a composite try to keep the lighting and camera height consistent otherwise it produces an image that, for me at least, is uncomfortable to look at, not because it doesn't look "real" but because the mind knows something is wrong. Reminds me of pulling into Watsonville, CA a day after the Loma Prieta earth quake. Block after block of houses had just slipped off their foundations and were intact but at 10 or 20 degree angles off vertical each in a different direction. Was disturbing enough, my business partner got nauseous. We unconsciously expect that walls on houses are vertical and when they are not, we sense something wrong. Same with the lighting in this composite. Something that also indicated composite was feet were not shown, It is hard to realistically ground them so cropping is a usual solution.

Great question. Reverse engineering can be a challenge. Was a tough call. Found the web site and I have emailed the photographer, let's see if we get a response.

Mani or pedi?

Bounce flash works with film, but digital allows ttl, ie camera and flash communicate and get you in the ball park. Checking the lcd allows you to perfect that. What you are seeing is one of the reasons digital took off. Immediate feed back so you can adjust as you shoot. Oh, and it didn't cost you for film, processing and printing. But if you have a meter, take a reading of what your on camera bounce flash is doing sitting on your film camera. One thing you won't get feed back on is how the shadows are falling and have the ability to fine tune the flash head up/down, left/right. As for bothering customers, first wait for the slow part of the day when there are no customers around the barista. Then bouncing 45 degrees up, even the barista won't notice.

Have a print somewhere where there was a hole in one of my garments, put it on my pit bull and stuck his tail through the hole. He was not happy.

Sandy, one is no purer or holier than the other. There should be no shaming. If you can simplify your work flow and it meets your vision, then it is right for you. Like they said in Pirates of the Caribbean, they aren't really rules, their just sort of guidelines. For me, I would hate to have a shot of a lifetime not up to my standards because I failed to shoot in raw. We fly fishermen are always making sure our leaders have no wind knots or damage lest we hook the fish of a life time and loose it. That leader is the weakest link in the system and like Wouter says, you can't go back and recapture the information you threw away. Another option is to shoot both, raw and jpg and if you don't need the raw, delete it after downloading. I know pro's who shoot in jpeg. But for a reason, knowing the limitations and still getting the results they need. In the early 2000's when memory was costly, that was a reason not to, but that reason is gone. Another solution is to find the processing your camera does to an image in jpg and create an action in post that does it, select all images and bulk process to what you would get in jpeg. Or just select the ones you want jpeg and convert those. That way you have the raw to work with, don't slow down your burst mode with multiple versions of each shot clogging the buffer. Lots of options, but for me, the simplest is just shoot in raw. Virtually every image I edit is edited for that particular image so I am editing anyway. If it is a perfect image, like Wouter I want all the information I captured to maximize the quality of my edited image.

Hi Bill, this was an interesting question and if I could have gotten it large enough to see the eyes and catch lights would have been more sure of what I was seeing.Usually the w/a distortion can easily be corrected in photoshop. Note the camera position is in front of the players at camera right. Those players are much larger than the players at camera left. I am guessing the semi circle helps a bit for those on the left end. Again, the kind of perspective distortion I would expect from a w/a lens. The face shadows make me think he had the strobes in front of the end players. Bottom line for me, this is not what I would do. I would have the camera in the center of the group, probably a 50 or 35mm lens if need be, A 5 or 6 foot umbrella above and right behind me. On the individual shots below the group shot, I would have preferred to see a separation light from the RR because the dark shadow blends into the dark background. If he's taking a dozen shots in that set up, it doesn't take that long to set up a kicker in addition to a main and fill. Speaking of which, would have liked some fill for the facial shadows as they are a bit too dramatic for my tastes for youth baseball. Just me. A group shot like this isn't a studio shot, and I don't believe most photographers are paid to produce one.

There is separation between the boys and the background because the flash/ shutter speed controlled difference in the brightness of the subject and background making the subjects brighter. Pulls the eye to the subjects. In several cases the gloves are closer to the lights, hence brighter due to the inverse square law with light falling off over distance. I see no evidence of kickers as in my profile image. Also note the hand coming forward holding the ball shows marked perspective exaggeration, so probably was shooting with a wide angle lens up close. Possibly because had to keep the flashes in close because of low power and/or power loss from modifiers. Possibly having difficulty keeping aperture small enough for enough depth of field to keep the semicircular arrangement with hands and gear forward in some cases as well as the fence behind sharp. This could have pushed the limits of lights especially if using speed lights with umbrellas eating a stop or two of light.

Looks like shadows on boys on right from a light to the right, boys on left from a light on the left. My guess, 2 lights. Note the individual shots below the group shot all have main light at left with identical shadows on camera right on the faces.