plavchak

<p> As far as the photo with the cottage. There are tons of PP programs that will give that effect. Or you can do it your self with little trouble.</p>

<p>Jeff you seem a little harsh on other photographer's work. The look that you said was "sloppy" may have been the look you was going for. Who are you to judge? The link was not posted for critique but by the Op to ask how the effect was done. Also, as far as composition goes on a photo, unless you have seen the original file, how do you know this was not the best composition/crop that he could get from this photo? You don't. This photo (the women dancing) was not a posed photo. It was a lot of people in a closed space dancing and moving. How would you "compose" such a shot? Weather you liked the shot or not was not the point of this post. It was a "how did they do this" question, not a "break this photo down and tell us what's wrong with it."</p>

<p>Rasi, in reference to the link you provided, I'm not seeing anything special about that photo. The women are wearing very bight colored dresses. The room has a lot of rich colors as well. There is an off camera flash he used in the background. It adds lighting to the room and a little rim light to the subjects. Looks like fill flash as well as you can see a shadow on the back wall. His focus is tack sharp on the subjects. It does not look "over processed" as some have said. Looks like, to me anyway, he just brought out the colors a little and not much more. Sure he added a little sharpness as well. As to what he did exactly in PP no one knows for sure but him. Sure he added a little sharpness as well.</p>

<p>My advice would be to go back and read all of Neil Van Neikerk's blog. He is a master at off/on camera lighting. His concepts are very simple and easy to master with a little practice. he also has a number of very easy to follow books out, but almost everything in the books is also on his website.<br>

I only use off camera lighting when doing portraits at the wedding venue. Using only an on camera speedlight with a wedding party shot is very hard if not almost impossible, if you want even lighting. Most of the time I use one studio strobe with a 7' Parabolic umbrella. I can put even lighting on a very large wedding party pose. It gives nice wrap around lighting at a modest cost (less than $100). I used to use a two light setup with smaller umbrellas, but the one light with the parabolic is much easier to work with. I still bring extra lights and smaller umbrellas in case the venue space it too tight to open up a 7' umbrella. Always bring double of everything!!! </p>

<p>During the ceremony I never use flash if it is at a church. I mostly use my 70-200 2.8 and push the ISO up to where it needs to be. This all depends on the venue. Yes, you do need a camera that has good ISO. I used to shoot with my Nikon D300s and would not take it over iso 800 unless I just had to. I now shoot with the Nikon D600. I can and do shoot at iso 2000-2500 with no problems. I'm not shooting portraits at this iso, but will during the ceremony/reception if needed. Most venues I've shot in I can get by at around iso 1000-1200. I will use on camera with outdoor weddings. I will also use them with non-church indoor ceremonies if allowed, but try not to. </p>

<p>I have never used off camera lighting to light up a reception hall in general. I do, once in a while, have my assistant hold an off camera speedlight if I'm wanting some rim light on the couple. This is mostly just during the dances. I may also use an off camera light for other "artistic" effects I'm trying for. Most reception shots are not much more than "advanced" snap shots. You can push your iso very high, if needed, since no one is going to buy a 16x20 shot of people dancing. I've never printed anything larger than 5x7 of a reception shot. A 5x7 at iso 2500 on my camera is clean. Most reception shots, if printed, are 4x6 or smaller if included in the wedding album (most of the time).</p>

<p>The "black fomie thing" that Neil uses is very good, simple and cheap! It works just as well as any $49.99 thing you are going to find on the internet. Not sure why you said it was not fast enough to use. I'm not sure what brand speedlight you are using, but just attach it and swivel the head in whatever direction you want to bounce your light. </p>

<p>In my bag for weddings; D600, two Nikon speedlights, 70-200mm 2.8, 24-70mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4, macro 90mm 2.8, extra batteries for camera/flashes, gel filters for flashes, 4 Pocket Wizards. I also have an extra bag I keep close by with backup camera/flashes etc... Most of my lenses are Nikon, but I do use Tamron as well. A few of my backup flashes are "no name brand". They work well if needed and are around $100 instead of almost $500 for a Nikon speedlight. </p>

<p>One more thing that I'm confused about Shun. You say Roger Cicala is sure there is a design flaw. And as you stated he deals with a lot of D600s. I'm pretty sure you disagree with Roger, but you are 100% sure about the reports of a couple of professional photographers who each shoot with the D600. And you even stated in another post that if this photographer reports his D600 as Ok than you have no reason to believe that every other D600 should not also be perfect. So you are on board with a photographer who owns one, maybe two, D600s but not a man you I'm sure handles more D600s in a week than any photographer will ever even see in their lifetime. Very strange.</p>

<p>Shaun almost every comment you post on this issue you downplay it and keep saying it's more than likely just owners looking at files at f/22 and "all DLSRs with have dust." Do I need to pull every one of your comments to show this? That's pretty much saying it is not a real problem. You know as much about the problem as most people. I know you have read enough post about the problem to form an opinion. If hundreds of people are reporting the same problem in the same location of the sensor common sense would lead most to believe there is indeed a unique problem with this camera.</p>

<p>I have added the fact that I would buy the D600 again in every one of my post on this. Unless you are not reading my post I'm not sure why you are surprised by this. I had my camera cleaned at the shop where I bought it because I had an upcoming wedding and did not have time to send it back to Nikon. So far the problem has not returned but I have not shot a lot of frames since the wedding. I am keeping a close watch. I've also stated almost every time that so far it is not a problem that can not be worked around but it does take a lot of extra time to fix the photos in PP that I should not have to spend. Not with a $2000 camera. </p>

<p>Also I'm done complaining about the problem. I have just responded to others post asking about the issue with the D600. </p>

<p><em>"I would rather believe folks such as Bingham and Laur, who bought D600 a few months after the initial bunch and experience no problems.<strong> I see no reason why anybody's D600 is not as perfect as theirs." </strong></em>You are joking, right?</p>

<p>You responded to one paragraph out of a five paragraph response and totally just ignored the rest of my statements/questions. Okay, maybe you do work for Nikon?? </p>

<p>No, Shun, I do believe that Nikon knows what is causing the problem. It is not happening in every unit, so they will just fix the ones that people return for repairs. It is not costing them that much, there is enough mark up that they are doing fine. They will continue this run until they replace/upgrade the D600 and make sure the problem is corrected in the next model. </p>

<p>First off, Shun, thank you for your concern over my "obsession on the D600's oil/dust issue". My real obsession is people such as yourself telling me and others that there is no "real" problem with the D600 and that we are nit picking over a non issue, when the only experience you have with the D600 is testing an early test model for a short time and only shooting 1,700 frames. So that some how elevates you to expert level in all things D600, enough so that you feel you can tell me that the dust/oil problem I have with my <strong>2013 made D600 ,</strong>that I shoot everyday,is nothing more than just normal dust issues all DLSRs have. Really?? Kinda of like you test driving a Ford Pinto for 20 minutes and then stating that the Pinto's gas tank you tested did not explode, so there must not be a real problem. Makes about as much sense. </p>

<p>My other obsession with you is your refusal to answer a simple question I have asked you at least four times now. So I will ask one more time. Please explain why you do not believe this problem is a design flaw and unique to the D600 when every reported dust/oil problem is in the upper left corner. This is NOT random dust Shun. </p>

<p>And no, the 2013 models have not been fixed. At least not the 2013 model I have and the ones two of my friends have. I still believe Nikon knows what the problem is. I also do not think it is costing Nikon that much to repair/service these cameras. Pretty sure these are not high paid techs doing repairs. More likely people making minimum wage. They are doing a two minute cleaning job and maybe changing out the mirror box. Would be shocked if it took a total of ten minutes. And it seems, from reports, that the problem is returning on some repaired units. Plus not all cameras are having the issue and not all photographers are paying attention enough to see the problem. If they are not doing paid work and/or doing post processing they may not notice and/or care. </p>

<p>I love the camera and would buy another one. I would recommend my friends buy it, and I have a few times. I just advised them of the issue that they may or may not have with it. I just kinda of get a kick out of you doing everything you can to not just come out and say "yes this camera has some kind of flaw causing this issue. Not all of them but more than enough that it is evident that the problem is a real one. I guess my obsession is saying there is a problem, looks like yours, Shun, is saying it is not. </p>

<p>The D600 oil/dust problem is unique to the D600. It is not the same as other random dust that's gets into DLSRs. It is very simple to prove. Every complaint about this problem on the D600 that I have read, and I have read a lot of them, the oil/dust shows up In the exact same location. There is 100% a design flaw, of some kind, with this camera. I own one and had the problem. I'm waiting to see if it returns. I love the camera and would buy another one, but that does not change the fact there is a problem. A problem that should not happen on a $2000 camera.</p>

<p>I'm sorry, I know Shun likes to throw out the "only really a problem at f/22" statement when addressing this issue, but this problem is visible at almost all f stops. Shun states he dose not own a D600 and only tested a factory test unit, so I can only assume that he is assuming the problem is only able to be seen at f/22 since he dose not shoot a D600. Yes, at f/22 you will see at least some dust on most DLSRs, but it is random dust, not all in one spot, on every unit that is having the issue.</p>

<p>Anyway, it is what it is. There are a few resent threads on this issue. Check them out.</p>

<p>Shun,</p>

<p>So two professional photographers who use a D600 have not reported the dust/oil problem with their cameras, so there is not a problem with the D600?? So other photographers, such as myself, would have a reason to "Falsely report a non issue" ?? </p>

<p>You said; "When people such as Bingham and Laur report, repeatedly, that their D600 have no problem, I believe them" Shun, that statement makes no sense. When ANY photographer says they are NOT having a problem with their camera I believe them. Why would I not? Only big time professionals tell the truth about camera problems? And chances are a large % of photographers buying high end DLSRs know how to clean their sensors. Takes about 5 minutes or less.</p>

<p>A camera going dead is a lot bigger issue than a dust/oil issue. So, yes, I would expect Nikon to recall such a camera. Plus I'm going to assume that Nikon knew what the problem was. No reason to recall it to make repairs if you do not know what the problem is. With the D600 Nikon has NO idea what the problem is, or they would fix it. I've seen reports, at least one on here, where Nikon replaced the shutter and cleaned the sensor and the same problem, in the same location, returned. Either they have no idea what it is, Or if they do, the cost of the fix is too great. I'm putting my money on the latter.</p>

<p>Also, for some reason, you refuse to acknowledge that since the dust/oil spots always show up in the exact same spot on the D600 sensor and is unique to the D600, that it is not a design flaw of some type. This is the third time I've said this. Your response every time is "all cameras have dust problems." I would like you to comment on the statement that the problem is ALWAYS in the same spot on the D600 sensor. Please explain why you do not believe this problem is unique to the D600. Every camera I've ever owned that did have dust, it was random. I would have it cleaned or I would clean it. Then, later, if I got more dust, it was also random. Not in the exact same place. There are reports, on this site, where owner had oil/dust. Sent to Nikon for repairs/cleaning. Was repaired/cleaned and problem returned.......again in EXACT SAME SPOT. How in the world can anyone refuse to see this is a problem unique to the D600????</p>

<p>I'm sorry to say, but your responses to questions/reports on this problem sound like spin someone working for NIKON would write. I know you do not work for them, but someone new on here reading it I would understand them believing this was coming from NIKON corp offices. Don't know what is so hard about saying .. "yeah, it looks like a lot of the D600 units are having an unknown oil/dust issue that Nikon seems not to know how to fix or chooses not to fix because of cost. The owners reporting the problem are ALL reporting it in the same location, so it seems to be unique to the D600 and NOT common dust issues you would expect with a DLSR."</p>

<p>Shun, I think maybe I take about zero of my wedding photos at f/22. f/22 has zero to do with the problem. Friends that I have who have the D600 and are having the issue also are not shooting at f22. Their spots show up at f2.8, f/4, f8 etc, etc...and so is mine. And I'll say it again, just because you used one unit and had no problems does not mean there is not a problem. "Experienced photographers" also has nothing to do with it. If there is oil/dust on the sensor then there is oil/dust on the sensor. How experienced you are as a photographer does not make the problem better or worse. And no, if it is a design flaw that does not mean every unit would have the same problem. Go back to the car recalls. If Ford is recalling 2012 F-150s, for example, because of a sensor problem, that does not mean every 2012 F-150 is going to have a problem with it's sensor, but enough are as to force a recall. Nikon is not going to recall D600s. I stand by my opinion that Nikon knows what is causing the oil problem but is not going to recall them because of the cost. Plus no one is going to force them to do it like the government forces auto makers to recall vehicles. Yes, I am guessing at this, but there is plenty of examples of this in business. All companies make recall decisions based on cost/benefit. I just believe Nikon does not see any benefit compared to the huge cost of a recall. People are still buying the D600 and Nikon will repair them when asked, so what is the benefit to redesign/recall it? Only insiders at Nikon know the real truth.</p>

<p>Yes, all cameras will, more than likely, have dust issues at some point. But Shun, the dust/oil problem on the D600 is in the EXACT SAME LOCATION on ever unit that is having problems. If you and others don't see that as a problem unique to the D600, than I not sure what to tell you. If it was just random dust, then Okay, but it is not. It is a problem unique to the D600 and therefor a design/manufacturing problem. </p>

<p>I've owned three D300 models and two D300s. I also owned two D80 models. That's seven cameras in three different models and not a single issue with dust and/or oil. Not one. I shoot a lot of landscape and birds in flight against solid bright skies. No problems with the D300's or D80's sensors. And I will bet you right now there will not be an issue with the D600 replacement when it comes out. Whatever the problem is, we will likely never know. Nikon is not going to come out and admit they released a $2,000 camera with a problem that they are unable and/or unwilling to fix and basically telling it's customers sorry, but you will just have to deal with it. Yeah, that's never going to happen. </p>

<p>I,also, would not hesitate to buy a D600 or refer a friend to but one. It's a great camera with a slight pain in the butt design problem. Nothing that can't be worked around. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Concerning the D600's oil/dust issue, as usual, it is greatly exaggerated on the internet and promoted by those bloggers who desperate need traffic on their web sites."</p>

<p>Shun, not sure how you can back up that statement. And I think you have made this same statement a few times. If the problem is reported then it is reported. A camera unit either has a problem or it does not. I really do not think people are reporting oil/dust issues if they are not having these issues. What would be the point? I believe the problem is greatly under reported if anything. Every D600 owner I know, but for one, has had that same issue. The salesman, where I bought My D600, told me that every D600 they had sold, but for a small handfull, has had issues with oil/dust, and they sell a lot of d600s. I see no reason for this salesman to exaggerate a problem about a product they sale a lot of.</p>

<p>I believe this problem to be a design flaw and that Nikon is well aware of what is causing the problem. I believe the problem can not be corrected without a design change, so there is nothing Nikon can really do other than clean the cameras that are sent in and hope for the best. I bet the D600 replacement does not have this problem. This problem was seen in the very first D600s released and are still being seen in new production D600s as we speak. No way a company like Nikon, with the amount of time they have had to look at and research the problem, has yet to figure it out. </p>

<p>Like I said in another post, just because one has a unit with no problems does not mean there is not a problem. I've had a number of cars over the years that were recalled for a wide spread design/safety problem. None of my cars had any issues from this problem. That does not mean there was not a design flaw that needed to be addressed. It just meat I was lucky with which car I bought.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Chris, it only showed up on light backgrounds and outdoor shots where the sky is showing. I had to go in and fix each file. This wedding had a lot of outdoor shots, so it added about two hours to my editing. I see some on here believe it's no big deal. It depends on the type of photos you are doing and the number you have to go in and fix. So it may or may not be a big deal, but that is not the point.<br>

The point being this is a $2000 camera from one of the big two and it should not be happening to any of the D600's. I believe this problem is wide spread and not just a few here and there. There are many more people who do not comment on sites like this than do, so I'm guessing this problem is way under reported. Plus a lot of people may not notice the problem and never know there is one. I believe Nikon knows what the problem is. I believe the problem can not be fixed without a redesign and/or repairs costing more than the camera is worth. I refuse to believe a company like Nikon with the amount of time they have had to work on the problem has not figured it out yet. This has to be a design problem, not just a random thing. This problem has been seen since the first D600's came off the line and it is still happening to new cameras currently being built. So that is why I believe they know what the problem is but there is just no way to fix it without a redesign. If it was juts a single part causing the problem, they would have fixed it and we would not still be seeing the same issue with new cameras. Nikon works just like the auto makers. They are not going to do a recall unless forced to do so. And since this problem is not like a safety issue that a vehicle might have, no one is going to force Nikon to recall the D600 for repairs. They will just continue to fix the ones that people send in and hope for the best.<br>

And a note to those who say "never had an issue with my D600". Good for you. Does not mean it is not a problem and a wide spread one at that. I've owned a number of vehicles over the years that had recalls for problems that were wide spread with that model. None of my vehicles showed signs of said problems, but that does not mean that there was not a problem with the design. It just meant I was lucky and did not have an issue. </p>

<p>Very few hard drives can be saved. I had a damaged portable HD. They were able to recover about 10%. If the plates are damaged it's almost always a lost cause. Plus they also said the worst thing to do is attempt to recover it yourself or keep booting it up hoping it will work. They said every time you boot it up you cause more damage. That 10% recovery was $1600.00. I declined and told them to keep it.</p>

 

<p>Just bought D600 about a month ago. Yes, Nikon is STILL having the same problem. Problem showed up after my second wedding and around 4,000 shots. The store where I bought it, cleaned it for no charge for me. We'll see how long it takes for the problem to show up again. I hope it does not.</p>

<p>Shaun, thinking back to when I bought the camera in 2008, I believe I had the same problem off and on a few times. It became my backup camera and after that I did not use it much. I just started using it a little again. Found some old post from 2008 on this issue I believed you worked on for a while. Do you know if Nikon ever came out with what the problem is/was? Seems there were a lot of people with the same problem back then. As far as the batteries, I have two D300s and four batteries and use all four of them in all the cameras with no problems. They all hold a full charge and I get close to 900 shots even with the oldest battery. I saw a few post where people thought using a heavy lens may be causing the problem. ??</p>

<p>I have a D300 that I am the original owner of. Lately after a few shots, I get a blinking low battery warning popping up and the camera locks up. Battery is fully charged. Sometimes it helps if I remove the battery and then reinstall it. Any ideas? Firmware was been updated as well. Battery problem or software??</p>

<p>Thnaks</p>

<p>Yeah, sure it was not set to "A" was the first thing I checked. Auto ISO is not going to change the shutter speed. But, no auto ISO is set to off.</p>

 

<p>I bought a new D600 last month. I've used it in three weddings. The first two I had no problems. I shoot in raw and manual 99% of the time. During the last wedding, half way through, I noticed that after every shot, my shutter speed would change. I was shooting 125 @ f/5.6. I would take a shot and the shutter would jump to 200, another shot and then to 60, another then to 500 and sometime jump back to 125 again. The F stop never changed. I did not change any settings, and I can not think of a setting that would cause this. I set the camera to shutter priority and and the shutter speed did not move. Has anyone heard of this problem? Or have any ideas as to what it may be?</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Mike </p>

<p>Another vote for Lumapix fotofusion. It's great and so easy. You can get album templates from them for free and a lot of others for as little as $35 for a 40 spread album and use it as many times as you like. They have free trial downloads.</p>

<p>I don't think there is that much if any IQ between the two. As far as build goes, the Nikon my be stronger, but I have the Tam 17-50. A few weeks ago after a high school sr shoot, I left it outside on a ledge 3 ft above the pavement. If was left out for a few days and rolled off the ledge hitting the pavement. Thinking I was going to have to file an insurance claim, I burshed the sand off and put it on and shot another session with no problems. There wasn't even a dent on the body, no damage at all. So I'm very happy with the build of the Tam and with it's IQ.</p>

<p>I would say so. You can change distance to get rid of moire as one way. You can google moire and find lots of ways to avoid it. Not sure how to fix this one and still keep the wood grain detail. Maybe make it a B&W "fine art"?? I'm sure someone will have a fix for you.</p>

<p>You can make a brush out of any text or your logo. Then just make a layer copy of your print and stamp it with your logo brush. By making a layer copy, you can adjust the stamp or change it if you do not like it before you save.</p>

<p>Jim R,<br>

I'm well aware of what the "little camera" means next to the name. My post still stands. If Jeff wants to be rude with posters, then maybe he should find a new hobby.</p>

<p>Altex carries Epson factory ink for the 1800. Much cheaper than local retail prices at around $11.50 each.</p>

<p>Little rude and uncalled for Jeff, but thats my opinion, so I'm sure it's not relevant</p>