vrphoto

<p>Also, Thanks for the advice about the brightness of the sun and ratios.</p>

<p>I talked to a friend, and she said she'd put the flash off-camera and point it right at the people usually no further away from them than about 4 feet. She'd use it to fill shadows, so the opposite of the sun in both height and direction. I'll think about the short lighting and see if I can pull it off. I've usually done it in indoor situations where I can control things a bit easier. I just wasnt' sure if I needed a Gary Fong or some modifier, but she said she doesn't use one.</p>

<p>I have the opportunity to shoot a family of 5 adults at RedRocks in a couple of days at about 10am. The family said the sun will probably be high and coming from south.<br /> <br /> I'd love to get some input on lighting and exposure. Not that I have a lot of options:) I have a Nikon D300 and SB800 a tripod and a pretty good understanding of exposure. What I don't have is a lot of experience with the flash. I'm thinking of renting the Nikon 12-24mm wide angle, but I don't know if that's too wide for so many people. Just thought that a nice wide angle would be good for that setting. And you can have a lot of fun with the distortion. I'd like these to be fun, unique, but professional above all.</p>

<p>I'm thinking that I'll need to put everyone in even shade, including the background if possible--right?. Is the SB800 better used off-camera, bounced (off the rocks?), or avoided if possible? I just figured that the exposure for the background and the exposure for the people might be pretty different even in shade but I think natural light is very flattering and I didn't want the fill flash to put unflattering light on the people. I was thinking of bringing my tripod and maybe taking one pic for the bkg and one for the people and then blending them. I'd like to do as much in-camera as I can, though.</p>

<p>Anyway, I'd love to hear your ideas. Also, any ideas for flattering, slimming either with light or posing would be awesome.</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

Fair enough...I'm going to compare them for myself and see. It'll probably be a little while, as the place that rents the equipment is a bit of a drive, but when I do, I'll post...

 

Thanks, everyone!

Ok, maybe there's an elephant in the room: Are the Canon L lenses that much better than the Nikon equivalents for this particular usage? I was reading Ken Rockwell's site where he says that for fast lenses, "Nikon owes us big time," saying, among other things, that Nikon hasn't really kept up with Canon in this one area. Obviously, Nikon makes amazing lenses, and I really like Nikon, as it's the only thing I've known. But really, the most amazing portraits I've seen for bokeh and just that general "oooh" factor are from those Canon lenses.

 

Is it worth opening the can of worms here?

Thanks again, everyone. Tachion, thanks for your clarifying comments to apply to my situation, as you are indeed correct about missing shots and angles with a tripod. Versatility in movement and speed are what have carried me through, as I just follow these kids around at times.

 

You cleared up one question I had as I was wondering if people were really suggesting that a 16x20 on the d50 6mp would be the same (as good) as with a 12 mp d300.

 

I'm a bit confused about one thing, though...my 85mm AF autofocuses on my d50, I understand that it wouldn't on a d60, but it surely would on a d300, right? Guess I could check it out myself, but there have been a few comments that were written as if this were an MF lens.

 

Anyway, thanks so much. I'm leaning against the big lens, for the versatility of movement reasons mentioned above, but still not sure between the 5D or the D300 and need to check out the other portrait lenses that have been mentioned. I'm thinking about renting the 5D w/ the Canon 85mm and D300 and seeing what they feel like to me.

 

Still open to any more input if people have more to say...whew!

Also, thanks for the other lens suggestions. I will definitely look into them. I am looking for the best bokeh out there.

 

And the comment about being able to use the wireless flash system Nikon includes on pretty much everything but the camera I own, is a plus.

Wow--I didn't realize you'd all give me so many different ways to look at this. And I had kind of ruled out the Canon, but those pictures on the bobatkins site showing the difference in DOF and bokeh (I hear the Canon 85mm is one of the best lenses ever made and I've seen amazing pics with it and it is $350-ish) are really amazing.

 

If anyone is following this, some questions have been asked of me:

 

I do use RAW and it's saved my skin with regards to exposure, especially. But I'm actually learning about using a white-balance card and a color histogram to make my exposures spot-on enough to use jpg, but I still can't picture shooting jpg on a portrait session. (That's another subject, so please just keep to the one at hand).

 

I also have the 50mm f1.8 and the kit 18-55 lenses. But I find that I mostly use the 85mm for sessions unless space gets tight and then go to the 50mm. I use the kit lens when I want to get more of a wide angle, but only for the wide end usually.

 

And thanks for all the info and encouragement. If there are more comments, please feel free to post them:)

Thanks, Tachion. I guess I'm leaning toward the D300, but I don't know if it's the price (which is a lot for me) but was just thinking that maybe I should spend the money on the lens rather than the camera. I guess I have pretty much ruled out the Canon as I would have to switch out all my Nikon gear.

 

But the zoom would be nice with kids, the VR for the low-light flexibility, and I just like the blurred-out background/bokeh of the longer lens at f2.8. Maybe I should get the D300 and rent the lens for shoots. My biggest concern with the lens is that I haven't used one so big before, as the first poster said. (the 85mm is such a nice, light, small lens) Size might be a problem in someone's house on location? Also I'd still have the limitations of the camera to contend with, though part of what I'm trying to do with this thread is figure out how much to worry about them.

 

Thanks...still open to opinions. You guys are all so helpful.

I guess I partly just answered my question about technique when I said that I have to nail the exposure/composition to make the larger prints good, meaning that I could improve both of those and then not have those problems...

 

Focus does seem to be an area I could also improve in. I guess maybe it's an issue of whether the equipment might help me improve (VR would help with the low-light camera shake) the D300 would also help with low light and noise/exposure (not having to under-expose) or if I'm still a ways off from that and should focus (no pun intended:) solely on my technique or buy supplemental lighting.

 

Thanks everyone, keep the insights coming. It's very helpful.

Elliot: d50 limitations are that portrait clients are wanting to make prints at

16x20 and larger and yes, it's limiting because I have to nail the exposure and

composition or they look bad.

 

And yes, the frame rate does limit me. If you've taken pictures of a group of

people with kids, it's a BIG benefit to leave your finger on the shutter as a

child can move a lot even between those burst frames. In post-processing, I then

make a composite group portrait usually having to paste heads or eyes, etc. It

goes like this: you get everyone ready, click 3 times...wait...people

move...click 3 times, etc. It gets old.

 

I'd say those are my big reasons other than wanting the improvement in image

colors and exposure that the d300 offers, as well as a full-color histogram for

making exposure adjustments in the field.

 

I'm attaching a recent image I took with the 85mm to see if you think that I

need improvement in my technique so much that the things I'm considering buying

aren't necessary. I'm open to critique, as I'm fully aware that I'm not some

world-famous portraitist right now, though I do have people knocking at my door

asking me to do their portraits.<div></div>

Elliot: d50 limitations are that portrait clients are wanting to make prints at

16x20 and larger and yes, it's limiting because I have to nail the exposure and

composition or they look bad.

 

And yes, the frame rate does limit me. If you've taken pictures of a group of

people with kids, it's a BIG benefit to leave your finger on the shutter as a

child can move a lot even between those burst frames. In post-processing, I then

make a composite group portrait usually having to paste heads or eyes, etc. It

goes like this: you get everyone ready, click 3 times...wait...people

move...click 3 times, etc. It gets old.

 

I'd say those are my big reasons other than wanting the improvement in image

colors and exposure that the d300 offers, as well as a full-color histogram for

making exposure adjustments in the field.

 

I'm attaching a recent image to see if you think that I need improvement in my

technique so much that the things I'm considering buying aren't necessary. I'm

open to critique, as I'm fully aware that I'm not some world-famous portraitist

right now, though I do have people knocking at my door asking me to do their

portraits.

Hi I'm just wondering if anyone has a recommendation for me. I shoot portraits

on location with natural light mostly on a now-ancient Nikon D50 usually with my

85mm f2.0, which I love (the lens, that is...the camera is ok, but feeling a

little cramped by it's limitations).

 

Here are the main features drawing me to each item:

 

D300: firmware technology for color and image processing in-camera, best

exposure/light metering of Nikon line (shared w/ D5). Could use the increase of

megapixels and burst.

 

70-200: would instantly help me make memorable images by blurring backgrounds at

long end, and shooting in low light, esp with the VR. The zoom and longer range

over the fixed 85 sound nice too.

 

Canon 5D: full-frame goodness, image sharpness and megapixels a big improvement

over the D50, etc.

 

Anyone? If you had the 1700, and a d50, what would you do with it?

Sorry I posted that last comment before I had a chance to read the others. Thanks so much for your input...

 

I understand the vision is the photographer's by the way, but one does need to buy equipment and make the best decision doing so that is possible:) So why not find a beautifully done image and find out what the different equipment is that is needed. I appreciate knowing the options. Sounds like the beautiful catchlight is the medium-sized rectangular reflector, so I really am glad to know that and I'm still pondering the lighting to use.

 

I really do like being able to use burst mode with infants and children, so I have to think about that. I might just get the speedlight and a cheap fluorescent to have both.

 

Any other comments welcome!

Can you tell me if you did this with a speedlight and reflector, would you have the speedlight on the left then and the reflector on the right?

 

Thanks so much for your help. I really like the idea of continuous lighting--as a natural light photog, I'm used to low-ish light for portraits and wide-open lenses. I take pics of children, so flash reload times are going to matter. (I often have to park my finger on the shutter using the burst mode) and I like being able to see the shadows and light with continuous, where it's so different with flash.

 

But I'm very interested to know what you can do with speedlights and if you can do this so simply, then maybe the advantages of flash will make it worth it. So any other thoughts you have on the matter will be appreciated.

Hi. I'm looking at fluorescent lights and saw this gorgeous pic on flickr that

was taken with them:

 

 

Any ideas on the kind of setup that could do this? Looks like two lights with at

least one softbox on the one on the right for the catchlight?

 

I wrote the person who posted it but haven't heard back. I've searched on this

site and what I read was negative about fluorescents and basically say you

couldn't take a picture like this because they aren't bright enough. Hmm. Maybe

the new fluorescents are brighter now?

 

Thanks for any comments or ideas!<div></div>

I also can really see how the two lenses are different in how they emphasize eyes, now that you mention it. If I'm trying to really emphasize someones eyes, maybe I should reach for the 50mm...

Thanks for taking the time to teach. That's really insightful. I think the 85mm is better also cause I did a better job of editing:)

 

But if anyone else has any comments about these two, I'm interested to learn. I tend to take pics looking down on my subjects, so I'm interested to see if it's just generally taught that looking straight on is more flattering. I've changed the angle/perspective (by looking down) to add what I thought was a little more interest to a portrait compared to a studio where the camera is on a tripod looking straight at the subject.

 

Thanks....

Here's the 50mm example<div></div>

Hi Everyone. Just an update. The lens I got was beautiful and in mint condition. I put the N6006 up on craigslist and sold it (a little cheap but it's gone) for $50 on craigslist 2 hrs after I got it in the mail. The pics I've taken to compare with the 50mm actually look more similar than I would have thought but they probably aren't in the lighting that would show off the differences between the two. So far, I like the distance of the tele and it does throw the backgrounds out of focus enough more than the 50mm to allow me to do more with portraits too.

 

Here are two pics for comparison, but I think they look pretty similar. If I get a chance to do a better comparison, I'll post...<div></div>

Sure--it's supposed to be here on Wednesday...

Ps--anyone want a N6006? :)

Hi everyone--thanks so much for your input. After thinking about everything said here and looking on flickr at some more images shot with the 85mm, I decided that what I really need (building upon what I can already do w/ the 50mm) is the telephoto magic and the option to blur backgrounds more completely when I'm on location. It's a bit long at 130mm like you said, but I think it'll be ok for individual and baby closer portraits indoors and then great outdoors.

 

I was able to get an 85mm 1.8 on ebay for $212 that's supposed to be in great condition. It was cheap because it was on a N6006 and not listed in the lens section.

 

Hopefully everything looks good when it arrives--I'll post some images when I get it.

 

Thanks again!

Thanks for the comment, especially about the 50mm 1.4. It's something I'll have to think about--whether I'd be confined to using it outdoors or something. I already find myself shooting through doorways and windows to get more space when I'm on location. I do like to get up close though, as in the image included in the first post, so maybe it would be good for that style of pic? (meaning the 85mm...)

Do you still think that 30mm is too wide, considering that it'll be 45mm on my camera?