p_m12

<p>I worry about the complexity of the camera. Soon we will have an I-phone built into it, then something else later. As the complexity increases the reliability decreases. We will see if the recall rate starts affecting people in the future. Look at the D5000 recall issue.</p>

<p>Scrub Jay Bird. Nikon 300mm f4 AF lens, at f4, 1/250 sec. Fuji Velvia 50 original.</p><div></div>

<p>It seems to have a reddish look to it. I did a white balance. That seems to improve it. I also did a few other adjustments to the whole image, slight color balance, saturation, etc. What kind of camera are you using? It seems to put too much red in the image. My monitor is a Dell widescreen 20 inch 1680 x 1050, that gets good reviews. I would change the cropping too. The lighting seems high contrast, but I kind of like it. Perhaps you need a fill light that is brighter. My 2 cents.</p><div></div>

<p>Nikon F100 features that I like:<br />1) 1/2 & 1/3 stop increments in shutter speed.<br />2) +|- 3 stops exposure meter bar in the viewfinder with 1/2 stop shutter setting.<br />3) High-eye point (large) viewfinder opening.<br />4) Uses AA batteries.</p>

<p>Features that I wish it had:<br />1) Matrix metering with AI & AIS lenses.<br />2) 100% viewfinder view (has only 96%).<br />3) Mirror lockup.<br />4) Better autofocus like the F5.</p>

<p>Why do you call it a DIGITAL lens? The 600mm lenses do not come in a DX version, right? Let's not make things more confusing.</p>

<p>I had the non-D 85mm f1.8 AF. As it gets older it tends to rattle more. If yours does not rattle, then it is good. The flash works good with the non-D version. I think it's only slightly more accurate with the D version. Ken Rockwell thinks the non-D version is fine. If your flash is bouncing off a wall or ceiling then I think the D version does not help anyway.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>What I found on the intenet is that the Imacon 949 seems to be the best scanner for 35mm film at this time, but I have not tried it yet. I have seen prices of $12 per slide for scanning only and no color balancing or post processing. I think the scanner costs about $20,000.</p>

<p>The blame should be placed on the depreciating dollar. Comparing Yens to Dollars does not give an accurate picture if both are depreciating, which is likely. The price of a product for a smart company, who plans to stay in business, is the result of a calculation based on what it costs to manufacture the product. If it costs X dollars (or yens) to produce the product, then you multiply that by 4 usually. If you multiply by less than 4 you run the risk of going out of business. It's just simple math. Playing games of lowering the price to sell more, might work for software or CD's because the cost is negligible, but for camera equipment you need to cover your manufacturing costs. This is the simple model. I'm sure the potential number of sales is a variable in the formula also, but inflation is still the main culprit. Have you been watching the price of food this past year -- not good. The cause of inflation? That's another discussion and a giant one. My 2 cents (4 cents now with inflation).</p>

<p>Adorama let me return a new Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AF lens a long time ago and gave me a refund. Recently I purchased a used Nikon 135mm f/3.5 AIS lens and it was fine, just as described. So I'm happy with them. </p>

<p>You already said your tripod is unstable, so what do you expect? Your 6 MB scans are not very large for doing pixel peeping. I think the 70-200mm lens is the least of your problems. Put the camera and lens on a large bean bag on a brick wall, make sure it does not move, shoot Fuji Astia 100F slide film or Velvia, and have one or more of the slides scanned on an Imacon 949 or 848 and get 50MB images, at least.</p>

<p>I would still like to know if there is much difference in skin tones between the Nikon D700 or D3 and the Fujifilm S5 camera, when the white balance is correct.</p>

<p><em>"I allways understood red filters will darken blue skies more than yellow"</em><br>

Yes, but that applies to Black & White film photography when shooting (not post processing). When shooting color (film or digital) a polarizer is used to darken the sky.</p>

 

<p>Try again ...</p><div></div>

<p>Here is the image at 38% to fit inline ...</p>

<p>I tried Dwayne's Photo. The E-6 processing seems good, but the scans for $5 were not impressive -- kind of flat (unsaturated and not sharp). Here is one that I got back, 6.5 MB is the pixel dimensions in Photoshop (2.5 MB size on disc). Keep in mind that I was using a Nikon F100, Fuji Astia 100F film, a 28mm f/2.0 AIS lens set at f/8.0 probably, with a B+W Polarizer and a tripod. I guess you get what you pay for. For serious stock photography I would not recommend Dwaynes $5 per roll scans.</p>

<p>Thanks. The WhiBal looks very useful. I didn't know about that. The ExpoDisc also looks interesting.</p>

<p>That's what I was afraid of -- spending more time at my computer than doing photography.</p>

<p>I remember reading that Arthur Morris (<a href="http://birdsasart.com">http://birdsasart.com</a>) used Provia 100F and rated it at ISO 320 and pushed 2 stops when developing. I'm not sure why he did that instead of using Provia 400 (maybe cost, maybe less grain).</p>

<p>Not all CCD or CMOS sensors are created equally. I have read some horror stories about doing portraiture with some cameras, for example the Nikon D2H which was giving too much pink in the skin. But I guess underexposure can do that also and incorrect WB too. Some slide films were known for their beautiful skins tones. Kodak EPP (Ectachrome Plus) which is about $11 per roll was one of those used by fashion photographers. What are they using now? Hasselblad with digital back?</p>

<p>One could also argue that the whole Photo.net is not useful to anybody, because there is so much disagreement among the members. Some people just look for an opportunity to attack some other member in the forums. Since you cannot figure it out for yourself ... 21mm, 35mm and 85mm lenses give you approximately 90, 60 and 30 degrees of view ... very evenly spaced (anglewise). It's as good an argument as some of the other posts here. Now go ahead and attack me again ... keep Photo.net the most rude forum on the internet.</p>

<p>A famous photographer used to carry 21mm, 35mm & 85mm lenses.</p>

<p>Hi, I'm still shooting film for portraits, fashion and beauty, mostly Kodak Portra 400, with a Nikon F100.

I'm planning to go digital soon and the most important thing to me is skin tones for Caucasian and Asian

people. Can someone help me out with your experience with this and which camera is best?

There are some previous posts about this subject , but I think they are out of date, as we have newer cameras

available now.</p>

<p>You could start by looking at John Shaw's list of equipment, <a href="http://johnshawphoto.com/equipment.html">http://johnshawphoto.com/equipment.html</a></p>

<p>15 degrees is the HORIZONTAL angle of view, 18 degrees in the DIAGONAL angle of view, 10 degrees is the VERTICAL angle of view (for landscape orientation). That's why I used 15 degrees. See also <a href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/135mm.htm">http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/135mm.htm</a><br />I also print 8x10, 11x14, 16x20. That's why I multiplied by 5/6. I don't like the 3:2 aspect ratio for portraits either.<br />The focal length is not a variable in this formula that I used. The angle of view is the variable and it is pretty much fixed for each lens (unless it changes with the focal length, not sure about that).<br />Yes Joseph, your way seems easier and it gives the same results that I got. Thanks. Looks like I mispelled tangents also, oops.</p>

<p>For the 105mm lens, 2 x tangeant of 9.7 degrees, 2 x 0.171 = 0.342, then 0.342 x 5.39 feet gives 1.844 feet, then 1.844 x 5/6 = 1.537 feet, or 18.5 inches of space for a headshot. So I would say you can expect your working distance to be about 5.4 feet for a headshot with the 105mm lens.</p>

<p>For the 85mm lens, 2 x tangeant of 12 degrees, 2 x 0.213 = 0.426, then 0.426 x 4.33 feet gives 1.844 feet, then 1.844 x 5/6 = 1.537 feet, or 18.5 inches of space for a headshot. So I would say you can expect your working distance to be about 4.33 feet for a headshot with the 85mm lens.</p>

<p>In summary, working distance for a headshot (8x10 print) is:<br>

7.0 feet for a 135mm lens<br>

5.4 feet for a 105mm lens<br>

4.3 feet for an 85mm lens.</p>