zack_mccrory

March 12, 2009

Can you go into more detail about how this photo was taken? I know a puppy is much smaller than a person, so some things would change... but its a good example of a very quality, full, lighting look that i would like to be able to achieve.

<a href="../photo/8662313">http://www.photo.net/photo/8662313</a>

March 12, 2009

Thanks for the detailed reply.

I was trying to find examples of shots taken with say... one flash and one reflector vs 2 flashes (be it strobes or monolights... i dont think there would be much of a difference in the look of the photo)

Can anyone post up some good examples of quality photos taken with a single flash? I think that would really help me determine if i could get the results i wanted with one, or if two would be immediately necessary.

March 12, 2009

Hi Everyone.

I have been reading through quite a bit lately on lighting, and want to make sure my first step is in the right direction

Up untill this point, i have been shooting with two CFL lights with umbrellas. Its working OK, but still leaves a lot to be desired, especially if i want to shoot with more DOF and high (numericly) apertures.

Earlier this week i purchased a D90 with a 28-75 f/2.8 lens. Im sure it will work much better in low light than my previous setup did (D40 with 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 kit lens), but i would like to upgrade my lighting setup to go with the new camera.

I had always had my eye on the Alien Bees setup, such as a pair of AB 400's or AB 800's. Now that i have a D90 that can control SB600's, im also considering that an option.

The type of shooting im doing is primarily indoor glamour/fashion type shots. So far, i have been traveling to the location of the model, and just shooting at their home. Because of this, ease of setup is nice, but access to power isn't an issue... and actually more appealing than having to worry about batteries.

I dont see myself doing many group shots. My primary focus is to get a good setup for full length fashion/glamour shots. I dont think that this will require a tremendous amount of light, im more concerned with quality of light and how easy it is to control (hence why i think if i went the AB route, 400's would best suit me)

So i guess what im asking is... should i got with an Alienbees setup, or a SB600 setup. And once that is decided... should i get two, or get one and a reflector. Im trying to be budget conscious, but can spend the money if i would benefit from it.

March 11, 2009

I appreciate all the advice everyone. I took all of it into consideration, and it helped me make (what i feel to be) a well informed, educated decision. Have i used 100% of the potential of the D40 - No... but do i feel like i will still benefit from going ahead and upgrading to the D90 while i have the money - Yes. I think i will grow into the camera fairly quickly, and although many of the features were not mandatory, they will be fun. A about an hour ago i went ahead and pulled the trigger on the D90. I ordered the D90 (body) only, a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, a 67mm UV filter, and an extra battery. Amazon was having a deal where i could get 2nd day shipping for free, then i paid a little extra on top of that to get overnight shipping. Strangly enough, when i went to get my confirmation email, i had an email waiting on me from Paypal saying someone had sent me payment for my D40 (listed it on a few boards yesterday) I definitely agree that money spent on some seminars for fashion and portrait photography, would be well spent. Its not hard for me to come up with $100 here and there, but i knew it would probably be a while before i had the chunk of money to buy the D90.

March 10, 2009

Ted-

The Sigma 17-70 is actually a lens i hadn't heard of. I guess that adds one more thing into the list of "what i should get"

March 10, 2009

Eric-

The 28-75 was also a lens i had considered. It would definitely be within the range that i normally shoot at. The more i read about portrait photography, the more im leaning towards it. It sounds like most are chosing to use a longer focal length and get further back, than a shorter one and get closer.

The problem im running into, is im normally working in limited space. So far, all my indoor "shoots" have been at the models house/appartment, and found it hard to get far enough back with the 50mm lens, to do full body shots.

Its interesting that you say the Bokeh is better on the Tamrons. If that is the case, i may never hardly use the 50mm prime. I puchased it mainly to get the dramatic shallow dof/bokeh effect.

Dieter-

The kit lens was "almost" fast enough, but there were times that i really had to crank up the ISO to make it work, which meant too much noise on the D40. I would imagine that the superior high-iso performance of the D90 would make it useable.

Im still very much considering the 35mm 1.8 when Nikon releases it this month, but if the Tamron will cover that range, then it may not be needed. I looked at the 35mm and 50mm primes as an "either-or" scenario... if i had one of them then the other would become redundant and seldom used.

March 10, 2009

Thanks for all the info everyone.

I think the D90 is definitely going to be the way i go. In addition to the many reasons that have been brought up, I guess the simple fact of it is... i have the money in my pocket to get it... and the other items i can buy here and there. If i dont buy it now, it may be a while before i have the extra cash to make the larger purchase of an upgraded body.

I guess my main decision i have to make now is:

A) Do i buy the D90 and just use my 50mm f/1.8, and use the extra money on a AB800 + reflector

or

B) Do i buy the D90 and pick up the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (and also have my 50mm f/1.8)

I hate to be limited to only having the 50mm lens... as it seems most of my current photos have been taken at 30-40mm focal lengths... but im sure i could adapt now that im going to be able to auto focus the prime lens.

Regardless of what i decide lens wise, at least im confident that i will now have a camera that will take me as far as i want to go, with all features that i currently forsee myself growing into.

Another thing i was considering, was buying one of the cheaper "general" use lenses that had a range of say 18-135 or 18-200... but im not sure what would fall in there. The quality of the images produced by the 18-55mm kit lens seemed sufficient for most situations, i just wished it did better in low light (since i can crank up the ISO more on the D90, perhaps a cheap lens like that would work fine for most of the stuff i want to shoot)

March 10, 2009

Shun -

Yes this is the second time that i have considered upgrading... the first time i knew next to nothing about cameras, so couldn't really justify the "upgrade" untill i knew i was going to be hooked on photography. I also had the mentality "i would rather have something new than something used"... i knew exactly what i had with a new-in-box D40, i didn't want to have to fight potential issues with a used D70... plus the help menues on the D40 were a big help the first few times i went out with the camera.

Honestly had i started with a camera that would be able to autofocus the 50mm f/1.8, i probably would have been content. Other little features, such as not having the ability to do bracketed photos for HDR images, also bother me... but i could live without them.

When i first bought the D40 my mentality was "buy something simple, get used to it, then decide if you are enjoying the hobby enough to justify an upgrade". I feel like i have done exactly that.

Galen-

I have definitely considered the D300. With the D40 vs D90, i can make a very clear list of real-world features that i feel justify the upgrade. On D90 vs D300, i couldn't find a lot that i feel i would use... perhaps im just ignorant to the facts (please feel free to enlighten me as to what the D300 has that would be usefull... im an open book here, just looking to learn)

Im sure i could live with 3 af points, and if that were the only consideration i would not even consider it as justification to upgrade... it was more of a "perk" than a necessary requirement.

As for my lighting issues. Often times i shoot with no flash at all. When i have my studio lights set up, i can get by with more, and am more or less happy with how things are turning out right now (at least in this stage of my learning curve in photography). The places where i want the higher ISO, are low-light situations such as outdoor shots when the sun is starting to go down... when im at an indoor location with unknown lighting and cant use a flash, etc.

Right now photography is my main hobby. I have some extra money that i would like to put into it while i have it. Im not one that likes to waste money, but im also a gadget nerd, and am constantly searching for ways to improve my photos (or make it easier to take quality photos).

March 10, 2009

So do you think that the 50mm f/1.8 would be a sufficient lens to have as my only lens for a short time with the D90?

I would like to keep this round of upgrades to around ~$1000. I figure i can pick up the body only D90 for around $875, then sell my D40 with the kit lens, extra batteries, etc, for around $375... so basicly for $500 i can have the D90 in my hands and use the 50mm f/1.8 with it... then either spend the last $500 on a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, or spend the $500 on one AB800+reflector & stands.

Now that its getting warm outside, i will probably do more shooting outdoors than indoors. All that i had on my mind was "studio photography", but after shooting outdoors this past weekend, im hooked. Thats what led to me thinkin that perhaps a camera/lens upgrade would better suit me than a lighting upgrade. A few months down the road when i have some more camera money saved up, i can invest in some more lighting for the cold months of the year.

March 10, 2009

Hi everyone

Im really having a hard time deciding if i should upgrade to a D90

I guess i will start out by giving you a little background info:

~2 months ago i purchased my first DSLR camera... a Nikon D40. Since then i feel like i have progressed very quickly. I feel very comfortable with the camera. The most recent photos i have taken have came out very well, and fellow photographers have said good things about them.

The type of photography i find myself most interested in, glamour/fashion photos. I have been fortunate enough to have a couple female friends pose for me, both indoors and out.

I have purchased a few things to help me progress in this type of photograhy. So far i have purchased:

-2x 85 watt CFL lights (300 watt equivilent each) with white bounce back umbrellas

-Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 Lens

-Tripod

-Wireless remote

Honestly im VERY happy with how the images turn out on the D40, but feel like the D90 has some features that sound very usefull.

My next step was planned to be a new lens... likely a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, and the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 that is soon to release. I also wanted to get some "real" studio lighting, and pick up a pair of Alien Bees AB400's or AB800's.

After playing with a D90 last night at a local "mega store", im wondering if it would be a logical upgrade at this point.

The biggest things that attract me to the D90 are the following:

-internal focus motor (its driving me crazy trying to manually focus this 50mm 1.8 on my D40... often times i just throw the kit lens back on there to reduce the risk of unuseable images once i get back to my computer). I will likely end up selling my 50mm 1.8, and getting the new AF-S 35mm 1.8 if i keep the D40...which isn't a big consideration... but there is $100 in price difference that could go toward a D90.

-high ISO performance... the D90 even at ISO3200 looked fine... my D40 even at 1600 is basicly unuseable to me because of all the noise. Im sure that a better lens for my D40 would get me where i would no longer need the high ISO performance, but it sure would be nice to have it.

-ability to control off camera flashes such as a SB600. Im aware that i can run a wireless trigger/reciever setup, but if i just casually want to add a single SB600 for a background light or hair light, it seems like it would be nicer to elimiate a few components.

-ability to crop images. at this point in my learning curve, i often take the image further back that i really feel i need to, so that i can crop it to my liking once i have time to play around with it on my computer. the higher resolution of the D90 would allow me to do this more effectivly and still have sufficient quality

-additional AF points. I find that for some of my photos, none of the 3 AF points on a D40 are where i want them to be.

-the absolutely amazing 3" VGA LCD on the D90... for anyone who hasn't seen one in person, its a work of art. Sometimes i find that photos that i "think" looked good on the D40's screen, even zoomed in, are slightly blurred once i get them on the computer screen at home. I feel that the screen on a D90 would really help me critique the photos better when im out shooting, and give me the ability to retake them if they didn't turn out how i wanted.

I think if i purchased the D90, i would buy it "body only" and pick up the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. I think that would make for a really great all-around setup that would work excellent in low-light or limited light.

My current studio lights work well, but i often find myself having to shoot at the widest aperture possible, or use a tripod because of the slow shutter speed required. Between the better lens, and the better high ISO capabilities of the D90, i feel i could get by with easily 1-2 stops less light than what the D40 would require... (or in my case allow me to not have to shoot at the widest aperture, or painfully slow shutter speeds with my current setup) which would put me right about where i want to be for now.

Im very interested to hear what everyone has to say. I have also considered D80's and D200's, but after playing with the D90, would have a hard time being happy with the D80... and the D200 has already been replaced by the D300 so would rather have the "newer" D90.

February 17, 2009

It will only be 1/4" melamine, so it wont be as heavy as it sounds.

I will probably use a stand from something like a drum set that is used to support cymbals. They are extremely strong and often cheaper than photography specific stands.

I Plan on having a switch to be able to turn off 2 or 3 of the 5 lights.

Keep in mind that im by no means a professional photographer. Im doing "OK" with my two 300watt umbrellas, i just want a bit more light and to experiment with a new "type" of light without having to make a big investment.

February 17, 2009

After reading through many online tutorials about how to build a softbox, i have decided to make one myself.

I work at a woodworking company, so the actual construction of the box is not an issue. I plan to use our CNC mill to cut out my light plate and most of the parts.

The problem im having, is know where to start on the dimensions. Things such as width, height, and depth.

The type of photography im insterested in is portrait and full length fashion/glamour style shots. I will primarily be working with a single subject, so lighting multiple people is not something i need to be concerned with.

My first attempt at a softbox im wanting to stay kind of simple. Im thinkin around 24"x24" or 30"x30". I went to home depot last night and purchased 5 sockets, and 5 "daylight" 100watt equivilent CFL lights. So basicly 500watts of power. This box will be used in addition to the two 300watt CFL umbrella lights that i already have.

This is the basic inspiration for my project: <a href="http://stockphoto.blogcu.com/el-emegi-goz-nuru-softbox-yapmak_27385531.html">http://stockphoto.blogcu.com/el-emegi-goz-nuru-softbox-yapmak_27385531.html</a>

So here are my questions at this point

-Will i benefit from sides that curve, or will straight sides work just fine. It seems to me (and this is just a guess), that curved sides would make the light more directional, and straight sides would let it spread out more.

-What is the ideal depth/width/height ratio for a softbox. I sat down and tried to figure out at what angle the light would reflect, but couldn't find a way that i felt was accurate. I would like for this box to be able to light the whole torso of the subject.

-For the actual plate that the lights mount on... what is the effect of the lights being grouped closer together vs more spread out? I would like to make them spread out enough that i could put the larger lights in there, but doubt i will need it. If grouping the small lights together as tightly as possible is ideal, i will do it that way.

-Most use aluminum foil to line their softbox, but i have been told that ideally a white liner will make for a softer light. We have a materal here called melamine. Its basicly a white laminate that is fused onto particle board or MDF. Its semi reflective, but not quite as much as foil... it just "semi-gloss" i guess you could call it.

I really appreciate any information or suggestions that you all can provide. After i finish this rather small one, i plan to build another one that is 2' x 4' or possibly even taller, to use as the main light for glamour shots. I would probably use 8 or 10 of the 100watt bulbs in it.

February 10, 2009

Wow... some really in-depth replys!

Im doing another shoot with an aspiring model this comming Saturday. Im going to try a lot of the things everyone is saying.

I think my next step is going to be some reflectors, even if they are just simple foam board or foam board with foil over them.

I almost purchased a third light today (50" umbrella with a 500watt fluorescent light), but like some said above... i need to learn the basics before i just keep adding more "stuff"

Space was very limited on that last shoot... it was my friends house and they had just moved in the week before. It was fairly late at night when we did the shot, and it was just for fun. Moving furniture wasn't really an option. I did learn a lot that night though, and plan to apply that and what you have all suggested in my next shoot.

Thanks everyone for the great info

February 9, 2009

Thanks for all the good info!

I was really fighting for room. I didn't realize how far back i would have to stand with my 50mm lens (since its on a D40).

Do you all think that softboxes would better suit me? Right now i need to stay mobile, as i dont have a studio. Most of the time i will just be meeting the model somewhere, and having to make do with whatever kind of location.

Do i need more light power, or just make better use of what i have? My first thought was that it would be nice to have two more of the exact lights that i have... and have them a couple feet off the floor aiming up towards her. I also that perhaps a single soft box directly under the camera would help fill in things... but im not sure that would accomplish much that my on-camera flash couldn't.

I tried to do my research before i ordered these lights. After many hours of reading i just decided "well... i have to start somewhere... so im gona just jump in and try it and go from there". I found these lights online for $99 for the pair, so i definitely cant complain.

I noticed when viewing all of the photos in thumbnail mode, that the background color is not very consistent. In some it has a very yellow tone, is some it looks vibrant white, and in some it looks grey. Would an actual white muslin studio background be a lot better?

Here is another photo from the set, and a good example of how i wasn't getting consistent "brightness". I wish i would have kept better track of how i had the lights setting in each pose (i kept moving them and experimenting).

February 9, 2009

Her outfit wasn't really planned.

She is a friend of mines sister-in-law. We were all hanging out over at his house, and started talking about this. She found out i had my stuff out in my car, so we decided to try it out.

Mainly what im looking for suggestion on is the lighting and how i can improve on it.

February 9, 2009

Here is a photo of the lighting setup that i used

February 9, 2009

This past Saturday i had my first chance to try out my new lighting.

Im very new to photography in general, so i would really appreciate some pointers and suggestions.

These are 2x 85watt Fluorescent lights with white/black umbrellas.

Camera is a Nikon D40. 50mm f/1.8 lens. I had it set at aperture priority (f/4-5) and ISO 400. I was using the on-camera pop-up flash.

The two lights were places at rough 4 o'clock and 8 o'clock, a couple feet away.

I was struggling between getting too much light, or getting not enough light and too many shadows. Here is one of the photos that i think turned out the best, but i feel it was a little too dark.

The only editing done on this photo was to crop it using paint.net (just got photoshop but dont have it at work here), and i also slightly messed with the brightness and contrast (increased each by 7 points)

I dont have a background yet, so these were just shot against a white wall at my friends house.

January 25, 2009

Thanks everyone.

Im sitting here trying to read up as much as possible before i leave. I need to leave in about an hour and a half to get to her place on time (i plan on showing up 15-20min early to set things up)

Right now i kind of feel like someone who forgot to study for a test, and is trying to cram as much info as they can in their head in the last hours.

To give you some background info on this whole situations:

I first found this model on craigslist about 2-3 weeks ago. At the time i didn't even own a DSLR camera yet, just my Canon A620 P&S. In her ad she said she was looking to make some side cash by doing modeling. I thought to myself "i have been wanting to get into this for a while... this would be a good opportunity". She then went on to say that she was open to just about any type of poses... and mentioned she had been a Playboy Cybergirl, etc. To be brutally honest, at the time i just wanted to take some pictures of her... and wasn't really approaching it as a photographer or from an artistic standpoint.

When i first contacted her i didn't even own my D40 yet... i explained to her that the whole thing just sounded like fun, and didn't mind paying her rate. I told her all i had was a regular P&S camera, and she was fine with that. I think she just wants to get some paid gigs, and isn't expecting me to give her great results.

Somewhere along the way, i decided that this is something i truly wanted to pursue, and wanted to do it right. I went and bought my D40, have been reading non-stop... etc.

I think the best way for me to approach this is "This is your first time, do your best, and learn as much as possible". I dont expect to walk away with magazine worthy images, and she also doesn't expect me to do professional quality work.

January 25, 2009

Thanks for the info guys!

Most of them are going to be full body portraits.

Do you think a tri-pod would be of any benefit to me? I have noticed on a lot of pictures that i take, especially when the lighting is questionable, that i have to scrap at least have of them because they come out blurry. My local wal-mart has an inexpensive tripod for $30 that im really considering buying on my way there.

People keep telling me that i need to make sure my white balance is correct. Honestly i dont know how i would go about checking that. Im going to attach a photo i took Friday night of my Trans Am and my friends Mustang. It was taken at a rest stop on our way home... the lighting was horrible... but i think it came out OK all things considered. The focus seems to be a tiny bit off, but overall not bad for almost no lighting and me just holding the camera with no support.<img src="http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa279/z28mccrory/DSC_0069.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="681" />

January 25, 2009

Hey everyone. I have decided to jump head first into photography. Last Sunday i purchased my first DSLR camera, a Nikon D40. I have played with it all week, and really love it. I went ahead and set up an appointment with a model to do my first shoot. She understands that im just getting started, and im paying her for her time. My main question is... where should i even start? Im meeting her at her appartment. She says it has great lighting. So far i have messed only with full auto settings on my D40, and have been using the supplied 18-55mm kit lens. From everything im reading, i think i need to set it at aperture priority with the lowest numerical f (3.5), set the camera at the center focus point, and just go with it. I know it may seem like im getting a little ahead of myself here, and that maybe im not ready for this shoot yet, but everyone involved knows my situation and is OK with it. Any advice you guys could give would be great. Im going to check this post before i head to her appartment tomorrow afternoon.

January 19, 2009

Sorry to keep dragging this thread on and on....

Regardless of which camera i end up with... what is a good starting point for doing indoor portraits? A friend of mine said she would be my guinea pig to model for me while i learn the ins and outs, and just want a good starting point.

January 19, 2009

Thanks again for all the info... been reading all day (not getting much done at work, lol)

They are supposed to send me some pictures of the D70 tonight.

Is there anything in particular that i should look for to make sure its in good condition? Im still honestly a bit sceptical about buying somthing like this used. I also dont know the history of the camera. The person who owns it is the girlfriend of a guy that i only know through a local car message board. In the first post i used the term "friend" for simplicity but i honestly dont know them that well.

I think the first type of photography that i really want to get into is portraits and indoor shots. I hear that a 50mm prime would make a good choice. If i stick with the D40 it looks like im limited to the expensive 50mm 1.4f, where is i go with the D70 i can use the MUCH cheaper 50mm 1.8f.

January 18, 2009

Thanks for all the info guys.

I have been trying to do as much reading as possible over the last few hours. I told him i would let him know an answer in the morning. Its actually his girlfriends camera.

A couple things that i have concerns about or am curious about (again... this is comming from someone who knows nothing about these)

1) The D70 uses CF card, and the D40 uses SD... my laptop and desktop both have SD ports so i wouldn't have to mess with a card reader. Is CF a dieing technology?

2) Right now the world of photography is very exciting and i want to learn as much as possible, become great at it, etc... but realisticly i will probably be gung-ho about it for a few months or so, then just do it for fun here and there. Is the D70 "overcomplicated" for someone who never plans to me anything more than a hobbyist?

3) IF i do decide to stick with photography for any length of time, i will probably upgrade (regardless of if i start with the D40 or D70) and look into a D90 (i dont know enough about it to know why i would need it, but a friend of mine just upgraded from a 40 to a 90 and never looked back..says he loves it). If thats the case would the D40 make a better "backup" camera or just "for fun" camera? I have read a lot of reviews where people state that they love the D40 for its easy to use simplicity, and even people with pro cameras like D300s sometimes grab the D40 for everything but "serious" photos.

The main thing that made me want to get into photography, was my main hobby... cars and motorcycles. Taking pictures of them and friends cars will be the main use... plus im sure i will use the camera on vacation, etc. Not sure if that information is relevent, but that is the camera intended use.

January 18, 2009

Hey Guys,

First off... i know absolutely nothing of DSLR cameras yet. Im looking to get into photography as a hobby, and am just getting started.

Today, per a friends advise, i went and picked up a D40 Kit for $450 at a local megastore. When i get home i had a message from another friend who wants to know if im interested in his D70.

He only wants $500 for his D70 and it includes all this:

-D70 w/ about 5800 shutter actuations -18-70 f3.5-4.5 kit lens -Nikkor 70-300 f 4-5.6 w/ soft case -Nikkor 28-85 f3.5-4.5 w/ macro mode -BM4 LCD cover -ML-L3 remote -HB-32 lens hood for kit lens -HB-26 lens hood for 70-300 -B+W UV filter for kit lens -Sandisk Ultra II 512mb (x2) and 2gb (x2) CF cards. I had a 1gb card as well, but it seems to have sprouted legs. -Sandisk CF memory card reader -all original equipment that came w/ the body (minus video cable) including battery, charger, manual, etc. I believe I also still have the original box for the body and kit lens

Im sure the D40 is an excellent camera... but if i can get this D70 with all those extras for basicly the same price should i jump on it?

I tried doing some searches and some day that the D40 is the "newer generation" and therefore may actually be better... but i just would like to find some quick advise.

Thanks in advance for any advise you guys can give me!

Zack

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by zack_mccrory