ryan_smith9
-
Posts
108 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by ryan_smith9
-
-
<p>I apologize, I put the wrong light kit in the link - it is this one:</p>
<p>Th one above has a ton more wattage than mine currently does. Is it possible to replace the bulbs that originally came with the unit with stronger ones? Will it damage the lighting units if I do that?</p>
-
<p>I had exposure set to automatic, which may be my issue. The strobes are constant, are not triggered by flash. I just felt like I had to use the on camera flash to help brighten the picture. </p>
-
<p>I recently starting using a lighting kit for photographing my daughter. I am totally new and am learning every time I use it. The kit I have is <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/569847-REG/Interfit_INT441_Stellar_X_600_Flash.html">here</a>. I have been taking pictures with the lights standing about 5-6 feet back from the subject. This is the only decent light in this room and the pictures have been coming out fairly dark like you can see below. </p>
<p>For the picture below, I was using a Nikon D70S with the kit 18-70 f/3.5-4.5 for the photo below; I used about a 35mm DX focal length. Since then, I have purchased the Nikon D90 and a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. This new equipment should greatly help with the lighting as I am now at a constant 2.8 and can bump up the ISO a little without any loss of picture quality. </p>
<p>My question is though, for pictures like the one below, is 5 ft too close/far away for my setup in order to get pictures that really 'pop'? As you can see in the picture below, I have been forced to use on board flash which in turn produces nasty shadows. What would be the best setup to get a bright picture without the shadows utilizing my current equipment? Should I get an external flash such as SB-600 to help with this setup? Any help is appreciated.</p><div>
</div> -
<p>I have the Tamron 28-75mm and it is an excellent lens. I have not used the Nikon 28-85 you mention but I have to imagince the constant 2.8 would be of great help. This is considered one of the best mid-range zooms (if not the best) of the third party lenses for the Nikon. It is extremely sharp, quiet and the bokeh is magnificent. Stopped down to about 4 this lens is perfectly sharp in all areas. This is a new lens that is specially coated to reduce flare, which I have not had a problem with at all. Distortion is not an issue either. I would highly recommend this lens.</p>
-
<p>I recently recorded a video indoor using the D90 and the sound was not that bad, music was playing in the back and it sounded pretty good. The video however, was pretty bad looking. I had to convert the movie to black and white because the color of the video was horrible. Outside the video may look better, but like you I primarily am using it indoors with my kid. My recommendation, get a cheap camcorder, I think Canon has some non-HD for about $200 and they are tiny.</p>
-
<p>We were playing with my daughter in the pool outside and took this shot with an old 70-210mm 4-5.6 lens at 5.6 and 210mm at 1/400 sec. Obviously touched up a little with an added effect in LR2.</p><div></div>
-
<p>I have been looking for one of these lenses, I am willing to give it a shot if you do not want to send it back to Tamron</p>
-
<p>Joe, very sharp for handheld at 1/10</p>
-
<p>Just received my Tamron 90mm macro lens and went outside to play. <BR><BR>Nikon D90 w/ Tamron 90mm f/2.8 @ ISO 200</p><div></div>
-
<p>Thanks all, it sounds like the best option is to just save up and buy a longer lens. </p>
-
<p>Does anyone know of a good teleconverter (if one exists) that will work on the Nikon 85mm f/1.8 D? I would prefer a Nikon brand but if there is another brand out there that will provide just as good quality, I would obviously be interested in that as well. I want it to be able to autofocus. Thanks for your help</p>
-
<p>Oops, here is the picture</p><div></div>
-
<p>Went to father-in-law's competition and took this picture. Nikon D90 with Tamron 90mm f/2.8, ISO 1600, 1/60 hand-held with available light.</p>
-
<p>Thangavelu,<br>
Both are excellent lenses. You already have the 17-24 range of the 12-24 covered with more than a stop better in your 17-55. That lens can do the 17-24 range at 2.8 where the 12-24 can only go down to 4. The only question is, is $100 worth it for 2.8 vs 4 for the 11-16mm. I would say yes, since it is such a small difference price-wise for the availability to take shots that the 12-24 can not give you. No brainer in my opinion.</p>
-
<p>The Nikonians website did a review of several different wide angle zooms a while back.....<br>
This review prompted me to purchase the Tokina 12-24 f/4.0 as it was half the cost of the Nikon and I couldn't be any happier. The Nikon will be sharper in the corners, but in the center the Tokina seems to be a little sharper according to other reviews I have read. If you want a little wider and shoot in low light conditions, there has been nothing but praise for the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8<br>
As you mentioned, there is a newer Tokina 12-24 with a built in motor - which is only needed if you use a D40/D60. If you do not use one of those cameras, there is no sense in my opinion in buying the BIM Tokina.</p>
-
<p>I see, so I guess I have the 28/90 adapter and it won't work on a Leica that does not show 28mm frames</p>
-
<p>I am new to the rangefinder world as I recently purchased a Leica M2, so pardon me if this is a silly question. I also purchased a Voigtlander 28mm f/1.9 lens. The CV 28mm is a LTM but I have the adapter on it to use on my M2. When I put this lens on the camera, it pulls up the 90mm frame line instead of the 35mm. Is this normal? Thanks in advance</p>
-
<p>Thanks everyone. Bill, just like you mentioned, it has one of the last 1,000 serial numbers handed out to the M4-Ps which means it was made in Germany, but it still has the Canada engraving.</p>
-
<p>All black</p>
-
<p>As many of you are aware, about 1,000 very late model M4-Ps were made in Germany. In good condition, with only maybe a little vulcanite missing, what would be a fair value for one of these? Was there any difference in the cameras made in Canada and Germany other than where they were produced? Thanks for your help</p>
-
<p>Keith,<br>
Knowing that you own one, would you recommend it? I am only using it for 35mm negatives. If you are printing 11x14 I would assume 8x10 should be fine as well. I also own the R1800 so that is welcoming news</p>
-
<p>Peter,<br>
One thing I would caution is the more pixels the better. Just because a camera is 12mp vs a 10mp camera does not necessarily mean that the image will be sharper. However, 7,200 vs 4,000 is a very big difference.<br>
That is very interesting to hear that the Shutterbug reviewer recommends the Plustek over the Minolta. That might make my decision for me right there.</p>
-
<p>I am looking at possibly purchasing a 35mm dedicated film scanner and stumbled upon the Plustek OpticFilm 7500i SE Film Scanner for $329. It has 7200 DPI but the Dynamic Range is only 3.5. Does anyone have any experience with this scanner? I am looking for a scanner for 35mm negatives for color and B&W film. I do not have a lot to spend on a scanner as I have already gone all out on a Leica M and lenses. I see used Nikon's for about $600-$700 but do not have the money for that right now. Would the Plustek be better than a flatbed Epson v500?</p>
-
<p>Main use will be outdoor/street shooting. I will want this for scanning negatives. I have not tried anything yet as I will be getting my new Leica M2 in a matter of days. I just want to make sure I am using film that will transition to digital well.</p>
How close should the lights be to the subject?
in Lighting Equipment
Posted