kellyway

<p>Hi Catalin,<br>

I have been a lighting tech for film and tv for 20 years and have had an opportunity to work with just about every light you can imagine. It is relatively easy to use "hot" lights and diffuse them and control them. They can be great for photography because you can really see what you are getting. Having said that I don't use them anymore for still photos because I find the Nikon Creative Lighting System gives me more control and flexibility than my Rifas or fresnels. <br>

For color temp you just throw on a gel if you are in a 3200 environment. Daylight? No problem there. One off camera speed light can give you a tremendous amount of creative control.<br>

As much as I like 18k HMI's and 5k's with chimeras on them to light sets for 90210 or Apocolypto, when I am lighting friends and flowers a speed light is my best friend.</p>

I use mostly all zeiss zf lenses. 18, 25,50,85. The only auto focus lens I use is the nikkor 180mm 2.8. I really love manual

focusing and rarely have a problem getting critical focus on the D700. I think the ZF line is great especially for studio still

life and landscape.

<p>Nice work everyone! My friend was testing his new f-100 video camera at Bronson cave in Los Angeles. The cave is the original Bat-Cave from the TV series Batman. My buddy was trying to figure out what lenses to use with his new camera and I convinced him that Nikon was great with a sweet range of manual primes in the same mount, he agreed. I decided to go with him and have some fun myself. I used two SB-900's white balance was set to tungsten so I corrected the key light and let the background light go. Nikon D700 and Zeiss ZF 50mm 1.4 at f/5.6 Have a great Wednesday everyone!</p><div></div>

<p>Hi Ray,<br>

I have not done much of this kind of work and the advice given here so far seems helpful. IMHO I think the best way to control this kind of effect is to let nature do her thing instead of adding optical elements. Low light is the way to go here. There is a narrow window of opportunity twice a day depending on the orientation of your subject. I would experiment with low light exposure to find the light that works best for what you are doing. I promise you won't be disappointed. You will find fewer harsh highlights and hi contrast crushed blacks as well a the gentle blurring of motion. Best of luck!</p>

I think a compelling image can be discovered using all manner of photographic techniques. HDRI is capable of delivering

beautiful hyper real imagery in ways traditional photography can not. There are many artists working here on the PN that

have refined and mastered the use of HDRI. The complaints and criticisms of purists have there place and as there are

plenty of poorly graded HDRI images there are just as many poorl exposed poorly processed traditional images. I guess

the point I'm trying to make is the photographic arts are not limited to anyone's opinion. The good news is we have a

growing ever changing grab bag of techniques to help us create compelling images that tell our stories and archive our

lives. HDRI just happens to be one of them.

I use the micro nikkor 55 2.8 on my D700. It spends a lot of time on my d700.

I use the D700 and the D300 both are good cameras. I love my D700 it is a tank and does everything but it's not a video

camera. I can't wait for Nikon to release its new cameras especially if the price on a D3 or D3s drops these 12mp full

frame cameras will always be good no matter what new models will be released.

Love that photo Joe

<p>Oh and here is my photo, still trying to figure this stuff out : )</p><div></div>

I think you are expecting to much from the camera. Pushing 4 stops from any iso should introduce annoying artifacts but

pushing four stops at 3200? The image should look pretty crappy with strange artifacts abounding especially in hi-con

areas. Getting a good exposure is the best way of achieving clean blacks and that requires some light.

<p>You should add Blu Ray. That is my Archive solution.</p>

Definitely not a competition just a preference. I don't use zooms at all and all my primes are MF accept a 180 2.8 nikon.

I use zeiss zf lenses. The argument that photography is not about the gear is only half true for obvious reasons. I enjoy

making pictures part of that enjoyment comes from the mechanics of making them. As far as auto-focus goes, mostly you

have to adjust it manualy at some point anyway so it should be called auto-assist heh heh.

Wonderful! We seem to be on the same page. However I don't think it is necessary to play the devils advocate here. It is

as if you are saying it is ok to use theses methods because people already have per-determined tendencies to be

exploited. Which sounds odd. Just because we can be taken advantage of does it mean we should be?

Take tobacco for instance. Human physiology is such that it can become addicted to a lethal substance. An industry of

unimaginable profit grew from that simple fact. Millions of people have died horrible deaths as a result.

 

Beauty culture in aggregate through multiple generations using advanced tools and communication techniques has by

and large subverted the public mind to accept falsified standards of beauty. An industry of unimaginable profit has grown

around it. Subverting self-esteem Has multipal negative effects. People exchange labor at discount prices to maintain

access to the products that will make them "better" "prettier" "acceptable". The most disturbing artifact of this subversion

however is it creates a passive and obedient society. This opens the doors to all manner of societal ills.

 

It is so addictive and powerful that the very people being exploited become the self appointed guardians of the system.

Not unlike smokers.

So what? You look at this and the first thing that comes to mind is photographers are going to lose jobs?

Digressed because I am responding to the use of doctored images in media culture and you are talking about

uncontrolled erections. As I wrote before, there are many respected media critics and researchers that have accumulated

a lifetimes work exposing the uses of such propaganda to manipulate the public mind. Take a look at Noam Chomsky's

"manufacturing consent" or the work of Edward Bernaise.

Ummmm, well this has kinda digressed a bit.

Richard,

 

Really? No control? I'm not buying that. All reactions to stimulus are not "controlled" by the nervous system. The

argument that humans are just animals responding to the environment is compelling on some level but it fails to account

for so much more.

 

You seem to have an interest in science I think to better understand social manipulation through public relations you

might find some interesting reading. There are some researchers that have spent a lifetime studying and writing about the

manipulation of the public mind through propaganda and the uses of media to reach such an end.

 

And also, you may find simplicity in defining human behavior based on selective reproductive patterns but you won't solve

any problems. By distilling complex systems to simple reactionary behavior misses to much in between.

Richard,

 

I would not take that bet. Having said that, not a very good test anyway. You and I are hardly capable of making a

concrete determination to set the global standards for what is considered attractive. That would not answer the question

anyway. I still argue there is a moral conundrum when advertisers manufacture consent in the general population to

sexualize children and woman. Using post production techniques too achieve hyper-real imagery that sanitizes and

narrows the acceptable range of "what is beautiful" for the sole purpose of subverting self-esteem in the viewer.

 

There is probably a list of observable cultural artifacts that are unique to the age of mass media public relations that range

from eating disorders to unmanageable personal credit card debt. Hardly scratching the surface I'm sure.

<p>Attractiveness is a reproductive trait and it is subjective. The hyper sexualization of woman and children in beauty culture has nothing to do with that. I would argue that using the imagery of people to subvert self-esteem in the viewer has a negative impact. This is a subtle form of propaganda that would be lost on most as it has become "normal" in our entertainment culture. Celebrating beauty is wonderful, and subjective. Using beauty-myth to sell useless products to people through subverting self-esteem... not so much.</p>

<p>Peace and Justice movement in Los Angeles</p>

You should get a set of wire scrims. A full set is 1single 2 doubles 1 half single and 1 half double. A single reduces

the light by a half stop the double one full stop. Red heads are great for bounces like a 4 by 4 bead board but they

are poorly designed to use with chimera's or "soft boxes" a 1k solid state dimmer can be used but the change in color

temp is no good. If you have a 4 by 4 frame of 216, light grid or 250 you can make a nice soft source but you may

need to cut it off walls.

<p>The micro nikor 55 2.8 is a great buy</p>

Hi John,

 

Firstly I think it is great that you are experimenting with HDRI there is no such thing as a "fake" image and pushing the

boundaries of traditional photography is a gas! I personally don't use Photoshop to do HDRI so I can not comment on

the differences you see in the two techniques you used, however I will recommend Nik softwares HDRfx Pro. They

have a great tool called U-point that allows for the greatest amount of control to regional adjustments. Exposure

blending is photographies dirty secret and mastering the the technique will push your creativity and artistic exploration

to new levels.

 

Regards.

KW

Hi Russ, the D300 allows for the use of non CPU lenses and the Nikon 35 1.4 ais is a great lens built like a tank

super sharp and has the added bonus of being manual focus! It is also light...

Your 35 L must be almost as heavy as the d300 lol