john_gallino1

<p>D'oh! Should've caught that. Anyway, this definitely isn't the first time I've seen portraits with that look. What would be the best way to reproduce it in-camera with standard SLRs?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.renaldi.com/photographs/touching/">http://www.renaldi.com/photographs/touching/</a></p>

<p>I think these portraits are beautiful, but I've often tried to replicate this shallow depth of field and can't get it quite this shallow. For one, these images do not look like they were shot with a particularly telephoto lens. In fact some of them seem quite wide, but I've shot things with a 17mm f/2.8 and the depth of field is much deeper than these images.<br>

So is this just photoshopped, or using a very specific lens?</p>

<p>I doubt I'll have time to set up tripod shots, especially as part of a group. This isn't <em>my</em> trip and I can't imagine having many opportunities to shoot at my own pace.<br>

But with all your recommendations, I will look into tripods. Perhaps I can find one that's reasonable to bring along. What should I be looking for? Obviously light-weight, and something I can set up and take down ASAP would be best. I know Carbon Fiber is pretty expensive though, and I'm hesitant to pour that much cash into something I will rarely use...<br>

On second thought, maybe I should give up the landscape thing entirely, as a trip like this is not the best way to get landscape shots of the places I'll be visiting. Instead I could just try to document the trip in a photojournalist style, including my co-participants and the activities we do. I think that would be much more fun and more suited to my shooting style as well.</p>

<p>Nah I'm from the east coast, not Europe. I definitely would not want to bring a tripod. It would be a hassle to myself and others on the trip. I'm not yet sure of what our limitations are for how much baggage each person is allowed. Besides, I don't like working with them and would probably leave it behind in the car/campsite on all the hikes. <br>

<br />And I'm leaning towards the 18-200 just because I rather not have to stop and change lenses in the middle of a hike to get the shot I want.<br>

Maybe the 18-200 and the 50 f/1.8 or a wider fast lens for night/dark cave shots?</p>

<p>This summer I'll be partaking in a month-long abroad course at my school. I'll be flying to Portland, OR and spend the next month with a group of classmates touring six states by car. 75% of the time we will be camping outside overnight, and it's a very outdoor-intensive course with lots of hiking and visiting natural wonders and stuff like that.</p>

<p>As a photographer I definitely want to bring an SLR along. I have a heavy, but possibly more weather-resistant D300 and the lighter D90. Keeping in mind that neither are insured and the D90 is cheaper and smaller, I'm leaning towards bringing the D90.</p>

<p>I'll probably bring my camera equipment in my Slingshot 100 bag which includes the nylon weather cover thing to protect from rain, and has room for a camera, flash, and a lens or two at most. </p>

<p>Of course with all the hiking involved, I'd like to pack as light and comfortable as possible, but I'm not sure which lens to bring.</p>

<p>I currently own the very-expensive and heavy 17-55 f/2 which I think might be overkill for something like this. I have my old 18-70 f/3.2-4.5 kit lens, a 50mm f/1.8 which I don't think is wide enough for all-around use, a 105 macro, and a 70-300 f/4-5.6 without VR.</p>

<p>I was also considering renting an 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 and using that as my only lens. I can't afford to buy it and don't think I would put it much use outside of this trip anyway (too slow for what I do).</p>

<p>What do you think would be the best course of action?</p>

<p>And as a secondary question if you care to answer, I'm a pretty terrible landscape photographer. I usually come back from a trip with very boring outdoor images. From what I hear, I'll be going to some amazing places this summer. What should I focus on to capture them best?</p>