nathansanborn

<p>Rodeo Joe, I'm confident that it wasn't subject movement, as I had back focus across nearly every shot taken below f5.6 with this lens. Also the frames before and after had roughly the same posing and similar issues. It could have been me moving, but if 1/250 is inadequate to handhold 28mm I'm in serious trouble. Plus other shots in this series taken with an 85 1.8 at f4 1/125th are tack sharp.</p>

<p>You may be right about a tilted plane of focus. This lens was involved it a stumble I took walking in Puerto Rico shortly after I got it which caused the lens hood to crack and very slight scratching to the filter and end of the lens body, but it appeared to not affect the performance of the lens. But then again, I believe that I was often experiencing this issue before the spill and was attributing it to operator error.</p>

<p>Scratch that, looking to see if that may be the case, I looked closely at portraits taken right before my clumsy stumble and you can see how often the ears of people are just a bit sharper than the eyes. Not saying it is impossible, just saying the issue likely pre-dates my stumble. (17-55 is built like a Sherman Tank) Plus in the photo posted the iron work behind her head is way farther away than what is behind her legs, maybe 15-20 feet, the whole wall are a bunch of old railroad tracks placed in a super wavy configuration, really cool and I wish this shot would have turned out sharp (never mind the ups truck in the background, I was smarter at framing in the following shots).</p>

<p>I hope you're wrong, I'm just starting trying to make a living with my camera and don't want to be without this lens while it is in for repair. Which tells me that I should send in my 18-70 for repair to have a back up zoom in the event something does happen. (zoom ring stuck, fixed it myself, worked great, got stuck again, fixed it again, af issues now, decided to replace it with 17-55).</p>

<p>Really unfortunately about not using a moving target for a focus test is that this was not a focus test, this was a paid gig. The good thing is that I was aware that I may be having an issue with back focus (although I wasn't convinced until now), so I made sure to switch lenses several times and stop down farther than I normally would have often. Also on the good news side the client loved the shots, and I have a ton of good ones.</p>

<p>Hopefully a little af fine tune fixes it, otherwise I owe you a "you were right", delivered through a fountain of tears.</p>

<p>Awesome guys, thank you! Do you find a difference in tune values across the zoom range of a particular lens, and if so, use the linear plotting to determine the final specific value for that lens?</p>

<p>Background detail. The plants and railroad tracks (wall) are much sharper.</p><div></div>

<p>Face detail.</p><div></div>

<p>Selected focus.</p><div></div>

<p>An example photo</p><div></div>

<p>I've had my D7000 for a few years now, and I find it to be a great camrea capaable of razor sharp pictures. I have determined that there is a strong possibility that I have a backfocus issue, specifically when using the 17-55 2.8G.</p>

<p>Often times when I was missing focus, it was due to operator error (focus and recompose not remembering that I had it set to af-c). But after more and more practice and better and better methodolgy, I keep finding soft eyes and faces with tack sharp details in the background, not really that visible on the previews on the camera back, but obvious in the images (even without pixel peeping). So I have many images taken yesterday for a client that are only suitable for facebook or 5x7. Luckily I was also using several other lenses that don't appear to have an issue, and photos shot at f7.1 with the 17-55 are very sharp, but at f4 not so much.</p>

<p>So my question, what is the best method for testing? I've read several previous threads and I have an idea, but when testing a zoom, should I select any particular part of it's range? The photo's shot yesterday were bad at 28mm and at full body distance, however before the shoot I did a quick test at home and found the focus to be fairly good, but that test was just shooting my keyboard wide open at 55mm only a few feet away and I couldn't see an issue.</p>

<p>I read Bob Atkins article linked from another thread, but it fails to mention things like subject distance or zoom range and whether or not it would change the results. I'm inclined to believe that it may based on my experience.</p>

<p>Thank you for your help.</p>

<p>Another from my warm up set. Love good window light.</p><div></div>

<p>A impromptu shoot with friends just to stay loose before a paid business portrait shoot the next day.</p><div></div>

<p>The D7100 has a better AF than the D600. But faster glass may help your focus issues as well. Regarding print size, I've gotten amazing 36x24 prints from a D7000. With the 30 something points I have on the D7000 I still usually just use the one in the center.</p>

<p>I guess I didn't do a good job of answering your question yet, just giving you things to think about. One other thing to think about... When I upgraded from a D50 to a D7000, the first thing I noticed were that the pictures were... the same. I love the better interface, the cls, the better af, lots of things about the D7000. An I even get frustrated sometimes when I try to use the D50 in low light. But the pictures look the same. They're my pictures, and they look like I took them. The pictures didn't get better until I did. </p>

<p>I haven't shot a lot of sports, but 1/3200 seems really fast. I imagine you would be able to freeze motion fairly well at much slower speeds like 1/1000 maybe? Looking through some old pictures I took at an air show shots done at 1/1600 barely showed motion blur at the end of an airplane propeller, so I had to slow it down to keep the planes from looking like inanimate models. An airplane propeller moves near the speed of sound at it's tip, way faster than most football players.</p>

<p>In your situation I would use shutter priority (tv), auto ISO, and try lots of different speeds starting as slow as even 1/500th to see how it looks.</p>

<p>I think you should edit the set down a little more. You have a lot of similar images in there. If this is just a proof set for your clients then that is one thing. If you are using this as a portfolio set or to tell a story, then you need to pick only the very best of the set to show. I like the images of the boots, but I only need to see 1 of them.</p>

<p>Very pleased with the bokeh, and it is very good at achieving shallow depth of field for subject separation. I see no issues at all with the D other than no af-s, and I imagine the G to be even better.</p>

<p>I have an 85 1.8D that I shoot on a D7000 and I absolutely love it! 85 is a great focal length for portraits on DX.</p>

<p>I would add to Bills comments that it also depends on the size of the space. In a large space it can be easier to prevent unwanted light from having too great an effect due to the inverse square law. In a really big white room it's easy to make everything black, but in smaller spaces the light doesn't have enough distance to lose energy and become darker sometimes.</p>

Great photos. Loved the images. Music was very well done, sounded good.

 

I'm not sure the music quite matches the images though. The images are lovely and scenic, but the music has a bit of

tension too it that would be great for sports or action but maybe not for travel photos of Italy.

 

Just my thoughts. I love peanut butter, and I love pepper, but I'm weary of a peanut butter and pepper sandwich?

 

But I love what you're going for with expanding the presentation of your art to include more of your art. I would love to

hear a light airy music with your Italy shots and use the music from this slide show with some more dramatic images.

<p>The D lenses will not autofocus on your D3200, so you will want the lenses marked AF-S (silent wave motor). Almost all of the G lenses are AF-S and will autofocus with your camera.</p>

<p>I would say it's due to pixel peeping. Just keep shooting it, and don't view your pictures on a pixel level. When you get a shot that you think looks good, print it huge. </p>

<p>When I first got my 16mp D7000, I felt the same way comparing images to my 6mp D50 (not realizing how much closer in I was looking at 100% with so many more pixels)... I just kept shooting, and after I printed a shot 24x36... wow! I can stick my nose into the print and it is still sharp and full of detail. But on my computer I can zoom in on the same photo until it looks soft..</p>

<p>Check out the strobist blog. Start out with the Lighting 101 section. There is so much good information there.</p>

The only problem that I see with the SB700 is that it doesn't have a PC synch. It works great with the CLS (Nikons flash

control system where you could use your pop up flash to trigger and control off camera flashes), but in order to use

pocket wizards you need to get a PC to hot shoe adapter, which the newer flashes don't sit very securely into.

 

An SB910 will give you more power, and gives you a PC connection. But it cost more than an Einstien or Alien Bee

which would be WAY more powerful of a light, and adding the Vagabond battery pack makes it portable. Plus you get

modeling lights so you can see what the light is going to look like on your subject.

 

For comparison:

 

SB910 $546.95

AB1600 with Vagabond $599.90

Einstein with Vagabond $739.90

Cheapest route, a used SB25 or other manual flash with a PC connection.

 

Currently I have the SB600 (very similar to the SB700) and although it's good, it's inability to securely stay on top of a PC

to hot shoe caused me to buy a used SB25. Then I also have studio lights which I wish were able to run off of a battery

pack. With all of this gear I believe I will still get the Einstien and Vagabond one day... And this is just a hobby for me.

Sounds like it set new defaults for you. Go to the custom setting menu b2 and change the EV steps for exposure control

from 1/2 step to 1/3 step.

<p>I mean 300mm f/4 afd. Cropped.</p>

<p>The moon.</p><div></div>

<p>Rick,</p>

<p>Thank you for the amazing advice! I'll be re-reading this a few times over the next couple days.</p>

<p>Luckily I have media access already. I apreciiate greatly the advice on who to look for and how to work with them. That will be a difference maker.</p>

<p>I'm not actually writing the story. Just doing the photo's. I guess I meant storytelling in a visual sense. But I will for sure have a note pad with me and now have a good idea of what to look for. Thank you.</p>

<p>This is exactly the sort of advice I was looking for, and more than I would have ever expected. Thank you!</p>

<p>I'm fairly new to being a member of "the media", so this should be interesting. I've shot a few weddings, I've shot some events, I've been media for an air show, but nothing quite like this. I'll be shooting the event for a pop culture website. The event is 4 days, many different venues.<br>

<br /> I'm not really looking for technical advice, or gear advice. I believe I have a handle on that. (Don't get me wrong, if you think there is a equipment or technical thing that would help, I'm all ears for that as well, but not that concerned going in). I guess what I was wondering if those with more experience than me (or less with a good tip learned the hard way) have anything that they can share in the way of tips and tricks to make the weekend go smoother.<br>

<br /> No real ideas as to what area that advice may be in, but the sort of advice I will be able to give others on Monday after I've made all my unforeseen mistakes and breaches in etiquette.<br>

<br /> My plan as of now is to rely on my stupidly overdeveloped sense of curiosity to build a visual narrative. I hope to both candidly observe the scene, and hopefully arrange with the event organizers and my editors to get access to performers for quick portraits (I hope), and maybe some access behind the scenes to show how an event like this gets done.<br>

<br /> I'm also hoping for one shot I have visualized, a microphone in front of an audience from the performers point of view, and I think I'm going to sign up for an open mic during the fest to get this shot. Comedicly I'm not afraid to bomb, I think I can get some laughs, but how great would the storytelling be if I bombed!</p>

<p>(sorry to the moderators if this is a duplicate post, I originally posted it under the category photojournalism and it disappeared... I can't even find the category on the forums page)</p>

<p>Nathan</p>