studio460

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/makeup-700.jpg" alt="" /><br> Nikon D70, 2005.</p> <p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/emirror-700.jpg" alt="" /><br> Nikon D70, 2005.</p> <p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/emirror3-700.jpg" alt="" /><br> Nikon D70, 2005.</p> <p> </p>

<p>In addition to Lee's CTO/CTB (i.e., "color-temperature orange"/"color-temperature blue") conversion gels, Lee also makes an array of "plus-green" and "minus-green" gels with indicated "CC-equivalent" values. Certain Lee CC gels are sometimes useful for "fine-tune" correction of certain LED panels (e.g., Lee "quarter-minus green," which appears as a light-colored magenta gel). Rosco Cinegel CTO/CTB swatchbooks do include Mired-shift data, but are essentially sold in the same values as the Lee equivalents using the same nomenclature (e.g., 1/8th, 1/4, 1/2, 3/4, full).</p>

<p>I said:</p> <blockquote> <p><em>A friend of mine who shoots for another show bought some cheap import-brand LitePanel copies, and they seem to be okay since he shoots for another broadcast show. I'll ask him for the specific brand the next time I see him (we shoot may of the same events, so I see him frequently) . . . They're not bi-color, so he has to use a hard CTO gel to correct them to tungsten.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>I asked my friend last night which LED panels he bought. He couldn't recall the brand, but they're essentially "brand-less," Chinese-import 1' x 1' panels. He bought three 1' x 1' panels for $1,000 from some eBay seller (he doesn't remember which one). He says the color temperature isn't perfect, and is slightly green. I believe I've seen him use CC10 magenta gels to correct, but I could be mistaken on the value.</p>

<p>Personally, I find white/silver reflectors more useful than those with gold surfaces. The simplest way to mount a foldable reflector of that size is to grip-clip two corners of the reflector to the top of two lightweight stands. You could also gaff-tape it to an opposing wall. Also, though its reflectance is quite low, a couple of V-flats made out of 4' x 8' sheets of Foamcore or Gatorboard can be self-standing when arranged in a 'V' shape.</p> <p>But, I assume what you're looking for is basically a "directionless fill" for the side of the subject opposite the windows (so a 45-degree, down-angle isn't really necessary). The problem with using bounced fill in this kind of application is that it usually doesn't provide enough output. You would more easily bring up the exposure on the side opposite the windows using a strobe to bounce additional light into the reflector, or by simply adding another source using a strobe through a large softbox, umbrella (shoot-through or reflective), or scrim.</p> <p>When lighting for television, I'll usually place a soft source (e.g., KinoFlo, Cineo, etc.) behind a 4' x 4' Polysilk (similar to a 1.25-stop scrim) on the "fill" side. An even nicer solution for you could be to tape up two 4' x 8' sheets of Foamcore (or any material that's white enough) onto the opposing wall, and simply bounce a strobe into that surface, effectively creating a large, diffuse, 8' x 8' indirect source.</p>

<p>Thanks, Paul! Yeah, I love this little Nikon D3300! That's at <em>The Mayan</em> theater in downtown Los Angeles.</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/D3300maya-3.png" alt="" width="700" height="467" /><br /> Nikon D3300 + AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm VR II @ 18mm; ISO: 1,800; f/3.5 @ 1/20th.<br /> <br /> <img src="http://studio460.com/images/D3300maya-1.png" alt="" width="700" height="467" /><br /> Nikon D3300 + built-in flash @ -0.7 FEC + AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm VR II @ 18mm; ISO: 3,600; f/3.5 @ 1/20th.</p> <p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/D3300maya-4.png" alt="" /><br /> Nikon D3300 + AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm VR II @ 18mm; ISO: 900; f/3.5 @ 1/20th.</p>

<p>Craig makes some excellent, and affordable tungsten recommendations. Know that LEDs and fluorescents have absolutely no "throw." A focusable open-face light, such as a Lowel DP, or an even more-focusable Fresnel, such as an Arri 650, can throw light much further. The light will essentially be a point-source, so it will be a fairly hard, but at least you can project light across some distance (whereas an LED or KinoFlo will fall off to nothing after just a few feet). If you use two hard lights from either side (i.e., "cross-light"), the "hardness" becomes less objectionable.</p> <p>Lowel Tota-lights are dirt-cheap used, and put out a lot of light, lamped at either 750 or 1,000 Watts. A few strategically placed Tota-lights, either bounced into a white ceiling, into some taped-up Foamcore, or into a Totabrella can easily light up a fairly large space. Note that open-faced lights are kinda dangerous. Their bulbs are completely exposed and are super f'ing hot (will cause third-degree burns on contact).</p> <p>Bring adequate sandbags/shotbags, and be sure to gaff-tape all electrical cords ("stingers"). Tota-lights are small and lightweight enough to also consider hard-mounting to an existing structure using either a Cardellini, Mafer, or bar-clamp. Cardellinis, IMO, are the best (pricey, at about $70 each). Bar-clamps (i.e., furniture clamps with baby spuds) come in varying lengths, and are great for mounting to large beams. If hanging any instruments, be sure to use a steel safety cable to secure the light.</p> <p>Also, be aware of causing any fire hazard by positioning any hot light too close to flammable material above the lamp (e.g., drop-ceiling tiles, etc.). And, very important, always be sure to check where the fire sprinklers are located in the ceiling! Good luck!</p>

<p>David:</p> <p>The only LEDs I've actually used are the LitePanels (plus some other exotic LED instruments used for daylight exteriors which are hideously expensive at about $7,000 each). A friend of mine who shoots for another show bought some cheap import-brand LitePanel copies, and they seem to be okay since he shoots for another broadcast show. I'll ask him for the specific brand the next time I see him (we shoot may of the same events, so I see him frequently). I'll report back here when I find out what they are and where you can buy them. I know they were quite a bit less expensive than the LitePanels. They're not bi-color, so he has to use a hard CTO gel to correct them to tungsten.</p> <p>Also, note that the batteries used for most 1' x 1' LED panels are also quite expensive. Most are made to accommodate professional video camera batteries (called, "bricks) made by Anton Bauer. Where I work, we happen to have the highest-capacity Anton Bauer, 183 Watt-hour, Li-ion bricks, which cost about $900 each. These are probably overkill for powering a low-Wattage LED panel, but they allow our cameras to shoot entire events without changing bricks.</p> <p>Cheaper, but still-good alternatives to Anton Bauers are IDX Li-ion V-mount batteries (but you may need an Anton Bauer-to-V-mount adapter). Note that there are two standards in professional video battery mounts: Anton Bauer Gold Mount, and Sony V-mount, with the Gold Mount being more prevalent. Again, most 1' x 1' LED panels have options to mount one or the other (usually, Gold Mount).</p> <p>• <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/632842-REG/IDX_E_HL9S_E_HL9S_Lithium_Ion_V_Mount.html">IDX 88 Watt-hour V-mount battery $282</a></p> <p>Other outlets use these IDX batteries, and they seem to perform fine (although they have a lot less power than the pricey high-capacity Anton Bauer Li-ions). Anton Bauer also makes slimmer, less costly Gold Mount bricks as well.</p>

<p>SLA vs. Li-ion charging guidelines:</p> <p>While I can't answer your specific questions, here are some general guidelines: SLAs (sealed-lead acid) batteries can be continually hooked up to a maintenance charger which is able to supply a non-damaging "float charge." So-called "smart chargers" have sophisticated, multi-stage, microprocessor-controlled charging cycles, and can maintain SLA and Ni-MH batteries for years (e.g., Anton Bauer chargers designed for video camera batteries). SLAs don't like to be stored in a discharged state, and should be charged to 100% immediately after each use.</p> <p>Contrastingly, Li-ion batteries <em>do not</em> like to be constantly charged. Ideally, Li-ions should be stored at a 50% state-of-charge as often as possible. Keeping Li-ion batteries constantly charged at 100% will significantly shorten their life. Generally speaking, SLAs are far more "tolerant" of varying charge states than Li-ions. I have piles of expensive Li-ion batteries that died prematurely due to poor maintenance. All of my SLAs stay healthy for several years with far less battery-charging management.</p>

<p>ENG/EFP fluorescent, LED lighting packages:</p> <p>The source you linked is simply too small, unless all you want is an on-board light for ENG-style, run-and-gun interviews. We do use some LED units, but generally only as supplementary fills (I light/shoot for a major-network broadcast television show). Among the most popular lights for EFP-style television interviews are the KinoFlo DivaLite 200/400s. These are fluorescent-based units with internal ballasts, and have both good output and best-in-class color rendition (bulbs are available in 2,900K, 3,200K, and 5,500K). Though expensive, they're very lightweight, and very well designed. We also have an assortment of honeycomb grids for the Divas in each package, which really cuts down on flare and spill. Here's the standard lighting kit we currently use in all of our field packages:</p> <p>• x1 KinoFlo DivaLite 200 (primary key).<br /> • x1 KinoFLo Barfly (backlight).<br /> • x1 LitePanel 1' x 1' bi-color LED panel, flood (fill).</p> <p>Only the LitePanel is DC-powerable by an Anton-Bauer brick. In a pinch (zero set-up time, no power, etc.), sometimes we'll only light with a single LitePanel, but a single 1' x 1' source just doesn't make for the prettiest light. Each van also has an array of Arri Fresnels (x2 Arri 650s, x2 Arri 300s, x2 Arri 200s) for more elaborate two-camera set-ups (for backgrounds, cookies, specials, etc.), plus K5600 Joker 400W/800W HMIs.</p> <p>For a less expensive Diva-like option, I've seen some crews using FloLights in the field, a company which make units similar to KinoFlo's product line, but are only about half the price. Then there's the plethora of import brands also being sold, but unless I were able to check the color rendition in-person, I wouldn't risk using them untested on a paying gig. Off-brand makers of both fluorescent and LED units can output some pretty weird spectrums.</p> <p>For LED panels, the new Manfrotto Spectra 1' x 1' LED panels look interesting, and have a nice build quality to them (integrated lens, nicely designed yoke, etc.), but they're only slightly less expensive than LitePanels, so FloLight may still be your best bet (FloLight makes LitePanel clones as well).</p> <p>If I were to key with LEDs only, I would choose, at minimum, a two-panel 1' x 1' array for the key (for an overall, 1' x 2' source), plus two additional 1' x 1' panels for fill (about $4,000, total!). Ideally, the key would be an even larger array (e.g., 2' x 4' array, requiring eight LitePanels!). This is what I told the people where I work I wanted next (don't think <em>that's</em> happening!). As you can see, quality LED instruments can get extremely expensive pretty quickly. My recommendation is, see what you like/can afford from FloLight (they're sold at B+H), since they seem to be of decent quality, and appear to offer the most bang for the buck in both LEDs and fluroescents. Good luck!</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/D3300G-1.png" alt="" width="700" height="467" /><br /> Nikon D3300 + AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G; ISO: 250; f/1.4 @ 1/100th.</p> <p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/D3300G-4.png" alt="" width="700" height="467" /><br /> Nikon D3300 + AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR II @ 18mm; ISO: 100; f/3.5 @ 1/4 sec.</p> <p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/D3300-2-1.png" alt="" width="700" height="467" /><br /> Nikon D3300 + AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G; ISO: 800; f/1.4 @ 1/60th.</p>

<p>Very cool, Matt!</p>

<p>I've been playing around with my new AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR II (the latest iteration of Nikon's 18-55mm compact kit lenses) which came with my recently purchased Nikon D3300, and I've found it to be incredibly sharp! Plus, its VR II works great, and with its second-generation VR claiming four-stops of improvement, this lens should make ultra-slow-sync shots a breeze. This new 18-55mm is definitely going in the vacation lens kit.<br /> <br /> As I mentioned, for the second DX body, I'll have a 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR II mounted (sure, I'd prefer a smaller, lighter, DX zoom that goes to 300mm, but I already own the 70-300mm FX lens).</p>

<p>Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6D EX DC HSM for Nikon DX ($399 USD):</p> <p>Today I received my new Nikon D3300, and yesterday, got my Sigma 10-20mm HSM. Prior to my Sigma purchase, I tried to Google images which showed the Sigma 10-20mm on a Nikon D3XXX-series body, but couldn't find any. I was interested in seeing how the lens scaled on a current Nikon consumer body. Thankfully, now that both are in my hands, the lens scales quite nicely with the small DX body. The combo feels easy to hold, balance, and shoot.</p> <p>Build quality is typical of recent Sigma lenses--it feels sturdily built with pleasing overall aesthetics. According to manufacturer specs, the Sigma is nearly as heavy and almost large as my more bulky-feeling Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8; however, the Sigma is actually a bit more compact than the Tokina, and just feels nicer to handle. Here are some photos of a Nikon D3300 with the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 HSM mounted:</p> <p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/D33-2.png" alt="" /></p> <p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/D33-3.png" alt="" /></p> <p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/D33-4.png" alt="" /></p>

<p>You're welcome, Chip! I think you need the 22mm square version for your Nikon D300. Here's the Hoodman 22mm square HoodEYE eyecup that I just installed on my new Nikon D3300:</p> <p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/D33-1.png" alt="" /></p>

<p>I've sworn by Hoodman eyecups for years. The Nikon DK-19 for FX bodies (if attached properly, which is a whole other thread) do stay put; however, the DK-19 eyecup constantly "flops down," requiring you to flip it "out" almost every time you bring the camera to your eye. The Hoodman eyecup doesn't flop down, and I actually find it comfortable to shoot with using either eye, even though its designed for right-eyed viewing.</p> <p>The cheap slip-on eyecups for Nikon DX bodies constantly fall off and get lost. The Hoodman HoodEYE for DX bodies snaps on with so much force, you think you're about to break it--it's <em>very</em> secure, and it <em>never</em> falls off. Here's what I have on <em>every</em> body I own:</p> <p>Nikon FX bodies:<br /> • Nikon <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=nikon+dk-17m&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ps">DK-17M</a> magifying eyepiece<br /> • Hoodman <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/545625-REG/Hoodman_H_EYEN22R_HoodEYE_Eyecup.html">HoodEYE H-EYEN22R [22mm round]<br /></a></p> <p>Nikon DX bodies:<br /> • Hoodman <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/545626-REG/Hoodman_H_EYEN22S_HoodEYE_Eyecup_for_Nikon.html">HoodEYE H-EYEN22S [22mm square]<br /></a></p> <p>Eyecups make shooting (especially in daylight) far more pleasurable, and now I can't/won't shoot without one. This is actually the main reason I didn't buy a Sony A7s--it can't accept one, and no one makes one for it. I highly recommend a Hoodman for your D300--you won't regret it (and, you won't ever lose it!).</p>

<p>Matthew said:</p> <blockquote> <p><em>Ralph, there is one advantage your 18-55 has that the one for the D3200 does not have, besides the improved VR, and that is that the front element appears not to rotate, making it possible to use a polarizer and AF . . .</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Yes, I'm excited to get the improved 18-55mm VR II (my refurbished Nikon D3300/18-55mm VR II and Sigma 10-20mm doesn't come until next week). I originally had purchased the older 18-55mm VR I as a compact walk-around lens some years ago (I bought the D3200 as a body-only refurb), but it broke very easily when the front element met some concrete from a drop of only a few inches. So, I also really appreciate that Nikon re-engineered the lens, and provided that new retracting front-element feature of the new 18-55mm VR II.<br /> <br /> I didn't know about the non-rotating feature--good to know! I still have the 52mm Nikon polarizer I bought for my original 18-55mm VR I, plus a 67mm polarizer for my 70-300mm VR II. As I mentioned in another thread, I used to take full-frame bodies and FX ultra-wides on vacation thinking I wanted the best quality gear. But now I realize that portability, ease of carry, and most of all, having far less concern about theft or damage, have become more important factors when deciding what to include in my new "vacation kit."</p>

<p>Kent said:</p> <blockquote> <p><em>Without knowing more, I'd suggest a used Nikon 18-200mm VR and a used Nikon 50mm f1.8G.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Yes, that's another good option--a single lens with great range. For low-light needs, get either the AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G (52.5mm-equivalent, "normal" lens on DX), or 50mm f/1.8G.</p>

<p>Megan said:</p> <blockquote> <p><em>I already own the kit lens 18-55 (which I kind of dislike) and the 70-300 (which I don't love as well).</em></p> </blockquote> <p>That's funny . . . those are the <em>exact</em> two lenses which make up <em>my</em> new vacation/hiking kit:</p> <p>• Nikon D3300 + AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II<br />• Nikon D3200 + AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED VR II<br /> <br /> What don't you like about them? Combined, they give you excellent range, plus improved VR-stabilization in each lens (unless you have the unstabilized 70-300mm). Both lenses are very sharp as well. If they're simply too slow, then I see why you're not happy with them since these lenses are best reserved for daylight exteriors where you have plenty of light.<br /> <br /> Ray said:</p> <blockquote> <p><em>I mean if you want something that is I guess to most general purpose that might mean a 24-120mm F4 one down from the 24-70mm F2.8 professional wedding event lens but it's not that portable if you meaning that if you want it as a travel friendly lens.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>A more appropriate choice would be the AF-S Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G (or, other brands' equivalents) for a DX body. The 24-70mm will only get as wide as a 36mm-equivalent. However, the 17-55mm is also a large, heavy lens (due to its fast maximum aperture), especially on a DX body. It would be pretty far down on my list as a vacation lens, even though it's both fast and versatile.</p> <p>Ultimately, your lens choice wholly depends on what kind of pictures you're planning to take. Plan on taking head-and-shoulders shots? Take a 50mm f/1.8 (75mm-equivalent), which is small, light, <em>and</em> fast. If you want a bit more compression that a slightly longer focal length will produce, choose the AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G instead.</p> <p>Do you want to shoot environmental portraits and landscapes? Well, there's no decent wide-angle DX primes (at a 30mm-equivalent, the new AF-S Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G barely qualifies), but the Tokina AT-X 116 PRO DX-II 11-16mm f/2.8 (16.5-24mm equivalent) is a popular and well-regarded ultra-wide zoom. It's got a fast, f/2.8 maximum aperture, though it's very short on range. Just make sure you get the <em>"DX-II"</em> version with the built-in, silent-drive AF motor, since the older model won't focus on your Nikon D3200.</p> <p>Another option is the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM (28.8-56mm equivalent). It's literally the fastest zoom lens on the market. It's got good range, and a fast, f/1.8 maximum aperture. However, here again, the cost of speed is weight and bulk. Light and compact, this lens is not. It's also fairly pricey at $799.</p> <p>For my use, I happened to choose the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 zoom as my ultra-wide for my next trip, mainly for its decent optical performance and low price ($399). At 10-20mm, you get a 15-30mm equivalent. At a 30mm-equivalent (medium-wide angle), it's still useful for selfies and shots of you as a couple. It's almost as slow as your kit lens, and not stabilized (which tends to be less important the wider you go), but I did also want to have an ultra-wide with me, and I only plan on shooting daylight exteriors.</p>

<p>Well, after some consideration, I finally decided on, and ordered the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 HSM DX-format UWA for my little D3300 I also just ordered. For $399, it seems like a pretty good value. So here's my new, two-body vacation/hiking kit:</p> <p>• Nikon D3300 + Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 HSM<br />• Nikon D3200 + AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED VR II</p> <p>I'll probably also stash a 50mm f/1.4G for any low-light needs somewhere. This will also become my new daylight-exterior, walk-around kit. After trying a few mirrorless-ILCs, and other "portable" solutions, I think I've decided that twin, low-end, Nikon DSLRs are simply the easiest, best, and most functional solution for my "convenience" photography.</p> <p>Each DX body also gets a HoodMan <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/545626-REG/Hoodman_H_EYEN22S_HoodEYE_Eyecup_for_Nikon.html">HoodEYE 22mm eyecup</a> for effortless daylight shooting (the availability of this single accessory, by the way, is a big reason for going this route). I don't even think of shooting without a Hoodman eyecup on any of my bodies. Since the entire package (except the Sigma) is composed of refurbs, I won't be as worried about theft or damage, and can just take it everywhere.</p>

<p>Sounds good, Heather--thanks for the tip! I was attracted to my current provider by their comprehensive cPanel support, plus their 24/7, live tech support. But they were recently bought by the giant hosting firm in Utah, and instead of my site being hosted at a Texas-based datacenter, it was migrated to Provo, Utah just a month or so after I signed up (of course, without telling me).</p> <p>I plan to move to a dedicated server with another provider when the site is nearer completion for the increased performance and scalability that promises. As you probably know, finding a good host is key to consistent performance, and finding that host can be difficult since so many "hosting reviews" are either cleverly disguised sponsored ads or affiliate marketing sites with ties to a particular hosting company--so, you're <em>very</em> fortunate to have that one major hurdle behind you!</p> <p>Again, while implementing a fully realized SEO strategy is perhaps less critical for your application, most experienced site-builders agree on current "best practices" (try a Google search for "SEO best practices"). Again, be aware that many SEO informational sites eventually require a "buy-in" (e.g., paid consultancy), or are simply affiliate marketing programs masquerading as independent advice.</p> <p>Try performing a Google search for "SEO," and you'll find that 99% of them will offer some advice, but then a few seconds later, bombard you with landing pages to "convert" you via various click-through tactics, or simply re-direct you to their particular marketing program, since hawking SEO advice has now become the "get rich in real estate" gimmick of the Internet age. Certainly there's a lot of valuable advice out there, but separating the wheat from the chaff can be a bit of a chore.</p> <p>Anyhow, good luck in your business, and keep up the good work!</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/D3200X-7.png" alt="" /></p> <p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/D3200X-5.png" alt="" /></p> <p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/D3200X-8.png" alt="" width="700" height="465" /></p> <p>Nikon D3200 + AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G</p>

<p>Heather said:</p> <p><em>. . . I actually use a wordpress template but it is hosted on a server that my fiancee set up for me (he is my tech support). He said he uses a good server that is "faster" than most. It might be that you need to change hosts . . .</em><br /> <br /> Well it sounds like you're very fortunate to have such a valuable "asset" (your fiancé) in-house! Yes, I suspect it's likely my hosting provider just over-selling its rackspace (I currently only have a shared-server account). I'm using a code-optimized template, silo-based architecture, and virtually no third-party plug-ins or widgets. Are you on a dedicated server or do you run a private server in your residence?</p>

<p>I think your site looks pretty good. It's fast and responsive, which is key to keeping your bounce rate low. It's clean and uncluttered (though, as others have mentioned, you do need stronger identity/branding elements). But aside from a few editorial/layout changes, I think you're off to a great start! Good sites take time to build, and in time, your site should improve as you continue to learn and gather more ideas.</p> <p>As far as SEO tactics are concerned, best practices still include good, relevant content. And from my own experience, high-quality referral links still reign king. But also keep in mind, the primary goal of sites similar to yours aren't necessarily to generate leads on their own--these types of sites typically host portfolio work, primarily supplying sales <em>support</em>, providing a place for prospects to visit whom you've already solicited via conventional means (i.e., person-to-person selling). Note that Google's algorithm is super-secret and constantly changing. Try searching Amazon for "SEO," and you'll find a lot of results. Try to pick the most recently published books for the most up-to-date info (stay away from self-published e-books).</p> <p>Again, I'm pretty impressed with your site's responsiveness--do you mind sharing the platform you're running (e.g., WordPress, RapidWeaver, etc.)? I'm building a hosted WordPress site and it's currently wicked-slow. Someday, I hope to convert it to static-HTML site (as opposed to a dynamically-generated site like WordPress) using FreewayPro OS X. For now, I'm using WordPress more as a prototype platform until the site is more complete.</p>

<p>Shun said:</p> <blockquote> <p><em>I asked that photographer about the "expensive" polarizer on his 14-24mm super wide, and he told me that it is only a $60 filter. I never saw his images and have no idea about the quality of that polarizer.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>I liked how that UWA filter kit looked, and after I saw your post, I found out that it's a Fotodiox WonderPana 145mm Core kit. They make both a Nikkor 14-24mm kit, and one for the Nikkor 14mm prime (plus kits for other-branded UWAs). The kit for the AF Nikkor 14mm f/2.8D is $269, and includes the 145mm CPL (the Fotodiox 145mm CPL is $119.95 for the filter alone). Another variation of the kit, the WonderPana Freearc Core, which adds an attachable, rotating, single-stage (I believe), filter-holder, able to accommodate 6.6" filters (e.g., ND grads) for about the same price, but doesn't include any filters.</p>