paul_k1664875007

<p >Quote </p>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=6248835">Michael Johnson</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Feb 14, 2011; 04:52 p.m.</p>

<p>Don't any of the flashes with commander mode work with the new MiniTT1/FlexTT5 too? (Not just the SU-800?) The<a rel="nofollow" href="http://wiki.pocketwizard.com/index.php?title=MiniTT1_and_FlexTT5_Key_Features" target="_blank">wiki</a> seems to indicate this..</p>

<p>Unquote</p>

<p>Yes, the SB800 and SB900 will work as a commander with the TT1 and TT5<br>

But I would not recommend doing so light heartedly as I have my doubts on the sturdiness of the plastic foot of the TT5 when mounted on a camera with a big flash on top</p>

<p>Yiu don't need the AC3 if you have the SU-800</p>

<p>Apart from the fact that the AC3 for Nikon isn't availible yet, just put the SU-800 on the transmitter on the camera and dial in the settings desired. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I really like the 18-55VR lens. Small, cheap (I trashed a few I am ashamed to admit) and with very good optics for the money. </p>

<p>Still use it on a D70S, used it extensively on a D300 (a.o. for weddings) and still ocassionally use it on a D2X</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I would go cheap and stretch your money the best possible</p>

<p>So IMHO you should buy some lampstands, umbrella-adapters, and some umbrella's</p>

<p>Sure, I shoot Nikon CLS with PW TT5's nowadays, and with a SB 600 or SB 900 (although the SB 800 is a very good alternative) you can do TTL. But with some older flashes and some cheapo optical flash triggers (didn't mention those, sorry)<br>

http://dpanswers.com/content/optical_flash.php<br>

you can come a long way when you shoot inside. Personally I used to shoot that way with a couple of Metz flashes long before it was called 'Strobist'</p>

<p>You will have to buy the hardware mentioned at some time anyway, and the quality of the light will be far superior to that of an oncamera flash.</p>

<p>Also since with a digital camera you can easily check the light/set up before taking the final pictures, IMHO it's an easy choice</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Recently got a couple of TT5's for Nikon from Calumet Amsterdam.<br>

<br />Although the TT5 is quite a bit bigger then the Mini TT1, it's not much bigger then a SB400. I chose it over the MiniTT for its capacity to steer several flashes over different channels. It thus allows when using a SU800 (or according to PW the AC3 Zonecontroller) to set and steer different settings seperately when using multiple flashes and thus keep full advantage of the CLS.</p>

<p>It also allows trigger flash and camera's through separate ports (I'm quoting the brochure here) and uses cheapo easy availible AA batteries vs the more rare and expensive CR2450 battery in the MiniTT.</p>

<p>It also allows trigger flash and camera's through separate ports (I'm quoting the brochure here) and uses cheapo easy availible AA batteries vs the more rare and expensive CR2450 battery in the MiniTT</p>

<p>The price difference between the TT5 and the MiniTT was 10 Euros, while the AC3, hopefully be availible in January, will probably cost an additional 80 Euros</p>

<p>Due to the weather and short daylight time I have not had the possibilty for serious testing yet. But I did some testing inside to check the items and the software update I performed<br>

<br />First impressions:<br />Updating the software is fairly easy, though selecting the various options a bit confusing as I don't know yet which ones i really will need. And with the replicate button it's easy when having to do it with several items<br>

<br />Hotshoe foot is really a flimsy plastic thingie. I can imagine that if you mount a heavy flash like the SB900 or Canon 580EX on top of a TT5 and all that weight on the camera with only the plastic hotshoe foot it will break almost instantly. But repairing apparently is easy<a rel="nofollow" href="http://ancientcityphoto.com/blog/200...-nikon-repair/" target="_blank">http://ancientcityphoto.com/blog/200...-nikon-repair/</a></p>

<p>But when using the SU800 its weight (as that of judging by the pictures theAC3 ZoneController) is minimal compared to the above mentioned set up. So IMHO chances for that kind of misfortune are much lower for my set up. And when mounting the TT5 on a lampstand the weight and flimsy hotshoe foot problem vanishes as you can mount it directly on the stand without having to use the hot shoe mount, after which all the weight is put directed in the lampstand.</p>

<p>Operating is very easy. Flash (SB800 and SB400) works as it should, no overexposure, no full load dumps, no eratic flashes due to radio interfence.</p>

<p>Did a few tests with a SU800 on TTL, worked flawlessly. SB400 (originally not CLS) now also be used as if with CLS, under- or overcompensation can be dialed in on the SU800 as if using a SB800, and the output will be reduced or augmented accordingly.</p>

<p>Setting the flashes in manual mode with different ratios when using several flash units with the SU800 and the TT5 also works flawlessly. It even allows using the SB400 to be used as a CLS commanded flash (with reduced manual output when desired) Nice, as its small size makes it perfect to tuck away in a corner and give a small light accent</p>

<p>Also PW signal transmits without a hitch from one room to another (although you shouldn't forget to put the antenna up), even when the doors are closed and the rooms are not adjoining.</p>

<p>And as a bonus Nikon shooters won't suffer from the radio interference problems as their Canon collegues do, who had (?<a rel="nofollow" href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1025&thread=37124378" target="_blank">http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1025&thread=37124378</a> ) to live through those problems following the introduction of the TT5 for Canon a couple of years ago</p>

<p>Also posted in the Lighting Technique Forum</p>

<p>HTH</p>

<p>Recently got a couple of TT5's for Nikon from Calumet Amsterdam.</p>

<p><br />Although the TT5 is quite a bit bigger then the Mini TT1, it's not much bigger then a SB400. I chose it over the MiniTT for its capacity to steer several flashes over different channels. It thus allows when using a SU800 (or according to PW the AC3 Zonecontroller) to set and steer different settings seperately when using multiple flashes and thus keep full advantage of the CLS.</p>

<p>It also allows trigger flash and camera's through separate ports (I'm quoting the brochure here) and uses cheapo easy availible AA batteries vs the more rare and expensive CR2450 battery in the MiniTT</p>

<p>The price difference between the TT5 and the MiniTT was 10 Euros, while the AC3, hopefully be availible in January, will probably cost an additional 80 Euros</p>

<p>Due to the weather and short daylight time I have not had the possibilty for serious testing yet. But I did some testing inside to check the items and the software update I performed<br /> <br />First impressions:<br />Updating the software is fairly easy, though selecting the various options a bit confusing as I don't know yet which ones i really will need. And with the replicate button it's easy when having to do it with several items<br /><br />Hotshoe foot is really a flimsy plastic thingie. I can imagine that if you mount a heavy flash like the SB900 or Canon 580EX on top of a TT5 and all that weight on the camera with only the plastic hotshoe foot it will break almost instantly. But repairing apparently is easy <a href="http://ancientcityphoto.com/blog/200...-nikon-repair/" target="_blank">http://ancientcityphoto.com/blog/200...-nikon-repair/</a></p>

<p>But when using the SU800 its weight (as that of judging by the pictures theAC3 ZoneController) is minimal compared to the above mentioned set up. So IMHO chances for that kind of misfortune are much lower for my set up. And when mounting the TT5 on a lampstand the weight and flimsy hotshoe foot problem vanishes as you can mount it directly on the stand without having to use the hot shoe mount, after which all the weight is put directed in the lampstand.</p>

<p>Operating is very easy. Flash (SB800 and SB400) works as it should, no overexposure, no full load dumps, no eratic flashes due to radio interfence.</p>

<p>Did a few tests with a SU800 on TTL, worked flawlessly. SB400 (originally not CLS) now also be used as if with CLS, under- or overcompensation can be dialed in on the SU800 as if using a SB800, and the output will be reduced or augmented accordingly.</p>

<p>Setting the flashes in manual mode with different ratios when using several flash units with the SU800 and the TT5 also works flawlessly. It even allows using the SB400 to be used as a CLS commanded flash (with reduced manual output when desired) Nice, as its small size makes it perfect to tuck away in a corner and give a small light accent</p>

<p>Also PW signal transmits without a hitch from one room to another (although you shouldn't forget to put the antenna up), even when the doors are closed and the rooms are not adjoining.</p>

<p>And as a bonus Nikon shooters won't suffer from the radio interference problems as their Canon collegues do, who had (? <a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1025&thread=37124378" target="_blank">http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1025&thread=37124378</a> ) to live through those problems following the introduction of the TT5 for Canon a couple of years ago</p>

<p>Also posted in the Nikon Forum</p>

<p>HTH</p>

<p>Nikon has a highsynch mode for their flashguns, allowing shutterspeeds over 1/250 (the stand max synch speed)<br>

Basically what happens is that in stead of one flash (basically to flash when the shutter opening is smack in the middle to cover the whole sensor/film area)there are a number of smaller flashes given of during the exposure to get the same total coverage of the film/sensor area.</p>

<p>It does not come for free, as output is considerally lower, although that can be compensated by using more flashes for higher output (and batterypacks to compensate the higher power demands.</p>

<p>Check Joe McNally's blog <br>

http://www.joemcnally.com/blog/page/46/<br>

where in his blogs describes the above procedure . </p>

<p>As Canon appears to have improved their flash for DSLR's (only heard that was the case, not a Canon user so no experience if they actually did) isn't there a similar option with Canon flashguns?</p>

<p>Also check the new Power Wizard flextt5 device<br>

http://www.pocketwizard.com/products/transmitter_receiver/flextt5-canon/<br>

which also allows high speed synch.</p>

<p>HTH even from a Nikon user :-)</p>

<p>I agree with Eric that when shooting pictures of little children one should not try to get the child in the position you want to shoot them in, but be flexible and go with the flow.</p>

<p>Sure, you should make the preparations to steer the child to where you hope you might end in, but that is ino way a guarantee that it will actually happen. So flexibilty/mobilty is indeed required, fast working pace and reaction on changing and new situations which might pop up.</p>

<p>And yes, parents can be a pain, but goes even with bigger children, when the parent is at the same time you are trying to get the picture is busy giving directions for the chld they want them to pose in.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>I think there are a number of things to be considered when answering your question.</p>

<p>To begin with, what kind of modelling are we talking about: commercial, high fashion, glamour (although I think this really is a slippery category), art, amateur (and here it's actually the photographer I'm talking about)?</p>

<p>In commercial photography, basically anything will do, and main consideration will be the target group the eventual pictures are intended for. So caucasian models won't do it for darkskin intended products and viceversa, young models not for adverts for senior citizens, teenagers not for baby-products. This of course isn't as absolute as stated, as cultural and local taste will be a major factor too ( like e.g. in Japan where quite a lot of European/American models find enough work). So thinness/expression/pose are of minor importance compared to what the target group is/wants to see reflected.</p>

<p>High fashion really depends of the tast of the day/season. Recently it was plus size models, which now seems to fade away, before that there was a deluge of pale skinny Eastern Euopean models, a decade or more ago it was heroine-chique, and in the eighties/early nineties it was strong physical models like Cindy, Linda etc. Expression and pose are important, but very dependant of what's in vogue, and that's constantly changing.</p>

<p>Hmm, glamour. Basically it's all about how much the model wants to take of, and how bold the photographer is in asking her to. From a lot of what I see (espescially on the Net) is quite redundant, and often when posted on the Net seems strongly hormone-driven, and more about ' Look what I shot this weekend' then about art, creativity etc. Not much love for thinness here, although maybe not for the right reason. For me personally it's something a model with serious ambitions should stay away from or be very, very careful with. It will always find its way on the Net eventually, as is proven again and again with the pics from a distant past which always come to haunt a 'famous' person (e.g. Vanessa Williams).</p>

<p>Art, well IMHO anything goes, depends on the demands of the photographer and the concept of the picture to be made. Also involves nudity usually, although now for 'artsake' (Jock Sturges), so again, how far does the model wants to go respectively the photographer pushes the model to go. And as it concerns Art, trivial things like thinness/expression/pose of course don't matter. And the before-mentioned applies here too, it will pop up some day and maybe not always in the way intended when the pictures were taken (the infamous bodyshots of the then young Madonna)</p>

<p>Amateur is much more about the photographer then the model. Most amateurs photographers, as their pictures only to often show, are already near ecstatic when having a female before the camera, eagerly clicking away, without any regard of pose (which they usually don't have any notion about), style, or technique. Idea's are usually non existent, or bland imitations of something seen somewhere and vaguely remembered. So who cares about things like thinness/expression/pose: 'look what I shot this weekend !'.<br />Don't look on the galleries of the sites which have some kind of selection procedure (like Photonet, Fred Miranda etc. ), but more on the sites when people can post their pictures without any restraint (Flickr and the likes) and you can see what I mean. I don't intend to make some kind of value judgement, but I think it can be agreed upon that most of it isn't always 'Art' to quote Lucy from the Peanuts.</p>

<p>So your question cannot be answered in a simple way. It's like professional photography in a way. You may have a great product, but when marketed wrong, you won't sell much. There a no doubt plenty of photographers who prefer expression/technique/pose/etc over thinness but you will have to find them, or for work as a model get discovered by them.</p>

<p>When I was active as a (semi) professional photographer (long time ago) I helped model and make up artist friends in their start-up phase by shooting their 'books'. What I always tried to do was to make a book as diverse as possible before sending them to other photographers/stylists/magazines, and making the book as intriguing as possible so that people might think the model/make up artist was interesting and someone they would like to work/test with. OK, not the fast and near instant way things nowadays seem to work on TV, but hey, that's TV afterall.</p>

<p>A dancer may indeed be to beefy/muscular for a 'standard' model, but then again so would be a bodybuilder. But it would then more be a question to find the niche to fit in, or show the world what all the niches are one can fit in.</p>

<p>So it's basically the same old routine of banging an the doors,, showing what one has and hoping someone will acknowledge it and see someting in it. </p>

<p>My two cents, HTH, and sorry for the maybe bad/funny English, not a native speaker</p>

<p>Paul</p>

<p>Seems like a classic daylight situation and set up, no particular problems IMHO.</p>

<p>Only thing to think about is that the window faces westward and that's also the direction the sun wil be shining from in the late afternoon. This could possibly mean direct sunlight and harsh shadows.</p>

<p>Attached picture shot under low indirect daylight coming from the right, no fill, with some digital manipulation to desaturate skintone in accordance with shooting theme (Gothic)</p>

<p>HTH</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Quiksilver Pro 2010 in Hossegoor France</p>

<p>Mick Fanning won, but Kelly Slater ruled </p>

<p>http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/quick_silver_pro_20101002</p>

<p>If the situation is maintained exactly like the OP describes, IMO basically there will be little to no difference between the shots made by the beginner and the expert.</p>

<p>With the beginner, the machine will decide for the safest settings, a bit like the food in the cafetaria of a office or hospital.Not to salt, not too spicy, not to raw, or in photograhy not to contrasty, not too risky with the DOF, not to light to burn the hightlights etc.</p>

<p>All that can be aforementioned settings can be altered/improved by changing the in-camera settings to begin with, like the expert will do, or afterwards in PP, although that will probably be well above the beginners capabilities (and the reason he chose the P mode).</p>

<p>To give an example the following anecdote. A few months ago I sold a D300 to a former collegue of mine, preferrering a 2nd D3 as back up. And to show him I didn't sell him a lemon, took him along to a fashion show I was going to shoot. Dailed in all the settings on the camera the way I would, lend him a 2.8/80-200, told him how to shoot and put him in one of the better spots to shoot a fashion show from ( and corrected him during the show when I saw he was doing weird things that would have spoiled his photos).</p>

<p>He was quite proud of his results, and rightly so as although his pictures were not as good as mine, with a little PP they would have come pretty close.</p>

<p>But change the situation, as I did a few weeks later.</p>

<p>I again took him to a fashion show, and again dialed in the settings on the camera and lend him the 80-200. But this time I didn't tell him how to shoot or where to stand. I even ' chased' him away when he tried playing human shadow on me wanting to stand next to me to shoot from virtually the same spot. He did end up at the end of the catwalk, always one of the best spots to shoot from. And afterwards his pictures all of a sudden<br />were no more then the average 'look here there as a fashion show and I also took pictures' level, with bad composition, weird stuff that had spoiled his pictures etc.</p>

<p>I don't know if there are any wedding photographers participating in this discussion, but you must recognise the situation when you are e.g. shooting the formal pictures, and find a family member shooting over you shoulder. And either when his pictures work out well too, he will pride himself on his talent, or if they turn out to be duds, he will point at your equipment and say : Yeah but if I was shooting with that kind of gear ....'.</p>

<p>So yes, as said before, if the OP wants to post the thesis that with nowadays camera's a beginner could basically make the same pictures as the expert, I agree. But that's only in theory, because next from the technique the camera will supply , the input of the photographer will always be needed, be it called expertise, creativity, or feeling for '<em>Le moment décisif</em>' to quote Cartier-Bresson. And that is not always mentioned in those beautiful adds from the manufacturers.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>My suggestion would be a D700 and a D300 as a back up (if money allows)</p>

<p>Shot a wedding two weeks ago with a D3 (same IQ as D700) and compared to the wedding I shot with a D300 a few months ago (I don't shoot weddings professionally, only for friends and family, although I do have a professional background in fashion/beauty/surf photography) it's really not a comparison.</p>

<p>The D300 and no doubt the D7000 are great grab a shot camera's and with their high ISO capacities (no doubt the D7000 will be al least on par with the D300) most forgiving in most of the (worst) light situations.</p>

<p>But the difference between the IQ of the D700/D3 simply is too big IMHO, in smoothness, tonality, detail dynamic range.</p>

<p>The MLU is not a real world deal breaker, setting up a MLU shot while shooting a wedding is too time consuming and risks loosing important shots while you were fiddling with the camera.</p>

<p>If you already have the classic set of '35mm' lenses (the 24-35-50-85-135-200) you're also better of with a FX camera as you no longer have to compromise due the the crop factor (again IMHO)</p>

<p>The above does not mean that I think DX has no use or function, I still have along with my D3's my trusty D1H, D2X and D70S, but apart from my D2X on low ISO, I usually grab my D3's when the image's really matter.</p>

<p>My two cents (for what it's worth)</p>

<p>Built in flash directly pointed at the subject never is beautiful, and yes makes things flat and harsh</p>

<p>Off camera flash though is quite another thing, although it needs to be learned to apply properly. Basically all studio photography is done with off camera flash, and even the small remote control flashes like in e.g. the Nikon CLS system can give similar results, although setting up things may prove a bit of work.</p>

<p>Going from ISO 100 to ISO 800 may or may not give lesser IQ, depending of the camera and lenses used. I myself have done a lot of catwalk lately with a D3, and high ISO IQ (up to ISO 6400) is by far superior to that of my D2X (max 800ISO, and that is already taking risks). And with nowadays consumer orientated model camera's very good high ISO results can also easily be achieved.</p>

<p>On the other hand, coming from the Tri-X/Acufine era, I love grain, and in monochrome the D2X in Hi-1 gives me the kind of results I love to remember from former days.</p>

<p>Please take into account also that working with availible light will put extra demands on your lenses. IQ of a varizoom with max open aperture of e.g. f4 is usually not in the neighbourhood of a fixed 1.8/85 stopped down to f4, although with such a lens leaving it fullt open of only slightly stopped down will problably already give very nice IQ.</p>

<p>So IMHO it's up to the photographer to make the choice: (built-in) flash is easy and fast, although possibly with lesser IQ, off camera flash or availible light might give superior results but will demand more from the photographer and his equipment.</p>

<p>As it happens, I shot a surf event this weekend with the TC14-II and 200-400 (version I) this weekend </p>

<p>I have also used the Kenko 1.4 300DG in the past, but was quite amazed with the improved IQ (sharpness, contrast) with the Nikon</p>

<p>Not much post processing done, only used Capture One, sharpening on 35%, a bit of contrast with the light curves tool, vignetting tool 100% (due to use of hood/sunshade whatever the English term) and as little cropping as possible (although some cropping is inevitable)</p>

<p>HTH</p>

<p>http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/domburg_20100828</p>

<p>Hi Andrew</p>

<p>the aperture was set intentionally on 2.2, not the result of the lens doing something funny or on its own initiative.</p>

<p>IQ is set to be even better at 2.2, and since there was enough light I thought 'Why not?'</p>

<p>I must admit though that when having to choose between perfect technique or 'perfect' picture, I go for the latter. That was the reason that in the good old film days I preferred 35mm pushed Tri-x over the Hasselblad I used to have lying th the closet.</p>

<p>I guess the proof is in the pudding</p>

<p>http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/summer_darkness_20100815</p>

<p>http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/summer_darkness_20100814</p>

<p>please don't be shocked by the look of some of the subjects, it was a Goth festival (though very friendly and good humoured) and people dressed accordingly</p>

<p>biggest problem was getting the focus right, as I was shooting hand held, and at a high fps, but when that succeeded the rewards was well worth it</p>

<p>processing was done with Capture (only) and nearly all shots are uncropped, exif data are shown with the pictures if you scroll down</p>

<p>you can also look at the catwalk shots of the shows in Maastricht, also shot with the 200mm</p>

<p>Ex pro (due to problems with eye sight althoug modern AF makes life a lot easier nowadays)) with on paper formal education (Royal Academy of Art The Hague) but selftaught due to the specialisation I chose in a very early stage (fashion and beauty)</p>

<p>http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/</p>

<p>Ths afternoon I ran into the latest trend of the 'Mine is better the yours' behaviour, and I would like to hear your opinion on it.</p>

<p>The situation: In Utrecht (one of the larger towns in the Netherlands) the 'Summer Darkness' festival was organised, where lovers of Gothic music, style and clothing could come to listen to Gothic bands, buy clothes, come to a market and fashion show, and show themselves to the world.</p>

<p>Of course such an event is a great foto-op, so there a lot of people with camera's (no, I won't call themor myself photographers, the proof is in the pudding, in this case pictures taken) showing up as well. </p>

<p>Basically the rules are simple: if you see someone whom you would like to take a picture of, you approach them and ask, and if they're OK, you take your pictures, give them your card so they can download their pictures (hey, they did you a favor by so you should return it by giving the pictures for free). </p>

<p>The not so polite way is lurking around, and snapping pictures with long lenses when the 'victim' is unaware, and then on top of that try to sell the afterwards (OK my opinion, but for me that is really not done)</p>

<p>There's always someone who takes the initiative to ask someone to model, and while he is shooting there's always very fast a cluster of other shooters to gather and like a feeding frenzy as you always see pictures of on Animal planet, snap away and steal pictures as well, ignoring ugly backgrounds, bad light etc. Oh well..</p>

<p>But this afternoon, while such a group was shooting away (no I wasn't in it), all of a sudden some guy steps in front of the model, blocking everybodies vision while shooting away with his DSLR on a special rig. Of course everybody started to yell and call, so afterwards I asked him what he was thinking.</p>

<p>His reaction was that all those photographers should shut up, they were after all doing the old fashion stuff, as video had arrived and that was the future, while propping up his '35mm video' camera as he called it. (yeah, it was the one with all those megapixels but with the flawed AF from its predesessor).</p>

<p>What do you think? Was he simply someone with no sense of ettiquette among 'photographers' or is the future indeed there and should all those without video in their DSLR's indeed bow and make way for this new technical invention (which, correct me if I'm wrong, is still in it's infancy)?</p>

<p>Or was he simply changing from the 'my camera is better because it has more pixels' to a new chant 'my new toy is better because your's one with old technique'?</p>

<p>http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/summer_darkness_20100814</p>

<p>I too have well over 30 years of shooting with 35mm film, and although my favourite film is Tri-X, I have always been on the look for a higher ISO film, and used stuff like the TMZ Tmax 3200, Kodak 2475,3M640T, Kodak EPY and EPJ, Kodak P800/1600.</p>

<p>The why is not so much for esoteric, or esthetical reasons, although the grain of pushed Tri-X still makes me a bit nostalgic, but simply because sometimes, and depending on what you shoot often ( for me : a lot of fashion, catwalk, PJ, surf with long lenses), you run into not so well lit circumstances, and in the old days 1.4 short lenses and 2.8 telelenses were very costly and expensive, and flash not so sophisticated and ' cheap' as nowadays, and in certain circumstances, e.g. when some discretion is needed, not the best solution.</p>

<p>So nowadays high ISO for me means I can continue shooting what I always loved, but with far less trouble i.e. no more hours in the dark room developing and pushing fims, printing and manupulating prints ( a very common practice in the film days, think e.g. of the pictures of Eugene M. Smith), and a lot less post-processing in the digital age (bye bye Noise Ninja).</p>

<p>And as a bonus, there are sometimes also lenses 'availible' of a image quality which can really shine with a high end DSLR ( my personal favourite : 2/200mm VR on a D3)</p>

<p>http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/</p>

<p>If your portfolio is allright, and you have proven yourself, why not?</p>

<p>You already seem to have a nice set of equipment to begin with, and to have gathered working experience with it.</p>

<p>Be aware though that shooting a reception is different and far more hectic then e.a. shooting wildlife during a safari with a telelens and not having the pressure of making that one absolutely not to be missed picture. So to convince, you should not point to your equipment and previous experience, but show the pictures to convince the photographer to want to work for.</p>

<p>After all, in photography you're only as good as your last photograph.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Historically speaking, looking at other people's work and even copying it, or at least trying to copy it, was a normal proces to try and master the craft of whatever one was trying to learn.</p>

<p>That is the reason for all those paintings etc. which are discovered and labeled to be made by a certain master painter, only to be named afterwards to a pupil or student.</p>

<p>Also, it would be quite arrogant to proclaim to be making 'art' while ignoring work made in the past, even if only to denounce it. E.g. Pieter Mondriaan, renowned for his almost mathematically shaped works of stark lines and coloured fields, in an earlier stage made quite naturalistic pintings of landscapes etc.</p>

<p>And not in the last place. to quote Charlie Brown, ' is it art?' when it is declared art by in particular the maker itself, or just vanity?</p>

<p>Nowadays the perception of 'art' seems to be caught between on one side the bourgeois nineteen century perception of the suffering bohemien artist, rebel against society, poor during life, discovered when old, or even only after his death and on the other hand the megalomanic self declared, or over adored by the 'critics' superartist.</p>

<p>Think of Van Gogh ( I grew op near Zundert in the Netherlands, birthplace of him, where people had a more down to earth view about him) or Eugene Atget, and on the other side Jeff Koons or Damian Hurst, who to me have a striking resemblance of all those artists who were celebrated in their times but in retrospect only were marginal compared to what later was recognised as 'real art '.</p>

<p>Again historically speaking, artist when young learned there craft in the service of a masterpainter, sculptor, architect, and when having reached a certain level, started on their own, and gradually picked up their own skill, while calling themselves painter, sculptor or whatever artisan occupation they held. Even Leonardo da Vinci started in that way. And much of what is nowadays called is art, was made in commission, for money, and in close collaboration with the patron who ordered it.</p>

<p>Declaring oneself an 'artist' when only beginning with something is only to common nowadays, almost as if to hide behind and cut of any critism beforehand. And in photography seems rampant since the age of digital cameras, look at all the posting from 'photographers' asking on line how to take a certain pictures while in the meantime already having taken a paid job for making thos pictures (weddings, portraits, just to name a few categories)</p>

<p>So IMHO not looking at other persons work and not drawing inspiration from it, even by thrashing ir,, or denouncing to do so, would be vanity and untruthfull. And in this world full of images would be close to impossible to do so. Learning is to imitate, and the natural way of things.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>For the way how it looked like</p>

<p>George Hurell /Whitney Stine : 50 years of photographing Hollywood ISBN 0-517-413639</p>

<p>John Kobal : The art of the great Hollywood portrait Photographers ISBN 90 290 8281 X</p>

<p>For the way how it's done</p>

<p>Walter Nurnberg : Lighting for portraiture ISBN 0 8038 4305 7 (USA)</p>

<p>Lustrum Press : Darkroom ISBN: 091281019X</p>

<p>The classic Hollywood portraits achieved their look from dramatic lighting, heavy retouching of the (large format) glass negatives, and printing/retouching (partial burning and bleaching of the prints)</p>

<p>Pros <br>

superior AF, instant reactiontime/no shutterdelay, built quality, great IQ under 800ISO<br>

Negative<br>

Grain at over 800ISO (although beautiful grain in B/W)<br>

OK, D3 is superior (I have one as well) but the D2X didn't go obsolete immediately after the D3 hit the market<br>

D300<br>

Positive : better high IS0 the D2X (although only soso compared to D3), small (without MB-10) compared to D2/D3, pop up flash, AutoISO<br>

Negative: high ISO compared to D3, IQ compared to D3 and to D2X under 400ISO, sluggish shutterdelay and AF (when coming from a D2/D3)</p>

<p> </p>