paul_k1664875007

From a practical point of view, using reflectors on a lighstand outside is a disaster waiting to happen

Due to the size and shape, no matter what reasonable size (anything over 10 inches, using anything smaller basically is useless for any other then - really - close up portraits) or shape, they become incontrollable and move/get blown (over) at any odd directions as soon as the wind catches hold of them

Best way to use a large reflector is having someone to hold it, not only to flex with the wind (and return into the intended position when the wind gust has passed),

but also to be able to turn it into the desired angle (not only horizontal, but also vertical) to get the best most effective result/reflection

There are collapible reflector holders for sale, eghttps://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/357125-REG/Impact_1103_Telescopic_Collapsible_Reflector_Holder.html but although handy for studio use, they as just as worthless for use outside when there is a bit of wind

IMO a major consideration when buying a reflector (and lightstand) is not only to consider the usability outside, but als inside eg a studio

With that in mind, getting a as large as possible reflector IMO is the most sensible, so you can use it not only for portraits, but also half and three quarter size shots

without having to break out (and not to forget buying) an extra light

Over the years I have collected several collapsible reflectors

My first was a 32 inch Lastolite I got well over 30 years ago which me cost well over $150 back then

Since then prices have gone down and other brand selection has extended extensively, I now have several much cheaper (and justly so as oi basically is a piece of reflective cloth on a metal ring) 40+ inch ones from several other far less well know manufacturers

Basically the same goes for the lightstand

Get a as big and portable one as possible, but keep in mind that 'bigger' brand (and consequently higher price) tag doesn't always have to mean major added value

But at least get one capable of carrying several kilograms, so you in time or when needed can also use it to carry an extra light/studioflash/whatever with modifier in the studio

A heavier duty/load lightstand will also automaticalll have a sturdier built quality, as in broader and stronger feet, extra height, and stronger/thicker 'tubes' (nice if not essential for carrying a heavy light or withstand wind gusts when used with a reflector outside)

HTH

I'm always amazed by these type of questions, basically claiming that 'the perfect' technical solution', either 'the best camera' or the best lens' or in this case 'the best studio lighting', is the instant solution to creat a (great) fashion picture

A (great) fashion picture is first and foremost the result of a (great) concept/idea, classic or non conformist, a photographer with a mind creative enough to translate that concept in a captivating image, and last but definitely not least a team of stylists, MUA/hairstylists and models.

The camera is just a tool used to capture that image when the photographer pushes the release button, the lens the optical means specifically chosen by the photographer to render the image the way he has in his head, and the lighting similarly chosen by the photographer to suit/help create the image he has in mind

Rather then trying to find the perfect website/video/utorial on how supposedly to set up that kind of lighting (after all, you know the saying 'those who can't, teach - or nowadays 'have a site with tutorials or videos on the subject ' - and those who can do'), I would rather recommend to start reading/collecting magazines with fashion pictures with all kind of different types of lighting

Yes, actual (boring :( )books and magazines, not a collection of images plucked from Pininterest or whatever site on the net etc

So you can hold thpse pictures in your hands, see them in a larger size then on the screen of your phone, and study them more extensively then just flipping from one to the other in a folder on your computer.

And if you really want a book on lighting, just get a classic, again probably boring one.

Way back when I made my first tentative steps into 'serious' photography, the rage was the Time-Life series of books on photography

Beautifully edited books, great images, and true gems for the coffeetable

But the actual info in them actually was quite superficial and in fact really dissapointing, decribing the subjects discussed in beautiful prose and illustrated with amazing images of well known famous photographers

But essentially lacking any specific real practical info that could was actually usefull for an (ambitious) beginner to help make any further steps into photography in a real world, working situation

Basically much like all those 'now it all' websites and tutorials from wannabe 'know it all's (like you mention) you nowadays, based on clicks and the logarithms of your seac=rch machine, rather then an evaluation of actual level of real knowledge, inevitably run into when you do a search on the internet

Admittedly being older, back when I started to get some interest in the subject, it was despite the lack of internet and absence of Google easier to, admittedly even nevertheless with some effort, find books to get some insight into fashion photography, and lighting

My first brake was finding copies of Nancy Duncan's 'The history of Fashion {hotography' a,d Polly Devlin's 'Vogue Book of Fashion Photography', later followed by the purchase of "shots of Style' the book the V&A in London issued in corporation with David Bailey on he occasion of the exhibit of the same name.

Not much theory on how to make the pictures shown, but all books giving a wide view on the many different styles of (studio) photography (and types of lighting used) basically ever since the biginning of fashion photography since the early 1900's

In that period Fransesco Scavullo also wrote his 'Scavullo on Beauty' and "Scavullo on Women' books, highly acclaimed at that time, again little 'how to' info, but shot in a deceivingly easy technical way that 'invited' to try and emulate that (at which I miserably failed)

As one would, one would select the ones one liked and tried to, in a very amateur way and on a very basic level, to somehow imitate them.

Nowadays people no longer are willing to experiment and fail, but rather ask on the internet 'how do I do this' to then expect to immediately get the desired result

But in that failure lies the real knowledge to be found, and do the real questions arise, and can the real useful info be found

So in my case, I started trying to analyze the lighting set up in the images I liked (by looking at the shadows, and the catchlights in the eyes of the models)

and comparing my guesses with the very practical info in a very boring, by the time I bought my copy already old (40+ years) book on lighting I had found

'Lighting for Portraiture' by Fred Nurnberg.

Very boring and oldfashioned, unlike modern tutorials and videos no glamorous scantely dressed models, no slick product pushing moderators

But instead a lot of theory and detailed technical info on different how to get a certain (lighting) look, illustrated with images shot with the actual set ups decribed, with detailed diagrams of the position and height of the lights, shadows created etc

Not a 'how to' giving the illusion 'follow this precooked example and you're sure to succeed' but a lot of study material to work with/try to imitate and really learn sometning on the way

With that 'knowledge' (and experience gathered from experimenting with it) in the back of my mind it was much easier to more or less understand/see through the shared 'wisdom described by photographers loke David Bailey, Artur Elgort, Horst P Horst and Chris von Wangenheim in 'Fashion: theory' by Caol Di Grappa for Lustrum Press

And haven't stopped learning since, even nearly 40 years on I again and again still run into images I think "how did they do that?!'

But rather then trying to find my answers on the internet ready to go like a hamburger from a fastfood restaurant, I study the image/lighting I'm interested in, try to find out tthe 'ingredients' (admittedly helped by some years of experience) and try, and don't shy away from failing, again and again till I get something I'm satisfied with even if it's not the perfect imitation

So my recommendation, rather then trying to find yiur 'answers' on the internet, buy books and magazines, and practice and fail, and try again

miss.annette_leigh_haynes said: ↑

I'm a bit at a loss here

The choice/type of camera, lens and brand of lightmeter is completely irrelevant for the (correct) use using a lightmeter in reflective mode with a grey card

(I have a F2 with standard, non meter, prism, and Lunasix F lightmeter myself so am not unfamilair with your equipment)

Whatever the type camera (35mm, medium format, large format), the meter will in all cases, independent of the camera used, register/meter the amount of light reflected by the grey card into the metering cell of the lightmeter, and, based on the ISO, gives a range of shutterspeed/aperture combinations which could be used to give a properly exposed image. one of which would then have then picked, and then dialed in on the/whatever camera and lens used

Note : For simplicity sake I won't go into the extra calculations which would have to be madet when using

bellows on eg a large format camera, or the reprocity factor that comes into account with extreme long exposure times

However based on the technical info given so far, I can already say that given the relative low ISO of the film (Kodak Plus X ISO 125 pushed to ISO 200?), and the 'slowness' of the lens (f2.8) used, ypu will no matter have a hard time getting a well exposed image when shooting indoors, in particular when you want to use a shutterspeed fast enough to shoot handheld.

That even will become worse if you are shooting indoors with just 'standard' livingroom lights, or Christmas lights.

The light under those conditions is 'dim' at best, and for hand held shooting require a film of at least ISO 400 (better ISO 800) and a faster lens (ideally f1.4) to be able to use a shutterspeed of 1/60th or faster

And I'm not even talking about the contrast between the highlights and shadows you would run into under such conditions

I think you best explain what the issue is you ran into so far, possibly with an example of a failed shot if you have made any so far

Unfortunately there is no 'quick and dirty' way to (properly) use it

I assume you want to use it with a film camera (?)

Then to begin with, how to meter the light depends on what type of film you use:

- negative film - > does not work well when (heavily) under exposed (muddy shadows, grainy images)- > meter for the shadows (which will result in a somewhat over exposed film)

- positive/slide film -> does not do well when (extrememly) over exposed => burnt out, irretrevable (sorry if spelled wrong, not a native English speaker) high lights -> expose for the high lights (which will result in a somewhat under exposed film)

In real life that isn't as strict as it sounds, both negative and positive film have a certain margin within which under and over exposure can be dealt with (similar to the 'Dynamic Range' of modern digital camera's)

Note: In my observation/experience, Nikon/Sony sensors behave much like slide fim and can better handle under exposure the Cnon sensors, which give better results when over exposed somewhat

The best way (if you have enough time, eg when shooting a landscape, or product) is to take a reading for the hightlights, and a separate one for the shadows. and caculate the 'best' balance between to bet the 'proper' exposure

In a real world situation that means

a) to begin with, place your gray card in such way at a small distance in from of the meter that it fills major part of the metering field of the metering cell of the light meter

(That metering field varies between meter and meter, and brand and brand, more on that eg here

Gossen Lunasix3 System exposure meter user manual, instruction booklet )

b) Aim the card in the direction of the (main) light, eg the sun, take a reading with the light meter and write the result down.

c) Then take a second reading with the grey card turned away from the main light (sun), i.e. toward the shadow side of your subject.

d) Then compare the two readings, and calculate an average between the two, keeping in mind what film you use.

Example;

Landscape :

- sunny side (in the picture eg top of the trees) 100ASA f16 1/500th

- shadow side (in the shadow under the canopy of the trees) f4 1/250

In order to avoid camera shake you decide to shoot at 1/500th

In order to be able tocompare both readings, your readings first have to have the same starting point(s) so they can be compared directy one with the other

Both readings are at 100ASA, but one at 1/500, the 2nd at 1/250th

To be able to make the direct comparison, recalculate the readings as if based on the same starting data

in other words convert the reading at 1/250th as if based on 1/500th

As 1/500th is half the time of 1/250th , so the aperture found at 1/250th will have to be opened 1 stop to

maintain the same exposure (get the same amount of light to properly expose the film) when using 1/500th

So f4 at 1/250th becomes f2.8 at 1/500th

Difference between the two readings now is f16 for the sunny side and f2.8 for the shadows

= 5 stops (f16-f11-f8-f5.6-f4-f2.8)

Ideally f5.6 (at 1/500th) would be the perfect average

However, when shooting negative film, better over expose a bit (maybe f4.5), and similarly with positive film, underexpose a bit (maybe f7.2?)

although there unfortunately is no rule of fist you can apply on whatever brand of film (of the same type) you use.

That the reason why in the 'old' days Polaroid was so extensively used: to get an indication what result the final exposure would give and maybe, based on experience with the specific film used and result wanted, maybe make small modifications in the exposure settings.

And, especiallly when shooting subjects which could be left standing in the same position under the same lighting conditions. like product or landscape, a series of shots would be taken with slightly modidfied exposure settings would be taken to have a number of shots to select the 'best' one amongst them (similar to the 'bracketing' option many modern digital camera's offer)

Unlike digital sensors from the same brand for the same camera, each specific type of film (not only positive or negative, but also brand, high vs low ASA, and depending on the age and batch number, even within the same brand , sensitivity and type of film) has it own charateristics.

A film is made in batches, made at possibly different times (you eg can see that by comparing the expration date on the film boxes) and in the time between its manufacturing and expiration date will 'ripen' (much like chees or wine) and develop a specific charateristic/look

This means a (very) specific type film manufactured in eg 2011 will risk giving completely different 'results/colors' then the 'same' film manufactured only last year

That eg was the reason why in the past (in particular) product photographers would test a certain film,, and when the liked the result, buy a large stock of the same btach they would then put in the refrigurator to be sure to have the same film (and get the same results) for the coming months (or even years)

And yes, when that private stock ran out, a new series of test would have to be made with a new fim, and a new stock would have to be bought and put in the freezer

So IMO using a grey card is not an option for 'quick and dirty' shooting, eg when shooting an event or casual portraits

An alternative in those situations would be to rely on the camera's TTL metering, or when using a hand held meter work in Incident mode

The latter metering method in real world situation means

- stand in the postion of the subject,

- place the white dome over the metering cell,

- aim the light meter in the direction where you will be standing with the camera

- Similar to using the grey card take a reading on the 'sunny' side and a different one on the 'shadows' (quick and dirty: take a reading with the dome aimed at the 'camera' allowing the sun to hit it, and a 2nd one shielding the dome from beingg directly hit by the sun with one hand)

- calculate an average (keeping in mind what type of film you use

As far as your question on clor and b/w is concerned, he grey card is/was originally intended for 'just' metering the light, both for b/w of color

But contrary to the modern time abuse of it for that purpose, it never was intended for color calibration

Back in the film shooting days, one would for that purpose add a color chart like eg the X Rite color checker Classic Card (Kodak had its own, I still have my Agfa one) in one picture, to be able to find the 'correct' color (settings on the enlarger) when making a/the final print

After all, unlike what many modern 'purists' think and claim, similar to modern digital post processing, back in the film shooting days a lot of tinkering was done in the darkroom to get the 'perfect' prints (although nothing resembing the degree of unnatural cloning, pasting and layering that can unfortunately too often be seen many modern digital images)

Personally, although I have several Gossen meters lying around I bought in the 80's and used extensively in those days, I hardly ever use them anymore nowadays.

II find the Matrix TTL metering on my Nikon DSLR's quite reliable most of the time especially when shooting under constantly changing lighting conditions

In my 35+ year experience in photography, under those circumstances 100% perfect metering is never possible, neither with a camera's TTL metering or with a handheld light meter all the time, an occasional failure is a simple fact of life

As a safeguard, I always have Control Image option turned on so I from the corner of my eye can get an impression what the picture looks like exposure wise (and possbily make some modifications on the fly) immediately after I take it without interrupting the shoot for 'chimping'

I only use the 'flash' option when I shoot with strobes in the studio to be able to exactly determine the contrast between the different lights used

I run View NX2 (don't know which version) and Capture NX 2.4.6 without any issues on my Macbook Pro i7 16Gb RAM 752GB SSD using OS 10.8.xxx

But as you say, the last updates for NX2 (and I assume View NX2) are from several years back (I believe you on your word if you say 2015) and don't run (well, if at all, from what I've read) on higher/latest versions Mac Oi like Sierra

Which for me is the reason why I haven't udgraded my Oi version, even if its alreay 'old', I see too much advantages in using the 'old' NX2 (in my case 2..4.6) for procssing my D3/D800/DF files

From what I've gathered NX2 will still work with Mac El Capitan,

The very usefull Raw2Nef program from Rene Bagnon, which allows to using NX 2.4.6 even for the D750/D81/D500 and D5 RAW files, apparently works with that version

IHave played aroud with NX-D, even have a copy (I never use) installed on my Macbook Pro, but don't like it for several reasons.

- First and formost the loss of the 'Color Control Points'

IMO a highly capable, if not the best tool for making very local modifications, even despite NX2 being 'slow' when used for Batch processing

Very easy to use too for making very local corrections in Contrast, Exposure and Saturation, IMO in that respect much more user friendly then the LR/Photoshop "Clone/Paste Layer' stuff

Easy asy to apply, works fast, and what you do, you immediately see, and get.

There is a somewhat similar application in the also no longer officially available NIK software, have tried it, but the versipn in Nikon Caplture works best

And of course you can easily keep an 'unaltered' copy of the orginal RAW file, and a eg compressed RAW copy with all the modifications, without creating files that will devour excessive diskspace

- Any corrections are written directly in the file (but with a simple click can be reversed), no side-car stuff where any modifications eg in the RAW file aren't copied when the RAW file is converted/'exported' into eg a JPEG or TIFF.

- You can convert (export) a RAW file to a TFF in NX-D, to then continue to further process it in NX2

But with the present high res camera's those TIFF's can easily get as big as 100MB, and more then often even bigger (I dread to think how big a D850 RAW converted to a TIFF will be). Cost a lot of diskspace, and put's a lot of strain on the computer used for the processing.

Despite the specs listed for my Macbook Pro, a 100+ MB TIFF already has some impact on the processing speed

With the RWA2Nef program mentioned (I have no links nor commercial interest in it, for all intent and purposes it's a free download) you can process D750/D81-?D500 and D5 (all of whch I don't own BTW) RAW's in NX 2.4.6 (after a basically very simple 'conversion of essentially rebadging the RAW files) so in my case why bother with NX-D and View NXi.

I am anxiously waiting for hopefully an 'upgrade' so that can take D850 RAW's, that mifght be a decisive 'push in he back' to get one of those

Back in my filmshooting days Tri-x was my longtime (from the early 80's to the early 00"s) favorite BW film, used for shooting under 'normal' light, but also ( and a lot) under bad/low light (back in the film days 'low light' was easily ran into considering the max high 400 ISO sensitivity of the films of those days)

When I look at your negatives, to begin with what strikes me first that basically they seem exposed for the lit/high light parts. That of course breaks the first rue of shooting negative film : expse for the shadows

Having your exposure on the lit/high lighted parts rather then on the shadows, you consequently now have well exposed highlights on the negatives, with a decent, but none too thick density

But at the same time as a result of that your shadows (on the negatives) are bare/naked, which in print translates in blacks with loss/no details.

If you try correct that in print, you consequently have to expose and develop (your paper) too short to get decent blacks and contrast, and that as your first image shows end up with something muddy looking

Don't know if you do your own film developing and final orinting, or have some advanced knowledge of the principles of those processes, but the solution can be found there

Unfortumately the only knowledge many nowadays ' born again filmshooters' have is to shoot a film, send it to their lab for standard development, and then do their 'printing' digitally since that's where the images end up anyway

IMO at least as far as low light shooting is concerned (shooting with 'good' light is easy, basically shoot Sunny 16) you have to completely overhaul your way thinking how to shoot, how to develop your negative film, and how to do your printing

So first, expose for the shadows or at least with the emphasys on the shadows (ALWAYS !)

With the contrast of the situation you took the picture of, overthink the way you will develop your negatives. Just throwing your film in a standard developer and extending the development time doesn't cut it. Depending on the contrast, you have to (pre)select a certain type of developer.

D-76, like eg ID 11 is a basic developer, giving whem used normally nicely graded negatives, and thus a fine choice for 'normal' light condition.

However in a low light/low contrast situation, you will need a developer which is 'agressive' enough to create (some) density in the shadows/shadow parts of your negatives

Problem then of course becomes that while creating that density in the shadows, the same built up if density will also occur in the high lights, resulting in a negative with density (= details) in the shadows, but also too much density ( is loss of detail, in prints recorded as 'burnt out') highlights, and due to the high density negative much (more) grain (the real one, not the digital 'pixel' one)

Solution is easy, at least on paper, however in practice means a lot of work/experimenting to find how to work taht out in a way that funtions for you

As said when shooting negative film, always expose for/ with more emphasys on the high shadows (just like with slide/daylight film you expose for the high lights)

Then if possible try find developer which will 'flatten out' the contrasts.

Based on my experience and much trial and error what would work for which situation, I varied between using Microphen, Microdol X, Acu-1, Acufine, May And Baker Promicrol, and for a while (untill it became no longer available) even Agfa Leicanol (very much regretted when that was taken of the market, wonderful contrast reducing developer)

That flattening/reducing of the contrasts can be influenced by several things

1) Temperature of the developer: warm = more 'clouding'/details in the shadows, but also too much density in the highlighs (too cold will give the reverse effect)

2) Agitation : the time how long you agitate your film in the developer/ how many times you shake your development tank per minute (as you [pobably know, at least I hope so, is that while developing your film, the deveoper touching the film mus be refreshed every now and then, eg by just shaking your development tank)

Little agitation : flat negative Much agitation : high contrast negative

3) Shorter or longer development time then recommended by the manufacturer : Short : less density = little/no shadow detail Long: too much density = loss of detail in / burnt out hightlights

These 3 factors have to be combined, but from a distance an exact 'how to do it and get a perfect result every time' can't be given

I don't know how consistent you can keep the temperature of your developer, what you consider 'agitation' (care fully tilting your tank, of literally shaking it top over bottom a few times)

Or how strictly you keep your timing: does it start when you pour in the developer, of only after you ended your first cycle of agitation, including the one to cleat possible bubbles; en does it finish when you pour out the developeer at the end of the period, or after you rinsed your film and applied the stopping solution?

Those are things you have to find out to find your own process that works for you, and it's not as simple as moving your RGB slider in your RAW processing software

That said, keep in mind that back in the film days, it was normal to have an 'all night'er to in the early hours of the morning end up with maybe/hopefully two or rhree '[erfect prints (and a lot of failures in the process) and hopefully not discover that after some sleep and under the bright daylight, it turned ot still not to be 'perfect

As some kind of comfort though, just like nowadays in the digital era when there are endless videos and tutorial on the net on digital processing, back in te film days there similarly were bookshelves full written on how to perfectly' develop your film and make the 'perfect' print :)

I personally have gladly abandonned shooting film and embraced digital, no more long night is the dark amid fumes of developer and fix, although I do my digital processing with what I learned in the filmdays in the back of my mind

And sometimes, sometimes, I do miss dancing around in the darkroom on my socks, listening to a Van Morrison tape softly playing in the night while waiting for a print to reveal itself in the developer .....

Enclosed image shot somewhere in the 80's at sunset (as can be seen by the direction of the shadow, and the contrast)

Kodak Tri X, Agfa Leicanol )don't remember solution, time and agitation, but it was a contrast lowering developer to begin with),

printed on Ilford Multigrade, developed in Tetenal Eukobrom (which gives higher contrast. deeper blacks, tones to the prints)

Kodak Sepia Toner (the two bag solution one, first Ferrocyanide bleacher, the the stinky sulpher based toning batch)

Although it (fortunately, as I don't like shooting hem despite having a knack for it) is a while since I shot a wedding, I do have quite a bit of experience with them, both back in the film days (no AF, primitive A or somewhat more avance TTL flash, max ISO 400 film - above that,eg with the 3M 640T slide, the result would be too 'artistic - ) and digital (fast AF max IS0 6400, sophisticated TTL flash)

On the other hand I nowadays regularly shoot catwalk, sometimes at well / professional level lit venues, and sometimes at venues where the light level appears to allow shooting without flash, but only at SIO3200 and (well) above ( and unfortunately sometimes in near dungeons where using flash is inevitable)

Based on those experiences, IMO having fast glass is only part of the equation.

Just like in the film shooting days, when the choice of film eg fast = grainy, no grain = slow flm, was a determining factor, similarly nowadays in the digital age so is the sensor

At the risk of starting a 'brand war' I, to put it bluntly, think that a big part of the noise problems you have can be blamed on the current camera's you use

Only since the 80D and 5DIV has Canon reportely started to overcome the problems with high ISO noise and excessive chroma noise especially in shadows and shadow recovery of underexposed areas that plagued 'older' models and really was flawed compared to Sony and later model (D3 and up) Nikon sensors

I eg recommend scrolling down to the bottom of this wedding photographer's test of the Nikon D750,

Nikon D750 Review | Destination Wedding Photographer

where he compares (and shows) the results of under exposed files of the D750 and 5DIII and difference in chroma noise in under exposed areas

While the 6D reportedly has, especially in JPEG, much improved compared to older Canon models, the 5DII in comparison is 'old' and accordingly the high ISO performance/noise is by nowadays standards pretty dismal for low light use

So although I don't want to start a discussion over switching brands, I do recommend considering getting a later model (Canon/Nikon/Sony) body.

For an amateur shooter that may be a too big a hurdle, but for a pro wedding shooter getting that, as far as high ISO (and low light AF) is concerned, should be a no brainer

Apart from the DF, you can NOT use any NON Ai /Pre Ai lens on any other Nikon DSLR body or late film body

(I have several classic non Ai and Ai lenses I use with my several Nikon DSLR's, including a DF)

With exception of the DF, the aperture tab on the aperture coupling ring on the body is fixed on all Nikon DSLR's

Consequently when you mount a NON Ai lens, you will risk tearing it of and damaging the camera

https://www.nikonimgsupport.com/ni/NI_article?articleNo=000002638&configured=1&lang=en_US

Any advise suggesting the contrary is completely wrong

Way back when I started a professional education in photography (late 70's) studio flash was an expensive luxury, the use of which was reserved only for the higher classes of the photography school I was attending (the nowadays Royal Academy of Arts in The Hague, the Netherlands)

The lower classes had to make do with Philips Photoflecta lamps (500W oversized lightbulbs), even for product and pack shots, which in combination with the in those days held at the highest acceptable 27 DIN/400 ASA (back then ISO was a less widely used term) films and slow lenses of the day (and I'm not even talking about the much slower large format camera lenses) made taking a picture quite a challenge

So studio flash, even the basically quite limited BEAM units of those days (about as technically advanced as the Balcar units of the same era), was a real step forward:

- no more slow speeds with wide open lens,

- no more slow tungsten films ( Kodak 64T EPY basicallly was the only option) but 'regular' daylight film instead

- nor multiple second exposures, in the calculation of which the reprocity had to be taken into account,

- just one, or in case much DoF was demanded maybe several flashes using a high (= closed down) aperture number.

I however was a poor photography student, and for my own, outside school photography/portraiture all I could afford were a couple of Metz patatohead flashes bounced in umbrellas, (reasonable GN, but no modelling lights) and a few cheapo halogen tungsten lights I picked up during seasonal sales

But what I found out soon, was that yes, while a flash allowed taking images with low ISO film and closed down aperture, resulting in very sharp images (with a 35mm, and even more with a medium format camera), apart from that 'sharpness' element, it really didn't add much more to an image.

Sure 'sharp' is imperative for shooting eg products and other subjects where rendering as much detail as possible is necessary.

But for subject where atmosphere and/or mood are more important (early morning haze filled landscapes, weddings, location portraits and even studio shots) it really gets in the way of what is tried to convene, and rather gets a liability then a contribution

From a practical point of view, when taking pictures with continuous light, that can be done with the subject being less consious of it (despite the articficial surroundings that come with shooting in a studio or bright light blazing) then when using flash, where each image taken is announced with the flash(es) going off, thus alerting the model of 'yes, antother one taken' to even startling a less camera comfortable subject

With the modern high ISO capable camera's I personally find less need for shooting at ultra low ISO with (studio) flash, although when shooting events a couple of speedlights can be an absolute lifesafer

While the improving quality/power output of LED lights make them more and more an affordable and mature alternative for flash and conventional continuous lighst as eg my Bowens Gemini studio flashes and Hedler C12 halogen units

I'm not that much of an expert that I would/could describe the quality of contiuous light as 'subtle glow or smoothness', but IMO and experience, the softness that usually comes with continuous light for me is closer, and consequently more pleasing, then the 'sharpness above all' that comes with using flash.

But admittedly I'm also an avid used of older (Nikon pre Ai, AI and AF D) glass rather then sharp and contrasty from corner to corned' glass like eg Zeiss and Sigma Art glass

I have a problem uploading these images, hence just the links

Studio image taken with multiple studio flash units

Nathalie A: Corine's Agency Amsterdam/Ricardo Gay Models Milano/Euromodel Amsterdam/Mozart Models Vienna 092 bew.jpg by Paul K

Studio image with 1 haogen light (bounced in umbrella) with several (styrofoam panel) reflection screens

Eva / Elite Amsterdam.JPG by Paul K

I personally let go a big sigh of relief when I upgraded from the DX D2X to the FX D3 in 2008 (was an early adapter of the latter)

Don't get me wrong, the D2X had excellent AF (for its time), excellent IQ at low ISO, and the HSC crop saved me when using it to shoot surf (turning my 4/200-400VR1 into a virtual 4/400-800, be it at the cost of the 12 MP DX crop, in HSC reduced to a crop of a mere 6 MP)

But the D3 had better AF, much better IQ, much better high ISO (the D2X basically maxes out at ISO 800, while the D3 files still are much better even at ISO 6400), a wider (faster) range of shutter speeds usable with Auto ISO, and much better IQ and DR when using higher ISO.

The better high ISO maybe is not much of an issue if you only use the D2X in the studio in combination with flash, but a real world deal breaker when you are forced to shoot with available / low level natural light (eg open shadow under some trees or in the shade of a building)

I upgraded to a D800 shortly after its introduction in 2012 (actually, got one after I traded in my back up D3, never needed it as my nr 1 D3 kept working flawlessly as it still does five years on, nearly ten years after its introduction) although I must hasten to add I'm not always a first buyer, only buy a new body if I see a real upgrade compared to a previous older model.

I a.o. shoot a fair bit of fashion and catwalk, and the D3 12MP sometimes were too little to really allow showing details, while it left liitle room for cropping in post when processing the catwalk shots

IMO the high ISO is on par with the D3, the AF is not as snappy, but is fast and reliable enough for shooting under less then ideal conditions (unlike the D810, which is superior under good light, but is flawed under low light conditions), and the IQ is much, much better

Some early serie D800's had issues with the left AF point when used with wide angle lenses at full (open) aperture, and as usual that gave fuel for a lot of ill informed (not based on personal experience but rather on 'I read it somewhere') hysteria on the internet

I have 2 D800's I have been using for years now shooting surf, hasion catwalk and beauty (the latter with eg 1.4/85 AFD and 1.4/58 AFS wide open) for years now and never ran into the above issue. Never even have applied AF fine tuning with any of my AF D and AFS lenses as far as that is concerned

'Problems' with the D800 are from a technical point of view the higher demands on lenses and shooting technique due to the 36MP, and for an 'esthetical' point of view when taking headshots the amount of detail (pores, creases, 'below the eye' shadow) due to those 36MP

As far as storage and processing is concerned, cards and external harddisks are (relatively) cheap nowadays, while most modern computers/laptops have no problems with the approx. 45-55 MB lossless compressed NEF files of the D800

I personally don't see any advantage of 8 fps over 4 fps when doing headshots in a studio, only very few (and expensive) studio flashes can follow that speed rate,

anyway, and sorry, 8 fps (or 4 fps for that matter) for doing a headshot ?!!

From a practical point of view, yes 36MP is a lot, but for most newer model DSLR's 24 MP already is kind of standard, so shouldn't really be a biggy.

And of course the D800 lack the built in power grip, making it a lot lighter (and thus easier) to schlep around all day

Don't shoot vieo, so can't say anything on that ...

I didn't upgrade to a D810 after that was introduced, despite the improvements and refinements in many areas', for the things important to me (AF, IQ nd high ISO) those improvements were too little (the low light AF had even worsened) to justify (for me) the extra expense for getting one

So if you can find a relatively low click one at a low price (plenty of those around after the introduction of the D850) I don't see any real objections against maybe getting on

(Nikon D800 1.4/58mm AFS /2000s f/2.2 at iso 400)

Got my first D800 in 2012, shortly after its introduction

Before that I had been using two D3's, but at times (I shoot a fair bit of fashion and catwalk)

I really wished for more pixels for better detail rendering or extra room for cropping

Didn't encounter the widely on the internet reported and discussed left AF point 'issue', don't think

it really ever existed up to the degree internet hysteria made it

(Originally it was only reported on a number of early series bodies, only encountered when shooting with a wide angle

lens used fully open, Nikon did offer a service repair under the guarantuee for the bodies affected, and that was it)

Did have had my D800's AF recalibrated, but had that done on a different occasion with one of my D3's as well,

after I dropped each camera, although on separate occasions, from a couple of feet high on a respectively concrete,

and a tiled floor while shooting catwalk

Fortunately they basically landed bottom plate first, so no external damage, but the impact was hard enough to

mess up the AF system inside the bodies

Did consider the D810 after its introduction, in many respect a more refined camera then the D800

But looking at what was important for me (AF, high ISO, IQ), the improvements were too incremental to justify the

extra expense upgrading to a D810 would mean, let alone getting a new one next to my then 2 years old D800

(MRSP, which the shops where I live followed, at the introduction was more then double the price for a low

milage D800 at that time)

The real deal breaker for me was the AF of the D810.

While with good light indeed improved speedwise and eg with the Group AFoption, the low light AF performance.

offcicially rated at -2EV, in real life worked well only up to -1EV, after which it would hunt much more then acceptable

The 'old' D800 however will effectively work as low as -3EV, which for me as a regular catwalk and event shooter

really can make or break a shoot

So instead got a 2nd, although 2nd hand, D800 with 120K clicks, at a as a consequence quite low price

In that period a relatively low clicks D800 would go for Eur 1400 to 1500, while my heavy used one cost me

Eur 950 including a battery (of course) and a third party grip

Basically is my back up D800, or at times my 2nd high pixel DSLR, but despite the 120K clicks never has given me

any problems and works flawlessly in the two years since I got it

After the recent introduction of the D850 I have indeed seen the prices for 2nd hand. low click, D800's drop,

although where I live not as low as the price you quote (was around Eur 1500, now Eur 1200).

Similarly the 2nd hand prices for D810 have also dropped, amazingly enough (again, where I live)

relatively more then those of D800's (2nd hand D810 were around Eur 2500 to 2800, I now see

low click D810 on offer for Eur 1800)

Have handled the D850 at an introduction event, was allowed to put AF D and manual lenses on the originally fitted with an

AFS lens demo body and even able to shoot a number of shots in an ISO range of 500 to 12800 on a SD card I had with me

It really is a major step up from the D810, let alone a D800. Much better AF, 1 stop better high ISO up ISO 12800,

coming from a D800 huge buffer and faster -full frame - fps

Probably will sell my high milage D800 and upgrade to one in a couple of months, after the current exitement has

subdued and it bcomes more widely available, hopefully at a somewhat lower price

Coming from a D7100 (I have one too, it's my grab and go 'litte' camera for the occasions I don't want to

haul the big and heavy - and expensive - FX bodies along all day, but still want better Q then my phone)

with a D800 you will indeed see a huge step up, obviously in IQ but also high ISO (at least one stop), AF and

buffer (at least 15 RAW)

So if the D800 you intend to buy is in good condition, doesn't have a bent lens mount, has a properly working AF

(like the AF on any camera, that may have gotten misaligned, even if not as a consequence of the left AF point,

as far as that really was an issue), the price you mention is quite attractive and seems a pretty good deal

That's precisely NOT the one the OP should use. It is my understanding that he was asking about backing up the card in slot 1, not having a second card that can take over once the first one fills up.

You're absolutely correct, my mistake

I meant selecting the 'Back up' option, got a bit mixed up switching after languages in the menu's

You of course can use it in the way you describe (I have a D7100 myself) by selecting the

'Overflow' option in the the 'Roled played by Card in slot 2' setting of the Shooting menu, in combination with

'JPG" (in whatever size) in the Image Quality' setting of the same menu

The SD cards I use are by far not as big as the 256G card you are considering, while in the manufacturer's manual

the largest SD card recommended is 64G, but in the past I used larger then recommended cards in older tpe

Nikn DSLR's without any problems

However, you of course will risk losing your 'back up ' archive when eg the camera together with the 'archive'

SD card is lost or stolen, or when due to some kind of malfunction the 'back up' SD card becomes corrupt or in some way unreadible

I personally use Eye Fi cards, which have a built in Wifi transmitter, to during a shoot send JPG's to my tablet

Admittedly in my case the JPG;s are of little real interest, as I also shoot in RAW as my main format, but being able to get

a impression of the pictures immediately after having been shot on a larger screen then the camera's LCD is very helpful

for eg stylists, MUA's models and editors ( I shoot a fair bit of fasion)

I suppose you could use a similar set up (although not with Eye Fi cards, as that company has unfortinately folded) with amother

brand of WiFi SD cards from eg Transcend or Toshiba

Shoot your pictures on a smaller SD card for your usual 'per job' routine, and also send copies of the images to the harddisk of your

taptop or computer, IMO most likely less prone to possible break down or loss then leaving the back up on a card in the camera

Had the opportunity to play with the D850 during the introduction party for the D850 NPS Netherlands organized

Only worked with the settings as dialed in by the technicians from NPS

I'm not much into video, and with two D800 slready have more then enough experience with high pixel camera's,

so the bump up to 45,7 Megapixel isn't that exiting/interesting for me

I however was interested in the improvements on high ISO and AF

(and if and if I would be able to still use my old AF D and manual lenses with ALL AF selection points)

My first (general) impressions:

- body doesn't feel (extra) heavy compared with my D800,

- generally speaking button lay out and menu's feel as far as I played with them (not very much) very familiar

- No complaints or observations on the improved viewfinder, nothing to say about the video ( not interested in) nor snapbridge (didn't try it out)

so I expect little problems adapting coming from eg a D3, D00, DF and D7100 (the bodies I have) to the D850 in that respect

But admittedly I'm not enough of a gearhead to delve deep into all the options etc, as a rule with each new body I get just use/dial in the settings I need (based on my experiences with Nikon film AF - starting with the F801 - and digital bodies - D1 - ) and forget about the rest

AF

- even under the not particularly good lighting it was very fast (much, much faster then my D800, and as far as I could judge snappier with lightning speed lock on then my D3)

As said my personal interest with the AF however was how it would work with AF-D lenses, and older manual focus lenses.

The official statement (copied from the DP review D5 review) on the 20K AF module, which the D850 also has, is

Understandably, the number of available points as 'cross-type' varies depending on which lens you use and its maximum aperture, so that's something you'll want to check out in the D5 user manual. As an example, if you own a lot of older AF-D lenses as I do, you're actually limited to the 45 cross-type sensors in the center of the frame.

So to begin with I first mounted a 1.4 50mm AF-D, framed a picture in landscape mode, and manually selected an AF point as much towards the side in the viewfinder

To my pleasant surprise the lens would AF and give a sharp image

Maybe I was dumb lucky, or due to some user error got the body work, correctly or not, with the AF-D lens, But my impression is that the full range of (visible?) AF points will work even with AF D lenses, which for me is a big plus (and relief as I will be able to continue to use eg my 1.4/85 AF D and 2/135 DC on the D850 with all AF points)

Secondly I mounted my old (modified) pre AI 1.8/85mm ikkor H, and tried the same, now to see whether the 'green confirmation point' in the viewfinder would work when I aimed an AF point on a random spot

Again to my delight it worked on all visible AF points, so seems to work without any issues, now with manual lenses, too

High ISO JPG's

When I asked if I could put an SD card in the body, to my surprise that was OK, since it apparently already was a full production (so not a pre production, yet to be perfected) copy

Didn't go for RAW's as there is no software available for post processing those files yet, and instead shot a number of JPG from 500 to 12800 ISO

Downloaded with Nikon Transfer, opened in Nikon NX 2.4.6, no postprocessing, no sharpening, no fiddling with contrast etc (guess that amounts to SOOC)

Tried uploading some pictures, but the IQ got compromised in the process, so just links

500 ASA 100% crop

(Shot in A mode, which resulted in a shutterspeed of 1/15th, so sorry for the blurry picture

D850 004 20170824 500 ASA 100% crop.jpg by Paul K

iso12800 100% crop of 1/500)

D850 024 20170824 12800 ASA 100% Crp.jpg by Paul K

You can find the whole set (500-1000-2000-4000-8000-12800 ASA, didn't care to go any higher)

of full images, crop of 100% enlargements, and the Exif data over herehis an overly image filled post) the 100% crops, as well as together the Exif data here

D 850 by Paul K

As you have the 'color' head, you don't need the Mutigrade filter set

If you increase the M(agenta) dial, you'll increase the contrast (rendering) of the Multigrade paper/print, and dialing up the B(lue) will decrease it (incase you have a high contrast negative)

Used my Durst M601 with colorhead that way with Mutigrade paper

Although I worked with Multigrade for years (started using it shortly after its introduction way back in the 80's) I did't use it with the original Multigrade paper developer.

I preferred the more blueish black and higher contrast tones I got when using Multigrade with Tetenal Eukobrom paper developer

There's a RZ67 Polaroidback (with a 'P' adapter) for sale for US $59 on eBay (American seller)

and as mentioned you can still get Fuji F P 100 even if the production has recently been ended

How about a Nikon HN 23 lens hood?

Although its has a diameter of 62mm, that should be no issue using a 58 to 62 mm step up ring on your lens

Don't know the diameter of the front size of the HN23, but no doubt you can find a lens cap of the right size just as easiy

The HN23 is about US $ 30, a step up ring costs 99 cents on eBay, and a lens cap around US $7 on Amazon

I have all three lenses you mention, use them (amongst others) on my 2 D800's as well, but ever ran into the problem you mention

Only time I had an issue resembling to something related to 'connectivety' was when I used a 4/600 AF-I with a Kenko TC14 on a D3

Despite that I had the set up on a (lens mounted) monopod, the weight of the D3 caused too much 'play' between the TC and the body, triggering regular

'FEE' messages (causing to block the body from shooting). Switched to a tighter fitting Nikon TC14II after which the 'problem' was solved

(still use the Kenko TC occasionally, but only with shorter AF-D lenses)

That said, I assume you also have the lenses supported by a monopod or tripod? While the 70-200 can be shot hand held, the 2/200 and 200-400 IMO are quite a challenge using them that way for a prolonged period

But with the proper/correct support (even hand held) of the lenses, the kind of 'play' as I encountered in the above described situation should not occur anyway

So I'm afraid having the faulty D800 checked might seem the only solution

Haven't owned a D70, but have been a long time owner/user of its 'successor' the D70S, which apart from some IMO minor updates is virtually identical to it

Only traded it in about a year and a half ago, as the difference in UI between the D70S and my FX bodies became too big a hindrance for 'mixed' use

'Upgraded' to a D7100, but as I use DX as a grab and go option, don't really find it a major/significant improvement (guess I got spoiled with my D3/D800/DF's)

Although dating from 2004, the D70 IMO still is a very usable DSLR, despite the (compared to my D7100) 'mere' 6 Megapixels, no video, 'limited' ISO (max around ISO 800 after which it gets somewhat noisy) and only 5 AF points

Another big plus also was/is that the max flash synch speed is actually higher then the official 1/500th with certain flash units, compared to the 1/250th of the current crop of Nikon DSLR's (OK, unless you use HSS or FPP compatible units, but those weren't there yet in 2004)

And the 18-55 kitlens (still use the one that came with my D70S, even on my D7100) really is remarkably good despite its price and humble intentions ('just' a kitlens)

When it was introduced, it generally impressed with the sturdy built quality (especially compared with its then rival the EOS 300D), reliable AF and despite low (although at the time of its introduction that wasn't the case, especially for an 'entry' model) pixelnumber excellent IQ eg

Nikon D70 Review

I used my D70S for years next to promodels like D1, D2X and D3 as a small(er) lighter and cheaper (for occasions when I feared bringing an expensive camera along because of possible damage) alternative

Used it for catwalk, as a 2nd body at weddings (once even was bombarded on the spot to shoot a complete wedding, despite only having the D70S and a 18-55mm kitlens with me - no additional lenses, bodies, batteries of flashes - and managed to pull of the job with, for everyone, satisfactiry results despite of that), concerts and PJ work eg

20100731 Tropical Carnaval Rotterdam by Paul K or 2013 Amsterdam Gay Pride Canal Parade by Paul K

Some time after it's introduction there was a problem with the electronics,, the socalled BGLOD (Blinking Green Light of Death) 'syndrome (Nikon issued a service note over it in 2005https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2408780515/nikonadvisory) but as far as I know it got solved after that and did not (re)appear since

So you should be able to have plenty of fun with it, and in case it unexpectedly breaks down, another one won't break the bank

The Nikon 2.5/105mm (and in particular the Gauss version) has a near mythical reputation among classic Nikon lens fans

Best check bjorn Rosslett's reviews and comments at Nikongear if you want to learn more on the different versions (pre Ai, non and multicoated etc)

Got one together with my F2AS back in the late 70's/early 80's, but never liked it very much

Most likely my own fault though, used it most of the time as a short tele for low light shooting, at shutterspeeds arond 1/60th (it was in the days when ISO 800 really was about as high you could go) and inevitably ended up with blurred (due to camera shake) images

Got a 2/85 Ais instead which allowed better use at 1/60th, although that wasn't an exceptional lens, just a good and decent workhorse

Have the 2/135DC, use it on my DF and D800's, usually (nearly) wide open, never use the DC fnction

It's an old lens, design dates from around/over 20 years ago, and consuently does not have the characteristics

many demand nowdays such as (extreme) sharpness and high contrast as can be found on the more modern Zeiss and recent Sigma 1.8/135mm

I personallly love the 'softer' image and lesser (extreme) detail rendering, which for my taste goes much better with eg portraits (rather then shooting a picture showing each pore and detail, only having to later in post processing 'correct' that with 'clone and paste' or 'Portrait Pro' software)

Also prefer it over the 2/200 VR (I know, blasphemy) for fashion location shooting

Much lighter and portable, much less intimidating for the model, while having a quite comparable (shallow) DoF rendering when used wide open

Does any of that actually help the OP with his problem Paul?

Yes, much more then refering to some vague article of an 'expert' who has no experience with the flash at hand, at best just with one model Nikon speedlight, and at best shallow experience with the Nikon flash system and how it prgressed from the next to fail proof TTL on film bodies like F4, F801, F90X and F100 (with the SB25) via the specially adapted for use on DSLR's SB80DX and later despite new 'king of the mountian SB910 still highly regarded SB800

Or partisan remarks based on experiences from way back when, apparently not updated by following/applying newer technological developments

My remarks are based on actual working with the SB400, in the set up (flash in hotshoe) and with virtually the same camera (D7000 vs D7100) as the OP, so I can make/hand down real world, own experience based, remarks and tips

That 3rd party hardware needs to be used to make Nikon's AWL system work reliably says quite a lot, don't you think? It seems like it took Canon's introduction of built-in radio flash slaving to finally trigger (pun intended) Nikon to follow suit.

I must say I always love those kind of observations and reactions on something which clearly was a casual observation (see my first post 'On a side note ...)

While Nikon in 2003 got their act together with regards to the flash system on DSLR's (to the high standard Nikon users based on their experiences with the TTL on film slr's were used to) Canon was still struggling with their speedlight (and which for many professional users was a major reason, next to the 2008 introduced D3, to joyfully return to Nikon)

When Pocket Wizard introduced the TT5's in 2010 ( a development you seem to have missed nor have any experience with), they without any problems could be used in combination with Nikon speedlights like SB600 and SB800 (didn't read that, but worked with them that way)

Canon was a different story however, the then current speedlights needed special socks to work with the TT5's, and even then in a much less functional way then the Nikon ones, making functional remote radio triggering with eg the EX580 problematic to say the least, or maybe better a far away illusion realistically speaking

The 2012 released Canon 600EX RT currently costs in the Netherlands Euro 639 , and obviously can't be used as a (i)TTL speedlight on a Nikon DSLR

If however I still happen to have a SB400, SB00 or SB800 (which due to their age will cost much less) I can just pop them on a PW TT5 (new Eur 200, and for less available 2nd hand) or e.g. an even less expensive Phottix Odin, and use those 'oldies' with any Nikon DSLR

Maybe not iTTL with a D1H, but without any problems with anything ranging from a D70 to D800 (limiting myself to the camera's I use/have used, even though I read enough positive reviews about use with 'newer' models)

No need to (costly) switching systems, which obviously would be becessary if I would want to take 'advantage' of (dare I say expensive, considering Eur 639 for a EX600 RT?) Canon built in radio technology (OK I would lose bragging rights for having the lastest, most costly gimmicks; but then again, I take pictures instead)

Perhaps Nikon does not have built in radio triggering model wise up the the same level/specs as Canon with the (less expensive) SB5000

But then again, I have been using Nikon speedlights (released to as far back as 2003) without any problems remotely radio triggered since 2010

While Canon finally had its act together at a much later date, and, very high cost if I would switch camera brand, as I then had to sell my Nikon gear and buy similar Canon equipment just for getting a 'better' speedlight

So yes, Canon's more modern 2012 remote radio trigger technology 'may' be more advanced then Nikon's SB5000 (no personal experience with either, so can say anything/make any comparison - apart from the price, and perceived costs of having to switch system - based on that)

But considering the question was for tips on how to get his SB400 better working on a D7000, does that actually help the OP with his problem?

I'm not very good, and actually not very interested, in what the 'correct' description of the SB400 flash technology is or is called, be it TTL of iTTL, and prefer to base my comments on actual (personal) use of the flash itself (on DSLR's ranging from a D1H, D70S, D2X, and as mentioned D3, D7100, D800 to a DF) rather then quoting some googled up article

The Scantips article BTW is quite incomplete in its critiscism of the TTL-BL flash mode

The TTL-BL mode, even if called 'intelligent' TTL mode', in practical working conditions means the flashlight is balanced/mixed with the existing light to get a 'correcty' exposed image, and in such a way that it doesn't, as would be the case in 'normal' TTL mode, become the (overpowering) main (flash) light

It's is my long time preferred working life flash option with any Nikon speedlight I use.(as it is of many long time 'older' TTL Nikon speedlight users - amateur and professional - I know, and might very well be the reason why Nikon dropped the standard 'just TTL' option in eg the SB910), it simply gives a far more pleasing 'balanced' look, rather then an otherwise overpowering, burned out 'look I'm using a flash' look

The experience of the writer seems to be limited to the SB910 (which I have myself, so am well aware of how it operates as a working tool) which only was announced end 2011 (against the eg the SB800 in 2003)

If he had handled the SB600 and SB800 (which he seems to have not) he would have known that on those units the speedlight offers the (with the click of a button) selectable option to chose between TTL and TTL BL mode (which produce completely different results)

Instead he delves in an extensive (relevant?) essay on the D-lens data technology and how that supposedly doesn't interacts with the TTL-BL

For all practical purposes, but if I take a shot and see on my LCD it's not 100% correct/somewhat under exposed, I don't spend a lot of time and energy on the theory why such might not be the case (guess that if you have a site and need content to lure clicks you do)

Maybe I'm dumb, but I don't panick since I know I, if desired, can immediately correct that in the next shot with the FEC button, or the Exposure compensation buttton on the camera, and also have the reassuring knowledge I afterwards still can do a lot of shadow detail recovery on my RAW file in post processing (yet another advantage of shooting Nikon)

Which IMO are far more realistic options to consider as possible solutions while busy actually taking pictures (rather then spend a lot of time theorizing and making endless series of test shots)

It's not like having an under exposed shot on negative film, which, as experienced film shooters know, is far harder, and most likely only at the loss of IQ, to 'correct' in print (one of the reasons I prefer shooting digital, despite my experience extending 40+ years shooting, developing and printing film)

I agree with Ilkka's obbservations: yes, the SB400 works well when used from the hotshoe using the camera steered flash exposure modes (within the limitations as posted above). Don't know whether that's TTL or iTTL, nor care

All I want is to, if needed, just pop it on a camera, and (continue) to shoot away without having to worry whether the exposure will be OK (it in my long time experience will be, even if there might be small variations in the exposure; but demanding constant identically 'perfect' exposed images is IMO a bit onrealistic)

I don't constanty vary my settings between Manual, A(perture priority), S(hutter speed priority) or Program, or Matrix, Spot or Center metering mode, when using flash I always have my camera in Manual(ly selected shutter speed and aperture) mode and Matrix Metering. and if necessary make corrections while shooting as described (also) above

Could be the camera's I use do switch between iTTl and TTL mode, but as said, all I care about is to get a, within a certain range which I can if necessary slightly tweak in post processing, 'correctly' exposed picture

And the SB 400 does that, on the venerable D1H - even if not in iTTL mode, not possible on that body - and D70S (which does handle iTTL just like its predecessor the D70), as well on the more recent D800 and DF ( I have no immediate need to upgrade to a more modern D750, D810 or D500, the oldies still deliver the IQ I want; the money thus saved I can spend on lenses, or other non photography related things - which, believe it or not, do exist :) )

It however (officially) does not work as part of Nikon's CLS system ( it lacks the photocell to communicate with a Master flash/camera)

This is clearly stated in the SB400 tech info on the Nikon product site, and yes, also in the manual (which probably few who posted seem to have ever seen or handled in the hard copy form) As I posted earlier, it, as I found out, does though in combinations with in any case PW TT5's, and perhaps also other radio triggers

Nikon's remote CLS system in itself works well, even within some limitations.

In its original form, introduced with the SB800 in 2003, it's infra red triggered, making the system next to useless used outside under bright sunlight (using a SC29 cord gives some relieve, but only up to a point, and really not that much). It works well inside though, but even then keeping the remote flash with the 'line of view' of the trigger is a deciding factor for succesfull use.

If you only have limited experience working with the CLS system, and in particular only in its original infra red form, and since then not have kept up with, and worked/experimented with advancing technical options such as radio triggers, the observation that it 'sucks' is outdated to say the least, and you have been withholding yourself some very usefull real life working solutions

If used in combination with (more modern) radio triggers like the PW TT5 or Phottix Odin, in which case the whole infra red thing becomes redundant, the CLS system works (in my experience, have started using it this way shortly after the PW TT's were introduced)) next to flawless, esspecially when using a Nikon SU800 or PW AC3 as steering unit and much better and reliable then the SB25's AA (?, perhaps Auto Flash mode, = non TTL light metered via a sensor in front) mode (when that speedlight was introduced, back in the film shooting F4/F801 days, friviolities like the CLS system didn't even exist)

So sorry, can't/won't quote some article of an 'expert' or manual I googled, can only fall back on actual. long time working experience with the SB400 and the CLS system

Just checked to be sure what my SB400 does with my D7100 and DF (have used it in the past on my D3 and D800, without any issues as well)

On both camera's, with the SB400, and the bodies in A(perture) and Program mode, exposure tends to lean toward 'over exposed', with close to burned out highlights

Which is probably due to the camera already, based on the selected A and P settings, getting the 'correct' exposure, on top of which then the flash is rolled out, resulting in the over exposure, much like what happens when shooting iin Auto Iso mode in combination with non TTL e.g. studio strobes in a too high power setting

This could very well be due to the fact that I have my flash synch on my rear shutter curtain, possibly if on the first curtain this might not happen (but I'm too lazy to check this last moment idea)

Note that the SB400, unlike the SB800 and 900 (I have the SB800 and 910 myself) does not offer the options of Manual (as in: the speedlight delivers a flash at full power, and based on GN, ISO and distance you calculate the aperture number to get a 'correct' exposure) nor a Automatic mode (in which a built in sensor in the flash independent of the camera's TTL electronics determines the 'correct' exposure based on the selected ISO and the reflected flash light) as it lacks the option to dial in a Manual mode on the flash, nor has a built in metering sensor needed for Automatic mode

It only can be steered using the camera's electronics, hence the only available M (to be selected in the camera's Flash menu) and (also in camera) iTTl modes

As I always use my camera's in Manual mode when using flash, I never ran into the above mentioned P and A mode issues during my shooting situations anyway

When using the SB400 in this way, I can easily 'manipulate' the exposure with the Flash Exposure button on the top left side of the lens mount, or the 'exporsure +/- selection button in combination with dial' on the camera

On a side note, despite the official description that the SB400 can't be used as part of Nikon's CLS system, it can if used with (in my case) Pocket Wizard TT5's, both in (reduced power settings) TTL and even Manual (yes, the 'dumb' way) mode allowing to use it eg as a very low output fill in flash.

Probably other similar type remote radio triggers (Odin?) allow thsi as well, worth looking into if you happen to have those

HTH

I think you're pinning yourself too much in a corner, and consequently see too much bears in the road, by (initially) limiting yourself too much on the term 'wedding

Rather then only trying to find experience with shooting weddings, I would look for similar events which you can easier, and with much less risk and/or responsibility for the end result, shoot

By only thinking in terms of weddings, the opportunities for picking up experience either by riding along with a more established/experienced photographer, or doing so as a unexperienced first time shooter, are as already stated in several reactions very scarce

Let's first look at what a wedding shoot, technically, and shootingwise, actually is:

- As far as the techniqiue is concerned, you'll need to be able to shoot fast, be able to very fast adapt to changing shooting conditions, and master shooting with natural as fflash light, under ideal and less then ideal/bad lighting conditions

- Shooting wise you'll need to be able to handle constantly changing situations, the sitters/ nervous bride and groom (eg for the formal shots), the guests and family (for the PJ/informal/wedding reception), and outside parties (eg handling the limitations imposed by the priest when taking pictures in church)

You in my experience can find those kind of challenging conditions, both technically or shooting wise, by taking pictures of at first sight completely different subjects.

If you eg shoot a ceremony celebrating somebodies xxx-year anniversary at his work, you'll, just like a wedding, need to be able to shoot fast, capture the 'important' moments (speech by the manager, handing over of the golden watch etc) etc. As well as recording the whole event like the arrival of the 'birthday boy, his wife and family, and the reception (old friends/collegues meeting up, present collegues partying)

And technically, need to be able to handle the equipment for shooting the whole event, like using flash if the 'reception is held in the office under the usual horrible fluorescent lighting, or at an event center where you might also have to do some 'family and close collegue' shots outside under natural light

And be able to work/handle fast with/constantly change different lenses/focal lengths, multiple bodies (one body, one flash, one lens really isn't the way to go for this kind of work, and not just as far as 'looking' professional' is concerned), changing lighting conditions, and having to change/find new/better shooting positions

Sounds much like a wedding, doesn't it?

But you'll much easier find those to shoot as a first timer (without prior experience) then a wedding, and the routine/tricks learned will in my experience easily transfer into shooting a wedding when it counts (although there of course will/should always be some kind/a bit of stress, complacency is the lfirst step to falling flat on your face)

E.g. when I shot my first wedding(s), I already had shot a number of events at companies I worked at (as just one of the guys on the payroll who happened to take a camera along) and events as catwalk/runway shows

Sometimes as freebies, like the anniversaries at work, sometimes for pay, like the catwalk shows, selling the images afterwards to designers and models (= when the pictures stunk, I simply wouldn't sell, but not be blamed for messing up a prior agreed upon shoot)

So while for my first wedding, I had to do some research on what the 'standard' pictures should look like (and that's what the internet is good for), I already had a - perhaps at first sight non related - portfolio that nevertheless showed I had experience with similar events

And more important, more then enough (proven) experience, and confidence/little trouble with shooting fast, anticipating/recording 'important' moments, and handling different shooting techniques and changing conditions

Maybe not the easy way to make a fast buck right from the start (which seems the aim for many debutant photographers nowadays) but IMO a better strategy for the long term, and avoiding to just be another one trick pony/failure

Nikkor P lenses should not be confused with the modern AFS P lenses

The latter are for use on DX and FX DSLR's and have an according image/lens circle (for FX max 43 mm, for DX even less)

which obviously isn't wide enough for use on a medium format camera (which also disqualifies older manual focus Ai en AiS lenses)

The original Nikkor P lenses were manual focus lenses made by Nikon specifically for use on medium format camera's like Plaubel and Zenza Bronica, similar to the Nikkor SW lenses intended for use in large format camera's (Nikon was a lens manufacturer to begin with after all)

Zenza Bronica was, or at least intended to be a competitor with Hasselblad in the 60s to (in my opinion) 80's

On one side they were more attractive due to the lower price point (since eg the S2 had a focal plane shutter in the body, the lenses didn't need a leaf shutter which would otherwise have made them more costly, like the Hasselblad ones)

But on the other hand a bit more quircky and prone to heavy 2nd hand price depreciation

The latter was a major consideration for me when I stepped in medium format in the early 80's, since I could expect a better price if ever I decided to sell my Hasselblad set (never did, it's collecting dust in the back of my closet for literallly several decades now :( )

Despite that they constantly made improvements, in the end they clearly lost the battle and basically ceased activities in the mid 2000's

Nikon medium format lenses