paul_k1664875007

The best piece of gear I can employ to create something special is my brain. Given the specifics of the coming wedding, where it will be held and when, I pre-plan some special shots for the client ... then go to the wedding prepared for it. Absolutely right ! Unfortunately nowadays many amateur and not in the last place wannabee 'professional ' photographers think that if they buy a lot of equipment, if possible with the highest specs possible, do some reading up of blogs by self proclaimed experts, and asking a few questions on the internet, they then will be/have the knowledge to consider themselves proficient/capable photograhers, and even capable of taking pictures that are good enough to in good conscience ask clients money for Sure, as PT Barnum alledgedly said 'there's a s****r born every minute', so money can always be asked even for bad pictures But that you are able to make that sale only shows you're a capable salesperson, not a capable photographer :)

I have no intention to use my cell phone's built in camera. - So why are we talking about it at all? While the cell phone display will surely render colors slightly differently than the camera's, the only open questions are my initial ones, since I am really not familiar with using smart phones + You should have formulated your question better then. Did you do any research on those devices that would lead to a recommendation of a specific one? I didn't do any extensive research for personal use as I'm not interested in it, but obviously there is plenty of literature about the subject available, Nikon eg had a web tutorial on it How to Use HDMI Video Recorder & External Monitor with HDSLR from Nikon and Canon (and other manufcturers as well) probably has one too As far as HDMI monitors is concerned, plenty of those around too A simple search 'hdmi monitor for dslr' will trigger an avalanche of alternatives, from e.g. Amazon, B&H, Alibaba, eBay etc as well as plenty of reviews of them I personally would never dare to make a statement which one is 'best', that just like eg camera brands only too often is a matter or personal taste and preference: - Do you want one from the most prestigious manufacturer? - Do you want the best specs no matter what? - or do you go for best bang for money, or simply want the cheapest one around? - should it be small, or doesn't size matter? - do you want to go high tech or low tech? etc etc Best do some reading yourself to find out what your priorities for an external monitor are, I really wouldn't blindly folow other peoples advise especially with techie stuff Otherwise ask for an answer for 'what is the best HDMI monitor for use with a DSLR' here, on DPreview, Fred Miranda, I'm sure there are plenty of 'experts' around to give their opinion

Nice ideas, but in reality obviousy pretty useless To begin with, what is the extra an image on the LCD of a DSLR gives you? It shows the image frame that comes with the lens used, the DoF following the set aperture and lens used, and gives an indication of the hopefully correct exposure and color temperature (basically what back in the film days we did with NPC backs and Polaroids) A cellphone will show you a, with the exposure and color temperature automatically chosen, rendition of the scene, not using a similar focal length as the camera (so not showing the same frame and Dof) nor using be the same exposure and color temperature you dialed in on your camerta (as far as I know there are no cell phones on the market which allow manual setting of speed and aperture, all just/only have'offer automatic exposure) Since it most likely will be programmed to always give a 'correct' exposure etc. that of course can't be used as a valid tool to indicate whether the (completely different) settings on the camera are correct too So while your image on the cell phone will look correctly exposed, the image of your DSLR will be different due to the difference in lens and DoF used and easily be over or under exposed and have an incorrect color temperature I'm really amazed that you are discussing this as a serious option in connection with the possible use of a Canon 5DIV and 2.8/70--200 lens, the two of which will demand a multi thousand dollar investment while you apparently lack the most basic photographic knowledge, which would immediately have learned you this wouldn't work If you really want an extra external monitor next to a Canon 5DIV (or any other DSLR) which you can look at from a different angle then where the LCD/camera is (eg camera mounted in a high spot whie you are standing in lower position) better look into connecting it with eg a tablet, laptop or small external HDMI monitor. Plenty of those options around, all of which will show you the actual image (and exposure and colortemperature etc) of the camera. And if you think that might cost too much, a Eye Fi Mobi card or similar card might do the trick. It has a built in Wifi transmitter (transmission range max approx 5 feet), and will after you installed the app on your phone or tablet, immediately/shortly after you take a picture (in reality it might take a few seconds if you set it for sending a small format JPG) send a copy to your mobile device for your visual inspection Based on that you can see whether your settings are correct and if you like the set up of the image (lens used, composition, details etc) and if necessary make corrections I use Eye Fi cards all the time when shooting fashion etc in the studio and on location

Rather then just refering you to some video, I'll try and expalin it to you (based on actual experience using this technique during many years of making my own prints) I assume you are familiar with how an enlarger works, to make a 'standard' print If you do the latter, so without dodging and burning, you'll often find that certain parts of the print end up washed out (over exposed on the negative, too light on the print) or too black (under exposed on the negative, and too black/dark on the print) Burning and dodging is the classic darkroom technique used with which to make a print in which the above effects are countered 'Burning in' boils down to gving a certain part of the photo paper which is being exposed to the light of the enlarger, some extra exposure compared to the rest of the print The selection of the part is by the printer based on his interpretation of the negative, and on trial strips (partial prints on small pieces of photographic paper of certain parts of the image) Example: You take a picture of a subject against a sunny, not necessarily bright sky. If you take the exposure on the subject and make the initial print with a 'correctly exposed (details in the highlights and shadows) subject, most likely the sky will end up overexposed (= loss of detail) The negative will give a main subject with details (blank parts and greyish areas for the shadows, black parts for the light areas like skin - with a causasian subject - and eg white clothing, and a much denser area for the background/sky In order to get a overall correct print (with details in both subject and background), you first begin to find the correct exposure time for the main subject by chosing a certain aperture on the lens of the enlarger, and by trial and error finding the correct exposure time (= amount of light) to end up with a corectly exposed image on the paper In order to avoid wasting paper all the time, you can simply do so by using a trial strip pf photopper which you place on the area of the main subject, expose and develop You now with a 2nd trial strip similarly find out how long you have to expose the photographic paper to get a correctly exposed (+ with details) background Best/easiest way to do so it keep the aperture of the lens in the enlarger unchanged, and extending the exposure time (more light on photographic paper means darker image) so much that that the background now gets a correct exposure (= details in that part of the image) too For the final print (keep in mind though that you'll probably will have to make several attemps before you end up with a 'good' one, so don't depair too soon) you first expose a full sheet of paper with the settings for a correct exposure of the main subject Then, without moving the paper, you make a second exposure with the settings found for getting a correct back ground This is burning in, i.e, giving part/the rest of the photographic paper extra light, to get a darker tone in the eventual print However, if you do so for the complete image, your main subject will end up getting too much light, which with a print means getting too dark, which obviously is not what you're after) To avoid that you now have to keep light away during the exposure of the photographic paper. in other words you dodge away the light from that area (= dodging) To do so, you block the light which otherwise during the 2nd exposure would reach that part of the image (and make it too dark), either with your hand(s) or a small piece of eg cardboard, black paper or whatever you might have at hand (back in the days eg Paterson - from the film development tanks - sold pre cut shapes). To have a more natural effect/border of the area you burn in or dodge, you will have to slightly move/shake that piece of cardboard during the 2nd exposure, so the borders get somewhat blurred. If the area is more in the middle of the area, you could tape the piece of cardboard on a stick, to avoid accidently covering up too much of the image other then the area intended It really is as simple as it sounds, but demands effort and experience to do well (that is something the youtube videos don't tell you, they make it seem easy, the usual ' just do what I did' nonsense )

Does it have to be a rangefinder type medium format film camera? In that case the options would be (very) limited, only (interchangable lens) option I'm aware of is the Bronica RF 645. Hasselblad admittedly has the X1D, but apart from the very limited availibility, it IMO still very much/too much in the trial phase to be taken serious. If however you don;t mind a SLR type medium format film camera there plenty of alternatives: - Hasselblad, eg the nowadays quite 'affordable' 500CM up to the more modern (and far more expensive HxD models - Mamyia 645 or C220/330 - Bronica SQ - Pentax 645 all of which can be found abundantly (just like the interchangeble - portrait - lenses to go with them) offered for sale on the internet

The Nikon 8/500mm has an excellent reputation, as do similar MTO lenses I personally had a Soligor back in my filmshooting days, still have it and plan to use it on my DF somewhere in future Must admit though that the IQ of a mirrorlens is not in the same league as a 'normal' 600+ mm lens (had a 4/600mm AF-I I used for shooting surf with, occasionally with a TC14) but as already stated the saving in cost and weight is considerable. Biggest issue is the f8, for all intent and puposes you'll always need good light to have a clear viewfinder. When the light isn't optimal, focusing with an A-type viewing screen becomes a challenge, as the splitscreen part will blacken out only leaving the micro prism ring surrounding it as a focusing aid. After initially using it hand held, I soon only used it on a tripod. Due to the focal length, the angle of view is very narrow, so, especially when shooting something somewhat tightly framed (used to shoot fashion with it) even the slightest tremble results in a major shift in the framing of the image. The 'doughnuts' in the background are an acquired taste, could be considered disturbing, or (as I did in my case) used as part of the image (contributing to the atmosphere of the image) e.g. http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/image/61045663/large

I Don't have a D750, but have several SB800's I use regularly (and without any problems or issues) on my D3, D7100, D800' s and DF The menu is, compared to the SB910 (which I also have) a bit more tricky too work with, mainly due to the main selection button of the SB800. ( a bit small, and a bit finicky to operate. Not a biggie when you have plenty of time, but can be a bit of a pain when you're in a hurry) The SB910 has a better layout in that respect (a 'big' switch in stead of the 'main se;ection button'), but on the downside is much bigger hen the SB800, while havig a slightly lower GN Both SB800 and SB910 can take an external batterypack like the Propack PB960 ( I wouldn't go for the original SD8A batterypack, less capacity and way overpriced for what it is, just a plastic box with soe wires that can take 6 AA batteries) which is a big plus if you need fast recycle times or have to shoot a wedding or event The SB800 originally also comes with a clip on battery holder for a 5th AA battery (SD800), but that in my experience reaily isn't up to the task for the aforementioned types of shooting (weeding or event) The SB800's are my first pick when I need to take a larger speedlight along (I have a SB400 as a 'just in case I need one' tag along speedlight)

delete

<p><em><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=4549066">Glen H</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jan 28, 2017; 05:10 p.m.</em></p> <p><em>There are many good films in the ISO 400 range. Kodak describes Tri-X as "very fine grain".</em><br /> <br /> I really wouldn't take the descriptions etc. manufacturers give for their products too seriously.</p> <p>E.g. back in 1999 Nikon at the introduction of the D1 https://www.dpreview.com/articles/1125472340/nikond1-pressrelease boasted this about its high ISO/low light capacities <em> The long shutter speeds work perfectly with the D1's high performance CCD for very low-light photography</em><br /> In reality ISO 400 really was the highest usable ISO, and I'm not even mentioning the magenta cast of the images, very limited battery life (approx 300 shots if you were lucky) or, to put it mildly, quirky menu (In its defense, things like the built quality, the AF, fps and buffer were at that time at the top of their game, and I was a happy user/owner until I after some time upgraded to a D1H/D1X)</p> <p>As a long time (25+ years) Tri-X user (and fan) I can say that it really wasn't a 'very fine grain' film, no matter low long or short processed in whatever developer (I tried many of them, like Agfa Rodinal, May and Baker Promicrol, D-76, HC110, Acufine, Tetenal Leicanol and many other concoctions photographers would experiment with back in the film shooting days), on the contrary even.<br /> But it was exactly that compared to e.g. HP5 coarser' grain (inevitable considering that it was introduced in 1954) and the, for a 'high' sensitivity film, contrast that gave Tri-X the characteristics which made it the long time favorite of many amateur and pro shooters.<br /> Kodak 'improved' the grain/emulsion with the introduction of the T-Max films in the early 80's, but IMO those new films gave considerably more 'flat' and 'grayish', even if smaller grain, results then Tri-X<br /><br /> This is e.g. (part of) the product description Kodak gave for T-Max P3200 (aka TMZ)<br /> <em>This multi-speed continuous-tone panchromatic black-and-white negative film lets you photograph in situations that were previously impossible. P3200 film provides a notable combination of high to ultra-high film speeds with finer grain than that of other fast black-and-white films on the market</em><br /> <em><br /></em>while this however is how it worked out in reality (ISO 400 in Agfa Rodinal)<br />http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/image/159141665/large</p><div></div>

<p>To begin with I must admit that as I during my film shooting days was more of a Kodak (in particular Tri-X) fan I don't have much experience with HP5 (and more with FP4) and none with Delta 3200<br> But as the basic principles apply for both Kodak and Ilford ( and Agfa, Orwo and the other) b/w films of that age I dare making a comment based on my pretty extensive (from the early 70's to late 90's) professional experience shooting and developing b/w films (and making prints from them).</p> <p>For starters it's important to keep in mind that especially with B/W film, the type (and sensitivity) of the film is a determining factor in the amount of grain and contrast in the final negative.<br> A low speed film like Kodak Panatomic X (ISO 25) or Inford Pan F (ISO 50) will give a much higher contrast and finer grain negative then the two films you mention.<br> Ilford 3200 and HP5 are high speed B/W films, with inevitably more grain and lower contrast (although that can be influenced, more on that later)<br> HP5 has had two variations, the first introduced in 1976 and the second in 1989, of which the latter, relabed HP5 Plus, was 'improved to get a finer grain compared to its predecessor.<br> 3200 Delta (introduced in 1998) has more grain due to its higher sensitivity, but relatively still a pretty fine one.<br> Between Kodak and Ilford, the latter was the one with a finer grain(and lower contrast), especially with the higher sensitivity emulsions.<br> That was the reason I personally went for Tri-X (basically my standard B/W film, although I also experimented with TMX 3200, for the extremely coarse grain you can get with it when developed in Rodinal) which had more/coarser, IMO better looking grain, and higher contrast (in particular when push processed).</p> <p>Both HP5 (plus) and Delta 3200 are 'old fashioned' b/w films, which means that unlike Ilford XP2 and Kodak 400 CN (which can be processed in the same C41 developer as color films), they can be developed in many different types of developer.<br> E.g. HP5 can be processed in Microphen (and still retain a relatively fine grain if pushed to ISO800), Perceptol (and used at ISO 200) Acufine ( ISO 720) and ID11 (ISO720), with due to the developer (and subsequent ISO) chosen a different character of the negative<br> The choice of film developer, together with the concentration and temperature of it, in combination the amount of agitation and development time, are determining factors in influencing the (character of the) final negative, from low contract to high contrast, higher or lower density, or more or less grain, while also the brand and type of film IMO are a highly determining factor</p> <p>It basically boils down to :<br> overexpose + certain type of developer + shorter development time = lower contrast<br> underexpose + certain type of developer + longer development time = higher contrast<br> However keep in mind that a higher temperature of the developer and degree of agitation of the film during the development process are also a , if not more important factor to get more or less contrast and/or grain</p> <p>Problem with sending a film to a lab is that (unless you use a specialized one that develops the films by hand),they most likely will use a 'standard' developer that will give 'normal' average contrast and 'fine' grain negatives.<br> Also they usually have a highly mechanized process for developing films with developing machines and consquently, apart from shortening or lengthening the development time, don't have the option to vary the amount of agitation of a film while it runs trough the machine, or similarly do so with the temperature of the film developer</p> <p>So overexposing a film while the development time remains standard will most likely result in a higher density negative, which when printed risks resulting in more grain.<br> The higher density will mean that while the high lit parts of the image in the negative gets a higher density, the shadow parts, which would normally be opaque (for the middle tones) to transparent (for the shadows) will now also have a higher density.<br> And to have a final image in the print with clear but not burnt out highlights, and dark enough shadows and blacks, you would have to use a softer grade paper and paper developer at longer exposure times while printing</p> <p>Under exposing in combination with standard development will give a thinner, lower density negative, which in its turn will lead to a in itself in all parts thin negative<br> This will as far as the print is concerned result in easily completely blacked out dark parts, and more importantly blacked out shadows, and grayish, rather then clear, high lights<br> To get a 'correct' print that means use of harder grade paper and paper developer at shorter exposure times, while that will not automatically result in a finer grain (maybe even the contrary)</p> <p>Based on my personal experienced (somewhat limited with HP5 and Delta 3200, but pretty extensive with B/W film developing and printing in general) I think you'll most likely get a pretty decent (fine) grain (for a high sensitivity film with HP5 and even the Delta 3200 when exposed and developed correct and normally, simply and inevitably because that was what Ilford was aafter to begin with.<br> But getting more grain will when using standard chemicals and developing (most likely the case with a lab) will be much harder, if not impossible<br> Note: some users have reported on the net that Delta 3200 is actually ISO 1000 rather then ISO 3200, so using it at ISO 3200 in combination with Ilfotec DD-X developer will result in more grain. Can't confirm that from personal experience, but seems interesting to know.</p>

<p>I really wouldn't waste much thought and energy about whether to focus or recompose or not.<br> For all intent and purpose, it IMO is a discussion/consideration with its roots in the film shooting days, and hardly of any relevance in the present, high megapixel camera. digital age.</p> <p>Back in the film days, it was, disregarding the 'artistic' performance of taking the 'perfectly composed' image with just one shot, especially when you shot 35mm on 'high sensitivity' film like Tri-X, indeed of major importance to 'fill' the negative as optimal as possible.<br> Simply because a crop would inevitably show a lot of grain (although I personally had no problems with that, and actually loved shooting Trix-X as my first b/w film choice just because of that) compared to low sensitivity film like Panatomix-X, or medium and large format shots<br> Also when using manual focus (which was the standard untill the Minolta 7000 in 1985 the first affordable AF SLR; the Nikon F3AF was earlier, but even by the standard of those days very expensive, and with a very limited range of AF lenses) focusing on an area outside of the center was not much of an issue even without eg the splitscreen aid in the A type focusing screen simply by using the rest of the focusing screen (which had a kind of 'matte' surface which still allowed easy focusing, of course in combination with a good eye/hand reflex)</p> <p>It however became an issue when using AF camera's, as the early models (I skipped the Nikon f501, started with the F801) only had one, although pretty large' AF point in the center, and lacked the 'matte' area in the rest of the focusing screen.<br />Since film was still used that, for the above mentioned reason (grain) was more or less the time when 'focus and recompose' was 'invented'.<br> Early DSLR's basically had both the problem of much centered AF points (my 2,7 megapixel D1H only has 5) and, due to the low resolution and lesser 'high ISO'performance (much similar to film the upper limit was ISO 800, much like film, on eg my D2X) , grain.<br> However IMO and experience, especially with modern high megapixel DSLR's the whole grain thing is no much of an issue any longer (unless you're a 100% crop pixel peeper), and of course the much wider spread, and higher count AF modules in those camera's a a far cry from e.g. the single and five AF points in the F801 and D1H.</p> <p>From a practical, shooting point of view, also keep in mind that 'focus and recompose' also means slowing down your shooting process, in particular when shooting a living/moving subject(even a person standing still/posed is slightly moving all the time so needs refocusing all the time)<br> When shooting a.g.landscapes or buildings, using AF IMO is more of a convenience then a necessity, and manual focus would IMO be a 'better' choice</p> <p>Imagine you're e.g. trying to shoot a more spontaneous portrait, so rather then force/freeze your 'model' in a static pose, allow them move somewhat, talk, laugh.<br> I assume I don't have to mention that, unless you 'freeze' your model in the pose that struck your eye (and inevitably make it forced and unnatural) you will miss the shot if you focus and then have to recompose the shot, as the moment it 'clicked' will, by the time you have focused on the eye and recomposed, have gone away.</p> <p>I personally shoot in a very simply way, no matter what subject (portrait, beauty, fashion, catwalk) in particular since I started using high(er) megapixel DSLR's like the D3, DF and D800.<br> I frame somewhat too wide, allowing space for cropping afterwards, and focus by basically/mainly always keeping one AF point on the eye/face of the subject/person I'm shooting</p> <p>When shooting people/with people as the main subject in a picture I think that's the point an observer looking at the picture is always first drawn to, and there inevitably 'needs' to be the sharpest in the picture.<br> Even when a picture is completely out of focus, like e.g. Robert Capa's famous image of Omaha Beach 1944<br> http://www.nearbycafe.com/artandphoto/photocritic/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Capa-detail-CS-frame-9-neg-37-Pfc.-Huston-Riley-Landing-on-Omaha-Beach-Large-file.jpg</p> <p>I shoot a lot in portrait mode, but despite all the internet buzz never had issues when using the outer AF points of the camera's I use even when shooting under bad light (I a.o.shoot a fair bit of catwalk)<br> Sure, on the DF the outer AF points don't work as good as those of the D3 and D800 under bad light, but as I have a number of camera's to choose from when gearing up for a job (and the DF isn't my first pick for shooting catwalk) that isn't much of an issue for me</p> <p>I hardly if ever use the AF-On button, only used it in my surf shooting days for 'prefocusing', to have my camera already focusing/prefocusing on a subject before actually taking the shot, especially when using long glass like my 600mm AF-I with a TC14II (still kept both AF and release on the release button)<br> Back then I used it that way to, on one hand avoid the complication of having to concentrate on the action, while at the same time twiddling the AF-On button, and also having to take the shot (which would come if I took away AF activation from the release button),, and on the other hand the delay trying to get things 'in focus' that can come when the AF is coupled with, and acitvated by the release button</p> <p>With my D800 I can easily take a three quarter shot, to later, if desired (eg to have some variety in the type of shots) just take a, still high quality, more 'portrait' like crop.<br> Admittedly I still shoot as if I shoot film (36 shots per roll) so I don't take hundreds of shots for e.g. a close up, just concentrate on getting a 'click with the model, and trying to capture the mood of the moment with only a few dozen, or sometimes even less, shots<br> Sure, not the 'purist' way of doing things, but as long as I get/shoot the image I'm after (not 'photoshop till I get the image I'm after :-) ) OK for me</p> <p>E..g. works out like this<br> (original crop) http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/image/162085884<br> (headshot crop) http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/image/162085886<br />or<br> (original crop) http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/image/162085896<br> (headshot crop) http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/image/162085895</p>

<p>Next to my TC14-II's (which I only can use with AFS lenses) I also have a Kenko Teleplus N-AF 1.5 and a Tamron 1.4 N-AFD MC4 for use with my AF D lenses<br> <br />As far as I know (read it at Nikonians) Kenko and Tamron TCs are identical (if you buy the same model. Mine obviously aren't as they are different models)<br> In the past also had the Kenko 1.4 300 Plus TC, which could be used with bth AFD and AFS lenses, but somewhere along the road lost it.</p> <p>With the Kenko 1.4 300 plus I had connectivity problems when using a 600mm AF-I lens.<br> Used to shoot the 600mm+TC mounted on a monopod, in combination with a D3 hanging from it, thus inevitably putting quite a bit of stress on the connection between the directly supported lens and the camera hanging from it<br> Compared to the Nikon 14TC-II there was a bit more play in the lensmount (between converter and lens), leading to the aforementioned loss of electronic contact (= no AF)<br> Which was the reason for me to upgrade to the original Nikon TC14-II's (No longer have the 600mm AF-I, but still use them with my 2.8/70-200 VRII and 2/200 VR)</p> <p>I've had no problems using the earlier mentioned Kenko 1.5 and Tamron 1.4 TC with my AF"D lenses though, I guess also due the much smaller, and lighter, lenses and camera's used in combination with those</p>

<p>Before doing anything as drastic as disassembling your camera by taking the bottom off, first try the dumb and simple (and less risky) options.</p> <p>Option one: set you shutterspeed on 1/90th, the only mechanically operated shutter speed of the FE, and see if the shutter now works.<br> Option two: Don't know if you have a film in the camera, but if so rewind it.<br> First check how many images you shot (so you can alter continue using the fiilm from the point where you stopped) and then rewind it up to the point where the resistance from rewinding stops.<br> Not any further, or you risk rewinding the complete film, including the 'starting strip' into the cannister in which case you won't be able to use it again.<br> <br />After your have rewound the film, remove the cannister. Now manual move the film sprocket inside the camera on the side where the pick up fork is (the tight side, when looking from the back)<br> That will, after some fiddling, also at some point move the gears inside the camera which steer the shutter and mirror mechanism up to the point where the camera 'thinks' the film is advanced enough, and 'free'the shutter for use.</p>

<p>I wouldn't use a 50mm on a medium format camera for portraiture.<br> It's equivalent to a (approx) 28mm wide angle on a 35mm camera, and that's a focal length that is generally avoided for portraiture due to the (compared to a 'standard' lens) higher risk of optical deformation when used from too close up (big nose, big chin, big forehead)<br> The 150mm is the medium camera equivalent to a 85mm-ish on a 35mm camera and much better suited for portraits.<br> I personally am looking into a 100 to 120mm (for use on my 500CM) as I find the minimal focusing distance or the 150mm a bit too long to be able to get interesting close ups.<br> Have tried/used my 150mm in combination with a 21mm extension tube, but then found the limited focusing range that came with the use of the extension tube too much of a handicap</p> <p> </p>

<p>If shooting an event for you means delivering close ups, that's your personal taste and style, and choice, and should be no subject of discussion</p> <p>Generally speaking though, regardless of whether it's a free or paying event, in my experience it's inevitable you'll need to get some kind of wide angle<br> 'Normal' event photography includes, if not in particular consists of shooting your subjects from close by while still showing more then a facial close up, usually in small groups (2 to 5 persons) or a pair/couple of people, three quarters and/or from the waist/chest up.</p> <p>That, due to limited space, translates into having to use some kind of wide angle<br> Since you're shooting with a crop camera (I assume a DSLR, which with Canon means a 1.6 crop, and with Nikon a 1.5 crop) your 50mm will be a virtual 80 or 75 mm, and you 70-200 a virtual 112-320 or 105-300mm<br> All way to long to be able to, or comfortably shoot images in the the above mentioned way.<br> Again, no problem if you insist on shooting and delivering pictures according to your personal taste and style.</p> <p>But perhaps, as you are taking the pictures with the intention that they are more widely usable for the non profit organization, you should consider abandoning your 'principles for the 'higher goal' and go more standard/commercial by shooting with a wide angle-ish lens.<br> As you don't seem to have the intention to continue using a wide angle much in future, I would not go for the expensive option of a (usually expensive) 24-70.<br> Especially for crop camera's there are quite capable 'kit-lenses' available. Maybe not the 'fastest' as far as aperture is concerned, but taking the crop factor into account with a (virtual) focal length/zoom range between around 27-85mm of similar.</p> <p>Back in the days when I used to shoot eg weddings on a (Nikon) crop camera (which I rarely did, so wasn't willing to invest big money for) I used the humble 18-55 kit lens Nikon shipped for years with it consumer DX bodies.<br> Sure it did not match the performance of the 'pro' 2.8/17-55 (somewhere around US $1,500) or 2.8/24-70 (around US $1,100 and up) but for its humble price (mine cost me Eur 45 2nd hand) does quite an capable jobs/deliver sharp images nevertheless.<br> Nikon (I have no experience with other brands so can't speak for those) in that respect offers quite a few of such 'cheap' but good quality kitlenses, which are plentifully 2nd hand around for quite modest prices, so that might be an option (if you're a Nikon shooter)<br> HTH</p>

<p>With regards to the possible 'scam' site and virus warning, FWIW, I'm not having any alarmbells going of on my Macbook, the Flickrpage loads without any problems</p>

<p><em>Thanks for your response and in depth knowledge but my question was not answered as to what ISO I should expose the film at and what to develop at.</em></p> <p>Considering your film is 20 years old, most likely vastly past expiration date, probably not kept under refrigerated conditions, the emulsion is next to certainly going to be way 'off' and no prediction can be made how it will turn out no matter if under, over or exposed correctly, nor if developed normally, pushed or pulled.<br> Undeveloped film does not have eternal life, the emulsion will degenerate in the course of time, especially 20 years.</p> <p>It for all practical purposes will be a matter of trial and error, either by exposing/shooting a few images on a small part of your film (if you only have one roll), developing that to then determine how to continue with the rest.<br> Or, if you have more rolls at your disposal, take a series of bracketed shots, and see how those work out with different variations in the development so you can then decide how to shoot the rest</p>

<p>Definitely dirt on the sensor, probably just a/some grain(s) of sand.<br> Obsessionally ran into the same issue back in my Nikon D2X (which had no built in sensor shaker/cleaner) surf shooting days.</p> <p>Try blowing the sensor clean with eg a Giotto Rocket Air blaster type blower, otherwise a wet sensor cleaning might be necessary<br> I rarely need the latter since I upgraded to bodies with a built in sensor shaker/cleaner, only have it done by by local NPS as part of the free yearly CLA, so can't give you any DIY recommendations on that one</p> <p>If it were small nick in the front element (I have my 200-400 VR well over 10 years now, never ran into anything similar to that, guess also due to always using the HK-30 lens hood) I'm afraid only solution would be to replace it.<br> Although from an optical point of view, it's not part of the design and only is intended as a protective front element, so shooting without it would have no influence on the IQ</p>

<p>Depends what effect you're after<br /> To begin with, please note that even when the film was 'fresh' (as in 'not yet past expiration date') it already had a substantial grain, much coarser then eg Ektachrome 400, and substantial colorshift/unsaturated colors<br /> I worked a lot with its artificial light sibling, the 3M 640T, and had a lot of fun with that grain. David Hamilton, the well known/infamous '70's photographer of young girls reportedly use the 1000 ISO variation a lot (which accounts for the grain and 'subtle' colors.</p> <p>Push processing in E-6 will increase the grain and lower the contrast even more, while push processing in C41 will, even if it will give a higher contrast, also come with a major color shift towards Yellow (as in CMYK) with a hgh probability of a more yellow (n the hight lights) and green (in the shadows) image<br /> So if you're after a 'normal' looking. finely grain, saturated color final image you'll probably be in for a big disappointment.</p> <p>Here's a shot from a series I took in the mid 80's using the 1000ISO daylight version at its normal ISO value (1000 ISO)<br /> (bigger copy with more/better visible grain here http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/image/61045639/large)</p><div></div>

<p>Back in my film shooting days, my favourite developer to get the maximim grain was Agfa Rodinal</p> <p>Already gave an 'excellent' coarse grain with Tri-X, but it became quite spectacular with Kodak TMZ 3200 <br /> Sounds like it could work out the same the same with HP5+</p> <p>My recipe was to expose the film at 400 ASA (despite the nominal 3200 ASA value), developer dilution 1:50, development time 14 minutes at 20 degrees Celcius, with 10 second agitation per minute<br /> Of course with HP5+ you might need a different formula</p> <p>Result would look like this<br> (larger size with better visible grain at http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/image/159141665/large)</p><div></div>

<p>I use/especially bought for use on my DF a 1.8/85mm Nikkor H and a 2.8/135mm Nikkor Q (both converted pre Ai) lenses<br> (also have a few 'newer Ai lenses like the ' 1.4/50mm and 2.0/28mm from the late 70's left from my film shooting days)</p> <p>Obviously being manual focus makes the 'oldies' quite handy for video (if you have masterd manual focusing)<br> But if you're after the latest, sharp from corner to corner, high resolution rendering, they may be a disappointment.</p> <p>Compared to modern lenses, the image rendering is softer, and not as bitingly sharp as seems the standard for many digital photographers.<br> Of course, that is much less important in video then in stills (or at least I think based on what I see). and those very characteristics for me were the reason to get them (next to my a.o. more modern AFS lenses)<br> Makes it possible to shoot digital images with the same image rendering as shooting on film<br> (I was an avid pushed 35mm TriX shooter, so the emphasis of my images was more on catching the mood and the image, then on ultimate sharpness and technical perfection)</p>

<p>I wouldn't go cheap on your lenses after buying a D7200<br />It may not have the 'pro' specs of the D500, but the 24MP sensor still can deliver top IQ images, and will mercilessly show the faults of inferior lenses.<br> <br />I found that out after I finally sold my D70S and D2X after many faithful years of duty and upgraded to a D7100 (I prefer having a 'grab and go' DX body around next to my FX set, I don't always feel like bringing the 'big guns' along, especially when the highest IQ isn't demanded) .<br> The D7100 may be the 'older' brother of the D7200 (with e.g. slower AF, not as advanced high ISO and video, smaller buffer etc) but it has a similar/the same (?) 24 MP sensor, and consequently higher resolution.</p> <p>While my kitlens 18-55 held up quite good on the 6MP D70S and 12 MP D2X (it basically was my 'standard' short zoom for pro PJ and event work when I still shot DX), its IQ fell short dramatically on the D7100 (soft, low contrast)<br> Similarly my 70-300 VR performed very much up to standards on DX, (even with the D70S eg http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/20130803_boat_ride ), and pretty good on my 12 MP FX D3.<br> But on higher MP bodies like the FX D800 and within the context of his thread the DX D7100, in particular its lower IQ/performance at the long end shows<br> A 'wonder' zoom like the 18-200 or even 18-300 are even more of a compromise in that respect. Yes, they do offer the convenience of a wide focal range in one lens.<br> But that not comes at the cost of the speed of the lens (both 18-200 and 18-300 are 3.5-5.6, maybe similar to the 18-55, but that is due to its smaller size much easier to hold still at slower shutter speeds) but more importantly also at the cost of the IQ http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/778-nikkorafsdx183003556vr?start=2</p> <p>So rather then buying a single ''does it all' lens that compromises on in particular the IQ (which would of course be a shame of/ go at the cost of the IQ of your D7200), I would better get a higher IQ short zoom to begin with (several options have already been mentioned), and in a later stage maybe get an equally higher IQ longer zoom (unless you of course want to go after using primes)</p> <p> </p>

<p>Nikon shooter here</p> <p>D810 over Canon 5D3:<br> more pixels <br> better DR<br> Better 3D AF and AF tracking</p> <p>5D3 over D810<br> Better Liveview and video AF<br> better low light AF<br> better for video (see AF)</p> <p>Matter of personal taste<br> high ISO performance<br> User interface (since you are used to the Canon interface, you'll probably like that better)<br> AF (speed vs consistency)</p> <p>Generally speaking, both excellent camera's with a proven track record</p> <p>But since you already have a set of Canon mount lenses, I would stick to Canon</p>

<p>Problem is not related to Photoshop nor your camera</p> <p>To begin with, the dress is black, and getting detail in a black dress is a challenge, even if the material is shiny. I get the impression your using a very basic light, and that really doesn't seem sufficient for what I think you're after.<br /> Also, you'll need to do some pulling in the deep black area's to get some kind of detail, as otherwise they risk muddying up.<br> <br /> E.g. in the enclosed picture (original showing more detail here http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/image/147528978 ), shot during a catwalk show, I had two off camera flashes on my left and right, allowing me to create more structure in the material despite the in comparison to your dress matte material, and in post processing also partially pulled the dark area's to avoid making them too dark (and blacken up) while I was getting the skin and other lit areas correct/not over exposed</p> <p>With regards to the part you highlighted, and the lack of transparency of it, I have the following observation.<br /> The dress is hanging directly against the background, and with the shadows created by your light coming (directly?) from the front, the transparent part of the dress (which has its own shadow behind itself) inevitably becomes dark <br /> To show the transparency, you will need to have light shine from behind the dress, to show it (similar to shooting a model in a transparent dress against e.g. a bright sky/background)</p> <p>Don't know how large the room is your taking the picture in, but the solution would be to hang the dress on a hanger in a clothes rack (otherwise the shape of the stand will show behind/through the dress), and have the clothes rack a few feet away from the background.<br /> Then in addition to your frontal light, also point a, slightly stronger one, on your background, thus recreating/simulating the 'model against a bright sky/background' effect.</p> <p>HTH</p> <p> </p><div></div>

<p><em>I feel like my composition is terrible. How I see the moment is not captured at all. I don't make the best of the environment or the moment. Most are blurry, it looks my settings are way off. I will try to post some photos later if I can. </em><br /><em> I just had my computer go out and I bought a new one, a mac desktop. I own a D800. I have CC suite. </em><br /><em> I feel all of the error is on my end. Maybe I don't have an eye and I love photography?? Or maybe my composition is way off?</em><br> <em> </em><br> You seem a bit all over the place describing your 'problems'<br> Best divide it up in sections, so you can tackle them one by one, and hopefully improve on them</p> <p>First the easy one, the techie bit.<br> You have a very capable camera with the D800 (I have two of them) well capable of shooting good/excellent (both high ISO and AF), and well up to the task of shooting eg in a church or for PJ style reception pictures (the D800's are my standard pick for shooting catwalk, i.e. fast moving subjects under not always ideal, and often enough just plain bad lighting)<br> And of course the 36MP makes it ideal for the formal shots<br> (don't fall into the hype you can only use the 'top' lenses, and shoot only with 'perfect' shooting technique due to that high resolution. I next to more modern lenses like the 1.4/58 AF S, 2.8/70-200 VR2 and 2/200 VR still a.o. use old ones like te 1.4/50mm AFD, 1.4/85 AF D and 2/135mm DC on my D800's).</p> <p>But be sure you have your settings correct, both as far as AF and exposure is concerned (if incorrect both can result in the 'blurry' pictures you mention).<br> My experience is to have them as simple a possible, and not get drawn in exotic things as 3D AF, Auto mode AF, and likewise also keep your exposure settings simple.<br> I mention this because I regularly meet debutant photographers who lose themselves in the avalanche of technical option modern DSLR's offer. And consequently end up with all kind of advanced/automated settings they read to be 'the best' but don't control, and as a result 'bad' pictures.<br> I on the other hand still base my settings on what I learned with my F801 back in the film shooting days, and am very slow adapting new 'gizmo's' (only after I have experimented enough with them to be able to master them, or find them working satisfactory)<br> The computer and Adobe CC stuff really is moot, if your pictures s*ck, all that is irrelevant.</p> <p>When shooting catwalk, my AF settings are AF-C, 51 AF fields, and manual selection of the AF point and the camera in Release Priority.<br> I thus can shoot whenever I want, and this is why</p> <p>The reason I use AF-C rather then AF-S is that with the latter the camera locks focus, and waits for you to take the shot.<br> If you don't, and your subject moves to a different spot, the focus will remain on the previous spot, and you picture/subject in the new spot will be out of focus if you the take the picture without allowing the camera to refocus (i.e. taking you finger of the release button, and then pushing it halfway again, thus refocusing, all of which takes the second/split second when you wanted to take the picture, but couldn't because the camera was refocusing, and blocking the release).<br> But with AF-C.it will keep focusing (and refocusing) all the time, so if I keep the AF point on the desired spot (I always aim for the face or eye, that's after all the most important thing to have in focus when shooting a person) I'm good practically most of the time.</p> <p>With the camera in Release Priority, the camera will take the shot no matter if the AF is in focus, but rather at the moment when I push the release button<br> That's also the reason for the manual selection of the AF point, and not using 3D AF or Auto AF. In those mode the camera makes an evaluation of the image (based on the 91000 pixel 'Advanced Scene Recognition System') and autonomously decides what to focus on. That not only may not be what you want in focus, but it also gives a small delay which eg in AF-S can run you into problems.</p> <p>The 51 AF fields (just a matter of personal preference, many colleagues use 21 AF points for that purpose with just as much succes) allow more flexibility/AF points for the AF tracking to choose from when shooting a moving subject e.g. a dancing, or romantically on an outside location running bride and groom.<br> I usually have my camera in Matrix Mode,under challenging conditions I might use 60/40 Central or Spot (takes more experience to master those, but that's where the LCD comes in handy)<br> For exposure mode I shoot in Manual mode under natural and available light. I thus can control the DoF by manually selecting the desired aperture, and sharpness/movement unsharpness by deciding myself on what shutter speed to use) and Auto ISO (have bee using this since I got a D3 in 2008, found it near flawless most of the time on my D3, D800, DF and D7100)<br> When using flash I also shoot in Manual mode, and also set the ISO manually (In my experience Auto ISO doesn't go well with flash)<br> I have my flash units in TTL-BL mode,which gives me the advantage of TTL mode, and with the BL mode a flsh output which is more in balance with the available light.</p> <p>The composition etc bit is harder to quantify.<br> It of course starts with having the 'eye' for it, but given that with wedding phootography we are talking about a very specific branch of photography, that can be learned to master, or at least emulate.<br> Again it starts with the technique, although in a more visual way, and that is lenses (Although I prefer FX, I'm quite conviced that a DX body is just as fit for shooting weddings, so I'm not going to 'discuss' that)<br> Although basically every (modern) lens can deliver a sharp picture (although the older ones, eg 1.4/85 AFD, 135mm DC can do that too) the thing to keep in mind is the way the image is rendered.<br> Especially with wedding photography catching the mood is more important then 'sharp from corned to corner' or 'lines per mm'.<br> Here too doing it the simple way (especially when beginning) is the best. Get a fast (1.4) standard 50mm lens, and a short (85 or 105mm) telelens, and maybe a wide angle too.<br> The 50mm is great for PJ style photography (the reception) the 85mm is great for the formals (close ups and formal 'environmental' portraits like eg the couple in a park) and the wide angle (not too wide due to the risk of optical deformation) is handy for group shot outside and (in particular) inside.<br> The basic versions of the lenses mentioned won't cost you an arm and a leg, and you of course can in a later stage, after having found your personal style upgrade to more costly exotics like the 1.4/58mm AF (IMO the perfect wedding photography lens) or 135mm DC</p> <p>Image wise, if you don't have an idea how to get what you have in mind, don't try (and fail, and get more frustrated) again and again, but (try to) copy (or emulate, or be 'inspired' to put it more politically correct) others people work to begin with.<br> Copying the work of the masters over the centuries has always been a starting point for budding artist to learn/improve their skills (in the Renaissance people looked at the Greeks and Romans) and many painters in those days (and eg the 17th century, the Dutch Golden age with eg Rembrant) employed students who also copied their work (hence the regular discussing on the authenticity when another 'old master' is discovered)<br> By copying the Classics/their masters work, the pupils/budding painters would learn a basic set of skills, and along the way discover/develop their own style/taste.<br> <br />So I would recommend to do some research on the top wedding photographers, not only look at their pictures, but try to analyze what makes them appealing to you (mood, sharp/unsharpness, lighting?)<br> Many, like e.g. Ross Harvey http://www.rossharvey.com/ , are quite forthcoming on the techniques and equipment they use, so that's one hurdle gone.</p> <p>With regards to the images, try to imitate them to begin with. Not during a (paid) wedding shoot of course (IMO the last place to experiment with new techniques and ideas) but e.g. with friends and family eg on a Sunday afternoon in the park, or as an unpaid 2nd shooter at a wedding (unpaid = no obligation to come back with the 'perfect'/'official' pictures).<br> Play around, try to remember what you did (maybe use a small notebook to write down the techie details/make a sketch of the set up) and critically look at the pictures you took afterward<br> Compare them with the one you tried to emulate, and analyze where and why you maybe might have failed to do so (or maybe you did emulate them perfectly, in which case,hooray!)</p> <p>I e.g., despite shooting catwalk for many years, still go out to small shows to take pictures (unpaid) where I then can experiment, try out newly purchased equipment, or new technical set ups I have been thinking or have read about<br> No one complaining if I fail (except me), and when it works out, another piece of usable experience in the pocket.</p> <p>So in short, begin with keeping your technique simple (so you are in control as far as that is possible).<br> Imagewise, don't start by trying to reinvent the wheel.<br> Especially in wedding photography, clients in the end always expect a certain type of, defined by the general taste that unofficially but nevertheless exist in wedding photography, pictures.<br> Look at what your peers are doing, begin to try and copy, hopefully emulate them, and while doing so, if all goes well you'll find your own preferred technical set up, and the kind of shooting style and as a result the pictures like the ones you have in your head<br> <br />Be frustrated along the way, but persist, and just take pictures<br> And on a side note, don't chimp after each shot taken. It will lure you into fiddling around with your settings (you have a big computer and Adobe CC, so you can do plenty of corrections afterwards), hinder/interrupt your flow, kill the mood (a very delicate thing when e.g. shooting a already very nervous wedding couple)<br> <br />my 2 cents, sorry for the long post :-)</p> <p> </p>