paul_k1664875007

<p><em>Which model speedlight do you have?</em></p> <p>I was wondering the same.</p> <p>I'm a Nikon user and back in the film days used Metz flash units (60CT4). Huge advantage was not only the near flawless TTL metering, but also, be it non-wireless, the possibility to use multiple units off camera.<br> It took camera brand dedicated flash modules, and connection via cables, but considering we're talking about 20+ year old technology really was a huge step forward for those days</p> <p>Still have those flashes lying around, make an excellent portable on location option even if not TTL on my DSLR's</p>

<p>Try the 'B/TTL' setting on the flash.<br> In 'TTL' only, the flash exposure does not take the ambient light into account which could result in an over exposed main subject.<br> In 'B TTL' that get's balanced better.</p> <p>Or check whether the camera's flash exposure compensation has in some way changed from 'normal'</p>

<p>Try pulling your film (i.e. over exposing and then underdeveloping it)</p> <p>Works the reverse of pushing (where contrast is enhanced due to the longer development time, and can get even more contrasty through higher temperature and extra agitation)</p> <p>In the case of pulling, due to the over exposure, all areas (including the freckles and skin blemishes) get such much light that, when developed normally, the whole negative will get so much density that the final print will be washed out all over the image.</p> <p>When however the development time is cut, that 'over the top' built up is prevented, which will result in a lower contrast negative, with not only a not heavily over exposed high light area (which show as 'black ' on the negative and 'white on the final print), but also some density in the dark area (which in the negative normally would show as 'blank/transparent', and blacked out in the final print).</p> <p>Basically similar to the (intentional) variation in development time (found after trail and error) in combination with a certain type of film, and the prior to taking the picture determined contrast in the situation which is to be photographed, as described in the Zone system (hard to explain in two words, recommend to do some reading on that subject)</p> <p> </p>

<p>I shortly got a DF after it's introduction, and really like it<br> But the UI is an acquired taste (you'll probably love it if you think back with nostalgia to the old film camera's, but could be in for a cold shower if you're used to the modern button way of doing things), the AF although not really bad is kind of slow under certain circumstances, and of course the MRSP is pretty steep.<br> For me the major reasons were the IMO compared to eg a D2X, D3 or D800 better balance with my old Ai/Ais lenses, the excellent sensor, and being an old fart with a past shooting F2 and FE film camera's.</p> <p>Despite primarily shooting FX, I recently got a D7100 as well.<br> Partly because I really wasn't using my old D2X and D70S anymore and wanted to get some money for them before they became really impossible to sell, partly because sometimes I just want to take a 'better then my phone 'camera along that's not as expensive as my FX bodies and lenses.<br> <br />Did consider a D7200, but apart from the larger buffer and slightly better IQ, decided for the cheaper (especially 2nd hand) D7100.<br> A DF is as far as IQ and high ISO is concerned considerably superior, but at a price. The D7100 is a nice, smaller, camera, with in the 'lower' ISO range also quite a good IQ, and still very good value for the money.</p>

<p><em>It seems respondents, sometimes writing at great length ;-), have done everything except answer the OP's question!</em><br /> I don't think the above observation is correct since the OP explicitly asks<br /> <em>Anyone have experience with photographing art for reproductions who can advise me?</em><br /> and not whether anybody has any experience or advise dealing with the printer and/or any incorrect advise given by him</p> <p>Given that the OP states she's a beginner amateur, and hints at wanting to use her own equipment to do the job, it therefor is far more practical to start with the basic techniques of shooting artwork.</p> <p>A discussion on whether she's using the best printer for the job is a subject better suited for a later or separate discussion, and in answer to a question on <em> photographing art for reproductions</em> is much more off mark</p> <p>Considering that her printer/printservice discusses online conversion of the pictures ' <em>they say I shouldn't try to convert the pics online</em>' doesn't give get the impression that already a high end professional printer is involved in the process.<br /> If however that subject is discussed, I think it's more valuable to give the OP to give a concrete, rather then just a 'smart', suggestion on a print service/printer better suited for making high end prints of artwork reproductions.<br /> And for that matter, who also provides the service '<em>to have the works photographed by a professional lab</em>', and what such services might cost (again against the back ground of the OP being a amateur beginner).<br />For an amateur beginner finding such a professional lab could be quite challenging since most print services seem to primarily operate through a website rather then a physical location.<br /> And of course some advise on the logistic side of that operation, i.e. getting the several 3 by 3 feet sized paintings there (and back), including transport, insurance etc. will no doubt be much appreciated by the OP as well</p> <p>But getting back to the photography rather then the print service, back in the early days of digital photography when a camera with a 2,5 MP sensor was a major feat, the tool used to get those extra pixels needed for large prints and sometimes even banners and displays was Genuine Fractals http://www.imaging-resource.com/SOFT/GF/GF.HTM<br /> It nowadays is available as a Photoshop plugin, could be handy to get those extra pixels</p> <p>That said, it's not clear what the prints eventually will be used for, e.g. separate works of art in their own right to be sold as such, or intended for a exhibition in a gallery, or just large size photo's made to be appreciated in a small circle of family and friends.<br /> Depending on that can a relevant recommendation for more or less expensive options be made.</p> <p>Yep, a lengthy answer again, but again, much more on the mark :-)</p> <p> </p>

<p>You unfortunately don't mention what artwork is about (drawings, paintings, sculpture?) and what materials were used (shiny paint, polished metal?)<br /> For convenience sake (makes an easier starting point for the rest of my post) ) I'm assuming they're some kind of arcrylic paint based paintings.</p> <p>Most important thing for getting proper artwork pictures is getting the lighting right.<br /> You don't want harsh direct light, as it will reflect in the paint, and could, if the paint has been applied in such a way that there is some kind of structure, when coming from the side, create all kind of unwanted shadows.<br /> The latter may of course be the exact thing you're after, but to keep things simple I'm assuming you're not.<br /> So normally should be diffused (which will help avoiding reflections) and coming from all side, or at least not from the front (again to avoid it reflecting in the paint, or glass in case of framed pictures/drawings)</p> <p>Second important thing is setting the correct balance and fine tuning of the WB on your camera, and of the color temperature of the light used.<br /> Daylight is 5400K(elvin), leaning toward blue, flash very close to that (5500K4 while artificial light, depending on the type, leaning toward yellow/orange, although with fluorescent possibly all over the place (tungsten 3400K, household lamps 3200K, fluorescent and LED depending on type and model)<br /> If you're camera WB is set on daylight, and you're using artificial lighting, you're picture most likely will turn out yellowish, while with the camera WB on tungsten, and using daylight, the pictures will tun out blueish.<br /> So depending on the type of light used, select the correct WB for the camera. Most WB settings are probably easily found in the menu (daylight, flash, tungsten) though, while exact WB fine tuning on in degrees Kelvin demands a somewhat higher knowledge level.</p> <p>Ideally you have some type of (mutiple) flashes at your disposal, either studio or speedlights. Flash is the IMO best choice beause of the known, and constant color temperature, and repeatability of the output <br /> <br />You of course could use tungsten lamps or even LED lights.<br /> But with tungsten you have a, compared to daylight, different color temperature (which could give problems if the room/space/studio you're shooting also has a a lot of normal daylight) <br /> And with LED there might be issues with the light frequency, as described here https://photographylife.com/light-frequency-issue<br /> Daylight of course also is an option, but depending on the time of day and type of weather the color temperature of that type of light will also vary, which of course can influence the reproduction artwork you're photographing.<br /> To make things a bit simpler I assuming you have access to multiple/two flash units (studio or speedlight), a couple of lightstands, and a couple of umbrella (and stuff to mount the flash units and umbrella's on the lightstand)<br /> Silver umbrellas are more efficient then white ones (reflect more light, which could be important when using speedlights which usually have less power then studio units) but give a harsher (= more chance of possible shadows) light then a white umbrella</p> <p>Setting up is pretty easy.<br /> Mount each flash on lightstand with flash unit, bouncing/reflecting it in an umbrella (making the light very soft and diffused) and place one flash on the left, and one on the right, in a approx. 45 degree angle of the painting.<br /> This will help avoid reflection of the lights on the shiny paint (or glass) while also avoid creating all kind of unwanted shadows.<br /> You can then start shooting trial shots. to judge the color reproduction, and correct exposure.</p> <p>The latter can more or less be judged pretty easily using the histogram on the LCD, and the picture on the LCD itself (or maybe a separate larger monitor)<br /> But as far as finding the correct exposure, I highly recommend using Manual Mode, and not rellying on some kind of pre cooked setting in the camera, to find the correct setting.<br /> Yes it will demand more effort and (re)thinking, but you'll then know what you're doing (and after some trial and effort) be able to find the correct settings, rather then just having to wonder/getting frustrated over why the camera 'isn't doing what you want'.</p> <p>As far as 'correct' reproduction of the colors is concerned, explaining that would take a book (and plenty have written on that subject).<br /> But the quick and dirty way is to include a color test chart eg http://www.3nhcolor.com/product/165-298.html in each picture (since you'll be shooting a series of differently exposed photo's of each piece of artwork anyway, take with each exposure setting one with,, and one without the color test chart) which when to picture is reproduced/printed will give the 'printer' an indication what the colors actually look like.</p> <p>Camera of course is important, but considering you're just an amateur, a medium format Phase One obviously isn't a realistic suggestion.<br /> The Canon 6D is (as far as I know, Nikon shooter here) a full frame camera with excellent IQ (= enough pixels for a larger, although of course not wall sized, print) and color rendition.<br /> <br /> The lens use however is more important. It should offer high resolution, and as little as optical distortion as possible. This kind of automatically disqualifies your kitlens.<br /> Don't know what your portrait lens is (85mm?), but as a rule a prime lens (even a humble nifty fity, which can be found for quite moderarte prices) will give a higher IQ then a kit or zoom lens (OK a top of the line zoom probably will also, but will also a considerably higer price tag) when closed down a few stops.</p> <p>The files should of course have as much technical info (pixels, colors, sharpness) as possible in order to get a high quality end result. So for your definitive files, always go for the largest size with the highest resolution (width and height at highest possible pixels, similarly for DPI)<br /> <br /> As far as the files/format of the files is concerned, how to you deliver your files to your print service, and what kind of files do they want/demand?<br /> JPG's are not ideal (the files are compressed, which boils down to not including all technical details) while RAW will have to be processed to get the correct final settings (which your print service probably won't be willing to do, or maybe doesn't even have the correct software to get the same results you want).<br /> 'Best' option are TIFF's, which do contain all info of the picture as it looks after you processed it to your liking. Only disadvantage is they're much bigger then JPG's, so probably won't qualify for online printing services.</p> <p>Anyway, so far my recommendations as far as I can based on the info you provided, HTH</p>

<p>I wouldn't be too paranoid about the choice of lenses on a F100.</p> <p>The image rendering of film dramatically differs from a DSLR/digital, you'll (fortunately, a picture's main feature IMO should not in the first place be the fact that it's sharp. Based on that criteria many icons pictures from the past would have to be disqualified) ) simply never get the corner to corner sharpness of a DSLR<br> A film will always have some kind of curve due to the material acetate - it's made off, and e.g. 35mm being spooled up in a canister, and will therefor never be as flat as a sensor (which always will be completely 'flat')<br> That means the 'flat' focal plane of a lens will inevitably at some point hit an area of the film that lies flat on the film pressure plate,a and other areas which due to the curving of the material are not (the reason why in the film area some large format camera manufacturers - like e.g. Schneider - offered vacuum film backs to assure the film would like as flas as possible)</p> <p>So when shooting film you really won't see a difference in sharpness (not talking about flare or CA correction) between eg an old (pre D) AF lens and the latest G lens as dramatic compared to when using those two lenses on a high resolution DSLR<br> Only reason I e.g. upgraded my 2.8/80-200 AF to a 2nd generation AF-D copy was the improved AF speed, not image rendering or 'sharpness'<br> After that upgrade used that lens for over 20 years on a variety of film (F801S/F90/F90X/F100) and digital (D70S/D1/D1H/D1X/D2X/D3) bodies.<br> Only after I got a D800 did the flaws of it (soft when used wide open) forced me to upgrade to a newer model 2.8/70-200 VRII</p> <p>So IMO if you want to keep shooting AF, all the old 'classics' like 1.8/85AF, 2.0/135DC, 2.8/180AF and 2.8/80-200 AF will do fine.<br> <br />Pre/non Ai lenses are a 'nono', since the AI tabe on the body can't be flipped up (and consequently will be damaged when a non Ai lens is mounted) .<br> The F100 manual ( I still have a F100, and manual, lying in the back pf my closet, despite not having used it for over 20 years) lists quite a number of lenses which are incompatible too, but it mainly concerns really old stuff you'll probably will never think of getting (F11/2000mm reflex, f11/1200mm with AU-i focussing unit etc)</p> <p>Only one you could run into and may want to consider, but is warned NOT to be used on a F100, is the TC16A teleconverter (and it really can't, did it myself once, ended up with a scratched inside - not the mirror- of the mirror box).</p> <p>No issues or problems with G lenses on the F100 either, like with the F5 and F6 those lenses can be used without any special tricks, modifications or limitations, since the aperture can simply be selected with one of the command wheels.<br> As a consequence all exposure modes (M,S,A,P) are available when using a F100 and G lenses, unlike the older models like eg the F90X</p> <p>Don't own nor have used one (did own a 1st edition PC 2.8/85mm AFD) a E series lense (i.e the PC lense range - PCE 24, 45 and 85mm - not the old manual Ais E serie) so can't commend on that</p> <p>e</p>

<p>IMO your starting idea for the set up of the SB700 and pop up is OK<br> But rather then bouncing the SB700 against a wall behind your back I would tilt the head of that flash upwards (not 90 degrees, but rather between 50 and 70 degrees) towards the ceiling. Much similar to bouncing the flash against the wall behind your back, the light will get diffused, but with much less loss of light.</p> <p>Indeed do use the pop up flash, not only to trigger the SB700, but also to as a fill for the shadows that will inevitably come with bouncing the light of the SB700 against the ceiling (effectively making it a high positioned lightsource, and consequently with it creating shadows under eyes, noses and chins)<br> I personally would use the CLS option, with the pop up as Master, and the SB700 as remote, with a slighty lower power output for the Master pop up (in this situation, in the camera flash settings leave the remote SB700 on '0' zero, so no extra power, and the pop up Master with a slight increase power setting compared to the remote, to be sure it will actually lighten up/fill in the shadows)</p> <p>I would also as recommended use the 18-55, but rather at f8 then f5.6 because of the wider DoF and better IQ then comes with stopping down a/this lens (I have the 1st version myself which I also have use for all kind of event and group shots)<br> Also stopping down the lens somewhat will exclude more of the available, in this case office so most likely fluorescent', light, and avoid the WB in your pictures going all over the place<br> <br />And agree with the suggestion to use a higher ISO setting, on a modern DSLR like the D5100 (still modern, despite its 2011 debut) the difference in IQ between ISO 100 and ISO 400 is next to neglible</p>

<p><em>Beware of plugging old Bowens 400s into a digital camera or radio slave trigger. The trigger voltage on early metal- bodied 400s reaches something like 600 volts and will blow the cr#p out of most modern cameras and radio triggers.</em><br> <em>Safest way to trigger a second 400D is to use an optical trigger.</em></p> <p>Guess I've been dumb lucky for many years then<br> Despite having a couple of more recent Bowens Gemini's, still use my 30+ year old Hensel 500 Economy's and a couple of old Bowens monoblocs (400D, 500Ws MonoSilver)<br> Have used them with D1, D1H, D1X, D2X, D70S and D3 with a classic synch cable without frying those camera's interns</p> <p>Similarly also have used them with a cheapo Chinese (product description on the box "Studio Flashlight Radio <strong>Slace</strong>' ) and PW TT5's (with the ridiculous expensive MP1 cable) with the same boring result (no issues)<br> Haven't used those old flashes with my D800's and DF as by that time I had purchased the PW's, so can't comment (from personal working experience) on the use of old studio units with those two camera's</p> <p>An optical trigger as previously posted is the easiest, time proven and cheapest option<br> <em> </em><br> <em>Better yet would be to trade those old 400s for something a bit more up to date.</em><br> IMO only really urgent reason would be the (in) compatibility with S mount accesories (although K to S mount adapters can be found)<em><br /></em><br> For the rest the old Bowens units are sturdy (although big and quite heavy), reliable, and not in the last place of a much better built quality then many discount cheapo Chinese units</p> <p> </p>

<p>The cheapo, and time proven, solution to trigger a 2nd flash unit if you only have a radio trigger for one unit, is to simply get an optical trigger (can be found for under $6), possibly with a plug that will fit the socket on the 400D, or , which they usually do, accepts the PC flash synch of the standard flash synch cable that comes with the studio flash unit (if it didn't they can be had for as little as < $5)</p> <p>Bowens still uses that procedure even with its latest studio light sets. If you eg buy a twin 500W Gemini set, you get a Pulsar radio trigger and only one trigger card for one flash unit. The 2nd one has a built in optical cell which will trigger the unit when the main flash goes of.</p> <p>I noticed though that the Flashwaves seem to have a female PC jack too, so if you have a 'standard' sync cable that would be the simple, also cheap, solution.</p> <p>Main advantage is you can still trigger cableless, possible disadvantage is that the optical trigger reacts to any flash going of, which could be a problem if you're working with /are in the company of someone using a flash/speedlight</p>

<p>Many smartphones and some (most of the latest models of all brands) camera's (DSLR's mirrorless, etc) have a socalled HDR mode.</p> <p>In a very small nutshell, the camera take a series of pictures at different exposures, ranging from the 'correct' exposure of the shadow parts, to the 'correct' one for the area's with the most light.<br> It then merges all of those images 'in camera' into one where both shadows and highlight parties are correctly exposed and yet in balance<br> This in contrast to a 'standard' exposed shot where in eg a picture exposed for the shadows, like yours, the area where the sun shines would come out overexposed/whitened out with the shadow area's 'correct'</p> <p>Only works with static subjects of course, a moving subject will risk to have moved to a different sport while the sequence of differently exposed pictures are taken.</p>

<p>No personal experience with the K30, but from what I've read in several reviews and comparisons eg http://www.imaging-resource.com/cameras/pentax/k-30/vs/nikon/d3300/ the K30 seems more aimed at the already more advance amateur, while the D3300 definitely is Nikon's entry level DSLR</p> <p>The latter however doesn't have to be deal breaker though, and also the Nikon D3300 with kit lens can be found cheaper then the K30 with kitlens (at least where I live)</p> <p>From a users point of view ( so disregarding any technical feature vs feature comparisons) the D3300 is a nice small and light camera, with a good IQ quality sensor, and pretty decent AF and high ISO.<br> Being aimed at DSLR newbies, it has a lot of easy presets and shooting modes (like portrait, landscape etc)<br> That said, when you want to do thing manually yourself (like manual exposure) you'll have to dig into the menus which obviousy won't be the fastest way to go</p> <p>That said (and I'm a long time Nikon user) if you already shoot Pentax, and don't need a 'new' camera for 'better' specs, the K30 might well be a better alternative (you already have a lens/maybe some lenses)</p>

<p>Not clear how you want the SU800 getting to work with Bowens strobes<br> The SU800 emits infrared pulses, not actual flashes, which interact with Nikon CLS speedlights like SB600/700/800/900/910 (those are the one I have personal experience with, I know the SB400 isn't CLS compatible, but have no experience with other lower end Nikon speedlights)<br> Bowens studio units (Gemini or similar ones like Esprits) don't interact with the Nikon CLS system (I a.o. use Bowens Gemni's so know this for sure first hand)<br> But they (Gemini's do, and as far as I know Esprit do as well) have a built in optical slave which will react on any flash impulse emittted by a speedlight, Nikon or other brand.<br> There are special Bowens (radio) triggers, but similarly those don't interact with Nikon speedlights<br> Only way to use Bowens studio strobes in any way with a Nikon SU800, is by triggering them via a Nikon speedlight and the photoelectric slave cell they have, although as said you could do so with any speedlight, and without the SU800.</p> <p>With a SU800 and Nikon speedlight set up would be simple.<br> Put the speedlight in Remote mode, and select a Group.<br> Then switch on the SU800. In the menu, go to the Group you selected on your flash. Select the correct Mode (see below)</p> <p>If you leave it in TTL, it will emit a - practically invisible for the naked eye, but still noticed by the slave cell - preflash.<br> That in its turn will trigger the studio units prematurely, and depleted when you want to - a split second later - take the actual picture.</p> <p>So obviously set he mode on Manual<br> In that mode the flash will just emit a certain - depending on the power setting - amount of light when you push the release button, no fancy stuff like preflash etc.</p> <p>I assume you would not want the light of the speedlight to interfere with the studio units (by creating an undesired secondary shadow)<br> So in addition to pointing the speedlight's flash head away (towards the wall or ceiling), dial down the (manual) power setting for the speedlight in the SU800 menu (I always go as low as possible, unless you're far away from the studio units, no use for much power).</p> <p>But if you happen to have a speedlight which allows shooting in Manual Mode at reduced power settings, you can skip the SU800 altogether and just use the speedlight to trigger the studio unit slave cells directly</p>

<p><em><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=749786">Ray -</a>, Jul 07, 2016; 04:15 p.m.</em></p> <p><em>I have a light stand and a bracket already as well as a 2 in 1 brolly for 3+ years and the SB800 since 2004. The reason I'm wanting a softbox with a grid is to do light ratio so I can control more of the light and learn more different techniques and things like product photography of cosmetic and after shave bottles. I already have a light meter with my medium format photography.</em><br> <em>I thought about Einstein's or the D1 or Siros kits since not that much difference $499US vs $1100— 1300US but the cheaper Einstein doesn't come in a discounted 2 light kit with accessories so the price gap narrows. 2x $499US plus accesssories vs maybe $2300US. I am also not in the USA, so I have to import them to New Zealand so P C Buff's stuff can be more tricky and forgo the warranty (?). There are no distributors here I think, perhaps in Australia. I could pick proper brands in Asia when I go there. Here a pair of Elinchrome D-Lite lights in a kit cost like $1,000US equiv. already.</em><br> <br /><em> For now the speedlight can be a cheaper way to test things out. But yes so 24 Or 32 inches? One speedlight. I'm not getting dual bracket. I can have a softbox shipped here for $50US. Obviously if I get from B&H like in the past there is the hefty postal cost (probably more than the product itself) but they are cheaper enough not to attract import tax.</em></p> <p ><em><a name="00e2Q0"></a><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=749786">Ray -</a> , Jul 07, 2016; 04:38 p.m.</em></p> <p><em>PS. The light ratio is with one person. I guess for a group of people you want a more even spread of light. Yes if need be I could get a cardboard as a reflector or Aliexpress have them for a few bucks probably delivered.</em><br> <em>Mostly used inside. Outside rarely just when a few people want to head to the gardens for some more serious portraits. But never in the city etc of course.</em><br> <em> </em><br> Since you already are seriously considering a future upgrade to studio flash units, and want to use the softbox for products shots,<br /> I would go for as big a softbox you can get for the money you have in mind<br> I don't do any product shoots nowadays, but as they were a big part of my photography studies at the Royal Academy of Arts in The Hague, I paid my dues and gained enough experience with it.</p> <p>A large softbox is in my experience a much better choice for products, since you'll be able to place it closer to the subject, get the soft light and when used with a studio flash still maintain a decent (smaller, closed down = more DoF) aperture.<br> And also have a large highlight reflection which for product - especially shiny stuff lime glass and metal - looks much better. And if that's too large, you can still make the light smaller by simply blocking parts of it.</p> <p>Can't comment on the choice of studio unit's, no experience with the Einsteins, Buff's or Elinchromes (I do have a full set of several Bowens and Hensel units, with all the trimmings like softboxes, reflectors, barndoors snoots, etc. but hardly ever use them)</p> <p>Downside of a large softbox is of course that with just a speedlight that means most likely having to use it at full power all the time (= slow recycling times) and having to, due to compared with a studio flash, the lower GN, relative shoot with wider open apertures.<br> But since it's initially just for learning/'playing around' (no disrespect meant) with a softbox and low profile product shooting/lighting, I would not mind the above. The SB800 has the option of the SD 8a battery pack (original Nikon version is IMO way too expensive, a cheapo Chinese knock off goes for as little as approx US $30) which will allow faster recycle times and more capacity (flashes per set of batteries). Do keep in mind the SB800 has no thermal safety (I have 6 of hem myself, love them) so shooting at full load to fast may risk melting it (reason why the SB700/SB900/910 have a built in safety)<br> And you can still shoot with more closed down/smaller apertures simply by raising the camera's ISO. Yes, theoretically IQ could suffer, although in my experience the modern Nikon DSLR's - roughly speaking D3/D300 and later - can handle anything up to 1600-2500 ISO very well. And as remarked, also by yourself, you'll just be using it as part of a learning process, so it's more important learn more about lighting/ getting it right, so IQ really isn't that relevant yet.</p> <p>Yo may need a special adapter to fit the speedlight in the softbox, especially if that's intended for use with a studio unit. But that doesn't have to get expensive, eg Bowens sells them for the Lumair softboxes, and yes, there are cheapo knock offs for those too (and it's just a very basic metal construction, so no possible issues with electronics)<br> On a side note, how are you going to trigger the SB800? In my experience the large size of the softbox will very likely hinder using the optical trigger. Since you seem to want to work with a light/flashmeter, which indicates working with the SB800 in Manual mode, getting a set of cheapo radiotriggers may be the solution.</p> <p>For the outside work I would still go for an umbrella, easier, lighter, and softer light.</p> <p>My two cents</p>

<p>Sorry, I tried attaching this picture but instead ended up repeatedly posting the original message<br> <br />Shot on film with and old Nikon AI lens long time ago, so not up the 'modern' definitions of a sharp picture</p><div></div>

<p>deleted (double post)</p> <p> </p>

<p>deleted (double post)</p> <p> </p>

<p>deleted (double post)</p> <p> </p>

<p>To begin with, why a softbox? Sure, every online expert makes it an absolute necessicity. But looking at it from a practical point of view, it's big (so apart from the softbox you'll need a sturdy lightstand to avoid the whole contracption from falling over. And I'm not even talking about using it outside inder windy conditions). Also it absorbs a lot of light (which with a single speedlight will either mean having to shoot wide open, or using high ISO, and/or long recycle times).</p> <p>The intended purpose of a softbox is to create soft light (hence of course the name) you'll, unless you use a big one, have to put it real close by to get that 'softer light https://photoflex.com/index.php?/pls/understanding-how-soft-boxes-work. And especicially when using a large size one, that when used with a single speedlight automatically will mean the afore mentioned problems with the usable apterure, and recycle times.<br /> Of course you can use a small softbox instead, but as illustrated in the enclosed link, that defies the whole exercise of using a softbox, since, especially when used at a longer distance (which inevitably will be the case when you want to lighten a small group of people, even if only at half body), the light actually becomes harder (instead of the intended 'soft').<br /> <br />Also, even if the light of a softbox is, if used at the 'correct' distance, is soft, it's also directional, so shadows are more pronounced and deeper, and unless looked for, will need additional fill in, possibly a reflection screen, or even another softbox (although that will of course risk an 'arms race' stacking up one fill light against the mainlight, and yet another fill light to fill in the shadows then created, etc. etc.)</p> <p>Especially since you're a beginner with this, I would spend your money wisely and sparsely. Juts get a lightstand, with a speedlight/umbrella adapter, and an umbrella (white will give softer light, silver more directional, although compared to a softbox positioned too far away still soft, and with a higher efficiency)</p> <p>Sure, I can here the 'experts' sharpening their knives over the fact that umbrella's give a soft undirectional light, but that very characteristic makes it much easier for a beginner to work with (much less issues with unwanted deep shadows)<br /> If you have some extra money, get a reflection screen (can be a 'real' collapsible one, which you can easily find for cheap everywhere on the internet, or dead cheap if you just get some polystyrene isolation board at your local DIY shop).<br /> <br />Don't worry, if you buy a sturdy lightstand, you can still use it later with a 'proper' studio flash unit, as of course you can with the umbrella's, and dittyo with the reflection screens (which you can use always, with flash or natural light).<br /> And you can keep using the speedlight, e.g. for shooting birthdays, weddings, or whatever kind of event where you need a little additional lighting and don't want, can't use, or bring along a whole 'softbox on a lightstand' lighting set up (imagine doing that when shooting the 'cutting of the cake' moment at the birthday party of a small child with such an amount of gear. I think 'show of' will be the least of the 'compliments' given).<br /> So my advise, don't listen to the experts, especially on a camera club. Keep it simple, don't spend a lot of money thinking that will automatically improve your skills or the quality of your pictures.<br /> Spend your money wisely, and just practice with the 'simple' gear instead so you'll acquire the skills, rather then the gear with the 'best' specs, to shoot a decent picture.</p> <p> </p>

<p>You're way overthinking it, it's really simple. If you will be developing your film as if for 1600 ISO, expose it accordingly.<br> So if eg the chart on the back of your flash says to, with your flash at full power, at a given distance and with ISO 400 use F8, that means that when you will be developing your film at 1600 ISO (is two stops 400-800-1600 higher) you will have to close your aperture two stops too (so f8 = + 1stop f11, + 2 stops f16)</p> <p>That said, if you find the f16 a bit too much, you can dial down the output of the 430EX. Not a Canon user myself, but this is what Canon Europe says about that<br> <em>The power level on the 430EX II can be adjusted in Manual mode, from full power to 1/64 in 1/3-stop increments.</em><br> This simply means that if you dial down the power by half (1 stop) you instead of closing the aperture down two stops (from the f8 at ISO 400) you now only need to close it down one (so f11 instead of f16). If you dial down the power another stop (so down to one quarter) you can leave it at f8.</p> <p>Also keep in mind though that this is based on the distance between the flash and the subject. If you use the flash off camera with a distance of 2 meters between flash and camera, and you're standing further away, say 4 meters, from the subject yourself, don't base your calculations on the 4 meters between you/the camera and the subject, but rather on the 2 meters between flash and subject.<br> But as said at the beginning, don't overthink it too much. With the above tips in mind, make your set up, and make some test shots with the flash on a DSLR using the same settings (ISO, exposure etc) as you will on your film camera. Once you've found the 'correct' exposure/like what you see on the LCD, set up your film camera accordingly, and you'll be fine for 99% of the time</p> <p>On a side note, you do make life quite hard using flash manually for street photography. Your subjects won't be at the same distance all the time, so you'll have to (re)calculate the correct aperture for each shot.<br> As said I don't shoot Canon, so don't know if the 430EX has an 'A' (Auto Aperture) setting. If so, maybe better use that instead of manual.</p> <p>A/Auto Aperture = aperture priority, where you copy the ISO and aperture you've selected on your camera to work with onto the flash. The flash then based on that info, uses a built in - in the flash - cell to register the amount of light on the subject and cuts that of when it thinks the exposure is correct. Not as fail safe as TTL metering, but still a major improvement on shooting flash manually.<br> The older Canon speedlites were based on that principle, see http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/SLRs/a1/html/index6.htm and can be found for bottom prices on eg eBay. I still have a couple of old Metz flashes that work the same way on my Nikons.</p>

<p>At the risk of sounding rude, but what are you complaining about exactly? You make it sound as if models are obliged to respond to your request to model for you for free, at best for a print/CD for their efforts.</p> <p>First thing in this respect to do is some self reflection. What can you offer the model, is there a chance they will indeed end up with pictures they can use?<br /> Keep in mind they're already with agencies, so either already have good pictures, or will at least have very critical eyes - i.e. the people from the agency - look at the eventual pictures. And/or even give their green, or red (!) light when/before a model considers working with an new/unknown photographer.</p> <p>You unfortunately don't have a link to any kind of (on line) portfolio or any other pictures you have made that may convince them to 'accept' your offer. And from your posting history here (starting in December 2015, asking for advice on how to become an assistant) I can only gather you're following a photography course since a year and a half, are enthusiastic about it, and that's about it.<br /> All and all a pretty slim base on which to expect usable pictures, and I fear very much the reason you don't get much response from already experienced models (they're after all no longer scouring the internet for 'photographers' but already passed the hurdle to get accepted at an agency)</p> <p>If you have the ambition to work with models, maybe better start working on a portfolio that will hopefully convince models to do so. While it's courageous to immediately start approaching more or less established, at least agency enlisted, models, you should learn to walk before you can run.<br /> Of course, maybe your talent already is so evident everybody will be convinced when they see your pictures. Or maybe you're so persuasive that even without pictures you can make them wanting to work with you. But posting this 'complaint' gives me the impression that such is not the case thus far.</p> <p>So IMO better start taking pictures of friends and colleague students, maybe even students from a fashion course (they're likely to have a wider selection of clothes) and try to make pictures that are (more or less) up to the standards of the modelling agencies, even if the 'models' are not. Just start taking the first steps, accept your limited resources, and make good pictures, or at least try to do so nevertheless.</p> <p>Don't blame the agency registered models for not responding so far on your requests to model. After all, you're asking them to so for free and, apart from youthful enthusiasm. so far seem not to have much to show far to convince them to do so.<br /> Then when you do have pictures to show for, go to the agencies and try to get some TFP shoots. If your talent is showing in your pictures, the agencies will look past the maybe amateur styling, make up and/or models.<br /> But the starting point is to take/have 'good' pictures first, no matter if the models are from an agency or not.</p> <p>You make it sound as if you need agency models to begin with, and seem disgruntled they won't respond even if you don't have/seem to have anything to show for (so far?).<br /> OK, maybe they're impolite, or even rude. But that's the real world outside, or at least the fashion/modeling agency one. If you're not considered interesting, you passed by or ignored, and sometimes that may happen in a less then polite way.</p> <p>I can only repeat the advise given in the very first reaction on your December 2015 post :<br /> <em><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=1836730">William Kahn</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /></a>, Dec 26, 2015; 12:25 p.m.</em><br /> <em>Well, Benjamin, I think the last thing you want to do is advertise on social media because you'll get a lot of responses you definitely are not looking for.</em><br /> <br /> Otherwise you sound a bit like the debutant photographer I met yesterday at an event hosted by the Thai embassy in the Hague yesterday. It just was a day celebrating Thailand, with food stands, speeches and the occasional dance and music performance (on an four feet or so high stage).<br /> My eye was immediately drawn to him, as he was (kind of) shooting dancers with the camera mounted on a tripod, obviously struggling as he was checking the LCD after each shot and then started pushing all the buttons on his Nikon D7000, sweating profusely while doing so.<br /> I tried engaging in a discussion with him to maybe give him some tips on shooting techniques, AF and exposure settings (have some experience with shooting events and catwalk).<br /> But instead the first thing he asked me about was what camera's I used. And, after I told him a had a DF and a D800 with me (I hadn't taken out of my back pack), immediately told me would take better pictures if he had a full frame camera with a 24-70 zoom rather then the d700 and 85mm he was using now.</p> <p>Similarly don't immediately go for 'agency models' when you want to start shooting models. Just start modestly with friends, family, colleague students and learn how to take good/decent pictures to begin with. Once you have those, it will get a lot easier to convince models and/or agencies to work with you.<br> But at this stage, IMO don't start to complain about attitude and good manner, it may very well be that your own is something to improve on as well.</p> <p> </p>

<p>When I bought my F2AS (which I still have) in 1979, it was literally the last one the shop where I bought it had, since the F3 had just been announced and Nikon had stopped delivery of F2's.<br> For me, it's a better camera then the F3 because, unlike the F3 which is then limited to 1/60th, it you can still us it even when the battery is empty.<br> Also got a FE in those days as a second body (standard set up was one body for B/W, one for color) which like the F3 had (compared to the F2) more advanced electronics (like Aperture mode exposure metering).<br> Main reason though was I couldn't afford a 2nd F2 (let alone a F3) and also it was smaller and lighter, even if it similarly to the F3 only had one shutter speed (1/90th) left if the battery quit.</p> <p>I started to shoot catwalk shows then, so I soon also got the MD3 winder and the MB2 battery holder for the F2, but that meant it became a big and heavy beast.<br> As I also had a MB12 on the FE, and used both camera's with Metz 60CT flash units (the hammer head ones with the separate battery pack) you can imagine what weight and bulk I had to lug around during the shows.<br> But affordable 'fast' lenses weren't around yet in those days, just as the fastest (commercially usable) films were Tri X and Ektachrome 400,<br> Sure, you could push process Tri X with heavily diluted Rodinal or Acufine. just as for color there was e.g. Scotch 640T or 3M 1000 ISO slide film for color.<br> But the result both for the pushed Tri X and the slide films mentioned would be ore 'artistic' then commercially usable, so using flash was inevitable and basically mandatory.</p> <p>Unlike today, where can do literally thousand of shots on one memory card, and decide to go for B/W of color afterwards, shooting both options during a catwalk show meant having to constantly switch between bodies i.e. banging then around a lot.<br> So after a few years on both bodies the paint on the side, under the neck strap lugs, was completely worn of, with the brass showing, and they also had become quite busted up. </p> <p>But those camera's could take a beating, quite unlike modern DSLR's, and could be used with the kind of damage which would mean the end of a DSLR.<br> My FE e.g. had, due to overloading my soft top camera bag, and probably sitting on top of it, a bent mirror housing, to the point where it interfered with the aperture locking ring (the one on the body which has the little lever that picks up the AI notch on the lens) and stops it from returning back to 'zero'.<br> When at a NPS servicing day I asked the Nikon mechanic if it was reparable and what that might cost, he told me to look away, and wedged a screwdriver between the housing and the aperture ring to make a bit of space. The ring regained enough moving space to return to 'zero' and I have used the FE for many years after that 'repair'. <br> Maybe not the 'correct' way to do it, but very much based on what, based on real world experience and possibilities, was possible/necessary, and saved me a unnecessary expensive repair.<br> And a newspaper buddy used to literally stand on top of his F2 to 'click' the Photomic back into position as a brag for its ruggedness ( I only banged up mine)</p> <p>While shooting catwalk you of course also had to keep a sharp eye on how many shots you had fired per film, as you only had 36 shots (38 or so if you also used the loading strip at the beginning of the film, and willing to risk that that part was already exposed and consequently the images shot there lost) so you wouldn't run out of film at an important moment (e.g. end of the show when the 'bride' would make her appearance, or when the designer came to greet the audience). Also there was no mechanical rewind yet, so you had to rewind the film by wind when it as full.<br> And of course there also was the constant nightmare of the 'endless' film, when you realized that you had not laid it in properly and shot dozens of photo's on the loading strip.</p> <p>Used several types of focusing screens on my F2, from the standard A, to the H and J (both variations) but eventually ended up with the splitscreen/micro prism circle K type, despite that the splitscreen center blacked out when shooting under bad light with slow lenses (for years I shot catwalk with the 4.5/80-200 manual focus zoom, and later the 4.5/300MM ED manual telelens)<br> Yes, shooting catwalk sure was exiting in those days http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/catwalk_molenaar_govers_heymans, quite unlike the 2.8/70-200 AF zooms, 6400 ISO, 64GB cards shooting style of today.</p> <p>Don't use the F2 much today, digital is much more convenient, no more late night film developing, nor long days - and nights - in the dark room amid chemicals and fumes (do miss the 'shuffling in the dark while listening to a Van Morrison music cassette tape' sometimes though))<br> But I'll never part from my F2, it still has a proud place in my closet, and I sometimes get it out just to hold it, feel the weight and click away a few shots, even without film of lens.<br> And on a side note, still use those (manual focus) lenses (2.0/28mm, 1.4/50mm, 1.8/85mm) I bought back then on my DSLR's, no lost nostalgia as far as that is concerned.</p>

<p>IMO you're way too much concentrating on the non relevant part of shooting a fast moving subject.<br /> Sure, depth of the buffer is nice, but if you don't have your AF settings correct, you'll only end up with a lot, instead of a few, OoF pictures.<br /> The AF Group setting is only a small part of the equation</p> <p>Although I don't have a D810 (I have two D800's which will easily do the job for me) I have shot a fair bit of action photography with erratic moving subjects (surf, shore to sea) with a.o. a D2X, D3 and D800 (in DX mode) in the past http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/best_surf<br /> Shooting cheetah's on a running track may be easier though, as they probably will only be running in one direction, and only towards you (unlike surfers who start in one direction, only to change that all of a sudden because of the 'better' wave)<br /> <br />My settings are/were<br /> - AF-C,<br /> - Dynamic AF with one - manually selected - AF point (in your case that could be Dynamic AF with AF group, although I'm not sure if AF group allows such a setting)<br /> - 51 AF points for the Dynamic AF (some say 21 AF points is faster, but personally I never ran into trouble using AF 51 points)<br /> - Custom setting A3 'Focus tracking with lock-on' OFF</p> <p>I take the pictures, obviously with the camera in high speed fps, by aiming the one, manually selected (usually center one since selecting the AF point while the subject is already moving - fast - within your viewfinder isn't a realistic option) AF point on the subject.<br /> As soon as I think I have the AF point on the subject, I start taking the pictures (yes that takes a good eye /hand reflex) and trust the AF, and the Dynamic AF to follow the subject even if the F point isn't on the subject while I'm depressing the shutter release/taking the pictures<br /> Obviously if I only for a moment stop taking pictures, I'll have to put my focus point on the subject again to let the AF readjust .</p> <p>Don't expect that each series will be perfect, you'll probably have more OoF shots then in focus one, but that's part of the game.<br /> And don't shoot long series untill your buffer is empty<br /> In my experience you have a better chance of a good picture, rather then only a 'sharp' one, if you shoot relative short series (7 to 10 shots), aim again and recompose (and put your AF point on the subject again).</p> <p>As far as the 14 to 12 bit lossless RAW is concerned, I usually shoot in 12 bit lossless and only lately started shooting in 14 bit lossless since, as I don't shoot much sports any more, I don't 'need' a big buffer any longer (gone back to my 'fashion photography' roots)<br> I know the general opinion is that 14 bit gives a (somewhat?) better file, but so far I haven't noticed much difference (but admittedly I'm more about the image then about the post processing)</p> <p> </p>

<p><em>There are, however, rumours that older D800s might have a frame that's particularly prone to cracking if the camera is dropped. I believe they redesigned it in later ones - I'm mostly going off an obscure Thom Hogan report, however. I believe mine was fine.</em><br> <em> </em><br> There's a lengthy discussion at Nikongear ( the 'new' site from Bjorn Roslett) on the differences in built quality of the old D800 and latest D5 vs the D810, D500<br> http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,3633.0.html</p> <p>The whole discussion boils down to the mirror housing onto which the lens mount ring is attached.<br> On the D800 (and D5) that's made of metal, where on e.g. the D810 and D500 it's made of (high grade) plastic.<br> While the latter is more flexible and less prone to permanent deformation after some kind of impact, that on the other hand also makes it more vulnerable to having the lens mount torn off completely in case of severe impact<br> (just recapping the discusssion in a nutshell, I personally have no opinion, nor fortunately had any experience with this particular subject)</p>

<p>Only time I really destroyed a Nikon lens was when I smashed a DX 3.5-5.6/18-55mm )on a D70s) frontlens first on a tiled floor from about 4 feet high. Shattered the UV filter I had on it, and ruined the AF mechanism. The D70S however quite surprisingly didn't need any repairs ( I had expected some damage to the lens mount, must have been lucky).</p> <p>Second time I destroyed, or at least I thought I did, a lens was when I had used my 4/200-400 VR for years on a row shooting surf shore to sea, in the rain, and continuous salt water spray, without any kind of rain or spray cover (just cleaned the outside with a moist cloth when I came home afterwards). Noticed at some point that the VR started to halter, but since I wasn't using it anyway, just switched it of.</p> <p>When I finally decided to have it repaired (with an eye on a possible selling of the lens), the NPS service center disassembled it to make a price estimate.<br> Projected price tag was way too much, so had it reassembled without repair. They however must have cleaned some of the, what I think, due to the salt water spray corroded electrical contacts, because when I got it back the VR was working correctly again (still don't use it though), so that turned out to be a cheap and unexpected repair (decided to keep the lens anyway).</p> <p>At later occasions did drop camera's with (big lenses) from a few feet high (not proud of it) on eg concrete floors, but at those (fortunately rare) occasion it were the bodies (D3, D800) that needed AF recalibrations, lenses didn't need repair/readjustment.<br> Lightly banging lenses into people/doorposts/other cameras when they hang dangling from my shoulder during shoots is an inevitable risk that comes with carrying them that way, but personally never (apart from maybe a scratches in the paint) ran into any negative consequences of such incidents<br> <br />That said, I think the old AI/Ai-S lenses (and the old film bodies like FE and F2) can stand more punishment then the newer DSLR's and AF/AFS lenses.</p>