paul_k1664875007

<p>Based on the experiences with my copy of the 1.8/85mm AF D I get the impression that as far as the eyelash issue is concerned, it's your copy of the lens that's to blame<br> <br />This is what I can get with a posed headshot<br> http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/image/161812117</p> <p>The lens is also still plenty sharp when pushed to it's AF limit<br> http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/image/161812114<br> (Situation sketch: model walking towards me, while I'm walking backwards; consequently camera bouncing around, and AF point not aimed at the same spot all the time).<br> Note the sharpness of the lace fringes of the black dress despite the above described shooting conditions.</p> <p>Similarly in this picture of the model<br> http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/image/161832071<br> with regards to the details in the white dress and the shoes held in her hands</p> <p>Don't use it for landscapes etc. so can't say anything based on personal experiences as far as you comment on Loca (Longitudinal aberration?) is concerned.</p> <p>It does however has some chromatic aberration, as mentioned in the, quite thorough, review on Photozone<br> http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/622-nikkorafd8518ff?start=1<br> which shows in color shadows when shooting in high contrast situations, (a phenomenon inherent with longer lenses, and more evident in the older AF D lenses like the 1.4/85 AF D or 2/135 DC which I also use) but I have had in the degree you describe</p>

<p>Don't see any problem with the 'bokeh' of this lens in this kind of picture (although I don't understand the 'choppy' part).</p> <p>Shooting a long lens wide open will automatically result in a sharp subject again an out of focus background. The character of the OoF background in my experience comes with the lens used.</p> <p>The 2.8/70-200 is a high level, but nevertheless 'bread and butter' lens, excellently fit for use in many different types of situations, but no meant to in particularly excel as far as bokeh is concerned compared to other lenses. So it may be a bit 'harsher' (choppy?) then desired</p> <p>If you want a 'smoother' bokeh, you will need to use long lenses with relative wider max aperture,<br> like 2.0/200 VR<br> http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/image/113151693<br> of 2.8/400mm (didn't't have that one. didn't need it),<br> or even 4/600mm (even when used with a TC 1.4)<br> http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/image/113151693<br> wide open.</p> <p>My two cents</p>

<p><em>Paul, I'm not sure that comparison to film cameras is relevant. Digital cameras tend to get fired a lot more frequently than with film. Especially for amateur or enthusiast use. With digital there's no mental cash register going "kerrching!" with every shot taken.</em><br /> <em>Plus I have an F4 that split its cheapo plastic top-plate after a moderate bang, and then refused to work until the cracked plastic top was removed and a dent pulled from the frame counter wheel. Reliability has nothing to do with being film or digital, it's just plain design, materials and workmanship that have gone downhill. Plus complexity and automation add to the number of things that can go wrong.</em><br /> <br /> I didn't make the comparison between film and digital bodies with the number of shots taken in mind (although I must have taken tens of thousands with my F2, considering the average of one to two 10 feet canisters of Tri-X I used to 'digest' per month between 1979 and 1989, without taking the numerous color and slide films I shot alongside on my FE into account), but indeed as you say on design, materials and workmanship.</p> <p>The 'old' metal film bodies simply were built a lot sturdier, due to being mostly from metals in an age before plastics became as strong and widely spread as they are now . I eg still shoot with my FE despite the metal housing covering the prism being bent (to such a degree that the ring on the lens mount with the aperture prong won't return to 'normal).</p> <p>I'm not saying every camera should be subjected to, let alone sustain, the kind of abuse Don McCullin's F1 had to. But exactly due to differences in design, materials used and workmanship, modern DSLR's (and likewise the late 80's more 'plastic' orientated film SLR's, see your F4 cheapo plastic top plate) simply can't take banging around that well.<br /> <br />And sometimes it's just the luck of the (unlucky) draw, as witnessed by the complaints over broken shutters on new/nearly new camera's despite being rated for 100.000 shots and more, that pop up from time to time</p> <p> </p><div></div>

<p>Pretty hard to guess what you exactly mean with 'reliability', really depends on how you use your/any camera and take care of it.</p> <p>I e.g. think/find that modern DSLR's are far less 'reliable' then my old film SLR's like the F2 and FE, which could stand far more physical abuse due to hard use. I have the scuffed to bare brass sides and prisms of those film camera's to witness what they were subjected to without giving a hiccup. Even had plastic parts of F801 and F90's chipped of after I fell with them while shooting in the streets, no serious problems that a bit of glue and tape couldn't fix afterwards.</p> <p>Wouldn't think of submitting a DSLR (I have owned and still use D1, D2 and D3 bodies) to the kind of hard use my film cameras were 'victim' of ( consequence of having to shoot with, and constantly switch and inevitably banging against each other, multiple bodies and lenses, and film, during events like sports, PJ work and fashion shows).<br /> In contrast I eg once 'dropped' a D3 from no more then maybe one foot, bottom down, on a concrete floor, resulting in a misaligned AF module I then had to bring it to my NPS service center for. Similar experience with my D800 (didn't drop that one, but slammed it into a doorpost when I had it hanging from a shoulder)</p> <p>Anyway, the DF. Got mine shortly after the introduction, so had it almost as long as it's been available. Not a match for the built quality of the D1/D2/D3, even the D800 feels more sturdy. Seems, due to the magnesium alloy used for it, very/alarmingly light coming from those bodies but at the same time that light weight and smaller size are at times a welcome relief.</p> <p>Nevertheless no issues with operational reliability, just pop the battery in, switch it on and go. No knobs or dials getting stuck or falling of (even if the battery door is indeed a very flimsy plasticky thingie), no electronic problems so far (and none expected).</p> <p>Not clear what you mean with dust issues. You can get sand/dust on the sensor of any DSLR if you're sloppy enough (once met a surf photographer complaining about the 'dust problem with his D300, which turned out to be little surprising as he used to leave the body without lens or bodycap facing up while shooting on the beach).<br /> If you use common sense when switching lenses and keeping the camera clean, I personally don't have any dust problems. As an NPS member I e.g. am entitled to a free camera check and sensor cleaning at least one a year for each body, and with my D2X and D3's only really needed that 2 or 3 times over a period of more then 10 years despite heavy use on the beach.</p> <p>Like in any electrical device, battery capacity diminishes when working under cold conditions for a prolonged period, no particularly 'bad' experiences in that respect. But I always keep, with any camera, an extra battery warm in a pocket, so if that problem does occur I just switch. Also, since I usually shoot my DF with manual lenses, electrical consumption in my case usually is very low anyway (basically only for the mirror, light meter and shutter release).<br> <br />AF under extreme low light is not on par with the e.g. D3. Center AF point is pretty much OK, but using the side AF points under those conditions is challenging. From what I read the D750 (and D500?) is a better choice in that respect. But as said, I usually shoot manual focus lenses on my DF anyway, so that's not much of an issue for me.</p> <p>My two cents</p>

<p>If I read your question correctly, you basically don't want to photograph your work/paintings in the 'classical' way of shooting artwork, but rather the contrary, actually underlining the boldness of the colors, and texture of the uneven way the paint has been applied.</p> <p>To create some kind of light and shadow play, you will have to create a light set up that will emphasize the structure of the surface by creating shadows, and avoid a fill light which will cancel that very effect.<br> In that case I don't think the classical set up of two soft light sources in opposing positions (as described in the link an earlier reply) will give you the result you're after, since that is intended for reproduction of the painting without shadow, structure, or possible reflection from the paint used.</p> <p>IMO you would have to place one 'hard' light source on one side, which will create the shadows, and consequently show the structure of the paint, on one side, and a second, softer, one on the opposing side which will help avoid too much contrast, and consequently too dark shadows and loss of detail.</p> <p>I don't know if you have some kind of studio where you will be taking the photo's, and if so, how much you can black out that space.</p> <p>But if you can block out daylight, the cheap and dirty solution could be to buy two simple building site type lamps (or more if your paintings are large sized) and place one bare lamp, without any kind of modifier like an umbrella or softbox, on one side, and the other one, with some kind of modifier that will make its light softer, on the opposing side.<br> The 'bare' lamp will create the structure you're after, while the 'soft' one will help avoid the a fore mentioned totally blacked out shadows and loss of details.</p> <p>You may risk that the 'hard' light will cause unwanted reflections if you have applied shiny paint, but that can easily be canceled with a polarization filter. That filter will also enhance the intensity of the colors. although you of course influence that in post processing.<br> In any case I would recommend to take at least one shot per painting including a color card, so you'll easier be able to stay true to the original colors in postprocessing.</p> <p>Of course you can also use 'real' photolamps, or speed lights, or even studio flash units for this kind of set up, depending on what you already have, and how much you want to spend.<br> But the building site type lamps are probably pretty cheap at your local DIY shop, and compared to speed lights, let alone studio flash units, a relative small investment to start with and play around until you find the light set up that gives you the result you want.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Guess you guys all know better then Nikon itself<br> see page 98 from the manual<br> https://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/14266/~/users-manual---d40x---guide-to-digital-photography<br> <br /><br /></p> <div></div>

<p>Your statement that PRE AI lenses can be used on bodies like the D40, D60 and D3000 is explicitly incorrect</p> <p>They lack the Ai coupling ridge which allows automatic aperture control with the bodies (and most modern DSLR's) you mention, and if mounted nevertheless, will seriously damage the non retractable Ai-lever on the lens mount of those bodies, lens mount itself, and possibly the lens as well, with all ensuing repair costs.</p> <p>Only DSLR a PRE Ai lens can be used on without risk of damaging the Ai-lever is the Nikon DF<br> <br /> Please read<br /> https://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/5366/~/what-is-the-difference-between-an-ai-lens%2C-an-ai-s-lens%2C-and-non-ai-lens%3F</p> <p>Ai and Ai-S lenses can be used on older DSLR's like the D40, D60 and D300 albeit with stop down lightmetering only (shoot, check on the LCD, adjust, and shoot again until you like what you see / the histogram says the exposure is correct).</p> <p><br /> On more modern DSLR's like the D3 and D800 Nikon has a custom menu for entering a limited number of non chipped Ai and Ai-S lenses (focal length and max aperture) which, after being selected manually for each lens when used, can then be taken into account by the camera during light metering (and which will show accordingly in the EXIF data)</p> <p>So if you want to check your PRE Ai and Ai/Ai-S lenses on a DSLR, forget about the PRE Ai lenses (unless you have a DF), and go ahead with the Ai and Ai-S lenses on any other Nikon DSLR (with the above mentioned limitations)</p><div></div>

<p>Since the units are second hand and come from B&H, it's very likely they have not been used for a longer period.<br> In this (very old) discussion (here on Photonet)<br> http://www.photo.net/photography-lighting-equipment-techniques-forum/007khy<br> it's mentioned that in case of a long period of non use, that might influence the functionality of the flash's capacitor</p> <p>I have noticed that my my old studio flashes would initially take a (at times quite long) period to recycle or sometimes even just start up, after I had dusted them of for use again ( I a.o. still have a couple of Hensel Economy 500W units I bought in the late 80's, as well as a couple of 2nd hand Bowens Bronze and Silver monoblocs)<br> <br />But after having left them plugged in for some time (half and hour or more), I found that would improve and get back to the standard approx 2 seconds at 500 WS (full power) and faster at lower settings<br> <br />So my recommendation would be to, before returning your units to B&H, first leave them plugged in and switched on (obviously you can switch the modelling lights off) for an hour so so, and then see if the recycle times have improved.<br> I have started to plug my old units in for an hour or so each month to avoid the kind of problems you mention.</p>

<p>If I were in your shoes, I would, before venturing further into photographing models, first try and find out what kind of pictures you would like to make/emulate.</p> <p>Right now, you have fulfilled the ultimate GWC dream: you shot a model, and she was naked to make things 'perfect', and you have been experimenting with 'strobist'<br /> But I always wonder when I see these kind of 'first time ever with a model' pictures why the models always have to be nude, and what the obsession with 'strobist' is.</p> <p>Photographing a model dressed already is hard enough , and for most men the added factor of the model being naked adds an extra challenge, to say the least, to overcome.<br /> After all, you don't want to look like a perv and ask the model to pose in a way that adds nothing extra but at best maybe fulfill a hidden desire , or seem like you want to make advances on her, or to be after anything else other then 'art'.<br /> So why add the additional burden of the nakedness when you still have to find out how to make a decent picture of a model at all?</p> <p>With regards to the 'strobist thing', right now IMO your 'strobist' technique consists of blasting some flash into the face of the model. Sure, you're suppressing/nearly excluding the available daylight, but does that really add something extra to the picture,apart from 'my, it's really getting dark now'?</p> <p>I first started experimenting with off camera flash using TTL's in the late 70's (it wasn't called 'strobist' back then, just simply playing around with of camera speedlights, non TTL Metz units in my case), and basically was intended as an alternative for out of reach priced studio flash, and some kind of solution for on site (outside the 'civilized' world with a power grid) lighting.<br /> In those days 400 ISO was the highest usable setting (sure, Tri-X in super diluted could be pushed up to 3600 ISO, if you dared, but the results would be 'experimental' at best) so getting some extra light was a constant quest.</p> <p>You however have a top of the line modern DSLR with excellent high ISO capabilities, so unless it's really dark outside, you can easily bump up the ISO ans still get excellent pictures IQ wise.<br /> Sure, if you go really high (6400+) you might end up with some grain/noise, and yes, when shooting with your lens fully/nearly full open you won't get 'razor sharp' images.<br /> But why add the extra burden of a technique you still have to learn to master/really use to your advantage when you are still trying to find out to get something hopefully resembling the picture you have somewhere in the back of your head?</p> <p>I shot this picture http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/image/156849793. I was by myself, no assistant to help me with reflectors, no time to set up an elaborate on site lighting set up (just walking around during a 'Fantasy' event). So day light only in the deep shadow (under trees), exposed on the highlights (the light filtering in through the leaves in the background, so that at least would not be burned out). Consequently the model and her clothing were quite heavily underexposed (somewhere around three stops).<br /> Yet, as you can see, I have been able to get a very decently exposed picture with usable highlights and still detailed shadows, using only Nikon NX2.4.6 (so no Capture One, no Photoshop etc), simply by using the same kind of 'burn and dodge' techniques I used to play around with in the 'good old' film days, without need for on site flash units, reflection screens, assistants etc.<br /> Same here, http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/image/162085891 , shot in the late afternoon of an mid December day, no flash, no reflector, in the shadow of some buildings.<br /> I'm quite sure your D750 will be able to emulate the same technical level with the same basic tecnique.</p> <p>So you should ask yourself.<br /> What do you prefer, a pictures that captures what you're after but needs some technical fine tuning (which you can find out how to later). Or a technical 'perfect' (no noise, sharp all over, everything well within the 'proper' DR) picture, that is bland, lifeless, uninspiring?</p> <p>IMO when starting with a new direction in photography, you should start to try and get the pictures right first, the technique is something you can find out later (plenty of 'how to' videos and tutorials by self appointed 'experts' on the internet) .<br /> Leave the clothes on the models on for the time being, stop using techniques you haven't learned to master yet, but rather concentrate on what kind of pictures you like, would like to make, try to emulate</p> <p>Start looking around/study the work of other photographers to find the kind of pictures you like, read anything you can find on them, how they did it, what kind of technique, light etc.<br /> Basically the same things artist have been doing for ages, a 'standard' learning technique e.g. in the studios of the painters in the Renaissance, 17th century Dutch 'Golden Age' painters, and Impressionists of the 19t century, so why not in photography?. E.g. Pieter Mondriaan started with quite tradition landscapes and still life before he evolved into the characteristic style he's known for nowadays.<br /> Try to imitate them, accept you will fail initially, and do it all over again and again, and hopefully pick up some things along the way (and develop your own personal taste).</p> <p>But don't extra barriers in your way when you're just starting, keep it simple. After all, I bet your first efforts with cooking started with maybe fired eggs and bacon, but not with a five course meal (I started with the fried eggs :) ).</p>

<p>@1 : Especially nowadays having a model release signed when working with a paid model is IMO to be recommended.</p> <p>Compared to the past (I'm an old hand as well who started shooting models for agencies as early as in the 80's) there now seems to be discussion on the use of the pictures.</p> <p>This however can be IMO easily explained with the widespread use of Face book, Instagram etc., where posting an image basically, due the the User conditions, mean handing over all rights.<br> Which of course may not agree with the model/agency, who, in the case of the model, may not want to have her pictures on a particular site or circuit, or, in the case of t the agency, does not agree with the pictures taken of the model and possible commercial use of them.</p> <p>@2: To begin with, always double check that you're working with an legally adult person, simply to avoid any future problems in that respect.</p> <p>And if you do, I would always insist to have a third person around when shooting nude and/or lingerie. Basically same reason, better safe then sorry, why risk gossip of rumors afterwards of sleazy or creepy behavior</p> <p>In a commercial shoot this is more easy of course (make up artist, stylist), otherwise some kind of chaperone will do.</p> <p>On a side note, I personally have no problems with parents being around when doing a 'start up' shoot for an aspiring model (just did one this weekend http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/recent_uploads)</p> <p>Yes, the father was a GWC, so he initially was 'the photographer' while I started as the MUA. But during the day it became clear who had more experience, and I ended up taking pictures as well.</p> <p>The mothers (2 models, 2 mothers :) ) were also busily buzzing around, proud as they were of their girls (14 and 15 years old, I know, very young, but after having had them in front of the camera I can only agree with their selection by their agency), 'helping out' with numerous clothing suggestions, advices etc.</p> <p>My 'solution' for the possible tension that might give is make a funny, silly joke about it.</p> <p>When I, before I start taking pictures, instruct the models on how to pose.</p> <p>And in the form of a silly kind of pantomime, warn them not to heed the possible 'instructions' their mothers might be giving them behind my back. The rolling eyes, stuck out tongue and funny contortions I make help create a relaxed atmosphere (I think it's very important the 'photographer' does not take himself too serious) for the models, while they (the pantomime) at the same time are a subtle (I hope) and clear message for the mothers on how (not) to behave.</p>

<p>Considering you are using a crop body, the 1.8/50mm already is a very decent virtual 1.8/80mm, which will also allow more room for close up shots then a 85mm would.<br> A 105mm, just line a 70-200, would, on a crop body, easily become too 'long' (105mm virtuall 160mm, 70-200 virtual 105-280mm and most likely too bluky for the newborn photography you intend using it for<br> <br />That said, I (although admittedly shoot full frame) prefer either a 85mm or a 135mm for portraits/fashion/close ups. On a FX that would translate in virtual 135mm and 180, of which the latter probably is too long for your use (I prefer it over the various 200mm lenses I used to shoot fashion with.<br> <br />The 1.4/85mm (I have the AF-D) is a wonderful lens with, when shot wide open, an amazing background OOF, while still remaining ultra sharp<br> The 1.8/85 AF-D is a very capable, and affordable alternative. Not as 'magic' as the 1.4/85mm, but considering the price it can be found for (I got my near mint copy for Euro 120 secondhand) an affordable lens to buy and play with, and discover what focal length would ideal for you</p> <div></div>

<p><em>And, CNX was version 2, CNX2.</em><br /> I assume you have an original software key for the NX2 you were using<br /> If so, you can still use it with the D810 with the program Raw2Nef written by Rene (?) Bagnon<br /> I'm not sure whether I'm allowed to post the link, but I include a screenrpint from the site where you can download it</p> <p>I don't have a D810, but have considered upgrading to it from my D800. So I found and downloaded a couple of D810 (and D750) NEF to play with</p> <p>To my delight I was , with the above (very easy to work with) program, still able to process them with the copy of NX2 I have installed<br /> <br />Two, IMO minor, things;<br /> - It as far as I know only works with NX.2.4.6 (but that can still be found and downloaded from the Nikon Support site)<br /> - In the EXIF data the camera type mentioned is the D800 despite that you are using a D810</p> <p>HTH</p><div></div>

<p>double post</p>

<p>Very important thing to begin with: change the pop up flash from your D700 from TTL to Manual (setting E3 in the menu)<br> <br />In that setting, you'll be able to dial down the power setting so low it may, compared with the flash of the studioflash and the SB800, not show at all in the picture taken.<br> More importantly though, it will also no longer give a preflash (as would be the case in TTL mode) that would otherwise prematurely trigger your remote studio flash and SB800 (which as I will explain further down can be triggered via an optical cell, which reacts on any flash given, preflash, or intentional)</p> <p>Then put your SB800 in Manual Mode as well, it will also allow you to dial in any power setting according to your liking.<br> Secondly, change the setting in Custom Settings to SU-4 mode (page 67 of the manual. PDF versions of the manual can be found on the net if you don't have one). It will then become a 'simple' speedlight with an optical trigger (which will react on any flash, either from your camera, or someone elses).<br> Don't fool around with the CLS Master and remote settings, leave that on Off, as is has no role in what you intend to use your SB800 for.</p> <p>Most studio flashes have an optical cell as well (my Bowens and Hensel ones do), so now, if you take a shot, your camera will emit a flash (very weak if desired) without a preflash which would otherwise deplete your remote flashes prematurely, but which will now trigger your SB800 (take care that the opticcal cell is pointed in the direction of the camera) and your studioflash.<br> If your studio flash doesn't have an optical cell, just buy a simple optical slave cell which you then connect with the (plugged in) flashcord of the studioflash</p> <p>So if you now take a picture, all three flashes will go at virtually the same moment and you'll have your picture properly (hopefully, or at least not under exposed due to an unintended preflash depleted SB8000 and studio flash) picture</p> <p>HTH</p><div></div>

<p>Guess you're not waiting to get a non relevant, non practical, theoretical answer, so here's my take.</p> <p>Picture 1 and 2 : large (obviously) diffused light source. Could be a softbox, or a beautydisk with diffuser sock. Judging by the shadows under the nose and chin (pict 1) and cheekbones, position was high. In pict 1 you can see the image of a large reflection screen in the eye, so very likely one was used for fill. Not in pict 2 though, as witnessed by the deeper shadows.</p> <p>Pict 3,4 and 5: Hard direct lightsource, although, as the shape of the lights as reflected in the eyes of the models seems to indicate, probably not open reflectors or 'standard' beautydisks (which would show as round shapes). Maybe softbox with a grid, or a beautydisk with a square reflector (e.g. Elinchrome EL26163 + Square Grid EL26057).<br> Plus additional reflectors screen or maybe fill in flash (as can be seen in the bottom part pf the eyes of the models) for fill in of the, due to the higher position of the main light, downward pointing shadows under cheeks and in the necks (don't think a ringlight/flash would do, as that would basically eliminate any shadows) .<br> <br />And since these are hairshots, obviously some kind of high positioned hair light as well (as e.g. clearly witnessed by the 'ring' of shadow under the 'crown of hair' in pict 1).</p> <p>HTH</p> <p> </p>

<p>Found this when doing some searching under ' vintage with a splash of modern clothing rental' :<br> http://www.boroughvintage.com/vintage-rentals/</p> <p>Maybe a bit too 'couture' (= expensive)<br> http://www.newyorkvintage.com/<br> https://www.renttherunway.com/category/designers/decadesvintage</p> <p>Not labeling themselves as rental, but maybe, if you drop them a mail<br> http://www.charlotteobserver.com/living/fashion/article17144588.html<br> http://www.modcloth.com/shop/vintage-clothing<br> http://secondgracevintage.com/</p> <p>An alternative for buying stuff cheaply yourself (?)<br> http://garmentdistrict.com/</p> <p>Of course being based in Europe, I can't be specific for the possibilities in your area, but as you can see, there plenty of possibilities to be found already even from here.</p> <p>Otherwise try to contact stylists at modelsites like ModelMayhem and the likes, and see if they can help you out with address's, or maybe even help/work with you (stylists need pictures for their portfolios too).</p> <p>As far as models having 'having a stock of garments' that of course is beside the, as far as photography is concerned, reality.</p> <p>To begin with, just like the term 'photographer' is nowadays too loosely applied on any GWC, that also is the case with 'models'. Only too often it's just someone who's willing to pose in front of the camera, without really having some if any experience.<br> Not helped by the fact that just like any GWC can profile himself on the net as a pro photographer, there's plenty of wannabee models on the net as well, who despite lack of talent or meeting the business's demands, profile themselves as 'professional models' as well, and for the GWC's are good enough, thus instigating the inflation of the term 'model' even further.</p> <p>Unfortunately that for many 'photographers' is no objection, and too often a reason, for demanding even the most inexperienced model to strike the perfect pose with any direction or guidance of the 'photographer' despite of that. Or expecting/demanding them to have exactly the perfect wardrobe with her on the shoot (without being extra paid as a stylist, if paid as a model at all) for the pictures the 'photographer' has in mind (with an emphasis on 'in mind' as there's only too often a failure in ability to communicate that vision in practical terms).</p> <p>If the 'photographer' hasn't anything too specific in mind (for many the 'kick' of having a 'real model', dressed or 'artistic nude' in front of the camera is too often good enough already), yes, too often the wardrobe, usually just consisting of contemporary/modern casual/street wear , of the model may very well do the trick.</p> <p>But if he has some specific style in mind, he should either contact the model to specifically ask whether she has that style of clothing in her wardrobe.<br> So no noncommittal 'do you have some retro stuff' question,but a detailed, best illustrated with actual pictures found eg on the net, question on whether she has or can get access to those kind of clothes. And if she says she does, ask her to illustrate her answer with pictures (iphone is good enough) of the items she can get hold of, so a preliminary selection can be made, and any disappointment on set when actually shown prevented.</p> <p>Or, as said before, organize those items himself, by renting or buying them himself, or getting hold of them though the help/assistance of a stylist.</p> <p> </p>

<p>If the photographer has a specific theme in mind to shoot, it in my opinion is/should be his responsibility to provide the optimal conditions to obtain/make/shoot those pictures.</p> <p>Problem these days is that many photographers (and I use that term loosely) have a mind full of wild ideas, at best supported by a 'moodboard' of all kind of pictures they found on the net, but which in reality co not correspond with their own capacities and/or organizing skills.</p> <p>So what happens is that the photographer before the shoot draws an elaborate picture of what he ideally wants to shoot, and then expects the model to basically organize the whole styling (clothes. shoes, accessories) bit from their own wardrobe.</p> <p>And basically demands the make up artis (if there's one provided) to do the same as far as the make up is concerned based on (what in my exerience as a make up artist, an activity of mine next to photography) a only too often incorrect description for the kind of make up wanted.<br /> I recently experienced e.g. a request for 'natural make up' illustrated by pictures of models with heavy eyeliner and false eyelashes. Or 'film noire' make up but rather then the typical 40's and 50's film style make up actually a comtemporary version of late 70's disco make up.</p> <p>Only to at the shoot give as single feedback 'no, those are not the right clothes/styling/make up', without any further concrete input or alternative option like e.g. providing the clothes in the style desired. Whilst at best only taking the pictures which are expected to magically appear before for him to shoot, while later claiming all responsibility for the total success of the shoot.</p> <p>A succesful fashion shoot IMO consists of several elements:<br /> - concept (what are you going to shoot? Moodboard, tearsheets, videos!))<br /> - styling (clothes shoes accesories)<br /> - hair and make up<br /> - models (obviously)<br /> - logistics (where, what time, timetable, transport, food/drinks, music)<br /> - and oh yeah, photography. More then ' what camera/lens/setting/aperture do I use', but including actively coaching of the models, suggestion of poses, so not: 'no not like that, do 'something else'.And having a clear idea of your set - including lighting scheme- before hand so you don't aks a model to hold her pose 'naturally' while you make changes to the position of your lights, of switch lenses ).</p> <p>Sure, the latter is important, but if the previous items are not properly taken care of, the whole shoot risks to/will be very likely to fail.</p> <p>So if yo have a specific theme you want to shoot, I strongly advise you to organize/have a strong say in the styling/hair make up bit yourself.<br /> To place the responsibility for the styling and possibly make up/hair on the model is of course the easy way out, but if you unless pay the model extra for those things (after all, when you're being paid for a shoot, part of your fee is also to cover the expense you made for buying your equipment) as an extra fee of in the agreed upon model fee, you really can't make any claims on her if it's not what you had in mind/would have wanted.<br /> <br />Sure it may cost you extra, but hey, you want to shoot those pictures to begin with. And if things are poorly organized, but more likely to fail anyway, and then the cost for film, developing and scanning will be wasted no matter. So the extra investment in the correct clothes etc is the best guarantee to (styingwise) get the pictures you're after, rather then to save on that and to end up with pictures that are not just what you wanted despite all the money spent on the 'techie stuff'.</p> <p>As far as getting the 'correct' clothes' I would search the net for shops/designers who have stuff in that style. Ask them if it's possible to rent it, which usually is the case ('standard' fee here in Europe usually is around 20% per day).</p> <p>If the styling is more mainstreet, my experience is that the major mainstream shops (won't mention names, but the ones selling 'stylish but cheap' mass volume like e.g. the well nown Swedish one) have an easy policy on clothes bought but returned shortly after purchase (provided all the pricetags are left untouched/not cut of).</p> <p>And if you expect to shoot a theme more often, it may be cheaper to slowly start collecting certain items yourself, so you'll always have a skeleton wardrobe to fall back upon, rather then having the extra expense of hiring stuff each shoot. I recommend flea markets,thrift shops and (seasonal) sales as a good and cheap staring point for that.</p><div></div>

<p>Delete</p>

<p>I don't have any experience with the V850 nor the A360 flash units so can give any feedback on those.</p> <p>But I own a couple of Godox PB 960 batterypacks (also sold rebranded under several names) I use with my Nikon SB800 speedlights.</p> <p>The pack has two plug in's so can handle two speedlights at the time and I can say it can do so without any problems.<br> I regularly shoot catwalk and unfortunately sometimes run into really bad lit shows. I at those occasion resort to putting up up a lightstand with two or four SB800's (no modifiers like umbrella's etc) and two PB960's, which I trigger TTL with PW TT5's.<br> <br />Obviously shooting is fast (not shoot and spray, but at times short series of still at least four or so shots at one shot per second). The packs can easily keep up with that even if they have to handle two speedlights at the time while the speedlights have to cover a longer distance of sometimes over 60 feet.</p> <p>When I don't use the pack's I disconnect the batteries part from the pack, and as a rule find the packs up and running when I decide to use them some time (shorter or longer) later (actually never had any issues with that so far, knock on wood)</p> <p>HTH</p>

<p>deleted</p>

<p>For starters, I don't understand what you mean when you say you put the SB700's in M mode.</p> <p>When you use SB speedlights (I use SB 400/SB800 and SB910's) with PW's TT5's, you should not change the setting of the speedlight on the speedlight itself, but simply leave it with the M Master and R remote settings off.<br> I believe the SB700. has the same kind of button and selector set up as the SB910, so that boils down to simply setting the on/of selector on 'On', not on remote R or master M.</p> <p>Same goes for the flash mode Mode setting, just leave it on TTL or BL/TTL.</p> <p>Through the remote control M function of your camera or with the AC3 you can then set your remotes in A, M (and selected power settings) or off position.<br> <br />Secondly I don't understand what you mean with Basic Mode either. Do you mean you reset the TT5's to standard factory settings, nothing fancy with HSS etc. ?<br> I personally have been shooting with my TT5's in the above described way for years, and met no issues doing so.</p> <p>That IMO leaves three of the four option you mention</p> <p>Weak battery power on TT1 : possible, but check the batteries of the TT5's as well to be sure. The batteries of the TT1 are a bit funky, I chose to work with TT5's only as I then can use AA batteries only for all units.</p> <p>On camera TT1 connection issue : I would suggest to use a TT5 to trigger the other TT5, so you can see whether you have a problem with the hotshoe of your camera. Of course you can also check whether your TT1 is functioning correctly without having to mount it on the camera, just hold it in your hand and push the test button. If the hotshoe of the TT1 should be broken (although that usually means that the plastic is broken, not the electronics) a replacement will cost as little as 20 to 30 US $ ( US 20$ in 2011 http://www.jarodknoten.com/?p=2617 )</p> <p>Firmware update: the lastest version for Nikon is 3.800 from 2/20/2015 so if yours is from July this year you should be covered.</p> <p>HTH</p>

<p>35mm<br> http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/28mmnikkor/index.htm<br> 135mm<br> http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/135mmnikkor/index.htm</p>

<p>My recommendation would be to use flash as light source.</p> <p>The color temperature of tungsten lights will change with age and use, and of course for that reason can vary from light to light. With daylight only, it's hard to find a room with the same intensity and color temperature from one side of the room to the other.</p> <p>Flash has the most constant color temperature (I can without any issues of the color temperature mix my old Hensel flash units with my Bowens Gemini's, or my Nikon SB800's)<br> Also, if you have any issues with spill day or available (eg tungsten or lightbulb) light, you'll in a very simple way be able to dial that out (eg by closing the curtains, lowering your ISO, closing down your aperture and dialing up your synch speed).<br> Ideally a couple of studio units would be handy, but a couple of speedlights, stands, large light modifiers, and triggers (built in optical one are quite up to it in a controlled 'studio' like environment like a livingroom, bedroom, garage) can do the trick just as easily.</p> <p>I don't recommend softboxes, you'll most likely will need big ones as I suspect the quilts won't be hankerchief or towels sized. Also to get soft, evenly spread light with a softbox the max distance to get real soft light is the square in Pythagoras' theorem, so evenly light large surfaces = extra expense.</p> <p>An umbrella is admittedly much less directed as a softbox, but in this case that might be an advantage. If one speedlight+ umbrella isn't big enough to evenly light a side, just lower it, and place a second separate speedlight with it own umbrella above it, thus making the light source twice as high. Cheaper then getting a bigger softbox.</p> <p>And contrary to what has basically become generally thought in many fora on the net, it does take advanced skill to properly use a softbox. They create, despite their name, a pretty harsh, especially when used further away from the subject, a pretty defined type of light = also harder/deeper shadows. Which demands a more advance level of skill to counter/work with, although unfortunately nowadays to many that means simply placing another softbox in an opposite position as a 'fill" light.<br> <br />Same goes for the use of a gray card.<br> Its original purpose in the film days (I'm from that generation, and it was something we were extensively 'drilled' into using during my photography eduction at the academy of art) was to measure the correct exposure, by aiming the light meter on it (in reflective mode) and thus getting a correct exposure for 18% grey, the international standard on which lightmeters, hand held and in camera's, were calibrated. It's nowadays also used/abused as a tool to get a correct color rendition, completely false and misleading, since the grey can just as easily pick up a color cast due to eg mixed day/flash light, cfl light etc.</p> <p>Best tool to be able to later correctly reproduce the colors of the quilts is an old fashioned color test card, like eg the Macbeth Color checker ( I still use card my old Agfalabor color card, Kodak used to make great one, but any brand will do).<br> Place it in the picture - take a picture with and without it of the same set up/quilt if you to be sure that you'll have a picture of the quilt without it - and later simply compare the colors on your monitor/print with those of the color card held next to it.<br> And of course you can then still use the standard tools in your software to adjust the colors to the 'correct' rendition in post processing, but you'll now have a 'unpartial' reference point to guide you.<br> <br />I assume you'll hang the quilts on the wall to photograph them, as laying them on the floor will pose challenges on where to put the camera. Hanging it from the ceiling will give problems on how to look trhough the viewfinder, make corrections, and release the shutter. Sure can be done with some scaffolding, remote external monitor and remote camera operation, but I don't have the impression you're willing/have invested in that.</p> <p>I'd place the light in 45 degree angles on the left and right of the quilts, and (although that's admittedly a matter of personal interest) use a white, and a silver umbrella.<br> The white will give a very soft light, and the silver a slightly harder one. That way you'll get a slight shadow from the silver umrella light from one side (filled in by the white umbrella, so nothing to worry about) and thus give a better rendition of the fabric/structure of the quilts. If you light them completely even and flat, the pictures risk very much to become one dimensional reproductions of what may just seem color/image filled rectangles.<br> My two cents</p>

<p>Since there have been no reaction so far and you'll probably still waiting for them here's my feedback<br> Note: I don't pretend to be an expert, just looking at them and giving a reaction based on my first impression (OK also based a bit on my experience with fashion and beauty photography)</p> <p>https://500px.com/photo/120807509/-mg-0790-jpg-by-nj-<br> Nice snapshot, but nothing that makes me say or think 'fashion' or 'portrait'. If it were one of the latter, maybe a bit too much background on the left and right which contributes nothing special to the picture, and better shot in vertical/portrait mode<br> https://500px.com/photo/120807511/-mg-0864-jpg-by-nj-<br> Better, shame about the almost burned out hat rim. The bunny teeth are funny, don't know if the 'model' agrees though<br> https://500px.com/photo/120807513/-mg-0858-jpg-by-nj-<br> Again, better. The hat holding thing is a bit 'standard' beginners pose, but then your 'model' probably is.<br> Out of focus background nicely done, but maybe you cold have used more of the tree/shrubbery, and less of the parking/market on the left side in your picture to create a more pleasing backdrop<br> https://500px.com/photo/120807515/-mg-0985-jpg-by-nj-<br> OK first time (?) effort for a 'studio' portrait<br> https://500px.com/photo/120807517/-mg-0859-jpg-by-nj-<br> Funny spontaneous snapshot, but again not really 'fashion' or 'portrait', but as said nice funny shot.<br> https://500px.com/photo/120807519/-mg-1000-jpg-by-nj-<br> Similar to mg-0985-jpg-by-nj-, so basically nothing new to say.<br> Only thing that comes to mind is that the shadowy approach, with consequently shadows under the eyes, chance of wrinkles, and heavy shadows under the cheek/chin, may not be the best choice for shooting a female model, where usually the effort is to try and compliment/idealise her looks.<br> Don't know what caused the unnaturally white highlight on the model's right cheek (from the viewers point of view) caused. As far as I can see from the highlights in the eyes it wasn't a too bright reflection screen, maybe a bit too enthusiastic pulling of some of the shadows? </p> <p>HTH somewhat</p> <p> </p>

<p>Given that you only shoot the 'occasional wedding' I think the whole lecture on the necessity of getting a second body, specifically wedding shoots orientated lenses, and extra speedlights is pretty much overkill, to say the least.<br />Following that train of thought, there should also have been comments made for also needing to get a few D4S's, a 2.8/400, 4/600 etc. since you also mention the shooting the occasional sports event.</p> <p>If you are not satisfied with the IQ of the D90, and ask whether an upgrade to a FX/D750 will show any improvements, that should be the starting point to make any comments/recommendations on, rather then delving into what supposedly is necessary for what only is a side activity.<br> I think that you will indeed see a distinct improvement when switching from a D90 to a D750. I noticed it myself when I switched from a D2X to a D3, and even saw it between the D300 I had for a short spell and the second (intended as back up) D3 I replaced it for.</p> <p>I do think the newer sensors for the D7100 and D7200 show much improvement over the older DX sensors like e.g. the D300 and D90.<br> But from what I've learned from using/shooting with the newer model FX bodies is that with the right software and processing the files/IQ of the newer FX bodies absolutely shine, and IMO in the end are superior over those of the DX ones.<br> I'm sure that with the necessary patience, skill and TLC the files from the older DX camera's can come a long way. But if you don't have the time, patience etc, I'm just as sure that in an immediate comparison between shots at the same time of the same scene, the shots of a D750 will simply outclass those of a D90.</p> <p>And last, but not least, if you don't feel comfortable any longer with your old camera for the purposes you intend it for (and you can afford it), just upgrade to what you think you need.<br> I e.g. heard plenty of comments that I should be able to use my old AiS glass comfortably on my D3 and D800. I didn't feel like that, and got a DF instead. I love the feel, balance and way it focuses with my old glass, and am glad I made the choice, despite all the 'advice' saying using those lenses on eg my D800 would not have made a difference.<br> It's a matter of personal choice and preference, and if you don't feel you older equipment is no longer up to your intended demands (and again, you can afford it), just do it, no matter what the 'experts' say.</p>