paul_k1664875007

<p>Personally I wholeheartedly recommend moving to FX.<br> I did so upgrading from a D2X to a D3 shortly after the introduction of the D3, and haven't looked back since. Admittedly the IQ of DX camera's had much improved since the the D2X.</p> <p>But apart from the (admittedly in my personal opinion) better quality of the IQ and high ISO of eg the DF and D800 (which I own), vs D7100 and D7200 (which I don't own, but have handled and done some test shots with) I much better like the image rendering of FX lenses like the 1.8/85mm AF, 1.4/85mm AF or 2.870-200 VR when used on FX rather then when used on DX. Especially since the lenses are then utilized at their native focal lenghth (rather then being extended, with consequences for the DoF, by the DX crop).</p> <p>IMO the DX crop sensors were originally conceived as cropped for mainly economical reasons (at the time when they were first introduced manufacturing a FX sensor was much more/too expensive) and while the DX crop is a great solution for eg shooting birds or wildlife without having to buy (expensive) FX super telelenses, the latter simply also is more an economical then a technical choice.</p> <p>I don't own a D750, but seriously considered buying one when it was introduced.<br> The 36 megapixel of the D800 are great for what I shoot a lot (catwalk and occasionally some surf) where I gladly have the extra pixels for some room for cropping afterwards, and the detail and color are great for the other fashion stuff I shoot.<br> But at times it's a bit much, resulting in files of 50+ MB (even in lossless compressed mode) , which makes even my i7 Macbook Pro make an occasional run for the money. The 24 megapixel are a nice compromise between the 12 megapixels of the D3 (at times just not enough, eg when some cropping needs to be done) and the D800 (for the above stated reasons) resulting in big enough, but not oversized files which won't force you to upgrade your computer (my 4MB memory Fujitsu Siemens note book was great for the D3 files, but severily choked on the D800 ones).</p> <p>Didn't get a D750 (purely for economical reasons, already having 3 FX bodies, getting yet another one would rather be more out of NAS then necessity). But handled and did some test shooting with it, and it's a great camera. There are enough reviews around that go into the specs, but from a practical view I like the handling (nice grip, size, weight), fast AF (even under low light, important for weddings and sports) and IQ, not only widely praised for the high ISO, but also more importantly, great shadow detail recovery (sometime you can't avoid under exposing the shadows, and it's great if you can still recover them without IQ loss).</p> <p>No doubts there will be a newer and 'better' body in the works already, but IMO a great camera will still give great results no matter how many newer bodies may be introduced. Still use my D3 with great results, and that's a dinosaur by modern technical standards, so I don't think the D750 will become completely obsolete overnight if a 'newer' model would be introduced shortly.</p> <p>HTH</p>

<p>Apart from the (many) technical improvements of the 600EX vs the 430 EX (being several years newer, it has the technical improvements that come with the in electronics longer period between their introductions. Of course it's also Canon's top of the line flash, and has had many improvements on the quirks which sometimes occuured with the 580EX) the real biggie of course is the RF (radio frequency) triggering.</p> <p>Though it ( as a radio trigger) isn't compatible with the 430EX (although it is when used in optical trigger mode) it's, with an eye on a possible future expansion in off camera flash use, a very sensible investment.<br />You won't need to buy third party radio triggers like Pocket Wizards or Radiopoppers (although you'll have to buy another 600EX, or a ST-Es-RT speedlite transmitter).</p> <p>Of course on the other hand the price difference between the 430EXII and the 600EX RF is more then the price of eg a PW TT5, let alone a cheapo chinese knock of.</p> <p>So a very good flash, but at a price. It's up to you to decide if you need the many technical improvements and whether you consider it worth the extra expenditure.</p> <h1> </h1>

<p>Since you already have plenty of lightstands, just go to your local DIY and buy some pieces of ABS tubing and some coupler pieces to connect them up to the width you desire.</p> <p>Drill a hole (two actually, big hole for the top piece of tubing of the lightstand, small hole opposing it for the threaded spigot on top) in the ends of the ABS tubes so they fit over the threaded spigot end of the lightstand, and to be sure get some camera screws (I have these from Hama -see picture below-, pretty sure eg B&H will have something similar for sale) to avoid them from slipping of accidentally.<br /> You can of course also use eg Manfrotto superclamps to mount the ABS tubes on the lightstands, but apart from the extra weight, you'll still need something to secure them from slipping of the connecting (in case of a superclamp) spigot.</p> <p>I'm quite sure you'll be spending a lot less compared to a 'dedicated' background system (I did, have a background system put together like this for many years), and also will have found a destination for some of your redundant lightstands along the way (like I did too).</p><div></div>

<p>Don't know the Minota 7D from personal experience but based on the review on Luminous Landscape I get the impression that it only main difference with button/menu based Nikon DSLR's is the separate Exposure compensation dial.</p> <p>E.g. the D7200 (also AP-C so with the same crop factor as your 7D) also has a dial for the several shooting modes, and like the 7D lacks a separate dial for the shutter speeds. But like the 7D it has a multitude of dedicated buttons which allow operating specific functions, like WB, exposure compensation etc., be it at different places then on the 7D, while the shutter speed and aperture operation is also by turning wheels on the back of the body and front of the grip.</p> <p>The DF indeed has some of the above functions, like shutter speed ISO and exposure compensation, work through dials, although they can also be operated through the menu like any other modern DSLR. But keep in mind that those dials also need to be operated, intentionally or not by design from Nikon, in a very old fashioned way. I.e. in conjunction with separate locking buttons that need to be unlocked first, so are not always the fastest way to go. No problem if you're used to it (I come from shooting with older film bodies like the F2 and FE so for me it was a trip down memory lane) or don't have the urge to have everything go fast, fast, faster, otherwise it could drive you crazy.</p> <p>The Fuji X-T1 has from what I've casually read about it (being a Nikon old timer I'm not really interested in it) an even more dial orientated UI. And there's the Olympus OM-D EM-5 (if you don't mind the diminutive size boy and the, compared to eg Nikon FX, smallish sensor) and of course the Leica's (although from what I gather from your post those are probably outside your intended price range)</p>

<p>Actually, if you look at portraits shot with real north window lighting (eg Irving Penn 'Worls in a small room, my favourite, or the portraits of e.g. Julia Margaret Cameron, or Lewis Carol, the writer of 'Alice in Wonderland') you see that the shadows are far deeper and harsher then those in your pictures. So rather the filling in the shadow. upu should be using a light absorbing screen rather then a reflector.<br> <br />That said, in the picture you show now, the first thing that strikes the eye is that they are overall quite over exposed, with the high lights (see the white top) tending to near burning out (the black skirt even looks brownish rather the black in the part nearest to the lightsource).</p> <p>So for starters I would put the power of your bounced flash lower, or close down your lens opening. (I see no risk of spill light from your already bounced light into the picture, that IMO is only a very small, and mainly theoretical risk). Yes, you can put your model further away from the lightsource, but the result will basically be the same.</p> <p>If you adjust your exposure for your highlights, your shadows will automatically/inevitably get deeper, which you say you don't want. I wouldn't go for complicated or expensive (like being an extra flash for frontal flash, which is contrary to the character of north window lighting anyway) solutions though.<br> Just put a white (for a soft fill) or silver (for harsher fill) reflection screen just outside the frame or the picture at a 45 degree angle opposite of the model. This way the shadow will flow gradually from light to dark which is probably what you're after.</p>

<p>Did you check that the AF switch on the left side of the lensmount of the body (!) is in the AF position?<br /> <br />If it's on the M setting, the AF selection in the menu can't indeed be selected with the cursor</p><div></div>

<p>Placing several speedlights alongside on a bar will not improve the quality of the light, only the quantity which will translate in a faster recycle time between shots, or being able to use a higher f stop.<br> The effect will still remain that of a pointed lightsource, sharp and harsh, even if coming from a physically wider source</p> <p>If you really want to improve the quality of your light, I would consider not only putting several speedlights on a bar, but also add some type of modifier to change the character of the light<br />.<br> Maybe this video from Joe Mcnally will help

<p>Looking at the picture and the technical info you listed I would like to add the following</p> <p>A 300mm wide open will inevitably result in a very shallow DoF. Yes, stopping the lens down will improve that, but it will (at such close range) remain shallow nevertheless.<br> A better option might be to use a 'shorter' lens like a 135 or 85mm (but you'll be close to your subject which could influence the spontaneity).</p> <p>Also stopping the lens down will result in a sharper/less OoF background, which you may or may not find a problem.</p> <p>And lastly, when looking at the picture, it appears to me that the focus is in the forward part of the picture (the hair falling over the - from a onlookers point of view- left side of her forehead) is very much in focus, while the eyes seem a lot softer.<br> Aiming the focus point more precisely on the eye/eyes may very well result in getting the nose and mouth sharper (I don't want to start a discussion over possible front focus, those discussions usually end up in too much pixel peeping).</p>

<p><em><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=6929144">Dean Taylor</a>, May 13, 2015; 05:41 a.m.</em><br /> <em>thanks to the three of you this early Wednesday morning...</em><br> <br /> Where I'm based it's already well past noon and lunchtime, so no trouble</p>

<p><em><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2085864">Frank P.</a>, May 13, 2015; 04:42 a.m.</em></p> <p><em>Use the "AF-On" button on the back of the camera.</em></p> <p>Close, but incorrect.</p> <p>The AF-On button on the F100 only activates the AF, and has no link to the metering (I'm one of the old guys who bought it shortly after introduction and have actually shot extensively with it. Still have it lying around despite not having used it in earnest for years, and still have the original manual).</p> <p>The F100 on the other hand also has a AE/AF-L button left of the AF-On button which through the CSM 2.1 option can be programmed to lock the exposure (only, so no longer locks the AF) while recomposing. Keep in mind though that to unlock the 'fixed' exposure (when eg taking a next picture) the AE-L button has to be pushed again.</p>

<p>I also have a couple of old flash units (Hensel Economs, Bowens Silver and Bowens Monolite 400) from back in the late 80's. They still work, even if, just like you, I haven't used them for a long while, in the order of 10 to 15 years.</p> <p>Just like you I also decided to plug them in again some time ago. The reason was that I read that prolonged non use could influence the capacity of the thyristor ( see chapter 2.2 in this article http://photo.toomastamm.eu/flash-faq ) and possibly even cause them to stop working (and which is the reason why any flash needs to be put under charge regularly).</p> <p>I however found that when I plugged them in for the first time after the aforementioned long break, it initially took a really long time for couple of them to finally charge, which however they did eventally (and as said they have kept working -again- flawlessly since).</p> <p>Recently I decided to also plug in my Metz 60CT4's, again after a more then 15 year long break (the original Dry fit batteries which dated from the late 80's, early 90's turned out to be dead, as was to be expected after not having been charged for such a long period).<br> <br /> When I started to do some test flashes in high fps at a low output, one of them started smoke/smell and since only can give a full power rather than (also) lower capacity flash. Can't blame the flash for breaking down after such a long period of negligence, but it does prove the point that the thyristor needs to be put under charge regularly, or else .....</p> <p> </p>

<p>I got my F2AS in 1980 (it was literally the last F2 my camera shop had, as the F3 at that time was introduced) together with a.o. a 43-86 zoom (last version, so the IQ was pretty good). Still have them, even if I haven't used them for a long while since switching to digital.</p> <p>From a practical point of view I find digital a blessing (no more 36 shots per film, nor lugging along at least two bodies - one color, one b/w - , no more '400 ASA is the limit', no more endless hours developing fim, or printing in the darkroom).</p> <p>But for nostalgic reasons I still cherish certain aspects of shooting film. Being a long time user of Tri-X, I still love the grain when pushed one (or more ) stops, never cared much for getting the 'sharpest' picture possible.</p>

<p>Strictly speaking, I think the difference isn't so much in the usage, as simply in the picture itself.<br> A headshot is what is it, a shot of a head, while a portrait can vary from a close up to a full out, to even shooting the subject as a small object in a relevant much wider surrounding (environmental portrait).</p> <p>Although even if the 'classic' definition emphasizes that in a portrait the face and expression should be predominant, with the intent to display the likeness, personality and even the mood of the person, as far as that's concerned nowadays only too often (see eg many 'streetportraits' shot during holiday trips, or pictures in 'popular' magazines) they're simply either shot in sniper mode with a long lens from a distance without any personal contact with the subject, or crops cut out of a larger picture.</p> <p>The copyright of the picture should always be/remain with the photographer (although with some jobs that can be bought or even claimed - as is eg the case with a major magazine publishing company in the Netherlands - by the client).</p> <p>The usage is simply a matter of whatever has prior to the shooting been agreed upon. A photographer may see the picture he took as an artistic accomplishment, while the client may only think it a nice picture which he can use for whatever purpose he thinks fit.</p>

<p>I use the DF with SB800/910's in combination with TT5's (not a MiniTT1, but that should not be an issue) and can use the flashes with a shutter speed up to and including 1/250th without a problem.</p> <p>I would check the firmware of the slaves (for both the MiniTT1 and FlexTT5 - Nikon- the latest version is 3.800) and check with the PocketWizard Utility if something maybe has slipped into a weird setting somewhere along the way.</p> <p>If you don't have any major settings changed (like eg HSS), I would perform a Factory Reset http://www.pocketwizard.com/inspirations/tutorials/reset_mode/ to be on the sure side</p> <p><strong> </strong></p>

<p>Try this one<br> http://www.bagnon.com/raw2nef/<br> It's for free, but donations are appreciated, and IMO well deserved</p> <p>Converts o.a. files of the Nikon D750, Nikon 7200 and Nikon D810 for use in NX 2.4.6 (very important. not in NX 2.4.7!!)<br />Easy to install, works like a charm in my experience for the D750 and D810, don't have a D7200 but see no reason to expect any issues there</p> <p> </p>

<p>Misleadingly simple lighting (recently attended a Broncolor demonstration so saw firsthand how things were set up).</p> <p>Yes, one big (very big, nowadays big parabolic reflectors like as eg the Briese 330 Focus, Broncolor Para) lightsource from the (in the pictures you posted) high right very carefully placed to get the optimal result of evenly lighting the main subject (as Bron calls it, the '3D Effect').<br> Sometimes with a fill from the front (although the 'spill' from the aforementioned types of lightsources also/already do a decent job in that respect) to lighten up the shadows.</p> <p>White background, with blocking screens to create darker (and consequently grey) zones.</p>

<p>Since you at this moment intend to use your new camera for your photography course/school why not get a FM, FM2, FE or FE2 rather then a AF film body? (I still have my old F2AS and FE, and F90X and F100 so can make a pretty fair comparison between the old manual and later AF film bodies)</p> <p>Yes, you'll lose the AF and winder, and the old style dials and exposure metering will slow you down. <br> But you'll be forced to work much slower, and much more deliberate, then when using all kind of automated stuff.<br> And that may be more beneficial for your learning process, and your technical knowledge on the long term.</p> <p>Same goes for buying some old AiS glass.<br> Yes you'll have to focus yourself, but gain will get much more real photographic experience on the way (no more point and shoot). Also the quality of many of the older manual lenses is far superior to later low end AF glass.<br> Of course you can later still use them Nikon DSLR's for photography, but also video (for which they have in particular been rediscovered lately http://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/content/nikons-manual-focus-lenses).</p> <p>And with an adapter on many types of mirrorless camera's which if you believe the internet hype are the future.</p>

<p>Don't really understand what you mean with 'paint like' look.</p> <p>I think that with regards to the Kodachrome shots (which film BTW is no longer produced http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2011/02/last-kodachrome-slide-show-201102 , so little use pondering over the 'correct' way to shoot it) basically the rule of thumb that goes for any slide film applies i.e. always slightly under expose as it's easier to retrieve the shadows contrary to rescueing any over exposed areas, which is virtually impossible.</p> <p>As a consequence. prints from slides will allow more contrasty images, with deeper colors and shadows compared to shots from negative fims. And of course while printing, the colors themselves can be influenced by changing the CYMB values of the enlarger, which BTW is also a way of manipulating the image.</p> <p>While the 4th image is clearly (somewhat) overexposed resulting in the burned out skin tones, the 5th and 6th shots seem not to have been printed to the deepest tones, which results into the unsaturated colors and somewhat milky deepest shadows. Also in those pictures some kind of diffusion filter seems to have been used.</p> <p>Lighting does not seem very complicated, in the first 4 pictures mainlight with fill (ight or reflector), pict 5 and 6 large diffuse lightsource, possibly very big softbox/hazelight or daylight from a big window ('nothern light'), last 3 shots difussed beauty disk with fill.</p> <p> </p>

<p>The result after some playing around</p><div></div>

<p>In my experience there no special compensation for using a hand held lightmeter with a telelens exists.</p> <p>What does play a role however, is that a hand held meter light meter takes its reading over a certain angle of view, which is usually much wider then that of a telelens. Consequently when e.g. shooting a landscape, much more of the usually bright sky is taken into the calculation, resulting in underexposing other areas.</p> <p>That is why eg Gossen has special tele metering adapters for its Lunasix, Mastersix etc meters</p> <p>With regards to the landscape picture you posted, I don't think that any meter can compensate for the dull light it was taken in. I however downloaded it to have a go at it and found that by playing around with the levels and curves you can easily add a bit more punch to it.</p><div></div>

<p>Or you could just get a few contact lenses which light up under blacklight</p> <p>http://www.brilliantcontacts.com/black-light-contacts/<br> http://www.grimmbrothershalloween.com/blacklight-contacts.php<br> http://www.clubbertoys.com/contact-lenses.html</p> <p>Not exactly expensive, similar in use as normal contact lenses, and available in various colors</p> <p>Also a lot easier to photograph with (no need for double exposures which would demand the model to stay in exactly the same position and posture to avoid a double rimmed silhouet)</p>

<p>Delete</p>

<p>IMO a D3 can, at the mentioned price, and in good condition, still be a (very) good buy for e.g. concert photography.<br> In the reactions posted there's a lot of talking about the 'inferior' high ISO, but I that a) that's way out of proportion and b) there's another far more important characteristic a camera needs for good photography under bad light, and that is a sturdy/reliable AF.</p> <p>Personally I think the whole noise thing is getting completely unrealistic to begin with.<br> Anybody remember or maybe still have a copy of the Nikon Pro Digital Special that Nikon issued at the presentation of the D1 (I do), and what the high ISO pics of the D1 looked like?<br> It amongst others featured several pictures shot at the 2000 London Fashion Week shows, and if anybody would today show similar quality pictures, he'd get immediately slammed and be told that anybody with a mobile phone could easily make better ones.<br> Yet at that time they were a revolution, beating the IQ of the high ISO films of those days (anybody remember the 3M 640T? A big jump ahead in high ISO compared to eg Kodak's 160T EPT, but you could play marbles with the grain), despite the funky colors and lacking contrast.<br> Still nowadays ISO 6400 is considered the 'new' ISO 400, and expected to be grainless, even if it's no less the 5 stops more sensitive them eg the high ISO film standard Tri-X (which BTW wasn't grainless at 400 ISO to begin with. Back then Tri-X users usually got slammed by Panatomic-X and MF shooters)) </p> <p>One reaction mentions the good lowlight performance of the DF. I have that body too so can make a fair statement on that camera when I say that definitely doesn't go for the AF. While it indeed has an excellent IQ at high ISO, the AF is only so-so under bad light, and basically only the center AF points are up to the job under those circumstances (that said, it's still much better then the internet hype makes it, and performs well under e.g. normal stage light).<br> But the AF of the D3 absolutely stands its ground under the worst circumstances (= near darkness), and is IMO superior to the D700 (which like the D300 and D800 simply doesn't snap into focus like the D3 does)</p> <p>Here's an example of how the D3 performs in real world horrible light shooting.<br> http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/20110618_academie_antwerpen&page=all<br> The Academy of Art in Antwerp has one of the leading, even worldwide, fashion colleges. The yearly shows are major spectacles that draws tv, press, critics and established designers from all over the world.<br> The shows themselves however are, as you can see, an absolute photographer's nightmare: heavy backlighting, smoke, 'artistic' light designs varying from high intensity lighting one moment, to near pitch dark the next.<br> As you can see the D3 is up to the job, even if there is noise at ISo 6400 http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/image/136095082.</p> <p>Sure, a D3s will/can be better in capable hands, but you won't find one for 800- 900 € (where I leave the lowest price is around 1800 € for a heavily used, to 2700 € for a 'near mint' one). </p> <p> </p>

<p>For starters, I think you posted your message on the wrong forum since it obviously has nothing to do with either portrait or fashion, but concerns at least product photography (but also other subjects), which could explain the low response.</p> <p>Secondly you are very incomplete with the exact details on what is exactly required or how you are shooting.<br /> It's for instance unclear to me what you mean with a transparent background. And what do you mean with shooting on a white paper background? Do you display the item directly on the paper, or do you use the paper as a background above which you display the item (on a elevated glass plate) and then take a picture of?</p> <p>It's in my experience simply impossible to photograph an items without recording the background. If the item is simple displayed on a white piece or paper it's simply impossible not to record the background/the white paper (apart from the technical challenge of shooting it shadowless).<br /> Yes, on a slide film a white background will record as a blank piece of emulsion on/transparant piece of the slide. But when printed it will take the color of the exposed photopaper (= white).</p> <p>So, I'm guessing, do the websites require you to send in pictures of a single item which they then can later use to 'project' (for lack of a better description) on a background to be chosen by themselves (a bit like projecting a slide on a projection screen)?</p> <p>If however you want to be able to take an item photographed and later 'glue' them into whatever background you/the sites you send your pictures to may decide on, there are different approaches.</p> <p>In the old days retouchers and air brush artists made a good living cleaning up backgrounds by literally masking parts of the negatives with light blocking paints or inks. That way only part of the printing paper wold get exposed in the darkroom, and a second image could be superimposed on the print. Then when the paper was developed both exposed images would appear in one picture.</p> <p>Nowadays common practice is to shoot on a green screen and later proces the picture using what is commonly known as green screen technique to fuse with a background of your choice http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/add-any-green-screen-background-to-your-photos/.<br /> It's basically what's done in all modern spectacle fims like eg Harry Potter, the Avengers, Iron Man, Transformers etc. and also quite common in certain types of photography.http://www.photoanddj.com/GREEN-SCREEN-TECHNOLOGY.html</p> <p>So as I said, nothing to do with portrait or fashion photography, more with digital manipulation and post processing</p>

<p>I'm afraid not</p> <p>Can't remember that option was already availible on that body, and there's no mentioning of it in the review <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond1/10">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond1/10</a></p> <p>It was introduced on the D1H though <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond1h/14">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond1h/14</a></p> <p>(Had the D1 and still have my D1H)</p>