paul_k1664875007

<p><em>Basically what I'm reading is that a reflector only makes sense opposite (or close to opposite) the main light source. Is that about right?</em><br> <em> </em><br> IMO almost :) . The light of the reflector will, similar to 'normal' light, decrease in intensity the further it gets away from the source (in this case the reflector itself).</p> <p>Let's for example sake consider that your model, no matter if he/she's facing you/the camera fully frontall or is turned slightly, is on a line of 0 (zero) degrees.<br> If you have the windows at a 90 degrees angle of the subject, and the reflector exactly opposite of that, it will 'fully' light the closest part of the model, and slowly fade towards the middle. And you'll risk getting more or less the effect of two light sources, left and right, and a bar of shadow in the middle of the model.</p> <p>Again IMO, you'd rather better position the reflector between 45 and 60 degrees from the model (obviously on the shadowy side). You'll then have a well lit window facing side, and a, towards the furthest edge of the model gradually darkening side. But still not a model who's lit on one side, and (more or less) completely dark on the other .<br> <br /> <em>And a simple clamp and support should work since I'm not doing any crazy lifting or downward angling with it.</em><br> IMO, yup</p> <p><em>The light is coming from large factory windows on one side.</em><br> Sounds great, I'm jealous. Having wild fantasies about a derelict big empty factory hall filled with old machinery, patches of shadow and light and the possibilities that would give (e.g. the pictures of anne rohart dominique by issermann http://www.argentic.fr/product-12337.html ).<br> Lots of success with the shoot.</p>

<p>Pointing a light down at a 45 degree angle in a portrait is with regards to the height of the light indeed the best position in portraiture. Even with large/body length size softboxes as the mainlight they as a rule are still aimed in a downward direction.<br> But positioning a reflector in a high position in addition to that already high positioned main light is actually quite contraproductive.</p> <p>The aim of using the reflector is to fill in the shadows that are created by the main light, and logically if that is positioned high, the shadows will appear low, i.e. under protruding facial/body parts like eyebrows. underneath eyes, nose, eyebrows, lips etc.</p> <p>If you position the reflector in a high position as well, the reflected light will no little to nothing to fill in those shadows created, and even risk enhancing them even further since there will be more light coming from above and (still) nothing from below.<br> At best/worst the effect created will be as if all the light is coming from above, great for dramatic effects ( e.g. used by director Jozef von Sternberg in the 1930 classic 'Die Blaue Engel' to give Marlene Dietrich dramatic cheekbones, since she actually had at that time a full faced farmer girls face. Or on the Diana Ross 'One Woman' album cover http://fullalbumsarchivesc-d.blogspot.nl/2008/02/diana-ross-one-woman-ultimate.html). But not of much use for 'normal' portrait/beauty/fashion photography (unless it's actually the effect you're after)<br> <br />Based on my personal experience with beauty and portrait photography http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/beauty I'd rather recommend to position the reflector anywhere between parallel (for e.g. a three quarter of full out) to below the model (e.g. for a close up beauty shot) so the reflected light can fill in the shadows created by the main light.</p> <p>In my experience you don't need any intricate or complicated constructions to attach you reflector to. I often just use a surplus lightstand and a simple clamp in case I want the reflection screen in a vertical, and a table, chair or even just an armrest to lean the reflector against/support the reflector when I want it in a upward pointing or even horizontal position.</p> <p> </p>

<p>The D700 is a great body, but (relatively) older technology.<br /> Of the three bodies you mention, the D810 is, based on the opinion as stated by many users on the internet, the best pick. For me though the improvements over its predecessor were not enough to justify the financial loss that would come with an upgrade, so I have held on to my D800.<br /> <br />I got the D800 shortly after the introduction as my back up D3 was kind of redundant since my main D3 would not break down, and I also wanted a body with more megapixels (although 36 is a bit much, would have preferred 24) since I also shoot fashion.<br /> Found the high ISO and the AF on par with the D3 (which in itself is faster then the D700), even if the AF of the D800 isn't as snappy as the D3. Never had any issues with the notorious (in particular on the internet) left sensor AF issue.</p> <p>Used the D800 for a.o.<br /> sports (surf) http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/20130420_surffrenzy (with grip in DX mode)<br /> and runway shows http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/20120902_pc_catwalk_5th_anniversary (with a 2/200VR + TC14EII)<br /> and in my experience both fps and AF have no problems with fast moving subjects even when shooting under less the ideal light http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/201411122_5_hrs_fame<br /> <br />IQ and overkill in pixels make it IMO ideal for landscape, and the pixels can also be an extra when shooting fashion for reproduction of fabrics and details (never had any issues with possible moire or banding).<br /> On the other hand that same detailed reproduction may be a problem when shooting portraits, with a very sharp lens like the 70-200VRII (which I also have) the ultra sharp reproduction of pores and wrinkles may not be appreciated by the models.<br /> <br />The other lenses you consider aside from the 70-200 seem to fit the intended subjects you want to photograph, although I would consider to get a 85mm as well as as a short tele lens alternative e.g. when shooting fashion in the studio.</p>

<p>Generally speaking, unless you shoot with a studioflash that allows changing the settings via your Sekonic meter ( I believe the Paul Buff's and some Bowens do) the solution for your problem is simple if somewhat labor intensive.<br> For the sake of discussion let's assume you're using a studioflash with an open reflector (so without any kind of diffussor like a softbox or umbrella), or a speedlight, both pointed directly on the subject. To keep things simple let's also assume you can change the output on the studioflash, if only by hand, (or are able to put the speedlight in Manual mode).</p> <p>Select the power level on your flash which you think will get the desired amount of light for the exposure of f2.8 at ISO 100 you're after, let's say 1/2 power.(in the case of a speed light, reduce the output in a similar way).<br> Position the light at the distance and angle where you (depending on the kind of lighting, and shadows created) you think you want it be.<br> Dial in the ISO 100 you stated you want to work with on your flash meter, and take an exposure reading (incident reading, from the position of the subject in the direction of the camera).</p> <p>Let's say you get a reading of f11 at ISO 100.<br> This means the exposure is several f numbers/stops above the desired f2.8.<br> You can easily see on the LCD of your lightmeter how much. It shows in big numbers the aperture number found, and in the small bar underneath the range of varying values, the position where the number found is relative to the f number you're after (in the enclosed picture it's f6.3, and as you can see the 2.8 is two and a half f numbers/stops to the left).<br> In this example the aperture found is f11, giving a difference of 4 stops (i.e. from f2.8 to f4 to f5.6 to f8 to f11) so that's the effective amount of light you'll have to make your flash produce less/less to reach you subject.</p> <p>You can do that by e.g. changing the power output of the flash units, changing the distance between the flash units and the subjects, putting an ND filter on the flash units of on the lens, or changing the light modifier.<br> Of course the result can't be calculated exactly beforehand, so you'll have to probably make several changes and take several readings till after some trial and error you get the desired result.</p> <p> </p><div></div>

<p>There has been a thread on Photonet in which it's explained in detail what this conversion means and more importantly how you can see/inspect that it has actually been performed<br> http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00V6PK<br> <br />HTH</p>

<p>The lamp in the picture you've posted a link to (which BTW also opens a very annoying persistent pop up which I can't seem to be able to close in any other way then by using Force Quit on my browser and restarting my Mac) does indeed resemble the kind of construction site lamps you can get relatively cheap at your local Home Depot.</p> <p>I assume you're shooting video? Otherwise I see no urgent reasons why not to use your Aliensbees for this kind of shots considering these kind of construction lamps usually don't carry a light 'bulb' with an output higher then 400/500 Watt (contrary to eg Redheads or Hedlers which admittedly cost a lot more).</p> <p>Apart from color and heat issues (IMO a thing to well keep in mind if used so close to the glass side panel of a waterfilled fishtank. i.e. cold water on one side and a very hot heat source very close to the other side of the same pane of glass) they can consequently only create enough DoF with a small aperture number if used with prolonged exposure times .</p><div></div>

<p>I think the whole ' the 1.4/85mm is soft' thing is a wildly exaggerated story only too often based on the all too notorious internet expertise of non users 'who read about it on the internet' rather their personal experience.</p> <p>For one, lenses like the 1.4/85 and 2/135mm DC (and not to forget 2/200) have ridiculous shallow DoF when used wide open (If used several stops closed down as a standard, I personally see no advantage in buying a more expensive 1.4 lens when there also is an excellent 1.8 alternative available). So consequently high demand is put on proper shooting technique, AF calibration, and correct (= fast enough) shutterspeeds.<br /> With the 2/200 VR the latter isn't too much of an issue, since common sense (and bulk and weight of the lens) already dictates using higher shutterspeeds ( as well as use of a tripod or monopod), and it has VR to compensate for possible camera shake. The 85 and 135 on the other hand don't have VR, so when used with too slow shuttterspeeds will show unsharpness due to camera shake, a deadly combination with the shallow DoF.<br /> <br />With a fast enough shutterspeed and proper AF technique the 1.4/85 (in my case the 'old' D version)will proof just as sharp as eg the 2/200 VR<br /> 1.4/85mm D : http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/image/145046624/original<br /> 2/200 VR : http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/image/127482300<br /> That said, I think using a 1.4/85 or 2/135mm DC will prove quite a challenge to shoot wide open manually (I have both) and when used in that way a fair number of OoF shots should be taken into account due to simple physics (holding a body with a heavy lens still while at the same time trying to keep the AF field on the selected area, and simultaneously turning the focusing ring).</p> <p>It's not limited to these kind of lenses though, I e.g. have a 2.2/85mm Petzval lens (Lomography edition). When you do a search on the internet you'll find many complaints about the sharpness of that lens ( and pictures to 'proof' that).<br /> Yet when used at a sensibly high shutterspeed and proper support (the gear rack focusing system makes it in my experience close to handhold the camera still and at the same time get a sharp picture when used at the max aperture of 2.2) it can even when not using a tripod (something I generally speaking stopped doing literally decades ago) give a result that (as far as sharpness in the area focuses upon is concerned) easily matches that of more modern lenses http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/image/156857557 .</p> <p>If you really want to shoot subjects under bad light with your lens wide open however, in my experience the most important thing no matter whether you use a 1.4 or 1.8 lens (using an AF camera) is that the AF callibration is 100%, and the AF of the camera is up to shooting under bad (which usually translates in low contrast) light so you can trust the 'in focus' confirmation of the camera (just like you would rely on the hopefully sharp image on your focusing screen in the film shooting days).<br /> Yet it still is/can be a major improvement over shooting manual (e.g. compared to my F2AS shooting days using a with a K-type focusing screen, which would simply blacken out under bad light).</p>

<p>To begin with I'm a bit surprised that as a photography student you apparently don't seem to have an idea what a portrait is.</p> <p>The 'classical' definition is ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrait ) :<br /> A portrait is a <a title="Portrait painting" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrait_painting">painting</a>, <a title="Portrait photography" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrait_photography">photograph</a>, <a title="Sculpture" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sculpture">sculpture</a>, or other artistic representation of a person, in which the face and its expression is predominant. The intent is to display the likeness, <a title="Personality type" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_type">personality</a>, and even the mood of the person. <strong>For this reason, in photography a portrait is generally not a <a title="Snapshot (photography)" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snapshot_%28photography%29">snapshot</a>, but a composed image of a person in a still position</strong>. A portrait often shows a person looking directly at the painter or photographer, in order to most successfully engage the subject with the viewer.</p> <p>So obviously brainlessly blasting away 1000 shots per hour (and that conclusion seems inevitable, considering that from time slot, based on real life experience, inevitably time has to be deducted for posing the model, possible change of outfits, setting up the light, changing lenses on and/or cards in the camera, as well as having the occasional drink and toilet and possibly smoke break, since no one, model nor photographer will be able to continue posing or photographing for hours on a stretch) etc., has hardly, if anything to do with shooting a portrait.<br /> It basically is the photographic equivalent of the classical ' monkey and a typewriter ' theory ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem ).</p> <p>I can understand why your professor suggest to start shooting on a medium format film camera (although I think he's being a bit too mild and should have pointed you at other things as well). Shooting on a 6x6 camera will give you 12 shots per 120 roll film, after which you will have to change film (or film cassette, of which you no doubt won't have an infinite number of at your disposal) which will prevent you from 'scoring' 1000 shots per hour and, especially given the much higher cost and time for developing and making contact prints, force you to think before you shoot.</p> <p>If you really want to learn how to shoot a better portrait, best start by putting your camera aside for a while.<br /> As suggested start looking through magazines, websites, films etc. for the kind of portraits you like (I at least assume you actually want to shoot portraits, not just have an excuse to ask pretty girls to stand in front of your camera, or shoot girls in skimpy bikini's on the beach).<br /> Collect those images (tear pages from the magazines, or copy them on your computer, laptop, tablet). Then start to study, and analyze, how those images were taken, type of camera (no, not Nikon or Canon, but rather 35mm or medium format or even larger), camera settings, lenses used, lighting set up, shooting position etc.</p> <p>Next step would be trying to imitate those shots. Don't start that process by immediately shooting with models again though.</p> <p>Considering the 10 'good 'shots per 1000 rate you're getting now, you most likely will have as little to show for afterwards (again?), and that will not make you very popular with them, undoubtedly making their willingness to pose melt away very fast.</p> <p>Uninspiring as it may seem at first sight, do your first try out shoots on eg mannequin heads.<br /> You'll be able to experiment with light, lenses etc, n your own pace and time, till you're comfortable with what you're doing, and hopefully get somewhere near the kind of image you're after, without exhausting the patience and willingness of your 'live' models along the way (when I started my photography studies at the academy of arts many years ago, in junior year we had to practice lighting on packs of fruit juice and later om plaster busts first, and only in later college years on 'live' models).<br /> Even if initially you probably will fail miserably, you will learn from doing things in a thought through way and (hopefully) be able to repeat those you afterwards turn out to have done correctly, and avoid the ones you flunked in (and there's were digital becomes a blessing, it'll cost you only a fraction compared to what shooting film would have cost you).</p> <p>Then (I would almost say 'only then if you're serious about portraiture then') start shooting with live models.<br /> Having a collection of examples (on you computer tablet or simply in the back of your mind) you want to imitate/strive for will give you a better starting point to begin with, while knowing your technique will take away that part of the stress.<br /> Knowing what you're doing technically and having an idea what you're after will make it easier to concentrate on communicating with your models, give posing instructions (which should extend beyond the classic amateur 'go stand in front of the camera and do your thing, while I take pictures without saying a word while chimping my LCD') and get a 'click'.</p> <p>You most likely (and hopefully) won't be able to achieve the 'magical 1000 shots per hour' rate any more, but probably end up with better pictures.</p> <p> </p><div></div>

<p>Hi John</p> <p>hope you don't mind I'm posting a second reaction, but looking at your third picture some thoughts floated to the surface you might appreciate to hear (maybe not, in which case, sorry and please ignore the below).</p> <p>First thing that popped up in my mind was that as a landscape photographer you're probably very much used to always shoot literally in landscape mode i.e. horizontally. I don't think that is always the best approach when photographing a model.<br> In your case it has in two of the three pictures posted e.g. resulted in arms that seem cut of quite randomly, while at the same time the figure of the model in a similar way as a consequence ends up pretty stockily.<br> That together with the way the arms are draped (straight down parallel and close to the body) pretty much defies the intention of creating a contrast of elegant/sweeping bodylines with the straight lines of the building/rooms.<br> I'm not saying you should have posed your model in the strangely contorted ways many 'model' photographers have their models 'pose' in pictures you find on the web these days.<br> But a simple arch of the back and elegant positioning of the arms that help show something of the figure of the model can IMO sometimes do little miracles http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/image/156857544<br> <br />Also, as a consequence of shooting in landscape mode, there's a lot of building/room fighting your model for attention, when in reality it's intended (I assume) as an element to play a part in the atmosphere of the picture, rather then being the main subject (which after all is the model).<br> Following that train of thought, maybe shooting in a less sharp from corner to corner way (quite understandable for, and probably next to second nature to a landscape photographer) with a model also could be recommendable for the next shoot. I must admit I'm a sucker for shallow DoF http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/image/61045668 , so not completely unbiased in this.<br> But in the third picture posted there a lot of quite distinguishable details floating around, ending up as somewhat or more distracting, and thus pulling the eye away from the model, which most likely will not have been the intention.<br> IMHO (with an emphasis on humble) when taking pictures of a model the attention should be on her, with the rest of the elements in the picture (background, selective sharpness, DoF, light/shadows) secondary to her and used in such a way that that is best achieved.</p> <p>My two cents, HTH</p>

<p>Don't know exactly what type of advise you are looking for.</p> <p>The theme 'model in an abandoned house' has been subject for many photographers, and consequently resulted in just as many interpretations. For me personally the ones that really stuck out and still left an impression after many years were the one taken in the 80's (1987?) by French photographer Dominique Isserman of model Anne Rohart http://www.argentic.fr/product-12337.html (warning, nudes NSFW).<br /> <br />Just as you describe what you're after the building plays a major part in deciding the atmosphere of the pictures instead of just being an interchangeable backdrop.</p> <p>As far as the postprocessing is concerned, I think it's a matter of personal taste. Keeping the Dominique Isserman pictures, maybe a B/W conversion could be the trick.<br /> I downloaded the pictures and found especially the second one quite fit for that procedure (hope you don't mind)</p><div></div>

<p>Double posting</p>

<p>The FG like its cousins of the same era eg the FE/FE2/FM/FM2 has a much less sophisticated then the multipixel Matrix system in nowadays DSLR's of or even the simpler Matrix metering of the later model AF film camera's like eg the F90X and F100 (yes, the F5 had a more sophisticated matrix metering system, but at the cost of a heft price tag, while the FA had a pioneer version of the later Matrix system, but proved fragile in that respect).</p> <p>Instead its TTL metering system makes a balance between the center ( a circle of appr 12mm) and the rest of the image in a 60/40 proportion.<br> Consequently it's much more easily fooled in eg heavily backlit situations, of when shooting eg a person against a dark background were it's more likely to respectively under and overexposed.<br> That's why IMO bracketing is far more relevant when shooting film in order to eventually end up with a correctly exposed negative then on a DSLR. There you have the LCD and histogram and thanks to the near immediate feedback can on the spot check and determine the correct exposure.</p> <p>In my film shooting days I either used a Polaroid back like eg the NPC (on an extra body) if I had the time to play around (eg when shooting portraits in a studio, or for product photography).<br> When shooting people eg outside, I would make a close up reading on the face and kept that/close to that to be sure I had in any case a properly exposed face/skin.When shooting landscapes, buildings and similar large overviews I would bracket.<br> And if I didn't have the time to use either method eg when shooting PJ style, I would have to rely on my experience on how to interpret the reading the camera gave and how much I would deviate i.e. intentionally over or underexpose.</p> <p>And of course much more then today choosing the right film (low ISO like eg Panatomic X meant steeper contrast, while high IS like eg Tri-X gave wider contrast) and the way you would develop it (with a near endless choice of developers like eg Rodinal, HC110, D76, Promicrol, Leicanol etc. with just as infinite combinations of temperature, developing time and agitation) played a major part role in getting the desired end result.<br> Same would go when shooting color, slides give more contrast then negative film, and negative film should better get overexposed a little, where slides were best slightly underexposed,</p>

<p>Sorry, no question, not even pictures, at least not by me, but hopefully something that will be appreciated.<br /> <br />While doing my End of Year shopping I passed a 2nd hand bookshop where my eye fell on a reissue of the famous (?) Ed Feigersh book 'Marilyn in New York'<br /> <br />For those unfamiliar with it, it consists of pictures he took during a week in 1954 of Marilyn Monroe during the period she took refuge in New York to flee her studio contract and study at the Lee Stassberg Actors Studio.<br /> Very little info on Ed Feingersh can be found, as he died young (1925-1961) and apart from his Marilyn pictures nothing, pictures nor negatives, seems to have remained.<br> <br />Looking at the pictures it struck me that these pictures (apart from the subject, however nowhere nude or disrobed in any way, so probably that is a let down for many photographers as well) probably would never pass any of the modern, especially Internet, criteria.<br /> <br />They're shot in a very direct photojournaliststyle, seemingly almost haphazard (although some were very much posed, like eg the ones shot in the underground) on (very likely pushed) 35mm film (Tri-X?) with what based on the little info known about Ed Feingersh<br />https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.403293302712.166135.285135422712&type=3 <br />may have been a Leica of more likely a Contax rangefinder.. <br />So inevitably very grainy, often unsharp, often blurry from camera shake, and no doubt the experts will find many more faults then I can.<br /> <br />Yet like many others since the first publication of these pictures, I was quite struck by the visual impact of them, vibrant, alive, so much more catching the mood and the moment then many of the pictures taken nowadays despite the advantages of modern TTL metering, superfast AF and compared to what was possible as 'recent' as in the 1980's, let alone the 1950's, unimaginably high ISO's.<br /> <br />So maybe a lesson to be learnt on what photojornalism/people photography could or maybe even should be, or maybe I'm just plain old fashioned romantic clinging on to a by gone age style of photography ...</p> <p>And yes, I did end up buying the book :)</p><div></div>

<p>OK, I'm admittedly a bit late in the game (five years after the last message) but I ran into this thread when doing research on Ed Feingersh following the purchase of a copy of a reissue of the 'Marilyn in New York' book with his photographs.<br> He tragically lived shortly (1925-1961) and I hardly could find any details on his life, career or other work besides the Marilyn pictures.</p> <p>However I found one Pininterest post with a message of a person who knew him from his days as a Patrol Leader in the Boy Scouts<br> https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.403293302712.166135.285135422712&type=3<br> He mentions that he remembers the camera Ed Feingersh had brought back from his army stint in Germany, mentioning that maybe it was a Leica, but it could also have been a Contax.</p> <p>Also found a video on YouTube discussing the Marylin Photo's<br> and at 3min29 it shows a picture of him with his camera, off which I include a screenprint<br> I'm not an expert on either Leica or Contax, but from the time I handled a Leica M (a M3) I don't seem to recall it looking like this</p> <p>My non expert two cents</p> <p> </p><div></div>

<p>To begin with a, since you plan to use the 70-200 for close ups, very important warning.<br> You should keep in mind that it suffers from focus breathing, which in the real world means that when zoomed out at 200mm and used for close ups (like the intended 'eye' shots) it becomes a virtual 135mm, and consequently will give a less close up look then you may be looking for. Here's a link to a further discussion on this subject http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1102187/0&year=2012.<br> Also, I don't think it size will make a more discrete impression on possible sitters, it's a big lens and still can come over as quite intimidating.</p> <p>That said, it's an excellent lens (I have one myself), fast, silent, outstanding sharpness and IQ. Don't care much about the VR, but that's more because I usually shoot either in situations with enough light that allow fast shutter speeds or fast action (like surf and catwalk) where due to the moving subjects using a fast shutter speed is a necessity so use of VR has no added value in either situation.</p> <p>As far as bokeh is concerned, IMO in particular the 1.4/85 is superior over the 70-200.<br> As you say the 70-200 VRII still gives a pleasing OoF rendering of the background, but it's IMO much less compared to the 1.4/85 or 2/200VR.<br> Following a question on a different forum I posted a comparison between these three lenses on my website which you may find informative http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/85_vs_70200_vs_200 (the first 7 pictures were shot with a 2/200, next 2 with the 70-200, and the rest with the 1.4/85).</p> <p>On a side note, you maybe could have a look at the 2/135DC. Yes, I know, 20 year old design, no VR, no AFS, sometimes a bit of CA, focusing a bit challenging when using the DC function (but you can switch that of so IMO not really a big issue).<br> But smaller (and less intimidating) then the 70-200, still long enough to keep a reasonable distance from a subject even when shooting a close up, and a bokeh to dream about, IMO only less then the 2/200, but at least comparable to 1.4/85mm, and superior to the 70-200.<br> Haven't used my (recently bought) copy for portraiture seriously yet, but so far the results from my portrait test set ups show excellent promise. And of course it still is an excellent medium telelens despite the above stated IMO in the real world of taking pictures as opposed to pixel peeping and specifications splitting universe not really serious issues.</p> <p>My two cents</p>

<p>I have the impression that some of the inspiration might have come partially from the 1906 portrait by the Dutch painter Hubert Vos of the last Chinese dowager CiXi Dutch http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/death-empress-tzu-hsi (which explains the folding screen and the plant/palmtree), and from the kind of portraits of 19th century upper class ladies http://janeaustensworld.wordpress.com/.</p> <p>I agree with Micheal more pictures would have been helpful. Nevertheless I'm willing to give my maybe at first glance a bit harsh but, and I really want to stress this, well intended comments on the picture posted.</p> <p>To begin with, I don't like the background screen. It's too prominent in the picture (compare the percentage of the screen with that of the model), too busy (all those little squares draw too much attention due to the wide Dof and way it's lit) and too bright (very white, emphasized by the contrast with the darker dress, and the way it's lit: catches more light then eg the face of the model, and thus draws attention away from that). Same with the palm tree, too prominent while IMO not adding anything extra.</p> <p>The pose of the model makes her extra plump. She's a big girl to begin with (nothing wrong with that) but since she has no real back support (as she does not seem to lean on her arm) she's kind of sagged in, and consequently has no neck (one of the major features of beauty in a nineteenth century lady).<br /> The position of the legs and the direction they're pointing (forced by the position of the chair and the way she's sitting in it) adds to the general plumpness, which is already a risk due to the design of the dress to begin with.<br /> Also the position of the arm is in my opinion wrong, as it basically adds nothing to the composition while apparently not having any function (as said above she's not being supported by it).<br /> The fan she's holding with her right hand also adds nothing to it either, instead it makes the bulk of the dress draped over the knees even bigger.</p> <p>As already pointed out, the light exposes too much in areas where it shouldn't (tree, folding screen) but focuses loo little where it should be (the model, and for me in a portrait, close up of further away, that's always the face to begin with).</p> <p>My suggestion to begin with would be to crop away much of the backdoor screen and palmtree.</p> <p>Put if possible the model further away from the background, and the light closer to the model (this will also get the background more under exposed). Lower the output of the flash, and if possible take a longer lens, to decrease the Dof to get an even less prominent background.<br /> Use blocking screens (eg non transparent reflection screen you now put partially in the path of the light to block in rather then in a spot to reflect it to clear up any shadows) or barndoors on you lights (there are cheapo barndoors for sale for speedlights which work reasonably, or make them yourself from some cardboard) to flag the light.</p> <p>Next change the position of the chair/chaise longue the model is sitting on, so that her legs point more in the direction of the camera and the dress get's more definition and shape.</p> <p>If you want to stick with the present pose, have the arm she's now having hanging from her side angle more backwards with the fingers turned more to the camera (and maybe somewhat even backwards) to create a more A shape (while also covering up a portion of the models bottom which seems over proportioned now) and maybe even shoot from slightly higher (with the model sitting slight more straight up this could work without losing her neck again)</p> <p>Put more light on the face model, to give it the attention it deserves rather then getting literally out shone (sorry, don't know if that's correct English, hope you understand what I mean) by the now too overly lit background, and get some more contrast between the illuminated and the shadow parts to give it more shape.</p> <p>I've taken the liberty to download the picture and crop it a little while adding some modifications to illustrate what I mean, hope you don't mind. Obviously I can't show all the modifications I suggested, by just to give you some idea.</p> <p>HTH</p> <p>BTW Happy New Year and best wishes </p> <p> </p><div></div>

<p>deleted</p>

<p><em>I am shooting the pictures in the courtyard of a 19th century mansion, in front of the chapel and fountain. I have a attached a pic of the location, please excuse the photo, it is one of my experiments. But you can get a good idea of where I will be shooting. I shot this picture with the 18-55. The baby turned his head before the auto-focus could calibrate, really upset my cornflakes. LOL. I thought I might have them sitting singularly and casually sitting on the edge of the little fountain and on the steps of the chapel, also, the bench where the man and baby are sitting.</em><br> <em> </em><br> Location could be interesting. However in my experience you should take much care to truly integrate it in the picture as a mood enhancing element, and avoid to just have it simply as a background against which to photograph your models.</p> <p>As Matt already indicated, the 50mm will, if used wide open, give a shallow DoF. If you put enough distance between the model and the background while shooting the model relatively closer up, the background may not to turn out as busy and distraction as he fears (choosing a background which in itself is not too busy will of course also help).</p> <p>The fact that you don't have TTL metering with the manual 50mm (couldn't find any literature on a 35/135 manual lens, only on the AF version which BTW gets pretty positive reviews despite its age http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/1956557 ) should not be an issue.<br> You can eg take an exposure reading with the 18-55 at 55mm (which will make it a virtual 83mm) and use that setting as an indication with the manual lens, finetuning it to your taste based on the picture on the LCD and help of the histogram (and maybe some fiddling in postprocessing).</p> <p>The 35-135, manual or AF, will at say 85 to 135mm of course give you an even more OoF background, so I wouldn't stay away from at least taking a few shots with it (after all, taking some extra shots in digital costs next to nothing compared to the film shooting days i.e. the cost of film, developing, and contacts).</p> <p>Enclosed picture admittedly was shot with vastly different equipment from what you will be using. Nevertheless it hopefully will illustrate how shooting wide open (and some fiddling in post processing, however only with Nikon Capture as I'm not a fan of, and consequently don't have, Photoshop and the likes) can add to the mood of a picture, which considering the background (wall of a church) if shot sharp from edge to edge may otherwise turned out a bit dull.</p> <p>My two cents</p> <p> </p><div></div>

<p>I would go for the 50mm, even if it isn't AF.<br /> On the D3200 it will be a virtual 80mm which is a pretty good focal length for portraits and halftotals. I mention that because if you want to take pictures which show the tattoo's that almost inevitably translates in in any case no full outs. Otherwise the tattoos will, also considering the models will be wearing evening gowns, get kind of lost in the picture.<br /> Also it's sharper then both zooms, which obviously is of importance if you want to show the finer details of the tattoos.<br /> <br />I wouldn't shy away from shooting on a sunny day, although I strongly recommend not to do so in the full sunlight. If you choose a spot in the shadow of trees of a building, the light will be less contrasty while you can easily adjust the WB on your camera to compensate for the cooler tones.</p> <p>You mention you have access to 'all kinds of lighting' but apart from mentioning you will be using flash don't go any further into it. I would try to stay away from using direct on camera flash though for risk you will blow out details of the tattoos. On camera flash is challenging for the kind of balanced lighting which would be necessary to give both a correct exposure and show fine details at the same time. Take eg a look at all the wedding pictures where on camera flash burns out details on make up, wedding dresses etc.</p> <p>Personally though I would go for natural light, and if necessary use reflection screens for fill. Also keep in mind that the sensors in newer model Nikon DSLR's (the D3200 from 2012 easily falls in that category) allow excellent shadow recovery, which combined with the colorpoints in NX Capture allows clearing up (very) small shadow areas while still retaining excellent IQ.</p> <p>Enclosed picture was shot with daylight (original picture http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/image/156109867). Obviously the tattoo on the models back was the point of interest, but at that moment I only wanted to show it in combination with the elaborate make up, dress and wig of the model. In your case you probably would have shot it with more emphasis on the tattoo.</p> <p>HTH</p><div></div>

<p>Had an issue with my 4/200-400VR which seems similar to your problem.</p> <p>After using it during several seasons shooting surf from the beach during all kinds of showers and plenty of salt water spray without using any kind of lens cover, the VR started behaving quite in the way you describe, i.e. when switched on during focusing, rather then fluently (and silently, although I never have paid much attention to the sound level even when it was still functioning correctly), it would jump from one position to the other which was quite visible in the viewfinder.<br> AF would still work fluently though, and since I shot a lot of fast moving action with the lens, in which case VR had no real added value since I was using fast shutterspeeds of over 1/500th anyway, I switched of the VR and shot happily with the lens for several years after that issue arose.</p> <p>Problem wasn't there with the VR switched of though . In my case the salt water had after several years of abuse managed to corrode the internal electric contacts of the VR. When the lens was finally sent for an evaluation for the possible repair and was disassembled for a possible reparation, the problem was solved by the mere dis- and reassemby. So without having had any kind of reparation (which was estimated at a whopping Euro 800, which I found way too much, reason for the reassemby without repair) the lens now functions 100% again.</p> <p>Your description though seems to indicate the VR not to being in your case since you mention that switching it on or off makes no difference. This IMO seems to indicate it may not be an issue with the VR or even the AF system but the lens itself.</p> <p>I e.g. dont really understand the ' one element close to the aperture blades which is floating....movement seems to be a few mm in either axis' when you are handling the lens.<br> To be on the safe side I did a check on my 70-200. When looking from the backside (lensmount) I saw nothing moving when I turned the zoom ring of the lens. When looking from the front side, I can see an internal movement from an element forward and backwards, but not in any way sideways. During focusing itself I did not see any lens elements move at all.</p> <p>My advise would be is to send the lens to a Nikon service center to have it thoroughly checked</p><div></div>

<p>@Bebu Lamar<br> Don't lose your trust in CLS</p> <p>Dumb cheap radio triggers are just that, dumb. Yes, they will trigger tour flash, but that's about it. No TTL of course, so you have to set your flash in either Manual of in A mode.</p> <p>If you shoot with the flash in Manual and after a trial shot, want/need to change the power settings, you will have to go to the flash, change the settings on the flash (maybe even having to lower it in the process if you have it on a lightstand), take a new shot to see if the correction is correct, and if not make that walk again and again. And obviously you'll have to do so with each unit separately if you use multiple units. Cumbersome, time consuming and not really the best procedure if you have impatient clients/subjects in front of the camera who will have to wait till you found the correct set up.</p> <p>If you shoot in A mode, you select a f and ISO number on the flashes (which you both also set on your lens), after which the flashes based on the onboard metering cell (which is not connected to the electronics of your camera) make a hopefully correct combined exposure.<br> Problem is that the metering for each flash is not made from the same angle as the camera, or the other flashes. So things the camera would or would not include in its calculation for the correct expocure (white or dark background, spill light from other light sources, including main and additional flash) do play a role in the independently made exposure by each flash. Consequently you will still have the same issues as when shooting in Manual mode, i.e. you make an initial set up, and after your testshot, still have to walk up to the flashes to change the various settings, make a new trial shot, and repeat the cumbersome and time consuming procedure again till you have the correct exposure and light ratios.</p> <p>CLS allows you make your set up, but contrary to the above procedures change the power settings from where you stand ie. behind the camera (and meter from that position as well, not to forget). On top of that you can shoot your flashes TTL, and move your flashes around to some degree (within the line of sight). So you set up your lighting, make a trial shot, adjust the ratio's between e.g.main light and effect light from where you're standing (no running around, lowering and raising flash units) and much faster find the setting you want.</p> <p>Yes, CLS admittedly has a disadvantage. Since it uses infrared, line of sight is very important. In a confined space where the signal can bounce from a wall or ceiling that's less of an issue, but it make it much less usable outside and in bright sunshine.<br> That's where the 'not so cheap' radio triggers come in, like PocketWizard TT1/TT5, Phottix Odins, and Radiopopper. Yes there are other one's to on the market, and cheaper, but these three have a solid reputation for reliability which IMO should be the main consideration when buying a piece of equipment.<br> Sure, the above triggers may at some times not be as (near) 100% foolproof as dumb radio triggers. But that's the price you pay for convenience. After all, AF still isn't 100% reliable despite the period that has passed since the introduction of the F501/N2020 in 1986, just like TTL lightmetering isn't despite the days of the Nikon F Photomic from 1962.</p> <p>If you look at how Joe MacNally works, you see that where he in the past used the infrared signal outside (be it, in order to get the transmitter closer to the flash despite the camera position, with extended remote flash cords,) he now also uses a.o. PW TT5's for outside work but often enough still relies on shooting CLS with the infrared signal (Had the pleasure of attending a demonstration and lecture of him, a real gentleman, very down to earth and not at all secretive about the way he shoots)</p> <p>Personally I use TT5's when shooting remote flash units in TTL mode (got them before the cheaper Phottix Odins were available, otherwise maye have gone for those). Of course I can also use them in 'dumb' mode. e.g. for triggering my studioflashes.<br> I for example had to shoot a runway show (part of a competition for young designers) some time ago. The venue was long with a very high ceiling so no bounce flash possible. Nor was there any serious lighting on the catwalk itself, only a few lights immediately in front of the jury table at the end of the catwalk. So flash (which I normally try to go without) was inevitable, while due to the moving subject shooting with the flash in manual mode was no option either.</p> <p>Unfortunately nowadays has become quite standard that prior to a show there's a lot of shuffling between photographers for the best positions, even if you're the officially assigned one. So showing at the very last moment for a good spot, let alone moving around to the flash units to possibly make changes after finding your spot, is quite impossible before and during the show and therefor being able to do so from where I was standing is a life saver.</p> <p>I tackled the problem by prior to the show mounting two SB800's (with additional batterypack) and TT5's on lightstands at an angle of a 30 to 40 degrees left and right of me, and a TT5 with a AC3 on my camera. Took my shooting position, took a few trial shots, made some corrections on the power settings of the flashes with the AC3, tinkered a bit with the flash exposure on the camera, and happily shot away in TTL metering mode.</p> <p>This is how it worked out http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/20121124_mafb_adam<br> HTH</p>

<p>Rather then worrying about how to organize the shoot, I would, as it is intended as a fashion shoot, first work out the concept.</p> <p>Based on that you can then start to organize it, and if you approach in a hands on way, save spending (a lot of) money.</p> <p>I assume you already have some work to show, even if only portraits of models, so you can show you're not a complete beginner for this kind of thing.</p> <p>Then go to sites like ModelMayhem (admittedly not my favorite one, but considering its relative easy admission policy a good point to start from) or Models.com etc. and post a TFP (Time For Print) casting call for models, make up artists (MUA), and possible stylists in your area. As far as stylists is concerned, also consider students of fashion courses, who often also have an interest in fashion styling, and due to the course they follow often also have ideas for the concept, and access to the clothes that may go along with that.</p> <p>If you don't make things too 'creative' (which considering your own statement that you're still developing your fashion portfolio seems the sensible thing to do) and intend to make pictures the models and MUA (and perhaps stylist) can use for their portfolio as well, chances will improve that they not only will want to participate, but maybe even have some clothes (and shoes) in their personal wardrobe which fit in your concept.</p> <p>I would especially when beginning be very wary of spending money on it, simply because obviously you'll find a lot of people who will pose and otherwise work for you, but you'll often in hindsight will realize they wre not able to love up to their promises. Better built a team of your own people, and only after you have gathered around you a group you can trust, all have their noses in the same direction, and good working standard, maybe think of spending money for more ambitiously organized shoots.</p> <p>On a side note, there's a unprofessional looking typo on your site where it says Potraits in stead of Portraits.</p><div></div>

<p>This is what a pro wedding photographer has to say about using a D750 for weddings</p> <p><a href="http://www.rossharvey.com/reviews/nikon-d750-review" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.rossharvey.com/reviews/nikon-d750-review</a></p>

<p><em>It seems to me that the 70-200 f2.8 used at 200mm setting would give greater depth of field round the subject and more background blur than it would if used at the 70mm setting, the subject being the same size in the frame and the same aperture being used.</em></p> <p>Not really sure what you mean with that. Getting back ground blur means you have'll to leave your aperture open/almost wide open, and with a longer lens the effect of subject sharpness vs background OOF will get amplified. With a shorter lens this effect will less pronounced. So yes, if you shoot a model full out at 200mm wide open, the background will seem more OOF then with a 70mm wide open. Dof will also be smaller with a longer lens, so correct focusing becomes really critical.</p> <p>Back in the film days (and with nowadays full frame camera's) the 'standard' lens for fashion shoots on location was the 2.8/300mm at 2.8 or 4.0, even despite the very limited DoF and in those days extremely high cost ( the AF version still costs a bundle, but changed consumer behavior and credit card use have made this kind of lens far more common nowadays). The 500mm reflex was another favorite, due to the characteristic doughnut rings.</p> <p>Being a Nikon shooter, the 2.8/80-200 AF-D used to be my bread an butter lens for many years, although since the D800 it was replaced with the 2.8/70-200 VRII. Also I got a 2.0/200 instead of the 2.8/300mm as with the wider aperture I can still get a very OOF background without having to stand away as much for a full out as with a 300mm.</p> <div></div>

<p>This weekend I attended a major Fantasy festival in the Netherlands.<br> Just like the many other photographers who judging by the number of camera's around also visit these kind of events, I like to shoot pictures at these kind of meetings as many of the visitors put amazing amounts of effort and trouble in their costumes and other apparel, which can deliver stunning pictures.<br> Also these people are usually more then willing to have their picture taken, and often very cooperative as they are eager to hopefully get a good photograph afterwards.</p> <p>Of course there are several ways to shoot approach the way to shoot these pictures.<br> The most common ones I usually observe are either sniping away from a distance with a long tele/zoom lens at unaware subjects, and later cropping them back to usually close up like pictures. Or stopping them in their tracks to quickly snap away a picture, regardless of pose, light of background, with the result resembling pictures of dressed up people on their way to the beach or the likes.<br> I have a slightly different approach in this. Most important, and IMO respectful, I approach people who I find interesting and ask them of they would care to give me some of their time time to pose for pictures. In advance of that I will have tried to find a spot with more or less diffused light, non intrusive background (which I in any case try to somehow incorporate in the pictures by use of specific lenses and DoF) to try and get more then just a random snapshot. Then afterwards I thank them, give them my card with my website, and permission to download the pictures for their personal use.<br> Having experience in fashion photography. I have no trouble helping even the most inexperienced 'model' how to pose and quite often IMO get pretty good results despite the usually very short shooting period of only a few minutes, little real effective control of light and location, and very often non existent experience of the 'models'.</p> <p>So while I was shooting a model, I suddenly found myself surrounded by four or five other 'photographers' who, without asking or being invited by me, were simultaneously taking pictures of the model. They even were taking over things by instructing (by yelling 'hold it one more moment' and similar short yelps) the model to keep standing in a certain pose (which I had instructed her to take a few moments before) while I was still shooting basically wanted to switch to something else.<br> Apart from the fact they basically crashed into and kind of hijacked my set , what also struck me was that, as is much the case with many of this kind of amateur would be 'model photographers', they just stood snapping away in a fixated way picture after picture of the 'model' without saying anything or giving any instructions. Their shooting technique also made me cringe, since rather then to instruct/help the 'model' to change her pose, they basically contorted in back braking stands to get a 'different' picture of the immobile model, while blasting away with on camera speedlights for 'correct' exposure and fill (basically balancing the unexposed side of partially harshly sunlit face with a just as harsh fill in flash).<br> When I tried to help them improve their experience by suggesting to actually talk to the model, and rather then blasting thing away with their flashlights try to find a bit more difussed light , I basically was told to buzz of, as they 'knew what they were doing', even if only minutes before they deperately needed the occasion I created to shoot the model to overcome their, despite their eagerness to do so, shyness to actually approach and ask a model to pose.</p> <p>Although I IMO had all the reason to get really angry and cause some kind of scene, being maybe too polite, I let them finish their 'set', and just waited them to fade away, so I could shoot another model later on.<br> To my amazement and indignation though, they basically kept hanging round for almost half an hour on the very spot I was shooting at previously, looking and staring at me, expecting I only can imagine that I would indeed shoot another model so they could again crash in.<br> I decided to just wait them out, and they eventually slunk off, throwing dirty looks at me for what I guess not having given them another chance to basically steal some more pictures.</p> <p>What would you have done (especially considering it basically was a public event and location)? Confronted them at the very moment you discovered them to be crashing into your set/shoot? Or give in to what comes down to a bunch of bullies, let them go ahead, while packing your stuff and find another spot to continue your shooting?</p><div></div>