kylebybee

Shooting crop sensor I have had some difficulty getting more than one face in focus while still trying to achieve a shallow depth of field. Is

this asking too much from a crop sensor, should I look at going full frame, or keep practicing? I was using Nikon D7000 with old version

of Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 shooting at f/2.8.

Nice shot Cory, agreed that the camera always needs to be at the ready

<p>#3</p><div></div>

<p>#2</p><div></div>

<p>Photographed my two sons a couple of weeks ago.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Thank you Charles!</p>

 

When shooting on bright days and your camera doesn't go to 1/8000 of a second, the option is using a ND filter, preferably non circular.

Has anyone played around with a non circular polarizer for the same reason and did work and give different look? Or is a non Circular

polarizer ensentially the same as an ND filter

<p>Ok., a few years ago my wife purchased Photoshop CS5 extended and I think it came with Lightroom. Anyway for some reason I tried the Adobe cc subscription and later decided to go back to LR 5.7. Now I can't because Adobe has blocked that saying I need to renew my subscription to use the develop module. Grrrrr. And getting hold of someone at Adobe to help with this is like pulling teeth. Is there another program similar to LR that I can use the Niksoftware collection plug in with? My Adobe PS and Bridge still work however they aren't as intuitive as I would like. Recommendations on what to do?</p>

I know that pricing is subjective, but I would like to get opinions to see if I'm in the ball park.

My session fees are $125.00 per hour. My prints are priced with matte finish at $8.00 for 5x7, $10.00 for 8x10, $75.00 for 11x14, $100.00

for 12x18, and $140.00 for 16x20. These apply for all types of portrait, family, newborn, high school seniors, and individuals

<p>Last one</p><div></div>

<p>the second one</p><div></div>

<p>These are some portraits I shot of my Dad who turns 90 next month. I dedicated the shoot to his devotion to his ministry.</p><div></div>

<p>Can I sneak one in late? sorry. This is my father who turns 90 next month. He was an evangelist his whole life.</p>

<p>Andy, that video is hilarious!! Thank you for sharing. :)</p>

<p>I'm asking this question based on a video put out by "Angry Photographer" on Youtube. His conclusion was that at ISO 400 the D7100 had better resolution than the D7200, but at higher ISO's the D7200 was better. I would like to hear from others who own or have used both bodies.</p>

<p>Just because a camera body is designed to shoot sports and wildlife, doesn't mean that it's inferior to other bodies when it comes to shooting portraits, landscapes does it? I wouldn't think so. My reason for asking is if I want to shoot portraits/weddings for hire, but also like shooting sports for enjoyment, I should be able to do both with the D500, right? I know full frame is the "pro" option for weddings/portraits, but for now I'm too heavily invested in DX lenses.</p>

<p>Thank you, I will look into Lightroom 6 stand alone. No body mentioned Adobe Bridge along with Photoshop as the organizer. They work seamlessly together, my only drawback has been how long it takes to learn Photoshop well.</p>

<p>So I was using Lightroom CC for a while, but decided that a monthly membership after a year or two adds up. I own a copy of Photoshop CS5 with Bridge and was wondering if there was a need for Lightroom. I looked at Alienskin Exposure X on a free trial and its nice but mostly for portrait type work with a lot of presets. Is Lightroom even available for purchase anymore or is the cloud version the only way to get it?</p>

<p>Thank you Ilkka.</p>

<p>This is off subject but may have to do with decision making. The Nikon DX 35 f/1.8 that I have has been a mystery to me. What is the difference between it and the regular FX 35. The focal length doesn't change or does it, I know that an f/2.8 DX lens actually renders a f/4 aperture equal to FX. So does Nikon make the f/1.8 on the 35 DX a true f/1.8?</p>

<p>Thank you for the responses. I can see the benefit of having identical bodies, and the D7200 is appealing. The sports is more of a hobby, my son races bicycles so naturally I take photos of that sport. </p>

<p>I know about the extra cost of the full frame and am willing to invest....if the image quality would justify it. I'm a enthusiast wanting to go pro and would like to know if FX is really necessary. I guess I could rent before buying, just thought I would get opinions as well.</p>

<p>I have a d7000 and 35 f/1.8 DX, 85 f/1.8 G, sigma 50-150 f/2.8, Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, Tokina 11-16 f/2.8, Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6, want to get second body and more lenses for upcoming wedding and portrait assignments, can't decided whether to get the new DX beast (I shoot some sports as well) or step to FX with the D750.</p>

<p>Thank you</p>

 

<p>I currently own a Nikon D7000 and a Fuji xt1. I plan on shooting sports this year, namely cycling (road and mount bike) and maybe some others. The question is with the prices on the k3 being so low right now I was curious if that would be a better route than adding the new D500? Does anyone here shoot fast sports with the k3? how is the auto focus keeper rate?</p><div></div>