arthur_cargill

<p>In Burlington, Lake Champlain silly :) On the walking trail right at the water. There's nice benches facing in the perfect direction west, go during sunset so you can have your subjects sit on the benches lit by the golden light. Tends to be crowded but probably not this time of year.</p>

<p>Battery park (right near the above) which is basically an old fort but has some nice trees and trails that can be used.</p>

<p>Further away is the Round Church in Richmond, fortunately it's not that far off the highway and in front of it is a nice little group of trees. Make sure you bring a flash, reflector, and a lens with a shallow DOF that group of trees isn't big :) Again, scope it out ahead of time I'm thinking now those trees are bare but the round church is always beautiful.</p>

<p>Lastly, Mt. Philo. There's a parking area below sometimes you have to pay to park, and it has a road to the top which I've not known it to be open but you can hike/walk up it anytime. It's near fields (typically with those nice round hay bails), and the people living at the base typically friendly. Try hiking up Mt Philo (it's more a hill, probably not even a mile) where you should find plenty of places & have some nice views at the top and the top is typically clean and clear. Although it's only a hill, it's the only hill in the area. I don't know what it's looking like for foliage right now.</p>

<p>Just an FYI it's been my experience vermonters tend to be very private and defensive of their properties/families (I think it paranoia) the further out of Burlington you go. If you find a great spot, and park the car and get out and start taking pictures you may find the owner running you down he doesn't want you encroaching on his privacy. If you find a location you like and it's near the owners house... move on my friend. Some places in other parts of the country I've done some shoots the owners ran out so excited their property is beautiful enough that it interested a photographer they given me refreshment(s) and an e-mail address to send them the pictures. Vermonters tend to be the other way...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Didn't think the 17-35 had a motor in it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>All AF-S lenses do, it uses a "Silent Wave Motor"</p>

<p>+1<br />The 35mm can be a fun portrait lens, and good for group shots (or getting a lot of the surroundings) but is typically too short to be a bread & butter portrait lens. The 50mm F1.8D besides not autofocusing on your camera(as Shun mentions) it also has seven straight aperture blades, for portraits rounded are better.</p>

<p>The new 50mm F1.8 AF-S lens has the benefits of autofocusing on your camera and having rounded aperture blades which produces smoother backgrounds, which are more pleasing.</p>

<p>The F5 is sealed (but not at the mount) but the 17-35mm F2.8 is not. It wasn't a "rinse", more of a splash with fresh water, then wipe down.</p>

<p>On further investigation, (and my mispelling squeek, it's squeak) I came across the 17-35mm AFS F2.8 is susceptible to developing a squeak and may have just been coincidence it happened shortly after that incident. Several reported the motor blowing around 30 days after it developed, a few others report their lens always had a squeak, and most report never having it.</p>

<p>I'm now favoring sending it in to avoid the risk of needing the motor replaced if I continue to use it.</p>

<p>I was wearing my camera with Nikon 17-35mm F2.8 AFS lens attached around my neck while travelling on a zodiac on the ocean when things rather quickly turned for the worse and a storm came. We ended up having to fight against the wind & waves heading back to our main boat while waves were crashing over us with my camera & lens around my neck. I had to hold on to the ropes the zodiac was tossing so bad, my camera & lens took a lot of serious waves but there wasn't much I could do but pray.</p>

<p>When I got back to the boat I rinsed off the lens and my F5 with fresh water and let it sit for several days. Put it back together and my F5 vertical shutter button no longer worked (the normal shutter button did) everything else was fine. However my 17-35mm F2.8 AFS has squeeked since when focusing, but no salt water appears to have entered the lens and besides the squeeking works fine and optics are excellent. Do you think it should be sent in for repair? Does anyone know how much a clean & lube typically would go for?</p>

<p>Tom M, sorry I was referring to your previous images, and I can't prove Skyler isn't me. Only imply he has a D7000 and EOS 7D (by the exif data as well as description) and I a D200. It would be odd for me to have that many cameras, ask questions about the D200 with a D7000 and EOS 7D in my aresenal (I'd be using them instead), and odd first response to this post if it were me :) </p>

<p>The purpose of posting the baby vader is some wanted more examples and to show I'm not some newbie using the built-in flash and upset with the results and thinking using a D700 w/pop-up flash is going to magically solve my problem. Doing so I probably just dug up the burried hatchet.</p>

<p>I know my issue now. I find the D200 colors are flat and have little depth, I feel others D200 images have the same issue even with proper technique, framing, and lighting. I can describe it as the D200 being a monitor that has poor gamut. Adding color/saturation/contrast to liven it up the colors top off and there's only so much that can be done... yet leaving it at default looks flat. Then I see what a monitor with a great gamut can do. What I should be asking is, when I take a picture with the D200 I want the color depth to be that of the D700. How do I do it? If the answer is there isn't a way, the camera is the problem (I actually have a feeling I had outgrown the D200 before purchasing). </p>

<p>The posts have been very useful. I looked at a local camera club, purchased some books on portraits/flash and retouching, and now googled D300 portraits and it is another camera like the D700 that seems to pull color out of photos/portraits in a way I've not been able to with the D200. Now I'm thinking of renting a D300 since it's 1/3rd the cost of a D700 and that will answer it. I'll be sure to tell everyone how it goes, it's going to be a few weeks before I get the rented camera. Thank you!</p>

<p>Hey everyone, I just caught up hadn't realized this kept going! Tom, my son looks like he no longer has eyes to me, like someone plucked them out, I hope you didn't spend too much time :) I'm not saying good pictures aren't possible with the D200, however the look I'm after apparantly I really struggle with the D200. I keep seeing the D200 look when I see samples people post. They're fantastic examples of great portraits, but they don't have the look I'm trying for. When I google D700 Portraits and click on images there's something about them that I find totally different than the D200.</p>

<p>Skyler understands my feeling(s). I talked to my wife the other day, and I told her... don't you think it's odd that for 5 years now I have attempted to attain a picture like (my favorite photographer) and post processing and have yet to succeed? I feel by now a monkey by simple statistics should have a couple. I can also relate to a better starting base before post processing... I struggle with it (and why I buy all those filters and actions). </p>

<p>I ordered a couple books, my technique/style is that of a wedding photographer (bouncing flash, using it w/available light). I think I'm good at bouncing flash already (and I like using reflectors) so I'm starting with a book by Neil van Niekerk (bouncing flash) followed by retouching techniques (by Scott Kelby). When I get back from my vacation I'm going to rent a D700, Skyler I'll let you know. I think, if the D700 is like the F5 which I think it is... I'm going to be back in heaven. Certainly going to come back with my results.<br>

Here's a portrait of baby Vader I took. I did this by using a remote flash with a red gel over it and moving a house plant in front of it to splash that interesting pattern on the back wall and bounced my other flash off the ceiling. I haven't post-processed it yet, I only wish the D200 had live view I couldn't see what I was doing with the camera on the floor with a table behind me so it was shoot and hope for the best. </p><div></div>

<p>I was thinking it sounds like the camera is on timer, but 1-2 second timer seems a bit odd (it would typically be more like 10+ seconds). </p>

<p>I've found typically when I let someone borrow my camera often I get it back and they tell me it's not working. Usually because they rotated the dial (to timer or continous fast fps), changed the focus mode to manual accidentally (then don't know why it doesn't focus anymore) or knocked the aperture ring from its fixed position and the camera gives an error... things I don't think much of when I do it as I know how to fix it subconsciously. </p>

<p>It's not your fault, if your friend has a D300s they should know/understand so many things done accidentally will make it unuseable to a person not familiar with the camera, or settings they set and forgot to reset. </p>

<p>I would wait. The 5D MKII is a 2005 camera updated with more MP and video, but it's really showing its age.</p>

<p>One of the rules to financial success is, don't buy the same thing twice. What that means is, if you buy the 5DMKII now when the new one comes out you're going to convince yourself somehow, someway, that the one you bought wasn't the one you needed and will be buying the new one... in essence buying the same thing twice.</p>

<p>Also the 5DMKII value has held well and typically you can sell it for close to what you paid. But I think there's going to be an unprecidented result of Canon waiting this long for the replacement. So many at this point, already have the $ but waiting for the new one, and so many with the 5D and 5DMKII are waiting for the new that once it's released I think the market is going to be flooded with used 5DMKII (and original 5D's) the used value of them is going to drop unprecidently.</p>

<p>My $0.02, wait for the new. It might be a year, on its release I'm certain there's going to be massive shortages making it difficult if not impossible to attain for months after release just wait. I think you'll end up not having the 5DMKII for long when the new is released, then find yourself upset when you and a million others try selling your 5DMKII at the same time to get the new. I don't have a crystal ball, but you got my $0.02 you can ask for change :)</p>

<p>The "D" really doesn't add much, it lets you take pictures of yourself in the mirror with flash and successfully realizes you're further away and the flash output needs to be increased, non-D versions will not. Wouldn't it be funny if your test WAS actually taking pictures of yourself in the mirror using flash. There's a few other things the lens telling your flash how far away your subject is plays a roll, but I'm pretty sure without flash D has no use and even with it most often offers little advantage.<br>

<br />+1 on sticky aperture blades, I too think that's most likely the culprit.</p>

<p>This is just my $0.02, you can have change if you like :) <br />The D700 seems to have stopped production many months ago (maybe that's common knowledge but I don't keep up on it too much) no one has had inventory of it for some months and now it's the same with the D3s. They're all back ordered and unavailable... meaning Nikon needs to get something to market yesterday, and they fully expected to have it on the market by this time.</p>

<p>The camera that makes the most sense to release first is the D4, maybe Nikon will pick up those waiting for the D800 w/extra money. I don't think it makes as much sense to release both at/near the same time and have the D800 interfere with sales of the D4.</p>

<p>Either way, it should've been released months ago especially now that Nikon has had no inventory of the D700 or D3s for some time now they need something.</p>

<p>That gave me a good laugh, I'm a Nikon user and couldn't come up with any defense for that one...</p>

<p>I can only imagine there's someone unemployed out there now with a resume "Handled Nikons facebook page" on it :)</p>

<p>I was faced with something similar, I chose the second strobe and soft box. I'll get to that later.</p>

<p>If this is something that will be permanent, where you have clients come in and they sit in the same place and you have some backgrounds and props then probably you're better off with another strobe and soft box. If you tend to take candids, and portraits on the fly, you will be better with an 85mm F1.4, or the Canon 85mm F1.8.</p>

<p>I had visions of setting up my softbox and second strobe but it's work and not my style I'm more like a wedding photographer... someone on the move, I try to use available light, bounce my flash, and sometimes use reflectors. My second strobe and soft box gets very little use I wish instead, I'd gotten the lens.</p>

<p>So it's really your style, I think the 85mm F1.4 is going to be more useful for you for pretty much everything. Taking pictures of the family, concerts, critters and creatures, friends, clients, you can use it anywhere, anytime whereas the 2nd strobe and softbox you'll probably find like I did it sits in one place and since I don't have a business of taking portraits, I find I hardly use it at this point. But, there are certainly people I've seen that consistently take softboxes with them everywhere, typically having assistants holding/moving them or if you have a studio it's a must. If you're just someone who enjoys taking pictures, but it's not your business my vote is the 85mm 1.4</p>

<p>I posted previously about how I seem to have lost my edge with portraits, and I got a few recommendations to join a local photography club. I don't live near a big city but I searched and found a photography club in the next city over... I checked out their website. All I'm going to say is, I went through about 10 screens of pictures from their members and all their pictures look as if taken from point and shoots with no consideration for technique or background(s), or it's pictures of the president wearing diapers. The newsletter had a photoshop technique's they took a picture of an old couple, cut them out and put them in front of a space scene with the ship from Star trek zipping through it looked like an 11 year old did it. </p>

<p>Maybe I'm a stuffed shirt, but it seems I take my photography a whole lot more serious than that club. Think I would learn anything? The cost to join is $50, and looking at their site I think the $50 better spent on a couple portrait books instead. Thanks</p>

<p>It certainly does depend on the photo. I prefer F1.2, and F4 as my favorite in there, but partly because I like a vignette effect and at F1.2 her face is the brightest (drawing attention to it) while also darkening/vignetting the edges & background. At F1.2, I feel the focus is strictly and soley on the person.</p>

<p>F2 the background fence starts to cause some funky stuff with the lens, where the background fence begins to sort of cause a mirror lens bokeh effect... distracting and bizarre which is most pronounced at F2.8 (which I hate the most). Then F4 is a totally different picture than F1.2 I can see and make out the background and the fence no longer causes the weird effect seen in F2 and F2.8. The background assists the portrait at F4, which tells more of a story. But it's practically an entirely different feeling between F1.2 and F4.</p>

<p>+3 Skyler</p>

<p>+1 when I was reading your first post, and started getting a whole lot of different ideas like try using my 17-35mm F2.8 and see what happens, stay away from my 50mm which is what I use most.</p>

<p>+1 for realizing I've been doing it for many years. It's been 5 years with the D200, but I've tried closer, further, different settings, high, low, far, near, different ISO's. I think I have over 100,000 images I've taken with the D200 and felt none have the look I want. I tend to be conservative though, I'm inspired to be risky now!</p>

<p>+1 for making me realize, the portraits I have hanging up that I love, and carry with me were taken with the Nikon F5 film camera before getting the D200. I used my F5 for so long previously (8 years before I got the D200), maybe my problem is my brain is hard wired into my F5.</p>

<p>I suppose my style may be I'm a full frame photographer. This is the last portrait I took, that I love. Taken with my F5 film camera, on b&w Tri-X, and an SB-28 with a reflector underneath, in 2003. I've forgotten how much I loved portraits on the F5. I should rent a D700 and see if perhaps I start getting the results I did on my F5, or get the results I like. Thanks!</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks all, this has been very helpful. It was uplifting to hear Jose's story, sounds like we're in the same situation. I do think some of Paint the moons pictures are taken with the 35mm so things get a little warped.</p>

<p>I'll work on angle, lighting, and intentionally not doing what I normally do. I'll take some at 200mm and F2.8. Martin, I found your image too bleached, and Tom M yours was pretty darn close to the look I want how'd you do it?</p>

<p>Shun, thanks and here's the original direct from camera. I'll post some more portraits tonight as I'm at work right now but I feel that is the best of the best I've done. It seems the issue is, PP and to work on lighting. I think I'm very good with using flash (especially bouncing) I'll be sure to include those tonight. I'm now thinking, I should make a blog which will force me to really think, analyze, and report and possibly get me out of my rut. Maybe now I can progress knowing it's not my equipment :) </p><div></div>

<p>Thanks everyone, I'll see if I can post a portrait of my son and I think it has all the makings of something, but to me looks bland. This photo of my son has the works applied to it (exposure 3, bokeh 2, some actions by paint the moon for sparkling eyes, greener grass, perfect skin).</p>

<p>I want my pictures to come out looking like the ones at <a href="http://paintthemoon.net">http://paintthemoon.net</a> click on photos - full screen. I know she uses a D700, an 85mm F1.4, and a 35mm F1.4 for almost all of them, and I'm fully aware that is a fantastic camera, those some serious lenses, and that is a business. But that same sort of look is something I've been trying to achieve and see it when I click on D700 portraits under google images. I have a 70-200 F2.8, a 17-35mm F2.8, and a 50mm F1.4, along with the flashes, bokeh 2, exposure 3, and many of paint the moons actions but it looks to me like she just uses the camera most of the time without a flash or portrait setup, then applies an action and it looks incredible. My portraits look a whole lot better with her actions, but nothing near as good as her photos look. </p>

<p>I'm hearing the issue is the painter (me). You can give someone the same brushes and paints as Da Vinci but that doesn't mean they'll be painting the Mona Lisa. Some are going to paint as if they're using finger paint :) It's sounding like, I have a problem with my approach as it's sounding like my camera, lenses, and flashes aren't holding me back it's the user. What do I need to learn to take pictures like her? As mentioned, I've been doing about 300/week of them for 5 years. Thanks</p><div></div>

<p>Hello,<br>

I currently have a D200, have had it for 5 years. I haven't been able to get the portrait look I want, ever. I've averaged 300 pictures/week since I purchased it and my focus is candids/portraits. I would think, even by coincidence that I'd have come across something close to what I'm looking for. I thought it was the lens, several years ago I purchased the 70-200 F2.8. Much improvement, but still not the look I want. I thought, maybe photoshop... another improvement but not there yet. I bought some photoshop filters (Alien Skin Exposure 3 AND Bokeh 2). Again, better but not it. I bought an SB-800, SB-600, a soft box, stand, and reflector. For about 3 years I've been using them and still can't get the look I want. I came across some portrait actions I can buy for Photoshop, the persons "actions" on their unedited pictures produce it when I run them but I don't get them when I run it on the results of my camera (the person who sells the actions uses a D700).</p>

<p>Apparantly I want the look of a D700. If I do a google search and enter "D700 portrait" and then click images... almost all the images are the look I want. The pictures look alive. I do the same for "D200 portrait" and all those images are exactly what I'm getting... they're good... but seem to be lacking life. </p>

<p>Everything is telling me I should be able to get similar results but I've been at it 5 years. I hate saying it's the camera, but think it is? Thanks</p>