Z_Photo wrote:
read the manual and learn what focus lock is.  or more accurately,  learn how to use it

+1

I get images as sharp & sharper with my D3 as I did all year last year with my D90. If your issue is with selecting the specific AF-point, just go in the settings-menu and change it to 11-point selection. It's still 51-point AF. Just, the selection-points are just how they are on the D90/D3000/etc CS-Nikon (which I presume is where you're coming from, mentioning "DX").

I had a similar issue when I went to FX. I got sharp F/R, but more time-consuming. MUCH! So? I just altered it to 11-point selection. I think it's under 'focus' or 'shooting'? I dunno. I set it once, forget about it until forced to consider it

IMHO alone, as always;

~Danny
http://www.dbiphotography.com/

ARA Photo wrote:
WOW! Your camera must never be still.. What shutter speed are you using??
You also do a lot of post work on your model's eyes. I work pretty quickly but shooting possibly 15 shots a minute seems more like shoot and pray than I'd be comfortable with..

Usually 1/200 second with studio strobes (set on less than full power to allow quick recycling).

Most of the models I've worked with do what I call "modeling in motion." They begin with a pose and after each shot make one or more small, incremental changes in the pose – change the direction they're looking in, the tilt of the head, the position of their arm or arms, shift their weight, change the shift or bend of the body, etc. Usually about two changes per shot.

The list is endless, and the number of poses they can provide is theoretically unlimited.

I call this Stage 4 modeling.

Stage 1 – Deer in the headlights.

Stage 2 – Tell me what to do. A lot like posing for a portrait sitting. "Move your left hand a few inches to the right. Bring your fingers together; you don’t want those fingers splayed. Tilt your head to the left. No, your other left..."

Stage 3 – Canned poses. The model learns a number of canned poses and cycles through them in each shoot.

Stage 4 – Modeling in motion. (See above.)

Stage 5 is all about giving quality, storytelling expressions that are appropriate to the lighting, mood, pose, concept or theme, wardrobe, purpose of the images, etc., every time or almost every time. That is the most difficult part of modeling.

When a model has mastered Stages 4 and 5, she has arrived. Her skills are up there with the top models, and the main differences between them are usually the model's look and modeling style, details and nuances.

I can get more and better images from a model who's at Stage 4 or 5 in 5 minutes than with a model who's at Stage 2 in an hour.

It’s not like the whole shoot is at 12, 15 or 20 ppm (poses per minute). You may only have one or maybe two bursts at these rates per hour, and they only last a minute or so. Then we take a breath, let the camera dump images from the buffer to the CF card, regroup and do something else.

At other times it may be something like 4-6 ppm, maybe even less. But when everything comes together and the shoot is working right and everything is just flowing, that’s when the speed builds – and that’s when the best shots usually come.

For the majority of the images in my portfolio, I spent about 15 minutes shooting that particular wardrobe/makeup/hair/background combination. Hit one good burst, and you’ve probably got the shot.

That’s not to say that I never provide any direction to the model. But with a really good model, it only takes a few words to steer things in the direction you want them to go.

There are times when I want a very specific pose. At those times I slow things down, direct more and work more deliberately. Get the shot, then see what the model can do in terms of variations – generally slower with smaller incremental changes.

I find myself doing this more and more lately. But just about every set includes modeling in motion.
I get compliments on my models' poses all the time, as if I were directing the model's every move. Most of them were shot this way (though not necessarily at top speed). The four most commented and listed images in my portfolio were all shot somewhere between 10-15 ppm.

There have been many compliments on the pose in my avatar. Not only did I not direct the pose. It wasn't even intended as a headshot. It was cropped from a shot that was originally waist-up. Compliment April Berry on that one.

The 20 ppm model was yesterday. I have more than 200 solid, publication quality images (out of about 550) from five wardrobe changes to choose from.

ARA Photo wrote:
I did.. thanks so much for your correction

lol, not to play internet know-it-all, but "moot" doesn't mean what people think it means. Moot means that the issue is, in-fact, debatable, open to discussion, and of purely academic value. I never knew this until I looked it up one day.

Mike Haftel wrote:

lol, not to play internet know-it-all, but "moot" doesn't mean what people think it means. Moot means that the issue is, in-fact, debatable, open to discussion, and of purely academic value. I never knew this until I looked it up one day.

OTOH, perhaps when you perceive people saying "it's a moot point" meaning 'redundant', you may miss that they have a deeper meaning to their saying it appears to be a moot point to them? Moot, because in opposition to lengthy debate that's purely of academic value, in a fast-paced industry as ours we typically have better things to do than debate over points we'd otherwise deem to be....uhmm....moot? Just a thought, m8.

IMHO alone, as always;

~Danny
http://www.dbiphotography.com/

Mike Haftel wrote:

lol, not to play internet know-it-all, but "moot" doesn't mean what people think it means. Moot means that the issue is, in-fact, debatable, open to discussion, and of purely academic value. I never knew this until I looked it up one day.

In North America it can also mean 'of little or no practical value or meaning, purely academic,' and whenever someone says "It's a moot point," they most likely mean exactly that.

descending chain wrote:
Where do you think the camera is in the picture I drew?  I'm not talking about walking to a different position to recompose, I'm talking about yawing the camera to recompose.

I can't tell what your diagram is, to be honest. You are right about small changes. I'm confused as to why you think someone would focus on an eye if they were shooting a navel.

Doobie the destroyer wrote:
Stop down a bit...especially if the subject is distanced away from the background.

Google near and far focusing distance, and just a quick calculation exercise to give you an understanding about how DOF works.

You don't really have to be wide open for everything.

+1

Like, GoogleSearch "Falloff" mang. Try shooting in nightclubs or elsewhere similar with a lens your converter can't correct while processing the pix afterwards (I use the Tamron 28-75 2.8, for example). On a related note, I adore shooting that same type of event with my crop-cameras. f.2.8 all night long! YEAH! (I say 'related note' cos they both speak of how much shallower the DOF is on an FF system).

IMHO alone, as always;

~Danny
http://www.dbiphotography.com/

BMI Studio wrote:
I can't tell what your diagram is, to be honest.

BMI Studio wrote:
You are right about small changes. I'm confused as to why you think someone would focus on an eye if they were shooting a navel.

They wouldn't actually be shooting the navel, but recomposing for a full length shot; but it was only given as an example of how one could have a large angular yaw.

A better example would be shooting at 6 feet from the model, focusing on the eyes and then rotating the camera to center on a spot 9" to the side.  This will give cause the focus to shift about one half inch, which on an 50 mm f/1.4 is enough to make the eyes go completely soft.

Graham Glover wrote:

End of problem until you no longer have the crutch of studio strobes @ f/16.

Strobes are a tool, not a crutch.
So, why don't you just try your next photo session without the 'crutch' of a lens on the camera?

David Poata wrote:

Main issue is image degrading diffraction @ f16 is noticeable that's only if your concerned with image quality of course

Image degradation at f16 on a full frame sensor is negligible, even if you enjoy counting broken capillaries. For people pictures, most modern digital cameras are in fact too sharp and we spend a lot of time in post, softening skin and removing blemishes.

DBIphotography Toronto wrote:

OTOH, perhaps when you perceive people saying "it's a moot point" meaning 'redundant', you may miss that they have a deeper meaning to their saying it appears to be a moot point to them? Moot, because in opposition to lengthy debate that's purely of academic value, in a fast-paced industry as ours we typically have better things to do than debate over points we'd otherwise deem to be....uhmm....moot? Just a thought, m8.

IMHO alone, as always;

~Danny
http://www.dbiphotography.com/

In context, to me, it seems like most people use it to mean "redundant" or "inconsequential." I doubt it has anything to do with the nature of "the industry."