New technology releases

[Ilaria Rosselli Del Turco]

I was taking some reference photos for a commission abroad at Christmas, I did not have any lighting equipment with me and unexpectedly found myself in a very poorly lit room.

My Nikon D50 with zoom was pretty useless without flash, so I pulled out my tiny Fuji F30 and worked with that one.
The photos were very readable, with some distortion but at least I didn't have to use a flash. I lightened the head area a little with photoshop, but anyway I work as usual from a B&W version of this pic and my colour notes taken on the day.
I am working on these portrait now and will hopefully post good results soon
Ilaria

[Mike McCarty]

My Nikon D50 with zoom was pretty useless without flash, so I pulled out my tiny Fuji F30 and worked with that one.

Llaria,

I can't imagine that the Nikon D50 could not perform better than the Fuji F30.

There are two things, however, that make your story believable - 1) the one rap on the D50 that I have read is that it came with a fairly poor kit lens, and 2) of all the point and shoot cameras out there the Fuji F30 is probably the best low light camera around. There is now, as I posted just above, a Fuji F40 which will be hitting the market soon.

Still, the D50 has a top end ISO of 1600 which should out match any camera of the F30 ilk. The sensor on the D50 is considerably larger than the one on the F30 or any other point and shoot type camera. I'm wondering if you had a tripod to use, and, did you try to adjust your ISO setting on the D50 to give yourself more light?

[Ilaria Rosselli Del Turco]

Mike, I think I should definetely buy a better lens. I did not have my tripod with me (imagine travelling for Christmas by plane with three kids, presents, a couple of paintings, etc).
I have fallen out of love with my D50 a little. Mainly that is because, despite taking photos in the same way as I always had, I struggle in obtaining good images of my works.
The colours, the reds usually, but also blues are over saturated and not faithful, despite my attempts at adjusting the white balance. And then I have to mess about with the photo in photoshop and I don't always get it right.
I have the lens that comes with the camera, 18-55, but I think it is not the one I need. People don't always have big spaces for posing (this house was the case) and I tend to do portraits that include hands, so I have to squeeze somewhere in a corner and am not always in control of the situation.
Since you are our digital guru, can you suggest me a lens that would perform acceptably both in taking photos of the paintings and do portrait work from quite a close distance without too much distortion?
Ilaria

[Mike McCarty]

Regarding the photographing of your artwork - I have had my best results using the methods described in this thread:

http://forum.portraitartist.com/showthread.php?t=6773

White balance is the bugaboo for digital cameras. This is typically the reason our colors don't interpret well in our paintings. I think we are much more sensitive to the colors in our paintings than we are on the subjects we photograph. It was no different with film except we had no way of controlling the temperature of light except with a broad swipe as we purchased the roll. Having done that we were locked in for the 24, 36 images. The digital SLR gives you the means to custom fit the light temperature per image. With so much flexibility it can be bothersome figuring out just what the conditions are and then finding and making the proper adjustment.

Regarding lenses - The usual advice you get is to buy the most expensive lens you can afford. Lenses are mostly priced on how well they gather light, or how "fast" the lens. Personally, I would love to have the most expensive lens out there, but realistically I think you can do the job with something much more modest. I have been pleased with the lens that came on my D70, and my old lens that I used on my Nikon film camera stills serves me well and it's not expensive by any means.

Your concerns about small rooms is real. I find that I can do all the work that's presented to me with two lenses: my lens which is a similar zoom as you describe, 18-55mm (which has a 1.5 multiplier in the 35mm nomenclature), and a more telephoto 70-210mm that I use more in the out of doors. The shorter lens is a necessity in the small confined spaces you describe. In a twelve foot room you would be hard pressed to get anything but a head and shoulder with the short end of the 70-210 (70 becoming 105). You should be fine with the lens you describe in confined spaces as it relates to focal length. If as you compose your image you find that your focal length has dropped below 33mm (50mm after the multiplier) then you're bumping on the edge of distortion and you've got to be aware of how you've composed your subject. This 33mm is however a pretty wide angle and should accommodate the smaller spaces.

Even though it would be nice to have an expensive, fast lens I have managed for many years with what could only be described as mediocre equipment. We must do the best we can with what we can afford. It would be no trouble finding a nice $1000-1500 lens for your Nikon. I've never had anything close to that. My advice, unless you've got the money, is to squeeze all you can out of your lens by understanding just what their capabilities and limitations are. I can imagine that it would be a real drag having purchased all the finest equipment and then realizing that your pictures are still lousy. At this point I still have my equipment to blame.

[Lacey Lewis]

I know I mentioned this lens somewhere else on the forum, but now that I have it, I really can't recommend it enough! It's the Nikkor 50mm f1.8. I tell you, it kicks butt for low light situations, and it cost me under $130. For twice the price, you can get the 50mm f1.4.

There's no zoom, but that does not bother me any. I just move myself.

I put the camera on shutter priority, and set it fast enough that I don't have to worry about blur, but so that it is still getting enough light. I can take handheld photos with available/low light and it's great. It also gives you that nice soft background.

Also, it has nearly no distortion, and I have found it reproduces the colors in my paintings very well. Of course, I have the D80.

Here's a review of the lens: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len..._ais/index.htm

Here are 2 pics I took the first day I got the lens, handheld, with available light from one small, north-facing window. I could've gone even faster here.

[Lacey Lewis]

By the way, here's a review of the 18-55mm lens:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...3556/index.htm

[Ilaria Rosselli Del Turco]

Dear Mike,

thank you for the insight which as usual is so articulate. I think the solution is to keep weaning myself from photo reference. I am quite free from the colour rendition, so that is why I am only concerned with the white balance in photographing paintings. The next step will be to recognize and correct distortion, or better to be able to use it when and where I think it might be needed.

Lacey I am very tempted to get this lens, if only to take away a few grams from the traditional heaviness of Nikon cameras. At the moment I have no commissions and am mainly working on still lifes (hence less posting on the forum), but I will have to make a decision on my equipment sooner or later.

Thank you very much to both of you for replying to my doubts

Ilaria