I do most all my photography outside, natural light stuff and always with my 70-200 f/2.8 lens. Saturday morning I shot a 5k race and it turned out great, all the pics were spot on, seems like my 5D couldn’t miss a shot. The gal that put the race together ask if I was available later that day to shoot a gender reveal so I though why not. Got there when ask and the room was basically white, like everything was white from the walls to the ceiling to the tables and decorations. The room was full of Hugh windows so tons of light on top of the white. My go to lens was to long of course so I grabbed my 24-105 f/4 lens and it seems like the shots with more than one person in it just wasn’t in focus. I tried several different settings and even tried auto but was never happy with a single shot. I’d like to had more time to do test shots but it just wasn’t there. I do shoot raw but you can’t recover out of focus. By the way, this wasn’t a paid job, just trying to help a group of friends that I run with.

Any advice on shooting in a room like I described?

I have been thinking about this for a while. I shoot mostly landscape and structures. I moved from D810 to D850 last year. I wonder if going from 45 to say, 50 mp on a larger sensor would noticeably improve IQ. My skill level is pretty good. I get sharp images, well exposed and print large with good results. I saw this DxO report on Fb. ( https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fphotorumors.com%2F2019%2F05%2F07%2Fpanasonic-lumix-dc-s1r-camera-tested-at-dxomark%2F&h=AT1trvFNxNiuWRPk6kWM-RcqvwXXB-fNJiwdAbXC7uDik_OuED5JXYq0ezP-NJod0a-fqVvNFFTgtVkIenTTke0beMQvzaDV26iZLX3iexLXI_PYqisNQeNPGRDFLkU&s=1 ). I am surprised to see the results and that the the only medium format in this test is only slightly better. I just sold an extra car and so the gas attack is working. Do any of the medium format shooters here have a view?

I like color photos with dark, rich colors and I adjust them so in PP.

When I convert to black and white and try different settings I just can’t make it look as good as other people’s black and white even when I look at YouTube videos and use presets. I just really don’t like black and white but some people can do it really well and it’s acceptable.

Same thing for that light and airy look. Sometimes I think it looks good for weddings. I try that in camera and in PP and it looks like s**t. It just looks overexposed when I do it. Although I saw one person’ light and airy that was so overexposed you could barely tell there was an image in the photo and I felt it was way over done.

And about half the time everyone else’s photography looks better than mine. Even when I get a lot of compliments from my clients and friends.

It’s like I’m my own worst critic. Every so often I create a shot that I’m really proud of.

Does anyone else have these feelings?

Recommendations from this group helped immensely on my settings for baseball last weekend, at least the daytime shots. They came out great. However, struggling with the night shots. I have a new 70-200 2.8 Nikkor lens for my D7500. It has a lot of settings on the lens itself and I haven't gotten much out of the brochure that came with the lens. Any suggestions on the settings (camera/lens). I have been shooting in Manual or shutter priority, at 2.8, auto iso, with a ss at 1,200 to 1,600, sometimes dipping down to 1,000 since the histogram is showing much too dark. I have tried using the exposure compensation from .3 to .7. Still getting really dark pics. Definitely noise, but was hoping to get some settings that would either take care of the noise or the darkness, and thought I could worry about the other in post processing. Usually shooting the third baseman, pitcher or batter. Don't go to shooting the outfield. Thanks in advance.

Many folks here say or imply that getting the "correct" exposure is a must if you want to get good images. Many will add that you have to shoot in "manual" to get control of the camera and get that "correct" exposure. I'm wondering what message this sends to newcomers.

Yes, you should try to get the exposure as close to "perfect" in the camera.

Yes, there are difficult lighting situations that can cause the camera's light meter to give you readings that may be wrong for what you want. But, let's face it, changing exposure is just a matter of letting in more or less light and/or changing the ISO. The light meters in modern cameras are pretty darn good. And if the lighting is squirrelly, you can make the proper up or down adjustments using exposure compensation if you're in one of the auto modes. And you have a fair amount of control in post-processing, particularly if you're shooting RAW.

I don't mean to resuscitate the Manual vs. semi-auto modes debate. I'm just wondering if there is too much of a mystique being attached to getting the "proper" exposure. So how important is it to "nail" the exposure settings? Aren't there more important, or at least equally important considerations such as focus, depth of field, etc.?

I was contacted by a guy who likes my photos, especially the fetish photos with the girl in prison outfits, manhandled, and under duress. And many shots quite explicit. He wants me to do a custom shoot along these themes. The 'custom' aspect would be particular odd clothing and accessories on the girl. He says that although he'd be paying, he's fine with me posting some of the photos. There'd be no post work and he'd like copies of the whole shoot. Still photos only and I'd shoot both raw (~12 meg) and high-quality JPGs (~5 meg) on each shot. This gig would likely lead to future gigs using different girls.

Model, props, and misc. would total about $200 for a 3-hour shoot. I'd shoot about an estimated 200 photos, with plenty of variety. I would deliver the photos on a thumb drive or via the web. And he'd probably pay me via PayPal.

I'd appreciate any suggestions on what to quote him. Also would appreciate any other comments or advice.