Here are some images from yesterday's session. Nikon D850, Nikon 105mm F/1.4E.
Lighting is one Einstein in a 2x3 Gridded Softbox for the main - camera left. A 3x5 (approx.) silver reflector VERY close on camera right. and another Einstein light in a 3x1 gridded softbox on a boom overhead for a hair light. The hair light was turned off for the guy in the first two images for obvious reasons!

Shooting tethered to LR is a simple process. But shooting AND printing on-site during an event is really a job for several people. On to shoot, one to cull the images and pick the ones to print and (then print them) and preferably another person to keep the people organized and ensure the right people get the right image. If you have never done this before and plan to do it alone...well...good luck with that.

The OP said this was for digital display at his camera club. If using a projector whose display is 1024x768, the images will look fine. Anything larger will be reduced to 1024x768. Printing would be a different issue.

A VERY general answer is to use Flash WB. The flash light is a touch bluer than daylight. There is not a huge difference, but there IS a difference. However, using daylight is pretty close, so that works well also. To be clear, I am referring to the light from you Nikon Speedlight. Flash from studio strobes would be different.

The only thing I would add—not really add, but emphasize—is the danger of shooting right into a bare shoulder. In both of those two otherwise really nice images is this large area of skin that takes up just as much real estate as her face. Maybe a bit more. That really pulls your eye away from the face. In. the second image, that shoulder is brighter than the face.

If the subject brings a bare-shoulder dress and you have to shoot it, then avoid that pose that puts the camera looking straight at the shoulder by turning her to more of a diagonal. You could also flag that area to cut the light falling upon it to de-emphasize all that skin. Or grid the softbox.

The whole bare shoulder/sleeveless thing is less an issue with half, 3/4, and full-length images since that area becomes much less a percentage of the person, but those tight shots really do put all that bright area in competition with the face.

Well E.L. covered all of what i see (and a bit more). The flat light was one of the more obvious issue and easy to correct with some light subtraction. I always (OK...usually) carry one of those 5-in-1 reflector deals with one side being black. WE can use that to take light AWAY and therefore give the light direction. I am about 50/50 on minimizing the background-to-floor demarcation. Sometimes I think it give some character to the image, sometimes I think is is distracting. Case-by-case judgment on that. In the image with the woman, I think it enhances that image.

Just to be clear. A different lens NEVER changes perspective. Going from wide to normal to telephoto only changes the field of view. To change perspective, the camera-to-subject distance must change.

Got one and posted images: http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-522052-1.html

But seeing 47MP images downsized and compressed to post here won't show you anything much different than my 10 year-old D3.
To appreciate what you get from the Nikon D810 or D850 you need to see actual 16x20, 20x30, 30-x40 or larger prints. I tiny web image here does not tell you squat.

Sure has been a lot of words that do not seem to answer the question. First of all for=get you ever heard of 72ppi and its relation to the monitor as has ZERO relevance.

The Apple 27" display, if it is one of the 5K monitors its 5120x2880.. The horizontal measurement is 23.5 inches. That is close to 218 PPI.

So just use some simple math. If you want the image to appear three inches wide on the monitor: 218 x 3 = 654 pixels wide and the PPI number you assign has no meaning at all.

You can find the resolution of your church monitor und the About This Mac - this first item under the Apple logo in the upper left.

The D850 can shoot square.

I don't think it is all that helpful considering the image on the LCD is much easier to see and evaluate. I have not used it in 15 years at least.

Thanks Alissa!

My apology. I was intending that for the OP, not you.

I have two of those for sure - maybe three. But here's the deal—reading the books is only helpful if you do it while setting up lights and subject, taking the photo and seeing if your result is what you are going for.

You cannot learn to fly by reading a book or watching videos, you cannot learn to cook that way, you cannot learn golf that way and you cannot learn portrait photography that way. I have hundreds of photos of myself learning to place lights and seeing how much difference a small movement can make.

Good luck.