I normally use DropBox to just send final edited jpgs but in this case they have asked too see all the photos including ones I didn't select for editing which are like 800 shots. I'd rather not release any unedited shots (NEF or otherwise) unless I understand what they want with them. I sent them a pdf contact sheet just assuming they want to see if I missed any good shots in the raws but they are admittedly hard to see with 20 per page.

I'm looking for program or phone app or program to show photos to a client for their review and selection without actually sending them the full res images. Is there an easy way to do this? Perhaps Smugmug or maybe out of Lr? Perhaps something they can click or swipe without having to type or list out the photo numbers for me.

I think something like that cube could work for an in-frame target but for use on a stage or runway it would have to be larger and have more facets, say a dodecahedron or maybe a sphere, to reflect light from at least 3 different directions. Then you have the option of choosing which point best represents the lighting conditions on the face for example.

Woah that looks perfect. It's getting to the point where I sometimes know the show producers well enough that I can make lighting and staging suggestions. Something like this could be integrated into the runway.

I'm wondering what would be the ideal white balance target to have in the frame during a shoot where the lighting color is not constant and where the light is a different color from different directions.

I've been shooting fashion shows lately and the lighting is usually pretty bad. The lighting for the runway is a mix of colors and types and directions, sometimes changing in real-time and along the length of the runway.

There is really no way to set white balance that would work short of having a white balance target in every shot. I was thinking that a white sphere would work sort of like the spheres they use on movie sets.

At one show I ended up using a white vinyl sheet on the floor as a passable white balance target. Since light was coming from several directions I could sample at different places of the ripples in the vinyl for a passable WB correction.

At 1 and 2 you can see that there is a lot of background and subject light reflected. At 3 it is almost a perfect representation of the incident light.

The OP doesn't ask a question so I think everyone jumps off in a different direction. The RX10 is a great suggestion for a light weight super zoom and has a zeiss lens which you mentioned. I think I triggered everyone by observing that the focal length wasn't exactly as advertised so I guess it's my fault 😅

I was a little off. The actual focal length is 220mm. It is printed on the lens. The rest of the advertised "reach" is the 2.7 crop factor which gives you a field of view close to the 600mm.

Peace.

I would not go ML for still or controlled shooting. The color rendition on my Nikon D850 and fast lenses has not been matched IMO. There is not enough value with the ML cost and too many sacrifices in color, battery life, durability, etc.

For runway work I waited until the Sony autofocus system was too good to pass up (which was this last year). The Nikon DSLR autofocus system is not reliable when shooting handheld at 50mm with a moving model and when the light is unpredictable and usually bad. I have to shoot wide open and with a shutter speed as low as 1/250 just to keep ISO and noise reasonable. The Sony autofocus system does all this. It locks onto eyes and tracks at 50mm wide open at f/1.2. Just crazy good. That said I don't think any of 50k photos I've taken with Sony ML in the last year has eclipsed the beauty of what the D850 does.

Just an observation. I dont think that is a true 600mm. It should be more like 200mm with the rest being a crop factor. It is basically the field of view of a 600mm with the magnification of a 200mm.

Going down that trail of AI Denoise, we will not need a camera in the future. We will just ask AI to give us an image of such and such. Using AI technology on a photograph of say, a duck, will give you a duck shaped image but not a photograph of your duck.

As you can see, AI has no idea what a pair of yoked oxen look like, or even a human or a field for that matter. I know MidJourney is much better but at this point I'm almost afraid to ask what abomination it might create and then I have to burn it with fire.

A rating like this is to sell lenses and cameras I'm afraid. It serves the manufacturer and retailer.

The score is based on a weighted average of the several factors like this:

DXO = A*Shrp + B*Dist + C*Vig + D*Trans + E*ChrDist

The factor values like Sharpness and Transmission are in different units and so are not relatable in the first place. They are normalized to an arbitrary dimensionless value.

The weighting coefficients A, B, C... are entirely fabricated in a smokey room and who knows who paid who what to set sharpness as the most heavily weighted and to leave off cost for example.

The end result is that while the final score is not without some value to us, does a difference of 2 or 3 points really mean anything?

Also this score intentionally directs the attention away from things I'm curious about. How many elements and groups? Is there any soul left in the image after it has passed through 20+ pieces of glass? What is the costs to transmission? I have to buy a camera with a next gen sensor just to get any signal through the endless bloated gauntlet of glass. The lens maker is unloading the responsibility for transmission onto the sensor technology because we must all bow down to the god of corner-to-corner sharpness.

Sharpness is over-rated. Vignetting can be completely compensated for in Lr. Chromatic aberration is an artistic feature not a negative aspect of a lens.

Rant mode off.

Yes. Thank you.

You can get 2 more stops of light out of the turkey photo by dropping from f/8 to f5.6. Your depth of field will drop from 22 feet to 8 feet but your ISO will drop to 200.

You might also squeeze some light out of your shutter speed. Birds can be jittery but you might get another stop of light by dropping below 1/640s.

At these ranges you should be able to shoot that lens locked wide open. Then choose a shutter speed that doesn't result in motion blur and let the ISO float.

I've seen enough Nat Geo photography to know that the secret is getting close to your subject. This alone is worth thousands of dollars of camera equipment and fixes all the problems you are having.

In low or natural light, it is harder to photograph a group of animals than a single subject. A single subject allows you to minimize depth of field, maximize aperture, minimize ISO, minimize noise etc.

The D7100 is a great camera for this. It has one of the best sensors ever made. A full frame camera won't fix any of the issues you are having.

Post an example image for us. I'm curious about your shutter speed and subject distance and if you are using a smaller aperture than necessary.