Ah ha! Thank you so much!
John
Thanks everyone for your help, lots to digest...to clarify, I use a Mac with latest OS. The software is their ‘Photo’. After loading the images, I select the images that I want to share on Dropbox, click on edit then copy and paste to Dropbox. Once the choices are selected by the client, I have to look through the images in Photo to find the one that matches the full size file. I then select it, click on File then Export to a file I set up for the project. So the problem is with the naming of the copied, low res images. I’ll confess to the “Spray and Pray” technique more than I should which compounds the problem. I use the D810 but jpgs vs raw. PS for editing, using Actions purchased.
Willing to learn new programs if I can’t find a way to conserve the naming system the camera uses...thanks for your thoughts
I shoot headshots and post low res versions for the client to choose from. The problem that I've encountered is that when I "copy' and paste the image the naming system chooses numbers and letters which don't match the full res versions in my original file. A lot of work to hunt down the original file that corresponds to the low res version...help!
example: full res DSC_6103..... low res copy UNADJUSTEDNONRAW_thumb_137b.jpg
Any issues with DOF at 2.8?
Constant lighting vs strobe.
My local photo store advises strobes over led constant lighting. My current gear uses D600, 80-200 2.8 and a two light led system w reflector. I found that I had to raise the ISO, open the aperature, and slow the speed to levels that were on the edge of what I wanted. Shallow DOF, used tripod with 1/80, F 3.5, ISO 320.
So, do I buy a stronger key light? Soft box, 4 fluorescent bulbs or trade in my gear for a three light strobe system?
The cost w trade vs adding a light would be about the same, $175 or so.
Thanks for your thoughts
docdish wrote:
Around 100-120 is more flattering. Razor sharp details are not needed. Be kind when retouching and you will have a client forever.
Thanks! 80-200 it is. I'll post some results next week
canon Lee wrote:
One advantage of using 80~200mm is that you can be further away from the subject, giving them a comfort area. Both have the range. By moving further back you can place your lights/soft box further apart.
Oh, good thought. I plan on using a tripod and shooting full frame.
Thanks, that's what I was thinking. I hear a lot about the 85 or 105 so the 80-200 will have that covered!
Ha, not looking to add gear at this point, maybe later. Of the two, which do I use?
Which lens should I use for corporate headshots; 80-200 2.8 or 28-70 2.8?