Amanda, no contradiction there. Ultimately, my consideration is always how I want to expose for my subjects.

Sometimes I expose correctly for them via my ambient light, and other times I use flash to expose correctly for them.

But you also have to remember that “correct” is a flexible thing, and open to interpretation. But that’s another topic altogether … and we’ll get there. :)

Neil vN

Again… so excited, like a child in a candy store over all this wonderful knowledge you are sharing with us. As you can see from all my questions, I’m all over your site reading and absorbing.

After reading this blog, I’m left with a question….

In previous readings, I learn that you meter for the background to capture the exposure you desire, then the TTL flash will fill-in the subject and everything falls into place. Right?

And, on this lession, you mention “to expose for the brighter background, and use then use flash (or some kind of supplemental lighting), to bring your subject’s exposure up” which is in-line with other tutorials I’ve been learning here.

But, then you seem to contradict in a reply to Martyn that you “expose for my subjects. If the backgrounds blow out, so be it.”

Based on these two contradictory statements, I’m assuming to blow-out the background or not is more of a preference with the individual setting & subject matter, right? Or, which is the best method for optimal exposure for the whole scene? I’m lead to believe to expose for the brighter background and then use flash to bring up the subject is better?

On a side note, I was wondering if you considered posting a tutorial that could be entitled “Starting Points”….that goes into depth about your basic, starting settings for different lighting scenarios.

Of course, we all know that nothing is the magic setting, but throughout the board I have seen you mention what you would “start with” and go from there… such as indoors with ambient light, outdoors in full sun, outdoors in shade, what flash exposure compensation you start with, etc. etc.

All of your posts are invaluable, and I think a lot of your students would find a lesson like this really beneficial.

Thank you for all you do! Thank you for giving so much of your time to explain with patience and true desire to teach others.

-Amanda

I realize this is getting away from lighting but since we’re talking bodies and lenses I’ll share my experience as I’ve owned the D40, D70, D90 and D300. This might open a can of worms but here goes:

D40 requires lenses with an internal motor — the 50mm 1.8, 85mm 1.8 and numerous 3rd party lenses will not auto focus on the D40. I loved the photos coming out of the D40 but I wanted access to some of these other lenses. I sold the D40 and bought a second hand D70 on Ebay for $300.

The D90 takes virtually identical pictures as the D300. They share the same sensor and are equal at high ISO’s (ie. 1600) but the D90 costs $700 less. There’s probably very little reason (if any) to choose the D300 over the D90 unless you are considering to go pro. That is, a consumer probably won’t need the ruggedness of the D300 body and/or access to a few of the controls that are buried in the D90 menu. If money is an issue, which it is for most, I would suggest that a consumer buy the D90 and put the extra $ that would have gone into a D300 body into fast 2.8 zoom lenses or 1.4/1.8 primes instead.

Ernst

With regards to the blurry background, the budget 55-200mm VR even at F5.6 produces blurry backgrounds, especially when zoomed in. A nice little lens for about $200 in brighter conditions.

Mel, you won’t quite get the same effect with a slow zoom. A fast zoom or prime lens will be the best choice here.

I think I should add a new article, to show how you can get the same minimal depth-of-field, with affordable lenses like the 85mm f1.8

Neil vN

the most important recommandation I could give you, is get a good book about photographic basics or search the internet. Those kind of things are really essential to achieve ‘good’ pictures. There is nothing special I could recommend you, because I’m not native English speaking and have no cloue what special book in English would fit to your needs…

To answer your recent question: You will get a shallow depth of field the more you get to wide focal lengths, a wide aperture (i.e. f4 and blow) and it is crucial to check your distances between the subject and the background.

That means, use a focal length from 50mm and above, use a wide blend aperture and stay as close to the subject as possible (fill the frame with a face etc.) and be shure your background is a least a couple of feet behind your subject.

Typical portrait focal lengths are between 60 to 140mm and 135mm is the classic. Keep in mind that you’re using and APS-C camera which will do some cropping to your focal length compared to full frame cameras. Take the number on your lens by 1.5 and you will get something around 40-85mm for classical portrait focal length. You can choose above 85mm (APS-C) as well and it will work fine, plus the depth of field will be more shallow by getting to the far end.

I hope this helps as probably this will be far better explained in some good literature.

I’m rockin’ a D40 like Mel (along with the 18-55mm kit lens, a 55-200mm VR, sigma 30mm prime, and a sigma 18-50mm f/2.8, vivitar DF-383 flash… such is my meager budget, unfortunately) and I must say I’ve been hooked on the blog since I ran across it. Very inspirational, and I’ve come to the conclusion that when I can manage to make the step up from my wee little D40, it’ll be a big step up to something along the lines of a D300 instead of the D90 I’d previously drooled over.

Thanks for the inspiration! Any suggestions you can give those of us with completely inferior equipment would be awesome. (I’m only able to shoot up to ISO 400 reliably without noise.)

Keep up the good work!

Hi there Mel,

In this and the other image you mention, I used a 70-200mm f2.8 zoom. The longer focal length at a not-so-small aperture (f4 for these two images), meant that the background would go beautifully out of focus with the shallow depth-of-field. It isn’t a Photoshop effect, and any attempts I’ve seen in Photoshop that might emulate this effect of shallow depth of field, doesn’t match the optical results.

Either of these two lenses would do it for you:

Nikon 70-200mm f2.8G ED AF-S

.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS

John .. I buy them from the art store, Michaels.

Neil vN