Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
General Photography
Portrait
Adding lights vs. wider aperture lens
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="bluebird" data-source="post: 188365" data-attributes="member: 16097"><p>Having a baby and living in an area with terrible weather is forcing my portrait efforts indoors. Despite a house with lots of natural light, my current setup can't keep up with my wiggling baby and I'm getting a lot of motion blur due to the slow shutter speeds.</p><p></p><p>The current setup: Nikon D600 in aperture priority mode with 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G VR AF-S lens. An "average" indoor portrait shot ends up at about 50mm, f3.5, ISO 6400, 1/20s. </p><p></p><p>I'm considering adding a LumoPro LP180 speedlight on a stand with a shoot-through umbrella, slaved to the pop-up flash. </p><p></p><p>The other option I'm looking at is switching to a 35mm f1.8 to get wider apertures and thus more light, but I'm worried that it won't get enough extra light and that the narrower depth of field will make capturing my subject even harder as she gets more active. </p><p></p><p>I can't afford to make both upgrades at once, so which is likely to give me more bang for the buck?</p><p></p><p>Should I be looking at continuous umbrella lighting or softboxes instead?</p><p></p><p>Thanks in advance!</p><p></p><p>Megan</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="bluebird, post: 188365, member: 16097"] Having a baby and living in an area with terrible weather is forcing my portrait efforts indoors. Despite a house with lots of natural light, my current setup can't keep up with my wiggling baby and I'm getting a lot of motion blur due to the slow shutter speeds. The current setup: Nikon D600 in aperture priority mode with 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G VR AF-S lens. An "average" indoor portrait shot ends up at about 50mm, f3.5, ISO 6400, 1/20s. I'm considering adding a LumoPro LP180 speedlight on a stand with a shoot-through umbrella, slaved to the pop-up flash. The other option I'm looking at is switching to a 35mm f1.8 to get wider apertures and thus more light, but I'm worried that it won't get enough extra light and that the narrower depth of field will make capturing my subject even harder as she gets more active. I can't afford to make both upgrades at once, so which is likely to give me more bang for the buck? Should I be looking at continuous umbrella lighting or softboxes instead? Thanks in advance! Megan [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
General Photography
Portrait
Adding lights vs. wider aperture lens
Top