Brian

You know what? I gave you bad advice. I'm sorry. My formula was based on photographing a computer CRT monitor, which had a higher refresh rate than a typical TV. You might have to set your SS to as low as 1/25 if you are photographing a Tube TV. Also, it's recommended to photograph the TV at a slight angle, probably to counter distortion and help with possible glare. Flat screen TVs might need a SS as high as 1/125 or 1/250 maybe 1/60. It really depends on the refresh rate and you will need to fiddle. Plus figuring out WB to make things look correct. Try Apertures between f/4 - f/8. ISO 200 should be fine.

Keep saving up for that 70-200 f/2.8G VR II. YES, High ISO and sports go hand-in hand. Especially if you want to keep your shutter at 1/500th or faster. Football Games are tough. You think with the bright lights on the field, you could keep the ISO down. Well, think again. I found that I live at ISO 3200 and want to be at 6400 (or more). The only other things that's tougher to shoot in my personal experience is an indoor basketball game. Newer technology almost always trumps older tech. The D750 is a good choice, but since you are shooting sports, you might want to hold out for the new D500. The D7000 isn't that great at the high ISO range and it's not much better than my D300s.

I'm wondering if there is a way to default your monitor and then try calibrating? Hmm... Monitors do change over time though, so as long as your prints are matching, I'd say you are fine.

These point & shoot cameras aren't meant to do that, typically. You might have to invest in a DSLR, but you don't need anything fancy. An old Nikon D40 and a prime lens will do just fine.

More info is here, including a link to the manual.

Kodak Brownie Camera on eBay Its $14 Shipped. They were extremely popular and are easy to find. They sold for $5 in 1953, which is around $45 in today's money.

In case you misplaced your manual, here it is: Sony DSC-HX200 Manual This should help you set your camera to a manual mode and turn off the focusing.

It's best to do this with the camera mounted on a tripod. Set your camera to Manuel Mode, and choose 1/60 for the Shutter Speed and f/8 for the Aperture. The ISO should be set to 200. I would focus the camera on the edge of the TV with the lights on and then switch to manual focusing, this way the camera won't try to focus. Then turn out the lights. You should be able to take photos of the TV. Remember, you'll need to think as if your camera is shooting outside in daylight, since the room is pitch-black and the TV is so bright. If you leave your camera on a auto mode, then it will try to compensate for the dark room and bump up the ISO. That's why you are getting lots of "Noise" or "Grain" in your photos.

Oh, there is the Nikon D810a, which is built for Astrophotography. Have you considered switching sides? Maybe rent a D810a and 14-24 f/2.8 or even a 24mm f/1.4? Just a thought.

Well, then you will only have one lens to work with. The 50 will be "Wider" due to the angle of view change. To get the "look" as your 50 does on your rebel, you'll need at least an 85mm lens. Most folks get the Canon 85mm f/1.8, since it's cheaper than the 85 1.2L, but the 85 1.8 is NOTORIOUS for chromatic aberration. (Purple/Blue Fringes in high contrast areas. Think tree branches against a bright sky. Lots of purple and blue around the edges.) I usually recommend a Canon 100 f/2.0 lens. NOT THE MACRO LENS, THE PORTRAIT LENS. It's the 135 f/2.0 counterpoint. The Canon 100mm f/2.0 is the lens I think you should buy with your FF body purchase. Of course, since you are doing Astro Photography, you could go really wide.

Now I'm sure some folks are interested in...say it with me now!!! "What's a good laptop for photo editing?!?!!" I am so sick of this question. Believe it or not, a laptop for photo editing pretty much matches up with a desktop for photo editing. At the minimum you are looking for: i5 or i7 CPU 8GB RAM Minimum / 16GB Preferred A 1TB HD Separate and dedicated Graphics Processor with at least 1 GB of dedicated video memory Most importantly, a display that is IPS based. That's IT. Seriously, don't over-think. Basically, a low-end gaming laptop or desktop with a IPS display will be fine for photo editing. Don't make it harder and get all worried about specs and sales mumbo-jumbo. Five things to look for. 1-2-3-4-5. That's it. Now finding an external monitor that is IPS based is pretty easy. On a laptop, it's difficult and you usually have to do some searching. So if IPS isn't stated in the sales literature, more than likely it's a TN (Twisted Nematic) screen, which is great for watching movies, playing video games, answering e-mail, wasting time on Facebook, etc. Everything but photo editing! For that, it is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED you purchase a IPS based panel. IPS screens have a much larger viewing angle and are consistent color-wise from edge to edge. Which is a good thing when you edit photos. Here is a Asus 15.6" Republic of Gamers Laptop that has all of my requirements. If you look in the product highlights, it has everything a person should look for. So if you aren't keen on Asus, that's fine. Just find another brand that has all of the same specs. Oh! One more important thing! If someone does purchase a laptop to edit photos, it is a VERY GOOD IDEA to purchase one of Acratech Viewing Angle Gauges. This little thingy attaches to the back of the display. When you see the hole filled, you are at a good angle for editing photos. If you see the hole either empty or the little nub not filling the whole, you need to adjust your laptop's display angle. It comes in Silver and it comes in Red. They are both $14.95 and if it were me, I'd get the RED. Why? Because chances are, it's gonna get lost at some point and Red is easier to see or to remind you to take it off before storing your laptop.

As far as using an external monitor with a laptop, it's a really good idea. Why? Not only will you have a larger viewing area compared to a 15" screen, it will also be easier to calibrate. That said, trying to get the external screen and the laptop's built-in display to match will be extremely difficult. Like Tequila and Aspirin will be required after calibration, due to the frustration. It's also a good idea to get the "Premium" version of the calibration tool, as it has all the calibration choices enabled in the software. Think Sypder5Elite or equivalent for the best results, but I'm sure Damien can chime in on this opinion. I have seen people get their external screens calibrated just fine, even get their laptop screens almost matching, so it can be done. As for which laptops have the best chances of accomplishing this? I have no idea. Your guess is as good as mine. The other good reason for an external display is that it will be kept in the same area the majority of the time. This is a good thing for editing photos. You want to do it with a screen that is at a consistent angle, in consistent lighting conditions and that makes calibrating easier. The main downside with laptops, is that you really need to have separate dedicated video memory with a dedicated Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) to do this type of setup well. No sense in buying a fancy 27" display, with all the cool features if your laptop can't support the thing. Combine that with drivers that won't be updated and you could have some aggravation in dealing with an external screen. So what to look for? Anything in the 20"-24" sizes have the best chances of working just fine with a laptop. A monitor that has at least a HDMI port, since most laptops have that port these days. If you can only find a monitor that has a DVI-D port, there are HDMI to DVI-D adapters on the market.

One more thought. I'm sure there are plenty of folks out there that have a love affair with their D600 / D610 and are wondering why I'm not talking about them. Here are the main two reasons: The D600 and its oil on the sensor problems. The shutter mechanism's lubricant is notorious for getting on the sensor. So much that you have to send it to Nikon for them to clean it, unless you had a local place to do a wet cleaning. After a threat of a class action lawsuit, Nikon finally caved and admitted there was a problem. I think they would either offer lifetime free cleanings (you pay shipping) or they would replace the shutter if you bitched enough. The other solution was to replace it with a D610. Of course, my knowledge is a bit dated but my opinion stands: I wouldn't touch a D600, even if it was given to me for free. The D610: This is an "OK" camera, but like the D600...it's an ENTRY LEVEL FX body. Think the FX version of the D3300. I'm not forking out $1500 for anything that is considered "Entry Level." It's meant to be outgrown. I'd much rather put that $1500 towards something better than blow it, get frustrated 12-18 months later and be forced to upgrade to something else. In fact, I know several D600/D610 users that regret their purchase and wished they spent the extra money to get a D750. So there you have it. That's why I didn't list the D600/610. I'm a big fan of "Buy it Right - Buy it Once."

I forgot to add radio triggers. But we can cover that at a later time. You can get a EX or EX+ D700 and new 85 1.8 / 50 1.8 for now.

Final thoughts: Instead of spending $4500 on a D810 and lenses, I'd get the D700 kit, with a 85mm f/1.8G and a 50mm f/1.8D. Get an Einstein 640 light for $500 and a Zack Arias One Light Kit for $100. You might want to add a Savage seamless paper kit for $115. If you want to get fancy, buy one of these posing stools for $100. The cost for all of that: $2305. Then find a small studio space. You just need two walls and a floor. Commercial rent can be cheap. You should be able to find a place for $300 or so per month. Start with headshots. People need headshots for all sorts of things. From acting gigs to dating profiles. They are quick and easy. I seriously need to take my own advice and do them myself. Believe it or not, there is more profit in headshots than shooting weddings. A lot less stress too. So there you have it. Either blow your money on a D810 setup or get a D700, some lenses and lights AND a studio for about the same cost, or slightly more.

So those are your choices. In all of them, you will need to increase your budget. The kit with the most options and primes that is the cheapest is the D700 with primes. Followed by a new D500 and used 17-55 f/2.8. As soon as you go higher, the cost jumps over the $3000 mark all the way up to $4500. (Rounded off.) Photography isn't cheap. LOL!! We haven't even talked about getting a CPA, learning Quickbooks, paying quarterly taxes and all the other sh*t that comes with being a "legit" business. That's a whole other thread.

Now for other options: This is the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8G lens. This lens is responsible for MY serious case of N.A.S (Nikon Acquisition Syndrome) also known as G.A.S. (Gear Acquisition Syndrome). I'm getting this lens next month. No, I'm not getting the newer 24-70 VR version as the new version isn't as sharp for the way I shoot. It's honestly a bit soft and Nikon can't seem to sell them. In fact, they just dropped the price on the newer version to help boost sales. I'm still buying the original 24-70 f/2.8G. This lens needs to be on your RADAR. I have a love affair with mine. Her name is Bertha. She is big and heavy and expensive...and worth it. She is the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8G VR II lens. Great all-around lens. Can shoot portraits and all sorts of things with it. I HIGHLY RECOMMEND GETTING ONE, WHETHER YOU ARE SHOOTING FX OR DX. This lens gets sh*t done and I can't imagine not having one. If you were getting a D500, I'd recommend purchasing a used Nikon 17-55 f/2.8G DX Lens. It's the "24-70" for crop bodies. The only downside is that it's a DX lens, so if you ever did decide to go FX, it would be best to sell it. Currently, they are around $650 at KEH.com. So if you did get a D500, and a 17-55, you are looking at $2650, conversationally speaking.

OK, used option with FX. This is one to consider. You could get a used Nikon D700 from KEH.com for $879. Combine that with a few FX lenses and it gives you a starting point. Prime Lenses that I recommend: Nikon 85mm f/1.8G - $476.95. Pros: I own this lens. It's one of Nikon's best kept secrets as it's really sharp. Sharper than the bigger brother, the 85mm f/1.4G and A LOT cheaper. Great for head and neck portraits, like headshots. Cons: While it's sharp, it has "Decent Bokeh," not the "Legendary Creamy Bokeh." For that, you'll need to spend $1700 and get the 85mm f/1.4G. Here is one of my favorite shots that I took with the D700 and 85mm f/1.8G. Here comes the Bride For something affordable and wider, consider the Nikon 28mm f/1.8G lens. The cost is $696.95 and is more affordable than the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G, which is a GREAT lens but expensive. Then there is the old Nikon AF 50mm f/1.8D lens, which is a staple item in practically every bag. It's cheap @ 131.95 and it's sharp. So lets recap: D700 for $880 85mm f/1.8G for $477 50mm f/1.8D for $132 28mm f/1/8G for $697 Plus a few CF cards, since it only has a CF slot. Estimated Cost: $2186, plus CF cards like this one or this one. You might need a reader, such as the Sandisk Card Reader that I recommend. So call that $200 for accessories. Rounded off, it's $2400 for a used kit, with new prime lenses. So either way, you'll need a budget of AT LEAST $2500, preferably more. Remember, the average cost to switch to FX is between $4000-$4500. Once you have to start adding lenses to the FX body, the price just shoots up. This is the main problem with DX lenses. If we did a D810 body with the three prime lenses, plus adding $200 for CF Cards, we are at $4302.95. See how this works? In reality, you need $4000 instead of $2000 if you are going to buy NEW gear. That said, if you were to purchase a Nikon D750 Body only and combine that with the three primes, we are at a $3303 Price Point, about $1000 less. Since the D750 takes SD cards, you can use the cards you already have.

FX is really the future. Nikon has been making half-assed attempts when it comes to the DX line. We have been waiting on the D300s replacement, the D500 for a really, REALLY long time. Combine that with the lack of DX lens choices that are of the "Professional Grade" type, and the ones that are out there, tend to be expensive. The downside is, I have a really hard time recommending a Pro DX lens that's $1400+ because DX lenses are ONLY designed to work on DX bodies. Sure you can mount a DX lens on a FX body, but that will throw the FX body into "Crop Mode" and really cripple the camera. You do not want to put a DX lens on a FX body. It's just not worth it. Trust me. Here are some ideas: Nikon D810 with 24-120 f/4 VR -- Right now Nikon has a sale going on, and it's $1100 off @ $3299. Nikon D810 (Body Only) -- $2796.95 The D810 is a fine camera, and I'm so tempted to purchase one. It's Dynamic Range is killer in the Nikon Line-up, meaning you can pull so much out of the RAW file. It's even better than the D4 line of cameras. I know of several Music Photographers that shoot rock concerts and festival events with a D810. So for Lifestyle and Portraits, this is the camera to do it with. Pros: Dynamic Range, Rugged Body, QUIET! QUIET! QUIET!! The shutter is amazingly quiet on this thing. Nikon really got it right this time. Cons: The 36MP and the large Raw file sizes that are produced because of it. So you'll have to upgrade your storage and at least have 16GB of RAM on your computer. So not only are you buying a new camera and lens, but probably upgrading/replacing your computer to handle the D810 files. Nikon D750 with 24-120 f/4 VR Lens -- Same sale is going on and this combo is $2296.95. Not much more than your budget of $2000. Pros: The D750 is also a fine camera. It's great for the folks like yourself who are making the jump from their D90 bodies to FX. It's very much like the D5xxx line, possibly the D7xxx line. The screen tilts out so the camera will allow you more options when it comes to angles. Cons: I really like this camera, but if you are rough on your gear like I am, I would be careful as the weather sealing isn't robust as the D810. For those wondering what do I mean rough? I was whale watching in rough seas, got slammed by a 25 foot wave which drenched me and my camera. I ended up pouring bottled water all over my D300s and 70-200 lens, so that the salt would wash off. I photographed a Wedding a week later with no issues with the same gear. I wouldn't try that with a D750. LOL!! That said, you might do well with a D750 for your 1st go-around in FX, since you are already shooting with a D90, it won't be that much different handling-wise. Plus the High-ISO capabilities with this camera...they are better than a D4s! So you really have two choices at this point with FX. Either a D750 or D810. Unless you want to go the used route in which case I'd recommend a D700 and some lenses. More info on the used option in the next comment blurb.

OK...$2000. That's tight. Right now, if you want to stay DX, you could get a D7200, which is the replacement for your D90. Or if you can wait a few months, the D500 should be out, which would be a step-up for you. It has a lot of the features and focusing system of the new Nikon D5. From the videos that I've seen, it's almost like the kid brother of the Nikon D5. Either way, you will have a lot more freedom with higher ISO settings, as the D90 really starts to look bad at around ISO 800. If I had to choose between the D7200 or D500, hands down I'd get the new D500. Unfortunately, that body by itself should be around the $1999 mark, which completely blows your budget for lenses. Lenses...you have all the consumer-grade kit lenses that come with bodies and that's going to increase your costs on this upgrade path. The upside is, you do not have any idea on what you are missing in terms of image quality. There is a big difference with the lenses you have and the pro-grade stuff. I was once like yourself, kit lenses, all those consumer grade zooms...yadda-yadda-yadda. I then made the mistake of borrowing a friend's Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 and have been spoiled ever since. That one lens alone has made me spend over $8000 in gear, and I'm still not done. LOL!! Side-story: I needed to upgrade from my Nikon D40, which come to find out was a "bridge camera body," meaning it was meant to be outgrown. So with limited funds, I found out that Best Buy was selling Nikon D200 bodies for around $650. The D300 had just come out and they were liquefying stock. "Great!" I thought. I can't afford to spend $1799 on a Nikon D300 and I really need to get away from my D40. So I took the plunge. Big Mistake. Now, while I liked the D200 and it's external controls and switches, it really topped out at ISO 640. Anything higher and it was Noise-City. Even Nikon tried to "justify" the noise by adding a blurb in the manual!! LOL!! So I lived with the D200 until I was able to upgrade to the D300s a few years later. My point to this side-story? While it's important to have a realistic budget, it's even more important to not try to save money by "settling," because at that point you are just wasting money and throwing it away. If I made things work a little longer with the D40, I probably could have saved myself $650 and used that towards the D300s, which I'm still shooting with...Weddings and all. OK, I told you that story to help tell the main one a little better. I'd just bought the D200 and was going to go on a Photowalk. A friend offered to lend me her Nikon 24-70 f/2.8G to try out on my fancy new camera body. (Ah...the smell of new gear.) So I mounted the 24-70 and started to take photos. The thing wouldn't focus. I freaked out...was there something wrong with my camera body? Did I break her lens? I unmounted and remounted the lens and took a few shots. I looked in my camera's settings and made the change to "only take the photo when it's in focus" to enabled. The camera produced a few more shots. I thought the lens STILL isn't focusing. "Why is the camera taking photos?" Frustrated, I decided to manually turn the focus ring until the entire image was blurry in the viewfinder and pressed the shutter button half-way. ZIP!! Image was in focus, almost instantaneously! My jaw dropped. It turned out that the lens focused so fast compared to my 18-55, the damn thing was waiting on me! That sucker locked on like a heat-seeking missle. No lens hunting back and forth. No waiting. Boom! In focus. "Holy Sh*t!" I said to the fellow Photowalker next to me. I had no idea of the speed difference in focusing, it was addicting. So I did the rest of the Photowalk and then went to take a few photos of the stuff that I normally would, just to have a side-by-side comparison when I went home. Now, by this time I was in hard 4PM light with no shade. Not the light that produces great photos, but I was burning daylight, so I shot any way. I then checked my histogram and then looked for the blown-highlights. The histogram was really even and when I went to check for the blown areas...aka, "The Blinkies," there was hardly any. In fact, there were none on some of the photos. It turns out that the Nano-coating on the 24-70 was doing it's job. Combine that with the better glass and my images were instantly better compared to shooting with the 18-55. So there is a BIG DIFFERENCE and if you experience this, your wallet will feel the pain. Like I said, this one lens turned me into a Nikon Pro-Grade Lens Snob. So my point is try to get your lenses lined up first, THEN get the body. Keep in mind, that you will need to choose your path, either stay with DX or upgrade to FX. Either way, you are going to spend around $4000, because right now you have all consumer-grade stuff. Well, the D90 is considered "Advanced Amateur / Prosumer," but we are splitting hairs at this point. A D500 is $1999 and lenses...they are going to cost you money too. So I guess before we go on, are you looking to upgrade to FX or stick with DX? Because at this point, you really are starting over from scratch and are at a fork in the road.

I found a portion of an old article about laptops and photo editing that I wrote a few years ago. Here it is, and I will be updating it to version 3.0 in the very near future. Oh, this article is more of a rant that needs to be toned down. That will happen in version 3.0. You have been warned. The short answer is: "I DO NOT RECOMMEND LAPTOPS FOR PHOTO EDITING." Culling and showing a slideshow...fine. Editing, notsomuch. Here is why: 1. The Screen's Angle of View is the main thing. Each time you open the display, your colors and contrast will change because the angle of what you’re viewing has changed. So unless you make some sort of jig or use an alignment tool to guarantee the angle of the screen is the same, you aren't going to be very consistent from shot to shot or batch to batch. Have a Cat or Children? A simple bump or rub from them can screw up the laptop's Angle of View. Even if you "know" that you have never touched the screen. There are no guarantees. 2. Laptop screens are usually very glossy and bright. Laptop screens are meant to be viewed in a variety of environments and in all sorts of lighting, from an Airport to Coffee Shop to your Home and points beyond. They are great for web browsing, watching a movie, writing e-mail, balancing your checkbook, etc. basically everything else BUT NOT PHOTO EDITING. 3. Be sure to budget for a Calibration Tool if you don't already have one! Your colors are going to be a whacked until you get a baseline and get calibrated. THEN you will have to compare them to your prints. Expect lots of frustration and questions posted in "Ask Damien" on why your screen won't calibrate correctly. Since laptops change so quickly, they are "orphaned" a lot quicker than desktops. Meaning driver updates or compatibility issues with your calibration tool likely won't be fixed or addressed. (I can't tell you how many photos I have seen in Ask Damien on why Calibration Profiles just don't "stick" with laptops, due to their crappy drivers.) The only laptops that I've still seen get good reviews for being decent out of the box are the MacBook Pro's, but those laptops are very expensive. Now, I usually get the response, "But my last laptop was fine and it lasted 7-10 years…" or "My Prints matched my laptop's screen pretty well (on my old laptop)…" or something along those lines. My response: YOU GOT LUCKY!! Don't bank on it happening again. As display panels change, so do the way they reproduce colors. Manufactures are always looking to cut costs and keep power consumption low on laptops, so the displays could be better…or more than likely worse with each newer model. 4. Horsepower is another issue. They are designed with low power consumption in mind so they aren't always the fastest. Heat…Heat is the enemy. The faster or harder something runs, the hotter it gets, the longer things take to complete, and things to lock-up and hesitate on a normal basis. So if you are doing a lot of batching, that could've an issue. Now comes for the upgradeability issues and hardware limitations. RAM usually can't be upgraded more than 8GB and HD's are small and tend to be slow, again for lower power consumption. Laptops usually only have 500GB HD, and if you are lucky a 750GB HD. Unfortunately, one third of that is taken up by the Operating System, and pre-installed crapware. After you add your software, there is very little room left over for large .psd and RAW files. Video Memory is often shared with the RAM so the ability to power very large resolutions that drive 27" displays is non-existent. Meaning, you can't just simply go out and by whatever display that you wish, you'll need to pay attention to the maximum resolution that the laptop can produce for an external display. Laptops that have their own dedicated memory are a little better powering the larger displays, but most people don’t request them, so those models are a bit harder to find and usually cost a lot more. 5. Keyboards and Trackpads are usually terrible. It's an eye-opening experience when you physically go to a store and try some typing and use a track-pad. Keyboards are quite cheap these days and I can almost guarantee you, a mouse will be hooked up to a laptop for photo editing. So that kills some portability right there. Now, I have seen some folks like trackpads for editing, but it's pretty rare to see. 6. Reliability. Laptops often only last about 3 years before they become "Too Slow" or start locking up or just downright fail on you. 3 Years is the average these days. So where do you get them fixed? At least with Apple and Sony, they have Apple and Sony Stores. OEM Batteries aren't cheap either. They average about $150 or more to get a replacement. Time-frame, batteries seem to last 1.5 years on the average. Sometimes it’s less, sometimes it’s more.

First question... "What is your budget?" Second Question... Is the D90 and 18-105 the only gear that you have?

It's better to stick with Raw, uncompressed preferred...or lossless compressed. 12-Bit is fine if that's an option on your camera. 14-bit Raw is also fine, but you really won't see a real-world difference between 12-bit and 14-bit. Now, I'm sure there are plenty of Measurebators out there that will tell me otherwise, but I like to keep things simple. Oh, the difference between Raw and JPEG can be summed up as this statement: RAW = "The End." JPEG = thend Now, to take it one step further, lets add MRAW and SRAW to the mix: Raw = "The End." mRaw = "The End sRaw = ThEnd JPEG = thend As you can see, you are throwing bits of data away, in addition to resolution. So it's best to stick with plain old boring Raw and keep things simple. The only time you want to throw bits of data away is when you are converting to JPEG.

Oops. Sorry about that. I sit corrected. I just edited my post.

Yep. I've used them since the 1990's. They are a good source for RAM and prices are reasonable. You'll see their scanning tool on the main page, but I'm thinking it will cost you about $100 to take your Mac to 16GB. (I think the kits are around $48 each). Still on 4GB? OMG!! You have no idea on what you are missing out. It will be like having a whole new computer. There is a MAJOR difference between 4GB and 16GB. Enjoy your purchase. PS: The scanning tool is a .dmg file that will go to your downloads folder. Look for it there and double-click it. It's harmless.