Merco_61

And now for the second one:

Basic edit in Capture NX-D.

Changed picture control to [LS] Landscape.

Activated Active D-lighting on Normal.

EC -1/3 EV

Crop

Over to PS CC

CEP Velvia 100-emulation brushed in on the castle.

CEP Portra 160 NC with 16% shadow protection.

Burn 22% on highlights in the clouds.

First the cityscape:

basic edit in Capture NX-D

Changed picture control to [LS] Landscape.

Adjusted WB from the white building in the lower left corner.

Tweaked the curves for the combined RGB channels and red channel separately.

The red channel tweak is to enhance the roofs and give a sunsetty feel.

I did a monochrome version in SEP as well. The starting point was the finished colour version.

The castle/school will need more thought before I tackle it.

Thank you, Urban for letting us play.

Here is another:

231 stitched photos with the 105DC @ 2.8 and DC @ 2.8R

D700

ISO: 200

A first attempt of a wide angle view with a short DOF.

144 stitched photos with the 105DC @ 2.8 and DC @ 2.8R

D700

ISO: 200

The 17-35 isn't as good at finding unwanted stray light as the 14-24, but without the hood it will... The bloom is probably as much from overexposed sky as from the veiling flare itself.

You can save your watermark as a .png to preserve transparency and use it in your export preset in LR without problems.

As you dislike the normal practice on both Canon and Nikon pro bodies of using an angled USB3 connector and some gaffer's tape, perhaps the WT-6 is worth a look?

On the D700, I use a RRS L-plate with the spacer block to mount the much flimsier USB2 contact securely. The spacer works with Kirk plates as well and is a better solution than the Kirk spacer as there is a sturdy strain relief built-in.

Is your front element clean? Do you use the HB-23 hood? The 17-35 is prone to flare even if light hits at an oblique angle without the hood and it can give horrible bloom around highlights if it isn't totally clean. I agree that the flare doesn't look like the samples I have seen related to the recall. See if you can get the flares with some other lens in adverse lighting. You can try a 16-35/4 or a 20/1.8 in a shop with a flash and a mirror or a strong flashlight to provoke flare if you can't borrow a lens and try it in similar lighting as your problem photos. They are both stellar lenses when it comes to suppressing flare.

Finding that connection is much harder with the longer teles than with a traditional 85 or 105. This cool feeling is one reason the 180 is so popular for high fashion as the decoupling is one of the things one is after in that context. I agree with TBonz that #4 makes me uncomfortable.

To put things into perspective, Fuji Reala had slightly under 8 stops of DR. This was enough to get full detail in both the bride's dress and a black morning coat in full sun. That was the widest gamut available in the analog days, and it was a ISO 100 film. The D4s is over 8 stops still at ISO 25600 when downsampled for a 45x30 cm print in pixelpeeper quality according to DxOmark. The D5 is markedly better.

The dpreview test is flawed IMO as it tests how ACR interprets the NEF as much as it tests the sensor output itself. Another flaw is that you always introduce massive noise when shooting to the left and raising exposure in post, this makes the method questionable.

The three current FX bodies are very different from each other. The D810 is made for studio and landscape shooting where every bit of DR and every pixel counts. The D750 isn't the best at anything, but it can be used with good results for any task and the D5 is a tool for PJ, sports and documentary shooting in low light and at high speed. 

Well thought out and executed, Nicole.

I spent from Easter Sunday to yesterday abed with clogged sinuses and a sore throat, so I haven't touched a camera this week. Hopefully I will get some nice spring afternoons to try Ryan Brenizer's method with the 105DC@ f/2.8 and max defocus to the rear without softfocus. It will be an interesting experiment.

I do ok with the D300 and D700 as it is. I will get the D500 sooner or later, but the D810 might be necessary before that if I land a job where 12 MP just doesn't cut it. The D8x0 will probably have the D5 AF and more D500-like ergonomics, so I hope the need for high resolution doesn't materialize just yet...

A D810 will mean a new computer as well as my mid-2010 MBP is somewhat slow with 36 MP files. It still handles D750 and D3x NEFs without complaints, but D800 or D810 is a bit much to ask when batch-processing. This puts the D810 very close to a D5 cost-wise.

That depends on if you will only use G series cards. I think the adapter is G only, the card reader handles all XQD formats. I don't know if the adapter handles the fast Lexar cards or not. M series cards, for example, are much cheaper than the G cards.

I have B+W 007M filters that I use when I will be out in flying sand, dust or water spray. They are made from clear optical glass, multicoated and the threaded rings are brass so they don't gall. They are quite cheap for the quality, only $44.95 in 72 mm from B&H. When I am not in these high-risk situations, they stay off as there are situations when they can produce ghost images and strange artifacts.

I have lost one lens *because of* the filter as it shattered on impact and pieces of filter embedded themselves in the front element. I don't know if the front element had survived that time, but it seems probable.

You don't seem to have lost either you eye for the game or your timing in the off-season. A nice set as usual.