[LugBug1]

Do you guys think I should subscribe to Adobe's Lightroom/Photoshop thing ($10 per month) or just buy Lightroom?

Yes as Eke2k6 says its better value to get both as you may need PS further down the line.
 
Having said that, I only use PS to merge shots. The new Lightroom 6 is going to have HDR capabilities so in my case this will make PS obsolete. All depends on what you will be using it for, but any kind of pro portrait stuff you'll probably find PS critical. For general photography, lightroom is all you need imo. It does all the stuff that purist Ansel Adams used to do on film... Only digitally    

 

[tomscy2000]

  Yes as Eke2k6 says its better value to get both as you may need PS further down the line.  
Having said that, I only use PS to merge shots. The new Lightroom 6 is going to have HDR capabilities so in my case this will make PS obsolete. All depends on what you will be using it for, but any kind of pro portrait stuff you'll probably find PS critical. For general photography, lightroom is all you need imo. It does all the stuff that purist Ansel Adams used to do on film... Only digitally    

 
Any kind of photography that requires blemish removal, color transition smoothing, and compositing will need the added power of Ps. The two genres that come to mind are portrait and product/still life/food --- particularly in the commercial realm. Commercial architectural shots will also require Ps work for the same reasons. I lump weddings in the realm of portrait photography when it comes to retouch work.
 
In general, travel/street and lifestyle snapshots require no Ps --- Lr will be more than sufficient. If people want to dabble in other genres, Lr can start them off. There is a rudimentary healing brush tool as well as basic dodge/burn tools. But Ps is just way better for fine control.

 

[Redcarmoose]

 

[Jon L]

 

[Audioscope]

I know Cowboy Studio, but didn't know they had parabolic softboxes? Unless you're talking about deep octas (Elinchrom Rotalux style)? Phottix just came out with one, but there are cheap versions as well, just harder to find. The "true parabolic" shape ones with 12 ribs are from Rime Lite and Aurora (both Korean companies) --- companies like Dynalite and Westcott rebrand their light shapers, actually.

The only ones that actually attempt to copy the broncolor Para and Briese Focus series are from FalconEyes, but those PLMs are more like the Profoto Giant reflectors. Even from a 'cheap" company like FalconEyes, those "copycat" parabolic reflectors are nearly $800 USD. Beats $3000-5000, I guess.

EDIT: Did some digging --- you talking about these? http://www.cowboystudio.com/product_p/16-rod-octagon-grid.htm

[rule]
I'm loving the sharpness of the 100L Macro... now if only I can get consistently good focus with the 6D's crappy AF system...

That's the one. I am going to ask my local Cowboy Studio store to bring one in. Very curious about it myself, especially because I will be buying some strobes for outdoor shooting soon.

 

[LugBug1]

Ok so its raining here in ole blighty... My photo trip got cancelled
 
So... I decided to make a little portrait set up in the spare room to snap the Missus and son. Tripod set up with set a couple of house lamps on the floor to try and diffuse shadows from the onboard flash. It's a small room so I had very limited space - couldn't use anything longer than my 35mm 1.8.  
 
 

 

 

[Audioscope]

  Ok so its raining here in ole blighty... My photo trip got cancelled
 
So... I decided to make a little portrait set up in the spare room to snap the Missus and son. Tripod set up with set a couple of house lamps on the floor to try and diffuse shadows from the onboard flash. It's a small room so I had very limited space - couldn't use anything longer than my 35mm 1.8.  
 
 

 

 
I find it extremely hard to use a 35mm lens for portraits.  Usually there is distortion that I am not happy with.  
 
I did a photoshoot a month ago with my Fuji X100 in the studio and wasn't happy with the results.
 
Now, if you could get those lights outdoors and make it work, that would be so much fun

 

[LugBug1]

   
I find it extremely hard to use a 35mm lens for portraits.  Usually there is distortion that I am not happy with.  
 
I did a photoshoot a month ago with my Fuji X100 in the studio and wasn't happy with the results.
 
Now, if you could get those lights outdoors and make it work, that would be so much fun

Yes light (and room!) is everything... I'll probably do some more experimenting over time with different lenses. But its not something I want to do seriously, just for family shots
 
What focus setting do you normally use for general shots like the ones above? Only a lot of the shots came out with my wife in focus but my son not... I used the 9 cross type in the centre setting on continuous Af as I thought this would cover me for any sudden movements.  

 

[Audioscope]

  Yes light (and room!) is everything... I'll probably do some more experimenting over time with different lenses. But its not something I want to do seriously, just for family shots
 
What focus setting do you normally use for general shots like the ones above? Only a lot of the shots came out with my wife in focus but my son not... I used the 9 cross type in the centre setting on continuous Af as I thought this would cover me for any sudden movements.  

 
I always use the centre focus point only.  If my subject is not in the centre, I just focus and recompose the image.  
 
Also, for the way I work, I turn off autofocus at the shutter release button.  Instead, I focus using a separate button (AE/AF lock) so I don't have to refocus and lose precious time.  In portraiture, your subjects should not be moving much from the same focal plane.  
 
For multiple subjects, it's best to focus 2/3rds into the frame.  So, in your photo with your wife and your son, I would focus on your son's right eye.  As long as your aperture setting is appropriate, then you should get perfectly good focus!  I rarely use anything less than f/8 in the studio, especially since the backgrounds are plain in colour and bokeh won't show up anyway.

 

[LugBug1]

   
I always use the centre focus point only.  If my subject is not in the centre, I just focus and recompose the image.  
 
Also, for the way I work, I turn off autofocus at the shutter release button.  Instead, I focus using a separate button (AE/AF lock) so I don't have to refocus and lose precious time.  In portraiture, your subjects should not be moving much from the same focal plane.  
 
For multiple subjects, it's best to focus 2/3rds into the frame.  So, in your photo with your wife and your son, I would focus on your son's right eye.  As long as your aperture setting is appropriate, then you should get perfectly good focus!  I rarely use anything less than f/8 in the studio, especially since the backgrounds are plain in colour and bokeh won't show up anyway.

That's very helpful thanks bud. I had the aperture set to 2.5 so that won't have helped..  

 

[LugBug1]

Heres a few more from today..
 
 

 

 

 
That last one is very soft... Not on purpose  

 

[tomscy2000]

  That last one is very soft... Not on purpose  

 
Looks like it back-focused onto the plane of her rear shoulders.

 

[LugBug1]

   
Looks like it back-focused onto the plane of her rear shoulders.

 
Next time I'll use single point focus with higher aperture, aim 2 thirds in and hopefully shouldn't have as many probs! Gutted cos that was probably the shot of the day... 
 
All a learning curve, I'll never be posting my portrait stuff on photo sites and are just for personal use really. But If I do anymore I'll post them on here again as I appreciate any advice from all you portrait guys! 

 

[tomscy2000]

Next time I'll use single point focus with higher aperture, aim 2 thirds in and hopefully shouldn't have as many probs! Gutted cos that was probably the shot of the day...  All a learning curve, I'll never be posting my portrait stuff on photo sites and are just for personal use really. But If I do anymore I'll post them on here again as I appreciate any advice from all you portrait guys! 

 
Yes, that. ^^
 
If you're using a tripod, use live view and manual focus on the eyes, just to see how it looks if you hit "perfect" focus. You can even start playing with thin DoF portraits that way --- manual focus on only the eyes thru live view, and shoot wide open, though a 35mm isn't going to have as dramatic an effect as a longer lens. Maybe use a long corridor in the house to gain that separation.
 
For outdoor portraits, you can shoot a wide apertures, but if you're shooting against a wall, stop it down to at least f/5.6 (even with APS-C sensors) --- the wall is not going to be a distraction.
 
I think the white wall was probably also messing with the auto focus point selection as well --- for portraits, especially at thin DoF, using single point AF is the way to go. The control is far preferable.
 
With a 35/1.8 (effectively a 52mm), I'd recommend stepping back and showing more of the body --- a 35mm lens would be acceptable for 3/4 length shots (maybe even 1/2 length) without too much facial distortion, provided that you don't shoot at a funky angle, so keep the plane of focus level with the wall.
 
Try window light first to see how you can create different shadows on faces. The on-board flash, even if diffused, will still create pretty flat lighting, as you can see from the pictures. Also, a $10 reflector will do wonders. Either that, or $3 foam core from the craft store and a roll of aluminum foil...

 

[tomscy2000]

BTW, the focus-recompose method is far more challenging when shooting wide open on a full frame camera. Shooting a long f/1.2 to f/2 lens will yield razor thin depth of field that will mean the difference between focus on the eyes vs. the eyelashes. Focus-recompose can be "mastered" if you have experience in approximating the difference in focal plane curvature after re-composition, but without a lot of shots and experimentation, focus-recompose is not the way to go if you're into razor thin DoF and dreamy bokeh.