Zip:
"Would you say that there is an advantage to ACR compared to LR or am I missing something? In LR I can edit as smart object in PS and that in turn opens ACR. Never saw the big use though since I almost always processed the pic beforehand..."
There is no advantage to ACR over LR with respect to final image quality, ease of adjustments, or anything like that.
On the other hand, if your computer is not the newest or the fastest, or doesn't have a lot of memory, ACR is less of a resource hog than LR. In addition, if you are only working on a single image (...or a small number of images) that you haven't already imported into LR, you can save this step by doing the RAW conversion in ACR instead of LR.
However, if you are working on a large number of images (say, for an event) that can be grouped into several different types (eg, indoor, outdoor, front lit, back lit, daylight vs some weird mixed light source, etc.) LR is vastly more convenient / faster in terms of generating, organizing, and using the various conversion parameter presets that will be needed for the set.
-----------------
Zip:
"...Okay here's what I belive to be the final edit of My friend and her dog...."
You did a very nice, very appropriate job. I understand why you didn't go to the extreme of desaturation and darkening that I did in my little example. First, as you point out, lots of people don't like any quasi-photograph that is that far from reality. Second, I was playing with some obvious color symbolism: warm colors of the subjects <==> enveloping love between the owner and the pet, dull gray <==> the seemingly hopeless future, the small area of amorphous / abstract warm tones on the right <==> a small possibility for hope. This could, of course, be correctly criticized as being anywhere from exceedingly obvious / sophomoric / Hallmark greeting card mawkish, all the way to not at all obvious symbolism unless told about it, LOL.
-----------------
Zip:
"...Anyone got any good tips on a radiosystem for the flash that won't break my budget completly but still packs a punch and will let me evolve in my photography, (more flashes and so on)?..."
Over the years, I have built up a set of Pocket Wizards, so I haven't been in the market for any new ones, and so, not looking seriously at new models. I do know, however, that several companies have begun to compete with Pocket Wizard. These include "Radio Popper" and "Yongnuo". My recollection is that these are considerably cheaper, but have received mixed reviews, so you'll have to check for yourself. Just Google {"radio triggers" site:bhphotovideo.com}.
That being said, if most of your initial flash work will be indoors, in small to medium size rooms at relatively close range, you should seriously consider investing in another one or two additional (recent) Nikon hot-shoe flashes (eg, SB-910). These have remote optical TTL triggering built in. Purchasing another one or two additional 900 or 910s, will ensure full automation with your d800. I have several of these and I can vouch that the remote TTL feature works very well in small to medium size rooms. They can even be made to work outdoors in sunlight over ranges under 10 meters (or so), so long as you are careful to always orient the sensors of the slaves to directly face the master, and shield the slaves' sensors from direct sunlight.
-----------------
Zip:
"...Currently I can go as low as F/2,8 time to trade up to say f-1,4-f/1,8 to achive that clean background?..."
In my opinion, absolutely not. The reason is that the depth of field becomes so small at those f-numbers that it is very easy to have part of the face in focus and part out of focus, or, for that matter, completely miss the focus. If you have all the time in the world and can have the model(s) stand still while you take several shots, or re-create events, f/1.4 type lenses, can give nice results. However, if you don't have this luxury, and you need to maximize the probability of each shot being a "keeper", it's much, much safer to shoot at f/4, or even f/5.6 then simply add a bit of extra blur to the background after the fact using PS.
-----------------
Zip:
"...so I used what I have, girlfriend and an SB-900. And a "Sanct Bernhard"..."
Excellent work. That is EXACTLY what I hoped the person in that other thread would do. I think it's pretty obvious how this sort of lighting might have been applied to the photo of your friend and her sick dog. I think that would have made an absolutely beautiful, studio quality portrait of the two of them.
BTW, like your girlfriend, I use my wife, and more recently, my daughter as my human light stands / reflector holders. They are amazingly adaptable to different situations, and no one ever trips over them, but unfortunately, they just don't store well, and the transportation costs are high.
-----------------
Have a nice trip, and do check in periodically!
Best regards,
Tom
