Jump to content

m_tt_donuts

Members
  • Posts

    235
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral

1 Follower

  1. <p>Practice up on your flash photography, to me how good you're at with flash photography can make or break a wedding shoot. Even if outdoors in sunlight, enable high speed flash synch (so you can get faster apertures in sunlight) and go with it. The images will be a world of difference even outdoors with it having catchlights in the eyes and shadows filled in a touch. So go through the settings and enable high speed flash and use the flash outdoors. </p> <p>I use a D800 and leave it mostly on auto iso unless using a tripod. As for memory cards, I get the best/fastest I can afford you want to avoid filling the buffer and possibly missing a shot waiting for it to flush. For a wedding your CF and SD cards should be set to duplicate, and shoot RAW. </p> <p>I think it goes without saying getting a sharp picture trumps any settings... if the church doesn't allow flash, and I'm not a fan of 6400 ISO on my camera (yours is better at least) I'll shoot it at 6400 anyway and possibly more if I must and then do post process fixing. Shooting at 3200 (which I find is a big improvement over 6400) doesn't do any good if the images are slightly blurry there's not much one can do in post. </p> <p>You're lacking a 70-200 F2.8 which is usually deemed the "money maker" to wedding photographers (I prefer the VR version not VR II). </p> <p>Be sure to avoid different lighting and you have a filter on your flash to match or your flash is overpowering all other light. There's been times I used my flash with incandescent light and the person is white from my flash and yellow on another side from incandescent. When I forget, those are the ones I make B&W or I go through a big process of brush coloring to try to even out the lighting in post.</p> <p>Lastly, spend some time watching some Tony Northrup youtube videos. He does a good job, but don't get caught up in the Nikon vs. Canon thing he sometimes throws out there he doesn't know how to use Nikons I find him to be someone with such sway and power doing these comparisons when he doesn't even know how to set the WB on Nikon (hold the WB button down and take a picture of something white) which has been Nikons way for how long? He states Canons 17 step process and multiple menu actions to set it is far superior and easier and he's so popular... He should just avoid comparing the two since he doesn't know anything about Nikons or to learn them. Be like someone throwing a Pentax at me with no manual and having me compare it to my Nikon which I've been using for 12 years. Good luck!</p>
  2. <p>I've had my fair share of tripods over the years, and have gone through what I think are different phases. I first bought a big bulky tripod, it produces the sharpest results but I used it a lot at first but over the years used it less, and less, and now I only use it to hold my laser level when working on my house. It's just too big and bulky to be practical for me now.</p> <p>Then I read about a photographer who posted a challenge to tripod manufactures with all the specifications of a perfect tripod. I bought it, it was the Velbon Maxi 343e. It's hard to explain how useful it is, it weighs under 2 lbs, shrinks to 17.5", extends to 62" high, has a ball head, the head lets one flip the camera from horizontal to vertical (just need to watch it doesn't hit a leg doing it), and the legs are individual to work with uneven terrain and the legs go out/in blazing fast and lock secure with the system they use (not a twist system), and inexpensive it was around $70.</p> <p>When hand holding won't cut it this has been my go to tripod going over 10 years, I don't normally use it with the center column extended but it can extend. I eventually found this tripod meets my needs entirely. I recommend starting with it or something with similar specs/price as everyone needs a light and portable tripod. If you find situations you want something more than shop for something beefier but the light & portable tripod will always be useful even with a beefy tripod.</p> <p>Tripods remind me of laptops and tablets. Nearly everyone has a tablet they take with them everywhere, even if they don't use it no big deal not like it took any effort or planning. The Velbon Maxi is like an iPad that will likely fulfill most of your shooting needs. But you may find yourself in a situation a laptop is a better tool and worth packing up like the beefy tripod but it takes more effort and planning. A medium to beefy tripod is not something you're going to take with you everywhere at all times like the travel tripod. In my case, I found the travel tripod all I need. I know they don't make it anymore, but it can still be found and well worth it or write down the specs of it and look for something similar. Just make sure it has a ball head, not pan/tilt.</p>
  3. <p>Any chance a polarizer was used? I have an B+W one that's MRC and has done weird things to certain colors/sections depending on direction and how much. For polarizers I have a Moose (which is a warming uncoated Hoya) , Tiffen, Hoya coated, Singh-Ray, and B+W with MRC and the B+W with MRC sometimes the images just look like something is off but only here and there and usually in the shadows. When it happens, there's no question I took the image with my B+W MRC polarizer. I only use it with my zoom lenses like my 80-400 VR and 70-200 I can't say if it happens on wide angles as I use a different brand thin polarizer on my wide angle. </p>
  4. <p>One of my top reasons for getting a newer camera than my D200 was because it did not have focus fine tune.</p> <p>I often shoot wide open with fast lenses, and with the D200 it was frustrating to focus on the eyes with my over $2000 70-200 F2.8 VR lens and then have the persons ears in focus. I got into the habit of focusing on the eyes with that camera then backing up a bit and taking the actual photo (and many photo's if possible) to hopefully get one with the eyes sharp. <br /><br /><br /> Then I learned newer camera's have focus fine tune and I was all over it, having a camera without (and shooting so much wide open) not a feature I can do without. I only did my portrait type lenses (50mm F1.4 and 70-200 F2.8) by finding a paper template online to guide me. I did not do it with my 80-400 VR, 17-35mm F2.8, 18-200, nor 70-300. Those lenses with their rather long DOF and on my newer camera were close I just didn't feel the need.</p>
  5. <p>Ugg... Lightroom is aware pictures may be in more than 1 folder (especially since some Nikon camera's if you turn them on and hold "?" it will create a new folder and put new pictures into it). Just be sure they're not at the end of the filmstrip. There's just a small chance, and I mean small... that you edited pictures 9910 up in an external application and the picture format of them changed to .TIFF and on save Lightroom is supposed to reimport them and they go at the end of the filmstrip but I've had a few occasions Lightroom simply didn't. The pictures became .TIFF files in the directory Lightroom wasn't aware of and they disappeared. To fix, I had to go into Lightooms import wizard, choose the same folder on my C: drive the pictures I was working on already where, and wallah it shaded out the thousands of images it detected were already imported and showed me my 4 .TIFF files I'd edited in an external app to put on the filmstrip. You may be looking for 9910.NEF or 9910.JPG or 9910.CRW or 9910.CR2 when it's now 9910.TIF or 9910.TIFF or maybe accidentally became 9910 without any extension (which Lightroom will ignore). Not likely, but small :) Check the directory they downloaded into. </p> <p>I don't think it's as bad as you're likely thinking it is I give only 2-3 images of the toast and they're more for memories no one blows them up. The important ones are the church, kiss, group photo's, and dances which I believe you got. Also most people have an understanding no wedding goes perfect, if the worst thing that went wrong with the wedding was the toast images got corrupt (that's what I'd say) hallelujah! At my wedding, the hairdresser didn't show up for my wife and the AC didn't work in the reception hall it was 110F. Also, guests will have taken pictures of those moments with their phone(s) and such so it's not like they'll have nothing of them. I would show them the pictures you took, follow up with a meeting where you explain something goes wrong at every wedding and that something went wrong with the toast and serenade. Say it's never happened but the pictures were corrupt and you spent a lot of money and so much effort but there was nothing that could be done they weren't recoverable and that you will give them a discount. Mention, I don't like to mention this but others at the wedding will have pictures of the missing moments and is there anything you can do. </p> <p>I hope you the best and, that the small chance the file(s) are there but as .TIFF's or no extensions. Cheers</p>
  6. <p>Last week I upgraded to Lightroom 6 (not the CC version). Everything I see says it's faster... to the contrary it's SO MUCH slower for me that now to edit my pictures I start up a movie to keep me entertained while waiting for all the pauses between everything I do.</p> <p>My computer is a 1 year old alienware, 8 Gigs memory, NVidia 765M GTX, Intel i7 2.4GHz - 3.4GHz w/6GB cache, running Windows 7, I have a 1TB 7200 RPM Hard drive that's 40% free. </p> <p>Lightroom 5.7 used to take about 3 seconds for a 1:1 preview to display now it's taking about 12-15 seconds. That is I hit the right arrow to see the next picture and 12-15 seconds it shows up. Clicking crop was instant, now when I click crop I wait 6 seconds before I get the crop tool and it seems buggy, screen goes black and shows me the picture settings in the middle, then forms a gray block with a cross pattern where the picture was, then it's replaced with the picture, then some seconds later finally the crop box comes up and I can crop. I find often there is an issue with the thumbnail and the picture I'm working on. That is, if I want to click on the thumbnail in the top left side to magnify the main image so I can lighten teeth that thumbnail is often a completely different picture than the one I'm working on. I have to click on a new picture and click back to the old pic to get the thumbnail and main synchronized.</p> <p>Lightroom 5.7 was probably 6x faster and responsive and no issues. Lightroom 6 I'm finding so much less responsive, it's crashed at least once every time I use it, and just buggy in general. Anyone else find it buggy and much slower?</p>
  7. <p>For me some part was the release of Windows 8, I don't think anything in history has made me want to put my computer away more and if I take pictures, I need to download them to my computer and use Win8 which is always a frustrating experience. Instead of getting use to Win8 over time I find more and more things that frustrate me endlessly about it.</p> <p>I don't know how much Win8 affected others, I used to use my computer a lot more beforehand and now I'd rather put a pencil in my eye. Taking pictures means I have to use Win8 and my disdain of using it has affected me having fun and experimenting with my camera, taking it out, and enjoying it since I need to use Win8 and download them. I know what the answer is (a computer with Win7, Apple is out of the question) but I've gotten used to my nights watching a movie instead of editing pictures thanks to Win8.</p>
  8. <p>Exactly :) You're misinterpreting that line "so it becomes like everyone else" I mean like everyone else who doesn't use color management like the bride, groom, your family, friends, you send photos to. If you're not using color management, and they're not using color management, what you send will look close to what they'll see (sure there will be color shifts from differences in monitors etc.) but it won't be nearly as drastic a difference as say you using the ProPhoto color space and send them a picture using it and they're not using management at all. </p> <p>Lightroom made it all moot, I did that when I used to edit live image in Photoshop and overwrite them. Lightroom doesn't allow that, and has the "convert to sRGB color space" option automatically. </p> <p> </p>
  9. <p>Nice responses, good to see. I asked this question years ago and felt like I had gotten blasted away. The answers from everyone at that time was it was heresy to change a color managed program like Photoshop to work with everyone else... everyone else needs to install a color managed program to work with my pictures. I just didn't see how that was practical. I spent a lot of time and did find the way to do it but it's been many years (probably 4-5) so can't exactly remember how I did it but... this is a very common question/situation.</p> <p>Look at <a href="http://viget.com/inspire/the-mysterious-save-for-web-color-shift">this article</a> on how to make Photoshop ignore color profiles so it becomes like everyone else. I think that's what I did and all my color woes between what I was doing, and what I sent and everyone saw, went away afterward. I like the warning on the top of the article that changing photoshop to ignore profiles is hotly contested! I could care less about color profiles personally, what I do care about is that the pictures I'm editing will look like what I send and don't like to choose the "Convert" option each time I just want to click save.</p> <p>I recommend writing down or taking a snap shot of the current color settings prior to changing just encase. When I got lightroom and started choosing the "Edit in Photoshop" option the image didn't look the same between the two so I had to put them back. Now I only edit my pictures in photoshop by going through lightroom first, and lightroom doesn't allow editing originals like I used to with Photoshop making the issue moot. In lightroom you can choose to export and in there have it convert the images to sRGB and that made my edit and what people got the same using lightroom.</p> <p> </p>
×
×
  • Create New...