A new, very scared photographer in need of advice and guidance

[birdiphotography]

<p>Here is another Image from today. I was using my 50mm on Aperture Priority. </p><div></div>

[birdiphotography]

<p>Ralph- I am really short on cash so I have to make due with what I have. I do borrow my mom's D90 for weddings as a back-up since I cant afford another backup for myself. My "mentor" told me to never buy anything but Nikon lenses because they are the "best".<br /> But, I did buy the sigma because I really needed a wide angle lens for the real estate photography I do every blue moon and the Tamron was given to me by my grandfather. It has a little crack in it but doesnt show up in any images. I actually love that lens, I dont care what people say about buying Nikon only, that Old Tamron is great. I did go ahead and buy the 16-85, its seriously all I can afford right now. And I really need something that I can zoom in and out of without having to change a lens for. I just hope I didnt waste my money....</p>

[fotografz]

<p>Jessica, from the previous<em> bride image</em> and more recent <em>wood box</em> photo you posted, it appears that your camera or lens may be <strong>front focusing</strong>.</p>

<p>This means that while you place the focus point directly on the subject and use AF, the focus point ends up slightly in front ... if you focused squarely on the box, note that the cloth with lettering in front is what ended up in focus, (see your photo attached below).</p>

<p>If this <strong>IS</strong> the problem, it can unnerve anyone, let alone a newbie : -)</p>

<p>This is less of an issue when shooting far subjects using a smaller aperture such as f/4 or f/5.6. However as you get closer, and use a wider aperture like f/1.4, the depth-of-field becomes very shallow and any mis-calibration will become more evident and result in soft looking main subjects.</p>

<p>Please read your D5100 manual to determine if that Nikon model allows you to calibrate your lens to the camera. Most modern DSLR bodies have this feature, but I don't know if the D5100 does (I would think yes). While this may sound daunting to do it is actually not that hard.</p>

<p>I've owned Canon, Nikon and Sony systems, and all of them required some lenses to be calibrated to the camera. Some lenses I've bought were quite out of calibration, a few so much that I sent the lens back. Once you calibrate a lens to a body, the camera's CPU remembers that lens and uses the calibration stored in its memory.</p>

<p>The reason the camera companies have added this lens calibration feature is because modern digital cameras have increased the resolution to the point that any mis-calibrated lens will show up more readily than in past. For example, the Nikon D800 with full frame 36 meg sensor is really critical in this regard.</p>

<p><strong>A few notes on shooting technique: </strong>as mentioned, you have to be steady when shooting wide aperture lenses like at f/1.4 ... any slight sway front to back after the AF locks on will result in a soft main subject. I use one of the fastest lenses in the world with almost no Depth-Of-Field to count on when shooting wide open (Leica M 50/0.95 Noctilux) ... I have to stop breathing when I take a shot at those settings : -)</p>

<p>Contrary to other advice, I suggest you stick with the center focus point using AF-S. Read your manual on how to set this, set it, and leave it there. This is the most accurate and sensitive AF setting as long as you use good shooting techniques. You can branch out into other settings later if you wish. (BTW, I've never used any other setting).</p>

<p>IF you cannot seem to master solid shooting techniques due to nerves, consider getting a monopod until you are more confident and steady. I often use a monopod because my cameras are so high resolution that ANY jitters show up. I'm always one cup of coffee away from a soft image ... LOL!</p>

<p>A few other notes: The appearance of sharpness isn't just a function of accurate edge focus. Contrast is the other main element. Most fast aperture lenses lose contrast at their widest aperture ... plus, as you increase the ISO, the image contrast begins diminishing. Camera companies have worked hard to increase the contrast of their lenses ... in Nikon's case they have developed their Nano-coating to increase light transmission and over-all contrast on their latest lens offerings. I suggest NOT using ISO 800 or above unless you need to in order to maintain a decent shutter speed.</p>

<p>The other element of contrast is color contrast. When you do not have the correct White Balance set (or something close to it), the results can lack the appearance of contrast ... overly yellow images look flatter without any contrasting POP! Contrary to popular belief that you can adjust ANY <em>"as shot"</em> white balance in post production, there is a penalty for doing so with shots that are way off the correct white balance. Overly yellow images will look properly exposed until the WB is corrected and then look under-exposed requiring an increase in exposure in post ... the equivalent of increasing the ISO ... which in turn diminishes contrast.</p>

<p>Feel free to ask questions about any of the above ... there is no shame in questions no matter how elementary they may seem. We ALL had to learn some way ...</p>

<p>- Marc</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[markonestudios]

<p>Jessica, see my comment above regarding your lens purchase:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Finally, regarding the 16-85mm lens, $630 is a lot to pay for that glass. You would be better off, from a wedding standpoint, with say Sigma's 17-50mm f/2.8 OS lens ($570 on Adorama). It is not spoken of much but has great reviews (www.photozone.de).</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>A constant max aperture lens is an essential tool and will save you a LOT of headache when shooting a wedding, where lighting situations can vary so widely and suddenly. Since money is tight, I would return the 16-85mm and get this instead.</p>

 

[fotografz]

 

<blockquote>

<p >I have been practicing all day... I will attach some photos. I made myself a little setup at home of nick nacks to photograph. I just realized that my WB was never set to Flash when I took a lot of my weddings photos!!! It made such a difference today shooting with WB on Flash mode. Everything seemed warmer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p >Jessica, when you shoot at ISO 800 and f/1.8 in reasonably decent light like your "Pearls" photo ... the flash has very little to do with the final image because not much additional light is needed. TTL flash is not a constant ... the flash meter reads the scene and only allows the needed amount of additional light to get the right exposure ... in this case very little. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >The fact that you set the WB to flash and the image was so warm (yellow-red) tells me that the ambient light was dominate. Flash color temperature is much cooler (blue) like daylight at noon.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Auto WB can be tricky when mixing two different light sources like tungsten room light and daylight balanced flash ... one is 2500K and the other is 5500K or so. Eventually, you will learn how to use custom WB when faced with extremely diverse lighting scenarios.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >- Marc</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

 

<div></div>

[ejder]

<p>I am confused why or how this person is booking weddings without having adequate equipment or knowing the technical aspects of photography. Weddings are one-time-only events and you cannot be unfamiliar with your camera's focusing system, tracking system, exposure concepts, shutter speed, motion blur, camera shake blur, flash exposure, aperture and its functions, ISO, general lighting methods, etc...</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>In addition to whatever you do, Jessica, try to get lenses that are <em>all</em> f/2.8 or faster. Weddings are low light events, and flashes cannot be used during every part. Which Nikon zoom do you have? This DX zoom one is the one you need: 17-55 f/2.8 G AF-S DX. Get rid of the cheap zooms. You need the best zoom lenses that you can get, and that will be pricey. (Try KEH for some good used lenses--all EXC+ or better.) Zooms are almost a necessity during low-light event photography, since changing lenses often is not an option.</p>

<p>Above all, work on the focus points. That is probably the main problem, but do get lenses that will get you the light you need to work with so that you can shoot with a faster shutter. Using lenses with VR can also be very helpful, since there is no time to set up a tripod at most events.</p>

<p>I do not do weddings, but I do other low-light events from time to time. I like fast cameras and fast lenses for such occasions--but none of that is going to take the place of getting the focus right--and knowing your equipment inside and out.</p>

<p>Think about getting a competent assistant with good equipment and a lot of experience for backup. If you do that, you will get it done--and you will survive this and keep learning.</p>

<p>The problem is not likely to be your camera. The D5100 can do the job--with the right lenses.</p>

<p>Listen to Marc Williams, and visit his page and his website http://www.fotografz.com/:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Contrary to other advice, I suggest you stick with the center focus point using AF-S. Read your manual on how to set this, set it, and leave it there. This is the most accurate and sensitive AF setting as long as you use good shooting techniques. You can branch out into other settings later if you wish. (BTW, I've never used any other setting).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Please note: "BTW, I've never used any other setting."</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[htarragon]

<p>I agree with Joey. There have been several posts like the first one by Matt -<em>" You really don't want to be booking weddings while you're wrestling with fundamental technique issues."</em> Her portfolio has some nice shots - but the portraits seem to be soft which can be a nice effect but she needs to be able to take sharp photos, as well. Her lack of knowledge of her camera and lenses is stunning for one who wants to be paid for her work. I take some nice portrait shots and I have been taking pictures for a long time. Would I ask for money for a session? Not until I was more consistent than I am.<br>

This is a disaster waiting to happen - her Craig's List customers are happy with the price now - but when they see pictures that are not color balanced and OOF or blurry, they will not be happy and may not pay her. which, in this case might be fair, depending on the results.<br>

She says the customers told her they are happy with her level of competency (probably because they are ignorant of what is required and what they will want for results), why is Jessica satisfied with it? She has an inkling that she doesn't know enough, and doesn't have the requisite skills, that's why she's panicked. <br>

Maybe she should look at a standard contract to see what will be legally required of her. I assume she does not have one with the customers (it hasn't been mentioned). At this point that might be a good thing so she can reconsider accepting this offer.<br>

Jessica - It has taken six pages to scratch the surface of what you do not know. Malcolm Gladwell postulates that it takes 10,000 hours to become really proficient at something. You may want to do this job, but YOU will be responsible for how it turns out. There will be no excuses. This is a delicate subject but is your condition brought on or exacerbated by stress? If you're freaking out now, imagine the wedding. Be fair to yourself and the couple.</p>

[birdiphotography]

<p>First of all, thank you Marc Willams your advice is really helping! I have my little mini studio set up and will be practicing some more today. I do have some classes coming up and I hope to gain some good info on focusing techniques there. </p>

<p>Howard & Joey: I do have a contract. I really dont understand why some people on here are very harsh? Can you remember your first wedding? Your first portrait session? I've been working for newspapers in natural light and never really learned much about anything else. I never had anyone to talk to about photography until now. I never understood what I was doing because no one wanted to help me unless I paid them the big bucks. I am reading all my manuals again to better understand what I need to know. The people who hire me understand my background and are fully aware of my experience. I need to start somewhere. Being an unpaid wedding assistant forever isnt helping me. I am not being taught, compensated for my pictures or time, and I always have to stand on the side while the main photographer does the good shots. <br>

I will have a PAID assistant at the weddings that I shoot. Just in case I need help or something goes wrong or I need an extra angles. I am taking money out of what the clients are giving me to pay for an assistant. Something nobody did for me. <br>

I get very nervous before any shoot. I have a heart condition that makes my heart rate abnormally fast, so if I'm nervous its really really fast. That can make me shake a little. It goes away once I get into the shoot. Right now, I am just stressed out. Between this, college math (My worst subject), health issues and bills, and personal issues I honestly have not been this stressed in years. <br>

That in no means makes me unable to shoot a wedding, take beautiful pictures, and learn learn learn. I am learning everyday! </p>

[htarragon]

<p>Jessica, this should be instructional for you. <a href="/wedding-photography-forum/00bnPG">http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00bnPG</a>. It's a few threads down from yours.<br>

As for remembering my first portrait session (unpaid), of course I was nervous. And when things went wrong, I was able to figure out why because I knew the technical stuff. My best picture was out of focus (pleasingly blurred HAH!) because the AF point was behind her. Best in terms of expression and pose but a lost shot. As for being harsh, I don't think we are. Harsh is being sued by the customer. When was the last time you went to a professional anything and wanted them to say "OOOPS!". None of your difficulties that you mentioned will matter to the clients if they don't like their pictures. Excellent pictures will get you referrals, difficulties or not. <br>

You've received a lot of good advice above, reread it several times. The Bryan Peterson book is a good idea. Lantern Guides for your camera models are also very helpful - they're written in English, not jargon. Understand Shutter speed, Aperture and ISO and how they relate to each other Use both cameras from now until then, as much as possible, take notes on their quirks. You might want to use a tripod at the wedding for steadiness (a monopod doesn't work for me) It will mark you as the professional. There'll be lots of other Nikons and Canons there. How many shots does it take to drain your battery? Do you have spares? Make checklists of the things you need to know and go through them methodically. (Do the same for your math course! - I used to teach study skills). Picking up a camera to shoot should be reflex and not anxiety provoking. Practice picking up the camera and slowing your breathing so that you get used to being calm with a camera in your hand and that's your initial reflex. (I also used to teach anxiety reduction.) Mastery of the technicals and skills will also allow you to be calmer and in control. </p>

[fotografz]

<p><strong>There are a number of good points both pro and con about this subject in general.</strong></p>

<p>At one time the general public was totally mystified by the technical aspects of photography and relied on professionals with a lot of experience to do weddings and events. Back then, a newbie couldn't just grab the family camera and competently or responsibly shoot a wedding. There was no LCD review, no in-camera white balance, and the stalwart Hasselblad/Bronica wedding cameras were manual focus only.</p>

<p>The digital revolution and the proliferation of all types of decent AF cameras made it "seem" easier ... so respect for what it takes to do a competent job has diminished over-all ... and continues to diminish. The buying public at large doesn't have a clue about what it takes to do this type of work and do it well. Even when a photographer is less experienced, they don't think it'll make all that much difference ... <em>"after all, look at what I can do with my cell phone, so how hard can it be?" </em><br /> <br /> There is a growing gap between perception and reality that impacts both the consumer's idea of wedding photography, and the emerging photographer's notions of actually being able to do wedding photography. It is just the way it is today.</p>

<p>One by-product of all this is that the whole learning structure for emerging photographers has crumbled. It is genuinely difficult to get a learning position where you can actually learn something ... at least it seems more difficult than in past.</p>

<p><strong>@ Jessica:</strong> If you are prone to pre-shoot nervousness, get used to it because it'll probably never go away. Look at it this way, it keeps you from getting over-confident : -) I had a total knee replaced in January, so went almost a whole year between wedding shoots. I was very nervous for my first wedding of 2013 in June, especially because it was a former fashion model who <em>really</em> knew good photography. The first thing I grabbed was my trusty mono-pod even though some of my lenses are Image Stabilized.</p>

<p>BTW, when you are speaking about a focus issue and keep saying that you shot this picture or that picture using Aperture Priority, it is confusing terms. Aperture Priority has nothing to do with AF. It is an exposure mode. Selecting an f-stop can affect the appearance of sharpness because as you stop down from f/1.8 to f/5.6 more of the image will appear sharp looking. However, whatever was the main point of focus will always be the sharpest area of the photo.</p>

<p>I use a few different assistant/second shooters, and I keep telling them to stop shooting everything so close at f/1.4 or f/1.8 ... I have to trash so many images because the focus is off that I could just strangle them. Do not be afraid to stop down a bit when shooting close up. See the attached Bridal portrait (the previously mentioned "former fashion model") ... I shot a bit away from her and stopped down just enough to get the eyes, nose and mouth in reasonably sharp focus.</p>

<p>What seems most new to you is the use of speed-lights. This is very important because, in general, so many situations at a wedding require the use of additional light. This is because wedding photographers do not always have control as to when or where they have to shoot. Flash can act as fill to avoid things like "raccoon eye" from downward overhead lighting, or as the main source of light in really dark situations like at an indoor reception.</p>

<p>Using flash can seem daunting and frequently freaks out those ambient shooters who are not familiar with using it, but in reality isn't all that hard to get the fundamentals down pat enough to feel more comfortable using it. However, mastering it <em><strong>so it looks like no flash was used</strong></em> does take some considerable time and effort. Take a look at this little collection of mine ... about half were shot using just ambient, and the other half using flash ... it's even hard for me to tell which is which ... LOL!</p>

<p>http://fotografz.smugmug.com/Weddings/The-Unconventional-Eye/29417967_cP2wNm#!i=2511720703&k=XtZ8LLQ</p>

<p>Just keep chipping away at it, no one is born knowing any of this stuff : -)</p>

<p>Best of luck,</p>

<p>- Marc</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[birdiphotography]

<p>Thanks for that link Howard! I will use that info to my advantage! I get a little confused with all the photography terminology here. I need like a photography dictionary I can reread over and over to remember everything. It is a lot to remember and my memory aint too great! If you were in front of me with my camera I could point things out and tell you what they are, but actually remembering the terminology of each thing and explaining it to you on here is very difficult for me. Its too difficult to explain in writing since I dont know the actual terms. Its a problem. I bought my D5100 in November last year. Before that I owned a Kodak easy share camera. I still own a Minolta Film camera that I like to play with. I dont own a smart phone so no worries...lol <br>

My newspaper just asked me to work fulltime as a staff photographer. That really makes me nervous to add that on to all the other bookings I have. But, photojournalism is my passion. </p>

Marc, your photo is absolutely amazing! That was used without a flash?

[William Michael]

<p>I have been of the view that for the ‘<em>bride photo’</em>, the focussing was made manually.<br /><br />I cannot note Jessica's answer to Wouter Willemse’s specific question about what lens she was using: and also understanding that metadata can be manipulated - I just reconfirmed my interrogation and although it is unclear which model Nikon 50mm lens was used, it appears that focussing, was indeed manual:<br /><br />Extract of metadata summary is below FYI -</p>

<p>[Overview]</p>

<p>File name: C:\Download\Temporary\JESSICA Info.jpg<br />File type: JPEG<br />File size: 4,069.8 KB<br />Creation date: 22/06/2013 18:29<br />Last modification: 18/07/2013 10:48<br />Make: NIKON CORPORATION (http://www.nikon.com)<br />Camera: NIKON D5100<br />Lens: Unknown model (50mm F1.8 D, G; ID: B0 4C 50 50 14 14 B2 06)<br />Software: Ver.1.01<br />Dimension: 3264 x 4928 px (16.1 MP, 2:3)<br />Focal length: 50 mm (equiv. 75 mm)<br />Aperture: F2.8<br />Exposure time: 1/250"<br />ISO speed rating: 200/24°<br />Program: Manual<br />Metering Mode: Spot<br />White Balance: Flash<br /><strong>Focus Mode: Manual</strong><br />Image Stabilizer: Off<br />Noise Reduction: Off<br />Flash: Flash did not fire</p>

<p>WW</p>

[fotografz]

<blockquote>

<p>Marc, your photo is absolutely amazing! That was used without a flash?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Thanks. Yes, that specific shot was done outdoors in shade where the natural lighting was even and not very contrasty, so no fill flash was needed. In this case, I post processed the image for a bit of what is called "cross processing" ... favoring a pink and chartreuse color tint scheme because those were her wedding colors ... not to mention her eyes are green.<br>

<br>

When I got serious about photography, I was also baffled by the plethora of terminology ... it is all so left brained : -) I just couldn't look at the parts and make a whole sense of it all. What really helped me a lot was the old Time-Life series of books on photography.<br>

<br>

For example, they explained <em>lens aperture</em> like it was a water faucet with pictures and everything ... <strong>Bingo!</strong> I got it. Open it up and more light goes through, close it down and less flows into the camera. Shutter Speed is just like a door ... open it up for just a second and not much light can walk through, or leave it open longer and more light can walk through. They explained each separate function in simplistic terms rather than assuming you were some engineer with a degree from MIT.<br>

<br>

All cameras are basically the same. Three exposure controls: Lens Aperture, Shutter Speed, ISO. All three are directly linked and work in concert with each other. <br>

<br>

For a proper exposure, each adjustment step for each of the three controls equals one stop of light. If you stop down from f/1.4 to f/2.8 it is one stop less of light flowing through the "faucet". So you then have to adjust one of the remaining two controls to allow one stop <em>more</em> of light sensitivity to compensate for less light coming through the lens aperture "faucet" ... like using one stop slower 1/125 of a second shutter speed instead of 1/250 so the "door" stays open longer to let more light walk through. ISO just is the index so the meter knows how sensitive the digital sensor is in order to make a good exposure ... ISO 200 is one stop less sensitive than ISO 400, and so on. <br>

<br>

Once you grasp this symbiotic relationship of the controls, the trick becomes learning what pictorial effect each has. Larger open Aperture = less depth-of-field (less depth-of-focus) ... Slower shutter speed = possible subject movement/blur in the image.<br>

<br>

Flash can be your friend because it can even out exposure issues in certain lighting ... for example, if you are shooting on location and the light is direct and harsh, you turn the subjects back to the bright light and use flash to fill in the shaded front of them ... like this attached shot where the light was quite harsh behind them and I used an on-camera speed-light to light them and even out the "light balance".<br>

<br>

- Marc<br>

<br>

<br>

<br>

<br>

<br>

<br>

</p><div></div>

[birdiphotography]

<p>Thats such a great shot. I started practicing some more after dinner. I'm having trouble with the difference between 3D tracking and Dynamic area modes...I just never see a difference when I switch them... <br>

I have been searching for some good books to snatch for deal. There was a great book at Cardinal camera but it was really expensive. I will probably look over ebay and craiglist for used books. </p><div></div>

[francisco_salaquanda]

<p>My grandfather shot weddings and portraits. I always wondered why he was stressed and cranky a lot of the time. It might have been trying to shoot weddings with a 10x8. Imagine! I would never consider myself to be a capable wedding photographer.<br>

<br />My decision was reinforced when I attended a wedding and there were three photographers and the fee was $10,000. It looked like they had brought everything Nikon ever sold. It was ridiculous. But for $10k get you that.</p>

<p>Jessica, all the above advice is good, but it must be overwhelming. You don't have to answer every post. Read them over your cornflakes.</p>

<p>You really only need three lenses: on DX (as you are: 17-55 2.8, 35 1.8, 80-200 2.8) all of these lenses can be had used for very reasonable prices. Its all most professionals ever use if they have to carry it all around. You have the range of 17-200, or in FX terms, 25-300 and all 2.8. The 35 (50) 1.8 gets you out of trouble if it gets really dark. Put the 17-55 on one body and the 28-200 on another. Carry the 35 in your pocket. The only way you can get better than what these lenses produce is to use primes only, not recommended if you are learning.</p>

<p>With exposure using flash, iTTL will do it all for you. With no flash, use f4 and aperture priority, the camera will figure out the speed, or set at 500th and f4 minimum. Or do what lost of us won't admit, use P which couples the settings. (Good enough for hasselblad).</p>

<p>I started photography in the armed forces after I finished school and also worked for a newspaper for 15 years. Now I just want to do impressionist landscapes and portraits. On these two I consider that I am a beginner. Weddings are just too hard.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Jessica said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Ralph- I am really short on cash so I have to make [do] with what I have . . . I did go ahead and buy the 16-85, its seriously all I can afford right now. And I really need something that I can zoom in and out of without having to change a lens for. I just hope I didnt waste my money . . .</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would still strongly recommend the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 OS (optically stabilized), constant-aperture zoom over your much slower, variable-aperture Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 VR. Though 16-85mm is a great focal range, at f/5.6, realize that you're going to need four times the light an f/2.8 lens requires. If you don't have the light, that means high ISOs, and slower shutter speeds, increasing chroma noise to unpleasant levels, and incurring more motion-blur.</p>

<p>The Sigma isn't quite as wide as the Nikkor, but you'll find the faster lens far more useful, especially for wedding and general photojournalism work (congrats on the new job!). And, under Sigma's current $100-off promotion, the Sigma's $569 price tag is actually $60 less than the Nikkor's $629 "sale price."</p>

<p>Think of it this way . . . isn't $629 a lot of money to spend on a lens that can only be used for daylight exteriors, or when used with a flash? A lens which is so ill-suited for low-light photography, that it really can't shoot available-light interiors unless using a tripod (restricted to photographing static subjects only), or flash?</p>

[birdiphotography]

<p>I wish I knew before I purchased the 16-85.... I just got it in today :(<br>

Not sure if I can return it since it was purchased with American Express points my mom had. Half was paid with the points. I dont know how that all works, if she can get her points back. I can always get the 17-55 later though after I gain more experience and clients. Thanks so much for the congrats Ralph!!!! I have to admit I am very nervous taking on a full time position with the paper and working the weddings....<br>

A family friend also just asked me to be her wedding photographer for her May 2014 wedding. But, I am very happy to say a wonderful photographer on photo.net is meeting me on Saturday to help me with my troubles!!!! Thanks so much Ray! I cant wait to learn more and gain some valuable knowledge in person! </p>

[birdiphotography]

<p>Okay, well I cant figure out how to post multiple images up for your review so I will just attach one.... I took this image with my new 16-85mm.</p>

[birdiphotography]

<p>Here is the image attached...</p><div></div>

[studio460]

<p>Jessica said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Thanks so much for the congrats Ralph!!!!</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>You're welcome!</p>

<p>Call the bank that the Amex is drawn on--they may refer you to a separate site for information on the card's specific rewards points program (it often has some oddly generic-sounding name, and is typically handled by a separate "fulfillment" company, though it may still appear as an Amex-branded site). There should be a customer service number, or a returns policy published online. I'm sure everything will probably work out somehow. Good luck!</p>

[simon_hickie1]

<p>This is VERY late(!), but I had a D5100 and a 35mm f1.8 which back focused quite badly. I sold both separately. The D7000 has AF fine tuning which the D5100 does not have. On my D7000, I have to dial in -6 for my 18-70mm lens (a much underrated lens - sharp, no VR so you are forced to think more about shutter speed which has a knock-on effect of reducing subject movement due to using higher shutter speeds).</p>

[stevecarthy]

<p>This advice is late coming, I didn't see this post until just now.<br>

First, learn your equipment to the point where using it becomes second nature. Don't even think about taking money for your services until you are at this point. Time is money: if you are wasting time fumbling with your equipment you are wasting your time and your client's money.<br>

Second, study composition. Not just for wedding photos and not just photographs, study paintings and whatever other art you can find and learn about composition.<br>

Thirdly, practice, practice and then practice some more. Photograph anything and everything under all kinds of conditions until you master exposure.<br>

Fourthly, when you are ready to shoot an event like a wedding have backup equipment and backup everything. You only get one chance.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Zombie thread alert!</p>