glenbarrington

Thanks to all for the resonses!

NOTE: an essentially similar question was cross posted to the FourThirds Photo

web site.

 

In order to save money, my niece has asked me to shoot her wedding and in a

moment of weakness I said I would even though I haven't shot a wedding in over

30 years. (They're good kids without much money and the family wants to give

them as good a day as we can)

 

The wedding and reception will be held outside during the long summer days in

the early evening. The reception party will undoubtedly extend past sundown

though I expect there will be a tent over the dance floor and dining tables. My

wife can act as an assistant, though the young woman who shot my daughter's

wedding did it alone.

 

I don't want to spend any more money than I have to, so I intend to use my

Olympus E500 and probably my elderly Canon AE-1s as backup, but I'm going to

need some lighting equipment for sure, and I need assistance in determining just

what equipment I will need.

 

How many gigabytes do I need in flash cards? Though I've been shooting raw, I'm

thinking of shooting SHQ or HQ jpg for the storage advantage. I seriously doubt

we will print anything higher than an 8X10. I will probably put together a

traditional album and a DVD slideshow built with ProShow Gold.

 

"Back in the day", I used a Honeywell Strobonar 800 and A SunPack potato masher

both mounted on the side, so I'm not unfamiliar or afraid of manual flash units

or holding a flash unit off camera for bounce.

 

Will the larger Oly flash units be adequate? In a pinch, could they be made to

work with my elderly Canons? These things mount over the lens, I know they have

a tilting head for bounce, but I'm used to holding the flash up high so the

shadows fall on the floor. Is this technique still used/recommended? Would I be

better off using a manual flash considering my situation and experience?

 

I'm thinking for more formal group poses I may need some secondary light. If we

do the poses under a tent I don't think I'll have to worry about light

dissipating into the sky, but if we do the poses without a tent, I'm not so

sure. Do you think a single additional unit with umbrella will suffice? should I

get two? How powerful should this unit be? What about some sort of continuous

light source? They'd probably be cheaper and possibly easier for an old dinosaur

to work with. I've been wanting to get some lights for portraits anyway. Brands,

and specs appreciated!

 

I intend to read up on modern wedding photography just to make sure I have my

bases covered on technique and I do have some experience in the distant past, so

the shooting part I'm 'reasonably' comfortable with, but it's the new technology

that worries me. I don't want to commit myself to spending more than $600 - $800

USD on new equipment. (any more $$$, and I might as well just pay for a

photographer myself - I really don't think I want to do this regularly but I do

love buying photo stuff!)

 

Am I being realistic? Any advise you guys can give would be greatly appreciated.

I currently am using PSE 5 with ACR as my editor. I use ACDSee as the organizer as I still hate the PSE organizer.

 

ACR is the fastest raw developer I have tried, and I have tried as many as I could find. the problem is, it has a more limited set of controls than the other developers,even ACR with Photoshop proper. so if you are used to a certain level of raw development control, you may be satisfied with the speed of ACR/PSE but you may be unhappy with the level of control.

 

I am looking forward to swithching to Lightroom when it comes out.

My impression is that the E330 has been moderately successful sales wise. But then 'moderately successful' may not be what Circuit City is looking for!

 

At any rate I am CHOOSING to assume this is a sign of someting really cool about to be announced.

Many of them can be if those features are implemented in PSE. It'll probably take a little more thought to use them that way, but a little more thought is something we all could benefit from.

 

I suspect though, you'll find no shortage of PSE5 tutorials once the tutorial writers ramp up on PSE 5. I don't know if Scott Kelby plans a PSE5 book but his Photoshop Elements 3 book is excellent. well worth the $25 US or so he charges. With a book like that, you won't need many magazine tutorials.

Answers to your 4:3s questions!

 

http://www.four-thirds.org/en/index.html

I had a LOT of doubts about DNG until I started using it. Now I convert all my ORF files to DNG because DNG files are smaller than ORF files. I don't bother to keep my ORF files since I've seen no loss of image quality or in processing flexibility. Though to tell the truth, I don't think it matters all that much.

 

DNG is not a revolutionary change in how we do things. I switched because it is more efficient storage.(since not all raw formats are the same size, this may not apply to you). Its advantages over other raw formats are small enough that other considerations may outweigh its use.

 

I think the 'universality' of DNG is somewhat illusory, which is why I think it has been kind of slow to catch on. Any camera from a major manufacturer is going to be supported in its native format by 3rd party vendors. DNG may be useful for that transition period where a new camera isn't supported by the vendors though. It may also be useful in situations where you are considering major changes in how your workflow is configured.

 

I would say DNG is a useful tool to have in your toolbox, you should definitiely make sure you have the capability to use it when you need it. You won't lose anything by using it and it may prove useful in the future. But I wouldn't lose any sleep over it if my workflow didn't include it either.

Ross,

 

Shooting weddings is a skill, you don't just go out, buy ONE camera and start shooting. You need to be very careful in managing these couples expectations of you. You COULD wind up losing some friends over this. This is a major life event for these people, and what may seem like a laughable mishap to you could be percieved as a major disaster to them. And if they blame you, (and they probably will) your friendship could suffer.

 

Have you thought about what you will do if your camera malfunctions? do you have a list of photos the couple FOR SURE wants to have taken? Have you thought about how you light the reception hall? Do you know how far away you can be from a subject and get a decent flash photo in a big room? do you know how close you can be in a small room? (There IS a difference)

 

Do you know how your specific camera reacts to an all white environment, such as a Bride standing behind a Wedding cake? will your camera need to be manually stopped down a bit or does the flash automation work well enough in such situations?

 

From your post, It sounded to me like you intended to use on camera flash. That is simply NOT powerful enough for such situations. Nor will it provide the kind of lighting for a photo that a bride would want to show her friends.

 

We haven't even discussed if you intend to Photoshop these photos, go to a commercial printer (either before or after photoshop), if they expect you to provide the album, do they expect to pay for the supplies and expenses over and above what a normal guest is expected to incur.

 

Hey, who are we to hold you back? Take your one camera with no backup and two kit lenses (with no backup), and no flash powerful enough to light a 10'X 10' square in a big room from 20 feet away and have fun! Drink the Beer and Eat the food, and take whatever photos strike your fancy.

 

It's only the most important event in someone's young life. If you aren't prepared the first time out, they'll get over it.

Well, if you take a bit of time to make your decision. Lightroom will be out of beta, and we'll know what the commercial product is like. I've got to decide on how to replace ACDSee V8 and I'm trying to S T R E T C H the decision out so I can evaluate the first commercial Lightroom version.

 

It sounds like you are in ho big hurry, so you might be well advised to go slow.

You don't need another lens, you need an electronic flash AND you need to know how to use it in a wedding situation.

 

Be very careful what you promise these couples.

It would seem that people (at least many people) who DO use Tiff's from Raw aren't converting to Tiff and deleting the raw. Instead, they are saving BOTH!

 

This makes more sense to me than what I though was occurring. But I am still not sure what storing a Tiff alongside the raw really buys for an amateur shooter as opposed to another lossless format such as psd.

 

It makes a bit more sense to me for the pro. A pro may well want a highly marketable image 'frozen' in it's most marketable and highest quality state yet retain the capability to 'redevelop' the image in a totally different manner if market tastes change or a new market opens up that may require a different interpretation.

 

But a hack amateurlike myself, may well feel converting the raw file as needed is good enough. (and even might enjoy the serendipity of minor accidental differences)

I'm aware of what it is. But as I move more and more into raw shooting, I'm

becoming more aware of people who shoot raw and then convert to tiff.

 

If you are such a person, can you tell me what this does that you wouldn't have

by storing the native raw image or storing a DNG image? And don't you lose the

'non destructive' nature of RAW by 'fixing' the development when you convert to

tiff? I can see the image quality value over jpg for a serious shooter, but at

this point, I don't see how the benefits of tiff could outweigh the benfits of raw.

 

I'm not trying to stir things up, just trying to make sure I don't miss

something important.

On my A75 Toshiba with a 15 inch wide screen display, I am very comfortable with Lightroom. I agree that editing with a full sized monitor is highly desirable whenever possible, but since I travel in my work, that isn't always possible. I've been getting pretty good results, I think, out of my LT

The advice you've gotten so far is all good. And I support the idea of using raw as much as possble. But you are a little bit wrong about your understanding of jpg files,IMO you need to understand jpg a little bit better in order to make the decision that is most right for you.

 

jpg images do NOT degrade with each manipulation, they degrade with each SAVE to jpg. It's the compression during the save that causes IQ loss. (But take a jpg photo and copy it, now open the copy, do a minor change, and save it 100 times, I'm willing to bet you won't be able to tell the difference between the original and the heavily saved jpg copy. IQ loss is more theoretical than real even for demanding applications)

 

Though I mostly shoot raw with my DSLR for serious work, I still occasionaly shoot jpgs. I have an older Canon G3 camera thats a lot of fun to use and produces wonderful 4mp jpgs. I am quite happy to shoot jpgs with it. Especially panoramas (Great panorama camera!)

 

But I don't keep them as jpgs, and I won't use Tiff (to big, IMO) What I do, is save my jpg images in the native Photoshop PSD format. It's lossless so no IQ loss, and saves unflattened layers to boot, so it "sort of" is a way to have non destructive editing. As long as I don't flatten the layers, I can frequently (not always, true) revert back to the original photo.

 

By all means, start shooting raw, your increased level of control will astound you. But jpg isn't the 'Spawn of Satan' that some would have you believe.

 

(BTW, I also support the idea of using the Lightroom Beta, an excellent product for both raw and jpg and it does true non destructive editing on jpgs as well as raw. Plus, for heavy duty editing, you can send your converted images to PS7 and save them as PSD files, you'll be able to keep the RAW version and the PSD version)

Gerald, I didn't mean my comments to be a personal insult to you. You've got to keep remininding yourself that you aren't your Olympus camera!

 

The simple truth, in my mind at least, is that if Oly had the stones to make an E3, they'd have done it by now. A mock-up, under glass, that no one can touch, is not an E3, it's the same empty statement of intent that they've been making for at least 4 years.

 

I like my E500, but I think it is prudent to be very careful at this point, not to over commit to an Oly exclusive system

Depending on how you use CS and lightroom, you may find that there is no need to upgrade at all. Many people were quite happy with CS but felt forced to upgrade because ACR could not be updated in CS. when they got a new camera, they needed the raw support and CS2 was the only way they could get it.

 

But with Lightroom, you will be geting udpated raw support anyway. And if all you need is the basic editor functions and only do raw conversions in LR, you may feel that CS is adequate fow quite some time.

 

Personally, I like the combination of Lightroom and the editor of PS Elements 3. For me, Lightroom combined with a more powerful editor than PSE is a waste of money.

I agree with 'Z'.

 

I think it's too late for Oly and an "E3". I like my E500, but I am proceeding on the assumption that I will be forced to change camera brands in the next two or three years. As a result, I intend to buy as few accessories for my E500 as possible. Why throw good money after bad? If I have to switch brands, any Oly specific stuff will be useless and have to be replaced.

 

If I'm wrong, and there IS a viable Olympus in 3-4 years, Great! I'll consider an Oly upgrade path. I'm just hedging my bets.

I wouldn't place too much significance on the vertical grip as an indicator of size and weight. For some reason, the E1 users really, really, really loved the add-on E1 vertical grip even though the E1 isn't a particularly large or heavy camera, this may be aimed at them. (Though it may be an indicator that Oly actually CARES what its customers think, a refreshing change for a camera manufacturer!)

fotoSlate comes with templates for a wide variety of paper sizes and an editor to create your own odd sizes. You can download a 30 day free trial from ACDSee to test it out. Again, I assume QImage is competititve in these areas.

No need to upgrade your editor if you are otherwise happy with PSE V2! A dedicated printing program will do this job no problem. Plus, it will greatly improve the speed with which you can produce quality prints over over PSE (or any other editor, for that matter).

 

Either QImage or ACDSee fotoSlate will do the job with ease. I'm personally more familiar with fotoSlate (about $29 USD cheaper than a PSE upgrade) and I like it a lot as it combines ease of use with power. However QImage also has quite a following (not sure of price, but competitive, I'm sure).

On the background of the flowers, does anyone else see. . .I'm not sure if I'd call it noise, exactly, but a sort of patterned, splotchiness? It's real subtle but I'm *pretty sure* its not my imagination.

Personally, I would be surprised if there was a significant difference between the Leica and Panasonic versions. There hasn't been any difference between them in the past, so i don't expect to see any differences in the future.

 

These are, after all, rebadged cameras, the whole point of re-badging is to fill a hole in your camera line as quickly and as cheaply as possible.

 

Personally, I would love to see Leica get serious about the 4/3s system format since I don't think even Olympus has fully explored the potential for quality that 4/3s is capable of; and I'm not certain of Panasonic's commitment to the system.

I have both the Graphire 2 4x5 and Graphire 4 6x8 tablets. I find the less expensive Graphire line to be quite adequate for photo editing. I suspect that the extra level of sensitivity that the Intuos line has may be useful for those trying to draw with the computer, but I wonder just how useful that is for photo editing. But then I am a heavy-handed, ham fisted kind of guy, so maybe it is me who can't produce more than 512 levels of pressure on the tablet!

 

I much prefer the larger 6X8 tablet. I have found that the smaller 4X5 tablet forces me to rely more heavily on fine wrist control because of the smaller sensor area. (I wonder if this is the source of a previous poster's wrist problems) The larger 6X8 allows a more natural 'whole arm' type of movement, that I find much more comfortable. Also the sensor area of the 6X8 is much closer to the size of a traditional mouse pad, so I am more used to working in this sized physical space. It also makes for using the Graphire mouse more intuitive, I think.

 

On the whole, I like my Graphire tablets. The learning curve was pretty steep and it took quite a while to get used to it, but it was worth the effort, I think. No regrets here!

Which is better probably depends on your needs. I think PSE 4 does the best job of 'handholding' for new/casual/inexperienced users while still providing a reasonably powerful editing experience. You are likely to find more freee tutorials and how to articles in magazines for PSE.

 

But in terms of which is the most powerful in absolute terms, I think I'd give a nod to Paint Shop Pro. While it provides a reasonable amount of 'handholding', there just ISN'T the kind of 3rd party support that is available for PSE. so if you're the kind of person who needs to be shown and shown in a lot of different ways, in order to learn PSP MAY prove difficult for you.

 

That being said, I don't know enough about the newly announced PSE5 to say how it compares to PSP for certain, but i would be surprised if PSE were as powerful as the lates version of PSP

Around $6500 USD is what I EXPECTED for a price. But I was HOPING for a price around $4000 USD. It would still be a struggle, but I could maybe swing $4k.