zlatko

Excellent photo and an interesting story.

<p>Chad, it sounds like you are describing two problems: softness along the edge and wide angle distortion. The 17-40 should give you very sharp images. Perhaps your lens needs adjustment.<br>

<br /> To avoid wide angle distortion, you should avoid the wide angle. Shoot with as long a focal length as is practical for the subject matter and the available working distance. Ideally, shoot formals with about a 50mm equivalent focal length. 24mm on the 40D camera is about as wide as you should go for formals (unless there's really no room to backup). A little longer would be better. If you shoot with a longer focal length, you won't need to use DPP to correct distortion.<br>

<br /> I don't understand your comment about people along the edge looking skinny. Wide angle lenses (except for fisheyes) do the opposite; they make people look fatter and wider along the edges. Perhaps you are overdoing the software correction.</p>

<p><em>Will the Professional be understanding or annoyed at my presence? How will I make sure I don’t get in his/her way/shots or tread on his/her toes?</em> This depends on the individual. Don't block their view and try not to be in their shot.<br /> <br /> <em>Basics of exposure. I have read Caucasians look best at +1 stop?</em> No, that would apply only for a close-up facial portrait of a light-skinned person. You should base exposure on the overall scene and what parts you want to emphasize. Zero should be your default exposure compensation setting, then go plus or minus depending on how you want the overall scene to appear. Exposure is too big a topic for this brief reply. Practice!<br /> <br /> <em>Aperture priority?</em> Yes, as you're not using flash, aperture priority is generally a good approach. Just watch that it's not giving you too-slow shutter speeds. Set the ISO higher if needed.<br /> <br /> Candids are simply unposed photos. They can be lovely and meaningful, or boring and empty. You have to decide what is important to photograph, and what you can practically achieve.<br /> <br /> The 70-200 zoom is very useful if you really want to stand back and have the room to do so. The image stabilization is wonderful. However, if in a smaller space, it may be too big and attract too much attention. In that case, you may do better with your 50mm or (if you had it) an 85 or 100mm lens. The suggestion of a 35mm lens is excellent if you're comfortable getting close and like to include more of the setting.<br /> <br /> The above suggestion to ask to borrow the pro's flash is a bad idea, IMO. That would likely annoy the pro, and you would be using a flash you've never used before (and using up their batteries). On the other hand, having a flash may be a good idea, depending on the lighting at the location. But using flash properly is a lengthy topic and it would take some practice to learn it well.</p>

<p>I use the current version of Lightroom and love it! DPP is way too clunky for me.</p>

<p>The Nikon D700 and Canon 5D2 are probably your best choices right now. Both are superb and well-suited to weddings. Great files and great high-ISO ability. Not too expensive and not too heavy. The Sony is likely a fine camera but I'm less familiar with it. I suggest buying one of these 3 and shooting the heck out of it.</p>

<p>The others are either discontinued (5D, 1Ds, 1DsII), likely too heavy (D3, 1Ds, 1DsII) or way too expensive (D3X, 1DsIII).</p>

<p>Your backup can be a less expensive, non-full-frame camera like the Nikon D300 or Canon 40D or 50D. A gently-used 5D would make a good backup too. I am a Canon user and really like the 5D2, but if I had Nikon lenses and was used to shooting Nikon, I would likely go with the D700.</p>

<p>A few related suggestions ... start with a bunch of high quality memory cards, like Sandisk Ultra or Sandisk Extreme (genuine ones only, beware of fakes). Buy some good external hard drives and a DVD burner for backups. Invest in good software (Photoshop and Lightroom) and make time to learn to use them. You'll need a fast computer to deal with those big files. Good luck!</p>

<p>I've also had very good experience with the Maha Powerex 2700 rechargeable AA batteries. They are expensive, but they are the only ones I trust and they get heavy use at weddings. I use the Maha charger and set it to the slow charge setting. I also have my flashes set to go to sleep automatically when not being used, so they're not constantly using energy.</p>

<p>I use both an my impression is that 24-70 has the nicer bokeh. On the other hand 24-105 seems to be more reliable for autofocus, although the 24-70 is usually very good.</p>

<p>It depends so much on your style and preferred working distance. For street photography, I like 28, 35 and 50mm best. For portraits, I like 50 and 85mm best, and occasionally 135mm. Of the lenses you mentioned, I would probably keep the 17-35, 24-105 and 80-200. A 50mm is always great.</p>

<p>I've had very good experience with the 24-105 too. Which lens to buy ultimately depends on what you're shooting, your style and your budget.</p>

<p>It's a very sharp lens but I tried it for weddings a few years ago and was disappointed when the IS broke. The IS started to vibrate vigorously when the lens was zoomed to about 35mm. It was still under warranty and fixed quickly, but I felt that I couldn't rely on it any more. </p>

<p>I'm a suit and tie guy for weddings.</p>

Sorry for the typo. That was "do", not "fo".

Hi Jeff, fo you ever do formals with the subjects at the altar in church? If so, I'm wondering

how you handle the lighting. That's the situation in which I would likely set up a lightstand

and umbrella to use off-camera flash (580ex), assuming there's enough time to do so. It

means carrying an extra gear bag and it takes time to set up. Lighting at the altar is usually

not very pretty for portraits, and on-camera flash looks, well, like on-camera flash.

Sometimes the weather doesn't permit outdoor photography, or it's dark out when the formal

portraits are being done. Thanks very much for all of your insights here and for the

continuing inspiration.

Jamie, to start, see Annabel Williams' books on portrait and wedding photography and Bambi

Cantrell's books on wedding photography. Also, see what seminars and videos are offered

through Wedding & Portrait Photographers International (www.wppionline.com). Finally,

check out www.digitalweddingforum.com; there is a portrait forum where you can get helpful

advice about on-location portraits.

Matt, I think you need a lot more CF cards. I shoot weddings in raw mode and typically fill

20-30GB in a day, and carry extra just in case. If I shot in jpg mode, I would likely carry

about 5-10GB to be sure to have enough. You're describing a very large event, so I'm

guessing you will shoot a lot. You should also have a backup camera & lens in case your

main ones fail. Just having a backup is more important than having any specific lens.

There are some lovely photos in that portfolio (the wedding stuff is nice too). A few of the

images are a bit low in contrast and could benefit from a contrast boost. However, .[. Z's

suggestion above, to adjust black and white points, changes the image too much in my

opinion. The adjusted version adds a bit too much contrast to what I think is intended to be

a soft image. In the original, we quickly notice that the child is looking at a horse in the

upper right corner. In the adjusted version, the child is looking into near blackness, and it's

hard to tell there was a horse up there. The child is looking "out" as the sign says, but with

the horse less readable, the image becomes more mysterious, and the meaning changes

somewhat.

There is no perfect way to do it, and I would just accept that there will be a difference. I

would adjust the white balance for nice skin tone, and let the room look tungsteny. The

difference in white balance will look less extreme if you use a faster shutter speed, like

1/30th or 1/60th (less ambient light will come through). Custom white balance won't

work because the two light sources are so different. Sometimes angling the flash away

from the subject, even backwards, will cause the flash to light up more of the room,

causing the flash's output to affect more of the color in the room. Puppy Face's solution

works great when you can spend the time to do it that way. You can also try the Sto-fen

#OC-EYGL GOLD Omni-Bounce Diffuser for Canon 580EX Flash. It works like a filter on

your flash. This Sto-fen will make your flash output almost match the tungsten light. But

it gives a very gold/amber effect, so you need to shoot raw to be able to adjust it back

towards white/daylight if it's too much.

With IS on, 1/30th at the long end works surprisingly often, but I would overshoot it just to be sure. With IS off, probably 1/200th at the long end.

Shoot some events for friend or friends of friends for free to get some good images for your portfolio. Go to workshops or seminars given by people who are really good at what you want to do. Use the portfolio and workshop/seminar experience to get some low-paying assignments. As you build your portfolio, skills and experience, gradually raise your rates.

If you're doing wedding work -- it sounds like you're doing it for money. In that case, you really need to buy a lot of CF cards. The other alternatives take you away from shooting, possibly at critical times when you need to be shooting. That would be a very serious disadvantage, in addition to the disadvantages you already mentioned. Some photographers have an assistant do the downloading, but it's cheaper to buy the CF cards than to pay an assistant if that's all you need the assistant for. CF cards keep getting cheaper. Until you can buy the needed CF cards to cover the whole wedding, I suggest that you shoot a combination of film & digital.

Marc, I agree with you about the 10D for weddings. I find that the image quality is really stunning. Do you spend a lot of time post-processing after a wedding? Would you share some details of your post-wedding workflow? Photoshop + Camera Raw or Canon File Viewer Utility, etc.? Also, I've heard the 85/1.2 is slow to focus -- have you found it to be slow or just right?

I'm in the NYC area.

Well, I find much to disagree with here. Your essay starts off with a critique of a caption in an Italian magazine. It's not clear that Salgado was responsible for the caption. So I question your conclusion about the photo being pressed into service or that supports a definitive ideology. If that is what happened, it may be the caption-writer's work, not the photographer's. The photo is magnificent, caption or no caption. What definite ideology does the photo (not the caption) support? None. All photos are subject to manipulation by caption writers.

 

About the image of the miner and the policeman -- Yes, the subjects seem frozen in time. That's because it is a still photograph. All still photographs freeze their subjects in time. The miner and the policeman are individuals, despite what you say. The photo is not purely spectacular; it shows a real moment between two real individuals. The photo doesn't *deprive* them of anything. It reveals a moment, which may be part of a condition and a process. Like almost any photo, it is subject to interpretation and can represent many things. But as a still photograph, it simply can't depict their past and their future, and it's unfair to criticize it for not doing so. Also, would it make such a difference if you knew their names? Would you go and follow up to see how things worked out? Think about demanding that the photographer get people's names at a scene of conflict; how would that affect the scene itself and his ability to do this work?

 

Your sweeping conclusions in the last two paragraphs lack support. To say that these photos promote views of the Third World that reinforce its otherness, naturalness and lack of political significance is quite bizarre. If you interpret them as such, that is your choice. But I don't see that as inherent in the photos or in the photographer's decisions. Sure, the photographs don't themselves question the order of the world that produces refugees, etc. But that is the nature of photography. They may well lead (some) viewers to question, but they don't themselves question. It seems to me you are criticizing photography for not doing something that it can't do.

 

As for the work being humourless, some artists and some artworks are simply that way, while others are quite the opposite. There is tragedy and there is comedy, and it's unusual for an artist to be good at both. To say that a tragedy lacked humor, or that a comedy lacked sorrow is not valid criticism. Where is the humor in famine, for example? It seems that you're criticizing Salgado for not being a funnier photographer. I really don't see any merit to this argument.

The 420 is good enough for wedding photography, though it would not be my first choice. The fact that it emits the low light focusing light for all 7 focusing points is not an advantage for me because I almost always use the center AF point. The center AF point is faster and more accurate -- this is really important indoors in low light. If you're using all 7 AF points, you don't really know which one will achieve focus. I tend to shoot at wider apertures, so I don't need a lot of flash power. The 420 has enough power, unless perhaps you shoot at small apertures or with slow film. But you asked about a unit that will serve you better for the long run, and that would have to be the 550 because of it's extra features. One of the extra features is the ability to add a Canon CPE2 battery pack with 6 AA batteries -- this allows really fast recycling.

Ronald, do a search in the 1D/1Ds forum on robgalbraith.com. Someone recently posted a good tone curve for the 1D. I don't know whether it will work for the 1Ds.