marino

<p>My list:<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=2200296">Marek Dziekonski</a><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=4211416">stephen paul munn</a><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=3995880">Javier Herrera</a><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=5052012">Lyle Brocato</a> <br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=1489280">zero coolbeans</a></p>

<p><img src="http://www.marino.fot.br/imagens_blog/pnet.jpg" alt="" /><br>

lights out</p>

<p>Hello Bob,<br /> You're right, of course. At this particular wedding I was informed of the performance just as I was entering the room, after the ceremony, so there was no time to set up off-camera flashes. I did what I could, but... I am not satisfied with the results, and that's why I asked what other would do. The whole sequence, btw, can be seen here:<br /> http://www.marino.fot.br/sp/ana/fogo/fogo-0001.jpg<br /> http://www.marino.fot.br/sp/ana/fogo/fogo-0002.jpg<br /> ...<br /> http://www.marino.fot.br/sp/ana/fogo/fogo-0010.jpg</p>

<p>My instinct in these situations (without prior knowledge) is to try to drag the shutter as much as possible and, if possible, aim the flash to the background and try to block as much of it as possible from the performer. I still feel I am missing something, though.</p>

<p>Hello,<br /> Last saturday I had another encounter with a fire swallower performing at a wedding, something that for some reason is becoming rather common as of late for me. As usual, I was in a rather dark room (lights out for the show), had to make very quick decisions regarding exposure and flash parameters, and wasn't very satisfied with the results (fire overexposed, rest of room underexposed). What do you do in similar circunstances?</p>

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

<p>Tim,</p>

<p>I always thought that clipping invariably would mean loss of detail, and so when I encountered situations such as this I sort of freaked out:<br>

(image on lightroom)<br>

http://www.marino.fot.br/pnet/lroom.jpg<br>

(image was saved as DNG, then opened at ACR)<br>

http://www.marino.fot.br/pnet/acr_srgb.jpg</p>

<p>Guess there's nothing to worry about than, is that right?</p>

<p>Thanks Tim and Andrew,</p>

<p>Marino</p>

<p>Hello, first time here. Don't know if this has been discussed before; I searched and did not find any answer to my current problem so I'll ask - sorry if this is and old question.</p>

<p>Here's the thing: I recently started using Adobe Lightroom almost exclusively on my workflow (wedding photos mostly). I loved the possibility of making almost all the tweaks, fixes and BW conversions directly on Lightroom, without needing to go to Photoshop for that, but the thing is, I must deliver all the images in the sRGB color space, and I just can't get anything right if I export all images to sRGB JPEGs out of lightroom. It seems to me (and I hope I'm wrong on this) the only way of doing it is by opening each and every photo again on Photoshop's ACR and then changing the adjustments so that I won't have a lot of clipping on both sides of the histogram. I'm talking about 1000~2000 images each wedding here, so that's a lot of additional work, enough to make Lightroom completely useless in my point of view.</p>

<p>Is there some other way of dealing with large numbers of images that MUST end as sRGB files in Lightroom? A way that doesn't involve "guessing" how much "buffer area" to leave to avoid clipping in the conversion, I mean.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance for any suggestions!</p>

I have both versions of the 28mm (f/1.8 and f/2.8). Maybe I was really unlucky with the f/1.8 I got, but for what's worth I found it to be a really bad lens. At f/1.8 it is simply unusable, and at f/2.8 it is still pretty much inferior to its older, cheaper "sister". I really need a fast WA, so I'll get a 24mm f/1.4, but if it's not a priority for you, I would suggest the 20-35, or either the 28 f/2.8 or the 35 f/2.0, anything but the 28 f/1.8, really.

IMHO the main issue with your equipment selection (having sports photography in mind) is getting a 20d instead of a DRebel (I find AI SERVO very usefull most of the time). That would be my top priority. The one extra stop a 70-200 f/2.8 would give you is nice (particularly if you plan on buying a 1.4 TC soon), but the (much) lighter f/4 will still have its uses even when you have both lenses.

Hi there.

 

I shot motocross races mainly (check www.motocross.fot.br for photos), and ocasionally other motorcycle events (http://200.228.103.103/officialsuzuki/ these were taken last weekend at Interlagos). Most of my motocross photos were taken with a 10D and a 70-200 f/4L, shot in jpeg (I shot 3000+ pics every weekend, so RAW is simply not practical). The 70-200 f/2.8 (I really don't care much about IS) would be better, but I'd rather keep the f/4 and spend the money in another camera body or in a 300mm lenses. I always take a 50mm f/1.4 and a 28mm f/1.8 with me; if I had it I would take the 17-40 f/4L (which I used a couple of times and loved). At Interlagos the 70-200 was a little short, so I used a 1.4TC and also a 500mm f/4L on some races (a dream lenses, but you need a very strong back to carry it around).

 

As for photoshop, all I do is some minor exposure corrections and some sharpenning. Hope that helps.