jaycobar-chay

<p>That's why I'm leaning toward bringing the pros in on the job. I keep studying up on this and continuous lighting doesn't seem to be what I need in a dark gym for reasons just mentioned. Having said that... what equipment would be bright enough using continuous lighting? It seems easy to set up two light sources that are bright enough and meter off of a gray card. With flashes there are so many other things to consider...</p>

<p>I know what I'm doing with a camera. People photography is my strong suit. I'm no pro, but people have paid me in the past for lots of jobs and they've all been happy with the results. If I can just light the subjects well enough I'll do fine.</p>

<p>I thought there would be plenty of responses of this nature, and yes, I'm toying with saying no, but I'm still curious, despite what has been said about ugly shadows using what some people have referred to as "butterfly" lighting, how did their pictures turn out looking so nice with one 5 foot umbrella 10 feet above the camera? When you see pictures like that you think to yourself "I can just set up a light on a tripod, meter with a gray card and snap away".</p>

<p>If I hadn't seen info about that out there I probably would have said no already because I really don't want to learn strobes and get all that equipment.</p>

<p>And for the record, when it was offered to me, I initially said I didn't want to do it for all the reasons listed already but I was told I had time to learn and I'm not the dullest tool in the shed. (It's a small school and despite the nature of photographers to be extreme perfectionists with their art, most people think a photo is nice if they can see the people in the picture and it's in focus. These things aren't going up in a gallery somewhere and some people could very well be wearing camoflauge to the event. It won't take much to dazzle them...)</p>

<p>Still, I might offer the job to the pros I know to go as support; sort of like paying a mechanic who knows what they're doing to use their shop and tools as they stand next to you while you do the actual work on your own car... You get the same expertise and work at a cheaper rate while you learn something yourself.</p>

<p>I didn't know how to use a camera until I got one in my hands and started using it... I've got enough time to get equipment and learn how to use it. I need advice on what to get though, not advice on not doing the gig. (And I do understand your point, but I'm sure everyone in the business had their first job using studio lights at one point or another... you just can't leave everything up to someone that already knows how to do it, you've got to get your feet wet at some point or nobody would ever learn how to do anything for themselves.)</p>

<p>I've seen several examples of prom photos using the butterfly technique I mentioned already and they looked great. Everyone that offered the suggestion of that method to others in my situation said it was simple and easy for a beginner because it's just one light. What I haven't been able to figure out from their suggestions is if they used flashes or continuous lighting. From what I've been reading since I put the post up, continuous lighting probably won't be bright enough and they probably used flashes. </p>

<p>I was wanting to avoid flashes because of the learning curve but I have more than one pro friend that can help me with hands on tutoring to speed that up if I have to go that route. I've read that beginners start with continuous lights for the ease and then move to strobes for the extra control and versitility... I might have to just go with what they use and can teach me.</p>

<p>I'm still interested in any input people would have about how to do a one light setup with a continuous light. Assuming what I've seen was done with a continuous light, the examples I've seen look like something I'd gladly pay for if I was going to prom, so it can be done.</p>

<p>I've seen tons of posts from people in my exact situation: I know what I'm doing with a camera but I've never used studio lighting or flashes before and I've been asked to do the prom photos for a small town school. All of the responses to posters in the same situation have developed into advice about what sort of setups to use and there hasn't been much in the way of exactly what items to buy (or rent) and what you need to make them work.<br>

From what I've seen everyone suggest to a first timer doing this, simple is better. I keep running into "butterfly" lighting as an easy method that allows for groups and couples. I'm wanting one light on a stand up high above my camera. I'll need to shoot couples and groups.<br>

I need to know what I need in terms of lighting equipment. I don't want to learn flashes; I want a light source that is on constantly.<br>

What do I need in terms of a light, umbrella, boxes, reflectors, stands, cords, cables and so on? I'll try to rent, but the closest town that would have a place that rents (Memphis, TN) is an hour away; I might have to buy, and would prefer cheaper over more expensive. I try to buy used when I do buy...<br>

I will have the manpower to orchestrate this thing; I'll get a couple of friends to help with taking money and order forms, checking dresses for bra straps and such. What I need here is advice on what to buy to light and exactly how to use it. The prom committee is making the background and I'll be able to help with the creation of that to suit the photos for groups as well as couples.</p>

<p>Josh,</p>

<p>Thanks for changing the name. When I type my real name in google, I still pop up here. I don't know if you know this, but how long does it take to stop doing that?</p>

<p>Well, thanks for that. If I change my name on the site, I'm assuming people will still be able to see posts or comments I've put here over the years, as each one of them has my name attached to it, correct? Seriously, all a person has to do is type my name into google and my posts pop up. Or, when I change my name, does my name change on all things I've done in the past?</p>

<p>I honestly don't care, but I'm a little older now and have a more responsible place in society... people can easily be offended.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm just curious if there is a way to delete ratings I've made on photographs and the comments in forum posts and critiques I've made over the years. I don't really see anything that would seem like a tool or link for doing that in "my workspace" and nothing shows up on comments I've left.<br>

Any help for getting rid of stuff from my past here?</p>

<p>Steven F... Thanks for taking the time to write your response, but I've already done the focus test. At the shortest distance a lens is able to focus, the depth of field is obviously very narrow from front to back. Yes, at the minimum focus distance, the "point of aim", or center line is in the depth of field, but as you move the focus target back, the depth of field starts to shift farther from the camera, eventually not containing the center line "point of aim". At distances of several feet or more, the areas of the image that are in focus are well behind the subject chosen with the center AF point. </p>

<p>Since the area I'm focusing on doesn't end up in focus in the resultant image, it makes me feel that the point of focus in the distance the lens or camera is choosing does not coincide with the focus distance I'm telling it to use... As the areas that do end up in focus are behind the subject I'm selecting, I'm assuming I'm correct in stating the gear is "back focusing".</p>

<p>Also, as I've stated before, I've never had this trouble before... I know what the gear should be doing when I tell it to do it. Look through my photos and you'll see my subjects are in focus.</p>

<p>As for spending the money to fix the camera, yes, I understand the fix would be the same job on a cheap camera vs. an expensive one, but when the camera isn't very valuable, it doesn't make sense to repair it.</p>

<p>Yes, I am looking at simply buying a used 40D.</p>

<p>I'm really looking for someone to give me some magical solution to the problem. I keep seeing reviews of the level of service people get at the repair centers in New Jersey and Irvine, California who are lucky enough to live near to them. They show up, sit in a waiting room and their cameras are fixed in ten or twenty minutes at no charge, or it takes only two or three days and if there is a fee for the service, the service includes all sorts of extra services at no charge. Sadly, I live nowhere near these centers. If I could speak to someone that actually works in a repair center, perhaps I could get a straighter answer. I've tried calling the centers directly, but my calls just get switched back to a call center for Canon somewhere else that isn't a repair facility.</p>

<p>Yes, I've put the camera on a tripod, used a remote release, high shutter speed, wide open aperture, focused on all manner of objects at different distances, even a meter stick to measure the difference in focus point and what ends up in focus on the image. Back focus is obvious in all images with both bodies and all lenses. It's not horrible on close subjects, but it gets worse as the distance to the subject increases to where most images beyond a few feet are incredibly obvious.</p>

<p>I use the center AF spot, I use one shot AF mode and I know what I'm doing with the gear. It hasn't been a problem for years, now it is.</p>

<p>As far as sending just the body in, it doesn't seem to make sense. 280 dollars to calibrate it seems incredibly high.</p>

<p>I have a 10D and a 30D that have served me well for years. I also have a 50mm 1.8, 100mm 2.0, 28-105mm 3.5-4.5 and a Sigma 17-70mm 2.8-4.5 that have all worked fine as well. I took all of my gear to Florida to shoot a wedding and ever since all of my photos are back focused; perhaps something about the salt or sand in the air...</p>

<p>I called Canon to get an idea of what sort of cost and turn around time I'd be looking at if I sent everything in to get checked out and calibrated. I was told the "repair" on the 30D would be 280 dollars, which seems really high to me, as the repair is about the same cost of just buying another one. The 10D was out of repair life, so Canon won't even do anything for that body. I was also told they didn't have any information on cost to recalibrate lenses, only that the service center would let me know IF they would recalibrate them and would inform me how much the "repair" would be.</p>

<p>This all seems a bit odd to me. The cameras and lenses work perfectly in all respects except the resultant images are consistantly back focused. (Yes, I am aware it could be user error... not in this case... I've got years worth of excellent photos with all of this equipment.) I'm no tech, but it seems to me a calibration would be much less expensive than a repair, and as a consumer, why bother with repairs when the cost is so high? As for calibrating the lenses, I thought this was a routine sort of tweak Canon would perform, but sending the lenses away in the hopes they might calibrate them and then hoping it won't cost me what it would to buy a new lens in each case outright? What's the point?</p>

<p>Did I get an idiot on the phone? It seems to me the problems I'm having with my gear would be simple and inexpensive to remedy. Does anyone have any advice on how to get my gear back to taking photos that are in focus?</p>

<p>I have a Canon 10D and 30D. Recently, after years of not doing it, both are back focusing, sometimes very much so. I've done my own tests consisting of focusing on a certain mark on a yard stick to attempt to quantitively measure the problem and other less scientific approaches by just focusing on static objects at different distances from the camera. There really seems to be no predicting when it will happen or how drastic it will be. Sometimes photos come out the way they should, other times the subjects are painfully blurred while something two or three feet or two or three inches behind them will be sharp.</p>

<p>I don't know if it's the lenses alone and the bodies are fine, or if the bodies are bad and the lenses are the problem. I've put my lenses on each body, and sometimes it seems that one will back focus on one body, and front focus on the other.</p>

<p>I don't think it's my technique; I know what I'm doing with a camera and have had years of taking photos without this trouble. The best I can figure, the problems started when I took the cameras to Florida and shot a beach wedding. I know neither body is weather sealed, and the air on the beach is inherently salty. Might some corrosive damage have occured shooting on the beach that's making my gear act crazy?</p>

<p>I'm struggling with just buying a new camera body, but without knowing if it's the lenses and there isn't anything wrong with the bodies (or vice versa), I'd just be throwing money at a problem that doesn't need money spent on it, and could quite possibly be in the same boat I am now after the expense.</p>

<p>My questions are: Is there a way to accurately determine where my problems lie that I can do; a way that doesn't require shipping the cameras away for "calibration" or something like that? If not, do I have to send all my gear somewhere to be investigated by a tech somewhere? Anyone had this trouble before who can share their experience? If I have to go with a repair, anyone have any idea how long a problem like this will take and how much it will cost?</p>

<p>I appreciate all the input. I guess for bigger prints it doesn't matter all that much because of the longer viewing distance, unless you want to be overly anal about it and get out a loupe.</p>

<p>Most people looking at the image won't be the sort to know technical details about cameras and taking pictures anyway. As long as they see a nice composition and an interesting subject they'll be happy.</p>

<p>If it helps:</p>

<p>23.4M original file size. 3504 (length) X 2336 (width).</p>

<p>So... I just noticed that I can type in the desired dpi of the enlargment when using the crop tool. I never knew you could do that... At a desired 300 dpi the file was enlarged to 6000 X 4800 pixels. It took place in one step. I know the stair step method I mentioned earlier is supposed to help a picture look better when enlarged than just doing it all at once, and with a big picture like this, I'd like to make it look the best I can get it.</p>

<p>Just in case I haven't described it clearly enough, I'm needing help cropping and enlarging using a stair step (or equivalent) method so the image will print as a 16X20 with resolution of 250-300 dpi.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>I'm enlarging a picture to 16X20 (inches) and need some help.</p>

<p>Here are the major details:<br>

Shot with Canon 30D. It is a jpeg image. I have Photoshop Elements 2 for software.</p>

<p>In Elements, I can define the dimensions of the crop tool to crop a 16X20 image out of the "digital negative", but this leaves the resolution at about 150 for the resulting print. It may be ok for viewing, since it is a large image and would probably be viewed from afar, but if I could get some help with workflow to make it print at a higher resolution I think the print would look better.</p>

<p>I'm somewhat familiar with a "stairstep" method of enlarging a photo, where you resize the image down to something small and then add 10 percent in one of the dimensions until you get it blown up to what you want... but the last time I did it was at least five years ago and I've forgotten how to do it.</p>

<p>If I could get some help I would appreciate it greatly. It's a wedding photo I shot for my sister-in-law that she wants as a Christmas gift for her husband.</p>

<p>"Oh, and ditch that toy APS-C camera and get a real full-frame camera like the Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III."<br>

<br />Isn't that like talking to a 16 year old and suggesting a <strong>Lamborghini Murciélago </strong>when he's seeking advice on a first car to save up and buy from flipping burgers for a summer?<br>

<br />As far as a prime for the first lens, for any photographer just learning, the standard has always been the 50mm, and an 80 dollar f/1.8 will let you learn just as well as a f/1.4 costing several times as much. As others have suggested, with the crop frame, a 50mm might be "too long" in some cases, but learning to move yourself to compose the frame has to be done with a prime anyway. As far as cost to quality ratio, the 50 1.8 simply can not be beat.</p>

<p>Sorry if this is a question better placed in a different forum, but I looked into this a few months ago and found an answer really quick. That answer is now nowhere to be found.<br>

I'm taking some photos of a little league baseball game tonight and this weekend. Several of the folks there have urged me to take photos of their kids and get a website together.<br>

I'm just needing a place on the net where I can put the photos I take in numbered fashion so those people that want to buy something can get in touch with me with which number photograph(s) they want, in what size. There are sites that allow people to order from them directly, but I don't know if issues like cropping and such would work the best that way... Still, any advice on websites would be appreciated.<br>

I also need advice on how to resize the photos to make them suitable for viewing but unsuitable for printing if hijacked from the site. Or advice on how to make a watermark.<br>

Thanks.</p>

Wow! Thank you everyone for all of the advice.

I suppose I should have mentioned in the first post what a lot of people already figured out; by stating it was an El Cheapo budget wedding, I assumed people would understand they aren't expecting anything great. They just know that I have a good camera and can take some good shots. To them, that means they might get some photos that are good where they might not have gotten any at all because they weren't going to pay for a photographer anyway.

It isn't going to be a big wedding. Just the groom and the bride, their immediate family, and some close friends. Its one of those wedding chapel, good, better or best package deals. There is a small building, some pews, they officiate for you and serve cake and punch.

I forgot to say that the wedding day is two weeks away and I'm a student in chiropractic school taking my second set of national board exams the weekend before. I don't have time to learn a flash; I have to study two years worth of school to take two days worth of tests. The wedding is also five hours from where I live, at ten in the morning on Saturday. I won't be able to get there before the big event. I'll get in late Friday and will be "flying blind" so to speak the following morning.

I've listened to everyone's advice about not buying new equipment. I thought at first that renting a 70-200 2.8 image stabilized lens would be a good idea, but the place will most likely be too small to use a lens with that much reach. (Why hasn't someone come up with a 17-100mm 2.8 image stabilized lens? Man, I would step over my own mother for something like that!)

With my trusty 50mm, I should be able to get some decent shots handheld inside. The 100 will give me some nice shots outside where I have more room, and the 17-70 will do the work for any group shots. Like I said, they're not expecting greatness, they just want photos of the event. They have to be happy with what they get.

To everyone who thought the wedding was going to be a bigger production, I apologize that I didn't clarify better from the start, and I appreciate your advice.

I want to say a very appreciative thank you to those that looked at my portfolio and gave me votes of confidence. You guys summed it up pretty well; I have a decent idea of what I'm doing and I'll do the best I can. I should get some good shots. I might not get an abundance of pro shots, but I'm sure I'll get at least a handful of good ones they'll appreciate.

Thanks,

Jacob

My sister is getting married. Everyone in the family knows I have a camera and they like what they've seen of my

abilities; they all think I'm good. As most ignorant people do, they think I can shoot events (such as a wedding) and

do a good job. I try to explain that I'm best when things are sitting still and/or when there is plenty of sunlight and

that event photography and/or indoor photography is best left to the pros, but this is an El Cheapo budget wedding,

so my advice falls on deaf ears.

I have a Canon 10D, which is totally awesome for low light, NOT!

Lenses I have:

Canon 50 1.8

Canon 100 2.0

Canon 28-105 3.5-4.5

Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5

I have no flash unit. I don't like flash and have never learned to use it. Everything will be available light.

A couple of questions:

1) Assuming I don't get any new gear for the shoot, I'm interested in hearing ideas for the best way to do it with what

I have.

2) If I need to get something else to do it, what should I get?

I figured I wouldn't upgrade my 10D until I had so much money I could wipe my butt with it, but I suppose its time to

get at least a 20D, which I understand is much better at low light/high ISO shots than the 10D. I suppose I could

buy a used 20D and sell the 10D after the wedding to offset the cost of the upgrade. That way I'll have two bodies on

me during the shoot.

My lenses... Do I need to pick up something else more suited for versatility and low light? The wedding will be held

in a very small building, so I figure a lens with reach will be too tight. I have no idea how many windows it has, if they

will be open, or if the place will be lit by candles.

I was thinking of buying/renting an image stabilized lens. Probably a good monopod as well. Suggestions anyone?

How do you meter for a wedding? Black tux, white dress; zone system nightmare for someone that hasn't done it

before. Usually I just trust the camera's meter and shoot Aperture Priority. Its not like you can walk up to the pulpit

and get a meter reading off of the tux...

Any advice will be appreciated.

Correction to the above.

The shutter speed needs to be AT LEAST the same as the focal length. It doesn't always have to be the same as the lens length. If you are shooting hand held, then the number on the left needs to be equal to the lens length OR GREATER to avoid motion blur. If you are using a tripod, you can get away with much less, and can even experiment with very long exposures of seconds or more.

While I'm here...

Keep the ISO to 400 or less. Use the 400 for "low light" environments and 100 or 200 for brighter light situations. Keep in mind the aperture you want to use and the required shutter speed you need, as this will help you find out if you can actually take the shot using the ISO you've chosen. The images will look best with the lower ISO, but choice is usually limited by your lens in combonation with the light you're shooting in. (You'll find out soon enough what I mean). You can use higher ISO than 400 if you need to, but unless you're good with post processing, it will be hard to make an image come out looking nice enough to please you. Pros know how to use this camera and photo editing to get more out of the higher ISO speeds, but I'm assuming you don't.

Keep a look out for the big wheel on the back. In my first week or so using the camera, I didn't realize that I had moved it a click or two and all my images were getting overexposed. The big wheel, if you so choose in the custom functions I believe, will shift exposure up or down. This allows an easy way to bracket a shot, but if you move the wheel and don't know it, it can sit there and it will mess up your shots. To check that this isn't the case, look on the top LCD and there will be a set of numbers that read -2 1 0 1 2+ These numbers are also on the right side of your viewfinder as you look through it. If there is a bar under the zero, your camera is set to "normal" expsure. If it is moved under one of the other numbers, it will under or over exposed.

The camera keeps this setting even after you turn it off and on, so if you don't know it's going on, you can see how you can mess up your shots.

I started this last night and left it sitting since then, so I don't know if anyone has replied or not. Sorry if I repeat something already suggested...

I have a 10D. I leave it in Aperture Priority about 95% of the time. (That is the mode on the dial that reads Av).

When you select that mode, aperture is controlled by the wheel near the shutter button. In your viewfinder, as you look through it, you'll see two different numbers on the bottom. The numbers on the right represent the aperture setting. The numbers (depending on your lens) will run from small to large.

A small number on the right means a wide aperture, which will do two things:

1) let in more light than a larger number aperture setting, which allows for low light shooting, hand held shooting or fast action shooting

2) make the depth of field narrow, which will isolate your subject by bluring the background

A bigger number on the right means a smaller aperture which will do two things:

1)let in less light which requires longer shutter speeds, which may mean using a tripod, but can do things like capture water moving over a waterfall to make it look smooth and ethereal

2) give a deeper depth of field, making more things behind your subject in focus giving less blur, which is also good for "landscape" type photos

One thing to remember if shooting handheld, the number on the left in the viewfinder needs to be about the same as the focal length of the lens you are using. This will prevent motion blur, which is an operator error. Example: if you have a 50mm lens on the camera, then the number on the left needs to be about 45 or 60. Any less than that and you won't be holding the camera steady enough, unless your using a tripod or your hand held technique is good.

I can choose the aperture to controll depth of field, and the camera gauges what shutter speed I should use. If you don't trust it, you can set auto exposure bracketing in the menu to capture an under and over exposed image in adition to the "normal" image.

There are always times when this type of shooting won't work, and you have to do some other things with the camera. The best suggestion on how to learn to use it is to get out and shoot. With digital there is instant feedback and you start figuring things out faster than with film.

One thing to remember, don't trust the way the image looks on the screen of the camera to gauge exposure. It is usually much different in terms of lighting than what the real image looks like.

The 10D doesn't have a true spot meter, but it has enough of one. Learning how to use a grey card (or figuring out shades of grey in the composition you wish to shoot) and understanding how the meter sees the world will help more than anything in getting a good exposure, but I don't have the time to explain all that. Look around on the internet for some quick lessons on aperture, shutter speed, depth of field and controlling exposure.

Have fun.

I bought the 17-70 and yes, all confusion aside, it is a 28-112 equivalent on a crop body. Pretty nice range, but I've been so happy with having something wider than a 28 (45mm on a crop) that I've been using that end of the zoom exclusively.

The close focus on this lens is amazing! I'd read reviews about it saying that the petals on the lens hood will bump into what you're trying to focus on before it touches the lens surface. I thought that was a joke and that people were exagerating, but its the absolute truth! The stats say that its close focus distance is something like 7.9 inches, but it will focus on something about 2-3 inches away.

I'm confused. If the EF-S is marked 17-85 and you guys say that they are marked "actual" focal length, then doesn't

it see like a 17-85 would on a full frame camera? Isn't 17 much wider than 28 and isn't 85 shorter than 105?

If I wanted a 28-105 just get one? I have one, and it turns into a 45-168 on a crop body.

I know very little about all of the digital specific lenses because I have kept hoping that one day I would get a full

frame digital. In the meantime, I have simply multiplied any full frame lens focal length by 1.6 to determine the "new"

focal length on my 10D. I was at first under the impression that the digital specific lenses needed to be mulitiplied

by the crop factor, then someone corrected me and told me they didn't; now in this thread it seems like I'm getting

both answers.

Bob's reply is especially confusing. If they are ACTUAL focal lengths and not equivalent, how does a 17-85 turn into

a 27-136?

Please someone clear this up for me, and try to be patient and kind when doing so...