david_jones11

Marquees are very easy. Slow synch flash seems to work particularly well here.<div></div>

The new 16-35 could well be sharper at the edges when it's in focus, sadly when it's focused at infinity it's not.. I bought it partly hoping it would resolve this problem but it's not made a significant difference.

 

Using a 1dmk2, single focus point. Sure, it happenes less with high contrast scenes, but I'd say one out of 8 formals in good light is OOF front to back.

I'm really approaching meltdown with this lens.

 

It's Saturday, St Paul's cathedral London, things are moving quickly, time is

of the essence etc, I'm sure we've all been there.. I'm looking back at around

30 shots taken and around 7 are OOF.

 

I use focus points rather than One Shot.

I take time to force re-focus rather than keep my finger on the button for

multiples.

Looking closely at the whole image it appears that the lens isn't focusing on

something else in the frame, it's focusing on infinity.

I had this with the Mk I and also the 17-35 before it.

Could I manually focus? The difference between focused on the subject and

focusing on infinity on these shots was small - but easily noticeable on PS. On

a 1d MK2 it would have been next to impossible to see the difference through

the viewfinder.

 

This is the only Canon lens I ever have issues with. If I'd been aware of the

problem at the time I promise I would have taken the lens off and smashed it

onto the marble floor.

 

Does anyone else suffer these issues, and if so do they have a workround?

 

Does the same occur with the 24/1.4 or 35/1.4?

I'm standing on the precipice of a 1D III purchase. I was teetering on the

brink, but then I read the Rob Galbraith piece about the auto focus issues.

 

The link to the article is here:

 

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-8740-9006

 

Most of the test work appears to involve fast-moving sports, which unless I

have particularly eccentric clients won't concern me much, so my question is:

Has anyone tested the 1D III in weddings and found any autofocus issues?

 

Thanks for any info.

Perfect, sorted now thanks all.

Hi all, we have a small problem.

 

My assistant has lost her D70's instruction manual and can't remember how to

change focus points. Normally she focuses and recomposes, but the job we're

doing on Saturday will need focus points setting, and I believe the D70 has 5 of

them.

 

I'm a Canon user, so no use to her at all. I tried pressing what I believed

looked like a focus point selection button on the body but it didn't appear to work.

 

Can someone please let me know what I'm doing wrong?

 

Thanks in advance.

Nee, I would say the effect is very intentional.

 

Fantastic stuff.

I don't find that people pose for me (luckily). They might at first, but then they ignore me, especially if there's disco lighting, which masks my flash somewhat.

Super-wide lens with fill flash gives the ghosting slow sync effect I like.<div></div>

Interesting topic.

 

In comparison, I'm trying to think of many times I shoot at an event when I'm not wide-open or thereabouts. Looking at the exifs from an Indian wedding on Sunday it wasn't until the formals that I took a shot slower than 2.8. The camera was a 1d MkII, lenses were 16-35/2.8, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8.

 

I program a button with my favourite focus point (far right, when looking in landscape). This way the point is usualy nicely over the subject's eyes when in portrait, and I often leave it on in landscape as I like an off-centre composition.

 

Yes, I'd agree switching between one shot and ai servo is a faff and something I need to look into.<div></div>

Much as it pains me to say it, I'd agree. The barriers to entry have fallen so much recently, and a lot of the mystique has been removed, especially for computer-savvy people.

 

My ex-lecturer once assisted David Bailey. When the shoot was done, Bailey would lock the doors to the studio "because he didn't want people to see how easy it was".

 

It's clear that to survive one needs to always be at least one step away from point & shoot images - either by unsurpassable image quality, or (preferably) by superior artistic commitment. Equipment will play a part in this, since the market for discerning artistically-orientated clients is so small.

www.theimagefile.com is the step up from photobox

 

Standing order every month in charges, but you get your own modifiable web site, private galleries etc all looking as if it's an extention of your own site.

Hi William

 

See the other thread above yours:

 

www.sim2000imaging.com

Yup, tfp is the way to go unless you have particularly deep pockets. I'd echo the suggestions above, but try and pay close attention to the hair and make-up elements, they usually make/break a shoot. Try and find someone in those areas who's looking to gain experience and ask them to help in return for prints.

 

Here's a shot from a shoot with alternative fashion week winner Sonal Patel in West London.<div></div>

In the UK they are called coffee table books and they are the only albums I offer. I use a company called Sim 2000 (www.sim2000imaging.com) and they work out at about 349+vat UKP for a 44 page coffee table book printed on photographic paper. You can design the layout yourself in PS (it's easy as it's 300mm square) or have them do it for an extra 60. Hardback cover, very, very high level print quality, minimalist look, but a 6 week turnaround. All in, I prefer them to trad albums.

I do it a bit differently and offer a 'print credit'. It's usually around ﾣ500, and means they can have a small number of large prints, or a large number of small prints. Or any combination in between.

Yes, you own the copyright, but it's not as simple as that. If you're planning to use someones image for sales or promotional reasons then you'll need a model release to be signed by the 'models'. This is the case in the UK, and most of the rest of the world too I believe.. Whether or not you'll be paid by the hotel doesn't make a difference.

Of course, if it's a shot of the hotel and a group shot with the people virtually unrecognisable due to the print size then you should be able to get away with it.

one more time..<div></div>

Here's one from a 10d - same crop tho'<div></div>

Strongly recommend steering clear of 8gb cards. My philosphy was the same as Steve's - the fewer the numbers of cards the less potential to damage them. But as I shoot my way through my Sandisk Extreme 8gb the transfer rate goes slower. And slower.... And still slower...

Thanks again.

 

There are no fluorescent tubes in use. There was a small amount of ambient from halogens but at ISO 50, 1/250th and f8 I'd get a totally black image without the strobes so I didn't think of them as an issue. I'll do some more research and see. Thank Adobe for batch white balance RAW conversions....

Thanks for the input, all useful.

 

I'm familiar with white carding and I guess I could go down that road.. But part of me still thinks that the point of including a specific white balance parameter is so one can avoid that hassle. I have trouble understanding how a white balance that I'd assumed was fixed seems to wander around.

Studio flash monoblocs, Mike. Bowens Gemini if anyone thinks it might be relevant. The recharging issue could be important, but that would mean the image would be darker, not just a different balance.

Sorry, should have been more precise. This doesn't involve e-ttl at all. Only studio flash monoblocs.

 

The manual, not for the first time, isn't helping..

I shoot a variety of styles on a 1D MkII. Some of the time I use

auto white balance, where on the RAW conversion I can see that the

colour temperature varies depending on the lighting. Other times

I'll shoot a fashion show with tungsten lighting and, after

selecting tungsten w/b, I'll see that all my images are nice and

consistent with correct white balance. So far so good.

 

However, I've been in the studio a lot recently (using the w/b Flash

setting, no other light used) and looking at the RAW conversion I've

noticed that the colour temperature varies, sometimes widely from

shot to shot.

 

Should this be the case? I was under the impression that flash white

balance was uniform. Just because I'm moving closer/further away

from the model etc shouldn't mean that the colour temperature should

change, should it? The results mean that some shots are over-warm,

whilst others are too cool.

 

Any input very much appreciated.

I am. Thanks very much Patrick.