ptucci

foamcore, and let the BG blow out (but not too much). Use an umbrella and another piece of foamcore for fill. I have a sample photo, shot as above except it was resting on a beige cloth instead of foamcore.<div></div>

After 10 seconds in Corel Photopaint 8:<div></div>

Are the files bigger than normal? In other words, was a black line inserted into the picture, or was there image loss? If it's the former, different programs can deinterlace (remove lines). Corel Draw 8 is one. This didn't show up while you were shooting?

For those of you thinking about the truck bed box route--they are fairly easy to force open (from experience). Add a padlock.

Shoot NPx. It is much easier, and yields better results when you add contrast, not reduce it. It's kind of like increasing or decreasing sharpness on the computer. It's a lot easier to get good results when you're blurring instead of sharpening. My NPH scans almost always need a contrast boost, but it's easy to do. Seriously, do you have a lot of experience scanning negatives? It's not trivial to do a good job. My hatred of scanning has me eyeing digital SLRs. Can you bring it to a pro lab?

They are the reason I keep coming back to this forum. I love reading about bridezillas, monsters of the bride, half dressed bridesmaids, and all the rest.

If you like photographing people, you'll kick yourself for not doing it. It will be amazingly stressful, but in a good way. Every pro had a first wedding. Really, where and when else are you going to be where everybody *wants* you to shoot them?

Like shooting slide versus negative film, you are going to get a steeper fall off from light to shadow. Maybe NPH needs 1:4 or 1:8 to get the look you're after, but the D10 needs only 1:3 for the same look.

 

What you've suggested doing in post (reducing contrast with two conversions and combining with masks) is the same result as lighting 1:3 -- that is, reducing contrast, so why not just shoot 1:3?

 

You've stated that he needed a stronger contrast, but it sounds like 1:4 or 1:8 is just too much, especially on a contrasty medium such as digital or slide. The attached photo doesn't look like it was lit 1:8, but that may be after your adjustments? FWIW, he doesn't look that heavy.

I like blur and sometimes intentionally use it for artistic effect, but have found other people don't like the ones I really like. Like others have said, it is crucial to get <i>something</i> somewhat sharp, else the viewer will think it's a mistake. Some of the samples shown above have important elements blurred, like the groom's face in the convertible. I can understand why the bride chose the sharp-all-over, because with a streaked face, he becomes anonymous anyman. Similarly, the FOB giving a toast should be sharp, at least his face. It would be interesting if the B&G were completely still for a long exposure, and the guests danced around them. A little flash can freeze facial expressions, and still allow blur around a person's profile.

I have a diffuser on a bracket, but whenever possible, bounce it off the ceiling with a 3x5 card attached to your flash. It's much softer, and the direction (from above) is more natural.

After much photo.net lurking, I chose to buy a 645 camera with a removable back, so that I could eventually go digital when backs came out of the stratosphere. A nonscientific survey shows me that no one is making new backs for my camera (Mamiya 645 Pro)--only the 645 AFD. This was confirmed by a Mamiya America Corp rep, but he was trying to get me to buy an AFD ("for only an extra thousand, the back manufacturers will throw in an AFD!!!"). My camera has plenty of life left in it, but there is an extreme paucity of backs, even 3MP ones that will fit, for sale. Whenever one comes up, people jump on it. I absolutely hate scanning film, but it is easier and more social than going into a darkroom. I was looking at a dedicated MF film scanner, but I'd rather get a 20D and continue limping along with my slow, soft scanner.

I don't know the movie in question, but that looks alot like computer generated graphics, which can be free from the laws of physics and optics (infinite depth of field). Also, I read here a year or so ago of a very expensive lens that gave initially blurry results, but when digitized and some mathematical transforms were performed, gave huge DOF.

Sorry, chief. Your longest shutter speed is 1/4s. Not nearly long enough for the smoky water effect (more like 4 to 8 seconds).

The news article states that the bride has posted his photo on the internet. I wasn't able to locate it... has anyone else?

<i>If any other paid professional takes pictures at the wedding, you reserve the right to adjust your prices or completely refuse to even hand over your pictures to the B&G. I'm sure that people won't mind this in the contract...</i><p><p>

I'm sorry Mrs. Newlywed, you can't have the photos you paid for, because I heard someone who wasn't related to you took pictures after I left. Have a nice day. Care to be a reference?

<p><p>

Get over yourself. He should make your photos look good. If he doesn't, you need to try harder. He probably wants to be a photog when he grows up.

I have a 645 Pro and have wondered myself why they put the hot shoe where they did. 2 reasons come to mind: the interchangeable finders make it difficult to put on top (and impossible if you just want the waist level finder), and if you are taking portraits, the flash is on top of the camera. This isn't a problem for me, because I bought a stroboframe for flash photography, and even if I want to take flash photos without my bracket (it's only hauled out for special occasions) I will bounce off the ceiling anyway. To bounce off the ceiling, it's crucial to get a tilt + swivel flash like the Sunpak 383, not a tilt only.

Try asking this on the medium format forum. You'll probably get a response or two.

"High Res" and 1024x768 don't go together. You may as well downres your photos, similar to what you would do for posting on the web. One other thing--they have small color gamuts. I was in a software seminar, and the teacher, looking at her laptop screen, referred to the green area on the screen. We were all confused, because it was mauve or something on the projector.

 

Interestingly, I just took a color management course where the instructor showed how to profile monitors, printers, & scanners, and did it with a projector. It wasn't horrible or glaring, but he did dismiss the color onscreen, because it couldn't be calibrated, plus the room was somewhat lit by a metal halide lamp.

I have the Mamiya 645 Pro, which is identical to the Pro TL, except for the lack of TTL metering. When I first got the camera, I did make the mistake of using MLU when in AE mode. It results in a reeaally long exposure, even in daylight. You just have to remember to go into manual mode before engaging the MLU.

Artixscan 120TF. $1,500.

 

<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=282586&is=REG">Click it</A>

Ooh, I forgot to add new dedicated medium format scanner to my list: $1,500. The object is (for me) to hold beautiful prints in my hands. That's why I got a medium format camera. Before that I got a 35mm scanner so that I would have full creative control over my pictures.

 

The problem is, I get back prints from the 1 hour drug store (35mm), and the colors, especially the skin tones, are better than what I'm able to get with the MF rig and the digital darkroom. So why am I lugging that thing around? I was not very good in a wet darkroom, but we always try to improve. I guess enlargers and focusing loupes were'nt free either.

I'm working on album cover art for a demo disc. One of the

requirements is for "C circled" and "P circled" symbols. I have no

problem finding the ©, but none of my many fonts has a (p). I do

have an ®, however. Does anyone know of an online source (or any

other professional-looking) way to get (p)?

Sorry, the $750 price is for the suite. It's more like $650 for PSCS alone.

It's maddening. I've read books, and taken classes on color management. I added up the price for the products needed to "do it right":

 

$225 for monitor profiler with "puck"

$500 for software RIP

$1300 for spectrophotometer (printer profiler) or $50 a pop for custom profiles by an outside profiler.

$750 for Photoshop CS (if you don't have it)-other programs aren't up to it.

 

I haven't done it yet, but all this digital darkroom stuff is threatening to take a bite out of my camera budget.

I've read here that the N lenses have better lens coatings for increased contrast and flare resistance.