tom l

<p>Is anyone using Lightroom 3 with the LRG template for creating web pages?<br>

I've used this in LR2 so I could make use of paypal for people to order & pay for photos.<br>

However, LRG's site indicates their template needed to be upgraded to work with LR3. Unfortunately there are posts on their site about bugs with LR3 & LRG and it has been months since any reply has been posted by LRG. <br>

I have a large event to put up on the web and would like to know if anyone has used LRG successfully with LR3.<br>

If not, what other tools are out there that work with Lightroom and provide support for paypal?<br>

Thanks,<br>

Tom</p>

<p>I'll second what David said - be careful not to blowout the highlights. I'll take a little noise over blown highlights any day. You may find in some situations that your camera thinks its darker than it is - such as when spots are used and the rest of the stage is dark. For this reason I will normally shoot in fully manual mode and in RAW. I tend to shoot for good skin tones.</p>

<p>The 70-200 2.8 L has become my favorite lens for ballet performances. It allows me to move back from the stage far enough to position myself above the dancers a little (I like that perspective a better than looking up at them) and still be able to get in close. f2.8 or better is nearly a requirement for this environment as the lighting can vary all of the place - usually darker than you would like. </p>

<p><img src="http://www.tomleechphotography.com/Dance/OrbAlice/bin/images/large/AliceWeb_276.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>> One of my concerns was that 85mm might be too short, particularily for concerts.<br>

> I have no problem pushing the ISO up high,</p>

<p>With these two things in mind I think sticking with the 70-200 f2.8 and bumping up your ISO is a better plan for concerts. The depth of field on the 1.8 is going to be pretty thin which is nice for a close up shot of a performer but if your too far away for those tight shots, going with f2.8 is going to work better anyways. Plus the 70-200 is quite sharp at long distances. </p>

<p>I have both of these lenses and shoot a lot of low light events and while the 85 1.8 is a great lens, for me it works best in short to medium distances. The 70-200 gets you the 85mm plus a little wider and a lot longer.</p>

<p>I'd go ahead and get the 85 1.8, it is a very nice lens, but keep it for portraits and use the long lens for your concert shots.</p>

 

<p>Thanks all for the replies. In my mind I am most interested in systems designed to automate the output of pages ideally from within Lightroom. From the recitals I shoot, I have literals hundreds of photos to post for each show and so efficient workflow is essential.</p>

<p>JDM - your linke tells me "404 - page not found"</p>

 

<h1><strong><br /> </strong></h1>

<p>Thanks Jim & Steve for the replies. </p>

<p>Steve, I like the aircraft photos very much (I probably have a B-26 photo I could send you taken back in the 50's) but I do not like the banner advertisment at the top of the page. </p>

<p>The very first ad I saw on your site was that jiggly "You've won" ad that drive me nuts. :)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi,<br>

I shoot varied events that I post online for sale. Most are dance recital pictures, an occasional sports event or a wedding or portrait session.</p>

<p>What I am curious about is what tools people are using now to create their photo web sites. In the past I used breeze browser pro for quick website creation. More recently I use Lightroom for organizing my photos and handling my cameras raw files. Therefore I would like to take advantage of tools that work with lightroom. So far I have been using the LRG templates that work with light room and offer Paypal support. Everything works and I'm selling this way but I find myself having to manually tweak copies of the LRG templates for each different type of event. </p>

<p>I'm curious what others are using and if there are better alternatives to LRG. Something with a little more control over the final output, less hand editing of the templates and yet suitable to a variety of styles. Ideally something that keeps the workflow within Lightroom.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

 

<p>70-200 f2.8 non-is is without doubt, my most used lens. Dance recitals, theater, sports (indoor & outdoor), scenic, weddings, etc. If I need wider I will use my 24-70 2.8. Occasionally I will swap it for my 85 f1.8 for portrait work or if the dance/theater environment is too dark.<br>

The only thing I miss is a longer lens for wildlife and some sports where I need to reach down field.</p>

<p>#4 - I've always liked the Canon 28-70 f2.8</p>

<p>> but even if the light it perfect, these make for pretty boring shots. If it were me, I'd get behind and shoot the conductor from backstage, get some players looking up at him, that intense look as they read the music.<br /> <br /> Thanks, Sam. You are not wrong, unfortunately they are looking for a straight forward group shot. They were not interested in rearranging the group, that would have made for a better 8x10 composition. So in the end, it is was it is.<br>

Thanks Michael, I did remove the lights at the lower level which cleared up most of the shadows. I wish I had more lights (and they would have afforded more time) to hook up lights above the stage area but that was not to be either.</p>

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

<p>Thanks, Nadine and Michael for the comments. </p>

<p>Nadine, I agree with you completely about the lights on the first floor casting shadows upwards because of the stage being raised. I did a test run tonight during rehearsal and placed the speedlights on the first floor as high as they would go on my stands and back about half way in the auditorium to get them higher (no other raised side or forward areas exist). I placed the 805's up in the balcony with me, one on each side and had the metz on its bracket and on the camera. </p>

<p>The result seemed to illuminate the auditorium more than enough and more than I'd like but has problems penetrating onto the stage. And I still got some upward shadows on the background. </p>

<p>Michael, I don't think getting off the balcony is going to help much. At least with the lens I'm using - at 24mm I need to be that distance away to fit the entire group in frame. Plus moving the lights forward due to the sloped floor will actually lower the lights and raise the shadows. </p>

<p>I'm attaching a sample shot from tonight and would appreciate any additional comments.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

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

<p>Hi,<br>

I've been asked to take a group shot of a concert band at our local college. I've done this before with a couple speed lights for front lighting and the stage lights turned on as high as they can. However the results have been marginal. The stage lighting does not extend all the way to the front of the stage so the first row of musicians are in shadow unless I use the speed lights. Yet still there doesn't seem to be enough light and what light is there from the speed lights is very flat.</p>

<p>I'm shooting from up in the balcony to get a downward perspective so I see more faces rather than shooting at stage level and everyone in the back being obscured by the people in front of them - so being in the balcony puts me at a quite a distance away from the group - maybe 50-75 feet away. I've got the speedlights on either side of me up in the balcony - I feel like I'm trying to light the entire auditorium instead of just the stage.</p>

<p>I'm looking for suggestions to improve the lighting. Since the last time I did this I have acquired some radio triggers (Paul Bluff Cybersync). I also have an old Speedotron black box 805 set of two lights which I can also trip with these radio triggers (they are tied two the box so they can't be too far apart from each other). Lastly I have an old Metz CL45 which I could mount with the bracket on to the camera.</p>

<p>With all of these light sources I would hope I have enough light - but how do I arrange them? Do I keep some up in the balcony and place others down closer to the group? Or possibly put all except the Metz downstairs in some arrangment?</p>

<p>I'd appreciate any suggestions. (FWIW the camera is a 40d with a 24-70 L 2.8 lens)<br>

Thanks.</p>

 

I had a similar issue crop up last year. I had just bought a 40D and also had a 10D & 30D. My son seemed to

take an avid interest in learning about photography - not just clicking the shutter but in learning the basics of

composition, exposure, dof, etc. I went looking around for nice P&S that had some manual settings too and came

to the conclusion that I could give him my 10D cheaper than I could sell it and buy him a P&S. He loves it

(especially when he wants to borrow my 70-200 L lens).

 

So give him your oldest SLR and buy yourself a new one! :)

I like my 3 tube set so far quite well. If your not dedicated to macro work, this is a versatile solution that will work with many lenses.

 

A similar discussion here: http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00Piwj

It includes an image I shot with extension tubes.

Thanks, Mike & Nadine. Nadine, I appreciate you taking the time to answer each item I listed. I'm now wondering if I should make the Metz flash I have my "on camera" flash as it's bracket already gets the flash off of the hot shoe) and use the 580 & promaster flash as the remote lights and get something like the pocket wizards.

 

My local camera store mentioned another 3rd party source for radio controlled master/slave flash units - elinchrome was the name - I've never heard of them. Has anyone tried these and are they offer anything different really from than what the pocket wizards offer?

 

Thanks,

 

Tom

Hi All,

 

I have a 40D, a 580ex (old version) a Promaster 7500DX and an old Metz 45 CL-4 flashgun with a peanut slave.

 

I am trying to come up with a good working portable lighting setup. I'd like to hear what works well with others

and what would your dream setup be. Particularly, what equipment, how many flash units (2 or 3), method of

firing (radio, infrared, etc).

 

Typically I have used the 580ex on my 40D hot shoe in manual mode as master and the Promaster and/or the Metz

with peanut slave getting triggered by the flash of the 580. I don't particularly care for this setup but it is

what I have for the moment.

 

Some initial questions/comments

 

1) I'd like to get the 580 off of the hot shoe for a better lighting angle. Is this typical for most people?

Do you use a cord in this case to fire the 580?

 

2) I'd like to get some other way to trigger the slaves rather than by the light of the 580. I'm tired of other

peoples flashes triggering my setup and have also had difficulty with them firing reliably if they are not

positioned well. I've looked at the specs and comments for the Canon ST-E2 and see it could trip the 580 and

some other Canon flashes via infrared. but I've also seen comments that it is not 100% reliable in bright light

or with obstructions getting between master & slave.

 

3) I've read about pocket wizards and other 3rd party radio triggers but I understand that I'd loose e-ttl &

high speed sync (for the 580 that is - I know the other flashes I have are not going to work in e-ttl).

 

4) I've recently seen info on Radio Poppers which sounds like a novel idea to get radio triggering and keep

e-ttl & high speed sync. But again I suspect I'd probably have to get another canon flash. I think the Radio

Popper will work with the 580ex or ST-E2 as master.

 

5) I don't know if a 3 light setup is worth it or not. Any opinions? I have light stands that I can use for

multiple flashes.

 

6) What to do with the existing non-Canon flashes? Would you use all Canon equipment or some 3rd party

alternative? I don't think a mixture is that great - the Metz seems to be a different color light than the Canon

& Promaster.

 

7) Type of shooting would be for individual portraits, small to medium size groups, and possibly at some indoor

sporting events (some venues I shoot at allow flash).

 

I'd appreciate any thoughts you might care to share.

 

Thanks,

 

Tom

Back in the 1980's I used to sell cameras in between college breaks and summer. Once we established the basic features the customer wanted I would place two or three cameras in front of them and tell them to pick out the one that feels the best to them. Hands down the customers were more satisfied when they bought a camera that felt "right" to them. Others that went by price often came back to swap cameras.

I think what bothers me is the ads on the home page are so dominant. The photo of the week is dwarfed by these ads. The vertical format of this week's photo is half the size of the ad below it. Seeing the same big add in the top right and bottom of the left of the window seems overkill. I understand the need to advertise but they should take second place to the content of the site, not the other way around.

I just went through the same kind of thought process. I have an 85mm 1.8 prime and just couldn't justify another similar length prime 100mm for macro. I had some closeup filters (old, 3rd party) and gave them a try and was very disappointed - a lot of chromatic aberration. I went to my local camera store and tested the 100mm macro (for setting the bar of expectations) and a set of extension tubes (3 tubes marketed with promaster label) mounted with my 85mm. Both the 100mm and the tubes were far superior to the closeup filters. The IQ with the tubes & 85 was very comparable with the 100mm macro. Maybe not as close, but only just a little (I had all 3 tubes stacked together) but really very good results. So I went for the tubes - much lower cost and can be used with my other lenses.<div></div>

Thanks all for the comments. FWIW it has also been suspected that an update of the firmware to 1.0.5 (mine is at 1.03) might help as there was a comment in the release notes regarding a rare skipping of file numbers and it supposedly fixes the black image I saw. It would not necessarily address the back and forth skipping I experienced but is worth a shot.

No, this goes way beyond the variations that occur when ISO or lighting changes occur. It also doesn't explain why the crazy numbering took place, it kept jumping back and forth.

Things were acting very odd tonight while shooting a theater event with my 40D.

After shooting a little while I first noticed the number of exposures remaining

on the card had shot up dramatically from 150 or so to just over 300. I then

noticed when I would scroll through the images to review, sometimes the last

image shown was not the last one taken, in fact it looked like a good bunch of

images taken had disappeared. I turned the camera off and back on, scrolled

forward and backward and lo and behold the missing pictures were there again.

This happened again sometime later and I swapped out the card with another and

finished the show. No problems with the 2nd card but didn't really have it in

very long.

 

When I got home I found there were two folders the images had been placed in,

the earlier pictures were in the higher numbered named folder and the later

pictures in the lower numbered folder (weird). I copied all to my hard drive

and can see a gap in the numbering (all were between 725 and 958 but sorted by

file name I noticed a big gap between IMG_0788 and IMG_0889. I then sorted by

time and found the numbering sequence alternated from 700's to 900's every 10 to

20 images.

 

What could be happening here? Does this sound like a card problem or a camera

problem?

 

Thanks,

Tom

If your stage productions include dance, you will need a faster shutter speed to adequately capture the action - note you don't have to stop it frozen in time, a little motion blur on the extremities can make a nice effect but the face typically should be sharp.

 

I've been shooting doing a number of low-light stage shows (dance & theater) with reasonable results even at high ISO. I will shoot ISO 800, 1600 & 3200 without much concern. Shoot to properly expose the face and highlights (white shirts are the worst) which means your camera may indicate significant underexposure since most of the scene could be dark but in reality you will be getting a good exposure on the subject which is what counts.

 

When I started I had two slow zooms f3.5/5.6 and they were horrible. The next lens I got was an 85mm f1.8. Low price in comparison to zooms and a really sharp picture with good reach. Not good for fitting the whole stage in view but really nice for mid to tight shots. Each year following I added a new lens, 24-70 L f2.8 and then 70-200 f2.8 L (no IS). Expensive but well worth it. I still use the 85mm for certain shots and really dark conditions.

 

As mentioned, I don't worry about the ISO so much - especially when most people order 5x7's. I use NoiseNinja on the original image, then downsize to 5x7 and then sharpen. Usually this creates a virutally noise free image.

 

HTH

 

Tom

No, very happy with mine. I went from 10D to 30D and now 40D. I see more and more what I want in a digital camera with each model Someday that might just come out with one that have everything on my list. :) Until then I am quite satisfied.