jake_holt

I use a Lightsphere WITH a bracket. After much testing, I've found that I prefer the quality

of the light from the LS with the dome on pointed forward, and while it works OK without a

bracket, I've found the best results come from using it with a bracket - and the side-

shadows are non existent, something that I couldn't acheive with a pocket bounce even

with a bracket. I don't bounce very often, just because the results on my 20D have been

very it or miss; maybe I just need to experiment more. I don't see a real benefit to

shooting bounce with a bracket, because I don't want to switch back and forth, so I just

leave the bracket on all day.

<p>

<a href="http://www.jakeholtphotography.com">jakeholtphotography.com</a>

Select image>mode>convert to profile>sRGB, then save for web at maximum (12) quality.

<p>

<a href="http://www.jakeholtphotography.com">jakeholtphotography.com</a>

I shoot most of the wedding in digital, but I like to shoot 2 or 3 rolls of Neopan 1600 for

the unique effect that it gives. I've yet to be able to recreate that look with a digital file or a

C-41 color to b&w film conversion. However, I've found that for clear, sharp b&w images

I've been able to get the best results from digital conversions using both the channel

mixer and a photo filter adjustment layer. The image below was shot as a RAW file, but I

don't feel that it has that typical "digital b&w" look to it. Regardless, I feel that Neopan will

be in my bag for the forseeable future.

<p>

<a href="http://www.jakeholtphotography.com">jakeholtphotography.com</a>

I just started advertising with the <a href="http://

www.jakeholtphotography.com">Houston site</a>, which is just starting up, so I'm not

sure

how much exposure I'm going to get right off the bat. However, I was very impressed that

the site is very clean, fast, and well designed without a bunch of bandwith-killing

clutter like The Knot. The fact that the ad spots are by invite only is a good selling point -

all of the photographers on the site look pretty upscale, and I figured, you know, being

associated with photographers I admire can't be a bad thing! Best of all, everything is

spelled right, unlike many of the cheapo sites. Also, maybe consider a brochure rather

than a banner ad - the price is much lower, (about 1/5th of the top banner) and it seems

that the visibility will still be quite good.

About your site - I think it looks great. There will always be people who hate Flash, but as

Flash goes, it's relatively responsive. Looks classy!

<p>

<a href="http://www.jakeholtphotography.com">jakeholtphotography.com</a>

"Some people take this as learning Karate.

They spend 10 years in the mountain learning secrets."

This has got to be just about my favorite response ever. To anything. Thanks for the laugh!

Whoa, my 2 week old 17-40 seems to be very sharp - see attached photo. I would think that

there is something very wrong here. If it's still new I'd see about returning it. If not, have

Canon recalibrate it. Really, 1/200 should give you a reasonably sharp image.

<p>

<a href="http://www.jakeholtphotography.com">jakeholtphotography.com</a><div></div>

I do all of my corrections in PSCS RAW editor, (except sharpening) and then once the

image opens up in "Photoshop proper," I sharpen the image, switch it to 8 bit, then save as

sRGB jpeg. Be aware that if you convert to jpeg before you adjust density, contrast, white

balance, etc., in a RAW editor you are losing all of the lattitude that you gained when you

shot RAW. For example, if a dress is a little blown out, it could be fixed in RAW, but if you

convert to jpeg first and then try to adjust it, all of that highlight data has been converted

to white by the jpeg conversion and there will be no data there to "pull out."

<p>

<a href="http://www.jakeholtphotography.com">jakeholtphotography.com</a>

Tell them to turn off "Image Intelligence." It is automatically applied to images that

are sent to the Frontier from the kiosk, so the images will look normal on the kiosk

and then very contrasty in the final print. If they don't know how, tell them to open

the "Adjust" menu and then to check "select all" and uncheck "Image Intelligence." It's

supposed to help out your average, underexposed point and shoot file, but if it's

applied to a properly balanced file, it blows it out.

<p>

<a href="http://www.jakeholtphotography.com">jakeholtphotography.com</a>

She wants to promote herself using photos that you took? That's crazy. Stay away

from her, at least in regards to photography, in the future. You are not being

unethical, she is being super-shady, or at the very least exhibiting a total lack of

common sense. I would use the picture, unless it will put your relationship with her in

jeopardy. (assuming that the relationship matters to you)

<p>

<a href="http://www.jakeholtphotography.com">jakeholtphotography.com</a>

"Don't use MAC and don't use Canon--they are too big now and don't care about

their loyal customers anymore. Go with HP--Dell--Toshiba for laptops and

hardware--go with Nikon or Fuji for a digital SLR-"

<p>

Oh my God, that has got to be one of the most ignorant things that I have ever heard

on this forum. (Nothing against you, Richie, just whoever posted what you quoted)

Saying that Canon and MAC (APPLE!) are too big, but Dell and Nikon aren't, that's just

insane. There are always upgrade issues, and everyone knows that the Canon

software is basically trash anyway. Plus, if it was really a plot to get people to use only

iPhoto, then Photoshop would certainly be disabled too, which it obviously isn't.

<p>

<a href="http://www.jakeholtphotography.com">jakeholtphotography.com</a>

I give them the proof book to keep - my packages are set up so that my total desired

profit is based on the original package price, so reprints are just "extra" income.

However, my packages that don't include a large album (much cheaper packages) also

don't include a proofbook, just a low-res cd or online proofing, the reason being that

I believe it helps to cull out the folks who would buy the cheapest package and then

scan all of the proofs.

<p>

<a href="http://www.jakeholtphotography.com">jakeholtphotography.com</a>

Try out the Canon A95 - it actually has a slightly larger sensor than most point and

shoot digitals, and the quality is quite surprising. 5mp, decent zoom, full manual

control, a great camera for $300. Not really compact, but it's not huge either. I work

at a camera store, and I recommend it often - in side by side comparisons with evenly

priced competition, it always impresses.

My computer is sadly underpowered, (466 Mhz G4, 512 RAM) so both programs are

slow, but I have noticed that CS2 is slower if Bridge is running. This is quite a

disappointment because I always had File Browser open in CS1, so this seriously

interrupts my work flow. It's basically the same effect I get when I have CS1 and

Dreamweaver open at the same time. I figured a new computer would fix that, but the

post above about the dual 2Ghz G5 makes me wonder. CS1 and 2 both run

progressively slower the longer they are open and the more other programs are

opened and closed, forcing me to occassionally restart the entire system.

Fred - Bill Gates depends on people who support ugly, utilitarian computers either

because 1) they are gamers, 2) they don't know any better, 3) they are afraid of

something different, or 4) because they just want something cheap. Regardless if Jobs

leaves or not, if Apple starts sucking I will happily buy a PC if it's better than a Mac.

That PC doesn't exist right now. I'm not brainwashed or illogical, I just appreciate

quality, and Apple consistently puts out high quality products. How's Longhorn

coming? By the way, I'm about to head to a job where I work on a PC that crashes 3-4

times a week at least. My Mac here at home has run OSX for 3 years with no system

crashes. Mmmmm, wonder why I feel the way I do? It's very illogical to take evidence

into account and make an informed decision.

Thanks Ted, I may try taking a disc down to the Apple store and see if they'll let me

try it out.

Ok, so I need some advice here - the time is drawing near to replace the old 466Mhz

G4 Power Mac. I'm considering 2 options - a fully loaded 20 inch iMac, or a Power

Mac G5 with a 20 or 23 inch Cinema Display. All power differences aside, since the

extra power of the dual-processor is nice but not necessary, I have decided that it has

come down to price and monitor quality - Basically, if the screen on the iMac is the

same quality as the Cinema Display, I'm going with the lower priced iMac, but if it's

lower quality, it's time to ante up for the G5 Power Mac. I've used both and I can't see

a difference right away, but I'd like to hear from someone who has some experience

with both, especially any opinions about calibration - I use Photoshop intensively, so I

don't want to end up with a crappy, low-end monitor that's impossible to calibrate.

This will be my first LCD, as I've been using the old Apple 17" CRT for 5 years now.

Thanks all!

" How is Jobs doing in his battle against cancer?"

Wow, what a fabulous a**hole. Anyway, in my experience, people either "get" why

Macs are better or they don't. If you don't, it doesn't matter - Macs and PC's can both

do just about anything you want them to do, with the proper knowledge. Macs will

cost a small percentage more for the same power, but not 4X more. People that do

"get" why Macs are better will often cite aesthetics, both in hardware & software

design. Great aesthetics don't necessarily make it "better", they just make it more

enjoyable to use day in and day out. If you don't care about that aspect, then a Mac

isn't worth any extra money. <p>

It's the same kind of thing with just about any product - there is a premium product

that some people will never think is worth the money, and you can never convince

them because you have a different point of view. That's not what they are attuned to.

Take cars - I, for

one, would never buy an American car (except maybe a Jeep or a Corvette) because I

think that they look horrible. I see plastic and bad design - millions of people see a

"transportation device" (or "functional computer") and would think that spending

extra on a Honda is a waste of money. They don't "get it," why the Honda is better, so

they think I wasted money. I "see" why the Honda is better, it's designed better, it

looks better, so I think they bought a piece of junk. Same story - PC vs. Mac.

The advantage is only there, when it comes to aesthetics, if you "get it." If they look

the same to you, get the best deal available. <p>

Think of something that you don't care about, and that some people spend tons of

money on. For me, I'll say wine. I can be satisfied with a $10.00 bottle of wine. I can't

taste the difference between that and a hundred dollar bottle - never have, never will.

Tons of people will laugh at me because I don't get it, and I don't care because the

ten dollar wine gets the job done for me. Some of those wine connoisseurs use PCs

instead of Macs, and I don't get that either, so to each his own.

Hi Bob, I have to say I'm not quite sure what you think I meant by my statement, or

why you chose to quote and go off on just a small snippet that means nothing when

taken out of context. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, I'm simply

sharing an experience of mine, that being that poor photography isn't only done by

uninformed amateurs with DSLR's, (though that happens plenty) but in some cases by

people whom others trust, people who have years of education and who use good ol'

film, and really should know what the hell they are doing. I'm not offended in the

least by your original post, as I know plenty about "which camera or lens to use,

whether to shoot film or digital or exactly how flash photography works." I actually

stated in my post that I agreed with you, so again, I'm not quite sure exactly why you

chose to make such a comment. Thanks.

Oh, btw, my DSLR is blowing out all my highlights when I shoot in hi-res jpeg, and I

was told by a salesman that jpeg had more dynamic range or somethin' than negative

film, except 100 ISO which is most grainy when shot in the early morning, right??? So

I've been putting more powerful batteries in my flash to give the sensor more light

because I know more light equals darker because I read it in Popular Photography. So

if I had more megapixels my flash would work betterer, right? I think I need a bunch

of L lenses to take to my first wedding tomorrow incase it's low contrast outside, but

if it's not I should probably use my kit lens, except I heard it's crappy but probably

sharper on a digital because of the crop factor. So, anyway, my question is, which

lens will make me the best photographer? I should probably put the lens on a bracket,

right? I know, I should probably just wait for the 30D...

"As I see it, this is not an amateur -v- pro thing, it's about incompetent untrained

muppets who buy themselves a digicam, call themselves pro wedding photographers

and persuade unsuspecting members of the public to trust them and pay them"

This is somewhat the side I see, but in many cases it's not even based completely on

digital, but 35mm too. And sometimes the "muppets" have years of experience. Let

me give some background - many here would probably consider me an amateur, and

I would say "aspiring, informed amateur." I've been heavily involved in photography

for 9 years, worked at photolabs for 8, and majored in fine art (which included

photography) for 3 years until I decided that it felt like technical school and switched

my major to philosophy. I've been assisting with weddngs for 3 years ever since both

my sister and one of my high school friends asked me to shoot their weddings, and

this spring I finally decided to start slowly venturing out on my own, while still

assisting as much as possible. I am constantly learning, and hopefully will be for the

rest of my life, as my feeling is always that the most recent wedding is just a slight bit

better than the last.<p>

One of my major reasons for going on my own, other than the fact that I felt I was

beginning to have something to offer, is the fact that there are quite a few

"professionals," most who shoot 35mm, that come into the lab I work at and develop

15-20 rolls of garbage. Horrible lighting, direct on camera flash, bad angles, bad

composition, bad timing. Most prevalent is the " I'll stand 15 feet away and fire my

flash on full while holding my camera perfectly horizontal x 300 frames" method. I

talked to one of them, (a photo professor at a local university, no less!) about her

prices and she said she charges 2000 dollars, and this is for coverage only - no

prints, no CD, nothing! Proof book is extra. This was after I just printed, at my wage

of $9.50 an hour, mind you, her rolls with harsh noon lighting coming through trees

and making people squint during the posed portraits. She makes $2000 dollars for 6

hours of work, I get $57.00 (before taxes) So I decided that 3 years was enough

experience.

<p>

In my opinion, there is a large divide in the "amateur" segment. There are people like

me who have lots of general photography experience and knowledge (or the true

desire for experience and knowledge) and are entering a new field. These people may

have genuine questions, like "how do I most efficiently reduce noise at 1600 ISO on a

20D?" or something like that. Then there are the people who think photography is an

easy buck and buy a SLR and can't set WB or load a roll of film. Example: a customer

comes into my workplace 2 weeks ago, and says he has 2 questions. First - he has a

band photo from a magazine and asks me how to do that. It was shot with the

photographer laying down, shooting up with a very wide angle lens and the band in a

circle aroound him. I told him that he needed a wide angle lens, probably 16mm or so

to create the effect. He looked confused. I was confused. Then, in a moment of

clarity, I said, "well, you'll have to lay down." That was what he couldn't figure out -

FOR REAL - no kidding. Second question - he has a close-up of a wedding ring,

obviously taken with a nice macro lens and complicated studio lighting. I said, " well,

among many things, first you need a macro lens, but that's the easy part. This is

taken with a complicated lighting setup, and figuring that out is the tough part." HE

LAUGHED AT ME! He said, "We'll once I get the lens I can figure out the lighting, that's

the easy part!"

<p>

So I basicaly agree with what Bob said: "I'm not so much concerned by amateur

wedding photographers as apparantly clueless amateur wedding photographers.

There seem to be a bunch of people who are essentially ignorant about most aspects

of photography who are out there shooting weddings - if photo.net posts are

anything to judge by."

<p>

There are good amateurs, and there are clueless, hopeless ones. It is usually easy to

differentiate. The good ones will hopefully have the talent and the attitude to

succeed, and they will eventually charge much more, and work with a good clientele.

The hacks will fail, or shoot $400 weddings forever, because there is a market of

people who,

HORROR! really don't give a damn about photography. While some may care once

they see the difference, many won't give a damn even if you do show them the

difference - trust me, I know some of these people! $400 is alot of money for

some people, especially for something they really don't care about. Anyway, true

talent will usually shine through and be recognized. (if they have a good business

plan!)

<p>

Personally, I don't ask questions on here about how to catch a certain light or a

fleeting moment because I feel that experience shooting is the best teacher. Someone

can tell me how to anticipate a smile or a kiss, but that's not going to help me

capture it - actually doing it with my camera will. Regardless, I have rambled for way

too long - thank you all for your time!

<p>

<a href="http://www.jakeholtphotography.com">jakeholtphotography.com</a><div></div>