zapped

Jaime Blue wrote "... in my darkroom when anyone had b/w prints I could print entire image on any size paper, or crop where I wanted to."

 

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that you would take a 35mm negative (aspect ratio 3:2) and print the full image on arbitrary-sized paper (not necessarily 3:2 aspect ratio) without cropping. That means you'd get every last bit of the negative exposed on the paper, but also means you'd have some of the paper left unexposed. And you wondered why the lab can't do the same thing that you do routinely in your darkroom.

 

The problem with digital image in this Modern Age is that labs that cater to consumers never print that way anymore - even if I put special instructions on the envelope or speak to the tech on duty, the message is usually lost by the time the digital image is actually printed. So I always crop my prints to the correct aspect ratio for the intended output print size.

http://search.pbase.com/search?q=maldives+beach&b=Search+Photos&c=sp

 

http://images.google.com/images?q=maldives+beach&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images

I know you'd like very specific answers, but sometimes clarifying the questions helps. To me, the fundamental questions you have to answer are...

 

1) Exposure - how poor will it be in the darkest part of the ceremony?

 

2) Image brightness - do you want that dark environment to appear decently-lit, or is a photo that might be two stops underexposed OK?

 

3) What's the lowest shutter speed you intend to use? Will the camera be tripod-mounted or hand-held?

 

The answers to these three questions will dictate your film speed requirements. BTW, I am assuming flash will be a no-no. But if you could apply flash with a gentle touch (light fill, flash compensation intentionally low), it would certainly help!

 

As others mentioned, I would definitely not rely completely on in-camera metering. Point sources of light like candles or mini-incandescents will make your TTL meter do wacky things.

 

Why not try simulating the wedding environment in advance with your own backyard setup of candles and mini-lights? If you don't have a trustworthy light meter to measure that scene with at dusk and later, do you have access to a half-decent point'n'shoot digital camera (one that has full manual control)? If so, set it at ISO400 and fire off some shots at the aperture you intend to shoot at while varying shutter speed.

 

Review those images and decide how bright or dark an image suits your taste and use the exposure on those test-shots as a guide at the real ceremony. If you can't get bright enough images from the p&s digicam at ISO400, clearly you'll be needing faster film or getting it pushed at the lab.

 

Best of luck. I'd love to see the final images from this unique setting.

Edgar Njari wrote: "An image from a digital cameras is already made through interpolation from a lower resolution components (Bayer pattern), so even your 3600 pixel image is not pure detail, but rather an expensive and efficient trick, but still obvious when you look at the image at 100%."

 

This is false. An 8 megapixel image captured by a Canon 350D (Digital Rebel XT) or a Canon 20D has 8 megapixels of detail. It's true that the *color* information is in effect interpolated, but the *luminance* information is available at every site - and that's what is providing the detail. Both the luminance and the color information is affected by post-processing (in-camera or external RAW converters), but it's a canard to say that the "detail" isn't there at each photosite on the sensor.

 

Akos, the Bayer pattern Edgar refers means that in a 2x2 group of 4 photosite receptors on the sensor, there is one Red pixel, one Blue, and two Green. He's basically asserting that the detail in the final output of 4 pixels is a fiction. When the raw sensor data is processed, the color information is de-mosaic'ed so that the JPG or Tif output has RGB information at each of the approximately 8 million pixels in the output image. Luminance data is changed, yes, but it's not as if detail was created out of nothingness.

Since other respondents have offered advice for side-trips and even suggested the need to stay at the G.C. for a week, I can't resist chiming in again.

 

My personal feeling is that the Grand Canyon pales in comparison to the beauty of Zion and Bryce Canyon Nat'l Parks. I hadn't been to any of the great parks of the desert Southwest until 2004, and if I had it to do over again I would've skipped the G.C. and spent the time at Zion & Bryce.

 

Why such heresy, you ask? The Grand Canyon is beautiful, no doubt about it, but to me it's a one-trick pony. You get your first view of its grandeur, which is breath-taking, but then every viewpoint >> from the rim << is the essentially the same. To really know it and appreciate it you'd have to hike down & back, really take the time to explore it - something that few tourists and arguably even fewer tourist photographers do.

 

Zion and Bryce are smaller in scale and offer up new & beautiful vistas at every turn of the road, and at every turn of the trail on day hikes. In Zion, you're at the base of the canyon looking up at the amazing Utah sandstone cliffs. At the east entrance of Zion, the undulating reds & oranges are like nothing I've ever seen on Earth. The beauty at dawn or sunset is beyond words. At Bryce, the hoodoos are amazing formations whether viewed above from the rim or on a day hike on the Navajo loop.

 

Zion & Bryce are also much more accessible if you want to start and end your trip in Sin City (Vegas).

 

DISCLAIMER - you will have a wonderful time at the Canyon, there is no doubt. Just be aware that as hard as it might be to imagine, there are even more beautiful parks right up the road in southern Utah.

Can't edit posts here & I just remembered a minor caveat. The cabins are so old that soundproofing is practically nonexistent. Don't know how the lodge compares. I had quiet neighbors, but even a little foot traffic in the hallways or a door opening/closing is quite loud. If you're a light sleeper trying to catch some ZZZZZs for a pre-dawn shoot, consider earplugs.

I stayed at the cabins directly adjacent to the Bright Angel Lodge proper in April 2004. Accomodations were spartan but the most important thing to me was they were immaculate. Not just fresh-smelling from cleaning solvents, but honest-to-goodness clean & fresh. And just out the door you're overlooking the canyon.

Here in Austin, Texas we need to tell the operators to turn off all corrections - "NO MODS" is the lingo they seem to use. You can't add instructions on the in-store kiosk, so I put my images on a CD or CD-RW in folders named like "4x6, glossy, 1-copy-of-each" to make it as foolproof as possible. I stuff the CD in the envelope, and write size information and NO MODS in the "special instructions" area.

Hope it's not too late to chime in; I haven't been visiting this forum much lately.

 

I took a similar trip in '04, flying into Las Vegas from my home in Austin. Visited Valley of Fire, Zion, Bryce, Antelope Canyon, and Grand Canyon in a five-day trip. Shooting at sunrise, hiking after that, driving mid-day, short afternoon hike, shooting again at sunset - lather, rinse, repeat.

 

Complete itinerary with maps, sample photos, suggested viewpoints, etc. here:

 

http://www.pbase.com/pricklypear/utaznv2004_story

 

Just pictures here:

 

http://www.pbase.com/pricklypear/utaznv2004

 

Have fun, it's a beautiful area.

I'll second that "what?" from J.Blue with more context -

 

Errol Young wrote: "I would use the quick and dirty auto method. Manual exposure using digital is tricky I find. It does not seem to work like it did in my 30 years of film. Auto is prety good in most cases."

 

I'm just an amateur but started shooting with a center-weighted, match-needle Pentax K-1000 in the late 1970's. I don't see any difference between metering with that old warhorse and using my Canon digital in Manual mode today. Of course we all acknowledge that the dynamic range of digital is closer to that of slide film than negative film, but that's not a statement for or against the use of Manual mode in digital SLRs.

 

Please elaborate, Errol.

Eric Warnke wrote: "To simulate this take a subject and place them in front of a bright window. Set to M, point camera out window and set for +1 3/4 exposure, turn on flash compose shot and snap. You may need to play with FEC to get the subject exposed correctly."

 

I disagree with these instructions. If you "point camera out window" you will be reading the outside (bright) exposure setting. Eric says you want to adjust the camera in M mode until it reads +1 3/4 exposure. That would indeed brighten up the exposure of the ambient in the (dark) room and on the (dark) subject, but it would still overexpose the background. Maybe Eric's digital camera allows for nearly two stops of overexposure without blowing highlights, but mine sure doesn't.

 

With a 20D, I'd set the aperture/shutter until the exposure outside read correctly (meter centered), then whether or not the interior + subject was actually reading two or three stops below that exposure, I'd let the flash illuminate the subject properly. If I were willing to allow a little overexposure of the background I might go to +1/2 stop, but not 1-3/4 stops.

Conrad wrote: "... get them in low resolution format (which probalby takes another 5 hours)."

 

You can't mean that a batch-conversion from hi-rez to low-rez takes 5 hours?

Todd, I'm curious why you output to inkjet at all? Even a consumer print from a Fujitsu Frontier or Noritsu digital printer will produce excellent proofs or final prints onto Fuji Crystal Archive for less than the cost of inkjet paper and ink.

"I'd like a non-destructive image editing software because I don't want to save multiple versions of my images."

 

No current software I know of does this. Regardless, would you really choose a piece of software based on this single feature, when a simple copy or a quick "Save As" from *any* image editing software will accomplish the same thing?

 

Just put your originals in an "originals" subdirectory then make a copy for an "enhanced" subdirectory. Go forth & edit :)

I'm not a wedding pro, but as an serious amateur photographer and a DLP-projector owner, I can hopefully start the discussion going.

 

I think even an low-end DLP (*not* LCD) projector with 800x600 native resolution can produce a compelling image in a darkened room. Viewed from just a few feet away you won't notice the individual pixels; it'll look very much like a traditional 35mm slide projection in terms of color saturation, contrast, and brightness.

 

But trying to project a specific image size (16x20, 11x14) is a bit more problematic. There is a *minimum* image size you'll be able to project, so you won't be using very many pixels when you're trying to show a 16x20 or 11x14 within that minimum projected image size, even if you went to a higher resolution projector.

 

Personally, I'd wager that the most compelling presentation would be a full-screen projected slideshow (my home screen is about 84" diagonal) of favorites from the wedding shoot, accompanied on another wall by two or three framed 8x10, 11x14 and 16x20 proofs from the actual wedding to help the couple choose print sizes.

It's been two months since you posted about your inherited Pentax equipment, and you haven't found time to shoot a single complete roll. You have no experience with exposure control, handling a manual-focus system, or flash. You are in completely over your head and need to tell the couple that you can't do it.

 

If you take a point'n'shoot digital to the wedding, you might knock of a pleasant snapshot or two. Leave it at that.

Apologies for skimming - I didn't see your requirement that the DVD backup be standalone for the backpacking portion of your trip.

 

It's hard to deny that any backup solution - DVD or hard-drive-based - is going to be more prone to failure than solid-state memory, i.e. flash cards. Personally, I'd get several more 1GB or 2GB flash cards, and rely on the enclosure+burner solution when you're back at your laptop again.

You'll have a laptop and clearly expect to have power to keep it charged, so get yourself a $30 5.25" IDE enclosure (usb2 or firewire) and an inexpensive DVD burner ($40-$50) to put in it. Got my gear from newegg.com, but ymmv.

 

I just switched over to that setup for my last vacation, and it worked great. It sure was lot nicer to burn that 1 DVD than 7 CD's.

You don't mention your starting point - nearby airport or long drive into Page, AZ. You don't mention whether "on labor day weekend" means three days or maybe you allow travel time on Thursday and then again on Tuesday.

 

Zion may only be 120 miles from Page, but just getting out of Zion on Rt.9 on a holiday weekend will be a challenge. Grand Canyon also during a three-day trip? I don't think so.

 

Having been to the area for a dedicated photo trip, I'd choose Zion alone out of the three destinations you mentioned. If you're set on Antelope Canyon, just consider additional shooting around the lower part of Lake Powell and Horseshoe Bend instead of dedicating precious hours to a long drive between parks.

That's one of the slowest sites I've visited in recent memory. Literally minutes to get a handful of 100x75 pixel thumbnails, then an eternity to download any single image.

 

Not to mention that it's a French-only site posted on photo.net, where the, um, lingua franca, is English.

 

Move along people, nothing to see here.

Absolutely agree about the 2nd shot. I didn't want to mention it when I posted me edit, but there is no question that in the first shot the bride's expression said "You're not going to follow us to the bridal suite with that danged camera, ARE YOU?"

Hi, Juliet, yes I see now that you posted your 2nd image while I was editing the original.

 

Regarding masks, you can look at any basic Photoshop book in the bookstore. Basically the technique is this - I create a selection of eyes or lips using the lasso tool. I add a Curves or Saturation adjustment layer (and adjust settings), and a mask is automatically added based on my selection (the selection is now cleared). I then click on the mask icon in the Layers palette so that I'll be drawing on the mask, not the image, and either blur it or refine it with a brush tool set to white or black.

 

Now I have a new layer that I can click on or off to view before/after, or change the overall opacity to soften the effect if necessary. There are probably about a dozen adjustment layers in the edit I posted.

It's too bad the focus isn't a little better, but overall it's a nice

capture.<br>

<br>

My first suggestion would be to crop this image a bit. To me, the

bottom third of the image is extraneous. Since your original image is

already tightly framed on the left, right, and top - and on the top,

the bride's hair is even chopped off - I would mimic that in the

framing by also chopping the bride's elbow intentionally in the crop:<br>

<img src="http://www.pbase.com/pricklypear/image/46762712/original.jpg"><br>

<br>

With this crop, all sides are in balance & framed tightly.<br>

<br>

Next, it's unfortunate that the highlights on both the groom's shirt

and the background are all blown. I'd de-emphasize that with a bit of a

vignette around the image, and also increase contrast a bit to bring

out some skin tones in the couple's fair complexions. I also

de-focussed a bit in the vignette to focus more on the couple's

embrace. A slight mask of the bride's eyes & lips also adds a

little punch to the image. I also masked the eye sockets and brightened 'em just a tad. Hopefully this quick edit isn't too

heavy-handed:<br>

<br>

<img src="http://www.pbase.com/pricklypear/image/46762711/original.jpg"><br>

I prefer not to use percentages (suggested by previous respondent) because that creates a frame with different left/right dimensions than top/bottom.

 

For a 3072x2048 (6MP DRebel) image, set your default color to black, then use canvas size to add 150 pixels on each side (that's about 5% of the longer side). If you really want the inner white border, set default color to white and add maybe 5 pixels to the canvas first.

If you want the gradient to follow a perfect horizontal or vertical line, and you're following Walter's instructions, hold the SHIFT button before you left-click and until after you release the drag. That will keep the line you drag perfectly horizontal or vertical, whichever you choose.