brandonhamilton

I use a flash when the Fstop range of light in the scene is too broad for the camera. Fill is used to balance the light. There are some situations I encounter where if i didn't use a flash, I would have some areas of the shot below the black end of the spectrum, as well as part of the shot beyond the white end of the spectrum with blown highlights. So what do to? You expose for the whites, and fill in the darker areas with fill.

 

Sometimes i encounter a scene where the range of light is much closer, and then fill may not be necessary. In general, I would say I use a flash 70% of the time.

"I'm waiting until they include a phone, and "Minesweeper" on a DSLR before I go digital."

 

LOL! haha.. that cracked me up!

I would recommend the Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 Not a macro lens, but the PERFECT "stay on" lens for a DX sensor slr, at that price range.

lens flare.

Before you go any further, you really need to take a minute or a few hours and go read up on how exposure works. For some reason, you seem to think that the ISO film or digital setting you are using creates or causes brightness or lack there-of in an exposure, and that is completely wrong.

 

There are 4 things that affect or create your exposure, and they are

 

1.) how much light is available to be exposed

2.) your aperture

3.) your shutter speed

4.) your ISO setting/film choice

 

ISO by itself doesn't mean anything. For example, if you go from iso 100 to iso 800, (3 stops of light) but go from outside day light to dark indoors (6 stops? just guessing) then if all other settings remain the same, you are still going to be under-exposed by 3 stops. So not only do you adjust your ISO, but you also need to adjust your aperture and shutter speed, as well as do your best to boost the available light (i.e. flash).

 

The way I read your post, is that you think iso 800 will give you a "bright" or "light" picture no matter where you are or what other settings you are using.

 

"It's been a while since I shot film. However, I can't remember my film shots ever coming out so dark even with 400 speed film."

 

That says it all right there.

I find that walking backwards ahead of the precessional is quite a distraction in the ceremoney. I stopped doing that and now shoot the precessional PJ style from the front corner...

I think the skin tones on the girl look great, on the guy, they look pastey. But, if the guy had pastey looking skin, then the skin looks fine.

 

I agree with the above, the photo doesn't have much of anything. It's a nice photo all around, but doesn't show any emotion, excitement, energy, etc.. etc..

 

Also, the extra PS'd gaussian blurr on the background is toooo much.

agreed. It almost never comes off the camera.

I swear, sometimes I read through posts just to see if Marc has uploaded some examples... amazing.

 

I shoot Nikon, and my primary lens is my 17-55mm f/2.8D. i use that, along with my 70-200 sigma ex hsm for distance ceremony shots. I also keep my 50mm f/1.8 within reach for low light receptions.

Thanks for all the help guys, I really appreciate it. And just to clarify, I DO shoot weddings all on my own, but only a handfull a year via word of mouth. The only reason I am/was considering this, is because it would bring in even more experience. But honestly I think if I took those 8 hours and spent them marketing myself, I thinkg I could generate just as much work as they would provide me, in which I would be able to make all the money being charged.

 

And it certainly isn't $75 an hour. The wedding is 8, probably and hour of driving total, and who KNOWS how many hours after the fact editing/uploading/mailing images. Also don't forget, they expect a meeting with the clients, which could take 2-3 more hours of my time if you include driving. Add gas, depreciation on my own gear, my own insurance, and it comes out to less than a third that.

 

Thanks for your time to reply, I really appreciate it.

Well i originally found them through an ad, looking for photographers in the san diego area, and they contacted me BACK... they didn't find me on their own. They are apparently one of the largest wedding photographer and videography companies in the US, operating in over a dozen different cities... definitly not a scam!

 

... it just seems to me like the pay is the BARE minimum, RIGHT on the line of being worth it, and not worth it, which is why my post is here.

Hello everybody, I was wondering if you all could lend me some advice. This

past week I was contacted by a large national wedding photography and

videography company for a job. I haven't actually been offered the position

yet, but they seem pretty impressed and are ready to move foward. They sent me

a copy of the contract that everybody signs, as well as the company's

requirements when I shoot. Basically, I would be a contracted photographer.

The company gets all the work, then assigns different shoots to different

photographers that work for them.

 

Well, I am a very part time photographer and everything I have done has been

via word of mouth, so I only do a handfull a year. I thought to my self, that

this could be a decent opportunity to gain even more experience, and of course

a few extra bucks on some weekends.

 

But I have some reservations about the terms, and I was hoping I could generate

a converstation about it:

 

1.) it states that it would absolutely be required that I shoot a very minimum

of 1000 images, and would be required to present between 500 and 525 final

pics, no more, no less, for an 8 hour wedding. I don't know about all of you,

but I am not the kind of photographer that just shoots anything in front of me

non-stop in hopes of "Getting" something that is a keeper. I prefer the

quality over quantity method. When I normally shoot a wedding, I usually

capture about 600 images, and end up with about 200 that are really good, after

getting rid of the duplicates, blinks, goofy faces, etc. 200 has in the past

been just plenty. Am I crazy in thinking that "requiring" 1000 images to be

taken is crazy? I think I would end up with 500-600 shots at the end of the

night, and would find myself in a panic trying to get 400 shots of people

dancing on the dance floor as the party died down. Seems crazy.

 

2.) it only pays 600$ per wedding. This is for 8 hours of shooting, all the

editing (500-1000 images!) uploading, mailing the master copies via snail mail,

AND possibly meeting with the bride and groom two weeks before the ceremony. I

am very good and effecient in photoshop, but still.. editing 500 images to be

the best they can be, is still a LOT of work. I did the math, and if you

include drive times to and from the wedding and pre-wedding get-to-gether, gas,

misc... it doesn't come out to very much money considering I have to shoot with

all my own gear, pay for my own insurance, everything. What do you think?

 

3.) it is "required" that I have a 70-200mm zoom lens, and it HAS to be of

nikon or canon brand. Now... I do have a 70-200, but I use a sigma EX HSM 70-

200mm f/2.8, which I find to be a FANTASTIC lens, very fast, and completely

silent. I don't yet know if this would be ok in place of their specific lens

requirements, but i thought i would it in.

 

I am trying to figure out if all the work, and the little money, would be worth

the experience.

 

Any thoughts? Should I pursue this, or spend my 8 hours every weekend looking

for my OWN work, which would generate more money, with less goofy restrictions.

 

Thanks for your time, and sorry for the length!

Rob, unfortunately there isn't enough information in your question to give you an answer. You said to the affect "I plan on using f5.6, but what about shutter speed"? Well, considering the basics of photography/light, that would depend on the ISO and the amount of light the camera has at it's disposal, to properly expose the scene!

 

If the room were pitch black, you would need a shutter speed around 8 or 10 seconds

 

If it is lit up like a football stadium and using iso 1600, you could maybe use a shutter of 1/250th or 1/4000th. It depends on how much light you have. Your question, is unanswerable.

I didn't find the site that slow to load at all. I actually read some replies before I visited, so I timed it. From the "enter" button to when the "loading" stopped and I got the home page, was right inbetween 4 and 5 seconds.

 

The site size looks great to me, but I run 1600x1200. To your average user who is running 1024x768, might it be too large?

 

While I understand the concept of using music on a site, and sometimes I don't mind it all that much (neither does your average web surfer) the music you chose is pretty obnoxious, and doesn't fit the site! And to everybody that doesn't like it, just freakin hit the "sound off" button at the top of the page.

 

I also found the "shutter click" sound that plays as you choose different images to be kind of obnoxious. If it were me, I would remove that one alltogether.

 

Like stated above, there are some bugs, like hoverovers all over the website that don't actually do anything. Also, when you click on portfolio, you get a nice screen with 3 choices. When you choose one, you get a series of images with thumbnails, and you get 1->3 pages to nav through. But alas, each page is a different section. (kind of silly) but, you now lose the "portfilio" button and you can't go back to the original "portfolio" page where you made your first selection.

 

Last but not least... the gallery samples are a bit lacking. I would roughly double the number of samples.

 

Great start however!

Nicola, I agree about the shadows there on those ones of her behind the tree. I Think I should of dragged the shutter another 10th of a second, and used lower power on the flash. For me it isn't the shadow on her face (her face looks great) but rather the shadow from her chin, on her neckline.

 

And for the most part, she does all of her posing all on her own. I help her with some head tilts and hair fall, but other than that I just shoot as we interact.

Thanks Todd and carl! I appreciate it. But Carl, I am a bit confused by your reply..

 

"Leave the flashes at home. Most middle school and high school gyms are pretty dark, and I would not use flash at all. I like to shoot at about 800-1600 ISO wide open with my flash set to 1/64th power. It is just enough power to give a little punch to the colors and keep the noise somewhat in check."

 

???????? Leave the flashes at home, but use them? hehe.

 

So the general consensus is to shoot available light at higher ISOs, wide open. I don't think it will be TOO big of an issue, these guys are only 7 or 8 years old, so i don't think they will be moving very fast. Perhaps I will bring the flashes just in case it is REALLY dark inside? hmm

you cross the line to a "professional" when you make more than 50% of your income from the activity.

She likes the first one, and the one of her walking away (second i think)...

So I have been asked by the parents, to take pictures at an indoor kids

basketball game this coming Saturday, and I was hoping there could be somebody

here who could help me out with what to take/use, and perhaps lend some

shooting tips. Here is my gear list (worth considering)

 

BODIES:

Nikon D2X

Nikon D100

 

FLASHES

SB-80dx

SB-800dx

Pro-T bracket

 

LENSES:

Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 ex hsm

Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8D

Nikkor 50mm f1.8

 

So my questions to you all are: Do I shoot only available light? Rear curtain

flash in ttl? Bracket or no bracket? direct flash or bounce? (no idea how high

the cealing will be). Minimum shutter speeds? (flash sync limited to 250, will

that be fast enough?) I am hoping I can get close enough that I can use my 50

1.8, but most likely will need to use my 70-200.

 

Thanks for any tips and suggestions!

 

-Brandon

Just thought I would share a few photos from an informal/fun portrait session

I did with my girlfriend last weekend. It was a nice day, not much else going

on, so we headed out for an hour...<br><Br>

 

<a href="http://brandonhamilton.com/portraits/rachael/3/">relaxed photo

shoot</a>

If shooting outdoors in sunlight, you are likely going to need a flash source. Or at the very least, a reflector. (sorry, i dont know what a "cue" flash is).

"Furthermore, with the digital image being quite good even at ISO 800, you aren't as dependent on the wider apertures that expensive lenses provide for low light shooting."

 

That is completely untrue. Having a faster lens isn't ONLY about how many stop of light you can get when actually taking the photo, it also has to do with how much light the camera has to work with when focusing BEFORE you shoot. In this regard, ISO does nothing for the amount of light that actually hits your focusing system. A faster lens has a far easier / faster time focusing in limited lit situations, which is usually the case when shooting indoors/studio.

 

For example, when i shoot in my poorly lit garage when i do my own studio work, I get far more accurate images out of my 50 f/1.8 than I do with my 17-55 f/2.8, even though I am using F8 on the camera. The 1.8 lens allows the camera to work with 1 more stop of light BEFORE you shoot.

 

There is absolutly NO reason you would ever shoot at ISO 800 in a studio setting when you can completely control the amount of light that is spilling onto your subjects. (unless of course you WANT digital noise in your photographs)

Scott, very good and very close, except that it is not illigal to photograph while on private property. If the owner of the private property doesn't want you doing it, they can ask you to leave. If you don't, then you are illigally tresspassing. The act of taking the photo itself is completely legal.

"Dave Lee , aug 16, 2006; 01:02 p.m.

The D200 produces a 28.7mb capture."

 

I don't think this is right. I think they are somewhere around 15MB per raw file. My D2X, which is over 12megapixels, produces just over 20MB files.

I show photos on the web through my website, and have photos printed at two different pro labs. Both labs and the web require sRGB, so that is the color space I generally capture in and edit in. However, I always shoot raw so that if some day in the future pro-labs start printing in aRGB, and I can just change them to aRGB and reprint!

 

go team go! raw raw raw!