robert_gantt

<p>It looks like the lights are set one on either side of the camera axis (note the shadows are on the right side of faces on the right side of the image and left side of faces on the left part of the image). Most likely at equivalent powers and equivalent distances. If you do end up using the softboxes, aim them diagonally across the group from either side so the most intense portion of light is aimed at the further person. In and environment like this, you may have decent luck pointing up towards the ceiling a little and bouncing so the light is softer and gives more wrap.<br>

Remember, bring extra cords for backup up and tape them down so people don't trip :-)</p>

<p>I know this is off topic of what the original question was, but I feel compelled to write about my experience with Bella.<br>

First, I was a trainee and was in the position to be certified as a "head photographer", so I had plenty of interaction with the full time staff. One of the things that kept me from moving forward was how unorganized and uncommunicative the company was. I had several questions that went unanswered, and was overlooked a couple times by way of Bella not sending me my event information or media cards to shoot with. When I brought this to their attention I was rudely replied by one of the supervisors of the dispatch staff.<br>

Here's a circumstance that sums up my experience. I was living near Dayton, Ohio at the time when I received a phone call a little after 11 am on a Saturday. The call was to ask if I'd be interested in shooting a wedding...that day. The caveat was that the wedding was at 1pm....and it was in Pittsburgh, PA. For those of you who don't know geography, Pittsburgh is roughly a 5 hour drive from Dayton. I'm sure I don't need to dissect this too much, but there is something very disturbing about a company 1) not having a photographer for a paid event (the day of), and 2) not having a system in place that would indicate a photographer 5 hours away can not make it to an event scheduled to begin in 2 hours.</p>

<p>Need I say more?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think the lens choice matters immensely and should be considered just as important as light, and composition. Otherwise, you'll be spending a lot more time in post production.</p>

<p>Jean,<br />There are multiple lenses being used. I think several of the couples and environmental images are shot with a 50mm f/1.2, whereas the tighter portraits and "details" are being captured, perhaps, with an 85mm f/1.8. The depth of field is to shallow to be a 24-70. And, the compression is not great enough to be anything longer than an 85mm or 100mm.<br>

I hope that helps.</p>

<p>Strange that you all seem to think it's OK to share a workshop DVD and outline the entire contents for free consumption.<br>

Wouldn't it be great if people started pirating all your work and giving it away too?</p>

<p>Hey John,<br>

Tilt shifts and the bellows involved in large format can be reproduced via 35mm with the use of a tilt shift lens like these: http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=156. I've used the 45mm with relative success, but the reply just before mine also indicated the 90mm would be closer. You'll need to be extra critical of your focus and having your subjects aligned in such a way that the focus point doesn't miss someone.<br>

Before you go out and tried to buy a new or used one, I'd suggest renting for a week. These guys tend to become cliche pretty quick.</p>

It looks like a fairly specular source just to the camera right and slightly elevated. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if it were on camera flash. The shadows are dark and very contrasty. I don't see a second fill light in his glasses either, so it's nothing complicated.

The shadows are not consistent with that of a ringflash unless part of the flash has been flagged.

David,

I have used both lenses extensively. My wife and I are wedding photographers both using the Mark III and 5D. I really, really like the range on the 24-105 but it's not a good indoor reception lens (or window light, getting ready, etc.).

I shoot with a 430EX flash with rechargeable AAs and I feel like the F/4 causes me to miss shots because of the little extra recycle time. Consequently, after 1.5 years with the 24-105, I'm going back to the 24-70 2.8.

My shooting style is to drag the shutter just a little bit to pick up available light as much as possible and the F/4 is just beyond the threshold of doing that in low light.

I hope this helps.

Cameron,

I shot my first pro game a couple of weeks ago. The Quicken Loans arena was bright enough at iso800 to shoot 2.8 at 1/400. I shot with a 24-70L and a 70-200L on Canon 20D's. That set up worked out great for me. If you're shooting from the baseline the 24 is plenty wide enough and if you're shooting the other end zoomed out to 200 gives a 320mm equivelant. Not too bad (assuming you don't have a 300!)

Best of luck to you!

robbie

I would not hesitate to buy this item. I does wonders! I've had my original lightsphere for about 6 months and I absolutely love it. I've never used a light modifier that is as consitant and hence reliable. I had no problem with customer service and received the item within 3 days. It is the best item on the market for someone who doesn't have time to mess with setting up lights especially at that price!

Great buy.

Actually Iskandar,

That's exactly what I do. Incident meter right where your subject is. Now, if it's something I've set up a light for, I usually have that metered and re-metered before I bring the bride and/or groom in. I pick a spot on the floor as my marker or have even use a tiny piece of tape to show them where exactly to stand and the exposures are consistant from start to finish.

If you're the paid photographer it's completely natural and probably expected by many for you to be walking up and metering the light. Just let your subject know what you are about to do and you'll have no trouble.

good luck, robbie

The autofocus is great, or rather the lag of lag time when you press the shutter release. Much better for sports! the 5fps is nice too. I'm not too big on the diamond shape autofocusing points, it'll a take a little getting used to. the 3200iso looks much better than the 10D for obvious reasons of file size. also, I really like the B/W setting. no real drawbacks! great camera especially for the price!

-rg

I chose it initially because of the Andre Agassi commercials in the mid 90's and I've stuck with it ever since. The USM autofocus is phenominal. I've been able to gradually build up to the "L" lenses and they are handsdown better than Nikon.

I've done a lot of work with a professional lab and within the past 2years they've really shown me the quality Canon dSLR puts out over Nikon or Olympus. The metering and color management almost doesn't seem fair for people who are shooting for second place. In the end though, I guess it all comes back to Agassi.

Martin,

First-what type of subject will you be photographing (primarily)?

I've owned the 10D since May '03 and honestly love the camera. It was my first dslr and I've used it for tons of different jobs. Architecture, interiors, portraits, macro, landscapes...and sports. The only gripe I have regarding sports is the lag time in shutter release; it has been enough on several occassions to miss "the shot". The ease of use of the 10D is remarkable and self explanatory.

1)I've not had the focusing problem many people talk about and it's always tough to say if that's operator error or equipment. 2)? 3)I haven't even noticed the viewfinder size being a problem and I do require contact lenses to focus. The screen is bright enough for me to manual focus if I need to. 4) they are nutty.

All that being said, I did go ahead and get the 20D last Friday, and boy am I impressed with the speed and capture quality. The burst speed is very nice for some but the decreased lag time is what I really like. Also, at 1600 and 3200 the noise is greatly decreased. So, if you're shooting low light situations a lot I'd lean more toward the 20D or if you're shooting sports.

Both cameras are great and especially the 10D now that prices are dropping like Dan Rathers credibility!

P.s. I find the 20D has the feel of an EOS 3 if that helps.

matt,

use mixed lighting to your advantage and really allow the natural lights to come through. Faster films could help and dragging the shutter a bit. Also, try bouncin the flash of a the top corner of a room. The light will disperse more evenly and usually less specular. If you're going to do that though, you'll need plenty of power. So my biggest suggestion is to travel with several turbo battery backups.

best of luck, rg

mani,

looks like a large diffused lights source (possible softbox) to her right coming across the face at a 45* angle. then there is a hairlight coming straight down to seperate head from background. AND, finally the "kicker" or accent light that is coming from behind her to give just a hint of rim lighting. I think that is actually the most dramatic element of this photograph. The light is just kissing the side of her face to make it very subtle and almost surreal. it has that long ago era feel because I believe a lot of movies from that time period used this type of accent lighting quite a bit. The movie "Big Fish" is the most recent movie I think to really use this beautiful technique.

Most basic way to get a similar effect, set your subject next to a window and use the window as you accent light on side of face and shoulders and try use a reflector to bounce the light onto the face as your mainlight. see www.joecraig.com he's perfected this style in my opinion.

best wishes,

rg

Maybe the answer is so obvious it'll bite me, but why is it the

european versions of cameras (canon and nikon) have different names

than the ones here in the USA? Wouldn't it be beneficial to the

respective companies to have ONE name for example the 10D instead of

having a different number and letter assigned to it. OR, are those

cameras not exactly the same? For example, I was reading of a 300D

in a british magazine and can honestly say I have no idea what that

is...

any thoughts or comments?

Paul,

I did...well sort of. I used an Eos3 for three years while working for a studio, I didn't own it but used it everyday. I bought my own 10D last year to shoot personal stuff. It's nothing like the 3. The 3 is so much faster with focusing. I always felt secure with the metering even in tough lighting. Not to mention the 3 just feels more solid and durable. Also, a lithium battery would last forever in that camera. Now it's waiting for the shutter delay, sometimes having images in focus, sometimes not (sports that is), recharging after almost every shoot, babying it in the rain....

If I were you, I'd check out the 20D...especially if you can wait a month or two. I actually wish I had waited and in fact would like for my situation to be the opposite. I'd rather own the EOS3 and occasionally shoot the 10D for work.

On the other hand though, having an instant image is extremely gratifying and saves time as well as money in the long run. Don't make the switch for the 10D though. Hold out, Cameras are becoming higher quality and less expensive each day.

good luck,

rg

Steve,

I've had a foul ball hit my lens hood while shooting from the dugout. I had not time get out of the way.

There have been a few basketball players land on me and both of us spiral backwards, although I think they've taken the worst of it.

And, just last week I was hit from behind at a high school football game which snapped my neck forward to hit my camera and give me a bloody nose. I just got check out by a doc and it turns out I have a concussion from little incident. no lie.

be safe,

rg

this is one of those things that I never considered. When I used my 550 with the EOS 3 the expousures were almost always dead-on. I had straight prints made on more than one occasion. When I started using my 10D I found that I had to compensate exposure quite a bit. Generally I have to go plus a 1/3 or 2/3 with the flash more so when an object is closer....the 2/3 adjustment is right at that 1.6 conversion. I just assumed the metering was different enough in the two cameras that I just had to compensate for it. This is a great question posed. I hope to read more replies.

rg

Antony,

I'm going on memory here but I believe it to be correct.

5)shooting at 1/200 in P is impossible-you'll have to set that in manual.

6)you can set ambient exposure level with the exposure compensation. that's a rear dial control but that will control the whole scene whether you want it over or under I believe you have a 2 stop range either way. when you're using a flash, if you want to tone down the background you can only do the by increasing shutter speed (shutter speed controls ambient light/ f stop is regulated by flash) use TV set at the shutter speed you want and the flash will accomidate the subject to achieve the exposure you want on your subject, thus making the background go dark if need be. Long story short, you can set it on M or TV, but AV will pick a slow shutter speed that will bring up exposure in the background.

7) I've always shot manual in the studio with my lights strung to know there exact exposure. I don't know that the camera can get an accurate exposure when it's metering without the flash going off. You may be able to but then I'm sure you'll have to compensate for the camera if you are photographing something that has subject failure. For instance a primarily dark scene the camera will overexposue and a primarily high key scene the camera will underexpose because it wants to bring both to a medium gray.

I have never seen a photographer use something other than M mode in the studio but I can't say it's because that's the only way that works or because they hadn't tried the automatic settings.

Shoot a roll of documented settings and have your labe straight print everything.

good luck and I hope this helped.

rg

I agree with the previous comment. Try backing the lightsource out or perhaps shoot with a larger modifier that isn't as specular, or try shooting through a diffusion screen. Also, watch the height of the light...too high causes this sort of thing and lower it just a tad can make a world of difference.

I would like to offer this advice as well. If you're going to start working with a subjects makeup there are pretty strict laws in many states that require makeup work be done by a licensed professional. Some photogs laugh at this but you can sustain some serious fines just for applying powder to a subjects face.

Dear Cathy,

I posted a similar question a few weeks back. Mostly people just talked down to me like they have here to you but there were a few shooters that have used it's predecessor and loved it.

I wanted to try the lens for myself but there is no place (ohio) that is willing to special order the lens for me to test. It's what they consider exotic and can't liquidate very well. Without having used it, I can't offer any sort of technical info but I will say it sounds like sales did not do well for this lens. It at all possible, hold off buying it for a few more months. The price is sure to drop a little bit. I can contribute that I have a few IS lens and they are awesome. I think if you're looking at something this price you already realize the image quality isn't going to be quite perfect, but thats the sacrifice for an all in one convenience.

Best wishes, robbie

Dear John,

Somewhere along the way I picked up a tip that works more often then not when metering portraits. Since I'm a portrait geek it's always been instilled that there are several lights needed to properly light someone....blah blah blah.

Anyway, if you have a meter that allows recessing of the dome -as in it twists down inside itself- meter it that way so you don't get a false 180* reading. Or in the case of the gossen just put your off hand directly over top of the dome. This has always held true with outdoor available light portraits for me, and unless the studio set up was extremely elaborate it works well there.

I think you dig why...for the most part faces are relatively flat and for most portraits parallel to the mainlight source. Therefore you don't need an averaged exposure from the light that will hit on top of the head or below the chin.

I hope I understood your question well enough that this reply helps. With traditional film I've always metered this way to expose for the eyes. In a way they are like the little metering domes. For digital, I as I understand it to be a little more crucial it may make everything else washed out.

Anyway, good luck. thanks, robbie

To all those that have contributed I appreciate it, but how much of the white balance effects the actual density in exposure? I thought white balance was more important for color temperature of the print(file).

 

Is density independent of white balance?