erikadams

<p>I have found critiques to be vastly more valuable than ratings, to the point that almost all of my photos were posted for critique only. I have received a few very helpful responses. At one time, it was suspected that there was somebody with a bot program that went through all the photos and rated 2/2 for everyone. It was either a bot or a person acting like one. Overall, however, it does seem that the most highly rated photos have something about them that is admirable, although some stinkers do sneak in from time to time. If you're more interested in critique, then I would suggest posting your photos for critique only (check the box), and visit other portfolios often (if time permits), leaving questions and comments, and you'll get visitors to your portfolio that are like-minded. This also helps you avoid reading comments from posters who have no portfolio of their own. Wish I could provide critique of your photos, but I haven't done any nude photography.</p>

<p>I'm guessing that you're not going to be doing aerial photography but will be photographing from the ground. Most air shows won't allow a photo plane to be up in the air (that's what aerial photography means, a photo taken from in the air) at the same time, although I saw a nice shot of one of the airshows at AirVenture that was from above. I agree with everyone's recommendation for a zoom. The 70-200 IS 2.8L is a great lens, and with a 2x teleconverter, you have all the focal length you need. Max aperture with the 2x tele wil be f 5.6, but that's fine on a sunny day. Without the teleconverter, 70 mm gives you a good focal length for some shots of static displays, although you'll probably want a much wider focal length as well. I have not noticed a problem with focusing using the teleconverters.</p>

I think the claim made by Genuine Fractals of 1000% enlargement of image size is an exaggeration. Maybe you can double the number of pixels, but I have found that this program produces angulated geometric shapes which then comprise the details of the image. You have to zoom in to see it, but IMO it looks bizarre.

 

Regarding compensation for your loss, discuss with your lawyer the fact that this photographer has, by apparent neglect, failed to record a landmark event in your life, one that you cannot re-capture. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the damages go beyond failing to provide you with $2500 worth of services.

It seems ridiculous to be so staunchly against ECF, when one can simply switch it off. I had it on my Elan 7e, and it was OK, but much better on my EOS 3. The lack of an ECF option on Canon digital SLR's has been the biggest reason I'm still using my EOS 3. There's no way I'm going to select a focusing point with a wheel, unless I'm shooting still lifes or landscapes. Even then, I'd proabably go to manual focus, which I do anyway in those situations with my EOS 3. ECF is best when you need to compose and shoot quickly, and other methods just can't keep up, at least not in my hands.

I shoot film still on my Canon EOS 3. I have the 70-300 IS non-DO, and I appreciate it for its smaller size, but my go-to lens has become my 70-200 2.8L, paired with 1.4x and 2x extenders. With its IS, I can be at f5.6 using the 2x extender and easily hand hold. The red wattle bird photo in my portfolio was taken with those parameters. That lens is noticeably sharper than the 70-300, but of course sharpness depends also on contrast within the photo. The only downsides to the 70-200 2.8L are its size - it attracts too much attention, and its weight. I have a 135 2.0L prime that's sharp as a tack, black colored and small, and it's one of my favorite "people" lenses. I find myself changing lenses a lot, though, when I'm using this one. In the end, there's no perfect solution, only trade-offs. One thing that I've learned is that I seldom wish I had carried a lighter lens, but I sometimes wish I had carried a sharper lens.

OK, so here's a long post, but this is a complicated subject. I think you will not be able to get good photos without either light from a window or flash. Looking at your portfolio at your website, it looks like the house you were in had a large window in a door, with a mirror next to it. This type of place would offer adequate ambient light that you could do well at ISO 400, hand held. Forget the tripod, BTW, with kids. It constrains you too much, and you'll miss shots. With multiple kids, you'll need a bit of depth of field, or only one of them will be in focus, so that means more light is needed.

 

With using flash, a diffuser is essential. The flash photos in your portfolio seem to show very harsh lighting, which detracts from the images. You can create a frame of wood, stretch a white sheet over it, and fire your flash from a foot or so behind that. You can bounce flash, you can buy a diffuser to fit over your flash. Consider also something to use as a reflector, to fill in on the other side from your flash. A big piece of white posterboard, for example. Take a few shots and see if your exposure is right. If kids are on the move, then setting up stationary lighting won't work. Your best bet would be a bounce flash and someone holding a reflector to provide some highlights. Try practicing first in some kind of lower stress environment, to get some ideas about exposure and what works for you.

 

Regarding clutter in the background, the use of a wide angle lens will only include more clutter. So if you want to use a wide angle, then a good cleaning up beforehand is needed.

 

And finally, have fun, take lots of shots, let the kids do their thing and catch them having fun, and get down on the floor so you're shooting at their level.

 

The photo I'm attaching had lighting from a bank of windows to the left, but leading to a yard covered in trees, so not that bright. Kodak Ektachrome 100VS, f2.0 at 1/30th of a second.<div></div>

I think it is better to not know who low rated you, as this led to abuses in the past. The numerical ratings, I think, are much like figure skating numerical ratings. Those who have posted good work in the past tend to get high ratings. Mostly deserved, but not always. I agree with Wilson - comments are much more useful. Unfortunately, they're in short supply, in my experience. It's easier to just drop a couple of numbers on a photo and be on your way, which is why, I guess, it's easy to give a low rating. Looking at your photo, it didn't deserve such a low rating, IMO, but I doubt the person who rated it gave it much thought. You can request critique without numeric ratings, but in my experience, this doesn't result in any more comments than if you just upload the photo without requesting critique.