mvw photo

Dave: yes indeed, I shot a lot of snacks and ate a few of them too. Great food.

William: absolutely. And good point. Though of course I am not showing images of the people at the event here (people

pictured are suppliers etc), but if I did, you would see that more than a few had to be taken at 1.4, it was that dark. And

even then a few needed to be pushed on top of that.

<p>I use the prime when it is dark and I need "grip and grins". Below, see how dark it was.</p>

<p>Correct, I use the 70-200 because of the Image Stabilisation, and often at the 70 end. Monopod would help, yes, but still not <em>quite </em>as good as the IS, imho.</p>

<p>And I do have a third camera - a &d, indeed it is; in the car, with other bits. Alas, I often need to park far away - this time, too, a km away, and with stuff that is a significant distance.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Marc, fabulous input - thanks.</p>

<p>So today I walked in, and it one of these black club environments. High ceiling, and ceiling, walls and floors are pitch black. I spent most of the time turning on my LCD light to see what I was doing.</p>

<p>So I had to constantly change lenses. To get the shots of activities in small areas, the 16mm wide I really, really needed. So that's the 16-35 f/2.8. But for the grip-and-grin shots, since it was so dark and there was little to bounce off, I needed to be at f/2.0, which needed the prime 35mm f/.4 lens.</p>

<p>So in spite of what I said I;d do, I switched between the 16-35 and the 35 prime constantly...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks, Nadine. You're prime among those helpful persons I am always referring to who keeps me coming back here!</p>

<p>And I note, this forum is, if I am to believe the name, for weddings <em>and events</em>. I shoot a lot of corporate social events (In fact I'm off in five minutes to shoot this evening's event): grip and grins, the food, the guests, etc.</p>

<p>My background for asking is: I am ALWAYS looking for strategies to minimise lens changes, and the number of lenses I carry, and the weight. I am no longer 25 and carrying 30 lbs of gear for a day is not one I cherish as much as I used to :-)</p>

<p>Love your rationale for zooms/tele. I am the reverse, but as you rightly point out, it's a matter of preference.</p>

<p>Now off to shoot, and will check later and hope others have added their stories also.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Guys, equipment is important. Yeah yeah, it's what you do with it - but you've got to know how to use it, and use the right stuff, in the first place. My post was posted in</p>

<p><a href="../community/index">Community</a> > <a href="../community/forums">Forums</a> > <a href="../wedding-photography-forum/">Wedding and social event photography</a> > <a href="?category=Equipment%3a+Camera%2fFlash%2fBrackets%2fLenses+etc%2e">Equipment: Camera/Flash/Brackets/Lenses etc.</a></p>

<p>Tell Canon and Nikon that equipment isn't important. :-) As for the pros versus beginners debate: the moment you stop listening, you become an old hand who no longer hears what others do. I particularly like to hear what young photographers do - sometimes unintuitive to me, and often works.</p>

<p>Anyway, rather than debate whether I should be asking the question I am asking (in the forum that is clearly intended for it), anyone want to give me more input into what they use? I'll check back later: off to shoot my evening event shortly.</p>

<p>Cheers</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Neil: that's useful, thanks. The 35/1.4 for me tonight.<br>

Now let me obsess a bit about camera straps, while I prepare for the shoot.. :-)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Marc: thank you. I agree, no point at all in putting people down or in telling them what, and how, to think or what to write about. Photo.net used to be devoid of that sort of thing. More positively, it's exactly as you say: these exercises are useful. I did a similar analysis of actual focal lengths I used (from EXIF data), by the way.</p>

<p>And yes, it is a wake-up call: for me, it shows that I am not using my 35mm prime as much as I'd like. I think I'll shoot tonight's event with it. And on the 1.3 crop camera, the 24-70 or perhaps 70-200.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Daniel,</p>

<p>Love your breakdown.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So the next time someone asks you "what lens should I use" why not move the conversation away from the hardware and towards the image and what they want to do.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, because they have to put <em>something</em> on their camera! When someone goes to shoot a family birthday party, of course it's about the expressions - and on a Lion Safari it's about the animals - and in a night club it's about the people lifting their T-shirts -whatever, but if I just shrug and say "whatever" to the lens question, I am doing them no favour. "A lens with one of those low F-numbers" would be more helpful, or " a wide lens", or "a long l;ens", and so on.</p>

<p>I go through this with students all the time. Yes, it's about the art - but if the image is technically bad, surely no art will result.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Dave: yes, I do love the 35/1.4 especially. I'll use it tonight. I do not, however, just shoot weddings: my events are often cocktail receptions (like tonight's event in Toronto, an event by a large software company) where an ultra-wide wide overview is often wanted. And I like to minimize lens changes: the big reason for zooms, of course.</p>

<p>Anyway, this is the discussion I am hoping for. Some wedding photogs say zooms, others say "I've never seen that done". As an engineer, I like quantititive analysis: so, any more like to weigh in?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Well David, to each his own.</p>

<p>Sure, not being a beginner (I am a full time photographer and teacher of photography) I can shoot an event with one prime 24mm lens or with one zoom - or with whatever. That said, I offer this (and indeed, hope for useful feedback and discussion) with two things in mind:</p>

<ol>

<li>As a pro, surely you too like to see what others do. It is often very interesting to see how others work, and more often than once, that stimulates renewal, change, getting out of the established way of doing things.</li>

<li>Unlike so many on this forum, I do not scoff at "beginners", like it's some bad thing. I am not saying you do, David, but many do. The word "newbie" to me is vaguely offensive. If someone, be they 12 years old or 65, is interested in photography, I welcome that; I encourage it; I help them as much as I can. I am sure you will agree it is a joy to improve your photos and go from snaps to great photographs. </li>

</ol>

<p>And one question that I get very often from people new to photography is "what lens should I use". No better answer than to show how I do it, I think: here's what I do rather than what I say. That gives people a starting point. Who am I to say :"you beginner, are spending way too much time asking this"? People want to know, and they have to put SOMETHING on their camera, and why not help with pointers, rather than saying "you are spending too much time asking"?</p>

<p>All too often, new enthusiasts think, for example, that "longer is better". "I bought a Rebel, now I need to buy a zoom lens". ("Zoom" means "telephoto" to beginners). A list like this is one way of showing that no, longer is not better: it's just another tool, and for many situations, wider is a great choice; or prime.</p>

<p>Too much time on my hands... well, I did this for a blog post, and yes, the blog takes an hour a day. But I think it's for me to judge how to spend that time, no?</p>

<p>Cheers,<br>

Michael</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Oh and from this excellent post of a few years ago by Josh Root, which I just discovered on this site: http://www.photo.net/learn/wedding/equipment.adp</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Most professional wedding photographers, however, use a set of three zoom lenses: a wide-angle zoom, a wide-to-tele zoom, and an image-stabilized telephoto zoom.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Seems I'm not the only one. Josh also says:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Many photographers keep their lens kit to the three zoom lenses discussed previously. These lenses would probably cover 80-90% of the photos for any given wedding. It is worth including 2-3 fast prime lenses in your bag as well.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As do I :-)</p>

<p>Anyway, to each his own. Anyone else want to share?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>@Robert: sorry if I bored you. In fact I thought it would be interesting. I'd love for other working event photographers to tell me their breakdown for events. Definitely not anesthesia for me (and I suspect many others).</p>

<p>@Neil: pretty much a standard photojournalist's set. In fact I do love my primes - 35mm prime is a favourite. But when I shoot an event I often need a few of the very wide shots. And I want to minimize lens changes, hence the 16-35. As for the 70-200: the only reason I use that so much for the longer shots is the IS. I drag the shutter as much as I can in low light, and IS gives me 2-3 stops of extra ability to do that.</p>

<p>@M M: indeed, I don't like the weight. Shooting an event tonight, and already dreading all the stuff on my shoulders: Two bodies and a bag. Wish the 24-70 had IS.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thought you might all find it interesting what lenses I use on what bodies. So for an upcoming blog post, I had a look through Lightroom metadata for this year.<br>

<strong>EVENTS:</strong><br>

First I picked some recent event shoots: “grip and grins”. The lenses I uses were, out of a total of thousands of images:<br>

<strong>Canon 1D Mark IV (1.3 crop factor):</strong></p>

<ol>

<li><strong>42%</strong> – 24-70 f/2.8 (equiv. 30-90) (by <em>shoots</em>, this is number 2)</li>

<li><strong>39%</strong> – 70-200 f/2.8 (equiv. 90-260) (by <em>shoots</em>, this is number 1)</li>

<li><strong>17%</strong> – 16-35 f/2.8 (equiv. 20-45)</li>

<li><strong>1%</strong> – 35mm f/1.4 (equiv. 45)</li>

<li><strong>1%</strong> - 50mm f/1.4 (equiv. 65)</li>

</ol>

<p><strong>Canon 1Ds Mark III (full frame)</strong></p>

<ol>

<li><strong>51%</strong> – 16-35 f/2.8</li>

<li><strong>33%</strong> – 24-70 f/2.8</li>

<li><strong>12%</strong> – 35mm f/1.4</li>

<li><strong>2%</strong> – 70-200 f/2.8</li>

<li><strong>1%</strong> - 50mm f/1.4</li>

</ol>

<p>That is interesting. On the 1Ds, I use the 35mm f/1.4 lens in too few shoots (a lovely lens!).<br>

<strong>GENERAL: </strong><br>

Now the total, all types of shoots, out of a total of tens of thousands of images::<br>

<strong>Canon 1D Mark IV (1.3 crop factor):</strong></p>

<ol>

<li><strong>49%</strong> – 24-70 f/2.8 (equiv. 30-90)</li>

<li><strong>25%</strong> – 16-35 f/2.8 (equiv. 20-45)</li>

<li><strong>19%</strong> – 70-200 f/2.8 (equiv. 90-260)</li>

<li><strong>3%</strong> – 35mm f/1.4 (equiv. 45)</li>

<li><strong>2%</strong> - 50mm f/1.4 (equiv. 65)</li>

<li><strong>2%</strong> – 100mm macro</li>

</ol>

<p><strong>Canon 1Ds Mark III (full frame)</strong></p>

<ol>

<li><strong>33%</strong> – 24-70 f/2.8</li>

<li><strong>27%</strong> – 16-35 f/2.8</li>

<li><strong>19%</strong> – 70-200 f/2.8</li>

<li><strong>13%</strong> – 35mm f/1.4</li>

<li><strong>5%</strong> - 50mm f/1.4</li>

<li><strong>3%</strong> – 100mm macro</li>

</ol>

<p>Does your usage vary a lot?</p>

<p>Michael Willems</p>

<ol> </ol>

<p>At the VERY least, for this reason:</p>

<ol>

<li>Imagine you want to show you customer a slide show</li>

<li>You upload it via iTunes and you go to your customer</li>

<li>Uh oh, you realise one photo should not be there!</li>

<li>Now you have to drive back home to iTunes</li>

</ol>

<p>Or you can just important that folder MINUS that one image to this app, and show it in that. Yes I know, it is limited (no music, no transitions) but it's a whole lot better than nothing. Worth the $2!</p>

<p>Micahel</p>

<p> </p>

Patrick: fantastique. That app, while it is not yet perfect, answers a lot of my needs. Bought it, and it works. I'll give the

developer some feedback. Excellent, et merci comme toujours.

Peter,

You mean for each picture? Would they be able to be sorted? And ar e there photo-like viewers for PDFs? Then it cpuld

work, provided Lightroom allows me to create these (I'm on the ipad now so cannot check)

<p>Hi all,</p>

<p>I am a photog, and use iPad to show pics. But I cannot seem to find a good way to sort the images: iPhoto is not an option and nor is manually changing the EXIF create date.</p>

<ul>

<li>iPad sorts ONLY by create date.</li>

<li>There seem to be no portfolio viewers. </li>

<li>There seem to be no ways to sort other than changing EXIF date or loading into yet another library, iPhoto's (I already use Lightroom, and do not want to manage two sets...)</li>

</ul>

<p>So, more than ever I am hoping you can prove me wrong.</p>

<p>BTW this is prompted by my need to just now move ONE image - the first image in a portfolio was a controversial one, and anyone who opens my folders would see that one first. It took me an hour to sort out using EXIFTOOL. but that is of course not scalable.</p>

<p>Any help welcome. How do YOU all use your iPad as a viewer?</p>

<p>Michael</p>

<p>C'est vraie, c'est un outil très convenient. Except for the way I have to go back to iTunes.</p>

<p>For instance next week I am in Vegas. But my iMac will be in Canada. So if I want to show some of the pictures I take during he trip, I cannot do it? Or when I shoot a wedding, the same?</p>

<p>Surely someone will write an app to make it even better? I miss three things in particular:</p>

<ul>

<li>Ability to add/arrange photos without adding/renaming in iTunes</li>

<li>Ability to use html email signatures</li>

<li>Ability to update my blog and to upload images to facebook (Safari will not work well with Wordpress or Facebook)</li>

</ul>

<p>When someone comes up with better ways for those three, great!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I understand that's what Apple wants. It's not what I find convenient, alas. I was hoping that there might be workarounds, etc.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Ben,<br>

But that's the problem. I can't do it on my Mac if my Mac isn't with me. It is ridiculous that we have to go backl to the Mac to do this. My Mac is in Oakville, Ontario; my iPad is where I am - 100 miles away or next week for instance, in Vegas.</p>

<ul>

<li>Renaming. So I am a photog for a living. Meaning I have thousands of images. Hundreds on the iPad. So I need to rename them all the time? Not very practical.</li>

<li>Synch with my MacBook? Then I cannot sync with the iMac that has everything. And also, then I need to carry both a Macbook and an iPad, which defeats the object. Not very practical.</li>

</ul>

<p>Surely Apple intends this to be a useful tool... is there no app that will allow me to rearrange, even to delete pic, without having to drive home first from wherever I am?<br>

The sig was there to show the kind of work I do. Forbidden, eh? :-)<br>

Michael<br>

___<br>

Michael Willems, Photographer</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi all,</p>

<p>1. What image size do you upload to an ipad? at first I thought 1024x768, native; but then I noticed that everyone uses their fingers to try and enlarge my portfolio photos to see more detail. So how large should I upload? 2048 longest size?</p>

<p>2. Using what app? iTunes is useless. Cannot sort, cannot delete, etc. Is there a better one? Please? :-)</p>

<p>Michael<br>

<p><b>Signature URL removed, not allowed per photo.net guidelines.</b></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Because I am always interested in what other photogs do.</p>

<p>In the event, I used a 16-35 for the crowd shots and the 70-200 for the runenrs-from-a-distance. The 16-35 for the finishing line also.</p>

<p>Mike</p>