prinosphotography

Adobe is always thinking of ways to get you to upgrade :) .......<div></div>

The error 1 could be dirty contacts, that's the first thing to try (you can just clean with a

small swab)

 

The 70-200 IS does make a little click sound at first, and then a slight whirring. It is the IS

mechanism in action, and is normal.

I'm not sure that a mini soft box is really the way to go. The basic idea behind (real)

softboxes is that they create large even light sources relative to your subject because they

are so huge (and often get placed very close), but they remain very controllable in that

they don't spill all over the studio like umbrellas, bare bulbs, etc.

 

But for on-camera flash, event 5"x8" is not going to be that much different (in terms of

size of light source) compared to the plain flash head at most normal working distances.

Not only that but it restricts light spread more than other flash modifiers so there's limited

bounce-effect. Diffusers like the lumiquest, sto-fen, work primarily by spreading light all

over so that it can bounce off ceilings, walls, big guys with white shirts, etc., That can end

up being effective indoors. Outdoors, pretty much the only thing they are good for is

sucking battery power.

Very few labs take RAW files with the sidecar XMP's that describe the exposure & color

settings. So you aren't going to be sending them the RAW files at all.<p/>

 

You are most likely dealing with a lab that takes JPEGs in sRGB color space (and at 300dpi

for a given print size). This is the most likely scenario, but you should be able to get the

exact requirements from your lab. <p/>

 

You can create an action to create JPEGs from RAW with batch processing, but I suggest

you grab a copy of <a href="http://www.russellbrown.com">Dr. Brown's Image

Processor</a>, that will make easy work of batching RAW files into JPEGS (or TIFF or PSD)

with

Photoshop CS

It is a personal function (I forget the number offhand). But like the other personal

functions,

you have to connect the camera to your computer and run the Canon EOS Capture

Software. That will let you <em>activate</em> the various personal functions. Once that

is done you can enable/disable the PF using just the camera menus.

Without buying a new flash, you could also cut out a small piece of a neutral density gel

and put that on your sb-800, stacking them if needed to cut more light. Calibrating the

new aperture/power settings when gelled with the ND's should be pretty quick with a light

meter. Maybe not as convenient as a whole new flash, but very thrifty :)

<b>Marc Williams wrote:</b> <p/>

<em>What I wish they would offer is a small hip mounted "image Bank" that would

simultaneously write both to the CF card and the Bank ...like how you can shoot MF to a

Kodak digital back with a CF card and to the computer HD at the same time.</em> <p/>

 

 

An "almost the same" solution.... look at the hardware from <a href="http://www.wi-

pics.com">Wi-Pics</a>. It's primarily a wireless transmitting solution, but even if you

don't use the transmitter functionality, it does store off images to a belt mounted device

(with 2 CF card

slots or a HD). So, shooting a 1DII, 1DsII or one of the Kodak FF's, you could shoot & store

to SD on camera + HD on you belt pack <em>plus optionally</em> stream them off to a

waiting wireless hub & laptop. In theory it sounds good. What it's like in practice when it

ships might be a different story.<p>

 

A straight wireless setup based on the Nikon or Canon wireless transmitters might be a

more

common sight in the future as well, especially at the reception site where you tend to 'set

up camp' and be in a pretty small fixed area for the longest period of time.<p>

 

Still, I think even if you've got a good assistant to manage (and guard the non-belt

mounted stuff!) the extra

equipment for offloading, I'm not sure it's preferable to just having enough cards to cover

you for the day. Marc's point about this being the least distracting method is an

important one I think.<p/>

sometimes it's a red flag when people try to modify a contract. These changes seem pretty

reasonable though, they basically want to make sure YOU are the one to photograph the

wedding (instead of hiring it out to someone they don't know like), and they want to be

able to have approval of an emergency replacement if it comes to that. Ultimately, if you

are ok with the revised terms, than that's all that matters. Negotiation is ok if you get what

you want :)

I am actually a little bit surprised that you see <em>that much</em> of a difference, but

you

have had a chance to use a number of different backs in many contexts. I've only used a

digi-back once, a valeo 17 on an AFD during a dealer demo along with the 1DsII and

some of the phase one H-backs (didn't try those). In the (portrait) studio setup, ISO 1/100

@ f/8, I would give the valeo the edge when looking at the files compared to the 1DsII. In

16x20 print however, I thought it was pretty much "pick 'em" between the two. The prints

were indeed different, but I found it difficult to say one to be clearly better. The 1DsII had

some hair moire, the valeo had some in the clothing (I've since had moire in clothing a few

times in the 1DsII as well). Apart from those technical faults, they were pretty close. For

product shots, or for larger print sizes it is probably more clear cut though. Plus I'm sure it

would've helped to be more familiar with the valeo system (also my first time with the

AFD). <p>

 

On location, available light ISO 800 @ f/1.4 and a 35mm equivilent 24mm focal length,

that AFD & back would not fare as well :)<p>

<em>Chris - why not just attach your CP-E2 to the bottom of your camera?</em><p>

 

It makes the bottom too large to use the portrait controls of the camera if you've got the

CP-E2 attached there, plus I like to keep QR plates on the bottom of my cameras.<p>

 

I also will put 550's on a light stand or monopod (lighting stick) along with the pack at

times, and it's much quicker to move the cp-e2 if you don't have to fiddle with the screw

mount.

We make model releases separate from any other contracts, so customers always have the

option not to sign (or make changes to allowed uses if they wish). We do a lot of children's

portraits as well and some parents prefer to not have their children's pictures on a web

site. If you have celebrity clients, this kind of restriction is very common. I think you

should happily accomodate all such requests. I would also disagree with one of the

previous posts that you should tell a customer that you can't be keeping track of different

rights for differrent images. Though more common for stock shooters than wedding &

portrait, multiple rights management should be something that photographers handle as a

fundamental part of their business operations.

You are ok as long as you have not tried to cash the check. As people have commented

above, you can't simply wait until it clears and then be all set. It will eventually get rejected

and you are stuck. This is a variation of the 4-1-9

fund forwarding scam. There's more info at the U.S. Secret Service website: <a

href=http://www.secretservice.gov/alert419.shtml>419 Alert</a>. If someone out there

(in the

U.S.) has lost money to this type of scheme, contact the secret service (there are phone

numbers at the link provided)<p>

 

I know it may have been suggested in jest, but I also wouldn't try to "scam the scammer"

or try playing tricks the other way 'round. It just cannot lead to anything good.

I always liked the Pentax 645, but if you think digital might be in your future, the Mamiya

is probably a better choice with the upcoming ZD series of backs. You should be able to

find good deals on the used marked for all these systems these days.

Before sending my 24-70 into repair, it would not focus as reliably as my 17-40L. That is

fixed now, and it is better than the 17-40 in sharpness (though the 17-40 is very good).

They don't have their pricing on their site because it is not direct-to-consumer pricing, it's

direct-to-photographer (e.g. wholesale). This is common with album providers that serve

pro phtographers. You can give them a call to set up an account and they will send you a

catalog and complete price list. They are an easy company to work with.

the photobyte uses a filemaker pro runtime that is built for pre os X, which is why you

need the classic environment. He could probably rebuild it with an updated version of

filemaker pro, but I don't know if that's going to happen. Photobyte seems geared more

towards commercial & stock shooters, rather than wedding & portrait work.

They've always been pretty on the ball when I've dealt with them. Maybe they are down for

a few days during the holiday?

It depends on the retailer. I've bought grey market stuff from B&H for example, and when

needing repair I sent it back to them, they sent it to Canon USA, it wasn't that big a deal,

no hassles. After a year (when the warranty is up), Canon USA will take grey market items

in for repair, no different from US versions.

 

I'd be more careful about the actual retail (grey market or not). If the price is much

cheaper, then they could be just a bait & switch operation, the camera might not come

with all that should be in the package, etc. Take a peek at www.resellerratings.com before

you buy. Also, be sure to read http://www.photo.net/photo/where-to-buy.

I sometimes use a very moderate amount of sharpening towards the beginning of the

workflow, but final sharpening is the last thing I do for print (and always after resizing to

the final print size). I use a either fred miranda's CS Pro plugin or straight USM.

CS Pro can be batched, and you can USM as part of an action that is batched as well. The

latest version of Dr. Brown's Image processor (www.russellbrown.com) let's you specify

USM as part of a batch resizing also. <br><br>

 

If you think an image needs noise reduction, I would do that as the very first step. I have

found that noise reduction tools (I use Noise Ninja, but have tried others) seem best with

an unmodified out-of-

camera image. I think (but cannot prove) anything you do later, curves, sharpening, etc

might cause the profiled noise reduction analysis to not work as well. Just my opinion,

YMMV.

Lots of good reccommendations so far. For available light, having at least one fast prime

can get you out of trouble, and is easier to mix in ambient light. The aforementioned 50/

1.4 is a very good lens, another option in that focal length is the 50/1.8 for less than

$100 (also good optically, but no full time manual focus, and not built quite as well)

 

The third picture is an example of something that can be tough even in RAW, because the

color temp is mixed... the bride is lit primarily with cool light from the flash, but with what

looks like some warmer light from the ambient tungsten as well. The wall behind her is

farther from the flash so it has a higher percentage of warmer light than the bride. One

correction for the whole picture means either the bride or the wall will look 'off'. Here's an

attempt to balance them out using two different color correction layers. The one that

balances the wall has a layer mask so that the bride is not affected by the same correction

as applied to the wall. Even here something looks a little funky with the lighting on her

face... maybe there is flourescent overhead as well??<div></div>

I've always gotten mine, but sometimes it takes a long time. Sometimes with multiple

rebates for multiple lenses sent in at the same time, the rebate checks arrived months

apart (but all accounted for).

Good reading on EOS flash & ETTL: <a href>http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/</

a>

I wish there were a way to edit previous answers you post (is there?)... In my post above,

the end of the second

sentance should have read:<p>"and it's <em><b>not</b></em> going to come back

down

onto your subjects"

<em>I think f2 is your problem...very shallow DOF for moving objects.</em><p>

 

agreed that shallow DOF can cause you to miss the focal plane for moving subjects, but

the bride dancing shot show a pretty clear motion blur consistent with 1/30th shuter (look

at her right hand), it's not just out of focus.

Another variation: allow the camera (while using a tripod) to automatically take a series of images with the sensor shifted in different positions each frame... then they would be ready to stitch in photoshop, etc. Then the sensor size effectively increases to the size of it's motion range (& ups the megapixel count/resolution)