ralph_wilson

My apologies if this has been asked. I'm doing my homework after the

fact. I switched to a D2x this weekend and shoot in raw. Is there a

camera raw update to open the images in CS or do I need to go to CS

2. I have Nikon Capture 4.2 and it works but I haven't completely

made friends with it.

Thanks

Ralph

<p>Nearly half of my wedding requests are involving travel of 75 to

250 miles.

</p>

<p>My first attempt at pricing my expenses is looking like this:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>$1.00 per mile after 70 miles round trip.<br>

2 nights lodging for full day coverage<br>

1 night lodging for half day<br>

$25 per day meal allowance</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My intention here is to make it worth my while but not necessarily

making a

huge profit. I enjoy traveling and don't have any trouble occupying

my down time

in a new town.</p>

<p>Any suggestions?</p>

<p>IMHO - I would probably turn down the wedding if I were in your shoes. I

would also be honest with the bride and not tell her I had a booking if I didn't

really have one.</p>

<p>For me and my style, which is similar to yours, I think she would be

disappointed with my results. I would also be so stressed over trying to second

guess what would satisfy her I would probably miss a lot of good shots. The end

result would probably disappoint me also.</p>

<p>Anytime I turn down a wedding for scheduling or style issues I suggest a

couple fellow photographers to the bride. They are always grateful for the help.</p>

<p>Word of mouth is pretty powerful advertising. I would worry about this one

back-firing. </p>

<p>If you decide to take it, I would suggest finding a good assistant or second

shooter. Good luck.</p>

<p>I bought one for editorial work and plan to take it as a back-up body. It is

very intolerant of under-exposure. </p>

<p>It's noisy in another sense too. It's loud.</p>

<p>Under ideal situations, I have gotten a 16x20 out of it. The 4.1 mp isn't as

limiting as you may think because it's not CCD technology. So I've been told. I

may just be spreading rumors now. It took me awhile to warm up to it.</p>

<p>I shoot a pair of D100's and like the images better but I don't like the

construction as well. </p>

<p>I have heard of the meters giving out as Rich said. I bought a refurb for

$1500 and hope the meter was the reason for it going back to Nikon. I have a

couple thousand clicks on it without any trouble.</p>

<p>If you have any third party glass, it may need re-chipped.</p>

<p>I just jumped in and started in the 90's. I'm not sure I would be brave

enough to start that way again. </p>

<p>Now that I have a good number of weddings behind me, I would like to go

assist at a wedding or two to see how I could improve and learn new approaches.</p>

<p>As to your question Demetrius, where are you located? If you are in the

Northeast or Mid-Atlantic USA, email me. </p>

<p>The other advice is good. Talk to wedding photographers in your area. Look at

their websites to see if they shoot a style that you are trying to learn. </p>

<p>I've been contemplating the Nikon 10.5 and wondered if the distortion would

be distracting if I overdid it. I guess Nikon Capture 4.2 allows you to correct

it.</p>

<p>Did you have to correct yours Marc?. It looks pretty straight forward.</p>

<p>Interesting PS work Marc.</p>

<p>Perhaps I wasn't completely clear on my thoughts on the subject and posting

the bingo board image wasn't fair. I am interested in ways to shoot problem

venues and there are suggestions here that I will pay more attention to next

time this arises.</p>

<p>I actually really like the bingo board shot and Stephanie shot it as the

focal point on purpose. We walk into rooms like that, look at each other and say

"Oh yeah, the bingo board is a keeper!" We have another reception where the head

table was under a wall of a couple dozen beer mirrors and the bar had bras

hanging from the ceiling, surrendered by previous patrons. You gotta know they

made the cut.</p>

<p>I see it all as a slice of Americana. I think these are the images that will

stand the test of time from a documentary stand point. I'm sure the

grandchildren will think they are a hoot.</p>

<p>Obviously, we provide images where we have done our best to control the

background (rather, it controlled us) but we end up missing those gorgeous

overall shots of grand ballrooms. We have no images of the brides in a row of

columns and on and on. Those places are hundreds of miles from where we are. I

enjoy the small country weddings and our market for the reason Steve said. "the

people are real" but I am envious of some of the samples I see in other

photographers portfolio.</p>

<p>Stacy, I particularly like what you did with the second flash. Do you have

that on a stand or does an assistant move around with it? Steph is a very

talented shooter and by having her there we do have time to try new ideas. Yours

is a definite.</p>

<p>And yes Marc, we shot with the bingo board to our back. To opposite wall was

a bank of soda machines that were lit up. We liked the bingo board much more.

Much classier.</p>

<p>Thank you all, I'm not trying to end this thread. I appreciate the

suggestions and samples.</p>

<p>In a recent dialog with a respected wedding photographer the

comment was made

that they (to paraphrase) get to deal mostly with attractive brides

in

attractive venues. It made me think of the opportunities that are

available to

metropolitan shooters that are not always there for us country

folk.</p>

<p>Many of my receptions are held in volunteer fire department social

halls.

Maybe it easier shooting because you have solid cinder block walls to

bounce

your flash off of and your flash won't destroy the mood of the

fluorescent

lighting. The only lights not turned on are the bingo board. (Aptly

captured by

my partner)</p>

<p>When I did weddings in the 90's I stressed over the problem. Now I

shoot more

of a documentary style and try to work in the stacks of folding

chairs in the

corner.</p>

<p>(Now my questions) </p>

<p>How do you deal with difficult venues without doing a disservice

to the B&G?

Shoot everything tight is not the answer I'm looking for. That is too

easy.</p>

<p>Also how does this hamper you from building a portfolio of

stunning samples

to represent your talents?</p><div></div>

<p>Chad,</p>

<p>Against everyone's better advice, I built my own site.

<a href="http://www.streetlightphoto.com">www.streetlightphoto.com</a> Also,

against some valid advice I have used FrontPage. I started out building my own

sites in 1998 so I have a pretty good handle on FP. It is still very labor

intensive and easy to end up with cheesy results.</p>

<p>Luckily, my son is a web designer so I have a good source for answers when I

need help.</p>

<p>My site is working for me and gets good reviews from clients. A lot of that

comes because I attempt to answer the most likely questions such as price,

availability and service area. An unscientific guess would be that 80% of my

brides have seen my website before they call me.</p>

<p>Instant updates are one of the reasons I like having control of my own site.

I also use it for client's proofing</p>

<p>(BTW - Fun shot - kudos)</p>

<p>Ralph</p>

<p>To go along with Miles' answer, I often shot ASA 640 or 800 so my shutter

speeds are higher than 1/2000. A 300 mm  f2.8 is a pricey lens but a 300mm

f4 can be found used for about $500 and is an excellent piece Nikon of glass.

You might miss the zoom because it's a little long for a lot of Little League

action.</p>

<p>An 80-200 f2.8 will get about anything in the infield. With a D70 you have

enough pixels to crop out nearly half your picture and still get a nice enough

shot. </p>

<p>Thanks Latham</p>

<p>Dan, </p>

<p>I am asked by nearly every bride if I am able to shoot black and white. Most

of the brides magazines tell them to ask that question but some are honestly

interested. Most love the B&W samples I show and want it included in their

coverage.</p>

<p>Best regards, <br>

Ralph</p>

<p>Well Dan, I'll take a stab at this but first, if your report is written, I

hope you proof read it better than your post.</p>

<p>Anyway, </p>

<p><i>is it moving away the PJ style?</i> <br>

Not in my rural area. PJ is just getting off the ground. I tried it in the

mid-90's and no one here knew what I was talking about. I got out of the

business and just started it back up last year. Now I am being sought out by the

locals for my PJ style.</p>

<p><i>Is BandW still in? </i><br>

huh??? What is BandW</p>

<p><i>are wedding looking more like a magazine shoot? <br>

</i>90% of what we offer is true PJ where we do not orchestrate the day, so for

me no.<br>

<br>

<i>will it every move away from digitial?</i> <br>

Who knows?</p>

<p><i>how has pricing changed. is it more competitive then ever. do

photographers till make a profit on prints</i>. <br>

I try to make a profit on everything I sell.</p>

<p>Good luck with your class and your report.<br>

<p>Looks pretty good. I think you will do fine with the lens you have for day

games like Little League. I would keep shooting wide open so you background

stays soft. You might want to try a higher ASA to cut down on the motion blur a

little.</p>

<p>As for action shots, pick a spot and wait. Plays at second will be pretty

easy. The short stop is another sure bet. Someone will bounce one out to him

sooner or later. Depending on the age group, it may be a long wait though. </p>

<p>I'm in Williamsport, PA and shoot the LL World Series every year. Hope you

guys get to make the trip.</p><div></div>

<p>Kevin</p>

<p>I would suggest going to Nikon's download page and getting Nikon View 6.??

(what ever it is up to). Much better than Picture Pkg and it's free.</p>

<p>I have downloaded a trial version of Nikon Capture 4.2 and I'm contemplating

spending the $99 to buy it. It has Nikon Editor that some people say gives

better results on NEF's than Adobe. A scaled down version of Nikon Editor comes

with Nikon View and does a descent job but is limited.</p>

Knew I could count on you Derek. Yes, I mean no you are not the only one who sees it.

Reina, I do like the style of it though. It's a well done image and says quality and elegance.

<p>Lucius -</p>

<p>That's hard to say. If it was an inanimate object perhaps not. If it were

another person, maybe. If you try to include that other element in your image,

all sorts of other things come into play. If the subject of their attention is

ten feet away, you need to change your camera angle so you don't have a huge

dead space in the center of your photograph. Change your angle and now you have

depth of field to worry about and on and on. </p>

<p>Like all my other posts, I'm just offering opinions not hard fast rules.

These are just things I am thinking about when I'm shooting.</p>

<p>People photography is like nature or sports photography. you need to know

your subject. I spend a lot of time watching people (I'm not weird about it or

anything) and people are fairly predictable. If you watch a scene progress you

can <i>sometimes</i> predict the actions and reactions that are coming. You can

get a knack for having your camera pointed the right direction.</p>

<p>That's probably more answer than you were looking for. I'll shut up.</p>

<p>Best,<br>

Ralph</p>

<p>PS: I'm attaching a photo that I think needs to include the focus of their

attention. The expressions alone wouldn't tell a story.</p><div></div>