conraderb

<p>Hi Tobias and everyone - I just wanted to followup many years later! what was the place? how did the wedding go?</p>

<p>Marcos - there's no such thing as best gear. Some say 5 cameras, some say one. Some say Canon 5D Mk2, some say Mamiya C330. Anyone who tells you that there is a best gear setup is trying to sell you something.</p>

<p>What is your interest in gear? What are you trying to accomplish?</p>

<p>and, by the way, yes, you should consider investing in faster lenses - 2.8 or faster.</p>

<p>the difference between an f2 and an f4 lens will be remarkable, both in terms of what kinds of exposures you have, and how much you can isolate people... I love bokeh.</p>

<p>Jorge - I have a 5D mk2 body (two of them, since you always have a backup). I crank it up to 1600 without any thought at all, and 3200 with very little thought. 6400 starts to push it on the 5dmk2, but in an emergency situation, I'll shoot with it and remove noise later.<br>

And yes, when it's very low light (eg. 1/4 second or longer exposures) I will throw it on a tripod.<br>

I usually say that it's more important to be smart and have an inferior camera than be dumb with a pro camera...BUT this is one exception where a better body will be able to give you better high ISO performance.<br>

re: the boss who stayed at 200ISO. Either that was with an old camera that didn't do ISO 400 very well, or the boss didn't know what he or she was talking about.</p>

<p>yes, it has been tweaked - the original capture isn't blocked up anywhere as much.<br>

<br /> I guess I should have stated my point better - it seems to me that his frames weren't all that impressive - and that the gear wasn't really making a difference. maybe I'm wrong. here's an example of an image that I think has a good moment, and makes use of some off camera lighting in a better way than what the guy in the video had.</p><div></div>

<p>cameras have nothing to do with the quality of the shooter, and almost nothing do with the quality of the output.</p>

<p>the proof is in the pudding. tell the bride to look at the work and make a decision based on that.</p>

<p>quality gear usually suggests high quality work, but it's not a guarantee. the latter is more important. I use two canon 5d mark 2's and a pile of L lenses. that doesn't make me more qualified than a guy with a rebel and the kit lens IF his or her work is as good as mine.</p>

<p>I love going in the snow. but I don't get why he needs good lighting. a strong capture is all he needs...he's an example at 11pm in philadelphia, december 19, 2009, day of the first big winter storm here.</p><div></div>

<p>that's actually a great way to do flash. I was photographing a wedding in a rural area where there was an outdoor processional - I had to hold an umbrella above my head to get a really soft light - it worked beautifully. here's the result.</p>

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

<p>to clarify - book now, fill the schedule until it is too much, then increase your rates over time until the BOOKINGS start to fall off a bit (not your rate falling!).</p>

<p>Photo Need - no magic formual. you need to research your market. ask your clients what their alternatives were, or why they picked you.<br>

or - book at whatever rate you have now until you are too busy, and then just increase your rate every few months until it starts to fall a bit to a level that you are comfortable with.<br>

just fyi - if your images are at a pro level, craigslist isn't the best place to find work - people tend to be cheap there and don't appreciate what you have. you will be often lowballed by a weekend warrior who probably charges just enough to make his or her costs working.<br>

also - you probably weren't talking to potential 'employers'. you were probably talkign to potential clients :-)<br>

finally, remember that before they hire you, every client makes their job sound like a dream with 'exclusive parties'. whether or not it will end up that way remains to be seen. clients who try too hard to make their assignment sound super awesome might be the client is so cheap that it's not worth it...just some thoughts.</p>

<p>conrad erb<br>

philadelphia pa</p>

<p>brian - if you are concerned, either you aren't a good photographer, or too cheap.</p>

<p>CL photographers generally do two things: 1) get good and go pro and raise their prices or 2) drop out.</p>

<p>either case, the CL coupels that you talk about they aren't your clientele, or shoudln't be!</p>

<p>I say this as someone who started on craigslist, now a full time pro.</p>

<p>Stacey - Sheesh! You tell the truth. NEVER misrepresent yourself or your abilities.</p>

<p>Your concern tells me that you are probably charging too much. Why? Because you are clearly competiting with more established shooters. Charge less and you won't have to worry about them thinking you don't have enough experience. Once you have a lot of weddings under your belt, then you can raise your rates and confidently quote how many weddings you have shot.<br>

never misrepresent yourself. in fact, in this case, you should wow them by how little experience you have, and yet, how great your photos are DESPITE your inexperience. the only thing more impressive than a talented photographer with a good portfolioi, is a talented, inexperienced photographer with a great portfolio.</p>

<p>right?</p>

<p>good luck.</p>

<p>another vote for John Harrington's book. Great title. Worth much more than $30.</p>

<p>david - not sure what other people are saying. on a 5D, 1600 is the highest I would comfortably go.</p>

<p>on a 5d mark 2, 3200, no problem.</p>

<p>ce</p>

<p>your contract should forbid resale of your photos, period. no written permission. forbidden. period.</p>

<p>what do you expect smugmug to do? they don't know who you are. don't worry about them.</p>

<p>wait for the client to email back. might be just a misunderstanding. a bit of friendly communication can solve so many problems...</p>

<p>alen - go out and try it. you will realize that what we call 'exposure compensation' is just a fancy word for correcting the camera's incorrect exposure when it's not smart enough to expose correctly, and you will see that getitng the right exposure in camera is a LOT better than trying to correct in post. especially if your frames are a bit hot. if they are under, you can usually work with them up to two stops (with low ISOs, you can push three stops pretty comfortably, but that's only as a last resort).<br>

if you shoot in manual, you won't have to worry about a thing about compensation.<br>

ce</p>

<p>If it were my wedding, I would be wary of people willing to do it for free for just the cost of a "free vacation." But that's just me. While you don't always get everything you pay for, you usually never get more value than you paid.</p>

<p>@ Eric Merrill - Eric, you are obviously hanging out with the wrong photographers if you think that a free vacation means you will get bad photos! :-)</p>

<p>Hi Chris - Can you give me a call or send me an email? Or feel free to check out my work at conraderb.com...contact info is on the site.</p>

<p>I think I have a great proposal for you :-)</p>

<p>cheers - Conrad</p>

<p>danzel - absolutely you can let a sky blow out! putting in an HD sky often looks pretty fake.</p>

<p>for formals you can add a lot of flash, but that photo that you took is gorgeous. expression matters. whether the sky is blue or not - usually it doesn't matter if you can get photos like that.</p>

<p>the skin is overexposed a bit, but i htink that it looks great.</p>

<p>Ummm...This is a service industry. I get people's business partly because I take great photos, and partly because I'm a really nice guy.

<p>Good service and good manners still matter.</p>

<p>Nick - are you being hired to take these shots? Sounds to me like you need more experience doing this before 'going pro'. I say that only b/c manual is so obviously the only choice for this kind indoor work with flash.</p>

<p>ETTL with the 580ex, manual mode, bouncing is good. Two off camera flashes can be even better since you can shoot from far away and still get really nice lighting (eg. you can turn your on camera flash off and you won't be lighting up the back of everyone's head if you take a shot from the end of the room).</p>

<p>good luck.</p>

<p>this is great. fun. don't crop out the person on the right - otherwise the shot makes no sense...</p>

<p>good execution, great ambient/flash mix.</p>

<p>btw, if you ask me, forget about the 17-85 lens if you are doing professional work. 5.6 at the long end is getting really slow for anything indoors!</p>

<p>1) sell the 50D for around $1000 pick up a used 20D (around $350). you now have $650 in your pocket.<br>

2) sell the 17-85 for $300. you now have $950 in your pocket.<br>

3) buy the 17-55 2.8 used for around $800 and then buy the 85mm 1.8 for $300 or so. now you have two lenses, a full stop or two faster and better image quality.<br>

4) shoot a few weddings with the 20D and use the proceeds to finance the 50D purchase (again).</p>

<p>it's a big mistake that many people make to buy the best body (50D) and put a middle-of-the-road (in terms of shooting performance) lens. the 17-85 is fine for outdoor stuff. for indoors, where weddings will be, you need faster.</p>

<p>btw, if you ask me, forget about the 17-85 lens if you are doing professional work. 5.6 at the long end is getting really slow for anything indoors!</p>

<p>1) sell the 50D for around $1000 pick up a used 20D (around $350). you now have $650 in your pocket.<br>

2) sell the 17-85 for $300. you now have $950 in your pocket.<br>

3) buy the 17-55 2.8 used for around $800 and then buy the 85mm 1.8 for $300 or so. now you have two lenses, a full stop or two faster and better image quality.<br>

4) shoot a few weddings with the 20D and use the proceeds to finance the 50D purchase (again).</p>

<p>it's a big mistake that many people make to buy the best body (50D) and put a middle-of-the-road (in terms of shooting performance) lens. the 17-85 is fine for outdoor stuff. for indoors, where weddings will be, you need faster.</p>

<p>kristine - the 18-200 will be worse than the 17-85 unless something huge has happened to lenses in the past month :-)</p>

<p>the 17-85 should be plenty sharp. is your technique absolutely perfect? are you focusing with the * button? are you defocusing and refocusing between shots? is the lens backfocusing? I suspect that it is not the lens fault unless it is not up to factory adjustment standards...</p>

<p>ce</p>