jairy hunter

Here's an entry from a blog that Bambi Cantrell submits to:

http://www.wedshooter.com/2005/12/07/a-few-thoughts-on-print-competition

Along those same lines, I try to ascertain whether there is anything about herself that a

woman does not prefer to be featured in pictures. Can't always do it, but I try avoid that

aspect if I can--for instance I did a couples shoot with them walking some along the

beach--very nice poses great exposures, the whole bit.

When the bride-to-be saw the full length walking shots, she immediately dismissed all of

them. She had scoliosis (very mild and not noticeable to casual observation) which caused

one hip to ride a little higher than the other. What looked perfectly fine to me, and I'll dare

say anyone else, stuck out like a sore thumb to her.

Needless to say on the rest of their shots (bridals, wedding, etc.) I steered clear of that hip.<div></div>

I've been very happy with the 20D--less than half the price. No, doesn't have comparable

features, but more than adequate if you don't want to spend upwards of $3500. Spend it on

good lenses.

One more...

Less grain in b/w (duotone)<div></div>

It took me awhile to get comfortable with the 24-70 f2.8 because of three things:

1. i was used to the 85mm/1.8 and 135mm/2.0

2. it's not as sharp at the extremes of the focal range

3. it weighs a ton

Marc's right it is an immense piece of equipment with the 5D--shot my first wedding with

that combo (20D plus 85mm on the other shoulder) last night. Interestingly I found myself

much more comfortable with high ISOs probably has as much to do with the 12.8 MP of

the the 5D.

I did get some grain here, especially noticeable in the black jacket, but acceptible to at

least to 8 x 10 I would think --don't have Noise Ninja. I find more grain acceptible in black

and white.

(And yes, I was going for the dragged shutter effect here!)<div></div>

I like pure images and I'm just under the wire at 39--that doesn't mean I don't like to use

photoshop--I just try not to make it too obvious most of the time.

That being said, I really like the cross-processed look; anyone have a quick and easy method

they're willing to share?

I don't know if you can get gold foil--but Acrhival Methods has some nice inexpensive black

boxes for 4 x6 proofs.

http://www.archivalmethods.com/Product.cfm?categoryid=1&Productid=89

Also Kolo.com has several box options.

Good job.

Much better with use higher shutter speed. I would work on the cropping to maybe straighten

the horizon and check out some sports mag photos to get a better crop. Sorry don't have

time to show you an example of what I mean.

Charleston, South Carolina

(aka Chucktown, South Cakalaki)

In my opinion, your shots there are usable.

That lens seems to show a good bit of chromatic aberration (the reddish hue at the edges

of say, the arms on the first couple of runners). Some of that is also due to the sunlight at

that time of day. That is something that can be dealt with in photoshop--although I am

not saying that you can "fix" your pictures in photoshop. It would be good if you could

borrow a "faster" zoom or even telephoto, or better if your school would buy you one

(right).

I might think about increasing your ISO to allow for a faster shutter and smaller aperture

to allow more of the field to be in focus. Of course then you will add grain especially if you

have to crop.

Also for thebaseball shots, they're not terrible, but what I might expect given the night

time background. I would recommend a monopod and increasing your ISO.

Keep at it and eventually it will become second nature to be able to find/know the right

ISO, shutter and aperture. You have the benefit of being able to receive immediate

feedback from your digital shots and make appropriate adjustments, so use that .

J.

Does anyone get bridal portraits printed on canvas? Is it a common request?

Can someone fill me in on the details, i.e. which lab, mounting, cost, and is there a

noticeable difference on canvas at say 16 x20 between medium format and digital (Canon

20D)?

I don't do surf or in-water photography either, but it seems to me that you are going to

need to use a high aperture (f8 or higher) because the action is so fast --both you and the

surfer are moving you want to get as much of the field in focus as possible. This means

bright sunny days especially with your teleconverter--you'll lose a couple stops at least,

although you probably won't need a big zoom if you're in the water up close already.

I would also think an autowinder if it will fit in the housing because you'll likely get a lot of

bad shots.

Depending on how close you will be, I think the 50mm would be good. Otherwise you

might have to go with the zoom. I guess it depends on how well you know the surfers and

how good they are (don't get gashed, dude!).

What keeps me up at night is when I have shot what I think is a good engagement/bridal/

wedding session but then I have a look at some of the "please check out my website" posts

and other pros' work here on this forum.

I just think there is no way I could ever be that good.

(Remember the quote from "Big Night?")

One more which the Bride loved: Groom getting toasted (roasted) as Frat brothers take over.

Probably would have been good to see the bride's face as things were revealed.

Canon 20D ISO 200 85mm 1/160s f2.2<div></div>

Thanks for starting this thread. We should have more like this and Mary's from the other

day--it's a way to ease into showing one's work (for those of us who are too insecure in a

forum of "pros.").

Canon 20D ISO 1600 85mm 1/40s f1.8 existing light, only PS was cleaning up a light flare on

Daddy's sleeve.<div></div>

Ok--I accounted for three of the six deleted posts. I'll try once more:

Canon 20D ISO 1600 1/60s at f1.8 natural lighting.<div></div>

I guess it kind of depends on whether you're a serious amateur/hobbyist or

professional.

If I were a pro, of course I'd buy the best thing going and consider it an

investment in my business and yes then work like crazy to make it work for

me.

As it is, I don't have to make my living as a photographer although I do it as a

side business to cover some of the expenses. That being said, my day job

affords me the opportunity to buy nice things, but not carte blanche. Whereas

I'm willing to spend $600-900 on a good L-series, I simply can't justify $1600

for a 70-200 f2.8L.

Great question.

My general rule is (with electronics and computers as well) is to research the

heck out of the subject and buy the best I can afford.

I find that it really takes some experience to know what works best for what I'm

trying to do, and basically to see what I find easier to use and the results I get

with respect to my style.

Re: what Gerald said, I find my 135mm to be far sharper at the wide end (f2.0)

than my other L-series (70-200 f4 and 28-70 f2.8) but my 85mm f1.8 is

sharper than all of them. No one can really "tell" me that--I have to experience

that.

Another case in point is the 28-70mm f2.8L--which I researched to death.

People rave over it --"it's my favorite," and "I love love love it!" and so on. I just

don't see it. It's not sharp at the widest aperture, and I can't seem to find the

right situation (exception is the bridal party entrance and exit to the ceremony)

to use it over my 85mm.

Fortunately there seems to be a ready supply of buyers on ebay for used

gear.

Remember every single shot does not have to be a full body shot--look at sports mags, they

go with head shots, half shots, three quarter lengths--facial expressions and action are key.

Also don't rule out horizontal shots you can get some great wide angle action in the corners

near the baseline. I agree with bracketing and peeling off a bunch of shots. It's going to take

a ton of film to get some usable pictures.

See my answer to the other post here:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00E8b6

It appears to me you are underexposing-- lack of light requires a wider aperture and

slower shutter speed. Even then, you're not getting enough light to the film. Someone will

correct me if I'm wrong, I feel sure.

you can do a couple things quickly to help your shots:

Push to ISO 1600 but remember you have to account for that in developing the film. In

other words, let the lab know this is 800 speed film pushed to 1600.

You can use a flash but in my opinion you are going to get flat shots with funky eyes. Plus

you still may not be able to get a fast enough shutter to freeze action--then you'll get blur

plus trails. In addition the coaches may not like you and make you stop.

You can get a monopod fairly cheaply--this will get you a couple more stops on your

aperture and help you hold your camera more steadily. Use it standing or kneeling. Try to

get shots from under the basket where the players are coming at you so you don't get

them moving past you.

If your school can afford Photoshop elements--about $100 at Sam's or other outlets (and

a good guide book--there are lots), this can help a lot in retouching photos (lightening,

darkening, sharpening). But remember you'll have to get them on a disc from the

developer or scan them in yourself which is a royal pain.

I dare say you're going to be ok with the 28-100 mm if you stay under the basket or at

least shoot players coming toward you rather than from a distance. Then again, I don't

really do basketball. Football's more my thing.

Hope this helps.

There was a movie about Italian food called "Big Night" in which one of the characters tasted

a Tony Shaloub's dinner and remarked, "That is so good I should kill you!"

It comes to mind after seeing your shots.

(that's a compliment)