peterlyons

<p>Excellent answer, Mark. Thanks for explaining!</p>

<p>In any one of my LR3 galleries, I can set filters to show me only images that meet the attributes I want. I do this on the filter bar above the filmstrip view at the bottom of the screen, by clicking on the flags and colors and stars there. It's an essential part of how I use the software.</p>

<p>My recent frustration, since upgrading to LR3, is that the settings aren't persistent. If I navigate to another gallery (another folder) and then come back, I have to rebuild my filtered set of images. In LR2 it wasn't like that. In LR2 it kept my filters intact and associated with the gallery for which I built them. I want it back the old way!</p>

<p>Am I missing something here or do I just have to learn to deal with this?</p>

<p>Yeah, Robert, I'm ditching the ring flash. I like your idea of the background lights.<br>

David, I scouted today. Beautiful venue, but my corner of it offers nothing for me to work with. It's going to be up to me to create my own "pretty"!</p>

<p>Gia the chair sounds like a good idea. :-)<br>

Doing some thinking for myself too.<br>

In addition to the other gear I'm going to rent a ring flash, and will setup a second backdrop at a 90 degree angle to the white seamless. The second backdrop will be wrapping paper, and I'll be able to shoot people right up against it, getting a little crazy/festive. Maybe I'll bring some garland to drape over their shoulders or around their heads if they really want to let their hair down.<br>

Someone stop me if this is too over-the-top for a corporate party. Just trying to make it fun for everyone.</p>

<p>I'm shooting a corporate holiday party at a country club on Saturday, and am trying to come up with some kind of backdrop or props to add just a touch of holiday flair. This is for a studio that will be setup on-site for people who'd like to pose together. My initial thought is to use a white seamless, but I think that alone will be too plain. I'd love to dress it up some and make it classy but festive. Any thoughts are most appreciated!</p>

<p>Tom and John, thanks very much to both of you for the additional advice!</p>

<p>I've decided to go with just one day in each location.</p>

<p>John, did you have a digital assistant? How did you achieve such quick turnaround--camera to computer while the client is still there?</p>

<p>Matt, thanks.</p>

<p>This is for a succession planning project that they are beginning. It's new, and they haven't done anything like this before, so are counting on me to come through with ideas and workflow and all of that. I can probably tell THEM what to expect and when it can be delivered. I'd like to provide a few options for them. But having a core, default selection would be great.</p>

<p>Bidding at 5 minutes per person, costs overall run over $8K at a $1600 day rate, plus expenses. Then I read posts by people who do high numbers of individuals (like school portraits) all the time, and start worrying that I've way overpriced.</p>

<p>I guess I need to submit a proposal including several options, ranging from firing 'em through as quickly as possible, to taking 15 minutes with each, and also factoring in delivery times. Shoot wired and have a professional assistant on-site preparing jpegs as we go, or do post-production myself later?</p>

<p>I also intend to ask for an HR person or someone to be there with me to coordinate who's coming and when, getting info for who I'm shooting, and keeping things flowing.</p>

<p>I really appreciate the help!</p>

<p>Peter</p>

 

<p>I'm bidding on a job to shoot 300 people between two different offices; 200 in one, 100 at the other. (The portraits are needed only for internal use.) At each location, I'll set up a studio in a conference room, and will leave it there until it is no longer needed.</p>

<p>I am trying to figure how much time will be reasonable for each shoot. At first I figured 3 days at the larger office, and two at the smaller one. But trying to save my prospective client some money, I'm thinking it can probably done at a rate of 100 employees per day. That cuts the overall from five days to three.</p>

<p>Anyone here with experience on a similar shoot, I'd love to hear from you. I found a thread talking about school portraits at 30 seconds per person. I'd like to take enough time to be careful with each subject and shoot maybe 6 - 12 frames each, to give them a choice of expression, and to give me some room in case of missed focus or other technical trouble.</p>

<p>Should I also maybe book an extra half-day at each location to catch people who weren't around for their scheduled time slot?</p>

<p>Any advice is most appreciated!</p>

<p>On a budget, no doubt you're best off using the equipment you have. Stick with your Sony, and get lenses based on how you like to shoot. Are you able to get very close to your subjects? Get a wide zoom. Or are they further away? Then a telephoto zoom. I like zooms because they're more versatile, but some will argue for primes. Whatever. You choose.</p>

<p>I shoot sports myself (primarily sailing) and find I use a range of lenses and keep two bodies around my neck so I can switch from wide to telephoto as needed.</p>

<p>For the flash I'd also stick with what Sony makes. At the very wide end, you may need some kind of diffuser to get coverage of the whole frame. And on the telephoto end you may benefit from some kind of device like the Better Beamer.</p>

<p>Start shooting now with what you have and you'll quickly be able to identify for yourself what equipment will make the most sense for your subjects and the way you want to shoot them.</p>

 

<p>Neill, the situtation you're describing with one shot in a series being off a stop from all the others...<br>

THAT sounds bizarre. I'm not sure what would cause that kind of result. It sounds like the kind of variability I get when I accidentally switch to spot metering.<br>

As to the polarizer being the source of trouble... I've heard about issues like this before, but have never seen them in my work. I wonder if there's something with the AF sensor in the 5D MkII that causes it to respond differently to polarizers than the 5D does.</p>

<p>Dan-</p>

<p>I'm not trying to sound like a know-it-all. Discussions of exposure metering can begin at a pretty basic level, and I was only trying to say that I have a good grasp on this stuff, and am familiar with the scenarios that I've seen fool meters. But clearly this has me stumped, so I'm all ears. If there's something basic that I've missed, I'd love to hear it!</p>

<p>thanks for your input!</p>

<p>Peter</p>

<p>properly exposed</p><div></div>

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

<p>Lots of good thinking here. Thanks to everyone for the intelligent responses.</p>

<p>The more I look at my recent shoots, the more I'm inclined to think there's something wrong with the camera itself. Have a look at this. They're two different boats, but the composition is exactly the same, and they're shot within seconds of each other. Both on the 5D MkII with the 24-105, Aperture Priority, evaluative metering (I was calling it pattern because that's what Lightroom calls it), and both with +1/3 stop exposure compensation:</p>

<p>Lots of good thinking here. Thanks to everyone for the intelligent responses.</p>

<p>The more I look at my recent shoots, the more I'm inclined to think there's something wrong with the camera itself. Have a look at this. They're two different boats, but the composition is exactly the same, and they're shot within seconds of each other. Both on the 5D MkII with the 24-105, Aperture Priority, evaluative metering (I was calling it pattern because that's what Lightroom calls it), and both with +1/3 stop exposure compensation:</p>

<p>Arash, no, I almost always use the polarizer. IMO it's a necessity to get good contrast and color on the water, especially on sunny days.</p>

<p>Dan, I've shot film in the past, but my pro career has been completely digital, so I'm familiar with how to expose best for it. Typically I favor exposing to the right, as long as I'm shooting RAW. I get my highlights as bright as possible without blowing them (gray skies excepted--they can blow out), because shadow detail, especially crew faces, etc., is of primary importance to me.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the feedback, folks. The first shot I posted to show an exposure that works for me. The stern may be very bright white, but I have all the detail I need in the RAW exposure, so I'm fine with that. In the second exposure, after recomposing, the whole scene appears very dark to me. There's no cropping there; you're seeing the whole thing. A blue sky isn't going to fool the meter, so I'm not clear about what did.</p>

<p>Dan, while you said the second shot may have been better without compensation dialed in, I think you misunderstood. I had the camera set to OVERexpose by 1/3 stop. Without that, it would have been even darker.</p>

<p>I thought the two tighter shots were pretty similar in lighting angle, but I accept the point that the darker one has more areas of sunlit hull closer to the center. Still, I've never had such trouble before. Exposures missed by such a wide margin are pretty rare for me, and I don't see the cause in these images.</p>

<p>I'll definitely check on the exposure point selection though, to see if that's a factor here. I do select different points for different shots.</p>

<p>Rob-- Yes, I changed the composition, but I don't see anything in that shot that should fool the meter so badly.</p>

<p>Compare the above with another shot, similar subjects on the same day, taken with a 5D and 100-400, set to Aperture Priority and iso 800, also set for +1/3 compensation.</p>

<div></div>

<p>And how about these two. The first of the next two attachments was shot with the 5D MkII at the same settings as above, only this time the camera chose a still lower exposure of 1/1250 at f/8. And yes, this is still with +1/3 of exposure compensation.</p>

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

<p>These two exposures were taken seconds apart, with the same camera, of the same subject.</p>

<p>

<p>1/1000 f/8, iso 400, +1/3 exposure compensation, pattern metering</p>

<p>5D MkII, 24-105 L, Singh-Ray LB Warming Polarizer</p>

</p><div></div>

<p>

<p>1/500 f/8, iso 400, +1/3 exposure compensation, pattern metering</p>

<p>5D MkII, 24-105 L, Singh-Ray LB Warming Polarizer</p>

</p><div></div>

<p> </p>