chris_s___hampton_roads_va

hmm, that's a tough one, since I haven't though that much about it, but a 100' roll of premium luster paper is

about $45 to $47, so about .45 for paper, Ink could be less than a dime per print I'd say, depending of course on

the image content itself. Maybe .55 tops?

It's not a dye-sub, but I've gotten excellent results with the Epson 4000 series; current model is the 4800. It's

very dependable, image quality is excellent. I've run over 13,000 pages worth through it over the last few years,

and image quality hasn't degraded at all. It costs about $400 for a full set of inks (8 individual cartridges),

but being 110ml each (or 220ml), they usually last pretty well. When mine finally quits, I'll definitely get

another in this line.

I'd shoot RAW regardless...ESPECIALLY when I know 'll have a ton to review & process...that's where I've found ACR/Bridge to be my best friends! After getting used to the workflow, I just haven't found a good reason to shoot jpgs anymore, even for snapshots...raw just makes things easier more flexible, at least for me, in the big picture(pun not intended).

I start in Bridge... I run through & assign a star to the initial keepers, and filter the view to only show me those. Then, in Camera Raw, I do the adjustments, including a crop... many times, there will be a specific set of things that most need the same amount of (or close to it), so I'll either just save the adjustments as a preset & apply it to the rest, or do it on the first one, select the rest (unless some clearly don't need it), and choose "previous conversion" from the development settings. This gets me to a pretty good starting point in most cases. Then, I just select 20 or so at a time, fine tune individually in Camera Raw, then use Image Processor from Bridge to batch process all of it at once, making jpg files for web galleries. This might sound like a lot of dancing, but a few thousand frames from the day go by pretty quickly when you've got a routine down, and they're ready for posting in no time.

as far as names/faces matching up. I take a low-tech solution here...as I shoot a team, I write names on a list for the team...typically on the envelope I keep that particular team's orders--this keeps them together. ...once backed up, I rename the selected shots to match the list. As long as you're sorting by original filename, it's quick & easy. The only time I've mixed anyone up is when a team mom wanted to help, and was writing names for me...she mixed a couple up. For the few seconds it takes, if I'm the one keeping track, I know I'm straight.

Lots of potential with small flashes...

check out Strobist: http://strobist.blogspot.com/

There's a ton of information in there! It mostly deals with off-camera flash, and there is good solid technique to share... As far as individual on-camera flash, I'd meter the subject, and dial down the flash to taste. Shutter speed controls ambient exposure, f-stop controls flash exposure... I'd try a little experimenting first, to get a balance that you like, and tweak it as you need to. If you can get the strobe off camera, it opens up lots of possibilities!

just a guess, but your trouble is more likely the lens than the Sony... that aperture range is really not fast enough for most indoor venues, and you're getting a lot of noise as a result (you really need to brighten them a lot, I'm guessing?) You might want to try to get hold of a 2.8 lens to try. & see if it helps out!

Ditto to Dave--look at the image & you'll see something in focus... I forgot to mention the continuous focus setting--that's a must with things moving so much.

yep, depth of field so shallow definitely makes focus critical, while things are changing so fast on the court! What ISO are you set at? You might want to try using full manual, as opposed to Aperture priority, and set the ISO at between 800-1600, depending upon how poorly the gym is lit (typically, these gyms are really crappy, light-wise). I'm shooting indoor soccer, and am using a 50mm 1.4 and an 85mm 1.4, typically between f2 & f 1.6. I nixed using my 70-200VR, for two reasons: I only get f2.8, and this much reach in what seems like a small space gets to be slow & cumbersome--the smaller primes do much better, at least for me.

I just got back from a day at the gym, and was getting decent results with the following:D2x @ 1/320, f1.8, ISO 1250. I also seem to get better results focus-wise, using group dynamis focus mode, or even closest subject priority.

These of course are just my opinions, but you might want to plat with similar settings to see if you like what you see.

for stamping my own prints, I use an Ultifast stamp, which dries quickly & is designed for use on the back of photos, etc. I'm not sure if they stock them now, but I got it from stampsfirst.com.

Of course you want to calibrate anything you get, but I've got a 24" Ultrasharp and I'm very pleased with it....I'm sure I'll have another when this one gives up.

ditto to Dave... save those pennies, you'll definitely want a 2.8 if you want to shoot indoors!

now, in all fairness, it wasn't a "DG" version, if that makes a difference here. Would that have been a big factor?

hey, thanks for the site compliment Mark!

 

Yeah, I had high hopes for the 120-300, but maybe this particular one WAS a dud...I hadn't even considered that. Does it bug you at all that the zoom is backwards from the Nikon? This one zoomed in the opposite direction--I can't tell you how many times I missed shots because something happened quickly & I spun the ring the wrong way--LOL

I tried the 120-300, but I was really unhappy...super slow to focus, hunted a lot, and just felt clumsy to me. Not to bash Sigma, but the ones (including thus one) I've tried just didn't measure up; I think I'll stick with the Nikkors, because at least for me, they've been much better.

Thanks Wilson--I'd hoped you were lurking here!

 

That's definitely good perspective... since I'm only marginally needing extra reach, I think I'll stick with the 70-200. That's 4 grand I could put to good use elsewhere!

 

I'd tried a TC on the 70-200, but the quality just wasn't there, so I was thinking this might worthwhile.

 

THANKS!!

I've been using a 70-200VR, and have been pleased with it, but I've seen stuff

here & there suggesting that the 300 2.8VR really outdoes it for image

quality... the focus preset seems like a really handy feature, and it looks

pretty tempting, but aside from the extra reach (and unfortunte loss of zoom

flexibility), do you folks find it really that much better that the 70-200?

"Real world" input would be valuable here, if anyone would be so kind. Wilson,

ya got one of these?

 

Cheers!

cool--now I guess you need to find all the ones you have this with & see if they all share that piece of info? I'll be interested to hear how this turns out...

Hi Kari,

if you think it's one of the bodies, have you tried peeking in the metadata? One of the things that gets recorded is the serial number of the camera the shot came from...if they're the same model, that's a sure way to separate 'em...

I've had the same issue before, but burning from another burner made all the difference, at least in my case... no you have access to another DVD drive you can try?

absolutely...

aside from the nasty things that can happen by having your hands on the cash ("hey, wasn't there more than that?"), you're there to shoot the event...I'd politely decline...

as far as on-the-shoulder, I too was afraid to wear it there, for fear of dropping it...someone here (sorry, I forget who) recommended the Lowepro "Speedster" strap, which I bought & am very happy with...feels VERY secure on my shoulder.

of the 2 flashes, the SB800 is the only one capable of controlling remote flashes, so it needs to be the one on the camera body (what body are you using?--it does need to be compatible with Nikon's CLS)... you can trigger/control the 600 from it. I trigger multiple flashes from my D2x using the SU800 (it replaces the sb800 in the hot shoe, allowing another off-camera unit)...it's pretty handy to have setting for everything right in front of me, so I can see flash outputs at a glance and adjust easily. These are multiple books on using this kind of setup, to get you rolling.

I'd be interested in opinions on this as well... I use an LS, but in addition to a bracket, because I'm just still not comfy with the flash that close to the lens, even though it's spread nicely...

as far as size goes, be careful what you put down-- if some require significant cropping, the file size can drop quite a bit as you know...maybe something else to think about, if you have someone who wants to nit-pick on things like final file size (like this one perhaps)...