darrengold

Just wanted to share my story. I have been drooling over the idea of a FF sensor since they came out. I have been keeping my eyes on the local classifieds

for a good second hand one with a low shutter count....until last Friday. A professional photographer was selling one he had won in a photographic

competition. But he was a Canon user. He was selling it for $1500Au. (About $1400US). Unused. Unopened. Shutter count zero. It was mine within the

hour.....and I love it. I had been using a D50 ( an understated gem from Nikon) for seven years with my old film lenses from my F90x days. I had an F5 as well

but just stroked and loved it, didn't use it much. The D600 is like a digital F5. Using my old film lenses again at their full focal length is truly fantastic.

Unfortunately my sleeping NAS has again been awakened. Oil worry about the sensor problem if it arises. Regards to all.

<p>To look at it another way 100% of your needs were covered by the lenses that you had. So no need to change anything.<br>

What would be more useful would be knowing what percentage of good shots were missed by the absence of certain focal lengths. But you'll never know that now.</p>

<p>Someone getting shot at a wedding in Sicily is not exactly a new phenomenon.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>For clarification why don't we look at the situation in a different way.<br>

If we take a picture with a 50mm lens at f5.6 from 10 feet on an FX camera we will get a picture with a specific DOF. Then we print the picture. Now we mask off the border of the image as though it had been taken on a DX camera. Same lens, same aperture and same distance - because it's the same print. Then we cut round it with a pair of scissors. The new DX print has the same DOF as the original. It must have, it's the same print. We haven't changed anything.<br>

Now, we take the same setup on a DX camera (50mm, f5.6) and move further way from the original subject matter to get an image that contains exactly the same information on the DX sensor that we had on the FX sensor. Because we are further way the DOF has become greater.<br>

This is why it is considered that FX has less DOF than DX. It is all do with the subject distance used to acquire the image size that we are looking for.<br>

Any given lens, at a given aperture, at given subject distance, has the same DOF on any format. Irrespective.<br>

It has nothing to do with the sensor at all. We just proved it with a pair of scissors.<br>

Cheers.</p>

<p>As interesting as this thread is, it's not the first, nor the last time it will feature on this forum. I am not a wedding photographer, but I would by now have amended my contract as follows:<br>

One page for "Responsibility for payment" signed by the person who will pay the invoice. A second page for "Responsibility for picture and album content," signed by whomever was to be responsible, probably the bride and groom. If this or these persons were different to the person who signed the "Responsibility for payment' page, I would get them to countersign it.<br>

The chances of this kind if thing happening would be greatly reduced if not negated altogether.</p>

<p>All this aggravation and worry because they don't like the terms of your contract. Wait til they don't like your photos!!<br>

Run!</p>

<p>Sally<br>

Pete is right. You have to use the pop up flash in manual. In auto modes the camera will give a preflash to determine the correct exposure and then a split second later the proper flash and the shutter opens. You wont see it with your eyes as it's all too fast. <br>

The preflash is setting off your Dlites before the shutter is open and you get an underexposed image. In manual flash on the pop up there is no preflash so everything is synched to the shutter opening.<br>

Regards</p>

<p>Elliot<br>

You are one of the few people who make truly scientific contributions on this site. Your observations are based on quite well controlled experiments and I am sure we are all grateful to you for your efforts.<br>

Ever since your first set of tests I've been shooting jpg Large basic rather than jpg large fine and I've seen no difference in the 6x4's or 7x5's I normally print. I prefer to shoot large just in case I ever want a large print as I think that there is a difference between large and small although I agree it is small. My D50 on large basic outperforms my wife's 8Mp pocket camera on it's best settings 100 times over.<br>

The benefit of smaller files is the speed with which they transfer and can be manipulated on my PC. I'm not a professional photographer, I don't need A+++ quality very often and time to me is of the essence.<br>

Please keep up your experiments. They do make a difference<br>

Cheers<br>

Darren</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Is it only me, because i'm not so sure that it is in perfect focus. That's not a typical moire pattern. Can you post an unsharpened 100% crop that also includes her face and the tie. At f4 and at close distances you don't have that much DOF to play with.<br>

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.<br>

Thanks</p>

<p>Confirm to the proud owner how great their camera is and then as you walk away nonchalantly say to them, "I've heard the images from that thing in histogram-priority mode are phenomenal"<br>

You can then spend the rest of the day watching them play with the camera or reading the manual to find this elusive mode. They sure as hell wont ask you to explain it to them.<br>

Best.</p>

<p>It's a wedding not a gynae exam!<br>

Refund and run!<br>

Although there is much merit in what Art had to say a successful businessman/woman also knows when not to even try.<br>

Cheers.</p>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3826483">Matthew McManamey</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Jun 24, 2009; 06:52 p.m.</p>

<p>Now, If I shoot 500 16 megabyte RAW pix = 8GB<br>

1TB = 1000GB<br>

1000/8 = 125 weddings<br>

280/125 = $2.24 per wedding.<br>

What exactly is too expensive about RAW again? Apple's Aperture or Adobe's Lightroom pays for itself in pretty short order by my math...</p>

<p>Not expensive but not 0.2c either.</p>

<p>Regards</p>

<p>"My nervousness comes from parents who are paying for the wedding not getting the style that they like or wondering where the formal photographs are in the album. "<br>

"Probably the first thing I make sure everyone understands is that No Matter who is paying the for the wedding: <strong>I am working for the bride and groom Only.</strong> I take direction from the bride and groom only."</p>

<p>Whatever happened to:<br>

"He who pays the piper calls the tune"<br>

I'm not a photographer, but my first repsonsibility is always to the person who is paying the bill. If as already suggested, the parents wont give the B&G the money to arrange the photographer as they want to, then consider yourself warned!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If you do have to change your name, with a surname like Tripp, shouldn't you call yourself "The Light Fantastic"<br>

Geddit?</p>

<p>All that abuse because you said something she didn't like over the telephone. Just wait 'til she doesn't like your photographs.<br>

Run!</p>

<p>Anne started the process of going it alone by handing out her own business cards whilst emplyed by another.<br>

She states. <em><strong>“it is different now, business is far more cut-throat and it is really difficult to get ahead, especially with the economy and all the competition out there”. </strong></em><br>

Ain't that the truth. By her own admission I'm sure she now fully understands why they fired her. Now she's free to really go it alone.</p>

<p>The courresy rate for this type of situation is exactly DOUBLE what you would normally charge. Take it or leave it.<br>

Regards</p>

<p>Are you sure you put the film in the right way round. Assuming you had an empty spool in the film back that wwas the previously empty spool. This now goes on the other side of the film back as the new take up spool and the film goes where the old empty spool was.<br>

If you put the new film in without doing this, after 1 turn the film would have wound back on itself and the take up spool would be empty. No film no workee.<br>

Hope that helps</p>

<p>Negative film is supposed to be metered for the shadows at box speed to ensure accurate exposure and good shadow detail. An alternative is to set the ISO to overexpose by 2/3rd stop ie ISO 160 at 100 and matrix meter. It's all about avoiding underexposure which is the death knell to film. This is how I routinely shoot film. Portras at ISO 100 and Pro 400H at 250.<br>

Just hand in the film and let them process it as per normal. If you matrix metered your roll you'll probably find that the results are perfect and will continue to do it this way.</p>

<p>What an opportunity to have some fun and get your own back!! He is asking you to refund to his workplace to let you know that he is a lawyer and to try to frighten you. He shouldn't use his work in any capacity for private matters. It's one of those unwritten things in most firms and mandatory at others.<br>

Phone the law firm and get the name of the senior partner. Write a short note to the senior partner explaining that the deposit is non refundable as stated on the contract and enclose a copy of the contract and letter the Groom wrote to you naming the law firm.<br>

Believe me, you'll never hear from him again!!<br>

Regards</p>

It terrifies me to get involved in this thread, but having read as much as I can of both sides of the argument can actually see how both sides of the coin are in fact correct.

Have a look out of your nearest window at two trees of the same species next to each other. They do however look pretty different. Different tones of green and shadow all made from leaves and light. Imagine the leaves are grain. They are either there or not there. Pretty much the same size and shape as each other. They are not absolutely opaque nor transparent - that depends on the light falling on them.

However, like film they are three dimensional. You can't see every leaf contributing to the final image due to their relative depth within the tree, their orientation as you view them, how many overlie each other and again the light that shines on them. Look at any two leaves side by side in two dimensions and they look pretty much the same. Difficult to imagine how they could create so many different tones, hues and shadows.

Its because they, and their arrangement within the tree is three dimensional. Just like the grain in the film.

There or not there, with infinitessimally small differences between them that in themselves are unlikely to contribute as much to the final image, but with an infinite possibility for three dimensional arrangement and with the ability to vary how it is lit and viewed, significantly contributing to the appearance of the final image.

So IMHO:

Grain as grain - binary

Grain as film, because its 3-dimensional - analogue

Julie

You need to see this from their perspective. They continuously rearranged everything so that the bride's father could see them married. Their concerns were very different from the usual couple. In so doing they are also highly likely to be the kind of people who will appreciate everything you have done for them.

Having read all the effort that you went to on their behalf there was no end of angels involved with that wedding.

Regards

Phil

The answers above aren't quite right. What you are after is -1.5 flash exposure. You can't set that via the F5 body,

and the SB30 doesn't have an ISO dial. The 1/8, 1/32 settings are for manual only. You won't be able to use TTL

either, but you can still do it. The little table on the left at the back of the flash is for 100 and 400 ISO film.

If you are using your ISO 100 film set the F5 to ISO 100 for the ambient as always, and the aperture on the lens to

let's say for example f5.6. Now set the flash dial to the f4 mark. This will underexpose the flash by 1 stop because it

assumes you are at f4 but you are actually at f5.6 on the lens.

Now set the exposure button below the table to -0.5. Et voila, you know have -1.5 flash exposure.

Regards

Darren

Alastair

Scan the negs, that'll give you a negative image on disk. Download somw freeware like Irfanview (google it) and open

the file. Under 'image' hit 'negative', you'll get a positive. The negative of a 'negative' is the original positive. The

scanner software might even have the option for scanning a 'negative' and give you the positive right there and then.

Many do.

Either way, easy and free

Regards