savagesax

The reason for writing about the speed is the Frontier is much slower when printing. Also when buying the DNP

8X10 printer, actually it's an 8X12 printer. my fault, it can also print other sizes such as wallets to 5X7's. You can do

combo's on one sheet of paper such as 1, 5X7 and 4 wallets. The key here is the faster speed and no ink,

compared to the Frontier, plus the cost is so much less. At least half the cost of the Frontier.

It's ink based. So there's always that problem of clogged ink jets and having to change ink in the middle of the job.. The cost is about $2500

plus. This printer also weighs about 60 pounds before you pack in up in some sort of rolling case for protection. So add another 15 to 20 pounds to that.

 

You may want to check out dye sub printers also. Sometime way less expensive, they often print faster, and no ink

to mess with.

 

A lot of local guys in the Los Angeles area are using DNP printers. There's several size printers. The 4X6 printers can make a print in 12 seconds. The 8X10 printers can make a print in about 45 seconds. The weight of these is at least half of the Frontiers.

 

There are of course other brands of dye sub printers to look at.

If the light if over head, without fill light you will get really dark shadows on the faces if you are doing portraits and

group shots. So follow Michael's ideas to balance the flash. Also don't forget to set your camera flash to tungsten.

Don't use the Auto White Balance on your camera, because you will probably have to do a lot of correcting in post

photoshop.

 

This will allow you to bounce off of side walls, which is actually kind of creative lighting for portraits. Seems like you

will do fine and you have some good ideas. Try to get a chance to experiment before the event.

Being creative is the key here. Look for the emotions. Tears in the eyes, things like that. Outside weddings are

often difficult because the sun may be hitting the grooms face and not the brides face, or the other way around.

Move fast and be ready. Look at the parents emotions and others. This is a time when a longer lens, a 70 -200

can come in handy as well as a second photographer. So there aren't really any set rules here, other than what

the church, temple, and others have as where the photographers need to be. To be or not to be! That is the

question! Bad joke. We kind of have to remember that the grooms can often get choked up more than the bride

and often one of the bridesmaids is teary eyed as well. Then you have the other prospective. Laughter or tears

followed by laughter. Anything can happen.

 

 

Remember that you can recreate, restage this scene right after the ceremony with the authorized

commencement official. (priest, rabbi, court judge, whomever) So don't panic if the shots of both of them and

the official don't work out during the wedding.

Hi fellow friends,

 

I have this above scanner and it's pretty decent, however it only runs on XP.

 

I've written to Microtek a few times and they've ignored me...

 

I still have an XP computer but lets face it, with the newer versions of Photoshop getting high resolution scans it is becoming

pretty hard.

 

At one time Microtek did offer an upgrade to Windows 7, however again they are ignoring my emails.

 

Do any of you fellow digital friends have the drivers for Windows 7 or Win. 8.0, or 8.1. Though I'd ask before I throw this up on

ebay.

 

Many thanks for your kind help. If it matters I mainly use it for medium format and 35 slides/positives nature work.

Cool ideas! It's always nice to explore the limits and add creative photography! I like the pics Alex.

I'll have to do a test on Windows 10 in the very near future.

Works just fine I think up to CS 4 in RAW, but that has nothing to do with Windows 7. Yes it works in Windows 7

just fine.

I have both lenses, the 24-70 and the 24-105, note not the 24-70 II. I've done a lot of testing through the years and

the 24-70 always wins at every F-stop. You really can't see a sharpness issue even at a 16x20 enlargement at F8

to F11. But you can see some minor color differences and saturation differences, however, not enough for me to

use the heavier 24-70 lens at weddings. Anything larger than a 16x20, and for Product shoots I'd either go with

primes or medium format cameras.

 

So the 24-70 doesn't get much use and it's my backup lens. I also really like the extra distance for bridal portraits.

Zooming out to 105 is kind of a nice feature. I've had both lenses for about 13 years.

What kind of strobe is it? Is it an on camera flash unit or off camera flash? You can't shoot a wedding without

complete control of a flash, so you are pretty much scaring me here. Follow Dave's advice above and learn to

balance your lighting. In some cases it's a must to use a flash in the shade as well as when using the sun, such

as back lighting using the sun.

 

What are your plans for the reception? Is it outside? Inside? Same flash unit?

 

Are you against buying a flash with multi functions? An inexpensive non Canon, but dedicated Canon flash unit

is the Phottix Mitros. Simpler to use compared to the top of the line Canon units, such as the 580 and 600 units,

and I think they are more accurate. The soft dome attachment for portraits is superb. As good as the Fong and

it's free! Takes 4 AA batteries.

 

Fong attachments come in different "Tones." Meaning that if you photograph the bride without a turned on flash

one shot her skin tones on her face will look a certain color. When using a flash with a Fong the skin tones will

often change to a warmer look. This is so frustrating for me, because you kind of have to correct the face color

in Photoshop or Lightroom. So if you buy a Fong attachment get one that is clear and won't warm up the skin

tones. Go to his website and watch some of his videos. Look for these color changes. Call them before ordering

and get some technical advice.

 

If you like the warmer look and you don't buy the color change Fong attachments, in Photoshop you can do a

SELECT ALL and adjust all of the bridal portraits with one click and warm up the skin tones.

 

Well give us a bit more information about your flash.

 

You said that the wedding is on the simple side. I've been shooting weddings starting about 10 years before you

were born and small simple weddings are often the hardest to shoot. We must always be ready for the

unexpected camera failure, things like that. Try to get some friends to lend you some backup gear. Make a list

of must have shots, or ask the bride and groom for a list. For example, some of these guests may be coming in

from other states and even from other countries. You need shots of the sisters, brothers, parents, grandparents,

bridesmaids, groomsmen, flower girl, ring kid, these are a few of the standard shots. Plan on taking 1200 to

2000 shots. Hope this helps.

I only use cameras that hold and write to 2 cards. A CF card and an SD card. Maybe get one of those cameras?

This will surely solve your problem and it also is a major safety factor if a card dies on you.

 

If the photographer that hired you was worried about you using the images to promote yourself he should have

given you one of HIS cards to use in your camera.

 

The whole situation kind of sucks, because we don't know what his contract says about using the images of the

bride and groom for advertising. So if the bride and groom see their pictures on your site somewhere it could

get a bit messy, however nothing usually ever happens. People really don't care unless they are famous or if

there are kids in the photos. Parents can get a bit freaked out sometimes.

 

Buy a pro camera that holds 2 cards. Every pro shooting weddings should have at least 1 camera like this in

their bag. Cards WILL go bad. Even new ones. I've had 2 go bad.

 

Ask him to see the contract between the couple and him before you sign anything, then maybe he will give you

your card. You can always call and ask the couple if it's OK to use a few of the wedding shots. Then you don't

have to sign anything. There's really nothing else you can do. Just think ahead and think like a pro with 30 years

of experience.

Back in the film days wedding photographers usually made more money on reprints than on the actual wedding.

Even portrait sittings. I did a family portrait sitting one time with about 30 people. A huge group shot, then I

divided them into smaller families, pretty much any combinations I could think of, during those times in the 80's

and 90's we framed the pictures, 40X60 prints were common. Long story short, for this 2 hour portrait sitting

made around $3000. $8000 for a wedding was a bit high, but $3000 to $4000 was about average.

 

Well those days are long gone. Just last week my photo partner Craig did the video portion for a backyard

wedding and we bought a drone with a video/still camera on it about 3 months ago. After some practicing Craig

felt pretty confident at the controls. Well we created a wedding package mixing the formal still photography and

video into, around, about, 1 1/2 hours of an edited blu-ray wedding. They got a lot of other stuff, but the DVD

was really cool using a few clips of the drone moving around the reception taking stills as well as video. It was in

high def and maybe about about 7 to 10 minutes of actual drone video was used in the edited dvd.

 

Needless to say we really don't offer packages. We listen to what the couples want and create a wedding for

their needs. Yes a lot, actually most of the couples want albums, but those days of selling wall size prints is

becoming less. Portrait photo sittings seem to be something from the past. With such inexpensive high quality

digital cameras people take their own family portraits, such as for the holiday cards.

 

Long story short, it's still in my contract that the images are copyrighted, but every lab in the country will print

the images. You can't stop this from happening. Walmart, Costco, they all do it!

This is actually when photography becomes creative, Both of the above answers above are dead on. I have to add

that there isn't a perfect setting or settings here. 1/10 of a second will surely work and the flash alond with the

second curtain sync will also work! Both are winners!

 

Here's where you can get creative. Surely do what William and Jeff suggested. But don't be shy with changing the

shutter speeds a little and see what happens, such as 1/15th all the way to 1/60th of a second, depending on how

fast the people are moving. Yes 1/60th most likely will be too fast, but you may like the shot with little or no

movement.

 

Post some shots if you can! This is when photography gets interesting and exciting! Have fun!

Well the photographer surely crossed the the line regarding the legs. A sick freak. I have no idea if you have a

case with the police. Perhaps he already has record on file. I'm sorry you had to go through this. I too like Marc's

last line about the local media.

Another typo - "Food" instead of "Good questions." I surely hope my photo skills are better than my typing! It's a

close call.

I think I went too far with the color adjustments. But at the same time it shows how you can solve the makeup issue and the bride will be elated with your work. I need some sleep! It's 4:20 AM.<div></div>

last try... It's aol ... I was careful this last time! The makeup looks OK to me, you can see the bead and details on her dress so the exposure is fine and she looks very happy! The lighting on their faces matches. So for me I like the cropped image.

 

I would like to work with you on posing positional techniques, if that's OK. Thanks for sharing your work. You asked some very food questions. My best. bob<div></div>

another try... It's now 3:30 AM maybe I hit the wrong button or aol continues to suck!

Sorry for the typo - Ideas , not ides. Since I had to correct my typo error here's another adjustment. I brightened up

her face a bit.

Well it's late and I'm just now uploading todays wedding! 3 AM!

 

First, DON'T EVER say anything about the make-up artist or her face NEVER!!!. It could be her best friend! Then every time she looks at the

photo's she will hate them, thinking that she isn't beautiful.

 

I've seen much worse makeup jobs!

 

I have to question your camera settings. Did you shoot in RAW? The indoor shots her dress favors a hint of tan

and outside, the dress favors a hit of blue. However, monitors suck. Can you email me a site with all of the

photo's? Or send me a CD? Did you shoot in auto, program mode? The colors and exposures are all

over the place and it's not really your fault. Even photographers such as myself that shoot everything in manual

make mistakes. Remember that I've been shooting since 1988, so I've pretty much seen the good, the bad, and

the ugly, happen. Back in the film days every now and then I shot 3 and 4 weddings a weekend.

 

Your images look "Hard." This is what I call the "Digital look." So in Raw you can correct this by adjusting the

the contrast, the clarity, and the saturation and a few other settings if needed. You can also control the

exposure. I usually do a batch process and set everything, all of your wedding images to look like film and to get

rid of that hard digital look. Now her make-up won't be so bad. Film is still my favorite way to shoot a wedding,

but it's now hopelessly impractical. Although I still shoot some black and white film once in awhile, developing it

myself. Faces look soft, more normal, colors look good, grandmothers faces don't look like they are 150 years old and the colors of flowers often pop out more evenly. It's so cool! You often have great results using quality filters such as the Softar 1/2 filters for closeup work with the brides and older people. Softar is a brand name.

 

Let me know what you and the others think. Kindly remember that this was just a few minute adjustment, I'm

only average at photoshop, and I was working here with a very low res image. Thankfully my photo partner Craig is a

photoshop master. He's pretty amazing.

 

So I cropped your outside image; way too much wasted space, which is OK. I'd rather crop than cut off

someones body. I adjusted the exposure slightly, color corrected according to my monitor, and softened the

image by adjusting the Clarity, Saturation, and the Contrast. For example the Contrast was about plus 25, I

reduced it to about minus 6. Hope this helps give you some ides of how to get rid of that hard digital look. Let

me know what you think. Maybe other fellow photographers can do a better job. As I said I'm not the best at

photoshop. Be honest and let me know what you think. Everyone's taste is different. bob<div></div>

By the way the problem could be the card reader such as taking out the cards from the camera while the camera is

still recording the images, things like that. Or pulling out the card out of the card reader before you turn off the card

reader that connected to the computer. All of these issues can cause this.

 

However, if you can clearly see the image right after you've uploaded the images to the hard drive and they are

fine, but a few weeks later you get that defective look shown above it has to be your hard drive. Hope this helps

you figure out where the problem is. Feel free in emailing me. I have a degree in computers and a certificate in

data recovery, but I sadly can't recovery this image.

I don't like shooting formal portraits below the 50mm mark. Faces start to get distorted. There are exceptions to

my rule, depending on what the theme of the portrait is, for example is with a skate boarder. I may slap on a fish

eye lens. For a close up modeling head shot I will most likely use a 70-200 and up to a 400mm lens with a

possible Softar 1/2 strength filter.

 

I won't get into prime lenses because the question wasn't about primes. but about comparing the 24-105 and the 70-200. Rest assured I have strong opinions about primes.

 

As far as the quality of the 2 lenses you are asking about I've tested them out a lot and the 70-200L IS 2.8 is

sharper than the 24-105 L IS, but not by much.

 

When shooting weddings I usually don't use the 70-200 and I use the 24-105 and try to keep the zoom length

around 85 to 105 for the portraits. For receptions the 24mm length comes in handy on the dance floors. A

photographer should and could shoot a whole wedding with this one lens. But I get bored so I like to play with

other lenses! My favorite lens is the fish eye! At receptions I also like the 16-35mm because you can get up and

close to the action and have fun talking with the people, often getting them to do whatever they want to do!

Depending on the amount of drinks they've had...

First cause is almost always the hard drive. Back up your images to CD's, DVD's as well as other hard drives.

Flash drives can work too. It sucks when this happens to an image and it's not backed up. I feel for you.

 

One of the cool things with these cameras you have and I also have the same ones is the dual card slots. Try to always use dual cards and save the images on 2 different drives. I've owned several 1Ds Mark 3's and I'm sure it's not your cameras.

Fungus often looks like black spider webs.

Hi fellow digital experts.

 

I have a new camera. the 5D mk.3 and I'm using Photoshop CS4. Well CS4 won't open the RAW files from weddings. I heard that

you can open the RAW files as DNG files. But how?

 

I downloaded the Adobe DNG file from the Adobe site, then opened CS4 Bridge, but what do I do now? I open all of the batch

RAW files in Bridge but where/how do I find DNG to open the RAW files? Is there a way to save all of the RAW batch files to DNG

somehow?

 

Thanks in advance! Have a great weekend!

 

Bob