peter_molettiere

<div></div>

<p>I'm not a professional wedding photographer, but just shot a friend's wedding as a favor. To handle print orders, I set up a Zenfolio account. It was super easy, their templates are nice, and I was able to offer framing as well. I set it up so that every print would be color corrected at the lab -- I haven't checked yet to see whether there's a way to get the lab to use profile tagged images, or if they have an output profile I can use when uploading images. Everyone who has purchased prints has been very happy. I was also able to set it up to offer matting and framing as well. My main issue here is that the only matting option is two inches, regardless of whether the print is a 4x6 or 20x30.</p>

<p>You can also set it up to be able to add either a percentage or a fixed fee to the processing cost, of which Zenfolio takes a small part. If you set your images not to do this, there is no additional Zenfolio cost -- just the lab cost. Print prices are very reasonable, even with color correction.</p>

<p>The purchaser pays shipping, which might rule out Zenfolio use if you're contracted to provide specific shipping fees, but their shipping fees are so low, it might not matter. I had one order for 236 prints which shipped for under $7. None of the prints were larger than 5x7 though.</p>

<p>Hyperfocal focusing with Canon primes is possible, but I have to say most of my lenses only have the smallest aperture marked. To be fair, on a lens like the 135/2, the f/32 marking is so close to the current focus marking as to make putting other markings in between difficult.</p>

<p>Zone focussing at anything other than minimum aperture (largest numerically) and/or hyperfocal is really just guess work. I mean, you can still manual focus to a set distance, but you have to just kinda know what aperture you need to get a certain depth of field. Not hard, really, and probably no big deal, considering that you're already guessing at the distance.</p>

 

<p>@John: You've hit the nail on the head there -- there is definitely an upper limit to the amount of weight you can carry in an UL backpack. For me, it's about 35 pounds, and that's mostly food for a 10 day leg without resupply on a thru hike last year. Of course, we put significant work into minimizing the weight and bulk of our food to get there... ten days food in a bear canister is a feat.</p>

<p>I'm not sure I'd want to carry more than about 35 pounds for long, though. :)</p>

<p>@John: I think the "UL gear is delicate" meme is a bit overplayed. While I'm sure your 8 pound Gregory is bomb-proof, my wife and I have four ultralight packs between us, and all are proving very durable, as well as lightweight. We've done a lot of backpacking this way (well over 500 miles in the last few years), and have had no issues whatsoever with gear failure.</p>

<p>If you're a rock climber, and might be dragging your pack over granite slabs a lot, then the situation might be different, but if you're just hiking trails, then I think you'll find the GoLite packs are super durable. The new Dyneema ripstop nylon is the bomb.</p>

<p>I will say, though, that the bag-in-a-bag situation is kinda nice for when you get to camp, and want to carry your photo gear up a ridge, or across a meadow. My photo-bag-insert-only used in the backpack method meant that I was either carrying my lenses in the insert (or had my wife carry it), or I emptied my backpack out and used that. A lightweight shoulder bag would have been nice.</p>

<p>I think John hit the nail on the head: photo backpacks aren't very good backpacks for backpacking. They're heavy due to all the padding, and the harness system is not geared to being carried for long periods of time. If it's got lots of plastic and padding, it's going to be heavy! I'd caution you, too, when looking for a backpack to make sure you don't get one that's too heavy. A lot of them are five to seven pounds, just for the empty bag! You can definitely get much lighter backpacks -- check out GoLite and Gossamer Gear online, and if you're headed to REI, look at their UL series backpacks. Your pack doesn't need to weigh more than three pounds. Wouldn't you rather carry an extra film holder or two than a heavier backpack?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Chuk's response reminded me: make sure you have everything you need to clean optics, and don't count on being able to keep any specific cleaning cloth clean! Things can get very dusty or wet out there! I'm not sure what the right solution is, but right now I'm leaning towards a ziplock of single use lens tissue and a small squeeze bottle of ethanol.</p>

<p>I just returned from a three day 25 mile backpack though the northern part of Yosemite National Park, near Hetch Hetchy reservoir. I took a 5dMkii, four prime lenses, a set of filters, and a tripod + ball head. My total pack weight was somewhere south of 25lbs, including food (bear canister) and water.</p>

<p>The key, as I see it, in any kind of backpacking, is to get your base weight down as low as you can. Do a search for "ultralight backpacking" to see what you find. There are a lot of sites devoted to it. Start with your big three: shelter, sleep, and the pack itself. On a recent non-photographic trip I had my base weight down to about ten pounds, including sleeping bag and pad, bivy sack, water filter, stove+pot, etc. This will also help with your volume issue.</p>

<p>For summer trips, you can skip the tent, use a bivy (14 oz), get a 40* sleeping bag (1 lb) and a 3/4 length pad (13oz), and a golite backpack (~2 lbs), and you're at ~5 lbs.</p>

<p>As for packing camera gear, I have no suggestions for your specific equipment, but I'll tell you what I did for mine. I took the padded insert out of my camera bag, and simply used that in the top of my pack. Since you're using large format, you're going to have to stop and set up every time you want to take a photo, so convenience on the trail obviously won't be an issue for you. Just keep the gear on the top of the bag, and maybe look into a panel loader.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>@rick That was my initial guess, but then I got an EX+ 5D mkii and it was defective, so in my opinion, they have a quality control problem at all ratings.</p>

<p>Can you get deals there? I'm sure. Is it guaranteed? By no means.</p>

<p>@edward: and that was exactly my expectation going in. I would have been happy with fully functional lenses, with nice glass (not even necessarily perfect), and cosmetic issues, but that's not what I got. I got a lens covered in a sticky mess, another lens whose shutter released every time it was cocked by the camera, one camera with a waist level finder held together with old yellowed scotch tape, and another with a non-functional joystick. These aren't cosmetic issues like brassing or scuffs.</p>

<p>I have no doubt that others have had wonderful experiences with KEH. My experience wasn't. And customer service never mentioned any willingness to pay for shipping in my first two contacts with them. Finally, on the third, they offered to pay for shipping to return the camera, but at that point, I figured it was faster to deal with it myself.</p>

<p>I'm not saying no one should ever do business with KEH. I'm just saying, be careful, because it's not all roses. Obviously, they have a loyal following, and there are many positive posts around online about them. Mine just isn't one of them. I'm still a little bothered that my experience didn't measure up to their reputation. At the moment I don't think I'll go back to them again, but they do have a huge inventory, and they do accept returns for 14 days from shipment.</p>

<p>I agree with everything Jeff just said -- maybe he's making my point better than I can. I do just want to point out that I'm not talking about cleaning marks on the glass, though. The glass in everything I got was in very good condition.</p>

<p>As in everything, you pay your money and you take your chances.</p>

<p>[Edited to add paragraph referring to Jeff's post, and edited again to add this note.]</p>

<p>I have to pipe up here. I took the "bargain condition is nice" advice here, and bought a Mamiya TLR with four lenses, a Canon EOS 3, a 5D mk II and four EF lenses.</p>

<p>The TLR was beat up (BGN), one of its lenses was covered in a thick sticky gum which prevented the flash selector from moving (BGN), another would immediately release the shutter when the camera body was cocked (EX), and the filter ring on a third was so badly bent that there was no way a filter could ever be attached (BGN). The joystick on the back of the 5D mk II (EX+) wouldn't move in any leftwards direction.</p>

<p>The other equipment was in the condition I expected, but nothing to rave about. Out of three bodies and eight lenses, there were major issues with two bodies and three lenses. That's about a 50% pass rate.</p>

<p>When I brought the situation to the attention of KEH customer service after getting the defective 5D, they only responded with an email offering to allow me to return it for replacement, which to me says they don't care about the accuracy of their equipment ratings. I chose to deal with Canon to get it fixed, at my own expense, because I didn't want to deal with shipping and their extremely slow return processing just to get another dud -- an event I gave even odds to based on my experience.</p>

<p>To be fair, the filter ring damage was marked in the description, and I would have kept that lens and tried to straighten it with a filter vice had the rest of the order been in acceptable condition, but I don't trust their ratings anymore. If their policy were to pay return shipping if the item didn't meet its listed quality criteria, I might feel differently about it, but that's not their policy.</p>

<div></div>

<p>For Canon, 35 becomes 50, 50 becomes 85, and 85 becomes 135. (At least, that's how I remember it. The actual math is a little different -- I'm rounding to the closest lens.)</p>

<p>I like primes, and find they're awesome for portraits, especially on full frame. I like the 85 f/1.8, which is an excellent lens, both lighter and less expensive than the wider L, and still very sharp, and the 135L f/2, which is very nice on a FF camera. It'll be about a 200mm lens on the XTI, though.</p>

<p>Given your two bodies, I'd look at the 85mm first. That way you have a 135mm equivalent on your XTI and an 85mm equivalent on your FF. With your bodies and your 50mm, you'd have 50mm (50mm on 5d), 85mm (both bodies with 50mm on XTI and 85mm on 5d), and 135mm (85 on XTI) focal lengths covered. This gives you backup in the excellent 85mm focal length, and some breadth for wider or closer portraits too.</p>

<p>With portraits I find that zoom isn't really needed, since you can usually fairly easily adjust your distance to the subject. (Sneaker zoom!) This is just my preference, though.</p>

<p>One minor point: flash on the hotshoe of a camera and built-in flash are both "on-camera" flash. When the flash is off the camera, it's usually mounted on a stand, or clipped to a door or bookcase, somewhere other than immediately on top of the camera. Sometimes you'll see the flash mounted on a bracket that holds the flash out to the side of the camera, too.</p>

<p>The idea with off camera flash is that you can get better lighting, since with on camera flash the light from the flash tends to illuminate every surface the lens can see. If the camera is somewhere away from the lens, then the flash will create light areas as well as shadows, increasing the interest and dimensionality of the image.</p>

<p>Since you're talking about "fill flash" though, you're using the sunlight as a light, too, so you're really just trying to throw a little extra light into the shadows, which can be done from the camera fairly successfully. The key is not to drown out the sunlight, as the previous posters have been suggesting.</p>

<p>Aperture and Lightroom are the two packages in most common use, I think. I've used both, and find that Aperture is much easier to work with. Lightroom still has a modal interface which requires you to switch between different modes for managing your library, making adjustments, and printing. Personally, I find it gets in my way more than it helps me. Aperture is much faster for me to use, and just suits my way of working better.</p>

<p>I'm pretty sure both have trial versions. I know Aperture does. Download both trials and take them for a spin to see what you like better. I've found that it's easier to use both if you keep your image files as externally referenced images, rather than having them incorporated into the proprietary database format each program uses. You still can't share the adjustments or the keywords you've assigned between programs, but at least you don't need to have two copies of the master image itself on disk.</p>

<p>All the reviews I've seen online suggest that both programs have their strengths and weaknesses, but I haven't really seen anyone say that one program is categorically better than the other. For instance, Aperture is supposedly a bit better with noisier files, while Lightroom is supposedly a bit better with cleaner files. I haven't personally had much of an issue in this regard with either program.</p>

<p>If you're a Mac user, you might find Aperture more Mac like, though, and it does offer better integration with certain Mac features, such as preview sharing with iPhoto, and Address Book integration with the Faces feature. (When you start typing a name for a face, it will suggest names from Address Book for autocompletion.)</p>

<div></div>

<p>Hey Manda,</p>

<p>While I think the legal side of things have been pretty well spelled out by the other posters, I have to point out another approach that no one has mentioned at all.</p>

<p>As someone who has worked with friends many times and for long periods of time over the last fifteen years, I have to disagree with the categorical statement "friends and business don't mix". Here's why. In my world, doing business requires close communication and cooperation, and works best when all parties try to act reasonably and fairly, dedicated to communicating about any issues which arise in the course of events. Sounds a lot like a friendship.</p>

<p>How does this affect you in your current situation? I'd say the key is communication. I'd suggest that you need to go talk to your friend. Find a good time to talk uninterrupted, sit down, and explain what's bothering you. You have things you'd like -- the most important of which seems to be use of the images for your portfolio and to promote your business, followed by removal of her watermark. Simply ask her to do those things for you!</p>

<p>It was stated that you have no right to use those photos to promote your business. This might technically be true as things stand, but all you need is a release from your friend, which you can probably get, just by explaining what you want. It's not like you two have had a falling out, and don't communicate anymore, right?</p>

<p>And if you're going to continue to work with your friend, I'd make one suggestion. It's simply to have a clear conversation and agreement about how you are going to work together. I always have this conversation with friends when I start to work with them, and all it involves is a simple agreement. Usually, I tell my friend "Listen -- please come to me if there's anything at all bothering you about our working relationship, and tell me -- I don't care what it is." (I have a few colorful examples, but I'll let you fill in your own.) "I promise to listen to your complaint, and consider it, and either make appropriate changes or explain why I can't/won't make them. " This is a reciprocal agreement on both sides.</p>

<p>A huge part of business that gets overlooked is the relationship part, and in this case, I think you need to rely on your relationship to communicate about your concerns. Until you talk to your friend you don't know how she'll react. The legal situation is the system of last resort for dealing with something like this.</p>

<p>That said, I totally agree with the recommendations above about having clear agreements moving forward about what rights you and your friend have, and what roles you're filling when you help her. With a friend, a contract negotiation should be pretty straightforward and easy, since no one should be trying to take advantage of the other. This can be as formal or informal as necessary and comfortable to you both. Sometimes a verbal agreement is fine, and sometimes you need lawyers to write the document, and there's a whole range in between.</p>

<p>It sounds like with this incident you're getting more sophisticated in the kinds of agreements you'll be wanting to make in the future, in advance of taking the pictures.</p>

<p>Just talk to your friend about it first. You'll be glad you did.</p>

<p>It's already been mentioned, but I have to second the Strobist blog Lighting 101 series of posts. It's LONG! Read them all! Especially since they're free -- all you've got to do is click and pay attention!</p>

<p>They do make the argument that the Canon e-TTL flashes aren't the best way to go, so it's probably a good idea to at least understand their argument before spending lots of money on Canon e-TTL flashes. Especially since PocketWizards are so expensive. :)</p>

<p>http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html</p>

<p>Sorry, Neil, but your basic premise is flawed. You can't say that because there are some examples of individuals who don't match a generalization, the generalization must necessarily be false. Completely aside from the original question of whether men or women are more or less technical than the other group, I think Ryan's original comment was clearly expressing a generalization and not a hard and fast rule. The only way to prove or disprove such a generalization is with statistics. As Nadine said, people are individuals, and I agree with you too, that individuals should be treated as such, and not as faceless representatives of some statistical generalization or stereotype, but that doesn't mean that generalizations aren't sometimes interesting or useful.</p>

<p>Regarding the original question of whether men or women are more or less technical, personally, I really couldn't care less. Living in San Francisco, the distinctions between male and female are sometimes distorted beyond recognition anyway. Isn't the whole point to find something interesting and unique from each voice, regardless of what bits happen to belong to the photographer?</p>

<p>I'd bet that Vanessa and Alex would both agree that their interest in photography really has very little to do with their lady bits, and much more to do with who they are and how they relate to the world around them. I mean really, who takes a photo thinking, "hrm, how do my bits feel about this shot?" Well... maybe those nude photographers...</p>

<p>I'm with Neil. I like to wear clothes when I shoot.</p>

<p>Most of the time. :)</p>

<p>HA! Yes, we're very familiar with 'Hawaiian time' here in San Francisco, too, although I think it gets more extreme as you head west and south. We're totally planning to tell people to be there in advance -- in fact, I think 10:00AM is what we're telling people, but the wedding isn't until about noon, and that's the "public" time, since I think the hope is that noon will be two. If I get the bride and groom to do shots around ten in nice light, I'll be stoked. </p>

<p>Why use an RZ? Simply because I'm interested in using one, and have the opportunity, so why not?</p>

<p>Thanks for all the comments, they're very much appreciated. </p>

<p>It seems that all the comments regarding timing run the range: some like mornings, some almost always use the slot between wedding and reception. Pretty much everyone seems to agree that before the cake cutting would be a difficult time to wrangle everyone together. I hadn't mentioned it, but we're also going to have to deal with the groom's mom being recently injured, which means she may not be able to stand for very long. Probably better to try to get her shots in the morning when she's strongest.</p>

<p>This is a fairly "informal" wedding in some senses -- it will be somewhat Hawaiian (the groom's family spends a lot of time in Hawaii), and the bride is much more interested in the candids than the formals. Consequently, the formals will be limited to very close family, so we won't have major extended family wrangling to do. From what I understand, no one is going to a salon that morning. The bride's being made up by a close friend in the cottage right by the garden we're looking to use for the shoot.</p>

<p>Nadine, thanks for the comprehensive list of different types of formal shots. The list will be very helpful for shot planning. I've really been thinking in terms of half length shots, and I'll definitely need to expand my thinking to include some full length ones, even though my sense is that those tend to leave the viewer much further removed from the people in them, but how else will anyone be able to see bride and groom's full outfits?</p>

<p>A few people wanted to know what I usually shoot, am most familiar with, etc. Yes, I do have most experience with 35mm, and will be using both 35mm film and digital for candids, but I've been exploring medium format lately with the Mamiya 7 II and C330S. No, I won't be 100% relying on the RZ this weekend for these shots, but I would like to use it. Based on suggestions above, I'll probably go with both the 75 and 110mm lenses. I was definitely thinking portrait with the 180, but I need to be thinking group. Thanks for the suggestions.</p>

<p>As far as lighting, as some have asked, I'm planning to bring a 42" gold patterned reflector (and my wife to hold it). My hope is to use 3/4 natural backlighting with the reflector bounced up from 3/4 front as fill. The plan is to have the RZ tripod mounted, metered, and ready to go, get people set while shooting 35mm, then check metering and expose a couple frames of 6x7, and move on to the next group. With two rolls of 220, I can get more than four frames of each grouping.</p>

<p>As to renting, I have to say, I LOVE renting. It's a cheap way to try out lots of different gear with very little expense. And as I've said above, I'm not relying on this gear 100%. I'm thinking I'll use it for old school b+w optical prints -- archival and classic. The digital stuff will go into the photo books.</p>

<p>Again, thanks to everyone for your comments!</p>

<p>--Peter</p>

<p>Hey everyone!</p>

<p>I have searched, and did find some interesting info related to my questions, but I wanted to ask to get some specific input. </p>

<p>I'm shooting a wedding for close friends on June 12th, and there's been some question about when to schedule formals. They are doing all their own wedding planning, so there's no official coordinator, but we will be designating someone as cat herder to try to get everyone together at the appropriate time.</p>

<p>There are two options we're trying to choose between. The first option is to do formals first thing in the morning, before the wedding itself, in a small flower garden behind the cottage the bride and groom are staying in. The bride and groom have no issue with seeing one another that morning before the wedding. We'll have to get everyone who's in the formals to show up a little early to make this work -- around 10:00am. The risk here is getting everyone there on time.</p>

<p>The other option that has been suggested is to do the formals just before the cake cutting. The wedding is scheduled at about noon, so this is probably smack in the middle of the afternoon. Everyone should be here by then of course, but I imagine the herding will be a chore, and people may be a little more wilted than they'd be fresh in the morning.</p>

<p>Can anyone see any other downsides to the morning photos? Does anyone think the afternoon option is better? I've read about suggestions to split the formals, and it seems that the consensus is that this is super time consuming and often difficult to wrangle, but we're open to this option as well.</p>

<p>Second question I have is regarding a lens. I'm planning to do the formals with an RZ67, and was thinking I'd use a 180mm ƒ4.5 to get a little compression, stopped down just enough to keep the DOF broad enough for all the people to be in focus. The largest group should be four adults and two children -- my concern is that 180 won't be wide enough for the group. Would the 110mm ƒ2.8 normal be a better choice? Something else? I'm renting the camera, so I have access to anything from 37 to 350. :)</p>

<p>Thanks for reading, and thanks for any advice!</p>

<p>--Peter</p>

<p>Sorry for the long turn-around to answer some of the questions that have popped up, but I needed to wait to have the time to pull out the negatives again to take a closer look.<br>

@Edward: I don't see any color cast in the negative, no solarization. I'm looking through the whole roll, and most of the fogging seems to be light milky diffusion. Certainly not dark and blotchy. Thanks very much for the detailed description.<br>

@Fred: Yeah, I kinda like it too in that shot -- somewhat dreamy and ethereal, goes nicely with the subject. Not sure I'd be able to replicate the look again, though. :) Maybe that's part of the charm of film? The serendipitous?<br>

Thanks again to everyone who commented.</p>

<p>Here's the second 100% crop.</p><div></div>

<p>Hey Edward, <br>

I think you misread something. All the film came out of the refridgerator on Friday. One roll was shot Saturday morning, and was fine and the above roll was shot in the afternoon. That's part of why this is so weird. Would Portra really be clear in the morning, and Tmax would fog later that afternoon?<br>

I've attached 100% crops from the foggy area of the first image above. One is a reflection of a lilly pad in the pool, the other is the edge of the pool further back.<br>

Thanks again!<br>

--Peter</p><div></div>