mike simons

Looking at L-series 16-35 vs. 24-70..... general wedding coverage;

indoor/outdoor, pre/during/post-ceremony, etc., etc., etc., blah blah blah ----

in short, do people find having the other 8mm on a 16-35mm range zoom

negligible, a nicety, a HUGE boon, or something in between? Too, if someone

opted for the 24-70, are they/you inclined to get 15/16mm coverage via a

shortie prime and/or fisheye? Does the 24-70 cover you for walkabout/always

on (or is that another lens altogether), and the 24mm end handle

interior/exterior establishing shots of ceremony/venue well enough?

At its most basic, 16mm zoom, or 24mm zoom - what would/do you have in your

bag? (and don't say "both." ::grin:: )

Input welcomed --- stay out of this coming snow!

-Mike

(upstate NY)

Ben -

As described, you're looking for a high-key lighting set-up. You'll likely benefit from 3 strobes total - two cross-lighting the background, and one key light for the subject --- likely want to use a reflector on the off-side to get some definition on the subject's face.

He deals mainly with hot-shoe type flashes, but check out www.strobist.com --- GREAT resource.

-Mike

You can output to .PDF, .indd (InDesign Files); not sure about outputting to a whole JPG - and even if you could, I'd suggest .tif instead - better quality for printing. I shoot for my business, but am also a PShop & InDesign teacher at our local high school for our Yearbook program ---- everything that goes into InDesign (for images) goes in as .tif's. It's an INCREDIBLY powerful design program.

Too, you can lay in fonts apart from the 'basics' and use the "outline" function to have those fonts written into the document as rasterized images - thus when you submit the layouts/spreads/album, you need not worry whether your printer has the fonts - makes it i_iot-proof. (the forum emulator doesn like the word i_diot) Certainly, you can bundle the fonts in your submission to the printer, but the outline function (as well as InD's basic packaging functions) can do a lot of the work for you.

-mcs

I've read with interest folks' prior postings on topics like this one; a

digital-shooting photog is asked by the B&G for a CD/DVD only at a reduced

rate (meaning, independent of an 'established' package), with rights for

personal printing signed over.... <p>

....and now in my first year of this, I'm being asked the same. <p>

I remember people breaking out into a few camps: A) Do it, it's business,

especially if you're new, it's more experience...... B) Don't do it, because

you're putting your art out there and letting people other than yourself see

it through to a print - a print over which you have no quality control (the

end-game of this argument being your prints could be out in the public domain

looking like crap, because you didn't have say on the printing).... C) Do it,

but urge/caution/suggest places for quality printing.... and choices D), E),

F), and more.... <p>

I'd appreciate any more thorough articulation of the above arguments and/or

others, as well as input/feedback/"hey watch out for _____" from people who've

been in this position in the last few years. Certainly, this possibly being

one of my first gigs, well, the experience piece weighs heavily in my mind. <p>

Take care - thanks in advance for replies. <p>

-Mike

Jen -

I'm wondering if you're talking about Seattle weddings or Ohio weddings --- congrats on the recent move (checked out your blog); how does that factor into your expectations/current status? Are you trying to get a foothold in a new market, or am I misunderstanding your question/blog/situation?

Best of luck with it ---- and I LOVE the red glasses.

-mcs

Too, that's a lot of pro's for the Canon unit... anyone able to sell me on Quantum's capabilities/features over Canon, aside from the (marginally) decreased recycle time? I appreciate veterans' input from personal use - much obliged.

-mcs

Jim - I like this train of thought.... a followup, if I may: there's some degree of variability with the NiMH batteries, no? Insofar as we can choose the mAh range, correct? Any upper limit there, as far as the AA's functioning with the Canon unit? Meaning, is there a 'ceiling' where - even if you buy the sweetest new AA's - the Canon unit wouldn't see an appreciable difference in use/battery life/discharges/power through the day/gig.... OR, is the lesson "ALWAYS get the highest mAh AA's you can find!" ?

-mcs

Any thoughts/real-life (from use) comparisons of the Turbo 2x2, the C, or SC models, etc?

-mcs

Hi, all -

Just booked another gig for the summer - thrilled at what's coming my way!

I'd like input from EOS and 580EX users who make use of off-strobe powerpacks

like the Quantum SC, 2x2, or some comparable model. Open to all advice

regarding initial choice/selection, reliability, pitfalls, cycling times,

ruggedness, personal feelings, etc., *and* specifics related to exactly what's

needed for use out-of-the-box... I have a sneaking suspicion that there'll be

some cabling purchases, as well. Use would be for both wedding and sports

photography.

Open to all feedback and input - thanks in advance.

-Mike

One approach:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/high-dynamic-range.htm

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/hdr.shtml

-Mike

1) Very Part-Time; also a high school teacher.... Will likely stay VPT for a long time. 2) Jumping in head first after a few seasons of very successful studio (seniors, sibs, families) shooting. Built-in market with former students, etc. Sweet! 3) I would like 8 or so, I believe. 3 booked, 3 penciled in. 4)Mid-range for me. $1200ish

-Mike

Fair point, Peter - you're right.

Not sure how to address it --- I wonder if (and maybe the 2nd Pshop Competition *isn't* the place for it) we could have a 'joint' Photoshop/InDesign competition where the "product" would be in .PDF form, thus viewable by all, etc., etc.... Particular dimensions, all the rest. Hopefully, that wouldn't exclude too many people, and hey - people can participate if they care to, and hang in the woodwork if they're otherwise inclined.

My $0.02.

What about a "missed" shot that could be corrected back to good --- blinking eyes, bird in the way, telephone poles/wires/distractions, yadda yadda......

Color, at any rate, would be nice!

-Mike

Along with the 'tell a story' suggestions from above, what about posting 3-5 'base' or starter images for us to design a layout/spread/presentation that'd be appropriate for a flush-mount/coffe-table book-style album?

-mike

"Are you gellin'? My feet are swellin'....."

It's a stupid commercial, anyhow --- Dr. Scholl's....

Is there a easy resource/list/site/reference toward getting the right strobe gels to counteract/balance lighting, or is it a simply answered question where there are 2-3 gels, tops, that'll see you through?

That said, where/how might one find such lovely little sheets of plastic?

-Mike

Kate - knowing what your budget is would help us understand what you can and can't afford...

I have the 28-135 IS, and am actually looking to sell it - has about 500-600 shots on it. Email me for more information

-mcs

If it's understood that each stop is half as bright as the one prior, and that each exposure is on a new frame...

Subject A illuminated at 1/60th sec @ f5.6 meters correctly...

Same subject, still 1/60th @ f8.0 will need 2x as much light...

1/60th, 4x for f11.0....

and yes, 1/60th 8x for f16....

I don't understand Pico's additive logic...

Guiness? Where?

-mcs

Once again, I'm thankful for my subscription support of PNet... *GREAT* thread, and fantastic food for thought.

-mike

Is this like one of those logic problems, when Marcella is twice as old as her brother Joseph is, but Sue is three times Joseph's age divided by the number of parrots in their kitchen?

-mike

Brooks -

100%, Bravo. Thank you very, very much - it makes perfect sense; though in the previous post (or at any other time) it's important to note that when we're talking about 1:3, it's 1 (fill) to 3 (main), right? Thus order's important. If language was main:fill, then it'd be 3:1, no?

Thanks for the kind response, too -- I've seen too many other threads where someone with a good, decent, basic question gets lambasted by a veteran with a holier-than-thou, haughty 'tude, and all that serves to do is 1) launch a flame war, 2) make the poster feel worthless, and 3) potentially turn someone away from PNet.... much obliged.

Brooks:

"I think you're making this more difficult than it really is."

Entirely possible -- thanks for taking the time. Understood, re: light modifiers...

"..ratios such as a 1:3 lighting ratio for a portrait the reference is to the ratio between the key or main light and a fill light, on the subject. A 1:3 ratio is a main light twice as bright or one stop brighter than the fill light..."

1:3 -- Seriously, I'm not trying to be dense. I'm a fairly smart guy... but if a light was twice as bright, how/why does a "3" come into play? What am I missing that would make twice as bright = 3, not 2? And, if the ratio is between the main and fill, but the ratio is 1:3, wouldn't that mean 1(main):3(fill) --- thus fill would be brighter (which, of course, is not what we want)...

Much obliged, Brooks, Pico, et al...

-MCS

when both main and fill are lighting the subject.

Obviously not, Pico, but thanks for the good-natured jibe. One of the fundamental issues I have is a misunderstanding of the relationship between EV, strobe wattage/watt-second outputs, and f-stop differences (5.6 vs. 8 vs. 11 vs. 16) as it relates to taking a quantitative, measured approach to refining my shooting.... for too long, I've (as mentioned) had a guerilla, self-taught, "hey, that worked - let's try it again!" approach.... I learned to check my ego at the photo.net 'door' and pursue individuals and/or recommended resources here on the boards, and it's been incredibly valuable - I appreciate your further input.

Where does 'Pico' come from and/or what does it mean? I might assume from the last name that it's Italian, but I certainly could be wrong.

Have a good one,

Mike

Hi, folks -

Had an "ah-ha" or the cusp of an "ah-ha" on the way to work today...

To this point, I've had - I believe - a fundamental misunderstanding of what

numbers/values/quantitative scale I should be concerned when lighting in my

studio. I use three JTL monolights, 2 500's and a 300.... Typically, I just

concern myself with the raw numbers off the back of their displays, and less

with thinking of things in terms of EVs, etc., etc....

When considering lighting ratios for high key lighting (or anything else for

that matter), and I see 1:3 and other suggestions in books, here on the forum,

etc., does that mean:

A) main subject light is "1" and each of the lights I use to flood the backdrop

are three times as powerful (hence, the "3"), or

B) main subject light is "1" and each of the lights I use to flood the backdrop

are 1.5x as powerful (hence, 2 @ 1.5 = the "3")....

Pretty basic question; I'm working to end my guerilla lighting days and refine

my approach so I can dramatically increase my efficiency and decrease my fuss

time when prepping for (or in the middle of) a shoot.

All responses and input welcome - this site has been an invaluable resource to

me, and though things get snarky from time to time, I continue to appreciate the

veterans who take a measured, reasoned approach in helping newer folks along.

-Mike

I might've encouraged the bride to 'reach' out her chin a bit (or coerced it into place with some cues & adjustments); that frequently reduces visual impact of a double-chin for someone of larger stature.

-mcs

Instaproofs.com

No member fee; they let you set your own prices. They do charge a fee on each order.

-Mike

Hi, folks -

Saw a recent article in Pop Photo & Imaging about ACR and how the defaults

typically/always need to be reset by the user because the factory defaults, in

fact, alter the image and don't give you a true sense of your baseline data

in.

If I'm making any sense at all, might you point me in a direction to pursue

this - directions would be great; articles or other resources are welcome,

too...

Be well,

Mike