aubreyp

Since shooting models agaist graffiti is pretty cliche, you're going to need some beautiful lighting and composition to make it a unique shot. Maybe come back when the lighting is a little more dramatic, and bring a friend with a reflector to help fill in.

 

You may get a lot of strange bounce colors from the wall on to the model. This could look funky if the model is wearing something that will clash with it. A mostly black outfit will suck up the colors, a light outfit will enhance the bounce effect. Keeping the colors off the model's face will be a trick though.

 

If I were to shoot that, I'd put the model a fair distance from the wall and use your tele @ about 100-135 f4 to blur the wall as the background for the shot. That way you can get the colors from the wall, but be able to control the lighting on the model separately.

I think Morro Bay evokes plesant images (I don't know anything about it though). But what it does do, is link you to that reigon and evokes "landscape". If your work was predomintly about Morro Bay, I think that would be fine. As a portrait/wedding photog, I think going with your name would be a better call. Blasingame has a nice ring to it, and it's a memorable name. It's also a little unusual, so I think people will look more carefully at it and remember it better. Consider yourself lucky in this respect.

I don't know what Rebel version you have (is it film?), but I might recommned the 20D for a new body since it's got such great speed for weddings and it's going to be pretty cheap now.

 

I might suggest this for a starter kit:

 

20D ($300?)

Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 ($250)

Canon 50mm 1.4 ($325)

Cannon 85mm 1.8 ($360)

Canon 580 EX & offshoe cord ($400)

 

The whole being in business thing is MUCH more complicated. Buying the kit is the easy part. :)

I couldn't see the image because the link is broken. This is what I do to make the faces glow a little:

 

1) Copy base layer, gaussian blur, set blending mode to soft light or hard light (use this to darken only via "blend if").

2) Copy base layer, gaussian blur, set blending mode to screen (use this on the light parts of the image via "blend if").

 

There are many variations and tweaks available, and it's a good idea to bring local contrast back in so your image doesn't look too fuzzy.

 

You can see some examples of this in action on my web site:

 

http://www.rendermack.com/photo/photos/port_stu

 

I try not to be too heavy-handed with this effect, since it looks really amateurish if done wrong, but it's a great way to add contrast and soften an image at the same time.

Check out Digicraft/U-develop: http://www.udevelop.com/

 

I've only used their Chromira printing services, but I've always gotten great service and consistant results.

If someone is paying you to get the shot, then paying for the gear to make sure you get the shot is money you *have* to spend.

 

Else: Work with what you have until you know exactally what gear you need to get the photos you want. Then either buy that, or continue to do work that caters to the gear you have.

I'm not sure if this will work, but trying using the "Difference" blending on one of the layers. That might get you something you can work with.

I don't have this camera, but it's my understanding that HTP reduces dynamic range in order to protect your highlights. You'd probably get better results by turning it off and watching your exposure more carefully.

Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 -about $250 used.

You'll get great performance from either the Canon 50mm f1.4 and the Canon 85mm 1.8. I prefer the 85mm 1.8 on both

crop and non-crop sensors, since it's such a wonderful lens. If you can't afford $2K for the 85L, don't worry about it - you

probably wouldn't shoot wide open with it on a crop body since you'll get even less DOF than on a full frame.

 

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html (DOF calculator)

 

If you look at the MTF charts, you can see that they both have good bokeh for most of the frame (wide open):

 

http://www.photodo.com/product_44_p4.html (50mm)

http://www.photodo.com/product_51_p4.html (85mm)

 

You can read the bokeh performance by looking how close the line pairs (dashed and solid) are together. The horizontal

axis is the distance from frame center. The vertical axis has to do with micro-contrast (resolution), but I'm not sure what

photodo's vert numbers mean or why there are 3 sets of lines -maybe those 3 sets are the 10/20/40 lp/mm...

 

Since your body will crop the frame edges, you should be getting the best from each lens.

 

The other thing about the 85L, it weighs more than your camera with the battery grip. Doubles as a gym membership.

Keep the 10D. Shutter replacements (should you ever need one) are only about $250. Although I've seen 20D on craigslist for $400 and 30D for about the same. You could upgrade to one of those if your shutter fails.

 

The main weaknesses of the 10D are its buffer for shooting RAW and its low resolution. If you don't run out of buffer and you don't need to make prints above 16x20, it's a fine camera.

 

Look at these lenses for the 10D:

 

Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 (nice landscape to normal lens.) I just sold mine copy for about $265

Canon 85 f1.8 (great for close portraits and general fun shots on the crop bodies) $300(?)

 

Realize that unlike the 20/30/40 D cameras the 10D *cannot* use EF-S lenses. Consider this a blessing and stick to the EF lenses.

I had to make this decision recently, and I went for the 135. I've rented the 70-200 2.8 IS and I owned the f4 (non-IS). The

f4 was too slow for indoor events, and actually so was the 2.8 IS. I wanted to have less subject streaking without using

flash, so the 135 was the way to go. A major factor in my choice was also the weight/size of the 135. Much more

reasonable than the 2.8 IS. HOWEVER - this was for full-frame. I don't think I'd use it as much on a crop body. The 85 1.8

is the equal focal length and 1/2 stop faster on crop. It's a sweet lens and 1/3 the price. Maybe start there and decide if you

need more zoom.

We tried to use XP64 in our office, but driver support became an issue. This is in a small 3d rendering business. It may work just fine for your home office. We eventually ended up switching to Vista 64, since no one is really supporting XP64. You may be able to *postpone* your switch to Vista, but you will not be able to avoid it indefinitely (unless you go to Mac :) ). Maybe this is a good time to make the switch to Mac.

This lens is:

 

1) Bright

2) Small

3) Light

4) V. decent IQ. Not really much different than the L version after about f5.6

5) Inexpensive

6) Close focusing

 

Awesome on a crop body. Get it.

I think your work is really solid. I don't see a 5D being the missing piece. The 5D and 24-105 wouldn't necessarily give you a different perspective or more speed than what you already have, since effectively you're using a 27-80mm with the Tamron.

 

I would suggest getting a lens that is a little more interesting and forces you to think in a different way. Perhaps the 85mm f1.8 or maybe a 45 TS-E or Lens Baby. Anything that causes you have to revisit your process and change your assumptions on how to make photographs.

 

All that said, the 5D is a stellar camera and a pleasure to use. I think I would give myself more than a month with a new body to get used to it, though.

If you're happy with the lens on your EOS 3, you should be happy with it on the 5D, since it's the same frame size.

However, I hear digital is more demanding than film of lenses. I'm still not quite sure why.

 

I used the 28-105 on my 10D and thought it was a nice travel lens. Don't know if that helps. Personally, I'd buy the package

deal. I think the IS and better quality from the 24-105 would be welcome.

 

I wouldn't worry about the 5D becoming "unavailable". There will be plenty of them out there for sale at good used prices

when the new one comes out (no, I have no idea when that is).

I would have never spent that much money on a lens as a student. If you want a longer lens, maybe look into the Canon

100mm f2. On a 40D that's still pretty long, and quite a nice lens.

I'm selling my Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 right now for $235, but if you have the $$ I suggest going for the 17-40.

 

http://www.photo.net/gc/view-one?classified_ad_id=747993

I bothered to find a lab that prints in native AdobeRGB color space. I do this because my camera (5D) can be set to capture in that color space, so there's no initial conversion. It's larger than sRGB, but yeah not as big as ProPhoto. If you capture and work in one then print in the other, you may have to do some color correction on the print file to keep your colors accurate.

 

The problem with not working in sRGB, is that some web applications/browers don't support jpg color profiles. If you work in AdobeRGB and save it for the web, it can look desaturated, if the site/browser/whatever doesn't support the profile. I believe Flickr had this problem. I don't know if they've fixed it yet.

Paul Sauer has a lot of wisdom here. I'm selling a bunch of my MF lenses to try and simplify my kit. I am not however giving up the Nikkor 24mm or 28mm AIS. I have considered buying the Canon 16-35 f2.8 for convenience and simplicity, but it's a high price to pay for those things, and I find I like shooting with primes better.

Okay one more post on this...

 

I emailed briefly with David Clapp (http://www.photo.net/photos/DavidClapp), who is an amazing landscape photographer. His

alternate suggestions for wide angles are Contax lenses: 28-85, 35-70, 28mm f2. But he mentioned it look a long time to

get them set up for infinity focus. I don't know what that's about, since my experience is limited.

Canon 35mm f2 center frame.<div></div>

Canon 35mm f2 lower right frame.<div></div>

Here's the Canon 35mm f2. In the center, not so different from the Tamron, but much better at the edges. I didn't really get

to test the Canon 35 f1.4 when I had it, but I don't think it's that far away from the f2. Better about 1-1.5f stops sooner, and

of course a stop faster, focuses faster and built like a tank. Worth an extra $1000, probably not in the short term. I think the

35mm f1.4 is much better suited to photojournalism than landscapes, in my tiny amount of experience with it.<div></div>

Nikkor 28mm center frame<div></div>