erlend sæteren
-
Posts
191 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by erlend sæteren
-
-
<p>Katrin, in Norway it is not normal to buy two weeks of work for wedding photography. 3 hours of photo, and 1,5 days of editing and retouch is more common. That 2 week-job Jones did would have cost more than 10 000 dollars here, done by a pro. ( I guess he finished 35 pictures a day). </p>
-
<p>If I want to deliver 350 images I make a lot more exposures to ensure the quality. To edit, finish and retouch 350 pictures is a huge job. About low budget- a lot of photographers does work extra in health care, and it is absolutely wrong to charge less as a photographer if you are a serious photographer.<br>
To deliver 700 pictures in stead of 350 means days of editing. Who shal pay for that?</p>
-
<p>Kenzi Kay. Delivering 1000-1500 images- how many thousand dollar is that? Is it unfinished jpg-files?<br>
A 1000 dollars for three days shooting and some more days of editing is definitively low-budget. I guess the dollar pr. hour is below unskilled assistent-rates in other branches. Low budget should implicate low volume and mediocre quality.</p>
-
<p>350 edited pictures for a 1000 dollars is a lot of pictures. You can tell her that 2500 frames is what you needed to get 350 good ones, and the rest is below your standard, or tells nothing important that the other pictures does not tell. For a 1000 dollars it is impossible to deliver more. You can also tell her that there might be something you considered as uninteresting that she likes, and invite her to sit on your computer and browse herself. Tell her that finishing of ekstra pictures will have a cost pr picture. <br>
In Norway it is not common to give out all pictures, and in Norwegian law what is common is listened too.<br>
Tell her that giving out thrashpictures is bad for your reputation.<br>
She will probably not be a problem , but she is curious about if there are something nice you didn,t show her. Maybe an overexposed blurred picture that has something, that you rejected.<br>
Of course you can give her everything, but then she should pay you for some more days of editing. You are not a pro, so it is not bad for your reputation anyway. I charge around 200 dollars /hour for photo and 120 dollars /hour for editing and retouch. So for me a lot of editing pays good, but I need 3 to 30 minutes for each picture. </p>
-
<p>Lots of answers here. Sorry I didnt read them. I fullframe and doubleframe digital, and Sinar Largeformat. I am a bit lazy , so my Nikon d700 works best for me. One thing I love with largeformat is that you can use long lenses as wideangles, and normals. A 150mm gives another look than a 35mm. I think I will pick up my LF again. But the digitals are best for learning fast, a huge number of exposures can be made easy , and at a low cost. <br>
I always carry my Nikon d700.</p>
-
<p>John Sully said that the Eos Elan 2e has low price. I think this camera is identic with the Eos 5, which did serve me well for many years professionally. So i think this is a better choice than the 620, at almost the same price. I did like the Eos 5. It is good. Kari Vierimaa warns you against the oldest cameras (620,650) . Age can introduce problems. The top of the line -cameras, such as the Eos 1n, will not be old before the batteries goes out of production. A nice thing about the highspeedboosting heavy batterigrip for Eos 1 n is that it is powered with AA-cells. They will probably be available for a century. I am fond of very fine tools, so I really hope you will afford to enjoy one of the best ( Eos 1n). </p>
-
<p>Hey Luis G. When you say BLH , do you mean in 1/3 stop increments for digital work? Very fine advice from you. I liked the dusk and dawn -thing.</p>
-
<p>Sorry writing error from me. I think the D90 can use a 35mm and a 18-105VR or a 16-85VR (not 24-85)</p>
-
<p>The Pentax looks like its the best camera, and the Lumix with the 14-140zoom I believe is a lot better videocamera.<br>
I believe the Lumix can use a lot of lenses with adapters (43, Olympus,Nikon, a lot) and the new Olympus 17mm micro43 without adapter. </p>
-
<p>I dont use reflective. It is ment for average scenes, and I suppose it works well for that. Incident is very useful when setting up light, to check if the illumination is even, or if the illumination is right.</p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>Mr. Sully, could it be that you had a Spotmatic! K in K1000 sounds like the K in Pentax K-mount. The Pentax Spotmatic used screwmount.</p>
-
<p>I have heard that 18-105 Nikon is nice. I consider that it is long enough, so I would not buy the 70 -300 early. I have the D700 , and I prefer the 50 1.4. The D90 is a more narrow camera, so I would like the 35 1.8 if I had D90. Combined with the 18-105 or 24-85.<br>
Canon is nice too. And Pentax. And something else.</p>
-
<p>Spot is best for both. You can aim the spot at light and dark and inbetween areas, and meter them all, based on those meterings you will see how high above zero you will allow the lights to shine, and how low below zero yo can dump the shadows. </p>
-
<p>On my Eos 1-n you can choose auto-exposure , autofocus or full manual control. It is built to be very fast and easy to operate manually. In my opinion the Eos 1n is one of the best cameras ever made for manual photography. Most automatic slr-cameras are manually controlable. All high-end Slr-cameras are very good buildt for full manually controlled work. The Eos-cameras need batteries to move the shutter. If the shutter is controlled by a mechanical or electronic timer has no relevans for learning photography. There is no difference in the use.</p>
-
<p>I do not understand that your lens should crash into the ground glass. The syntethic bellows is fine.</p>
-
<p>A very good photographer told me that Canon Eos 620 or 650 (not sure which) is a very good camera. Sounds like a low-cost high-end solution. And forget about the rf and pocketcameras I mentioned for now, for your class slr is probably best.<br>
I saw this on ebay.<br>
-
<p>David. Do not buy Nikon FM3.<br>
There are no very good reasons for a Canon Eos 400d user to buy a non-Canon camera for using film. Canon made lots of nice Cameras for film that can use the Canon EF lenses. Nikon and Leica never made Canon Ef-supporting cameras. You do not need to spend money on two lens-systems. The most important thing to remember when buying yor Canon film-slr. It must be an Eos, and the lenses must be Canon EF. <br>
If you forget the Canon -lenses, you can use Rf-compacts like the Canonet gIII ql-17, or something in the pocket , like Olympus xa-2 or Olympus mju 2. <br>
The least expensive Canon-lens is the Canon Ef 50 1:1.8. Standard on the Eos 1-n, and nice for portraits on the Eos 400d.</p>
-
<p>It looks like the Eos1-n cost 200 dollars used on ebay<br>
The older Eos 1 might be somewhat cheaper maybe 160. Nice camera.<br>
I prefer the light version, not the big one with big battery, because of the weight.<br>
They seldom sell it with lenses.<br>
I think mr. Cahn advises nice cameras, but personally I think Canon is nicer for people who already have Canon for digitalwork. I did have the Eos 5 too, it worked for well me, but it is not close to the Eos 1 cameras in quality.</p>
-
<p>I myself have the top-model of the nineties. The Canon Eos 1n. It is an absolute super camera, and it is so inexpensive these days that I say it is a great bargain. Top pro quality. Enjoyable. Reliable. And not very much more expensive than a low-end model.</p>
-
<p>You are obviously working well with the Sigma. Keep on with it. Sigma are generally known for ok glass, but not being much shockresistant, so be careful not banging it to hard around, and it will serve you well.</p>
-
<p>The 35 does not work yet. I am still waiting for delivery. I have really great expectations. Nikon Norway told me that it is far better than the 35 2.0. I have only held a camera with it. It is nice and small. </p>
-
<p>The 35 does not work yet. I am still waiting for delivery. I have really great expectations. Nikon Norway told me that it is far better than the 35 2.0. I have only held a camera with it. It is nice and small. </p>
-
<p>If you compare the 16-85 vr with the 35 1.8, you will probably realize that the 16-85 is nicer in good daylight because you can zoom in and out, and get a wide or narrow view. The 35 1.8 is a better tool in low light, such as indoors or in the evening, sunset and sunrise, the minutes after sunset. I like portraits a few minutes after sunset, because of the character of the light. I would actually like to have both the 35 and the 16-35.</p>
-
<p>I agree with Richard Thomas,the 16-85 vr is good, but myself I decided that low weight and large aperture is best for me, so I ordered the 35mm 1:1.8. I do not know the Sigma.</p>
Best lens for Nikon D700
in Nikon
Posted
<p>You are partly right, but the Nikon 24-70 is a bit too huge and heavy. So the 35mm 2.0 is better to carry, and better in low light. I have both the 50 1.4 (bit more than 200 gram) and the ca.500gram zoom Tamron 28-75 2.8<br>
I like them both. The 50 1.4 in the night and the zoom in daylight.<br>
I believe you should have the Tamron 28-75 to begin with. Working with it will tell you how wide lwns you prefer, and then you lern which prime has the the best angle of view for you. The Tamrion 28-75 will not break your economy to hard. The only bad thing with the Tamron is that the corners are less sharp than with primes or the best Nikonzoom.</p>