William Michael

<blockquote> <p>It <strong><em>was plain childish</em></strong> to come out of the whole thing <strong><em>empty handed, </em></strong>with only some bad memories <strong><em>and a lesson learned</em></strong>.</p> </blockquote> <p>Disagree on both points.<br> Firstly, it would only be a childish act if the lesson were NOT learned.<br> Secondly, if the lesson was learnt, then the OP did NOT come out ‘<em>empty handed’</em>.</p> <p>WW</p>

<blockquote> <p>I guess <em>I will <strong>write it off</strong> as an experience</em> . . .</p> </blockquote> <p>Probably better to <strong><em>embrace</em></strong> all aspects of it as a very inexpensive yet WORTHWHILE multifaceted lesson.</p> <p>WW</p>

<blockquote> <p>“I'd like to take the newborn shots also some pictures of baby, baby and wife and studio style photos of us all (I'd use the tripod and set the camera timer) at home.”</p> </blockquote> <p>I expect that your 18 to 55 Kit Lens is fine for those jobs. You’ll probably be at F/6.3 to F/10 anyway for most of the "studio style" shots and that lens will be very sharp at those apertures.</p> <p>What you do need to investigate and probably spend money on is Flash Gear: then you need to learn how to use it. One (or two) Dedicated Nikon ‘speedlite’ type flash heads would be very versatile and not break the bank – I suggest to begin with ONE ONLY Flash and use a simple DIFFUSER or BOUNCE. For outdoors you can use direct Flash as Fill. My strong opinion the first step is more important to learn about how to use one flash very creatively and how to use everyday objects as backdrop and props than buying new lenses.</p> <p>However, a fast (Prime Lens) will provide some leverage for (low level) Available Light shooting and also some creativity exploring Shallow Depth of Field: but I'd place that purchase a while down the track as Flash is more important for the broad range of general photographic ideas that you have at the moment.</p> <p>The Backdrop (for ‘studio style photos’ and also for impromptu portraiture) is really up to the limit of your imagination.</p> <p>WW<br /> and welcome to Photo.net</p>

<p>1. What type of <strong><em>"crowded situations"</em></strong>, specifically, including the typical lighting conditions?<br> 2. With Flash or No Flash?<br> 3. How tight do you need to frame the Subjects?</p> <p>*</p> <p>As a <em>general comment,</em> I would cast another vote for the 24 to 105 F/4 L IS USM.<br> A Subject at 60ft can be cropped a fair bit from a 5D MkII.<br> These first two below - the man is just beyond 60ft, the woman is a at about 30ft and these were cropped from a 5D (you'll do better on the crop from the MkII Camera):<br> <a href="/photo/17106553">http://www.photo.net/photo/17106553</a><br> <a href="/photo/17397937">http://www.photo.net/photo/17397937</a></p> <p>For reference this is (almost the full frame of the sensor) shot at 105mm and SD at 60ft:<br> <a href="/photo/16552573">http://www.photo.net/photo/16552573</a></p> <p>There are a range of other uses for this lens on a 5D, here:<br> <a href="/photodb/folder?folder_id=1051323">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1051323</a></p> <p>WW</p>

<p>That lens for the purposes that you outline, would be: NOT wide enough for my uses .</p> <p>28mm on an APS-C is not wide enough for me for my ‘one stop shop walking around lens’ which is exactly what you detailed in your list of tasks. The 75mm at the tele end would be more than adequate for me, for use on an APS-C Format Camera.</p> <p>Specifically for “street portraiture” I would be at a loss with that lens because I would need around a 20mm~24mm for use on your camera.</p> <p>But that's me - I think you should plonk your 18 to 55 on your camera and just see how many times that YOU wander wider than 28mm for those tasks that you outline - especially in a crowded street, train, bus, park, port, beach, shopping centre . . . etc.</p> <p>*</p> <p>Whilst using a monopod will probably compensate for not having Vibration Reduction in many, most (perhaps all?) of your shooting scenarios where VR would assist you: I would caution that carrying that monopod for those uses (or “just in case I need it”) could be problematic, tiresome and in the end you might find that you leave the monopod at home and as a result the spontaneity for your adventure could diminish.</p> <p>WW</p>

<p>A few points that seem common ground or close to common ground between us - I don’t mind working with a fixed lens; I use 5D’s and a 35/1.4 quite a lot; I wanted something smaller, portable, pocketable; I wanted good quality; I liked the idea of images SOOC. I also fancied a leaf shutter.<br /> I looked seriously at the x100 and then bought an x100s.<br /> I am happy I did. The lens is very sharp; the leaf shutter is useful (and I use it); then menu system seems silly in its prioritization, but that’s not impossible for me to get around; JPEG (B&W and COLOUR), SOOC are definitely a viable option, the battery when getting flat dies very quickly – you do need two.</p> <p>I think the choice ends up being in the minutia, as there are quite a few cameras that will deliver the overall image quality that you want. For me, it was the leaf shutter; the variety of JPEG SOOC control; and slightly larger size and balance and feel in my hands that made the x100s my choice.</p> <p>A couple here: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1069176<br> And a few more here: <a href="/photodb/folder?folder_id=1069044">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1069044</a></p> <p>WW</p>

<p>On your point about: “<em>I will also be <strong>shooting some portrait and social photos</strong> (to help pay the bills as they say)”</em></p> <p>If you are starting from scratch buying ALL your gear, then you’ll need to allocate some funds to Lighting Gear.</p> <p>WW</p>

<blockquote> <p>I want to purchase . . <strong><em>a backup camera</em></strong> . . .</p> </blockquote> <p>Why?</p> <p>*</p> <p>I think that you should firstly reconsider the rationale for having a 'back-up' camera.<br /> Then secondly consider what the purpose of that camera actually is to be.</p> <p>What I mean is, if the second camera body is truly a “Back Up” then to completely ‘back up’ (i.e. ‘replace’) the first - it must be the same or close to the same as the first as possible.</p> <p>If this is the case then I would seriously consider the cost outlay for the expected returns. For example IF your (very expensive) camera goes belly up and needs to be in camera hospital for three weeks, would that be the end of the world and/or could you survive renting a similar body for that time? Is it necessary to outlay a whack of money to have another camera “on standby” just in case . . . maybe it is for you, I don’t know: It is for me because I still shoot some gigs for money and I cannot afford look stupid if my one of 5D’s die – so I take at minimum three DSLRs to all paying jobs: but at a family function or a long drive or a relaxed weekend away I take one camera.</p> <p>If on the other hand when you wrote <em>‘back up’</em> you meant <em>“I want to use two active cameras when shooting”- OR – “I want two different cameras because I have diversely different needs”</em> then that is a different matter. And in this case I think that you need to look at what OUTCOMES you specifically want from using two cameras (as opposed to one) and let that drive the choice of which two cameras that you buy.</p> <p>WW</p> <p>Addendum: I just noticed you subsequent post about shooting 'Portraits and "social" ' - then I suspect that you do need a second camera body - but remainder of my above reamins for consideration - AND - especially if these paying gigs are infrequent (or not yet in the bag as contracts) then I see no rush to buy a second body if you can borrrow or rent (cheaply) </p>

<blockquote> <p>"Studies show that people tend to view image at a distance about equal to the diagonal measure of the display"</p> </blockquote> <p>I didn’t know that and obviously I haven't seen the data, but pausing to think about it - that seems logical, because that distance would be the 'closest comfortable' - based upon the AoV of their eyes.</p> <p>WW</p>

<p>Thank you for the additional information.</p> <blockquote> <p>Pay is dependent upon sales. <strong><em>We may end up in the hole.</em></strong></p> </blockquote> <p>That is entirely <em><strong>your</strong></em> choice whether you end up losing money or not.<br> You’ve given no indication that covering this gig as you outlined is compulsory for you to do: and even if you think it is compulsory - it very most likely is not.</p> <p>I suggest you either withdraw completely, or, if your best analysis reveals that you can make a profit then consider re-arranging along the lines that Josh Laronge has outlined and shoot the event and then allow sales via an on-line conduit. </p> <p>WW</p> <p> </p>

<p>I think that you need to first look very critically at the logistics that you have defined:<br> 400 people.<br> minimum 3 minutes in Photoshop per each to edit.<br> minimum 3 minutes per each to print.</p> <p>Let's assume that you make images of <strong><em>only</em></strong> 200 people: then that's 200 x 3 x 3 = 1800 minutes to get a final print in the hands of each of those Customers.<br> That's 30 hours to edit and print to provide a sale for only half of the potential customers available to your business - that doesn't include the "shooting time" and the "finding the image on the computer time". That’s a very long event.</p> <p>A better model could be to capture JPEG SOOC and direct upload to the printing table where the customer service sales person direct prints from that JPEG file.<br> I'd also suggest taking the order and money prior to the shot - this can be done at the same service desk: the client (maybe with a token) then has the portrait taken and then walks over to collect the print.</p> <p>In any case: allowing 30 seconds for each sale to be completed and then a subsequent 30 seconds for each image to be captured and another 30 seconds for the printing of each image - for that slick, non-stop arrangement, you'll need to be going for 600 minutes to make a sale to each of the 400 people. That's about 10 hours non-stop working with two people working the gig.</p> <p>So for the brief that you outline in your OP, and if you want printing on site, I'd account for at least two photographers shooting and three printers, printing.<br> But before I would commit to that Capital Outlay I would want to be very secure that the sales would render a respectable Profit.<br> (note – that does NOT mean ‘Respectable Sales’ but means respectable “<strong>Profit</strong>.”).</p> <p>WW</p>

<p>^ Certainly Dave's simile brings a basic reality to the situation; one which not many could argue against.<br> *<br> I trust that you are well and all is good, Mary. It is so very nice to see your nameplate in the Wedding Forum.<br> regards,<br> William</p> <p> </p>

<p>A few specific comments for you to consider:</p> <p><strong><em>“I know it's important as a second shooter to have a nice variety of shots.”</em></strong><br /> That’s not my experience.<br /> However, it is important for the second to deliver exactly what the Lead Photographers asks of them, which might be a variety of shots, but, on the occasions when I have used a second Photographer at a Wedding or Event I have been quite prescriptive and variety (especially shallow DoF and low level available light shooting was not part of that prescription) after the directives were filled and the requested shots in were the can then, sure, my Second would have a reasonable free reign to extend themselves, but not before each part of job was completed, as I requested.</p> <p>*</p> <p><strong><em>“I do NOT have money to spend on new equipment.” </em></strong>–and – <strong><em>“The primary photographer is well aware of the equipment I currently own . . . She's not asking me to upgrade”</em></strong><br /> What SPECIFICALLY is she asking you to do as her Second Photographer? I think that is the MOST important factor to bring to this conversation.</p> <p>*</p> <p><em><strong>“That being said, would a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 be a good choice for me? Are there other lenses that would be decent for second shooting weddings on a crop sensor? Or should I just rent a lens like the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II?”</strong></em><br /> A 17 to 50~55 F/2.8 is my suggestion as a better choice for an all-round fast zoom lens for a 7D for Weddings: 28mm is generally not wide enough for all circumstances that one will encounter. Tamron make a less expensive zoom (than the Canon) in that range – the Tamron NON VR version seems to be the better lens optically of the two, which Tamron make.<br /> <br /> In addition to that fast zoom lens a fast 85 Prime (e.g. EF 85 F/1.8) would cover most of the telephoto needs: also the 85/1.8 makes a nice (FAST) partner for the fast 50mm lens that you already have. What you do not have is a fast “normal” lens so later down the track you could look at the EF35/2 or EF28/1.8 (or similar), for example if you want to progress low level available light shooting or very shallow DoF work, or both.<br /> <br /> I believe that a Kenko x1.4 Tele-extender works acceptably with the EF 85/1.8, though I understand there is a minor issue with using the lens wide open: this would be a good option to get for telephoto reach for one who is on a very tight budget.</p> <p>*</p> <p>Notwithstanding those suggestions above: the kit zoom that you have (18 to 55, assuming that it is one of the later IS versions), is a very sharp lens. That lens will do very well for all shots that are required of you as a Second Photographer if the shots can be made using the F/7 to F/11 Aperture range of the lens.</p> <p>*</p> <p>It is understood that your question is about lenses – but it is worthwhile mentioning your Flash gear – if your Flash Gear is lacking, then any cash that you get hold of could be well better disbursed in that area: again depending upon what the requirements are of you, by the Lead Photographer .</p> <p>Also, I’d guess that your intention is to move towards shooting Weddings for yourself – so in that regard any purchases that you make now should not be specifically for your work as a second photographer but rather to contribute to building a flexible stand alone kit for yourself and in this regard: a fast 17 to 50~55 zoom; and a fast 85; and two Speedlite Flashes; and a spare camera body (with the backup two lenses that you already have) would be a reasonable, inexpensive starter-kit to launch your own gigs.</p> <p>WW</p>

<p>Kelly,<br> It would be best to start a new thread outlining your own problem.<br> Also attach a <strong>Sample Image</strong> with the problem and the<strong> EXIF</strong> attached or at the least post the <strong>Shutter Speed</strong> and <strong>Aperture</strong> and <strong>ISO</strong> that you used and also the <strong>Focal Length</strong> at which the lens was set.</p> <p>*</p> <p>In regard to the first photo posted by the original poster, there appears to be Subject Movement evidenced by what appears to be a varying amount of softness on the Woman and the Child at about the same distance from the camera. Knowing the SHUTTER SPEED at which that first photo was captured would add weight to or against this supposition.</p> <p>I stress that these shooting details are very important to list when one is asking for analysis of photographs.</p> <p>WW</p>

<blockquote> <p>MODERATOR NOTE</p> </blockquote> <p>Thank you for your prompt response; the full discloser and a detailed explanation.</p>

<blockquote> <p><strong>MODERATOR NOTE:</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>Charles,<br> For clarity, please confirm that this is your own work, for which you are asking a critique.<br> Thank you.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I am a preferred vendor of <strong>a company that deals with weddings. </strong>The owner <strong>once a month</strong> is going to <strong>email me a list of her clients or couples who might be</strong>.</p> <p>What <strong>is the BEST WAY </strong>to go about contacting them to see if they are in need of a photographer?</p> </blockquote> <p>Re-arrange the arrangement with the “company that deals with weddings”.</p> <p>When the owner or the sales person of the “company that deals with weddings” is selling to the prospects have that Salesperson mention: YOU; YOUR SERVICES – and – upon THEIR referral that you will offer them a complimentary16 x 20 mounted and framed print from your Wedding Coverage and also have the Salesperson mention that you will be in contact shortly.</p> <p>Harvest the contact phone numbers from the “company that deals with weddings” <strong>each day</strong> and telephone the prospect that same afternoon or early evening to arrange the appointment for your own initial sales meeting with the prospects.</p> <p>BTW I am not cribbing Bob’s idea about the complimentary print – a gift to the Client, the Mums and Dads; the Bridesmaids etc . . . of SIGNED a 16” x 20” was a staple gift of mine, for a long time.</p> <p>WW</p>

<p>I think that an existing Professional Photographer has to either: create other <strong>like business strands</strong>: or <strong>diversify outside photography:</strong> or create a <strong>niche photography product market</strong> or IMO the best solution if one wants to stay mainly in photography do: <strong>one and three</strong>.</p> <p>Whatever the case, of one wants to stay in the business there little use complaining about <em>"the situation"</em>.</p> <p>WW</p>

<p>This might not be about setting a printing default, if this selection is located in the initial camera's set-up.</p> <p>I think that you might be setting the camera's file RESOLUTION. That is to say you are setting the digital <strong>file size </strong>that the camera will capture when you make a picture. <strong>I think that you need to double-check what you actually are setting.</strong></p> <p>If you are setting the RESOLUTION - probably the camera's LCD or the Instruction Manual refers that RESOLUTION to a “paper size” to give you an idea of how big you can print the image and still get good quality. "A1" Paper Size is quite big, just a bit bigger than a 30 x 20 (inch) Photograph, so that is probably aligned to the largest resolution possible.</p> <p>In simple terms, the larger the resolution that you capture the fewer images you will be able to capture on any one sized card: but the larger the resolution you capture the better quality image you will have suitable for larger printing.</p> <p>WW</p>

<blockquote> <p>"Close enough for government work, I say."</p> </blockquote> <p>haha. That's funny. I'll use that, please.<br> *</p> <p>I understood the question was general in nature, kind of "chuck it out there I want to know what are your opinions and views"<br> Maybe I misinterpreted.</p> <p>WW</p>

<p>JDM, the wiki link you supplied is to “Depth of Focus”<br> Here is the wiki link to “Depth of Field”: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field</a></p> <p>***</p> <blockquote> <p>As a social scientist, I am amazed at how good Wikipedia usually is</p> </blockquote> <p>I think it is a good starting point for many and a good general reference point for most. I think that un-referenced / un-footnoted claims need to be investigated and not just taken as gospel. I think that accepting unsubstantiated claims can re-write history and be a launching pad for untruths to become truths - and whilst such might not be serious when we are discussing the minutia of photographic optics: the principle does have a serious social impact of which we should all be aware. </p> <p>*</p> <p>The first line of the second paragraph at the wiki link on Depth of Focus is -<br> “<em><strong>While the phrase depth of focus was historically used</strong>, and is sometimes still used, to mean depth of field (DOF),</em>”</p> <p>That statement (my bolding for emphasis) does not have any reference in the footnotes. I have researched quite a few (older) texts and not yet ever noted that ‘Depth of Focus’ was historically used to mean ‘Depth of Field’.<br> I have noted that the phrases are certainly sometimes interchanged nowadays, though, which causes confusion, especially when technical detail requires an exact separation of meaning, or when the correct answer depends on an exam credit.</p> <p>WW</p>

<p>The (approximate) “Equivalence” in F/ Stops correct to ⅓Stop, in respect of Depth of Field between Formats / Negative Size is:</p> <p>135 Format to 6 x 4.5 Format: increase 1 Stop<br> 135 Format to 6 x 6 Format: increase 1⅔ Stops</p> <p>For clarity “increase” means to stop down to a SMALLER aperture. e.g. if you use F/8 on a EOS 5D and you want to maintain “Equivalence” then you need to use F/11 on a 6 x 4.5 and F/14 on 6 x 6.</p> <p>WW</p> <p> </p> <p> </p>

<p>Alan,<br> It is a REFLECTION of the Flash. That is not too difficult to manage. This is not “glare” as the meaning of ‘glare’ relates to “lens flare”. Also it is not "glare" as the meaning relates to shooting into water and the sun's rays making 'glare' which can be attenuated with a CPL Filter. I think it is important to make these points quite clear. You do not need to employ Polarizing Filters or other fancy methods to address this issue.</p> <p>The article that was supplied via link clearly mentions and Jeff has also pointed out, it is making the correct choices for the <strong>Subject’s Position</strong> (and apsect of their Head); and the <strong>Flash's Position</strong>.</p> <p>The link clearly has a diagram illustrating the <strong>Angle of Incidence equalling the Angle of REFLECTION</strong>.</p> <p>I think that if you come to a basic understanding that this is simply a REFLECTION issue and understand the principle: INCIDENT angle equals REFLECTED angle; then you will be able to make simple positional and aspect adjustments of either or both Subject and Flash Head, for all shooting scenarios that you encounter.</p> <p>WW</p>

<blockquote> <p>I shoot mainly in the shade, but since my subjects are older babies, sometimes they turn <em>where the light is pretty harsh ([partial] harsh light on side of face ).<strong> when this happens, should I meter the brighter part of their faces or the shaded part? </strong></em></p> </blockquote> <p>If you choose to use Spot Metering off Skin Tones, it doesn’t matter whether you meter the shadow side or the sunlit side of the face in side lit sun as either way you will still have to adjust the exposure to suit (a) the skin type and (b) whether you meter the sun side or the shadow side.</p> <p>When I use Spot Metering in Harsh / Direct side lit or backlit sun – AND- I am shooting only available light, I meter from the SHADOW SIDE of the face and then correct the exposure for the shot, based upon the skin tone of the Subject . I do this because - IF - I am using this method I am not worried about blowing highlights in the background and I want the shadow side of the face to be the correct exposure. </p> <p>HOWEVER, if I were shooting Baby or Child Portraits in Direct / Harsh Sunlight, I would normally and most often use Flash as Fill. In this case, the ambient light meter reading would be for the Sun-lit area of the scene and that would normally be “the background”, when shooting in Direct Sunlight.</p> <p>WW</p> <p><br /> </p>

<blockquote> <p>If you have a lens that can be set to f/4 or f/5.6 without being wide open, you should be able to get away with using an ISO around 800</p> </blockquote> <p>Considering the sample image and the EXIF as disclosed, that seems a unusual suggestion. In any case I disagree with dropping the ISO to ISO 800 for that type of shot in that shooting scenario.</p> <p>The sample image was pulled at: F/5.6 @ 1/500s @ ISO 51200, and the exposure appears to be “OK”</p> <p>If the OP used ISO 800 for that shot and also used F/4 ~ F/5.6, then the shutter speed required would be in the range of: 1/15s ~ 1/8s. </p> <p>As previously mentioned, that particular shot might have been possible at 1/60s because the Subject seems to be standing still, but 1/8s to 1/15s is a Shutter Speed range that would be way too dangerous for Gymnastics, in regard to attaining Blur due to Subject Movement - even when the Subject is (apparently) "Standing Still".</p> <p>WW</p> <p> </p>