William Michael

<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>

<p>Yes, I am quite confident that you can get a 'KatzEye' Focusing Screen fitted to your camera <strong>and for an additional cost you can get grid lines in Thirds scribed into that new screen.</strong> <br> There might be other third party Focusing Screen manufacturers, but I am familiar with ‘Katzeye’ </p> <p>WW</p>

<p>Yes, I agree with all the above general meanings.<br> I think that the first question you need to answer for the forum is:<br> <strong><em>'Do you have a (written) contract?'</em></strong></p> <p>*<br> <br /> And I agree with Marcus, the answer to your direct question is, that having a suitable contract is the way small (and large) vendors protect their businesses.</p> <p>WW</p>

<p>You're welcome.</p> <p>This in an interesting area - very interesting for me as, when discussing the range of topics in this area, I don't think that there are any "industry standards" per se: but I do think that there are trends and movements. In this regard (and in other respects as well) Photoset has been of great value to me personally and also our businesses. The trends (not only business trends) that I note which are discussed here give a good mixed-up varietized world view of wedding photography and I have picked up many hints that have allowed me to refine and refine and refine - just a suggestion for you to hang around and participate.</p> <p>*</p> <p>Directly to your reply: the two points that you made (i.e. getting away from the desk and the potential messiness of digital to and fro) are the main two points as to why I do things the way I do them. Also, my base standpoint is that I (still) maintain the very strong view that best business is always done face to face and toe to toe with the primary decision maker.</p> <p>WW</p>

<p>Post Script:</p> <p>As for an opinion:<br> I definitely understand the momentum to move a business practices to being smoother and more client friendly, (and your website and the procedures appear to be very ‘client friendly’).<br> But when setting up any business system to be “more modern” or “more efficient” or more “client friendly” one has to weigh the potential cost of just one small problem raising its head later down the line and that problem not being able to be put to bed quickly and efficiently.<br> Just as an example, I checked my car in for service this morning – and the mechanic required my signature on the contract, before he took the key from me. </p> <p>WW</p>

<p>I am not a Solicitor. I am a Photographer and also a Director of a Company which is registered in Australia. I will make comment from a business perspective as the question is placed in the business forum.<br> <br /> Our business uses paper contracts; two copies; one for us and one for the client; each is signed by both us and the client; each of those signatures is witnessed. We do this because we believe this to be the best business practice, with least exposure to problems down the line and is in keeping with our business profile and image.</p> <p>To address your question directly: If you want the precise ins and outs of contract law you really do need to seek the advice of a Solicitor. This is not a difficult question and a local practice should be able to set you straight.</p> <p>BUT - as far as I am aware electronic signatures and email exchanges may hold up as contractually binding, if there is a dispute.</p> <p>WW</p>

<p>First up, I do quite of lot of video – it is not production style video, but rather record keeping video, but lots of it and it does involve a lot of zooming and does require high definition.<br /> I went down the thought path of using my DSLRs, mainly because I already had a few DSLRs and also an handsome cache of lenses to suit.<br /> After a little research I got out of that “DSLR” thought really quickly and bought a dedicated Video Camera – in the end much cheaper, much easier and much more efficient.<br /> Just food for thought – if you really need to do video why not get the tailored tool for the job?<br /> *</p> <blockquote> <p>"It has crossed my mind that a Canon 6d would work for her and am wondering about the possibility of getting a 6D now and a 5D soon after. <em><strong>One question I have is how interchangeable would the lenses be</strong></em>"</p> </blockquote> <p>You will have complete lens interchangeability. The EOS 6D and all of the EOS 5D Series Cameras are exclusively "EF Lens Mount" cameras: (none will support the Canon EF-S range of lenses). The 6D and the 5D series are ‘135 Format Cameras’ commonly known now as "full frame" cameras - that is to say, they are the same 'negative size' as your Nikon 135 Film Cameras.</p> <p>Additionally if you switch to ANY Canon EOS camera, you should be able, with an adapter, to mount your existing Nikkor Lenses to the Canon Cameras, (the lenses will have to be manually operated). This is not a suggestion to do that, but merely alerting you to the possibility that your existing lens cache is of some usefulness.</p> <p>You might have been asking about (Canon) lens interchangeability because of the “EF-S” and “EF” Lens mounts that Canon makes.<br /> In simple terms:<br /> Canon has three formats (sensor sizes) in their EOS range of Digital SLR Cameras:<br /> APS-C, APS-H and 135 Format<br /> <strong>1. ALL of the Canon EOS DSLR cameras, no matter what format, will allow ALL “EF” Mount lenses to fit to them</strong><br /> and<br /> <strong>2. It is ONLY the APS-C Format Cameras (**1) that allow the “EF-S” Mount Lenses to fit to them</strong><br /> (**1) mostly all of the APS-C range will allow “EF-S” - EXCEPT for three very early models.<br> <br /> <br /> *</p> <p>I use Canon DSLR’s. I have 5D Series and also APS-C format xxD Series cameras. All my cameras have battery grips attached.</p> <p>On the matter of your daughter - my daughter sometimes shoots with me; she certainly “borrows” a lot of my gear and has done since she was a young teenager. She has small hands. I think that hands are the more important consideration - not so much age or physical stature or strength. My daughter does not and has never liked using my 5D Series cameras and she is not all that fussed on using my APS-C cameras either. She prefers the (smaller and lighter) EOS xxxD Series camera.<br /> I think that (if your daughter is at least 12~14) her hands won’t grow all that much more, so I would get the choices into her hands and let her feel the weight and the balance, if you haven’t already done that.</p> <p>Obvioulsy the lenses that you choose to use will add weight and affect balance - so this aspect is not just about the Camera Body - again in this regard, my daughter likes using lighter weight and smaller (telephoto) lenses and not (for example) my 70 to 200/2.8. </p> <p>WW</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>It pisses me off, big time. What about you? Or do any of you even pay any attention to where your work ends up?</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes I do care. I care very much.<br> I pay a great deal of attention to my work because first and foremost I realize that I am in my own business and that is what has paid the family accounts for many years.<br> I pay a lot of attention to detail as that is one of MY responsibilities as the Managing Director of our Company: and it is that Company which owns most of the work which I have produced.<br> I care so much that I usually have always read all the details and consider all the possible outcomes before I enter into any contract.<br> Accordingly, I read all the Terms and Conditions of Use before I joined Photonet and after joining I have acted such that I do not to jeopardize any of my Company’s assets.<br> It is really not that difficult to contribute words and images (and time and effort) to this site in a positive manner and also in a way that can be somewhat selfish in part, whilst still acting in a manner which is cognisant of all the possible outcomes in respect of what one posts or contributes. </p> <p>Really, I don’t think that you have any case at all, as you and you alone are responsible for any and all of your contributions here and also the subsequent outcomes. </p> <p>WW</p> <p> </p>

<p>When I use either of these lenses, I use a monopod, so "Hand Holding" does not come into the equation, (for me).<br> Also both lenses have Image Stabilization.</p> <p>Both these factors have a direct influence on shutter speed choice for the shot and also the practicality and ease of general use and carriage of the lens(es).</p> <p>WW</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>"<em>[i want to buy a super telephoto lens]</em> . . . It's strictly for wildlife. I'm thinking along the lines of the 400 with the 1.4 tele for reach but the 300 is so popular it kinda got me thinking. Got a 5D III & 7D for bodies."</p> </blockquote> <p>Maybe it was my mistake for reading the OP literally and not assuming: the fact that you were considering buying one of these lenses was not spelled out in the OP.<br> That's a different question.<br> You need to consider what FL that would be appropriate for the task: I expect that, for most "wildlife" the 300 would lack length and so your initial thoughts of the 400/2.8 and the x1.4 EF Extender would be a more sensible choice.<br> As Ellis states, the task should drive the choice, not other factors.</p> <p>WW<br> </p>

<p>I can explain what I would do and the rational for it: I have relatively easy access to borrow both of those lenses, but if I were spending my own money to buy one or both (i.e. if it were NOT my business purchasing it) I'd buy the 300/2.8 and the 1.4TC, for the exact reason that Rob has outlined - flexibility in a one only purchase. <br> Additionally, if I were to buy another super telephoto lens as a partner for the 300/2.8, it would be the 500/4 and not the 400/2.8.<br> WW</p>

<blockquote> <p>If I go for option 1, then I am also debating EF 85mm f1.8 USM vs. EF100mm f2.8L Macro for portraits. Anybody have used both lenses and can tell me if there is significant difference in IQ/Bokeh in these two lenses.</p> </blockquote> <p>The 85/1.8 is the better of those two prime lenses for general Portraiture, not necessarily for image quality, but for AF speed.<br> Both lenses have great IQ and certainly the 100/2.8 can be use for Portraiture. I am not fussed all that much about Bokeh being the be all and end all of Portrait Photography – that stated, both those lenses can produce “nice Bokeh” to my eye.<br> If you are indeed hung up on Bokeh (<strong>which has a constituent of many elements and NOT just the lens itself</strong>) and you want a lens around the short telephoto Focal Length, then consider the EF 135/2L USM, I can often tell the difference of the Bokeh, when this lens is used. <br> Some Portraits with 5D series Cameras. . .<br> The 85/1.8:<br> <a href="/photo/10963088&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/10963088&size=lg</a><br> <a href="/photo/11468530&size=md">http://www.photo.net/photo/11468530&size=md</a> (see the original in the text below)<br> <a href="/photo/9193714&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/9193714&size=lg</a></p> <p>The 100/2.8 Macro:<br> <a href="/photo/10738709&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/10738709&size=lg</a></p> <p>The 135/2L:<br> <a href="/photo/10442919&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/10442919&size=lg</a><br> <a href="/photo/10442934&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/10442934&size=lg</a><br> <a href="/photo/10442964&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/10442964&size=lg</a></p> <p>The 24 to 105/4L:<br> <a href="/photo/16675275&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/16675275&size=lg</a><br> <a href="/photo/16546075&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/16546075&size=lg</a><br> <a href="/photo/16546073&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/16546073&size=lg</a></p> <p>***</p> <p>As for advice –</p> <p>The 70 to 200/2.8L IS USM (I assume you mean the MkII version) is a wonderful lens, but unless you need the F/2.8 it seems likely an un-necessary expense for a flexible and cost effective kit. In this regard the 70 to 200F/4L IS is lighter and also less expensive - but both these lenses only get you to 200mm so - it seems a good choice to me to have the 70 to 300L IS as a partner for the 24 to 105/4L.<br> HOWEVER – if the F/2.8 is apriority for you and you don’t mind the weight and size of the 70 to 200/2.8 L IS, then note that for a little more cost you can buy the x1.4MkIII EF and get to 280mm at F/4 (with IS). (This is what I would do because I would like the F/2.8 – BUT I am not you). The x1.4MkIII EF extender works superbly with the 70 to 200/2.8 L IS MkII. It works well with the 70 to 200/4L IS also, revealing an equivalent F/5.6 as the maximum aperture, which, if that is suitable would save a bit of money and also weight in the camera bag.</p> <p>What I suggest is that, as you seem decided that you want a telephoto zoom, you just first choose ONE of the telephoto zooms that you want and then find the grove (or groves) for the FL of Prime Lens(es) that will suit you best and buy that/those lens(es) later.<br> In the mean time any one of those three telephoto zooms that you mention and the 24 to 105 will make very good Portrait Photographs at many Focal Lengths – allowing you to experiment and find more accurately what FL you like to use in a fast Prime.</p> <p>*</p> <p>Apropos “Macro” – the 24 to 105, whilst not a macro lens, it can get quite close and you might consider using your 24 to 105 in this manner, before you sink you money into a 100/2.8 </p> <p>24 to 105/4L used in place of a dedicated macro lens:<br> <a href="/photo/17559755&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/17559755&size=lg</a> </p> <p>WW</p>

<p>To provide advice about basic technicalities and procedures more information and clarification is required from you:</p> <p>Children (which we would likely think of as 2 to 12 years) don’t usually attend typical ‘conferences’, so a descriptive detailing what the children will be doing in conjunction with what is the basic aim of the photography are required by you . . .</p> <p>– for one example it might be a prize-giving and the main aim of the photography is to record each child receiving their prize and that will be at a set place on the dais, so this will likely require very little moving around, by you.</p> <p>- for another example it might be children attending instruction and also a Ballroom Dance Competition - in which case you will be required to move about the dance floor and capture each pair contestants</p> <p>- for another example it might be more like a child’s birthday party, that is a typical ‘social’ occasion and you will be required to capture all the little moments of joy as well as capture the ‘story’ of the event.</p> <p>So, as you can see, you need to provide more information about this ‘conference’ in an outline similar to the examples I have given, so the questions of technical procedure and other advice can be better addressed.</p> <p>ALSO:</p> <p>What lenses do you have and what Light (Flash) Modifiers do you have? <br> <br> WW</p>

<blockquote> <p>I’ve had a Canon <em>EF<strong>75-</strong>300</em> for years now. I don’t use it much for stills but I find I do increasingly for video. However, I notice sharpness (or lack of it) can be a problem – even in the f8-11 range – and with any kind of wind or movement camera shake can be disastrous. <strong><em>Has anyone used the image stabilizer version for video?</em></strong> Does it make a big difference?</p> </blockquote> <p>I haven’t used either of those lenses, but I think that you’ll find that the EF<strong><em>70</em></strong>-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM would be a better lens than both of those "75" to 300 lenses.</p> <p>*</p> <blockquote> <p><br /> The other option is the L range 70-300. I’m hesitant because of the bulk and weight. Can anyone comment on this lens vs the EF version?</p> </blockquote> <p>This lens has excellent IQ. I have only used it for a short time in a shop – and it was a very nice lens and IMO quite deserving of the accolade that it has received. I didn’t find it “heavy”, but I did find it “well balanced and very hand holdable on my 5D camera with a battery grip”.<br /> I think that you need to hold one and have a play, if you have not yet done so.</p> <p>*</p> <p>IS is worthwhile for video if one is hand holding. But a tripod or a monopod is much better in my experience. I do use my 24 to 105/4 IS very occasionally Hand Held for video capture using a DSLR if I need the telephoto end, but manly I use a wide prime for my video, it depends on what you are capturing and it seems you need a telephoto (zoom) lens for video.</p> <p>Commenting ONLY about Video, I think that if you can use it a Tripod and Video Head that would be better investment than paying more money for IS in a lens. But IS in the lens the makes it a very flexible lens, for both Stills and also Video and this is an important consideration, because if you buy a 70 to 300 L IS, I doubt that you will “only” use it for video . . .?</p> <p>WW</p>