russ_konrad

Robert,

The D3 would have definitely given you more flexibility shooting your formals with no visual differences on the final print. ISO 800 on the D3 is almost identical (in print) to ISO 200 on most other DSLR's.

I agree that that using MF for the formals will give you better resolution - esp on the larger groups.

<b>"A visual art. What is wrong in asking for an example to illustrate your point? " </b>

<p>

<i>This is cookie-cutter stuff. Hardly art. Mature dialog with rebuttal is enough.</i>

<p>

Okay - simply post a link to your website so we can see public examples of your work that you use to promote your

wedding photography business.

<p>

A photography website is public and contains images that you have received permission from the subjects so there

would be no possibility of violating any "clients trust".

<p>

I am eagerly looking forward to seeing your images so I (along with everyone else) can learn from concrete examples

of the ideas that you have presented in this thread.

<p>

Cheers!

<b>"...You're defensive and presented Edward and I with the taunting challenge of posting a better photo in order for some sort of juvenile verdict of who's right or who's wrong...."</b>

<p>

In case you missed it - this entire forum is about "photography". A visual art. What is wrong in asking for an example to illustrate your point? I am hardly perfect and would love to learn. But anyone can make claims and assertions - "armchair" photographers included. Show us an example!

<p>

As I said - I will gladly retract ALL my negative tone and comments about anyone and everyone in this thread if you would just post an example of your own to illustrate your position.

<p>

What are YOU afraid of? Or don't you have any examples of your own to show us?

<p>

There are many "armchair" photographers like yourself who for some reason never seem to show any of their own work. No work to show? Or do you just sit back and make comments and critisizms on the work of others because you "think" you can do a better job?

<b>"... Show me the evidence which proves that Epson is lying, and in reality you only get 256 tones, as you said..."</b>

<p>

You will find that Garrison K. frequently makes claims and assertions on photo.net that he refuses to backup with any evidence of any sort.

<p>

As you said - it becomes very tiring in carrying on a discussion with that type of individual.

<b>"..."post processing is an intergal part of photography" not true..."</b>

<p>

LOL

<p>

So do you think that the lab that processes your film never made any adjustments or corrections while developing to the print and/or the slide?

<b>"...It's just that I read some excellent reviews about the 18-200 mm VR lens."</b>

<p>

The "excellent" reviews were concerned mainly with how this lens covers a large range and allows you to carry just

one lens. They are NOT saying that this lens has "excellent" optical performance.

<p>

Either of the Tamron lenses mentioned in this thread will give you better images than the 18-200 lens and much

better low light performance.

Wow!

I guess that I am not as "perfect" as Gary!

And unless you are as "perfect" as Gary and you shoot critical once-in-a-lifetime shots (like a wedding - or a TRIP TO EUROPE!) - you might want to give yourself some added insurance and shoot RAW.

Yes - I have shot slides for many years as well but I am not so arrogant to claim that I NEVER make a mistake. My customers just want the shot captured beautifully and in a fast paced wedding in mixed lighting it is always best to use every tool available to make sure that happens.

<a href=http://www.premiraalbums.com/><b>Premira Albums</b></a>

<p>

Do a search for "Premira Albums" and you can find several companies that sell them.

<b>"1. You have a good RAW converter that saves your in-camera settings, or your RAW images will look very flat"</b>

<p>

Capture NX does it perfectly!

<p>

<b>"2. You know what you're doing with post processing"</b>

<p>

The learning curve with Capture is not bad at all - actually much easier to learn than Photoshop!

<p>

<b>"3. You have LOTS of time to post process all of those images."</b>

<p>

I normally will sort and process 1000 to 1200 wedding images down to 300 to 400 images for the bride and groom using Capture NX for about 95% of all the necessary adjustments in under 12 hours. MUCH faster than using Photoshop or any other program I have tried.

<b>"... I find I am limited so much by the adjustments I can make in CaptureNX ..."</b>

<p>

Start using the white and black control points in Capture. Simply amazing results with just one click!

<P>

Additionally - the latest version (Capture NX - 2.0) now has a healing brush that actually does a better job than the one in Photoshop.

<b>"...you cannot print a raw file..."</b>

<P>

Not correct. I print RAW files from Capture NX all the time.

<b>"Russ, I have the camera. I know how many shots I get per charge. I don't need to read the manual to find that out."</b>

<p>

Hey - I was just pointing out where the 4000 number that I stated came from.

<p>

Yes - if you chimp alot and use the LCD for Menu adjustments a great deal - you may have problems in getting 4000 shots out of one charge. I did experiment for one week and actually got over 4100 shots on one battery charge but YMMV.

Good point Shun!

I just realized that the D3 battery was the ONE item that I didn't have backed up for our wedding work! (I guess

the AA option included with the grips on the D200 and D300 got me spoiled!)

I just ordered another one!

<b>"...How about the times ,when there wasnt Photoshop??? Did people took nice pictures???..."</b>

<p>

Yes - the lab color corrected and corrected exposure if necessary when they printed the images.

<b><i>"...I seriously doubt the 4000 figure, unless you do it in a quick sequence...."</b></i>

<p>

Read the spec sheet on Nikon's Website:

<p>

<a href=http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/ProductDetail.page?pid=25434><b>Nikon D3 Specifications</b></a>

<p>

<b>Battery Life (shots per charge):</b> 4,300 shots (CIPA)

4,700 shots (Nikon Standard)

<b>"....The second battery is a must..."</b>

<p>

Not really.

<p>

Considering that you should be able to get at LEAST 3000 to maybe even 4000 shots on the D3 per charge - he's going to need many more cards before he even needs to think about recharging his battery.

<p>

Looking at his comments earlier in this thread - I doubt that he will be shooting 4000 shots in one day's shooting.

You should really get TWO compact flash cards - either for automatic backup of all your shots or automatic overflow. You can also shoot RAW on one card and JPEG on the other card.

I have two 16GB cards in my D3 all the time - set to automatically backup every shot.

I have one - but rarely use it for weddings. It can produce cool effects though. Here is an image from this past weekend of one of my daughters: (straight out of the camera - just converted from RAW to small JPEG for web use)

<p>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3091/2581999499_4cf7963233.jpg?v=0">

<b>"...Ever photographed a bride getting ready in a room full of greenish fluorescent lights?..."</b>

<p>

All the time. Get the white balance right when you shoot and/or shoot it in RAW and correct the white balance in post.

<p>

I have never been forced to convert a color shot to black and white because I couldn't get the color right - for whatever reason.

<p>

Just my personal experience - YMMV.

I disagree with the concept that the photos that have "bad" lighting or "bad" makeup are the shots that you turn into black and white.

While it may be the only way to salvage some shots by using that technique - I agree with Bob. I usually "see" the black and white shot even before I take it.

There are some classic shots that always tend to look good in black and white - the groom alone and the groom with all the guys in a more casual pose are just a couple that come to mind. Other shots - the couple in the car/limo - the couple coming down the aisle - the first dance.

When we do make the conversions we always give the customer the original color shots as well as the black and white shot.

<b>"...Pricing is based on your Biz plan. That is all...."</b>

<p>

Pricing is based on what the market will bear - i.e. supply and demand. You do

need to be aware of what is being charged by your competition. The "price" in

one market may work very well, but fail miserably in a different market.

<p>

Market forces and your skill in positioning yourself in the proper place in your

market will ultimately determine what you can charge in your particular location

over the best "biz plan" in the world.

Ilkka,

Or it could be that they are not wedding photographers at all. If they were truly "genuine" they could simply direct us to their websites and we could see for ourselves the "better" quality of their images.

They have no websites listed on their profiles and both of them have remained totally silent after I asked each one for a simple example.

There are many "photographers" on this and other forums who claim a great deal but never post any images at all to support their claims. It sure seems that real photographers would not have anything to hide and/or these particular indviduals don't want their customers to read what they have written on this forum.

I will continue to give these individuals all the credit that they deserve.

She doesn't need to buy the other lenses. She already has the Nikon 85mm f/2.0 lens for her portrait work.

And once you work with the Nikon D3, you will never consider the slower, older, plastic Canon 5D.

After all - Valerie does this professionally and the investment in the D3 will be well worth it. We purchased our D3 about a month ago - one of the best investments in equipment we have ever made! (Added to our D300 and D200 bodies.)