russ_konrad

<b>"...RAW will -not- save you in mixed lighting conditions...."</b>

<p>

But if the action is too fast for you to get the proper gel in place - adjustments on the RAW file can salvage a shot that would be totally wrecked if shot in JPEG

Don't downplay your investment Elizabeth!

Two camera bodies, multiple lenses, and multiple backups of everything you need for the wedding shoot is not a small investment - whether it is paid for or not!

WOW!

<p>

A great deal of misinformation is being presented above by a few posters!

<p>

Valerie!

<p>

Just get a small loan and buy a Nikon D3 and be done with it. It is definitely state-of-the-art today in the sub-$10,000 range and does an outstanding job for portraits, weddings (low-light), sports (9-11 FPS), and just about anything else you can imagine.

<p>

I have posted this image from a recent wedding in a few other threads - but it does illustrate what is possible with the D3 and the 85mm f/1.8 lens: (very similar to your 85mm f/2.0 lens)

<p>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3098/2556010370_c54c138a73.jpg?v=0">

<b>"... I use one camera...."</b>

<p>

DANGER - DANGER WILL ROBINSON!!!

<P>

Please tell us that you have a backup camera body as well as backups for all the rest of your equipment!

David,

Considering that the only thing that a couple has left after the wedding day is the images of the day - the term "investment" is very appropriate.

Again - reinforcing my first post in this thread - if a couple "preceives" that their wedding photography is an "investment" - it is definitely easier for them to "bear".

Additionally - everytime we have raised our prices - our business has increased! You can see our "Investment" page here:

<p>

<a href=http://www.almariphoto.net/services.html><b>Almari Photography - Investment</b></a>

Do a search of other photographers in your area.

Find out what they are charging for comparable services.

Like many things - perception is more important than reality for alot of people. If you are at the bottom of the price structure compared to the other photographers in your area - one "perception" that people will have is that you are at the bottom in terms of quality/services.

If you are in the middle of the pack (in terms of price) you will be "perceived" as being comparable to the other photographers in that price range.

If a photographer is very confident and very good at setting the proper white balance - then yes - shooting JPEG can be a viable, "professional" alternative.

If there are doubts about how to set your digital camera to get the correct white balance - then shooting JPEG is a recipe for disaster.

As always - just my humble opinion.

<b>"...I don't shoot in RW just because I am not going to adjust 500 images from a 1 hour high school prom shoot that I made $100 doing. I really wanted just a "whats best" type of answer...."</b>

<p>

Shooting RAW is really "what's best". If you are getting paid for photography - you really should approach this like a professional. If $100 is not enough, then charge more and do it right. And with Capture NX (esp version 2.0) working on a RAW file goes very fast once you learn the program.

<p>

For outdoor settings with flash - I will always use the Auto WB or the "cloudy" setting. The D200 is a little more sensitive than the D300 or D3 but they are very similar.

<p>

Here is a shot outdoors with fill flash (D3, 85mm f/1.8 lens, taken at f/2.8, 1/6400 or a sec., -.7 compensation on the camera) Straight out of the camera - just converted to JPEG from RAW in Capture NX.

<p>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3098/2556010370_c54c138a73.jpg?v=0">

We usually will shoot between 900 to 1200 frames (two shooters) at a wedding and then deliver between 300 to 350 color-corrected, cropped, edited, blemish-removed images to the couple.

We shoot Nikon and I use the Nikon program Capture NX to do 90% to 95% of the work. The color point technology is AWESOME. I then do a batch conversion of all the final RAW files changing them into high quality JPEGs. I use Photoshop for the final touchups on the images that need it or the very few that might get a special effect (vignetting, selective coloring, etc.)With the new version of Capture out now (2.0) I can see myself doing even less in Photoshop for all future weddings.

Total time for all of the above - usually less than 12 hours.

We always tell the couple that their images will be posted to their online gallery in 7 to 10 days. I usually have them posted in less than a week.

Thanks Nadine!

As you can see - the girl was in partial shade and I did use direct flash. I used the Nikon version of the high speed sync (the FP mode) and it was shot at 1/6400 of a second and the camera compensation was -.7.

I shot it in TTL BL (balanced fill in Nikon-speak) and there was no compensation on the flash itself.

I was about 6 to 8 feet away from her when I took the shot.

With the right lens/camera and correct distance to your subject - f/2.8 can get the results you are looking for:

<p>

Nikon D3 / 85mm f/1.8 lens - captured at F/2.8 - flash did fire at high speed sync - 1/6400 sec - ISO 200

<p>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3098/2556010370_c54c138a73.jpg?v=0">

Robert has the same idea as the Better Bounce Card. Rather than using paper - use white foam from an art supply store. It is flexible, can be turned down, and it doesn't crease at all.

<p>

Check out the video on the Better Bounce Card site. The guy will sell you one if you insist, but he also tells you how to build one of your own for less than $5 or so.

<p>

<a href=http://abetterbouncecard.com/><b>A Better Bounce Card</b></a>

<p>

Having said that - I do use a clear Lightsphere and like the results I get with it.

<b>"...These are just average images of yours and it wouldn't take much to "trump" them if that what it requires to settle this discussion...."</b>

<p>

Then post an image that is so much "better" and I will promptly apologize to anyone and everyone in this thread that I may have offended.

David,

Despite a few people attacking me for daring to compare the SB800 to all-powerful monolights - they have refused to show us a "better" image of their own. They ramble on and on telling everyone on how the images I posted are so terrible and how they know how to do it "better". And still no images of their own to demonstrate what they are talking about.

And Garrison - like Edward - has no website for us to see and only one image posted here on photo.net.

I posted my images in response to the original poster's question concerning the use of the SB800 for wedding formals. I never said that my images were perfect - just REAL EXAMPLES of what is possible with the SB800 setup under discussion in this thread.

Too bad the people who are attacking me refuse to (or are unable to) provide examples of their own for everyone to see.

<b>"...My D300 only goes to 1/250th..."</b>

<p>

The D200, D300, and D3 all have the auto FP flash feature (with an external flash - SB800, SB600, and SBR200 controller) that allows the flash sync speed to go all the way up to 1/8000 of a second although with a lower output.

<p>

The onboard flash can be used up to 1/320 of a second in this mode.

<p>

See page 288 and 289 of your owner's manual.

It would be more impressive if the background was an actual shot that you had taken.

Additionally - you really don't need to put the "T", the "E", and the "W" before your phone number, your email address, and your web address. I think most people can figure that out

We upload the full high resolution JPEG's - usually 4MB to 8MB each.

Since we offer all of the images that we upload to anyone and everyone that attended the wedding - the high resolution images are the only way to go.

You're right - it does take some time - but you never know what images are going to sell to the wedding guests.

<b>"...So basically you leave the two outside flashes at 0 and only adjust the flash on the camera..."</b>

<p>

When you have the on-camera SB800 in commander mode - it controls all the flashes and you set the levels of the remote flashes on it.

<p>

So you can dial the remote flashes up or down without having to lower your umbrellas and fiddle with each of them separately. You do all the level adjustments on the commander SB800 on your camera.

<p>

And I do sometimes make adjustments on the remote flashes this way - usually having to turn them down slightly when it is all the guys. A whole bunch of black tuxes makes the camera decide to increase the flash power a little too much.

<p>

You can see what I am talking about in the following image:

<p>

<img src="http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/pics/SB800caminfo.jpg">

<p>

I usually put both remote flashes on Channel A so I only need to make one adjustment.

<b>"...I really like Phil Askey's reviews but up to now he has not bothered to publish his review on the D300..."</b>

<p>

Yes he did:

<p>

<a href=http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300/><b>D300 Full Review</b></a>

Unless you are planning on buying a Nikon D3 in the near future - stay with the 17-55mm f/2.8 Nikkor lens or for alot less money (yet very good quality) - get a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens.

I find that many of my shots with the D200 and D300 are in the 17-30mm range. Now that I have the D3 - most of them are in the equivalent range there (24 to 45).