michael_notar1

<p>aperture is a ratio of of the amount of light a lens can allow in to the max possible any lens can. ie a lens marked 1:2 is a f2 lens which allows 1/2 the light that a f1.0 allows. f stop is calculated by focal lenght/iris opening, both usually in mm. ie my canon 600mm f4 lens is just over 6 inches/150mm in diameter in the front, which divides 600/150= f4 or 600/f4=150mm opening. with a zoom with a fstop/certain size aperture opening, as you zoom it effectively changes. a 2mm opening at 24mm= f12, while at 50mm its f24.</p>

<p>jpgs are great for sports and other hi volume shoots. weddings i only shoot raw, 99% of the time i shoot raw on all project. except ebay photos. im beginning to shoot jpgs on neutral with lowered contrast, on cinemarvels and cinetstyle video picture styles...very low contrast.. again usually for ebay items (black an white subjects). <br>

for weddings there is no easy way, its a lot of work, it takes a good computer to sort all those shots. shoot AWB helps get it close to start with. you can shoot AE but i prefere going with my gut on M.</p>

<p>are you sure its over exposed (denser shadows) not over development (denser highlights)..? one probably notices the 2nd one by eye.<br>

dark shadows grey highlights....underexposed underdeveloped<br>

acceptable shadow grey highlights.. exposed well under developed<br>

bright shadows and off white highlights...over exposed developed good<br>

bright shadows and too bright highlights...too much for both</p>

<p>agitation is fine. havent used the film, it could look dense to the eye and print/scan perfect like someone said.</p>

<p>i wouldnt mind a lightly used 60D if you get the 7d. email me.</p>

<p>i would like to know what software/settings to use to get realist looking photos. i am professional and i am old school per say, i dont like the over manipulated look of hdr most of the time. i currently use photomatix and have some settings that are less intense saved but still surreal looking. reds are always insanely saturated, other colors are highly saturated too. i havent used the software much, maybe 20 successful instances at most.</p>

<p>I find this posting shocking. I am happy to call myself an athiest, because if Heaven will allow someone like yourself in to it, I call that same place Hell. Your ideals do not survive the logic of a 4th grade education.</p>

<p>yes blur the face or all of her if its the background. as silly as it sounds the person has to be without reasonable doubt ID'able and bluring solves this.</p>

<p>i do like that the AF eclipse covers more of the frame on the 1.3x crop. perhaps the crop remains due to chip size, isnt the chip of a 1d half (cut vertically) of a FF chip. if a FF chip has one defect in it, the carve out a 1.3x chip and doent toss it. if it has more defects they get a 1.6x sensor out of it. shot architecture interiors with a wide, sigma 12-24, the crop gets rid of almost all the vignetting and most of the bad CA...kindof nice...but i still wonder why there is this crop. i think the d2x i think it was had it right on, FF and a highspeed crop mode shooting faster making the AF area cover more of the frame.</p>

<p>why a prime, i reccomend the sigma 12-24 at $700. i shoot canon, 1.3x crop body and lots of real estate. its a nice lens it replaced my $!400 canon wide zoom for me a few years ago. it covers full frame too.</p>

<p>i borrowed an 85/1.2 II from CPS, stoped it down to 1.8, didnt see any change in background blur... a quick informal test a while ago. i would go with the 85/1.8 too. one stop of light will run you $1000-1300 (ps i have the 50/1.4 and for 1/2stop the 50/1.2 isnt worth it). the 1.2 lens are beautiful and bound to impress a client in just their looks.</p>

<p>Dave, very well put. i shot a family portraits once, i shot my MF 22MP back for the group shot and my Canon 10MP SLR for kids at play shots. They ordered a 24x30 of the kids at play and a 4x5 of the group shot! That being said the kids shot enlarged very very well.<br>

I personally like the 5d2 for the video not the still images. I work with 5d files and dont really care for them, so the upgrade in noise/IQ is great dont need the res. I upgraded from the 1d2 to 1d3 last year, I didny care about the extra 2MP, slightly nice, but wanted the better IQ/noise which is really really nice, actually the deciding choice for the camera was weight and new battery life. Instead of buying $500 in new batteries for the 1d2 i bought a whole new camera for $1500.<br>

I personally dont expect much for SLRs anymore. As a long time Canon user, I really like them, I use them almost all the time. I expect them to produce good images not outstanding. Thats why I went to MF 2 years ago. Its not about MPs its about IQ, mainly not having an AA filter and having super incredible lenses for it.</p>

 

<p>all photos taken w/1d3 and 300/2.8 <br>

http://shutterworksphoto.com/portshow.asp?portfolioid={C7347596-59B1-469F-91A3-2543D8050AD7}</p>

<p>i also brought my 600/4 and barely used it. the 300 was very usefull. you might also want like a 50mm on a backup camera for it there is a sudden fly by really low, designed to scare the living bejesus out of you and see what their raw power is really like, put it on auto, iso 800 and motor drive and just point and blast away.</p>

<p>airshows usually have weird rules...no large purses or camera bags but photo backpacks ok- at the last one it was that way. i carried all that equipment and a HD tripod, you will most likely be in for a long walk, you can be certain of that.</p>

<p>been there done that. platic pipe is a no- no. it needs to be aluminum pipe/tubing about 1-1.5" diameter. PVC bends alot. loook at matthews/avengers overhead frames, hollywood uses them, thats the kind of construction i recommend. you can use whatever diffusion/bouce materials you want, they already exist they are called butterflies/ fabrics for the overhead frame.</p>

<p>i like rosco spun silver for bounce material personally for general use.</p>

<p>probably a mat silver interior wrapped with black duvatene to block out light.</p>

<p>put a light source ever 2-5 sq. ft pointing down with no reflector for even allumination.</p>

<p>after all that a chamira F2 modular softbox is what you need, i think they start at 5x10ft and also have a 10x20, 10x30, 15x40. </p>

<p>keh.com used cameras. save some money and for an XT or XTi, i use it as a backup and i am happy with it. should be about $400 for the body. look for EX+ condition or better for something that is really in nice condition.</p>

<p>keh.com used cameras. save some money and for an XT or XTi, i use it as a backup and i am happy with it. should be about $400 for the body. look for EX+ condition or better for something that is really in nice condition.</p>

<p>politely this is not work for hire. they purchased a print, they can do anything they want with it except copy it. obviously everyone knows copyright law, that doesnt need to be repeated.</p>

<p>amy, im still unclear of what she was calling about. was it we are so happy with the photos we even used one for the announcements or WE ARE using them for announcements (undertone...you cant stop us).. if you reply in kind most of the time people understand and are not offended.</p>

<p>assuming the call was nice toned from her...i would say something like, glad you liked them. i offer cards that are of better quality...BTW did you know that copying a photo is illegal. i just wanted to let you know so you dont get in trouble..</p>

<p>i tell my clients something along those lines even when they are dealing with another photographer, just to help them, genuinely help them, and then they know not to copy my photos too.</p>

<p>in any case the syrup should be mixed into a stock solution, i think it makes 1/2 or 1 gal total. then dillute that into a working solution what you develop the film in. its more accurate and easier :)</p>

<p>@ C jo: why are you delivering CF cards as a final product, seems ridiculous IMHO. you say its driven by budget, so are they buying you CF cards or you including them them for free? i ask, how expensive is a DVD to burn? ;)</p>

<p>i understand making cheaper cars for people to drive in these hard times...i dont understand selling them a heap of raw uncast metal, plastic and rubber.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>also, i have have learned how to edit portraits. after the blinks/exposure probs etc, i dont edit much. perhaps duplicates, but i allow them to choose with smile/expression they like. perhaps she is thinking you did some of this "personal preferences editing".</p>

<p>arent weddings fun.... i too fear conflict when thinking about weddings but there is good fortune out there. my first wedding of the year booked friday, 20 days before the date, and is having more of a party than wedding. the bride says the most formal thing about the day will be the clothes, i wanted to do it in jeans. there wont even be a first dance, we dont dance. we were really hoping for some heavy metal music but realize we have to make it G rated for the kids. she promised sarcasm will be plentiful from everyone.</p>

<p>now this makes me want to shoot weddings!</p>

<p>well how is she to deal with... does it sound like "control freak" ? if she is nice about it, respond kindly, grab 30 or so random outtakes to show to her so she sees theres nothing out there.</p>

<p>if its getting to be a handful, remind her of your paperwork and show her all the outtakes but say it will cost x for your time etc. </p>

<p>is this a shoot to burn wedding...you shoot and give them a high res disk...?</p>

<p>digital has made photos a commodity. it used to be x amount of proofs. then it got competative... x studio has 6 hours and 100 proofs for $1000, while studio z has the same package/price but with 125 proofs. studio z seems like a better deal. even though both might shoot the same images and perhaps studio x is better. same with digital, perhaps she is thinking she is not getting her money's worth, unreasonable i add.</p>

<p>i believe this is one reason to not offer such service. i do but at a large price, since people who ask for it are looking for faster/smaller packages. i offer it but realize i am losing all print sales with selling them a disk so my price reflects that. havent sold high res files yet and its not my main product to sell so i dont care how often i get a bite.</p>

<p>if i did sell a disk, it would be ALL photos taken, even bad ones. i shoot raw and would adjust them to the best as my abilities. not sure why i chose this, perhaps to get the wedding over with once and forever. </p>

<p>in another sense, wouldnt it be fun to say, yes i will give you EVERY photo i shot in a geniunely nice tone, and provide her with 500+ 21MP 16bit files to look at.</p>

<p>i know that if you put to 10 degree grids on top each other you have 5 degrees i believe.<br>

1/2 cell with 1/2 thickness for a 45 degree grid sound about right. smaller cells or more grid thickness = tighter focus. perhaps distance from light too...? i could see distance would make it a lil tighter focus<br>

thanks for the link i saved it.</p>

<p>the 200.2.8L lens is exception, i loved it. i will reinforce what has already been said. i would do the 200 in your situation. funny i sold my straigt 200/2.8 when i got my 70-200/2.8.</p>

<p>perhaps add a 85/1.8 or 100/2 to compliment it for $400 or there abouts.</p>

<p>the 200.2.8L lens is exception, i loved it. i will reinforce what has already been said. i would do the 200 in your situation. funny i sold my straigt 200/2.8 when i got my 70-200/2.8.</p>

<p>perhaps add a 85/1.8 or 100/2 to compliment it for $400 or there abouts.</p>

<p>the 200.2.8L lens is exception, i loved it. i will reinforce what has already been said. i would do the 200 in your situation. funny i sold my straigt 200/2.8 when i got my 70-200/2.8.</p>

<p>perhaps add a 85/1.8 or 100/2 to compliment it for $400 or there abouts.</p>

<p>the 200.2.8L lens is exception, i loved it. i will reinforce what has already been said. i would do the 200 in your situation.</p>

<p>perhaps add a 85/1.8 or 100/2 to compliment it for $400 or there abouts.</p>