felix_mizioznikov

<p>

<p>I sent in my 5d2 for dead pixel repair, then get it back with the problem being worse so I send it in again. I get the camera back today, only two hot pixels compared to the about 20 when sent in. They also sent a note...</p>

<p>"the problem necessitating this repair is not covered by the limited warranty for your product. Accordingly, the repair is being provided to you as a courtesy only, "as-is" an without warranties of any kind, expressed or implied. furthermore, canon usa inc will not be responsible for any damage (including, without limitation, consequential damages and lost profits), cost, expense, loss or inconvenience as a result of these repairs. this courtesy repair does not, and is not intended to, constitute a waiver of canon usa inc's rights to charge you for any future repairs not covered under the limited warranty for your product" <br>

just thought I'd share.</p>

</p>

<p>this would actually be more o a parabolic system and would produce more even diffusion than a soft box would and you would loose less light than a soft box. a typical soft box has a baffle screen to diffuse the light before the light hits the main screen reducing the amount of output. This system bounces the light on the umbrella and evenly spreads it through out providing no light loss and an even diffusion. as mentioned before the catchling in the persons eyes or on the product would reveal a black dot in the middle and the setup would be a bit of a hassle. Alienbees.com makes a complete system for cheap and it works really well. </p>

<p>I usually escape through a trap door built into the floor. or ask the bride for the last dance in which case the groom will say "you may go now"<br>

Usually when it gets to the bon voyage time I ask the bride if there are any additional shots she would like with the remaining guests, she'll look around briefly, not her head no, then I nod, then I pack up and get on out of there. <br>

also pay attention to the bar tender, when they get close to running out of drinks, the party is near the end!</p>

<p>I'm new at shooting weddings and have only done a hand full. I'm offering reasonable rates and am retaining rights releases from bride and groom so I can sell the images commercially via stock websites and maybe a gallery or two. If I do a good job and come up with some creative wedding photos they can sell hundreds of times over for the rest of my life equalling to hundreds or even thousands of dollars. if people start negotiating over services, you could negotiate over commercial and print rights. <br>

I also do not understand about the free shooters or shooting a whole day for $100. I'm guessing they are new and testing skills or equipment. Living in miami there are always people working weddings for cheap or free so I usually start by asking what' s the budget before shooting out a price to get a silent tone on the phone. Having prices set on your site seems limiting in perspective. it's like driving a sports car. You wont post on your window your horsepower and 0-60 times. the slower cars will love to race you but will waste your time, and the faster cars will only drive by and not even look your way. </p>

<p>I agree with Jessica. the wedding fee should include your labor to be there at the wedding, using your high end equip, and bring your knowledge of photography so that the wedding pics will be more than just little snap and shoots gathered from all the guests. some simple conversions to bw or sepia should be included but sometimes the only proper way to edit someone's face or fat arm requires tedious ps techniques and layers which may take a few minutes per shot. so, if your getting 1200 for maybe about 5 hours coverage yielding about 225 p/h then spending 5 more hours editing everything it starts to eat away at profit and before you know it you've spend 10 more hours and the bride is still not happy. <br>

perhaps offering packages for editing starting from $200-500 depending on how many pics and what needed to be done. </p>

 

<p>I just shot one one the beach with 2 canon 5d2's and 17-40 and 70-200. Going with one body would have been impossible because of the amount of wind and sand, shooting with one cropped would have been even worse. 40d would have been EVEN worse because it does not have micro focus adjust so if your using the 85 1.8 and it miscalibrated ever so slightly you will only find out when viewing in full size when you will see your focus is not on the front of the face but about 2 feet behind. </p>

<p><img src="http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/lens/mp-e65_28_1-5x_586x225.jpg" alt="" width="586" height="225" /></p>

<p>mpe 65. costs the same as the new canon 100 mm macro but can go up to 5x life-size, where as the 100 mm only does 1:1 life size. This will find boogers in the nose of the presidents head on the coin your photographing</p>

<p>I just got my second 5d2. just body new for $2450 shipped from a reputable ebay seller. One thing with canon is your not really saving much by buying packages and if the package seems to good to be true, it's a scam. Try asking the seller if you could pick up the package and see what they say. it is an incredible camera with same features as some of canons 7000 dollar bodies</p>

<p>heres one after the ceremony doing some creative poses with B&G.<br>

shot with canon 5d2 and 17-40L and other lighting equipment. </p><div></div>

<p>+1 for what Mike said.</p>

<p>I usually start out by asking what the budget is and what kind of coverage they are looking for. I try to get a feel for the people before I shoot out a price.</p>

<p>young couple I photographed. his was taken outdoors after the ceremony. </p>

<div></div>

<p>bought it and returned it. Wish i did not sell my old 100mm non-is macro. The pic quality is not any better and is pretty bad when shooting it wide open. The build quality is cheaper than the previous. The IS works well when shooting at a distance but imho useless for macro. The body slightly flexes when squeezed at various spots. you will never be able to tell the difference in picture quality between either lens. <br>

I'd recommend the mpe 65 if you really want macro but theres a bit of a learning curve to use the 65. </p>

 

<p>Hi Marvin, how's everything going?<br>

I had this issue before and I had to go into the canon dpp program settings and change the color profile .I'm not sure where I read how to do it but somehow it changed from one color profile to another accidentally. <br>

preferances, color management. play around with the settings and see what will make it work. <br>

write down how you started so nothing gets messed up worse then at starting point.<br>

Take care<br>

Felix</p>

<p>every shoot I do I always get the client to sign a model release then I also sell the images on several stock sites.<br>

www.felixtm.com</p>

<p>every shoot I do I always get the client to sign a model release then I also sell the images on several stock sites.<br>

www.felixtm.com</p>

<p>get to know the micro a/f adjustment feature on your camera. if you use a 50d or better you could adjust where your actual point of focus is</p>

<p>every canon I've ever had has always had dead or hot pixels. if you search you will most always find some. you have issues when you have a cluster of dead pixels like I once had with a 50d. There were about 5 dead pic in a little group, good thing for warranty.</p>

<p>you could get a real ringflash from alienbees.com</p>

<p>you could adjust it from 1/30 to 1/8000 set to M and control as you would for a picture.</p>

<p>i doubt your going to get anywhere with this. The model works for the agency and the model has pictures taken, the agency could use any pictures which the model brings. the agency is not using the images for profit but only to showcase the model. If anything it would be the model's issue not the agency. I shoot models all the time and the models sign model releases and the agencies use the pics to showcase the models on the agencies sites, they are not doing anything wrong. If the model or agency was selling the pictures they would be liable to pay you damages.</p>

<p>by the way would you mind posting up a pic for all to see?</p>

<p>I'm currently working with several stock agencies. They work differently from what your looking for. for the most part you only get about 30%, you dont get assignments and they dont pay you any day rates. Your images get licensed in a variety of ways and you generally get paid between .25-10.00 per sale and about $30 for an extended license. If someone is buying a one time right to use your image on say a store window you would make a few dollars. It's not like the olden days of stock photography.<br>

Your looking to work for a photographers agent who will get you work for pay, they will take a % which may be about 10-20%, something like foxcreative but good luck getting in with them.</p>

 

<p>heres what I do with umbrellas, well actually just one. I have more on my site www.felixtm.com</p>

<p><img src="http://www.felixtm.com/photos/597841996_9BGaj-L.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="533" /> <br /> <img src="http://www.felixtm.com/photos/576218651_Fjefw-L-7.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="600" /></p>

<p><img src="http://www.felixtm.com/photos/467715005_QzMVP-L-6.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="554" /> <img src="http://www.felixtm.com/photos/458076307_m3ofA-L-3.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="534" /> <img src="http://www.felixtm.com/photos/591414190_whjMF-L.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="534" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>most of my work is done this way</p>

<p>www.felixtm.com</p>

<p>funny, I actually had a stalker shoot a few months ago...<br>

<img src="http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/9008011/2/istockphoto_9008011-man-stalking-a-woman.jpg" alt="" width="380" height="278" /></p>

<p>here are some more shots..</p>

<p>http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&lightboxID=6107759</p>

<p> </p>