sean_r2

There are pros and cons to each method, but if you want filter effects, you are best going with real filters.

 

Filters

PRO: The true effect of a filter without having to sit in front of a computer forever. Just put on a shoot!

CON: Having to fumble with them, screwing on and off which can be a hassle during hasty shots.

 

Photochop

PRO: Change things around the way you want, rather than being stuck with a two-stop only ND effect, or a certain strength of red filter for b&w.

CON: Many hours in front of a computer spent trying to copy but never really reproducing the same effect as a few seconds with a piece of glass would have done.

 

A real good example is polarizing filters. Sure, you can adjust blues and contrast in photoshop. You can even adjust the appearance of haze, to a degree. Where you begin to lose out is in reflections. Using a real polarizer means never having to sit and erase/clone out reflections. Worst is glare, where you'd have to Photoshop in detail that your camera was unable to capture in the first place.

If you are going to be shooting architectural and nature scenics, I highly recommend Option 1 because of the 18mm lens alone. You will need the most wide-angle lens thanks to digital crop. For zooming into details, the secondary lens in that package should work very well, as 300mm would become 480mm.

While Carnage may have a use for this while spelunking, I think Ronaldo has a MAJOR point here. Dirt, dust, and all manner of various gunk will mix with oils from your finger contact. This normally appears as smudges on most camera surfaces, which we all just wipe away. This armor acts like a collection bin for that, accumulating that gunk until its a nasty, corrosive mess under every edge of the armor. This is unless you regularly remove the armor and clean underneath.

 

For me, the only part of my camera that's ever in danger is the lens, sticking out, especially with zooms. There has never been a need for me to protect the body from dings. I would venture to guess most photographers would say the same. Buy a lens hood or UV filter to protect the tip of your lens, and leave the nearly useless armor on the store shelf.

There is a chance for flare in every situation with light. Even controlled studio setups may have some side-reflection kick in. In journalism, a stray indoor light may cause it.

 

For that reason, I always use my lens hoods. Never leave home without them.

Stepfanie: If you're just starting out, I completely second Sarah on going to Craigslist. I assisted last year and am now starting out, and Craigslist has gotten me a lot of response. Just write a good ad, one that can compete with the $300-$900 range advertisers who are already there, and you should be good to go. It helps if you have a site to link to, as Peter suggested. Many people on Craigslist just put a postcard-like spot image, or a quick ad, then a link to their site with a full gallery.

 

Sarah: You had success with MySpace? I have to say I'm very surprised, seeing as how crazy that place could be. Congrats!

There's a couple areas you're asking about so I'll respond point-by-point.

 

The Manual: I found this to be quite enlightening for the camera, since it covers every aspect of it in detail. I think you may not have enjoyed the incredibly techno-spec dryness of it, which can put some people to sleep out of boredom. Same here. What I did was read it cover-to-cover multiple twice, each time practicing with my camera after reading each section. For example, read the white balance setting section, then go play with your camera by adjusting white balance settings and shooting and see what happens. Do this for every section that you feel you don't know, sort of like going through lessons in a class, or educational chapters in a third party book. Trust me, it works and saves you money on classes or books.

 

What Works: A nice, lightweight camera that does its job well.

 

What Doesn't: The softness of the images compared to higher priced Canons does bother me sometimes, but thankfully Photoshop can take care of this.

 

Prints: I take them to labs. They range in price from the cheap WalMart or Costco prints, to the expensive archival prints of professional camera shops.

Congratulations, Rob! This website, and the regulars who post here are great people we all can learn from. It's the reason I became a subscriber, as a supportive and educational site deserves support.

I agree with Rob. One needs to get comfortable with a particular style so that a client can come to expect that style. When a bride checks out your albums and portfolio, she's looking for a certain look for her day. If she books you, then that means she wants the style you showed her. This is not to say there isn't room for a few effects or for that style to evolve over time, but I think its best to have one prime style and market with that primarily.

The mentor I worked with didn't do much fancy with the photos, as he just set them in the box. However, he made the box itself look like a present. A nice photo box that fit the 4x6s snugly, and then wrapped it with an elastic gold bow.

You can certainly set a slaved 580 to manual. It's unforgiving at crunch time, but you need to hold down the Mode button for a couple seconds until the M flashes with your setting. In reality it's just a second or two. In practice with every moment counting, it feels like ten hours.

 

For ratios with two 580s, you can get a STE2. I have one and it works great, but I haven't tried it during a crunch time situation yet. Would rather just have my flash on bracket and maybe a slave on a stand somewhere.

A lot of responses and I'm glad for all the help, so I'll respond one-by-one.

 

Brad: Thanks a lot for the trimming metaproblem! I had never even thought about what havoc such a small edge to the card could cause.

 

Anne: I'd seen it suggested here over and over, and yet I hadn't thought of a double-sided card myself. :-/ That is a dang nice idea. In regards to your second post, I rather like the image on the card, but you have a point about trying to direct eyes to a full web gallery. I guess one good point to be made for solid color rather than image on a card is that the client won't make an overall judgment based on a tiny 3.5x2, or smaller, image.

 

Tana and Leo: Yeah, as much as I like the font, gotta agree with you that it looks dated. And I *used* to like that font. Oh well, my trials with simpler, normal fonts is showing Times works really well.

 

Brian: Yeah, I definitely am trying to avoid the simple name & number card. I think what's causing me to clutter it up is my being used to the card of the guy I used to assist. His card had something like 5 images on it, and a busy colored background, to boot! Not that I'm blaming him, just that by comparison one b&w image clashing with colored roses seemed a lot less busy in my mind by comparison. I definitely know better now, and am very glad I posted my ideas here for critique.

 

BW: Thanks a ton for the tips! I absolutely love your sample there, as it beats my Card #1 Mark II that I was working on and what you said about Rolodex filing, it works better there, too. I'm thinking I'll try something like that, with maybe Roman. Personally, I'm not such a fan of sans serif fonts. Then again, if brides like sans over just plain serif, I may have to change my mind. ;-)

 

Anesh: To the drawing board, indeed. The positive point to those two funny designs is that I've learned what *not* to do. Heh.

 

J.W.: It's probably a regional thing, and in fact all the "official" spelling I've seen of it around my part of California is "XV Anos." I was pretty sure the spelled out one was "Quinceanera" though.

 

Michelle: Two recommendations for VistaPrint, and I've seen it recommended and talked about repeatedly in this forum. You know, I just may go with them.

 

Everyone's been a big help. Thanks so much! Looks like after reading these new critiques, I'll be scrapping Card #1 Mark II (looked a lot like Card #1, sans flowers and font). I'll be working on Card #3 and a possible color-only Card #4 as Anne had suggested.

Sarah: I'm definitely not going with Card #2, now. The irony of the whole thing was working on the gradient was one of the longest processes in designing that card.

 

Jochen: What do you mean by foilstamping and coating? As in, at the printer putting foil or embossing ink into the lettering? Or is that an effect with Photoshop?

I'm glad now I picked 1 over 2 in the first place. :D As for balancing out the color and black and white image, that was something I struggled with, as I really didn't want a blank white background.

 

In designing this #1, I found that strong, dark colors were far too distracting (purple, blue, red) so maybe it's time to switch to low-intensity hues. Should I try a super light creme color for the background? Or would that coloration also distract from the black and white image (and thus just leave white as the best choice)?

 

Although I love the font, now that it's been pointed out I see how it's a bit busy for a 3.5x2 format. I'll try some stuff along the lines of an italicized Times New Roman.

 

Thanks for the help so far!

The other design.<div></div>

Well, along with finally registering for Photo.Net, I've decided to try my hand

at designing a business card. The content of the text will surely change as

soon as I get my business license and website running. In the meantime, I want

to figure out a nice graphic design. I've narrowed it down to two designs, and

after seeing how incredibly helpful everyone on this site is, I thought I'd ask

for your opinions. Thanks.<div></div>

I've been reading without membership (or "lurking" I guess some call it) and have learned a ton. To me, the information in Photo.Net's forums along outweighs what I could learn from a year of photo magazines. Now that I'm finally registered with this here site here, I'll definitely be registering soon. Beats subscribing to a photo magazine any day!