DickArnold

I have done sports for years. I shoot large swim meets. I can get great shots without flash. I have used on camera flash at weddings also for years. I also have studio lights. I would start simply with one of these new lcd lights and see what happens. It depends on what you want. High key like above or actually shoot action. I shoot in large pools where the white balance and actual light are varied. I get decent pictures. My camera is a Canon 7DII that shoots ten frames a second. I think you could get some dramatic action by shooting actual excersises where shadows come into play. These would call for constant light and judicious use of ISO. You would need about 1/500th or preferably faster. Faster is better. If you use flash you would the capture action of someone moving through and exercise. I am not saying this is the right way but if it were me I sure as would try it before as a new comer experimenting with external flash.

Lucas.From Photonet Terms of Use. " Photo.net includes information, images, photos, commentary, content, opinions and material that our users upload ("User Content"). You agree to upload and post only User Content that you have created yourself". Just to let you know. When you get involved with people working for you under contract or directly sometimes they do things that get you in trouble. You then, normally, like the janitor behind the elephant, you have to clean up after them.

Somebody tell me who makes the ethical rules for manipulating photographs outside of publications who do their best to accurately report the truth? Who is the judge? There are laws against misrepresentation in business. Who controls this if no law is broken? There are a lot of "shoulds" stated above based upon individual moralistic judgments. We still do not now the details. As one who in another professions has lost partial control of rather extensive activities that I held under my control I am sympathetic to McCurry. The real answer for him IMO is to correct the process. Remember Murphy's law. Anything that can go wrong, will. We are all human. S*** happens. In the mean time if I want to take some telephone lines or a yellow post out of one of my pictures, I will.

I agree with Fred. I used to work for a paper. We did not manipulate photos. If I do my own stuff not for publication as news then I manipulate most pictures to a degree mainly by using the clarity slider in Lightroom to make them look better or more realistic. That is my business. I am sure NatGeo has standards for publication. Generally publishers like reuters publish those internally imposed standards for the public to see. As I remember Reuters allow for very limited processing to make pictures technically acceptable for publication. There is no law or canon that compels any photographer to certain ethical standards relative photo manipulation unless a distortion represents a commercial fraud. I do believe that a photographer should have a set of ethical standards that guide his or her actions. What constitutes a violation of ethics is highly subjective. I have sold a couple of photos that were obviously manipulated because a customer liked them. He knew. We love Van Gogh and Rembrandt and Peter Breughel for doing it their way. We don't need to close this off in photography with too much self righteousness.

I have been looking at some the above posters PN galleries. Anyone is welcome to look at 170 of mine. Many of mine are not so good. They were made mediocre by the photographer not the camera. My early nineties Russian pictures done with MF are as good as anything I do today. They just took more darkroom work. I have quite a few enlargements framed and hung in my home. Some are digital and some were taken outside the US with both film and more recently digital. Three of them taken with a canon 6MP D60 won show awards. I defy one to look at these pictures in my home and tell me which camera they came from let alone the lens. My M3 pictures are at least as good as my D60 images. Everything is better today than ten or fifteen years ago in terms of equipment. Things are so good today with so many options it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how to build a kit that will technically make good pictures. I have taken thousands of pictures because I owned my own wedding, events and PR business and also worked for a newspaper. I am getting old and having tramped around for years with heavy bags I have elected to go light when not doing sports. I went to my weddings with triple redundancy with MF with multiple backs and 135 gear for candids. I am old but I still do extensive sports events with heavy lenses, My business axiom was not to buy anything that did not contribute to the bottom line or provide better customer service. It makes sense today. What does not make sense is quibbling over gear related minutia or which is better esoteric gear.

I bought the M3 for its light weight and small size. Here are the weight specs in ounces for my kit. M3 12.9; 55-200 10; 22mm f2 3.7; 11-22 7.4; 18-55 7.7; total about 2.6 lbs. This M3 kit is good today because it is very bright out. I use a canon 50mm 1.8 stm lens (5.6 ozs.) plus adapter (3.9 ozs) for low light. It mounts canon flashes also plus a small internal flash. Every review I read touts image and lens quality but they are not so complimentary about other features of the m3. It is good for Canon users because of adaptability. I also have some ergonomics issues but I do not want a heavy twenty pound kit to wander around with. I already have that when I want it.

I have Canon M3. I bought it to be compatible with my Canon EOS gear. With an adapter I can use all my EF lenses on it. It has an APS-C 24 MP sensor. I have all four M lenses and an EVF. There are things I like about the M3 and things I don't. I have a 7DII and L lenses for sports. I bought the M3 because the whole four lens kit fits in a small bag that weighs less than four pounds that is easy to carry. Although I have an adapter, If I want to use EF lenses I use the the 7D. There are operating redundancies in the M3 and I think it needs a firmware revision to fix some of those things. The focusing square is too big and always seems to start out in the wrong place on the lcd. I have been shooting in the bright sun lately and the EVF is invaluable particularly when shooting into back or sidelight. The EVF is not as good as an optical finder. The display seems to go to Q involuntarily sometimes when in view mode. The menus are not as clear as the 7DII (I have been using EOS since 1988).. Having said all that the M lenses, particularly the 11-22 are stunningly sharp, the colors are Canon's best. and very inexpensive. The M3 has a slow frame rate at 4FPS and is not good for sports that I shoot. The shutter is a little slow particlularly in low light. Most importantly, I use it a lot as I find myself going out the door with it more often than the 7DII. I get great enlargements from the 24 MP sensor. I do all my own printing. I also really like taking just the body and the 22mm f2 pancake out to functions. It goes in a big pocket. I got rid of a Sony NEX 5N and lenses because the lenses were expensive and not as good as my current M lenses. I spent just a little over a thousand for the M3, 11-22. 17- 55, 55-200 and the 22mm. I live in a seaport city with lots of subjects and I like to walk around a lot with a light bag. The M3 is not perfect but the lenses are sharp with with good color. One could do a lot better with the Sony A7 series but at a considerably higher price. I can put up with a lot in a body if the pictures are great. When I shoot swim meets the M3 goes in my thirty pound bag to shoot heads because my arms get weary carrying white lenses. Actually the M3 works fine with the 100-400L II but it looks kind of silly.

Uncle Bob who used to step in front of me shooting formals at a wedding. The amateur who thought he or she could to better than me at weddings and told me so (maybe they were right which is more annoying). The amateur who wanted to compare gear with me while I was in the middle of shooting a wedding. The bride who gave out fifty point snoots at her wedding although we turned that into a group shoot and had some fun. The guy who walks up to me while shooting wildlife to say to me "man that's a really big camera". The competing newspaper photographer who gets into an elbowing contest with me for position while shooting a perp. Just to name a few.

I used Vivitar 283s on Bronica ETRSi for years at weddings to add to the dinosaurs. I still think I got better exposures than I do with Canon Flashes today. They were pretty simple to use and I learned to compute fill to be kind to skin with them.

Maybe I was spoke to broadly in that statement. I stand corrected. My thought was more aimed at those who have the ego and self acclaim to hold themselves out as experts in judgment. To each his or her own. I judge most everything I see but with the understanding and question that asks who am I to judge. Holding myself out as a judge is wrong in my mind and a waste of time. McCurry really struck a chord with us commoners.

Why waste time judging other people's photographs. Obviously McCurry's pictures appeal to a lot of people. They apparently don't hold that appeal for others who possess the ego to critique them. I find them attention getting at a minimum. My judgments are limited to technical as I admire a great number of photographers that may or may not conform to my taste. I shoot to my own standards and those of my limited audience. I have been somewhat successful in my commercial work based upon what people paid for my work. I really mostly try to shoot to please my audience. I admire almost any technically sufficient image that captures or evokes human or gorilla emotion.

I have the Pro 100. I have done a lot of printing with it in Lightroom.. The print menu in LR is a pain trying to figure it out. Too many options. However, I just did some printing from a large swimming meet I shot. The pictures are great. It eats CL 42 ink cartridges and they cost around a hundred dollars for an eight cartridge set from B&H but I spend the money. I calibrated my monitor and that single calibration has worked for quite awhile. I use Spyder Pro 5.0. I set Abobe RGB on the camera and for printing. It represents color quite accurately with the calibrated screen.

Anders. My actual experience in the depression and later in AF Survival school is that if you are seriously hungry you will eat anything that doesn't choke you. The only thing I know about diet is that whatever I have eaten so far hasn't killed me yet and I will be 84 soon. What I do know is that today I swam a mile as I do and have done t three times a week for over nine years. That does make me hungry enough to eat Mac and Cheese.

I was alive and seven years old living on the SFO penninsula in 1939. I have a couple of very clear large negatives of my mother from that era. My father was a champion outboard motor boat racer then. We were affected by the depression and lived on Mac and cheese when money was low.

I also did my own accounting on quick books. I knew up to the minute where I was financially real time.I did not buy any equipment that I did not need to do the job nor that would not pay for itself. I picked up an exclusive with the local hospital and did all of their PR photos. I did sports for the local paper. That got me referrals. I got an in with a local inn and did outdoor weddings on the water. I did the local golf tournament. I grew the business from nothing to a point where I operated almost solely on referrals. This took about six years to get to that point. This all happened after I had retired from a 41 year profession in aviation. When I turned 70 I got tired and stressed out so I cashed out the business, bought a motor rhome and we toured the country.. Don't let anybody tell that weddings are not stressful. They are almost worse than penetrating a thunderstorm and they last longer and require lot's of time post processing. It is like any business one has to really work at it.

I don't do weddings any more but when I did I was aware of the competition and what they charged. I was moderately successful because I delivered wedding proofs in less than two weeks, charged less because I did not hire help and did large weddings by myself. I immediately processed my work so as not to build up a backlog. When possible I delivered print proofs face to face so I could sell more product. I also delivered decent quality. If it were me I would broaden my market and charge what appears to be just below the average of several competitors. It is not what you deserve but what you can get. I also worked as a volunteer in local government, belonged to and smoozed with everyone who worked with the local Chamber of Commerce in order to get them to like me and get their referrals. I distributed an up-to-date brochure at local businesses and got acquainted with their proprietors. I also belonged to the Rotary where I got referrals. I worked for the local paper to round out my income and got my first wedding there. With permission I put up wedding enlargements at the newspaper office that got me my second and third wedding.. This was before the web really took hold in the wedding business but I always found personal contact the best marketing tool. In my opinion wedding and general photography is about 70 per cent marketing with the rest being good business sense and skill. Competition is more fierce today than when I did it but face to face contact still works IMO. I had a portfolio that I carried with me to convince new contacts.

I have always liked Tony Northrup but I thought this was just a puff piece. I think the Sony A7 series great although I have never used one. I use my mirrorless which is currently a Canon M3 because it is light and easy to carry and has four great lenses that are quite good and inexpensive. I am looking at a couple of pictures I took yesterday and of which I made enlargements. They are of very good quality. I still use a 7DII for sports that I will shoot this weekend because of the optical finder and the Canon 100-400 II. I live in a seacoast city and I walk around a lot. I am an elder statesman and I do not want to carry heavy gear any more except when I think I have to at venues like Harvard this weekend. If I were still doing weddings the A7 would be very appealing. I will take the M3 this weekend for head shots because I get arm weary after a few hours with six pounds of camera and lens. .

Not all emotions can be captured. I certainly concede that. Several years ago when I had a studio I had a contract with a hospital to do PR shots of their doctors. I had an appointment with a psychiatrist whom I never met. She came through the door and I saw a lovely self possessed woman. She sat down and down and I viewed her through finder on my Bronica. She looked lovely but radiated warm sexuality in her pose like a come hither stare evocative of Greta Garbo. I said "you look far too unprofessionally sexy for my bosses to print what I see" I was shooting a series of pictures as I said that. She had reacted with completely unrestrained open mouthed laughter that I captured. We had a wonderful and memorable session and I got some beautiful pictures that did conform to my bosses expectations and I got keep those sexy poses of her.

I have the same computer as Charles except with 12Gig Ram. I have a service poiicy. I have had, on occasion issues with Malware. Dell service is located in India and has been outstanding anytime I had a problem. No issues with language at all. I can get to them directly with a supplied phone number. I am using Windows ten with LR cc without problems. I am printing with a Canon PRO 100 that works fine with this computer and W10. So I second what Charles has reported. I do sports and usually process 500 or so images per event. The Dell does very well with that and LR CC.

The Canon SL1 rebel is on sale at bargain prices like $400 with a kit lens. It may be discontinued but I had one and it is a great starter camera.

I am a 7DII owner and am highly satisfied with it. Having said there have been recorded difficulties with the 7DII not producing sharp images because of focusing issues. . Those users have gotten some relief by sending the camera to Canon for analysis and adjustment. I have used an 18 year old 70-200L 2.8 on it and the pictures are very sharp. The point about isolating the problem by trying different lenses is important. I use the 7DII for major swim meets and I have gotten more keepers than any other Canon body over the years. Case 2 should be good for pets jumping around. The camera captures swimmers faster and holds the focus at 10 fps superbly. Again, send it to Canon with examples and your favorite lens. Of the complaints I have read about defective 7dIIs yours seems to fall in that category.

One of the best pictures I ever took was when the lens was set inadvertently set at f22. It was on a river in bright light with, as I remember, a canon 5D. I hardly ever shoot at over f11, because of diffraction and mostly at 5.6 and 8 except for low light sports then it is anything that will stop action. I shot the picture handheld over my shoulder as an afterthought while walking away with the rushing river almost at my back. The picture is large and framed and it is hanging in my office. It was fall and the colors are great and everything is extremely sharp because of extended DOF. Sometimes pure luck beats any artistic talent I might possess. Even a blind hog finds an acorn once in a while. And, my anecdote shows that sometimes a small aperture is ok.

There is a cadre of experienced wedding photographers on PN that have been of immeasurable help to wedding photographers and in fact that is going on right now in that forum, here. Some of those professionals are working with a new to the business wedding photographer and the help they are providing is a great help to her by her own admission.

Maybe I missed it but has anyone mentioned a tripod. I shot film weddings when ISO 800 was risque and I mounted a tripod with a telophoto in the back of the sanctuary. As long as there was little motion I got good pictures of the ceremony.with slower shutter speeds. It was even better when there was a balcony to shoot from. You are getting lots of good advice from some very accomplished professionals that have been around photonet for quite awhile. One thing I found shooting solo at weddings was to keep things as simple as possible. It is possible to really screw up a wedding with overly complicated lighting schemes particularly when working by oneself. I know this from doing it to a degree myself. One nice thing about shooting from the back of the church is that you don't interfere with the ceremony. I was once thrown out of a church for using flash to record the ceremony even though I had prior permission. But, I got a picture the bride very much wanted. So she was happy. The priest obviously was not.

I don't think I can ever learn enough. I have about 160 pictures posted here but none recently. Some maybe good, some mediocre and some boring. I do not like down sizing my pictures in order post them. I don't have to do that on other sites. But, I still find things to learn here almost every time I log in here and other sites. Julie, I hope I am probiotic but not sure about how much I give. I sometimes think my photography is getting worse as I age. I avoid entropy as much as possible by trying to absorb as much as I am capable.