sfh

You could get an old van, rig up a dark room in the back, and process your film at 80mph

headed towards the newspaper office.

But in my opinion, you will save money by going digital simply because once you're set up,

there are almost no expenses except when you need to get a print made, which costs less

anyway.

And the only equipment you need aside from your camera is a USB cable.

I'm afraid I don't have it anymore, but I used to have one that was pretty funny. I set up my

tripod as somewhere to hang my bags and stuff during the game, and rest my camera on

during half time. So I set it up, blah blah blah, get into things, end up on the other side of

the court.

About 5 minutes later I get a picture where the ref is crashing into my tripod and falling

over in the background. He got really pissed at me and told me to leave. We got into an

argument about me not being a player so he can't do fuck all. He kept being an asshole so

I held up my camera and fired the flash like 3 feet from his face, and got chased out of the

gym.

No gear was harmed during this escapade.

Also: I don't think moving about will be too much of a problem, as the team is mostly grade

12. I'm still wondering whether to use the zoom or the 18-55. I am thinking the 18-55, so I

can be within optimum range of the flash.

The photographer did not use any umbrellas.

Yes, I'm shooting with a digital SLR.

Unfortunately this team missed both the retake day and the original day.

I was there when the photographers where. They used a camera only 1 or 2 steps above

mine, and they used a standard flash on an extender thing. They didn't even bounce it. I'll

probably go buy a speedlite, because I'll need it for other things also.

I figure that I will use 1/8 shutter speed, try for 400 ISO, and lowest aperture I can get.

I'll probably go buy a speedlite flash, and get an extension cable, and bounce it off... the

gym floor? There aren't any walls or anything around.

Hey there,

I've never done any sort of potrait photography before. But I'm in yearbook,

and on the day that we where taking the team photos with the photographer, one

of the basketball teams had a large number of players sick.

So I've taken up the roll of taking there team photo. The background is the

stage door, which is mostly red. The gym is a bit dim.

When I'm doing sports photography in the same gym, I use 1/200 shutter speed,

largest aperture I can (around 4.5 usually) and ISO 1600. However, with such a

high ISO, the red of the stage door is often very grainy.

So since I will be using my (sturdy) tripod, and won't have to use that high

of a shutter speed since they won't be darting about, what ISO can I get away

with? What shutter speed should I try? Keeping in mind I'll be taking quite a

few shots anyway.

They will basically be in 2 rows in front of this big mostly red gym door.

I've heard that it is more flattering to shoot from farther away with a

telephoto, so I will probably go considerably far away and use my 75-300 zoom.

Or would it be better to stay at a normal distance and use my 18-55?

I've only started out in the world of SLRs, so is it extremely necessary that

I get an external flash for this, or would the built in pop-up flash be enough?

I do not think it is real. If you look closely at the people near the water, you can see several

people who are half transparent.

So either it is 3 separate pictures, possibly taken at different times, or the pic includes

fireworks, lightening, a comet, and several groups of ghosts.

In the lab where I work, which is a grocery store lab, I print all the film on autoprint, then

look through the actual prints and go back and change them that way. It is 1 simple button

to go from Preview to Autoprint. However, on the moniter of the minilab (a D-lab.3), the

pictures do not look the same as they do when printed. So I print them all, them print them

all again, again, until they are right.

My waste percentages are usually between 20 and 60 percent, but considering it costs us

about 7 cents per image and we charge 22, I don't care.

At the lab where I work:

24 exp. C-41 process is 5.99. Second set $3 extra.

Photo CD: $3.99 for 1 roll. $1 extra for each extra roll, up to 6.

Reprints from 35mm are 28 cents each.

Digital prints are 22 cents each. However at London Drugs (a close competitor) they are 39

cents each.

Slide prints, 59 cents each.

Slide to CD: 59cents per slide, $2 for the CD.

8x10s or 8x12s are $2.99

5x7s or 6x8s are 99 cents

Anything else?

Heres my beginner answer:

I took this last week. It was cloudy and about 1 hour before sunset. I used 1 second

shutter speed, 18f, 100 ISO and obviously a tripod. It was fairly dark. 5pm in the winter on

a cloudy day. I couldn't imagine being able to take it on a sunny day.

Its a river, but I'd imagine it would look similar if the water was vertical :)

Oh, and and I used by Rebel XT with the kit 18-55 lens. And no fancy filters, just a UV.<div></div>

You could always take a pair of wire cutters and cut the capacitor out, do whatever it is you

are trying to accomplish, then soder it back in.

I'm an advanced-beginner, and I'm looking to get a macro.

I'm expanding my lens collection (currently a Canon 18-55 and a Canon 75-300), so I'm looking to buy

both a Macro and a prime for general shooting, aswell as a possible upcoming trip to south america.

I've basically decided upon the Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM for the prime, based on reviews in this forum,

reviews elsewhere, and a whole bunch of sample shots - it seems like the best choice for me, and not

going to break the bank.

However, I am not very knowledgeable with macro lenses. I currently use my 18-55 for close-ups, but I

know that I want to go in closer than that will allow.

So out of these possibilities, what is the best lens for the money?

EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM

EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM

That is the order I am considering them in. But I am wide open to any ideas, I'm a novice regarding macro

lenses. I know I should be looking for 1:1, so those are both 1:1. I don't want to take up time or space

with a converter, so I want full life size without a converter. So, I am leaning towards for 60mm because of

space concerns. What are some opinions?

I try to stay all-canon, but if there is a better Tamron or Sigma macro within the same price range, I'm all

ears.

This is my first time posting. I've been viewing and reading for almost a month, and decided its time to

'get in the game.' I'm probably quite a bit younger than the 'average user' (I read in the Terms that average

Joe User was 40), but I'm not going to say how old. Yes I read the terms of use - No I'm not bothered by

nude photography - I work in a photo lab.

A little bit about myself. My name is Forrest and I'm a beginner. I'll be posting in a wide variety of forums; I

do digital photography, and work in a photo lab, so I will be posting for myself, asking questions to help

clients, talking about minilabs and processing, etc.

In terms of what I use, I have a Canon Rebel XT 8 megapixel, edit on a MacBook, print on Fuji Crystal

Archive on an Agfa D-lab.3 in my lab, and I'm probably forgetting things.

I've been published in the Vancouver Sun (large scale newspaper in British Columbia, Canada). And one of

my photographs was made into 10,000 postcards, one given to each delegate at the 2006 World Urban

Forum. I currently have the first picture in my photobucket, which for now is the only place I have my

photos, but I am looking into getting a domain name.

In the future, I hope to possibly branch out into wedding photography. I think it may be a while before I'm

ready enough to be trusted with a responsibility that soon, and I'd need to get a second body, but its a

possibility.

Currently, I am planning a trip to South America (brazil? Peru? not sure yet) and am wondering what lenses

I should consider buying. I know the basics, I have a 75-300 zoom, and an 18-55, and I'm getting a

Speedlight flash next week, and I know to bring plenty of memory cards. What other lenses should I

consider for a variety of different photos? Also, anyone know of any travel agencies that specialize in

going on the 'rough route'? I don't want to be spending the night in hotels and such... I want to go on a

trip where I'm going into tribes and going down the river on a little boat, etc.