michael_andrews3

radio popper AGAIN :-)

And these WILL be manufactured and distributed very shortly.

The biggest advantages are 1. Long range 2. TTL, NOT manual like PW's 3. Smaller than PW's.

OK, so I'm returning to Photography FT after an extended hiatus, i.e., life

happened and there were other opportunities. So now I really, really want to

shoot weddings. I'm totally committed to it. Probably anyone reading this knows

that changing your career to a FT wedding photog is not a casual thing.

For marketing purposes, I was thinking about doing portraits of friends, ideally

couples. I would offer to shoot for free, and offer prints close to cost, which

I would be up front about--not the bait and switch thing of "free portrait

session!" I am not really a portrait photog, I'm a photojournalist (really-went

to J-school, the whole nine yards). I mean of course I can shoot a portrait, but

my talent, background, strengths, and primary interest is candids using

available light, not anything posed. It is easier for me to shoot something on

fire than a portrait, so I am a little anxious as this moves me out of my

comfort zone, but that is good thing.

My intent and goal with the portraits would be to build up my existing web site

with more recent work, generate leads from people I do portraits of, generate

more business from a larger body of work, get more work as a second shooter, and

hone my lighting skills. This would be part of my marketing, not all of it!

This is not really a new idea, but I'm wondering what experiences others may

have had using this type of method.

I am avail for weddings in the Greater Los Angeles area up to Central CA (San

Luis Obispo).

Please note I am looking for gigs as a 2nd shooter, not as an asst.

There is nothing wrong with assisting! In fact, I think it is probably more

difficult than shooting :-)

This seemed like the best category for posting this.

All Canon gear, incl. film backup.

www.mandrewsphotography.com

email: michael@mandrewsphotography.com

I've heard of some scams going around for wedding and event photographers. What

are the, and what do they typically say/ask for?? What are the tip-offs that

clue you in for certain it is a scam?

Thanks to everyone for their input! Very helpful. I'll continue with this thread before I start a new one.

I'll answer a few q's from above for clarification: weddings are my priority above ALL else! Everything and anything else is secondary.

I have decided on the 16-35 f2.8L (first version) even though I still have some reservations. I have read on different threads and other sites that the new version has some major quality control prob's and I just can't afford a new one. Build quality on the 17-55 has also been an issue for some, like IS failing after 6 months.

I have thought about giving up my EOS 1 film body because I do not use it much...but man, Ive always loved that body. I mean it is my all time favorite camera. I know that maybe this may partly be an emotional reaction to a business decision, but I've never had a problem with it (unlike my A2E or 10s) and have always found it really easy and intuitive to use. That said, what do you all think of selling all my film gear to further build digital? EOS 1, motor drive, 430 EZ. Will of course keep primes as they are compat w/ new dig bodies and are nice lenses.

I don't think they are selling as I just don't think I would get much for them. Opinions please!

I have a used 580 EX coming by FedEx on Fri. Purchase on used 16-35 pending.

I'm off to check used pricing on EOS 1's.

I have a 30D body and an EOS 1 film body. The 1 is a back up. I plan on

shooting mostly weddings, and will rent another 30D or 5D. I'm having trouble

deciding on my short glass. I had a 20-35 f2.8L many years ago and hated it; it

was not sharp enough and the manual focusing was terrible.

For a longer lens, maybe the 70-200 f2.8L IS, considering 135 macro, but my

first priority is a short lens.

The only glass I have at present are two primes: 28 f1.8 and 50 f1.4. Both are nice.

So I'm seeking opinions on the lenses in the subject line.

The 17-55 would only be usable on a 20D or 30D and this makes me a little

nervous; even with the conversion factor I like the fact that the other lenses

will work on any Canon body. I'm also concerned about whether or not the glass

is "L" series quality.

On the 16-35, there are two versions: the first one, and the so-called "II"

which is supposedly an improved version.

I want to buy used to save some $$, and I have found used versions of the

original 16-35 lens at about $950 +/-. I have not found any of the "II" used

(yet) and the one 17-55 I've found in the last week was (I thought) overpriced

at $850, almost the cost new.

And yes, I know that w/ conversion factor the 16-35 is about 25-56. I'd like

wider, but 25 mm is ok w/ me.

Lastly there is the weight difference. I need to go back and look at the specs,

but if I remember correctly, the 17-55 is considerably lighter, which is

certainly appealing.

Any input greatly appreciated.

I am just getting started in CA, but this had already been a question for me when I talk to my CPA.

In speaking with others, I thought tax was on tangible goods ONLY, NOT creative services.

Rebecca- Take the plunge. I FEEL your anxiety as I am in the same position. Your stuff is better than a lot of work I have looked at. There is no pricing info, so I don't know what your market is.

Who does your web design and hosting???? I do not like mine and will probably change to an entry level Big Folio account in a week. I like clean and simple; it should always be about the photos, NOT a whiz bang site with mediocre content!

Two MINOR crits: get closer, work on flash technique (an issue for me too!)

Mike: who does your web design and hosting??

Hi. Please DO NOT take anything I or others say too personally. I have a LOT to learn also. In some ways you are ahead of me! :-)

Paul's comments are excellent.

Work on your flash technique, definitely. Don't shoot direct unless you have too.

I am not familiar with the lens you are using, but agree with others; it looks soft. I'd consider going to a 24-70 f2.8L if u r using a 5D, or 17-55 for any model below it.

One criticism: Ease up on the tilted shots. There is usually no need for them and in general I think they look bad. Occasionally there is a reason to shoot that way..... but only occasionally.

I completed downloading this plugin exactly per Adobe's instructions just before you posted :-)

The weird thing is it already has a RAW conversion plugin installed!?! You have to (re)move it manually before installing the new version. Very weird. We'll see if it works next time I try to download files.

I'll get a card reader soon.

On the plus side, the new version supports the new Lumix DMC-FZ8 RAW format. I bought it about a month ago. The glass (Leica) is even sharper than I had hoped. Really nice camera for the $$.

Thanks. Fingers crossed!

Michael

Apologies if this is a double post :-)

PS Elements 5.0 (w/ a Canon 30D) does not recognize or convert my RAW files.

Does anyone know why? Could it be because I imported the images directly from

Camera, not a CF card reader?