Marcus Ian

<blockquote> <p>The first dance is usually in the same setting: no ambient light, one hard spot light on the couple. Pretty standard.</p> </blockquote> <p>This has not been my experience. 100 different weddings have 100 different setups (albeit many are similar). Whether it's a white ceiling (8', 12', 16'+, flat, or curved), or a different color, matte or glossy walls, big windows (in evening, daylight, or after dark) (w/ no incoming light they can reflect the flash very badly), no windows, band on a stage (nice to add height), band at floor level, wide open area, compressed, a spotlight (or none), funky/varying color lighting, guests are in shirts vs. w/ coats on... the list goes on ... and on ... and on. </p> <p>However, if every single one of your weddings is identical (you must shoot only one location?), then perhaps a fixed technique is right for you. <br> If you can describe all of the relevant details (such as listed above), I can certainly tell you how I'd approach that...<br> Typically I prefer to bounce off the ceiling (when plausible), and also try to bounce laterally (w/ the second flash) to add fill to the background. But that doesn't always work. And w/ a spotlight, I might forgo the ceiling bounce (depends on it's intensity and direction).</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>What you <em><strong>can't</strong> </em>do is link spot metering to the AF point, which was an option with some earlier EOS bodies I think.</p> </blockquote> <p>My understanding is that only the recent 1D s (3 (?),4, Ds3, Dx ) allow this functionality (I'm pretty sure earlier ones didn't allow that, but am not sure), but the function is disabled in the 5d3. -I didn't know evaluative did link to selected AF point though.</p> <p>I too vastly prefer spot metering, but I won't shell out for a 1D just for that - I'll just stick w/ focus/meter/lock & recompose ;)</p>

<p>I should have added that if I was in your shoes (which I decidedly am not), doing a freebie where I was free to shoot independently, as well as do my own post vs. a (minimally - $2/300) paid gig where I was constantly doing assistant work (fetching things, setup, herding cats, etc.), and not expected to think, I would take the freebie in a heartbeat (assuming the mortgage was already paid ;) ). IDK, that's just my opinion.</p> <p>Not only do you have freedom from the responsibility (resides on the primary), but you have the opportunity to explore photographically. You'll learn a heckuva lot more a heckuva lot faster. I have often considered doing the odd 2nd gig just for the freedom to approach the wedding from a different angle than I'm usually required too (by contract, <em>and</em> by necessity).</p>

<blockquote> <p>If the new Canon 16-35mm/f4 beats the corner and distortion performance of my current 17-40, then I will be standing in line to purchase this one.<strong> </strong></p> </blockquote> <p><strong> </strong><br> <strong><br /></strong>If those MTF charts are any indication, then it will certainly outperform the 17-40/4 ... Though of course I'd wait to see some real world evaluations before dropping a grand on one. </p> <p>I suppose they added the IS so they could stick w/ f4 in this day and age (and accommodate video demands on FF), though for stills, I can't imagine that it will be much of a 'must have' feature for this focal range... </p>

<p>I think that you should rent a D800 and a some good glass for a week. Go shooting with it, see if the improved MP and DR are really worth writing home about - ie. if they really make a difference in your shooting (they certainly <em>do</em> for many shooters), then maybe you should seriously consider switching horses.</p> <p>As far as rumors go, ironically, I find that rumors of future events are largely governed by prior events (ie, this generation of cameras has same MP as last, so next will too!), regardless of reality.</p>

<p>I'm not sure what is going on with your BF, but clearly something is, else all these 'valid points' wouldv'e been considered prior to agreeing (when they should have been). It's not like you didn't know you were agreeing to work, and edit, for free, as a result, your BF's opinion (who wasn't there, didn't do the work, and didn't converse or sgree with her) is completely irrelevant.</p> <p>Frankly, you need to enable the downloads, as others have said, YOU (not your BF) agreed to this trial shoot, YOU need to meet the obligations you agreed to. Yes, I agree, you shouldn't have agreed to do it for free, however, the cow's already out of the barn, so closing the door now is only going to make things worse.</p> <p>But her 'pay' doesn't sound that bad for a trial shoot (part of that 'pay' was allowing you more freedom in one day than your BF's allowed you in total). I think she's assessing your capabilities as a shooter who adds value to her business. If you can do your own editing (and produce good results), adding a second to her shooting has a much lower overall cost, which is good for you and her! Sounds like she was honest with you, specifically about why she wasn't paying you anything -which sounds perfectly reasonable. Yes, I would have paid you something, but she may not be as experienced as us. I think it's reasonable to assume that she is mixing it up, and doesn't have a clear plan here (in part because she doesn't know how much to trust you before she starts committing to clients). OTOH, she may have thought this all out, and is giving you rope to see what you do with it...</p> <p> The fact that she allows you to properly second (unlike your BF from your description (more like an assistant)) is going to allow you to achieve much more, much faster than simply shooting under your BFs wing. If your style and capabilities complement hers, and you work well together, I think it's very possible this could turn into a permanent relationship, one which would be very benficial to both you and her.... <br> ...Of course if you demand payment for what you've agreed to do for free, you've just destroyed any and all trust, and made yourself an extortionist. Don't expect her to either pay you, or ever call you again.</p>

<p>The 6D has perfectly adequate AF speed for candid street photography. We're not talking rugby or football here, unless you plan on trying to capture candid street photography of police/foot pursuits ;) It's center point's ability to lock on in lower light than the 5D3's AF might actually make it preferable for your type of shooting. </p> <p>It's (marginally) better ultra high ISO output (vs. the 5D3) is largely mitigated by the 5D3's (marginally) higher resolution (which allows slightly improved NR) - 6 of one, half dozen of the other in RL.</p> <p>If your decision is merely between the 5D3 and the 6D, I highly doubt that you'll see any marked improvement for the extra $1-1.5K you'll spend.</p>

<p>Not only does he charge 5-10K per wedding, but he also gets people to pay him to talk to them!<br> These aren't 2nds! These 'associates' are likely professional photogs who probably are as experienced as many of us, they are probably also studio photogs during the week. They probably prefer working for him since they have reliable steady income without having to worry about acquiring contracts, and being by their lonesomes. </p> <p>Frankly though, I doubt your current contract would allow you to do this. Even if you have somebody who can reliably fill that roles, you'll need to reword your contract (subtly, so your client doesn't notice) to allow you to operate this way.</p>

<p>There are no default settings. Different locations, different ambient lighting, different times of day, different availability (to set your location), different layouts, different dance floors. You have to call it by ear, and adjust your setup on site to match the site specifics, and the individual restrictions.</p> <p>With the exception of 'on camera direct flash' (goodness no!), I've used every one of the above techniques to capture the first dance. </p> <p>Perhaps others have a more 'static' method, but I've just found that unless you've shot a location prior, you have no idea what you are in for, and the same location can have radically different requirements depending on setup (tables, dance floor, band, etc.), and even time of day of the dance. You should be well versed in all (except perhaps 'on camera direct flash') of the techniques you've listed, and pick accordingly.</p>

<p>I'm not in LA, but I can get get an inexperieced 2nd for about $150 for the day, and one actually worth having (who will tangibly add to my deliverables) for about $250.</p> <p>I use them about 25% of the time. I charge the client based on what they ask for, so if they say "well we're having a big wedding party so we want somebody to circulate with guests and such, and get lots of pictures of them and such" I say "well you just need somebody else to point and click while I'm taking the real pictures?" Then I recommend the cheaper option.</p> <p>If, OTOH, they are like "we don't want to miss anything! maybe a second could follow the groom, capture the scene, circulate, and be around to capture moments you miss" Then I definitely recommend an 'inspired second' whom is somebody I've worked with, and can trust their skills for most things.</p> <p>How does the money work? However much the client pays extra is what I pay the 2nd. I don't mark it up, nor do I make a profit on the upsell. Client pays an extra $250, I pay the second $250. I don't tell the client that explicitly, but if they asked, I'd be happy to tell them the truth (That's how I consider all my business decisions).</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>What I'm not sure is if I leave the 2nd shooter to cover most or all of the reception, do you think the clients will object?</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes. I think they will object. They hired <em>you</em>, not him/her. While the 'free' 'extra' coverage may not be frowned upon, and in most cases would be welcomed, he/she does not<em> replace</em> you. I'm obviously missing something because you aren't this clueless. Did you mean that the second would stay past your time obligation? Or do you get tired, and want to cut out early figuring that nothing important happens at the reception anyway?</p> <p>In my mind this is like if some magazine hired a fashion photog to do a spread, and 2/3 of the way through the scheduled and paid for shoot he said, "alright peace out!, my assistant can handle it from here, the rest of the shots are easy!"</p>

<p>It totally depends on what and how, and with what lenses you are shooting. If you are using the same lens in one-shot AF, and focusing on something the same distance away from where the lens was originally focused, my XTi will focus as fast as your 70D, or his 7D (or the 60D). There may be a slight difference, but it is in terms of milliseconds, and not something your could even measure by hand. You very well may perceive it as faster than a 7D, especially if you own a 70D!</p> <p>However, things change when you switch AF modes, and the camera has to 'think' about where to focus (though once it's reached a decision, the actual focusing is, again, same same). Luckily for you, the internet is full of reviews of these cameras, and they often like to go on at length about the most miniscule of differences between camera bodies. The bottom line though is that you should expect the 70D to perform (AF wise) much as the 7D does, whereas the 60D is much closer to the Rebel's AF performance -- though whether or not that will affect your friend's shooting is impossible to say since you haven't detailed what and how he shoots. <br> How would <em>we</em> know if fast is fast <em>enough </em>for someone we have no information about?!</p>