james_calron

<p>So you certainly don't have cheap equipment. Do you have a tendency to shoot at f/2.8 too often? (I'm not sure how much 'technical' knowledge you have, and I don't mean to state the obvious, but when you're shooting groups you want to make sure you're at least at f/5.6 if not f/8) But if you're shooting in aperture mode mode, you shouldn't be having much of a problem, especially considering most of the photos are in plenty of daylight. Perhaps you have your sharpness setting on your 5D low?<br>

Either way, your photos are fantastic and I'm sure you'll figure out a way to fix up the sharpness (if you're not acquainted with photoshop...become acquainted....quickly! :-P Photoshop can sharpen/minimize small issues such as these).<br>

But back to the purpose of your post, your website is great. I would definitely be interested if I were a client. Though I might change up your first images you see when you click into the site (The split screen of the family....you have some much better shots that I think would help make a better first impression, such as the one under "others" with the red flower in selective color...very cool!) Anyway, that's just my 2 cents! Keep up the good work!</p>

<p>Love your baby shots. With that said, your composition is great. The website is nice and clean, simple and easy to navigate, overall, very aesthetically pleasing. I'm super impressed seeing how you've only been a professional for less than a year.<br>

My only concern is that some of your images seem to be a bit soft/very slightly out of focus. What equipment do you use? Are you manual-er, or do you shoot primarily in aperture or shutter priority? Any idea why some of your images are a bit soft?</p>

<p>85mm f/1.8 or 70-200mm f/2.8 (on D700, aka full frame)</p>

<p>The shutter speed seems to be a bit low (you can tell the water stream isn't frozen as you would think it'd be in the daytime at 55mm). Did you have it on manual? Do you know the shutter speed? It certainly looks too...soft/mushy for f/7.</p>

<p>Go with the D700, it's a D3 without a battery grip (and small other features that honestly don't count in my book). The D700 is great, nice and light, same IQ and very impressive performance. It's all you'll need for the next 2-4 years.</p>

<p>Oh and by the by, your site is impressive for someone with little knowledge about equipment (and I don't mean that in a bad way!). Your pictures are good, great composition. You seem to have a good eye, good luck with your future shoots!</p>

<p>A kit lens really isn't good for weddings because it is slow. You really need f/2.8 lenses for weddings (most are inside and churches are often dark...so you need fast lenses i.e. ones with low apertures numbers).<br>

I would sell the 17-85mm, get the tamron 17-50 (you'll be amazed how fast it focuses) and then save up for the canon 70-200 (which is arguably the BEST multi-purpose wedding lens). Also, if you have an extra $120 to spare, pick up a Canon 50mm f/1.8. It's cheap and can be invaluable for during the ceremony when you can't use a flash.<br>

Hope this helps! If you have any questions, don't hesitate to shoot me an email (<a href="mailto:bjlrphotography@yahoo.com">bjlrphotography@yahoo.com</a>). :-D</p>

<p>Go with the 17-50mm Tamron. Great lens. The 28-75mm is more for full frame bodies. Save up and get the 70-200mm canon, it will be WELL worth it.</p>

<p>I think the shot is nice for the bride/couple, but personally I don't consider it to be "Wedding Photo of the Week" quality. I'm looking more for creativeness, not a standard ceremony shot. I think this was a good capture, the lighting is good, the composition is well done, but I would never vote for it as "Photo of the Week"</p>

<p>Yep, take yourself, album, and a nice designed sheet to show off your packages (as most have looked at many different photographers with many different packages).This way they can ask you questions, look to add/subtract things to fit their needs, etc. Oh, and let the clients do the talking, you listen, answer questions, and bring a lively mood to create a fun atmosphere. Listen=75%, talk=25%<br>

And if they want you, they'll tell you. Don't give them a contract, as you said you won't, and don't even mention them booking you. Impress them with your work and interpersonal skills, and they rest will be history.<br>

You could also take prints **in case they ask to see print quality**.<br>

Good luck!</p>

<p>Yes, yes yes. Tamron 17-50mm is a great lens. I had it for a long time and used it for multiple weddings when I had the D300. Now I use a D700 and Tamron 28-75mm (though not quite as good as the 17-50mm in my opinion). But it will be leaps and bounds over your 18-70mm nikon. Being able to stop down to 2.8 is a must for wedding ceremonies (if not a 50mm f/1.8 or 85mm f/1.8 or 1.4). Good luck with your wedding(s)!</p>

<p>D700!<br>

D700!<br>

It's an amazing camera, I've had both D300 and D700, and the D700 is beyond belief. Image Quality is fantastic and pictures that were once impossible (6400 ISO with nearly no noticeable noise) is amazing. I would HIGHLY recommend it. A good lens option on a budget would be the tamron 28-75mm or the sigma 24-70mm in case you're looking for one. Also, don't underestimate how nice the big viewfinder of the D700 is ;-)</p>

<p><a href="http://www.BJLRphotography.com">www.BJLRphotography.com</a> - more than happy to do destination weddings :-D</p>

Sure, my email is bjlrphotography at yahoo dot com

Here's a small version for ya:

 

<a href="http://s121.photobucket.com/albums/o204/bjlrprofit/?action=view&current=00RWzx-89703584.jpg"

target="_blank"><img src="http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o204/bjlrprofit/00RWzx-89703584.jpg" border="0"

alt="Photobucket"></a>

Good post, but who puts a sigma on a D3 anyway? Haha..

^^^Dan, haha, primary focus, that's great, props to you

You guys are great, thanks!

Awesome, thanks guys. And yeah, I was more wondering about whether attaching a more expensive filter really does anything to the image quality than if I were to attach a generic one. Of course everyone says "well you shelled out $1500+ for a lens, you can shell out another $70 for a filter" but my question is more, does it REALLY make a difference? I believe you get what you pay for, but I'm not sure if it's worth $60 to simply prevent from possible ghosting. The mere reason I would be getting it would be to simply protect the actual glass on the lens. So thanks for your guys' opinions!

I wanted to see if the quality of a plain UV filter, attached simply for

protection of the lens, really matters. I just got a 70-200mm Nikkor and I want

to purchase a 77mm UV lens to protect it. There are a few on ebay that are

under $10 shipped, but they're no name brands, then there are some Hoyas that

are a good $35. I wanted to see if there's really a difference and if it will

in any way affect the quality of the photos or the mechanics of the lens (focus

speed or anything). Thanks in advance!

^^Awesome, thanks guys! I just wanted to make sure there wasn't much of a difference between doing it in camera vs pp. Thanks again!

I was wondering if anyone could explain the difference between using Active D-

Lighting in the D300 vs using the Shadow/Highlight feature in Photoshop. If I

plan on editing the photo anyway, is there much of a difference as far as photo

quality? Do I lose quality if I choose to do this in photoshop rather than

directly in the camera? Or is Active D-Lighting similar to monochrome which

seems to be intended just to save time, whereas you can customize it a lot more

if you do it during the post processing. Any help/advice would be really

appreciated! Thanks!

^^That appears to have pretty good room lighting, what was your aperture/shutter spped? Nice colors by the way, and good composition.

^^Any examples? What exactly are "hot" pixels? TIA

Thanks Ric, I appreciate it!