mariosforsos

<p>+1 to Marlon's comments. Anne shoots with approximately (if I remember from a long ago article) 4-5 studio strobes, so shooting at f/11 or f/16 would be easy, thereby guaranteeing excellent sharpness.</p>

<p>In your case, a tripod, a large window with plenty of light (maybe filtered through a white bedsheet) and f/8 should work just fine...;-)</p>

<p>Let's start by getting real here: you cannot "force" anyone to buy something "you" want - unless that is, you provide the money which, if it were me, would include a premium for "forcing" me to go somewhere I may not want to.</p>

<p>Second, while you could, in theory, "force" them to shoot Canon, that would be the equivalent of shooting yourself on both legs with a rocket launcher. Assuming you hired those photographers because of their skills, taking away the equipment they know how to use really well and moving them over to something new almost guarantees enormously steep learning curves and huge potential for errors - can you afford that? And how will you "counter" the photographers' arguments that they were not familiar with the equipment (at least initially)?</p>

<p>Now, the third option might be more viable - again, assuming you provide the funding. For example, I would not hire an assistant for, say, a wedding, if he only had a D80 or D200 and an 18-55 lens. If I could lend him a camera I would - otherwise I'd have to look for someone with sufficiently good equipment.</p>

<p>Of course, the question "different look" does bear ALOT of discussion. The "look" has to do with how the photographer sees things, NOT how the camera works - personally I challenge you to find which of my images are shot with a Nikon, which with a Leica and which with a Canon... or which were shot with Speedlights and which with studio strobes... seriously! If you can, I'll buy you a 1yr membership with Pnet! So, if your "look" is so distinctive, maybe you should start by looking for photographers who share your vision and THEN look into equipment.</p>

<p>Anyway, my 2c...</p>

<p>I realise this is probably a redundant question, but what, in your mind, makes a camera strap "crap"? I mean, doesn't it hold your camera around you neck/ shoulder? Did it break? Slip? Ruined your clothes?<br>

I'm only asking because I've been using Nikon's since 2000 (had a Canon and Minoltas before) and I never thought to change the strap! It always held, it never broke, it folded the way it should in my bag, I could wash it without problems in the washing machine...</p>

<p>True, when I got my D700 I replaced the strap (with a generic Nikon one), not because I hated the one I got, but because I didnt want to be a target when walking around with a strap screaming "expensive camera". I have transfered that strap to my D3 ever since. I have travelled on horse, on camel even on elephant, I've ridden down rivers and flows on small aircraft with the doors open while shooting. Strap has held. Every time. It has not decapitated me, it has not ruined my camera and it holds fast on my shoulder whenever I put it there...</p>

<p>Have I gotten a Blackrapid strap? Sure. for my second D3 body, the one I use my 70-200 with, because due to the weight, I don't want to have to pay any attention to...</p>

<p>Anyway...</p>

<p>In your previous posts you said you're just starting with photography again after a long absence. How many images do you seriously imaging you'll shoot over the course, say, of a year, to require the most powerful dedicated DAM solution? 30,000? 50,000? 100,000? Even if you were indeed shooting that much (whcih would mean you would be on assignment with NG for 10 months a year!), unless your requirements included sharing those images with 10 different channels, auto-exporting to hundreds different media (with different demands each), maintaining a full-tracking of EVERYTHING because licensing fees depend on that, EVEN then, LR would more than cover you AND provide a very robust initial editor to boot.</p>

<p>I just get the impression (from all your posts) that you're attempting to build an arsenal of super tools for what appears to be no clear goal or even process yet. I'm not even going to go into the subject of cost...</p>

<p>You say "money is no object", but I have to wonder. "Very rich, very powerful and very offensive people" will, most likely, have no qualms about smashing your "spaceman" gear, thereby costing your more than just a small fortune. Can you really afford that?</p>

<p>Also, the kit you describe will make it damn near impossible to move quickly or agilely and thereby catch up to them in "sensitive" situations, as they'll be able to see you coming a mile away!</p>

<p>Also, the S2 is not, if anything, well known for it's ISO capabilities, something which will be your bread and butter in this line of work! Do you really think you need all the MPs and the medium format frame for paparazzi shots? It's like taking a nuclear submarine to hunt ducks! Chances of missing the ducks is 1000000%...</p>

<p>You'll carry all the items you said on your shoulders and back and still you'll have your camera on a tripod? Does not compute...</p>

<p>Remember, PS will always need more RAM than the size of the image, depending on the colour space, no of layers and actions (a rough formula would be Total RAM Requirement = image size*colour space channels (3 for RGB, 4 for CMYK, etc) * no of layers (depending on what those layers contain - text takes up less that 1x, full images might take more than 1x and so on).</p>

<p>What you're seeing as being taken by PS has to do with the application itself and the PART of the image it's working on at any one time. If you do not have the "required" RAM, PS uses the hard drive as a scratch RAM disc (something you'll never see, but it's there nevertheless).</p>

<p>Your solution? A 64-bit system, tons of RAM (I use 24GB on my iMac) and a fast hard drive...</p>

<p>I see Lightroom is missing. It's about 10000 times better than Bridge, in terms of DAM, 100000000 times better than ACDSee and Photo Mechanic - I'm not even going to go on...</p>

<p>Strange...</p>

<p>My experience is pretty much on par with Nadine's - what I'm seeing more and more frequently is "professional" videographers ("with XX years in the business" - somehow that seems to ALWAYS be the case) grab a good angle, switch on their blasting on-camera light (turning every complexion and shade to pasty white wax!) and then slowly creep forward until you literally have no access to any shot whatsoever apart from some very tight portraits shot with a 70-200.</p>

<p>The times I've literally had to drag the "professional" away and have a serious talk with him (it's usually a him!) have been increasing in both frequency and intensity lately and I'm not ashamed to admit that, in those circumstances where I could find no communication channels with the videographer, I went out of my way to ruin his work as completely as possible. I realise this makes me a horrible person, but if he's refusing to work with me, then, I'm sorry, he's working against me and I can't have that...</p>

<p>I'm going to give you the same responce I give to ANYONE using the words "first time" and "not having done at all" in the same sentence: DON'T DO IT.</p>

<p>Show respect for your customer(s), especially during a wedding. I don't do video but I work with professionals very closely and NO, it is not a "rig" that is needed, it is NOT a "tripod" and it is definitely NOT the 5dII's low light ability... it's a sense of the procession, it's timing, it's knowing in advance how you'll edit (and let me tell you, that ONLY comes from "having done it" a dozen times before), it's thinking about the music, it's lighting and how it changes all the time, it's accommodating the flashes used by photographers - it's about a hundred other variables I don't even know where to start from...</p>

<p>Seriously, please, show some sensitivity and some true professionalism and get someone experienced to do it...don't learn at the cost of your customer's memories and experiences... please</p>

<p>Possibly dumb answer of the day: I don't think (mind you, it's been years since I used a variable aperture lens) there is a fixed/ specific ratio of how your aperture changes as your focal length changes. I'm sure it has to do with the movement of the crystals internally, but I can never remember it being a precise ratio. After all, say you have a 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 lens - chances are at 18 it will be 3.5, but how would you attempt to express (mathematically) the relationship when at 23 it goes to f/4 but then at 25 it goes to f/4.5 which it retains for the next 60mm or so?</p>

<p>I'm not sure I agree with Michael M - sometimes you can use sharper, edgier light when shooting boudoir, especially if the character of the person "demands" it. But I digress...</p>

<p>There is only one light! The light which will create what you want. Do you want something indirectly sexy? Then you may easily be looking at a bare strobe coming from a bathroom 20ft away. Do you want something very dreamy and fairytale looking? Then I doubt 2 umbrellas will be soft enough! And, of course, there are about 1 billion combinations between. The choice is yours - it always was.</p>

<p>The mistake I've seen most beginners do with boudoir photography is to work with extremely high speeds thereby subtracting all the light from the surrounding environment and then wonder how they will bring it back in with strobes - that's far from the solution. This is BOUDOIR photography - you can have your subject stay still for 1 sec if you need to, so use it! At 1 sec you can shoot literally without any additional light and still get amazing images. A small, tiny led light in a far corner can provide all the additional illumination you need...</p>

<p>you need (in my mind at least) to come up with specific concepts and then work towards recreating them using your lights AND whatever ambient you have. When a woman is lying with her underwear on a bed, you an shoot at 1/10th to allow tons of ambient light in AND then add a couple of lighter touches here and there with your strobes. OR, shoot at 1/500, strip away ALL external light and then throw a single strip box slightly above and over her and recreate that ole Hollywood look...</p>

<p>No, you do not need a new body or a new lens or even a light! You need to learn HOW to use what you already have well enough before you immediately assume that you've overcome them. You say "light is a good friend", but from the image you posted, forgive me for being blunt, but it seems as if light is a casual acquaintance and not much more.</p>

<p>What I mean to say is you first need to practice until you can take truly amazing shots with what you have (and let me tell you, it IS entirely possible - I've known people who've shot truly breathtaking images with far less gear than you have!) before you discover you need "an external strobe", "another lens" or even "a new camera"...</p>

<p>Your macro lens can be a superb portrait lens (a lot of macro lenses are!) and you can indeed adopt a "natural light" portrait and model shooting approach, as long as you learn HOW to do that. True, you may need distance, but other than that, everything is right there for you to use.</p>

<p>True, camera DOES matter. So do lenses. But what matters MOST of all is the photographer, the person who will "write with light" (that's what photography means you know, from the ancient Greek, "writing with light"). You have the camera and the lens. Now become the photographer who will surpass them before wondering what else to buy....</p>

<p>Seriously, personally I do not see why taking all should be such a problem. I carry a lot more in my trust Domke bag without a single problem. And while I could potentially argue the merits of bringing the 85/1.8, it's such a small and light lens that it would simply be easier to just say "hell, take it anyway!"</p>

<p>You have part of your wide demands covered, you have a couple of good portrait lenses (even though, in the crowds etc, not having a long zoom will limit you a bit and force you to crop alot later one during post - been there, done that and it's not fun with the D700's 12MP) and a couple of flashes (including the on-camera one, although I'd probably only use it as a commander for the SB900) for those demanding shots or for, if you're like me, when you want to be creative.</p>

<p>Problem with optical slave systems is that, sometimes, outdoors, in bright light (and there is no standard as to what constitutes "bright" light in such systems - some fare better than others but even then without any consistency whatsoever) they do not work as intended. For example, for a shot one of your strobes may not fire while it will in the next.</p>

<p>Using your PW will help massively. Assuming (like Nadine said) there is no wind (but, even if there is a slight wind, you could simply hang your camera bag from the stand as a weight and counter that!), I would expose for the sky, underexpose by, say 2/3 of a stop and then simply light the couple with my strobe. Whether I would use my softbox or not would depend on the look I was looking for. If I had another light (which I do...;-) I'd position another slightly behind them and opposite the main light, to act as rim/accent light. Simple two-strobe setup almost guaranteed to work everytime.</p>

<p>As for trials, I usually go to a location the day or a couple before and do test shots so I know fully (thank my iPhone for that) the time I have and how each set up would work. It takes an extra hour but it ALWAYS pays off on the day.</p>

<p>As for the ceremony, personally I'd look at shooting them LOOKING towards the west and have that amazing setting sun light them and the gazebo behind them and MAYBE, place a strobe on the floor infront of them, 1/4 CTO, just to fill in potential shadows and throw that sparkle in their eyes. Also, I usually cheat when I count for the image - I tell them I'll count to 3 and then shoot at 2 or at 4...that gets me real expressions, laughter and, believe it or not, mostly open eyes...;-)))</p>

<p>I'm with Steve here: a degree means absolutely nothing! In my consulting job I must have interviewed and even interned dozens of people who, despite amazing degree credentials, could not be trusted or depended upon to tie their own shoelaces, let alone take over or work within a project team! I'm not surprised that, as Robert discovered, that the OP is working on something completely unrelated to her training - I must have talked with over 20 young photographers just out of college or even a postgraduate course and they're all having trouble getting hired, not because of the typical qualifications but because, mostly from what I've seen in their portfolios, their work has ABSOLUTELY NO relation to real life applications (it's all about "inner expression", "art" and all those things which, may be interesting phtographically or psychlogically but do not, under any circumstance, show the photog's ability to handle, say, a commercial fashion shoot). Anyway...</p>

<p>Photography (and, wedding photography even more) requires, as I'm sure everyone here (including, to her credit, the OP) realises. I would advise you not to approach this as an "assistant". Try a different approach and start from local wedding photographers - just ask their permission to simply observe from a discreet distance (i.e. without interfering with their work) while they shoot a couple of weddings and "whenever needed, I could even help carry stands etc". That way you'll see, first-hand, how a seasoned professional handles things, how they light things, how they don't, why they do the things they do, how they deal with client interaction, etc - all those things a degree or working for yourself in a couple of weddings will never teach you. Wedding photography is about a lot more than just getting the exposure or the framing right...;-)</p>

<p>The advice about setting up with someone else in the same shoes as you is also a good one, but make sure that at least ONE of you has a solid business acumen.</p>

<p>Mexico is indeed a different story altogether - we had to opt out from a shoot there (and relocate) due to all the bureaucracy and the fees included (which, in our case, were calculated to over 1200 USD for slightly more gear than you're carrying!) Plus, they claimed we needed work permits (since the shoot was going to last over 7 days and we would have models flying in), area permits (even though the hotels we were shooting in had already given their express written permission) and we would have to pay for Mexican insurance (even though we had international insurance already and our carrier ensured us it was valid in Mexico!).</p>

<p>Plus our local fixer/contact told us that we should also add another 200-500 USD to our budget for local bribes etc as local officials low on cash tend to loiter around such shoots and the moment, say, a cable is seens as hazardous, they pounce and demand exhorbitant amounts in penalties and fees (and you do NOT want to be stuck in a police station for 1 days until this is sorted!).</p>

<p>Admittedly, that was in 2001 (pre 9/11) and things may have changed since then...I guess you'll find out. It would be nice to know how it went though once you come back...;-)</p>

<p>+1 for window lighting and, maybe, if you need them, a couple of white pieces of cardboard or foam as reflectors. Have the model sit as still as possible and let your camera (initially) indicate the settings. Then play around with them on Manual mode until you get the result you want. Your camera is good enough for what you're - apparently - trying to do - no need to buy more stuff...</p>

<p>I'm with Jeffrey on this one: I have been using small strobes (Nikon ones) pretty much forever and they are great! Combined with the ISO capabilities of my D3s (which means that if they cannot pump out enough light, raising the ISO to 400 or even 800 is not even an issue!) they are great prety much everywhere, from Africa (where I just spent a month travelling carrying 4 of them with me) to my studio to ANY location.</p>

<p>The other strobes, while quite a bit more powerful require POWER. This must come in the form of a power outlet (so when travelling you'd be needing multiplugs AND plug adapters AND extension cords) or specialist batteries (which weigh upwards of 10-15 pounds each and last anything between 200-400 firings and usually support a max of 2-4 lights, with weight and recharging time climbing exponentially with each additional light over 2). All in all, not a very viable proposition if you're travelling alone (or, as I have, with 1 assistant) and without an infinite budget to pay for Peli carry cases and overweight charges in airplanes etc.</p>

<p>I travelled with external big strobes twice in my life and I vowed to avoid them as much as possible since then: it took 4 people 2 days to pack and prepare 6 (!!!!) different cases with stands, lights, cables, modifiers, accessories and then, we had to arrive at the airport 5 (!!!!) hours in advance to ensure that everything was declared in customs, overweight charges paid, items delivered to the "oversized items" conveyor belt and so on and so forth. I'm not even going to add the heartache and agony until one of the cases rolled out at the arrival point last after more than 1hr!</p>

<p>Stick to the smaller flashes. I'd be hard pressed to find any conditions where they wouldn't cover you (unless you were trying to overpower the sun in the Barbados at high noon...)</p>

<p>@John: you're right, of course. I was merely pointing out that, to a beginner, the "set the thing straight up and shoot to your heart's content" solution that is the GFLS is easier than constantly trying to judge where the best bounce area is or what the angle of the diffusion dome on the SB should be. With the GFLS (which, by the way, even with higher ceilings, taking the top dome off works fine) all these "problems" are simply reduced to a "bend the flash when shooting vertically" solution.</p>

<p>@ Ralph: a friend has the Lumiquest Softbox and it is simply not good enough. Go for the lastolite one - the construction is better, the materials too, it attaches easier adn provides and much more pleasing result. SLIGHTLY heavier, true, but so much more versatile. And NO, they do no obscure the lens in any way (unless you're shooting with a 10mm fisheye..;-))</p>

<p>Sidestepping the question as to why you'd want to overload your site with specialised fonts (thereby making them almost impossible to access from mobile devices or pretty much anyone who cannot, for whatever reason, download or access such features), you should know that 95% of sites which offer comprehensive packages for photography hosting have similar restrictions. If it is not the fonts it may be placement. If not placement then it may be background functions etc.</p>

<p>From all, the more almost infinitely updateable and configurable (albeit through coding which the site fully supports as out-of-the-box functionality) is Smugmug. Check out the customisation forum (dgrin) and you'll see almost infinite possibilities and a community willing and able to help you do pretty much anything you want.</p>

<p>One small correction: while ACR is indeed in the heart of LR, the Develop module in LR is NOT the same as ACR in the sense that, once you open an image in ACR, any development you affect on it has to be translated to a TIFF or PSD or whatever format later or even saved as a separate xmp or other sidecar file. This means that next time you open ACR, you need to ensure that any sidecar file has not been moved, renamed (or the image renamed) or anything otherwise you lose all your changes. The LR develop module is much safer and more comprehensive than ACR alone can ever hope to be...</p>

<p>No, No, No and no! Solutions like Portrait Professional attempt to do this and pretty much EVERYTHING that comes out of them looks plastic, distorted and fake... ANY discerning professional can tell a PP-processed image from any other within micro-seconds! Face marks (blemishes, lines, wrinkles etc) are all so individual (even between images of the same person from frame to frame!) that any attempt to mass or auto-remove them cannot, pretty much by definition, result in anything natural looking.</p>

<p>Sorry, there is no shortcut for this. Skin smoothing AFTER you remove those marks is another thing altogether. There, you MAY (and that's a HUGE maybe) be able to apply some presets, but personally I wouldn't try it as you need different settings for each different skin and lighting condition, so in effect, you'd need to have hundreds of presets to take into account all the different combinations.</p>

<p>As an average retoucher (being an anal photographer may be stressful for all those working with me sometimes, but we do, in the end, tend to get tons of things right in camera!) I can only tell you this: if you need to work as a retoucher you need to be, not just "good" but "superb". You need to be able to take a dull, simple - however perfectly lit or composed - image and turn it into something truly breathtaking, eye-stopping, mouth-watering. And you need to be able to do this quickly and, above all, consistently.</p>

<p>I was watching a series of "instructional" videos on retouching some time ago and the instructor literally spend (ALL within the videos) 3+ hours just to remove blemishes (after the first 10mins I simply kept on watching out of sheer fascination just to see HOW long she would keep up working on an image without taking at all!) All in all, she claimed she needed about 3-4 FULL working days for each image (and her starting image was pretty good to start with!).</p>

<p>That is simply not worth it for a photographer or an advertisement agency who, apart from having to wait weeks upon weeks for you to deliver, then have to pay your rates for all this time.</p>

<p>And, if you want brutal honesty, if the image of you on your profile is a sample of your retouching skills (which I suspect it is), you still have ALOT to learn.</p>

<p>There are, I believe, two issues the OP is worried about: the first is the proper way to handle the camera while on the streets and the second is short- or long-term storage. Personally I believe that both concerns, while valid, should not be inflated into something they are not.</p>

<p>First of all, carrying ANYTHING carelessly (and yes, that definitely includes hanging the strap around your neck) is bound to cause problems eventually, so normal care should aleviate most, if not all, chances for accidental damage. Even if you remove the variable "neck strain" from the equation, carrying a heavy camera-and-lens combination from your neck, however strong you may believe it may be, is inviting trouble, and not only for the reasons mentioned in Michael W's "swinging" answer...;-) Getting a sling strap (from the many that now exist in the market) solves pretty much 90% of your problems. I have one for each of my D3s and they work wonderfully under even the most strenuous conditions.</p>

<p>Second, there is a reason professional photographers will almost always suggest you keep the lens hood ON the camera even when there is no sun around and that is, surprise-surprise, to protect your lens (and, most importantly, that very sensitive front element and filter threads) against any bumps and scrapes which it may suffer during normal use. The edges of both my 24-70 and my 70-200 hoods look like they's been through a battle in Khandahar, but the front of the lens still looks as it may have come out of the factory yesterday. After all, it's cheaper for me to order a new hood for around 50-70 euros rather than pay for a repair or even replacement of the lens or parts of it!</p>

<p>As for storage, as long as you do not put extreme strain on the connection between the two, you should be okay. Personally, whenever I know I'm not going to use my cameras for more than 1 month (VERY rare occurence), I disconnect the lenses, clean them thoroughly and pack them in my Peli with bags of silica gel. Then, when I'm about to reuse them, I clean them once more, assemble and I'm done.</p>

<p>Important point to follow: ALWAYS store your camera with the sensor pointing DOWNWARDS! Even when not is use, minute particles of dust WILL always float around inside the camera and lens and, storing the camera with the sensor pointing upwards is simply inviting them to go and settle in the area with the most static. And once they are there for a week or so, removing them becomes that much more difficult.</p>

<p>However, even despite all the above, accidents do happen and that is why we have insurance...;-)</p>

<p>VR also assists in longer focal length lenses to reduce shake when shooting at low speeds. Remember, that for a sharp image (hand-held), you should - ideally - be looking at 1/focal length as your shutter speed. This however may not always be achievable, hence the VR. Plus, don't forget that a 600mm f/4 lens will almost always be mounted on a tripod (due to its sheer size), so I would not expect VR to ever make it there, but on a lens 70-200 f/2.8, which everyone knows will be used for literally everything and anything hand-held, well, VR has a rightful place there.</p>

<p>As for how many stops VR gets you, I have found most claims to be, realistically and not in a controlled environment, rather optimistic. Shooting at 1/15 with VR is NOT the same as shooting at 1/60 without VR...no way, unless you yourself have a very stable hand anyway...</p>