laverephoto

<p>I would also mention that I still carry a tripod, but I shoot weddings and I have been able to dramatically speed up my work with the family pictures and maintain good quality with the use of VR for all the bridal and family portraits in the church. I find that most photographers who shoot for a living (professionals) benefit greatly from minor technilogical conveniences like VR. In a competetive, fast paced environment convenience turns into necessity in the blink of an eye. Time is money and VR saves time.</p>

<p>I have observed that VR generally lives up to expectations when you are reducing hand shake on the part of the photographer. That was what it was designed to do and it does it. As for using it on a tripod, there is no point to using it on a tripod, and I have observed that the VR motor in my nikon 70-200 does indeed cause motion blur when you are mounted to a solid tripod and you will get better results on a tripod without VR. The observation I made was in a studio with very well controlled lighting and camera stability. I would take Nikon's recommendation on this one for sure.</p>

<p>When I went digital, I got my feet wet with the very consumer oriented D70. The price was low enough to get me rolling. Before I upgraded to the D200, I had the money to get some decent lenses. I will eventually get up to the full frame models, but my images are standing up pretty well with the last generation's technology.</p>

<p>If you are just entering the digital world, budget carefully. You are in for some expenses as far as computer hardware and software. Everything you think you will save on film will likely go into those expenses. That's another reason to live within your means on the body.<br>

Coming from film, you have probably minced the differences between dslr's v. your medium format kit. Even the D200 will be so nimble compared to your medium format manual cameras, that you will have a whole new world of creative possibilities. As for the quality of film, certain 35mm films can still outperform a dslr, but a modern digital camera like the D200 outperforms 35mm high ISO film easily.<br>

If you are on a budget, better is better, but good enough is good enough. Live within your means and you will be happy. If you are creative, you will find ways to keep your image quality high without going into debt for the tiny incremental improvements that we see from one generation of cameras to the next. </p>

<p>One thing this comparison ignores is that the physical size of the sensor or the film determines how much light is necessary and weather you can get the shot without a tripod.<br>

I'll never understand why people compare a dslr with medium format film, scanned or unscanned. If you want to take the same shot with the same crop, depth of field, and angle of view, you have to stop a medium format camera down at least three stops and then open up the shutter speed to compensate. In real life that means you need a tremendous increase in any artificial light you are using and you will likely need a tripod when you could be hand holding with a dslr. I'm not saying it isn't worth it for some shots, but I am saying the two types of cameras do not handle remotely in the same ball park where speed and mobility are an issue.<br>

A more meaningful comparison would be a modern Phase One back against medium format scanned film. In my area a good scan isn't cheap so the Phase One starts looking pretty reasonable if you shoot any kind of volume. I guess film users would then point to 4X5 film as the gold standard, but now we are back to the days of 30 pound tripods and generators to run a 4800 WS strobe pack. No thanks!</p>

 

<p>I have a Kirk BH-3 that has been more than adequate with a dslr attached to a 70-200 zoom. Naturally, I use the tripod collar on the lens The BH-3 is a big savings over the BH-1. Unless you are going to be mounting a 300 or 400 mm, I would have no reservations going with the less expensive option.</p>

<p>The magic isn't in the machine, its in my head.</p>

<p>Everybody takes pictures for their own reasons I guess, but for me the end result is the ONLY thing that maters. I will patiently study every gizmo that comes my way to explore how it will allow me to express myself differently. Its like learning to play a musical instrument. You learn the theory, then you practice performing the task until you don't have to think about it anymore. Every camera is like that. I like equipment that gets out of my way and lets me respond to my subject. I use manual functions when they give me the best results and I use DSLR's with auto functions when they are up to the task at hand. I still use my Hasselblad sometimes and I still draw with charcoal on paper sometimes. I have seen some nice post cards, but my end results are more precious to me bay far. There is significant content in some images that has nothing to do with the precision of the machine. It has to do with the emotional depth of the photographer.</p>

<p>I shoot Raw and process in Adobe Lightroom. I primarily shoot location portraits and weddings. A lot of people seem to think of RAW as an assurance that if they blow it they will have a backup. Frankly, I find that I can vastly improve even a good exposure with RAW processing. At one point I learned a lot about fine black and white printing, and the control of tone, contrast, and selective dodging and burning are things that really make a big difference for even properly exposed images. With a 12, 14, or 16 bit image you can perform these adjustments without the visible artifacts that show up immediately in 8 bit jpegs. Color issues are also handled much better. Jpegs do not handle big adjustments in color balance well, compared to larger files (including tiffs) If you shoot a perfect exposure and you do not plan to make adjustments in tone, contrast, or color you probably will not benefit from shooting RAW. Big adjustments in editing, however, are done much better with raw files. I'm the type that can always find a way to improve things in post. I also have learned to shoot in a way that facilitates effective batch processing. Good batch processing skills can really minimize the time you spend working with RAW files.</p>

<p>As a wedding photographer shooting portraits in dim light, The VR is a big deal because it keeps me off the tripod and therefore a lot quicker on my feet. You can see the difference in the individual pics, but it also allows me breathing room to be more creative in a hectic situation. I use the 70-200 VR for ALL my shots in that focal range. The image quality is superior to my Nikon 105 2.0 DC. </p>

<p>Not impressed by these images at all. The personality coming out of the subjects here could be relatively accidental. The lighting seems to be a attempt at the ringlight look without the ringlight. If I were trying to bring attention to the grease on someone's skin this would be a good way to do it. the symmetrical soft-lights do a fantastic job of creating unflattering highlights in the eyes that make them look glassy like they are on drugs. Avedon's lighting is completely different. If you don't like somebody and your goal is to make them look bad, mission accomplished. There are unflattering pics that have a point to them, but there is no point to accentuating the unflattering as a matter of habit. Critique is no more honest than flattery, but there should be a point to employing one or the other. I don't see the point here.</p>

<p>I was assisting commercial photographers on jobs that ranged from corporate publications to advertising and I really enjoyed the level of professionalism and superlative craftsmanship that I was immersed in. After my daughter was bon with a serious heart defect, I could no longer freelance during the week because I could not promise dates without leaving my daughter alone through her regular procedures and hospitalization. I had been shooting weddings regularly, but after her birth i started shooting two to three every weekend to try to keep up my income.<br>

I still miss the commercial work and I am getting back into it, but there are some unique things about wedding photography that are attractive.<br>

1. The results are personally important to the client on an emotional level. Not true of commercial work.<br>

2. The artistic direction is completely mine to control rather than following the dictates of an art director.<br>

3. There are commercial clients with smaller budgets than an average wedding client.<br>

4. If you want to get portraits that are full of emotion and humanity this is a perfect opportunity.<br>

There are unattractive things as well. It is physically exhausting. Drunk people can be incredibly rude and disrespectful. People who are not familiar with professional photography have no appreciation for the technical challenges. One photographer on this forum described weddings as herding cats. I think that about sums it up. With all my commercial experience I probably shot 100 weddings before I had the crowd control part down pat. After that, and only after that could I bring my photography up to a level that I could be proud of.<br>

I would caution anyone who thinks it would be a fun way to pay for their toys to think twice. This is hard work and you have to be driven to be visually creative to take satisfaction in it.<br>

</p>

<p>The way you are doing business is a reasonable way to ensure that you get paid and you should stick to your guns on this. The issue that you have to mitigate with the parents is your personal reputation and reliability. If I were to have this debate with a client, the first thing I would do is give them 3 references with phone numbers to call of prior clients who received the goods. If that does not reassure the parents that you are reliable, then I would suspect there is another issue they are dealing with. If solid references don't help, then you have good reason to suspect they are looking for a way out. Remember, your contract also requires you to do your job. Emphasize that. If you don't do your job, the same contract that protects you will protect them. A good contract provides all the mutual assurance necessary. Buyer's remorse is an unfortunate reality in the wedding business. Sometimes it has nothing to do with the professionalism or performance of the vendor and sometimes it does.<br>

You should be especially careful since they are not local. Its just good business. <br>

There are things that can be done up front to build confidence to avoid these situations (though they may still occur) I blog my weddings and encourage clients to comment on my blog articles. I also use social networking sites to keep in contact with former clients. Both of these venues offer prospective clients a view into the daily communications between myself and my clients. People can browse through months and years of my personal history with my clients if they choose to do so. If after seeing all of this, they still question my reliability, then that is a serious red flag. <br>

People often talk about getting "qualified" clients. Usually they mean clients with enough money. For me a qualified client is someone who will do do business with me in a way that I can be comfortable as well. I have found that personal referrals make the difference. </p>

I don't think one can expect a lens to be exactly as sharp at 2.8 as it is at its sweet spot no matter how good it is. Despite

reviews etc, this could easily be the visual representation of the MTF curve of this lens. The MTF curve that would render

the same results of the 5.6 version at 2.8 would be a straight line. I would expect there to be a clear visible difference

especially since the sample is a small section of the original file. Nikon hasn't found a way around optical physics yet.

I Agree with Robert and Simon completely. CLS is the surest way to make a photographer look foolish in

front of clients. IR remote systems like this are completely unreliable in a lot of real world environments. I have tried it and

I wanted it to work as much as anyone, maybe more than Nikon:-) If you want to go wireless off camera, you will be better

served by using Pocket Wizards and putting the flash in Manual or Auto mode. For on camera flash the cord is great and

even better is the one with the built in focus assist light. You can focus in the dark from at least 30 feet with this thing.

Best accessory ever for dark banquet halls.

There are a lot of posts mincing the advantages of various brands and styles of camera. I don't care much about brand, but I have a kit

that works great for me and many others. I could give a hundred reasons why I live this kit but I'd like to hear some more. I have two

identical DSLR bodies. On one I put a 70-200 2.8, and the other I put a 17-35 2.8. I keep a 50 1.4 in my pocket to cover the middle.

Works for me all day. I LOVE 2.8 zooms and fast autofocus!

I always prefer to save my money up front. I have used and broken a lot of nikon equipment and the maintenance cost v.

the warrantee has always seemed like a wash. I would never buy an extended warrantee since my repairs have usually

been about as costly as extended warrantees. Most of my repairs by the way came from horrendous abuse of the

equipment on my part, so warrantee coverage would have been unlikely.

The 17-35 has served me very well. I do a lot of close range work with it and I really would not like the distortion of

perspective that would occur at wider focal lengths. I think the 17 is plenty wide enough for everything but the most

extreme architectural shots.

If you are having this much trouble up front imagine the headaches you are going to have after the wedding and after your investment in

time and effort. Do you think she will laugh at any of your jokes at this point? I'm sure you are a perfectly amiable person, but this bride is

not going to be on your side on the day of the wedding. Bad customers beget bad customers. I think the damage is done at this point (by

her not you) I would bail out of this job ASAP. I once had a bride that would not admit that her wedding had been cancelled just days prior

to the appointed date. You have to protect yourself from people acting in bad faith and this is what you have here. There is a good chance

she is trying to construct an excuse to hustle you. There are people like this everywhere.

Don't do it. Do some shopping for them and give them three options of cheap photographers to consider. Take lots of

pictures of your own and give them to them in a nice album as a gift. When they get what they paid for (probably not

much) you can be a hero by giving them your versions as extras. At least you won't be personally responsible for the

"real" photos. Even if you did it for free, you are still putting yourself in a bad position. Your sister may be very forgiving,

but what about everybody else,,, the groom's family, etc.

As a D200 user, I am not impressed with the D300. The image quality is not substantially better from what i have seen.

As for the D40, I would much rather have a body such as the D200 with more analog type controls on the body. The more

consumer level gear often requires more use of the menus.

I started with primes and now I use a 17-35 2.8, a 70-200 2.8 and a 1.4 50...all Nikon. I've done it both ways and I love

what I have right now. My zooms have great image quality and cropping and composing is much faster. I don't see the

allure of shooting at 1.4 when the effective depth of field for a portrait is mere millimeters. I love the selective focus look

but 1.4 is so selective that you are focused on almost nothing. I shoot at 2.8 as necessary, but my preferred f stop for

portraits is 4.0.

Don''t use a bracket any more! Back when I was using direct flash the bracket made sense because it kept the shadow

from framing the subject in an unnatural way. Now that I bounce or shoot direct from an angle, I hand hold the flash all the

time. Instead of using the swivel on the flash head I just turn my wrist and point the thing where I want it to go. If I use a

pocket wizard in tandem with the flash, I have velcro attached to stick them together. I find my way of doing it a lot less

cumbersome and "organic" that sad I do use a pouch/holster for the flash when I need my hands free. It is kind of

liberating not to have that great big rig assembled all the time.

I shoot weddings every weekend, often 2 or 3 per weekend. My portfolio on the site will show you that I use lots of different focal lengths

to get different looks. I often shoot a portrait with a 20 to get and intimate feel then I walk away and take the same portrait with a 200 for a

totally different look. That method gives me speed and variety. I mention that because in practice, your lens choice is a very subjective

thing. The number one most noticeable characteristic of any lens is the effect it has on perspective relative to the subject. I shoot 99% of

the time with one of three lenses on my D200's. I use a 70-200 2.8 VR, a 1.4 50, and a 17-35 2.8. I never miss the other fast primes.

Yes, these lenses are heavy, but the inconvenience of the weight is overcome by the convenience of cropping and composing with the

zooms. There is nobody I know who could look at a portrait and tell me weather it was shot on a prime or a zoom. While zooms are

expensive, they are really 4 in 1 lenses, so I think they are a great value.

To play devil's advocate, the question isn't if you are charging to much the question is: can this client afford a

professional photographer. If you talk to a personnel manager and ask them what it costs to pay and provide reasonable

benefits to an employee you will find that $150 to $200 per hour is on the low end. This is the true cost you need to

keep in mind. Getting rich is a perfectly legitimate goal for you BTW. Also bear in mind that we need to budget for

down time because your availability is also something that factors into the cost of doing business. I don't begrudge

bargain shoppers their prerogative, but you will find that there are clients who simply cannot afford to keep you in

business. If you have to lower your price to keep a client, you will eventually find your self working all the time and

getting poorer in the process. BTW you can't write off a service. You should check that with your accountant. I have

always got my best referrals from my best paying clients. It kind of makes sense because they demonstrated with their

pocket books that they value my work.

As a current Nikon D200 user, I have definitely become partial to using the buttons on the camera body rather than the

menu to make changes in settings. Analog switches and buttons allow me to go from one environmental extreme to the

next with a minimum of fuss. Sometimes this really makes the difference between getting the shot or not. Canon or

Nikon, it is inevitable that you can eventually run out of space for buttons on the body. So there will be a compromise

between what you have to do in the menu V. what you can do directly. At this point the D200 prioritizes ease of

adjustment of critical factors pretty well for me. There are certain functions however that are top priority for me and

therefore I would love to see those function prioritized better on the body. Everybody can agree that F stop and Shutter

are top priority controls. I would also like to be able to adjust ISO and white balance without using a two button

sequence. On many of the pro-sumer cameras white balance is in the menus only, and the selections are over

simplified. That is a real deal killer for me. As for iso, in a post film environment iso should be conceived of a as a third

exposure control equal to F stop and shutter speed in importance. That is how I use it and the two button sequence is

cumbersome.

 

As a former assistant to commercial photographers, I don't have much sympathy for the growing pains associated with

changing systems. I have used over a dozed different camera systems from 8X10 to the D200 and there is always a

learning curve. In my experience, there are a lot of would be photographers out there that are unfamiliar with their

respective camera manual. Once you know your machine, the differences become pretty small between competing

brands.