joseph_snively

<p>Brooke, Congratulations on getting some wedding jobs. Always remember that no matter what, every person in this forum has started where you are. I do not give concrete advice because some of the best pros in the world have dramatically different approaches and are still successful. <br>

In the photos you posted, the shutter speed was slower than 1/60th of a second which can lead to a slight amount of blur. Also, when you're shooting at long distances from your subject, wider apertures tend to be soft. THe 70-200 f/2.8 IS is one lens that is sharp no matter what, though. The 24-70 is a great lens, and it will serve you well, but you may get better results from the 17-55 f/2.8 IS. I can handhold it and shoot 1/8th of a second and the images are still acceptably sharp as long as the subjects aren't moving. It's truly incredible.<br>

The other possibility is that your specific lens has a malfunction and is front-focusing and needs repair by Canon. Try to duplicate the softness in a controled situation with your camera and lens, then put the lens on another camera with precisely the same settings and see if those photos are also soft. That will tell you if it is the lens. Good luck!</p>

<p>I have two packages, Full Service and Wedding Day. Then I offer Extra Specials such as "The Digitals," The Prints," and "The iPod" for people who want to customize their keepables. <br>

But whatever you do, don't use words like "Below Wholesale," "Double Coupon Day," "Bargain Basement," or "Going Out Of Business Sale." : )</p>

<p>There have already been a lot of very good responses to this question, but I'll throw one more opinion in. Even though f/1.4 will produce softer photos, if you know you won't be printing them at 100% size, the loss in total sharpness is probably negligible anyway. And sometimes that softness is very flattering to people's faces. It smoothes them out and softens them very gently without any post-processing. </p>

It is true that the 21MP has no effect on the quality of an 8x10 print, BUT the fact that you can crop out probably 12 seperate and distinct 8x10s at excellent quality from one 21MP photo is nice : ) As one friend of mine told me, he wants to one day able to crop away all but the center 3% and still have a high quality photo: ) That way you only have to worry about center sharpness of the lenses you buy.

Photo Girl,

 

Even when you are shooting in RAW only, the camera shows you a JPG preview of the RAW file that you just took in whatever color space you select. And in many cases (if not all), a small JPG is embedded in the RAW file that is processed in camera with whatever settings you choose. That's the best reason I can think of to work in sRGB while shooting. So that your camera preview and the embedded JPG are also in sRGB.

<div></div>

Which gallery or image are you talking about?

The APS-C sensors are here to stay for a long time. However, at Photokina 2008, a Canon President (or CEO) stated that the cameras would continue to get more and more megapixels instead of fewer photosites that are larger and less noisy in order to give the consumers a chance to crop. To continue to increase the megapixel count tells me that eventually the APS-C sensors are going to hit a level where they are moving backwards in acceptable noise levels and they will move to a different crop factor where there is more room. Perhaps it is at 1.3x where the 1D Mark III is now, or perhaps it will be full-frame. Pretty soon we will all have Medium Format cameras in our back pockets: )

 

In reference to the crop factor being a myth, it's not. The limitations of what pixels can resolve are going to be limited, but it's a precise formula that balances several important factors that go into the final resolving power of the system. The f-stop of the lens, the print/viewing size, the viewing distance, the pixel size, etc. And as of right now, none of the systems being produced are diffraction limited at f/5.6 as long as your print size is less than 100" and you are 3' from it. So, as long as you are using the crop factor, you are in fact, getting more zoom (for now).

Richard P,

 

I offer my condolences on the absence of your treasured photos. But remember that many people who are unhappy with their "pro photos" still go to another photographer after the wedding and redo the bridals, engagements at the special locations like the church and the reception hall. My wife and I did. The key point here for me is that I hired another photographer whose style I really liked and personality I really liked. So here it comes,...

 

If it were me, I'd have the previous photographer pay for another photographer of my choice to do my photos. Just remember that wedding photography is one of the most sued business in the world and without a firm contract that excuses him of all liability, he and his business can be held to the fullest extent of the law. But that's just me. Leverage him until you get quality photos of you and your lovely bride that you'll be happy to print at poster size, wallet size, album size, web size, and have in every room in the house, you wallet, your desk, your ... you get the idea.

 

Although, I do very much like the idea of having him retouch your photos. But I'll tell you what. I'll do them for free if you mail me a DVD. (Seriously). I'm good, I'm fast, and I know what I'm doing. Now go get some amazing photos of you and your bride!

 

Sincerely,

Joseph Snively

Bryan,

 

Great news on getting the extra jobs. I have the 40D which also has the smaller sensor like yours and I find that the

17-55 you are considering is wonderful, but, because I am upgrading to a full-frame camera and can't bring the 17-55

to the new camera, I am wishing I had the following setup.

 

10-22mm for the super wide angle shots from the corners of the church and reception hall

 

24-70mm f/2.8 for most of the work before the ceremony and the reception

 

70-200mm f/2.8 IS for the bulk of the ceremony and part of the reception. But go to the ceremony site first and see

how large it is. If it's a tiny little place, the 24-70 is all you need plus the 10-22 for the wide angles. If it's a

cathedral, expect to use the 70-200 a lot for the photos of the couple at the altar exchanging rings and kissing.

 

24mm f/1.4 for the gorgeous bridal portraits and formal shots. you will be THE man with that lens. It's the 35mm

f/1.4 for the APS-C sensor cameras.

 

The 10-22 is optional and you can just rent that one to try it out once.

 

You will absolutely love using a flash outdoors when the sun is putting everyone's face in shadows. It will keep the

guests from looking like zombies! : )

Irene, many of the other suggestions are good about tripods, flashes, business cards, business plans, calibrators, etc. The list is truly never ending (lol). Right now, forget all that and go get your lens gear and ENJOY photography. You can have the right business plan, business cards, pro website, tripod, flash, and still not be able to book one event because you can't afford a lens after all that: ) FYI, you need the lenses more than you need an upgrade to the body of your camera at this point in your career, but you should upgrade the body within the next 6-12 months to the D90 (not D80) or before your first wedding (whichever comes first).

 

After you buy your lenses (and protective filters), give yourself 3-6 months of shooting every week all over your local area and get to know the romantic little nooks and corners around you.

 

www.photobrilliance.net

Irene, this topic already got a lof of discussion, but I must chime in since I am almost exactly one step ahead of

where you are now. It sounds like we have a lot of the same goals and experiences. I started out a hobby

photographer, became an enthusiast, and am now booking my first few weddings. Here's what I have learned.

 

Versatility and quality of lenses is an absolute must. Having a clear "upgrade path" to more professional equipment

will also reduce the cost of your expenditures in the long run. Right now for you I would recommend soaking your

money into two lenses that offer equivalent zoom range, but much better bokeh, sharpness, and fast-focusing

performance. Those two lenses are

 

The 17-55mm f/2.8 with VR

The 70-200mm f/2.8 with VR

 

These two lenses give wonderful professional quality pictures that will give you both the bread and butter portraits and

landscapes while still offering the speed and DOF to do wonderful artistic work as well and in low light no less. But

keep in mind, your best artistic work will be done with prime lenses that have wide apertures such as the 85mm

f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4 and so on.

I've learned a lot about the differences between these two lenses. Now I am also faced with a choice. I am starting my lens collection, so this will absolutely not be my only lens. I am looking for the sharpest photos, period. I will have uses for both lenses, but the one I need most right now is the one that will give the clearest photos on the 40D and we'll go ahead and say that I am using it indoors. Can someone point me to some direct comparisons and sample photos?