trebor_navilluso

Clothes Pins work fine too for holding the gels on. Grids are optional as previously stated. However be careful of the heat the generate. Let the gel bulge out and not be in contact with the grid.

Sys OP. These links go to porn sites which attempt to plant virus/spyware.

 

I clicked on one of them trying to help this guy out not knowing and ended up a getting a virus I now have to deal with . Please remove the links so no one elses computers get infected.

Les:

 

Don't know the xfer speed but it is an SATA controller.

 

Walter: I'll look into that, and a faster optical.

 

Thanks all.

Ok, I'm a photog not a computer expert. Hopefully someone can guide me here.

 

My work flow is finally being slowed by the limits of my computer. Downloading images from cards is fairly quick

and painless. But backing up from my HD to an external HD and burning CD's both take about 40 minutes per 4 gig

card which is starting to become a problem.

 

I can't justify a fork lift upgrade on the whole system, so I need to hone in on which component is the biggest

offender. Here's the specs.

 

No name computer with AMD dual core (simpron I think) 1.6ghz x 1.6 ghz. 2 gig ram, HD 340MB (probably 4200 or

5400 speed max, DVD burns at 16X. The external HD is a USBII 160GB 5400 transfer rate of 12-480 MBps. That

spec kills me is it 12 or is it 480?

 

I nearly always shoot 4 gig cf cards and fill them because they fit onto DVDs so well. So what would you

recomend to speed things up? Newer faster CD and external HD, or is the bottle neck more likely on the

Motherboard/CPU's, Ram.

 

Your thoughts are appreciated.

Agree with Raymond. Self promotions does not equal Publishing.

I guess these laws have been on the books for a while but not zealously enforced. But recently I'm finding that

the State Parks people here in CT are really cracking down. They want a $500 fee for just doing a TFP session in

the park with a wanna be model, never mind an actual wedding formals shoot.

 

Any of you running into this on other states? Do you routinely work the fee into your price, have the couple or

planner get the permit and pay the fee, or just do a drive by and hope you don't get tossed by dudly do right

park ranger.

 

I think it's funny that a podunk park in CT gets $500 while Central Park in NYC is still free. Go figure.

You will not find F1.4 or IS on superwide lenses. I 'd recommend the Sigma 10-20 (save a couple hundred $). And a good flash like 580 or 430 ex. Bounce the flash off the ceiling for interiors. Learn about FEC and exposure lock so you can get the interior room details as well as the scene outside the window exposed correctly.

"Always wondered what that little green square was on friends cameras! What are the differences between it and P?"

 

P mode allows slower shutter speeds and will not automatically pop up the flash.

 

Green square mode has a minimum shutter speed of 1/60th to protect amateurs from blurry shots and will always pop up the flash automatically if it senses low light.

 

Both use Jpg only and minimize the available ISOs.

 

Basically I consider both of them panic buttons and have never used them. I suppose one day, if I"m very drunk and can't seem to shoot, I might try one of them ;-)

I use a 30D and a 5D. They both have merits and drawbacks.

 

5D Pro's,

view finder,

interchangable focus screens on the fly

Resolutions/larger prints

lenses have correct fov

 

5D cons,

No built in flash

Slower frame rate

 

30D pros

built in flash,

longer reach 1.6 crop

faster frame rate,

smaller/lighter

 

30D cons

need wider lens for 1.6 crop

Maylis:

 

I think that extra "boost" you're looking for really comes from proper lighting and technique. The sensor on the 5D is larger than the one on the 350 but that only comes into play if you make huge enlargements. You will never tell the difference between images at 11x14 from these two sensors.

 

And the tamron lens you have has equal IQ to the 24-105. I've used both lenses and can say that with confidence. The main difference is AF speed, FTM focus and build quality/feel.

 

You don't need any more geer. Maybe a prime like the 50 1.8 or 50 1.4 for portraits. But other than that you'd be wasting money.

 

Instead, spend the next month learning about light, exposure, direct vs polarized reflection, diffuse light, fill flash ect. This will give you that boost more than throwing more gear at the situation.

Elsie:

 

However you handle this, rented flash, reflectors, back to the sun, find shade, what ever you do, take a moment after the first shot or two and zoom into your screen to look at the shadows on the faces. You don't want harsh nose shadows and skull eyes. If it doesn't look good on that little screen it will look worse on a large print.

 

Change angles, make adjustments as needed. But use that LCD, that's what it's there for.

I think the best thing that can happen here would be if this did take you to court. Then she'd have to pay you. A contract, even if signed, is null and void without consideration. Consideration is payment. So, when the judge here's you didn't give up the photos because you weren't paid, you are free and clear. No contract. He'll likely order her to pay, and you to give the photos. Now I hope you have copies of the receipts.

 

But all said she's probably just bluffing. Deal with the husband, he sounds more reasonable.

I use the built in flash on my 30D sometimes for catch lights. And on cloudy days it adds some nice pop to subjects when used as a fill. I think it's a handy feature if used properly and I would like to see it added to the pro models if they could do it without compromising the pentaprism.

I'd add the WB is a bit warm overall. And the shot with the bridesmaids would have benefited from gelling the flash amber to match it to the ambient light and then selecting Tungsten WB.

I evaluated these two very thoroughly. Aside from IS, there is actually a considerable difference on AF speed in anything other than perfect lighting. True in good light the Tamron performs well, but in moderate or dim light, it hunts quite a bit. The Canon USM is the ultimate AF solution. It locks focus instantly in situatations where the Tamron never acquires focus and you have to go to manaul. So if AF is an issue for you get the Canon.

Bio Break ;-)

This is not rocket science. Most waterfalls I've seen here in the northeast contain a lot of grey rock that is (you guessed it) middle grey. Metering the whole scene usually nails the exposure dead on. If not you tweek exposure in M mode or use exp comp in other modes. Never seek to intentionally overexpose digita (or slide film). You can with negative film but not digital. The detail will be lost forever. Use your histagram and preview. Shoot lots of frames and experiment.

 

I carry both a polarizer which cuts 2 stops and an ND 4stop filter which covers most situation.

Tommy:

 

You really are pixel peeping. Your lens is fine, and I'd bet a weeks pay it's well within spec. Your first image overall looks sharp. You are zooming way in on the eye probably over 100% crop.

 

Print some 8x10s and see how sharp this image is. Also, make proper use of sharpening if shooting Raw and adjust shaprness accordingly if Jpg.

 

In both portraits you focused on the tip of the nose. So the eyes would be behind the focus point. DOF with F4 at that distance will still include the eyes, but it stands to reason that there is gradual fall off. Get into the habit of focusing on the eyes and then recomposing the shot before shooting. This also will allow you to not alway have the subject centered which get's boring.

 

Remember IS is intended to give you more "acceptable" images. It's not meant to be as good or better than a good tripod.

You're getting lot's of good avice here.

 

Yes, you should use a grey card if you are not already familiar working with skin tones. If no card is available, I'd meter off the skin and decrease exposure about 2 stops.

 

Yes, you want to avoide flash hot spots on darker skinned individuals. As Summer says it's unflattering. I belive this is because of the higher contrast.

 

I also agree softening the flash is very important in most all portrait shooting.

 

Now for an original thought. If you do find you want to or have to use a darker bacground, seperate the subject from it with kicker/hair light from behind. This works well and creates a nice cozy mood.

These are two different class of lenses if used on the same body. If using a 1.6 crop body like 20D then 17-55 is a wide - modest tele adn 24-105 is a normal to tele (leaving you no wide coverage at all).

 

They are actually intended to be the same category of lens if used on the correct bodies. 17-55 = wide/normal/modest tele on crop and 25-105 also = wide/normal/modest tele on a full frame body like 5D.

 

My point in saying this is that if you only have one body, you should not be comparing these lenses as they operate in different ranges. Decide what focal lenght you need and just buy that.

 

Now in my case I have both crop and FF bodies (30D & 5D) and I happen to have both lenses. I use them both as wide/normal/modest tele as intended by Canon.

 

They are so close in sharpness that I cannot say which is better. There is always going to be some copy/sample varrience, but aside from that consider these lenses equal on Image quality.

These are really two different purpose lenes. My answer would be BOTH.

 

The 17-55 2.8 is indeed very useful. Not being able to zoom as with the 50 1.8 will hurt you. And the F2.8 out to 55mm will make for nice bokeh on your shots that the kit lens cannot provide. At 55 on the kit lens you are at F5.65 not very appealing bokeh (background blur). Now here's the opionon part, for Portaits/wedding I feel a nicely blurred background is very important. Some might dissagree, but I feel shot's with everything in focus look like snapshots.

 

Now the 50 1.8 also has it's place. F1.8 is even nicer than F2.8 in some cases. And it does give you the extra stop which could mean the difference between a noisy shot or not based on ISO. I would use it for formal portraits and cerimony (very low light in door).

 

Heck if you can afford the 17- 55, get the 50 as well for only $80 more. If it has to be on or the other, I"d take only the zoom. You want 2.8 through the whole zoom range and you need to go wide not just 50mm.

Your links aren't working

Check out the Tamron 17-35 for $299.

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/303166-REG/Tamron_AF05C700_17_35mm_f_2_8_4_Di_Autofocus.html

 

It's underrated in my opinion. I got this to replace my Canon 17-40 which was horribly soft even after Canon tried to fix it. Much sharper, focues very fast. I use it primarily on my 1n and 5D.

 

Check out reviews on photzone.de. It may be in the Nikon section if not the Canon section.

Actually get BOTH a rocket blower and a sensor brush. Different dirt needs different remedies.

 

This won't be the last time you have to clean a sensor. So, you might as well get used to it. Realize you are not cleaning the sensor directly. It has two or three glass filters fused over it. But still, you dont' want to scratch that glass.

 

A hair dryer may shoot some more debris in there and cause scratching. Realize that some sensor brushes require cleaning with an alcohol pad so they won't leave streaks on your sensor. Read the directions on whatever kit you get.

 

For the most stubborn stutt, I use a dry or even a wet (with sensor cleaning chemica not water) Qtip. The trick with Qtips is that while it removes just about any dirt on your sensor, it also leaves strands of itself behind which then have to be blown or picked out.

 

As for the shots already "ruined" a few minutes with the clone stamp tool in PS will fix those. When sensor dust appears in the middle of a shoot, it's really just a matter of how much time it costs you to fix the pics, they'r not a total loss.

Ok first "normal" is a reletive term. I'm guessing you mean negative or print film. To others, slide may be "normal".

 

Advantages of slide film are lower to no grain, nicer colors, higher contrast (could also be a dissadvantage depending on what you want) and the ability of the printer to see exactly how the final product should look.

 

Advantages of Negative/Print film, wider exposure latitude, greater dynamic range (handy for the white dress, black tux thing or capturing sky clouds as well as shadow detail in a landscape).

 

Speed. Most slide films are 100-160. Exceptions are Fuji Provia that can be pushed 2-3 stops and comes in 100 and 400. Print film comes up to 3200 but most manufacaturers lie about the actual speed. Example Ilford B&W film sold as 3200 speed is actually 800. Most Negative film get's so much grain after ISO 400 it's not usable. ISO 400 is tops for high quality low grain in color anyway.

 

Both are viable options so dont' feel you have to commit to one or the other. I use slides, when I want great saturated colors and don't want to spend a lot of time post processing digital captures and when I'll need very large prints from scans. But this is mostly MF and LF 4x5. 35mm film really has no advantage over digital on resolution only.

 

I'll use negative film when dynamic range is needed, like wedding mid day sun black tux white gown.

 

I also use both as backup to digital just in case the unthinkable happens and all my memory cards are stolen, lost or defective.

 

Your friend probably screwed up the exposure on his overcast day shots. You can get very nice results in all kinds of lighting with slide film. But it is less tolerant of exposure faults. Perhaps he underexposed them.