robert_camillo

<p>Thread is a little old now, but quite clearly there is some ordinary editing out there. Some of the photos are absolutely out of colour. I don't know if they have been posted in Pro photo colour space or what, But one photo goes from a strong green tinge to a strong orange. I don't have a colour profiled monitor or a wide gamut monitor but they are so varied its not funny. Personally the only photo I saws that I feel would reflect the actual skin tones would be from Greg Nixon. Most of the others were over edited or the colours were way out. Although for an edit <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3671344">Sinh Nhut Nguyen </a> Has a pretty good looking edit</p>

<p>I am about to do a group shot, and I am definitely shooting either in the shade, or just out in the open but with myself to the sun, which will be at 45 from the back of the group. I'm not to concerned about overexposure, as the trees in the background will be dark, and the sky is none too important.<br>

One question I would add to this. Suppose I had Four umbrellas, How effective would these be, two high at 45 and two low. Not using Flash, how much would this bring life to the shadows in the groups faces, firstly on a sunny day and secondly on an overcast day? And would it be worth the effort, or would the soft shadows be sufficient enough to produce a good shot. I've seen some awesome photos shot in full high sun with the sun to the back. and I'm pretty sure they are using a reflector or fill in flash,</p>

<p>Yeah this is really bothering me. I have photos to send to a client. They are perfect in Photoshop but crap in every other application. I do not want my photos to be looking like crap to people not using photoshop. It seems to happen when I adjust the levels.</p>

<p>Hey guys thankyou so much for the comments, and I laughed at some replies too good comedy.</p>

<p>Firstly, Weddings are something I want to experiment with, I've become bored with commercial and landscape photography, and I've found my area has to involve people. I need people to keep me going, and keep me motivated. I want to turn it into a regular job for me.</p>

<p>I'm thinking now the 300mm is a no go. I know a full body shot is 30 odd metres away. What I'm looking for however is the occasional head and shoulders shot. I know at f2.8 my 300mm offers unbelievable depth of field. And the sharpness is incredible. With the Macro, I'm not sure, I thought the 85mm had the macro, but the 105 sounds great. I'd like to know what the 105mm does DOF wise? I'm sure it will be amazing indoors.</p>

<p>If I went for the 105mm, I'd use that indoors, but how about outdoors? would you go the 14-24 and 105mm or 24-70mm and 105mm? I am thinking the 105 sounds better than the 70-200.<br>

I don't think I need too much more too soon, I wouldn't want to buy too much too early, build up my castle first.</p>

<p>I'm just curious about the post on the Umbrella or softbox, whatever you use. Don't you guys shoot into the sun at all??? I love that effect, especially with directional lighting. works a treat on the beach. Thats why I want to use the umbrella. Ok in Summer, outdoor shots is all reflectors, but what about stormy days, we could really use an umbrella here surely?</p>

<p>Again thanks for the comments, I would seriously have thought the only option was the 70-200. I'm confident I have a good range of equipment, and with a few additions can be on my way.</p>

<p>True, Marc, I did like the idea though of being able to do Extreme wide Panos however. The 3800 is suprizingly cheap too. I like the fact that I don't have to use 3rd party printers to do my work, means I can get my work to my clients faster. Love the Epson matte range of papers, especially nice with B/W</p>

<p>Firstly Id rather use an 85mm prime indoors opposed to a 70-200 IS.<br>

Then use a Cheaper Sigma F2.8 lens without IS outdoors. if it gets cloudy, up the ISO, using a D300 won't hurt. or use a tripod or monopod. I can't justify the cost of buying IS for weddings. (JMO)</p>

<p>I use the Epson 3800 the quality is unreal. Then again go one up on the 4800 and get paper rolls going. That is the one dissappointment with the 3800 that it donsn't accept rolls, as I stupidly tried to feed one through.</p>

<p><strong>I have a wedding shoot coming up in January 2010. In my bag I have atm</strong><br>

D300<br>

Nikon AFS 12-24mm f4 DX IF-ED<br>

Sigma AF 24-70mm f2.8 EX Macro (Yes I know the Macro on this lens is Rubbish)<br>

AF 300mm F2.8 APO DG Sigma EOS (I paid 3k for this lens for sport, and is a nice lens) I have no problem setting this up on a monopod)<br>

SB 900<br>

40" umbrella reversable<br>

<strong><br /> </strong><br>

<strong>What I Am gettting</strong></p>

<p>D200 body (after selling my pentax)<br>

obviously backup batteries and flash cards.</p>

<p>I would borrow a 3rd camera as a complete backup camera, I think its a D90.</p>

<p>The idea is to shoot indoor shots with the two smaller lenses, and for outdoor shots change lenses for telephoto shots, hoping this gives me time to let the group do what they want then capture it.</p>

<p>I am thinking I would like to maybe get a 50 f1.4 or the 85mm but has to be the best macro too, I'm so dissappointed with the macro on my Sigma.</p>

<p>I know the obvious lens would be the 70-200mm but I don't exactly have the cash for that, as I went out and got a sports lens last year.</p>

<p>Any ideas? I have a bit of money but maybe only $1000 AU to sort my stuff out. There is no way I'm buying Tamron or plastico stuff.</p>

<p> </p>

I think I worked out with 3 metres, at 100m you need 700mm lens. Obviously I'm just starting out so I don't have an unlimited budget, and I'm not stupid enough to want the best. At worst, I reckon you would need 70-80 metres to get the chance to take a lot more shots, at least to get to the centre square. I was thinking the 400mm 2.8 with a 1.4 converter which should take it to 640mm. John you talk about image loss with a converter, how much would you lose and why is it so?

 

Check out my website, you will see a player profile, this is the quality of shot I'd like at a distance of 80 metres or so. I can't have the background blending in.

 

As for money to do what I want to do, I'd be looking at a 400 2.8 that keeps it under 8k. But I won't be spending that sort of money unless I know I can get work, and it pays well.

At the moment I am using a sigma 70-300mm lens. I can take good shots up to

about 40 - 50 metres. anything longer and its a waste of time.

 

Understanding Australian rules football the ball goes either end at any time,

the best shots come from leading players. If you want a good shot in daylight,

you need to be across the other side of the ground to get the leading player in

the shot.

 

What lens would be the best for this, which would be a distance of about 100 -

150 metres. I need full frame shots and no focus in the background.

 

Obviously for all the other shots I'd use a 70-300mm f2.8.