brittany_r._dunks

<p>equipment is not everything, ultimately it's the eye, composition, lighting, angles, originality etc. that create a good image. So if someone has those things, then having good/great/wonderful equipment will enhance those things.</p>

<p>" How is a Canon shooter with the same focal length and f/stop lens going to be better at achieving "a certain look" than a Nikon shooter with the same features and general quality when its the technique and style of individuals no matter the equipment vary so greatly?"<br>

I encourage anyone who is adding their two sense to read through the above responses before commenting, as they will see many things have already been discussed... </p>

<p>Mostly lenses, yes which can add up quickly in cost and at least some backup. And I really think that part of my experience or product is the reassurance that if (and when) something goes wrong, the job will be done... <br>

So, since I have backups, they need some form of backups. Since I shoot good glass, they need at least SOME of the similar lenses. So yes, it does come down to getting them up-to-par with what I have. I have worked my way up in equipment over time, and am still buying/selling some older/2nd party stuff. I have seen the results/difference between my previous Sigma 70-200 2.8 and my Canon 70-200 2.8L IS so I will be able to tell the same from them, regardless of what brand they are shooting.<br>

I guess the initial question has less to do w/Nikon and more to do with sharing equipment and also getting comparable equipment. But I now realize that I would like them to shoot what they have, but just get it up to speed w/my own equipment.</p>

<p>I guess you didn't read the above response. </p>

<p>I think the reason I see it as a problem is the level of quality of the lenses/bodies compared to what I am shooting as well as the ease of sharing equipment/backups etc. I shoot Canon 5D Mark II and 5D and L lenses, so I would not want, say a D90 with a kit lens, or a Tamron 3.5/4.5 zoom etc. Equipment is not everything, but I can tell a difference between the Rebel/40D/50D/5D/Mark II's and I can also tell the difference between the Nikon shooters who have worked with me before. <br>

So maybe I didn't word it correctly, and it not such an issue between Canon and Nikon's abilities, but more b/c it just sucks b/c if they were to be shooting Canon they could easily borrow one of my flashes, lenses, pocket wizards etc. but because of the difference in brand they would have to have their own of everything and then backups on top of it!.... which requires a pretty decent investment. <br>

I cannot force someone to shoot Canon, that is correct, but if they want the job, "forcing" them to buy the right equipment would be necessary... you gotta pay to play... I did it. </p>

<p>Well, yes, of course I have thought of that option but I already have two shooters who I love and have the personality that fits, they just all happen to use Nikon!<br>

for example: I know that Lifetouch Sports Photography allows people to use whatever camera/lenses they want, as long as it's up to their standards but if you are a full-time employee, they provide you with the equipment.<br>

I can see myself providing equipment but I am sure there will be days that I am also working and would need those lenses etc. </p>

 

<p>I am a Canon shooter and I am going to contract out some work to Nikon shooters in the future. I know Nikon is great (not starting a Nikon/Canon war here) but given that I use Canon and specific lenses and speedlites, I am used to a certain look which I have built my business on. <br>

Do I:<br>

a) force them to shoot Canon while working for me, and provide them with the equipment <br>

b)force them to buy Canon and lenses in order to work for me<br>

c) allow them to shoot with their own equipment but purchase comparable body/lenses.<br>

I hate to make someone spend a ton of money, or give up what they know but since I have seen the images taken with their current Nikon equipment, and it just has a different look to it, so something would have to change.<br>

How would you handle this?</p>

 

<p>ahh, thanks. I hate reading manuals, maybe I should memorize them cover to cover. :)</p>

<p>just followed the back button directions from here: <a href="http://melissajill.com/blog.cfm?postID=690&f-a-q-back-button-focusing">http://melissajill.com/blog.cfm?postID=690&f-a-q-back-button-focusing</a><br>

and didn't mess with it much. just turned them back off and working fine...</p>

<p>nevermind... I figured it out! I recently changed my custom functions to allow back button focusing, when I just changed them back to default, it worked again! </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hello,<br>

Today my "index/reduce" button has stopped functioning. This is the magnifying glass button on the back, upper right on the camera, which allows me to review images faster by allowing up to 9 show on the screen at a time. When I am looking at an image and push the button it just shuts off/turns black, until it is opened again.<br>

What is also strange is when reviewing an image, I can zoom in fully, but when I attempt to zoom out, with the "index/reduce magnifying" button, it will also shut off.<br>

ANY ideas? Firmware is up to date, nothing strange has happened to the camera lately. Just out of nowhere. <br>

thank you</p>

<p>this was<br /> a)bad time of day 3-4pm for lighting, not that I have much control over that, at a wedding<br /> b)everything was way behind schedule (not my fault!) so I had less than 10 minutes<br /> c)they wanted the damn bridge in every photo<br /> d)second photo was on a dock, about 12 foot wide, so not much room to move!<br /> e)OCF/flash set up to counteract the backlit. I believe in some I did use fill flash, not sure about this wider shot. This was a stop along the way from the ceremony to reception, which we were late for, so it was a very fast portrait session, so, yes, this is less than ideal.<br /> I am aware I could burn the sky in PS, not as much familiar with the gradient tool, so thank you<br /> So, all of this polarizer talk came up in discussion with my videographer friend over the weekend, who shoots with the same camera I do (5D mark ii). We were photographing a very sunny wedding, (although not backlit) and he used his polarizer filter for the video. Now, I am not a videographer so I don't know if it is different, but it got me thinking about using one....<br>

so it seems though, even when my subject is small, relative to the sky/water, I should not go with a polarizer filter for any portraits. That is primarily what I shoot, so thanks for saving me some $$.</p>

<p>thank you</p>

<p><<if you're not sure you want one, why not risk the slightly reduced quality of a cheap one?>><br>

Yes, I was considering doing that. I just read some reviews of different levels of quality, the one I would get is a 77mm. Hoya seems to be the best, but there are plenty in the $50 range, so I was thinking about those. <br>

And I will be getting a circular one, since I use TTL meter and focusing. </p>

<p>I did read that is it isn't recommended for wide shots, and when I say wide, for me it means about 24mm or higher, not super wide....I see that it may not have an even effect but maybe still worth using. <br>

Below is a typical issue I deal with: hazy, back lit sky, on the water, there was a lot of cloud cover but I definitely feel that I could have saved some of the blueish sky/clouds had I had a polarizer. <br>

<img src="http://www.dunksprints.com/Weddings/2011/Jenna/i-Fv8bkz9/0/XL/Childress-429-XL.jpg" alt="" /><br>

But what if I then switched from this shot above (with filter) to this close up?: Would their skin tones look bad, or what would the effect have (if any) on them? Of course when shooting formals at a wedding, speed is an issue, so I'd hate to have to shoot then take the filter off and on... or what do you do in a scenario like this? another option is to just have the polarizer on my wide (24-70 or 50) and not on my portrait lens (70-200 or 85) while shooting portraits. In this scenario I shot almost all on my 24-70 though, given the space I had to shoot.<br>

<img src="http://www.dunksprints.com/Weddings/2011/Jenna/i-K3WSLxD/0/XL/Childress-440-XL.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>thank you. I agree, I think I will just buy one and it would be for my wide angle/sky/water shots, not for my close up work. I know my skies tend to get washed out from time to time. </p>

<p>I am debating on purchasing one, but if I do, it seems that the legit ones are pretty pricey, so I want to be sure I even want/need it!<br>

I shoot a lot of weddings, sometimes in intense sun, as well as many outdoor portraits, many times on the water as well. <br>

Do any of you find that having a polarizer has made a big difference in your outdoor portrait work? I see what the benefit is, just want to make sure my $150-$200 investment on a good one is worth it!</p>

<p>thank you</p>

<p>I forgot to add that in the short-term (before client gets any files) I plan on also uploading original RAW files to SmugVault. So my working files would be backed up on an internal drive, an external drive and online.<br>

Since SmugVault costs money based on how much storage you use, I will most likely delete the raw files after the final jpegs have been delivered.</p>

<p>I ask these questions for myself, as well as to help others!<br>

So, what is your backup and permanent storage process?<br>

Here is mine:<br>

1)Upload RAW files to hard drive 1<br>

2)Upload or copy RAW files to hard drive 2 <br>

3)Once edited and converted to JPEG, uploaded to Pro Smugmug account, where jpegs can be re-DLed at full resolution.<br>

4)After client has received files, either through Smugmug or on DVD, one of the two folders on the hard drive(s) is deleted, leaving one folder with edited jpegs and original RAW files and Smugmug gallery of final jpegs as my back up.<br>

The reason for asking is I am paranoid lately because I've had some weird issues with CF cards OR a failing harddrive OR both, so I'm currently backing everything up.</p>

<p>What do you do? </p>

 

<p>^^^I'm sorry, <br>

Import with Lightroom! </p>

<p>Okay, so the "correct" image uploading process for me, since I do not use Mac is probably going to be:<br>

1)Insert CF card into reader <br>

2)Import to "boot drive" (I am assuming you mean where my OS and programs are?) or to the drive where my LR catalog is?<br>

3)Once imported to the hard drive, (which one should I be using? the data drive, the external or the one w/the OS on it?) I can use the files how I see fit? (my workflow is mostly Bridge, but I go back and forth w/using LR for initial edits, then export and finish the rest in Bridge/PS CS5).</p>

<p>@Andrew- Yes, you are SO right too. I'm just being cheap, it's not worth the risk. Just ordered another Sandisk 16gb 60mb/sec for this weekend's wedding. <br>

Now I feel more secure. Losing the $90 I spent on those two cards is way better than losing images!!!</p>

<p>@John- Agreed! I was so worried to use the faulty cards, I just didn't have much choice at the time, since I ran out of space on my other cards. </p>

 

<ul>

<li>Yes, I formatted all cards prior to use</li>

<li>I do not shoot raw+jpeg, given the size of the files but maybe I will for security. I can shoot smaller jpegs too, which will take up less space</li>

<li><em>I do copy and paste, so the "utility" I should use is different? maybe you mean the Windows pop up that asks me what to do when the card is detected? I turned those notifications off, but maybe that's what I should be using</em></li>

<li>I don't delete anything on the cards when finished uploading. the only time I delete is when I go to use the card next, after backups have been made and I delete by re-formatting</li>

<li><em>All files are uploaded w/a built-in CF card reader. I first upload them to an external drive, used soley for photos. I have seperate drives for my OS system, another internal for DATA (where I upload a 2nd backup to) and then 2 externals (one almost full and used for other media also) Virus is unlikely since I just had my PC wiped clean and upgraded by a professional company, everything is working very efficiently.</em></li>

</ul>

<p>I agree, I am weary to trust this card(s) I have two that I bought together, and then another one that I"ve used for a year + that has never caused me a problem.<br>

I do still lean towards believing it's the individual card, but I will be using my 60mb/sec card once it gets here the most! hopefully I will avoid these problems </p>

 

<p>@Matt.<br>

From what you are saying, I believe that is what I do: <br>

1) Insert CF Card into reader<br>

2) open folder<br>

3) select all files<br>

4) Copy and Paste into a new folder on my Hard Drive.<br>

5) Open Adobe Bridge and/or LR and go from there (LR I would Import the folder)</p>

<p>@Mark, okay, I didn't think of that possibility and yes, I did just buy a 16gb Sandisk 60/mb UDMA card, but since they're not cheap, I'm just starting with one and since I shoot weddings, I'm worried I may need to use those "bad" cards as backup. But if I do use them, I may only reserve SRAW or even jpegs, since the file size is much smaller and I would think/hope that the card could keep up.<br>

@Rob, I have thought about that as well. I use a PC-Dell desktop with a built in card reader. I could try to a separate card reader w/USB port to test further.<br>

thanks</p>