john_meyer14

<p>Up to now, I've been in the <em>'hold back the images'</em> camp, but I think I've changed my mind having read everyone's comments.<br>

There are, however, a few practical and specific questions that I'd appreciate your help on:<br>

1 - What Color Space would you use when when converting your images from RAW to Jpeg? I use Lightroom. My camera (D200) is set to Adobe RGB (is this the best choice?).<br>

2 - What size do you reckon is the best to put on the DVD? The original and be done with it, or a choice?<br>

3 - Do you also include B&W versions?<br>

4 - Do you have <em>any </em> chargeable options for different combinations of size/treatment on a DVD?<br>

Hope you can share your experience.<br>

Regards</p>

<p>John</p>

<p>Marios, I like that Smart Collection approach of yours.<br>

Presumably you create Virtual Copies of certain master images and treat and/or crop them to suit each persons requirements and keyword them Mother, Father, etc.?<br>

I'll 'play' with your suggestion. Thanks.<br>

John</p>

<p>I love Lightroom. The only <em>real </em> issue I find myself up against is managing each client's (B&G, Mum, etc) print requirements.<br>

Each party might want some in B&W, some in colour, and all could be in different sizes!<br>

How do you best manage this in Lightroom yourself?<br>

Regards<br>

John</p>

<p>Hi Guys<br>

Many thanks for all your comments.<br>

I've decided to have a go at shooting RAW. I still find it hard to get my head around such relatively large files sizes, particularly when just shooting family pics.<br>

I've discovered that my D200 can be set to Compressed RAW. This'll save me about 40% in card and storage space. I believe there's possibly a very small quality loss in the highlight area, but, for now, and until I get used to the large file sizes, that's what I'm going with.<br>

Interestingly, even though the camera is set to compressed, the remaining shots indicator still shows uncompressed figures. However, after writing the file to the card, the figure increases slightly. Can't understand why it wouldn't show the correct figure in the first place.<br>

I've also decided to import them into Lightroom as DNG files. This doesn't save any more space (with already comressed files anyway), but I like the idea of the more universal format.<br>

Once again, thanks for all your help.<br>

John</p>

<p>When shooting in RAW, do all the 'fancy' in-camera lighting, colour, and sharpening options become unnecessary and redundant?<br>

Like many people, I've shot jpegs for a while using my Nikon D200 and D40 cameras. I feel I should seriously consider switching to RAW, mainly for the adjustment benefits it should give. I use Lightroom 2 and love it!<br>

Before I do, however, I'd like to better understand what I've called 'fancy' in-camera options, in fact, contribute to the RAW file.<br>

I obviously understand that the lighting and exposure cannot be compromised, but, for example, is it that necessary to be too bothered about setting White Balance correctly if it can be easily adjusted in LR?<br>

And, although I haven't got it in my two cameras, is it worth bothering with Active D-Lighting when, once again, it can be replicated in LR?<br>

I'd really appreciate your comments before I make the 'plunge'.<br>

Kind regards</p>

<p>John</p>

<p>Hi<br>

I read somewhere of an acronym that someone used to help them setup their camera for a shoot. I'm blowed if I can remember it.<br>

From what I can recall, it centred around setting the basics like WB, Aperture, ISO, etc.<br>

Anyone got their own little word they use so they don't forget anything?<br>

Regards</p>

<p>John</p>

<p>Hi<br>

Out of interest, do you often give discounts on your standard print prices for larger quanities of reprints?<br>

If so, what sort of break points and discounts do you offer?<br>

I'd really be interested in you approach.<br>

Kind regards<br>

John (UK)</p>

<p>It's maybe not <em>that </em> necessary, but I wouldn't mind buying a lens hood for my D40's 18-55 kit MkII kit lens.<br>

Trouble is, there seems some confusion on the web over what is the correct one. Some say HB-33, and some say HB-45.<br>

Also, I can't see for the life of me how a hood can be attached to this particular lens. There's no notches on the lens that would suggest a means of attachment, just a narrow groove all the way round.<br>

Can you help?<br>

Regards</p>

<p>John</p>

Hi Steve

Thanks for all that info.

I did in fact go to a 'Roadshow' this week held by Grpahistudio in London. It was very interesting.

They will be releasing their OWN software for FREE by the end of October. I knew it had been promised for about a year, but, so they told us, it will be available for download from their Trade website very soon.

The three hour seminar spent a lot of the time describing the use of the software in detail. There's a vast range of templates, and all are modifiable and you can create your own as well. It's been shown and described in their trade book I've had for a while. I think it might be the same software they've used in-house in Italy.

You can also create your own pdf's from it, so your in total control of the design. I like that idea.

As for pricing, having heard what others have said here, I'm going with a cost x 3 ish approach. In the last day I quoted the mother mentioned in my first post £1200 for a 60 page album and she accepted it. I'm well pleased.

So, all I've now got to do is design it! Wish me luck.

Regards

John

Hi

What's your approach to pricing a wedding album?

I'd like to start using GraphiStudio in the UK for 'coffee table' type albums, but I'm not too certain as to what

I should charge. Can you help?

I've only been photographing wedding for about two years, and my normal fee to photograph a wedding includes 150

off 7 x 5 loose prints.

A mother of a bride (who's daughter's already had her 150 prints), would like a GraphiStudio-type album for

herself with about 90 prints. The delivered cost to me for what she wants is likely to be about 400 GBP.

In addition to this, will be my time spent designing the album with GraphiStudio-supplied software; the time

taken liasing with the client and GraphiStudio, etc; shipping cost to the client; AND the 'value' of my images used.

If these 90 images were ordered simply as 7 x 5 reprints, I would be charging her about 600 GBP for them alone.

Any thoughts?

Reagrds

John

Are they really necessary? Has not the ability to quickly and easily view the image on the camera, and also see

its histogram, very much made these devices redundant?

Are advocates of their use simply hanging on to practices that were more at home with film than with digital?

If they are of real use, I'd like one.

What make and types are best? Will they help with flash - Nikon CLS in my case? Would they only work with

flashes set to manual?

If you can spare the time, I'd love to hear what you have to say.

Regards

John

This Histogram feature appears really interesting.

I've already done some reading on the subject, but I'm curious as to what Wedding Photographers, in particular,

get out of it.

Do you just check for clipping, or are there other aspects of the Histogram that interest you?

I'm thinking, for example, about a fairly neutral scene that maybe doesn't have any real blacks or whites - a

face, or perhaps a yellow garment.

Surely, it's easy to under or over expose these shots, but would the Histogram show this? The LCD monitor

preview would, because it would just look wrong. But what about the Histogram?

Taking time to comment would be much appreciated.

Regards

John

Boy, my question certainly sparked off a debate! It's certainly been an interesting 'ride'.

Cutting to the chase, I'm definitely going to give Manual a try. I do agree that in a fairly static lighting scenario, e.g. formals outside, it's more likely to give consistent results.

However, I'm still not so sure about sunny and shade lighting. The probable three or fours stops difference and, I assume, the obvious need to adjust the exposure, coupled with me just starting to use only the AF-On button to focus (rather than the shutter button), means I might have my hands full! In these situations I might have to resort to AV mode.

So thanks for all your comments; I've really enjoyed them.

Regards

John

Hi

This feature, to me, seems to make exposure compensation easy on my D200.

If it's set to the Reset option, there's little chance of forgetting that one may have applied compensation but

it's no longer needed. Thereby avoiding under or over exposed images.

Does anyone out there also use this? If so, how do you get on with it?

Regards

John

A simple question that I'm imagining has many answers - Do you find when shooting weddings, one metering mode

proves to be best?

Regards

John

Surely, with the fast pace of a wedding - I'm thinking in particular of outside as guests are arriving and just

after the ceremony, shooting in Manual mode is just asking for trouble. Aperture mode is surely best, with a bit

of fill-in flash.

If it's, say, particularly sunny, the difference between one shot and the next could easliy be three or fours

stops; one in bright sun and the next in shade.

Trying to adjust the shutter speed without missing what might be a very spontaneous and unexpected shot, must be

very difficult.

Isn't this the reason why a lot of wedding photographers shoot Aperture mode during the day and Manual mode

indoors when lighting is more stable? They can't all be wrong.

Without wishing to appear provocative, how do you daytime Manual mode supporters defend this argument?

Regards

John

Firstly, I must thank you all for taking the time to help. It's much appreciated.

I really do think I now better understand the options with flash during the period when the light in changing. It's one of those things in life that when the 'penny drops' it all makes sense.

For me, the hang-up was not keeping an eye on the dropping shutter speed in Aperture mode and the need, generally, to raise the ISO.

I now feel far more comfortable about this issue and I have to thank you folks for your input.

Regards

John

Hi guys

Thanks for all your input.

Isn't it surprising - perhaps it isn't - how so many people use their cameras so differently?

For me it's been very interesting and enlightening to hear everyones comments.

Once again, many thanks

Regards

John

Managing flash isn't always easy, especially when light levels are changing.

So my question attempts to address the best way of using flash and adjusting settings.

We all know that outside during the day, invariably the flash is used just as a fill-in - on my D200/SB-800 combo

I typically have the flash set at minus 1 2/3 in TTL/BL mode. It seems to work well at this setting.

In contrast, indoors at night during the reception, the flash becomes the predominant light source. I then have

the flash set at full strength TTL.

I always struggle with the transition period between day and night, or outside to inside during the daylight

hours. I'd be interested to hear what settings you progressively change to manage these situations.

Do you, for example, progressively raise the ISO to keep the shutter speed to, say, 1/125 to avoid subject blur?

If so, do you then lower it when you've reached your desired ISO limit and have the flash solely take over the

exposure?

There are so many combinations of shutter speed, aperture, ISO, and flash strength that one can employ, that I

thought it would be interesting to hear how others mange this transition of light levels.

I hope I've illustrated my question adequately.

Regards

John

Do you change ISO very often at a wedding or do you tend to keep it, say, at 400 most of the time?

Regards

John

I've been reading a lot about the 'AF-On Focussing Technique' and it seems an interesting and promising approach,

with many potential advantages.

However, as one of my main interests is wedding photography, I thought I'd ask how many wedding photographers use

the AF-On button as against the normal shutter-focussing.

If you do use it, when do you find it most useful? Are there regular wedding situations where you wouldn't use

it? Was it easy to change from the default focussing approach? What specific menu/switch settings have you used?

Any comments you can share would be warmly welcomed.

Regards

John

Guys, thanks for all that info. I found Joseph's calculations facinating. Really!

Is there a Table available anywhere on the web for calculating (if only for curiosity) these aperture changes with different focal length lenses, distances, and apertures?

John

Oh, I see.

So, a 2.8 macro should really be labelled 2.8-5.6? Just like a variable aperture zoom? Why isn't it, then?

So, is my 2.8 normal zoom really at 2.8 when I focus at, say, 5 feet? If so, its faster at 5 feet than the macro, then?

John

Hi

I recently bought a Tokina 100/2.8 macro lens. It seems great! I especially like the build and feel of the lens-

very smooth.

My question concerns the changes in aperture at different focussing distances.

Apparently, unlike other macro lenses, the Tokina, on a Nikon mount, shows the changing aperture in the

viewfinder - I don't know if others do as well. That's a good thing, but the thing that I find strange is that

when set to 2.8, it only shows 2.8 in the viewfinder when the focussing distance is roughly more than 12 feet.

Anything less than this, and the aperture readout keeps reducing to 5.6 at 1:1.

When I use a normal 2.8 prime or zoom, and it's set to 2.8, the readout in the viewfinder stays at 2.8 even if I

shoot something at, say, 5 feet. Unlike the Tokina.

Any ideas on why this should be so?

Regards

John

Barclay, so you reckon a small extension tube is, for the most part, a more useful/practical solution to wedding detail shots? Interesting. It would certainly be cheaper and smaller.

So what's all the hype about Macro lenses, then? If an extension tube is quite capable, with a good lens, to produce very acceptable images, why bother with a Macro I ask?

Is the Teckno set probably the best choice? What's the best lenses to use with tubes? Aside of zooms, I've got a Nikon 85/1.8 and 50/1.8. Would these be a good choice?

I'd be more than interested in yours and others further comments.

Regards

John