jason_hall5

<p>Like Steve, your B&Ws looked fine to me and I am useing an uncalibrated laptop screen. Have you tired to look at them from a different computer to see if there is something odd about your MAC that could be causeing this.</p>

<p>Jason</p>

<p>I am finding it more and more so that folks expect a CD of all their images so they can do what they will. I make it clear up front that I do not sell high resolution digital files unless they would like to concider a special package price...no one has taken me up on that. Folks don't see the value in well done portraits, and let alone the delivery of a well crafted finished product. All they see is a bunch of digital files that don't cost a dime to reproduce and a CD worth less than $0.50</p>

<p>130 edited images....not that big of a deal and I NEVER deliver anything but fully edited images. This also may have been a case of you not trimming out the fat well enough. I make it a habit that, if the shot does not have some value, I take it out. I would rather deliver a hand full of great shots, than a stack of OK ones.</p>

<p>Jason</p>

<p>Its more like $1450.00 for the 50mm f1.2L and the photo in the ad is clearly not that lens. So yeah...its a rather big mistake. I am sure someone will try to cash in claiming truth in advertising. Good luck with that.</p>

<p>I find it odd because I know that there is no way "Wallyworld" would ever carry a lens such as that.</p>

<p>Jason</p>

<p>From I see the light is simply dull and flat and not much good can come from it. Get into some "good" lighting and try some different shots.</p>

<p>I think the haze you are seeing is simply little contrast in the scene and again, very flat light. Useing flash on axis with the camera (no matter what modifier is used) is not helping and can actually make it worse. Your images are two small and pixelated to tell much for what I see.</p>

<p>Jason</p>

<p>Hi ya Lex,</p>

<p>The only product of Sto fen that I know of is the Omni Bounce. A short stubby omni directional modifier. I don't know about a dome, but if it like the Gary Fong lightsphere then yeah I can see what ya mean. I use one alot and have used it like you described. Just a notch better than bare flash.</p>

<p>If the OP really wants to make the most of thier flash, then try out <a href="http://strobist.blogspot.com/">David Hobby and all things "strobist"</a>. Practical use of off camera flash.</p>

<p>Jason</p>

<p>If you had the camera inside in the AC and then stepped out in heat and high humidity, your lens could have fogged up. Don't know where you are but it can be a problem here in the south this time of year. But then you should have seen the effect in the view finder. Other than that, post an example for better answers.</p>

<p>And Nadine (as always) is right on the improper use of the Sto fen. While I have seen people use them out doors, it is pointless and only kills your flashes effectiveness. The purpose of such modifiers is to make your flash effectively a larger light source. It would do this by scattering the light so it will bounce off walls and ceiling. So outdoors it is no good, and more so when pointed straight up.</p>

<p>Jason</p>

<p>How about post a sample of one of your images. This way we can see exactly what you are up against. I have a feeling what you are trying to do is not as easy and cut and dry as the other answers assume.</p>

<p>Jason</p>

<p>I am going try to point out some things I don't think anyone else has. I did not read all the post in detail.</p>

<p>First, most any light source can work as long as it is bright enough to allow for shutter speed and desired f stop. You can use cheap fabric (old white bed sheets) or wax paper (and many other house hold items) can work great to soften the light to your hearts content. Check out this web site for many DIY solutions. <a href="http://www.diyphotography.net">http://www.diyphotography.net</a><br>

<p>You may need to dig deep into their achieves.</p>

<p>Also another issue that is white balance. Different light sources have different color cast. This can be taken care of by proper white balance setting in camera or in post when shooting RAW. However, when shooting with a mixture of light sources it can be a real problem. Your sample shot above shows a use of a rather yellow light and a more blue light source on the subject coming from different angles. This makes proper skin tone nearly impossible.</p>

<p>So what ever you choose, (florescent, tungsten, or flash) pick one and go with it. Tungsten (normal household light bulbs) will most likely be the cheapest and easiest to use.</p>

<p>Another idea is that, since you have a garage you could roll up the door during the day and allow the reflected light in. This would be like a huge window and could give you some awesome natural light to work with. Make a simple reflector from white board (or card board painted white) to give you some fill light. Foil over a piece of card board can make a good reflector as well.</p>

<p>One last idea to help you with the experimenting, get the head of a mannequin or the like to use as your subject. Beauty supply stores sell heads like this with hair for stylist to practice with. I have found them rather cheap before. This will save you time not having to be your own model.</p>

<br>

Check out this page to see different lighting patterns for portraits.</p>

<p>

<a href="http://www.portraitlighting.net/patternsb.htm">http://www.portraitlighting.net/patternsb.htm</a><br>

<br>

Jason</p>

<p>Mike,</p>

<p>Your sample image shows a lot of artifacts common with over compressed JPEGs. It is pixelated, look around the guide wire on the power pole. So it really does not give us anything to go on. I am going to assume that the issue is with sharpness by your above comments....</p>

<p>Going by that sample alone, it is clearly a processing problem. What image size setting are you using on the camera (I again assume you are shooting JPEG) and how was that image processed, or was it straight from the camera? Also what ISO did you use. The Meta data seems to be gone.</p>

<p>Jason</p>

<p>To me the real question should be....in what way are you not happy with your images? Also, in what way did you expect the new camera to improve you images?</p>

<p>Jason</p>

<p>Yes, you are doing it just fine. Focus is not a factor, correct exposure is. Haveing said that, your results should tell you if you are doing it correctly.</p>

<p>Carry around a colormeter....custom white balance with a grey card (or other neutral target) does a fine job when done correctly. Not to mention easier to carry.</p>

<p>Jason</p>

<p>Finally got were I can try mine. It is late in the day here so the sun in on the way down. I held the card so it was lit by the sun and took a spot reading. It gave me Ev 15.0. Then I held up the meter in the same palce (incedental reading) and faceing the same direction as was the card, and it read 14.3 to 14.4. So little over a half a stop difference. Then I took it to the shade and tried again. This time I read Ev 12.0 with both methods.</p>

<p>Not sure were the difference is comeing in, but it is a bit interesting.</p>

<p>Jason</p>

<p>I have mine with me and I would check it to see if it does anything like that. However I do not have grey card handy. </p>

<p>One idea I had was, how are you hold the card in relation to the sky? Are you holding it so that the face is pointing stright up so it is directly lit. And then for the dome (make sure it is extended and not retracted) make sure it is faceing up as well. I know you would normally point the dome to the lens, put if you just want to compare light reading for apples to apples, I think you need to do it that way. If you hold the meter as you would metering a subject, half of the dome is not lit and it will change the final reading.</p>

<p>Of course knowing you compared to two other meters and got correct reading with them, this may all be a mute point, so just a thought.</p>

<p>Jason</p>

<p>Try the different AF modes and see if there is a change from one to the other. Just an idea.</p>

<p>I still think a reflash of the firmware is a good idea. Assumeing you have not already tried it.</p>

<p>Jason</p>

<p>Ahhh, I am thinking Scott may be right...2sec delay is likely activated!</p>

<p>Jason</p>

<p>Do a full reset of all setting, remove all batteries and let it sit for a few hours and retry. Finally, reflash the firmware (even if its the same version already installed) and see if that resolves the issue. Make sure its not an issue with AF not locking on. If useing AF, the shutter will not fire untill AF locks on.</p>

<p>Jason</p>

<p>If you dial in a certain temp on the camera menu, in this case 5500K, you also have the set the white balance to "K" on the whitebalance selection on the top LCD. This is were you can choose auto, cloudy, flash, sunny, and so on. One has a "K". That is for Kelvin Temp. In that mode, it will use the temp that you have set in the menu. <br>

With 5500K I assume you are shooting with stobes or mid day sun.</p>

<p>Also the software you are trying to use can make a difference...if you are shooting RAW. Not all programs will read the tags in a RAW file correctly. If you are shooting JPEG, then the software should not matter.</p>

<p>Jason</p>

<p>Ok William...thanks...I think. :o)</p>

<p>You are right, at f 2.8 the range is 28 to 320mm. Not 24 to 320mm. My bad. <br>

Redundancy is on purpose. The 24 (or 28) to about 90mm is my most important range. The 5D with the 24-105 and the 40D with 17-55 both cover that rather well. Its true that if the 40D went down, I would be limited to f4 at that point. However, I have used that lens and camera combo enough to know that I can make it work just fine in a pinch. It used to be all I had.</p>

<p>If money had not been an issue and I could have hired someone like you, I am sure my kit would have turn out rather different. For one, I would truely love to have the 24-70 f2.8 instead of the 24-105. But at the time I was to hung up on the importance of IS...so there ya go.</p>

<p>Truth be known, I did not start out building a wedding kit. I got the 24-105 because I wanted somthing better than what I had. Later on I saw the need for f2.8 but I also wanted IS(I was still hung up on that). So I got the 17-55.</p>

<p>Also I normally only use the primes for portraits (well the 85mm, the 50 is just there if I need it. I have used it when no flash was allowed). So I never intended for them to cover a large range. I do have a 15mm fisheye, but have yet to need it. </p>

<p>I never once intended to claim it was the ultimate kit, nor did I claim it to handle any and all situations.</p>

<p>All I really wanted to point out (and I failed completely it would seem) was to say that by haveing two different format bodies, it changes the effective range of your lens kit. Granted it would be really sweet if the 17-55 would work with out issue on the 5D. </p>

<p>Bottom line for me was that I was limited by the f4 of the 24-105 and the 24-70 did not have IS. The 17-55 on the 40D fit the bill, and it gave me effectively up to 320mm with the 70-200.</p>

<p>So yes, if I were building a wedding kit from scratch (like the OP) it would turn out rather different from what I currently have.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>Jason</p>

<p>The 17-55 f2.8 is a great lens and as stated will work well with your rebel. Really, if you already like the rebel for this type of work, there will be no real good reason to replace it. Like Matthijs pointed out, I also got that lens and use it with my 40D because Canon does not make any other lens in that focal length range with f 2.8 AND IS. It is great for low light reception halls.</p>

<p>You also said you plan to at some point to have only full frame bodies. Peronally, I find it great to have both full frame and a crop body. I shoot with a 5D and 40D with the 24-105 f4 IS, 17-55 f2.8 IS, 70-200 f2.8IS, 85 f1.8, and the 50 f1.8. With the two bodies, that takes me from 24mm to effectively 320mm. All f2.8 and faster.</p>

<p>Jason</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Heck, despite being in Illinois, I LIVE in the deep south! I'm at 37º N. Check out Louisville KY or Richmond VA and see how far north they are. -JDM</p>

</blockquote>

<p>With all due respect....being "southern" is more of a state of mind rather than a geographical location. :o) </p>

<p>I live smack dab in the middle of South Carolina. I am so far back in the sticks, the June bugs don't get here till August. We pipe in the sunshine fresh every morning. :o)</p>

<p>Jason</p>

<p>Sorry Richard, I just saw this and had to comment...</p>

<blockquote>

<p> As a RAW image, its exposure would be determined by the default settings in the RAW converter. <br>

So if you are not making any exposure adjustments in the RAW converter, that may be your problem. The brightness is from the RAW converter default settings and not your camera. <br>

-Danny Low</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Exposure of the image is determined by the combination of shutter time and aperture value at the time of capture...period. We can lighten or darken the image in post, but that is all. We often call this "adjusting exposure"(even I do that) but no, we are just changeing its brightness. The amount we can change the photo(with out creating problems) is limited to the exposure of the image at the time of capture. </p>

<p>With a RAW image 1 stop is pretty much the limit. Often there starts to be an issue with color shift if you adjust much over 2/3 of a stop. For me if I have to get around 1/2 of a stop of adjustment, I simply messed up and need to have done a better job at metering. It happens more than I care to say, however the ideal is that I should never have to touch the "Exposure" or "Brightness" slider. Every thing else is fair game.</p>

<p>As far as I can tell, the image above is off by about 5 or 6 full stops...give or take.</p>

<p>OK, so now maybe this horse can die in peace.</p>

<p>Jason</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"I know that the picture has been processed by Photoshop. What I meant is that it was simply brought in to Photoshop, resolution changed and saved out as a jpg. No levels, contrast, color correction etc. or any other manipulation."<br /><br /></em>Well that is the cause of your problem. You are supposed to be making contrast changes, exposure changes, etc.</p>

<p>If you are not willing to spend the time to make the corrections, you will continue to get "daylight" images.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think Danny is missing the point....as I do believe the OP has already realized, this is an exposure problem plain and simple. We just simply need to find a different exposure, not correct it in photoshop. Adjusting contrast and such and "tweaking" exposure is one thing....but fixing the image above to look like night time....I think this horse just will not die.</p>

<p>For me, I went with "Photographic Arts" instead of the usual "Photography". So for me its "Jason Hall Photographic Arts".</p>

<p>Its a mouth full I know, but I don't want people to know me as a catchy name, but rather I want them to know me...by my name. That is Jason Hall. If they can remember the "photographic Arts" part is really pointless. I do feel it represents who I am better than just "Photography".</p>

<p>With that said I completely understand you wanting to have your name as unique as you are. Like Matt said before, you can register several variations of your name to be sure folks can find you. I have tried every variation of my name and they are all taken. So I had to shorten it to "jphotoarts". Its not ideal, I wish I could do something different, but I have not searched out any of them lately, so something may be freed up by now.</p>

<p>Also as Matt pointed out, makeing your name so "Funky" may make it hard to apeal to some folks. Some just will not take you seriously. Bottom line is, we all wish we could just shoot the stuff that we really like, but in the end we just have to do what pays the bills. I would rather not shoot weddings, but they pay so darn well. Of course you earn every penny of it.</p>

<p>Just a few ideas that came to me...<br>

C. King Photographic<br>

King's Photographic Arts (you knew I would have to throw that at ya...hehe)<br>

Christel K Photographic Arts (I like this one, you can use Photographic, Photography, Photographica or what ever)</p>

<p>Let us know what you go with!</p>

<p>Jason</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I will fiddle with full manual mode but it would seem that if I underexpose to get the lighting as I see it, I will lose detail.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well.....all I can say is, you can't have your cake and eat it to. :o/ Sort of confused what you expected to get out of it.</p>

<p>Jason</p>