jeff_harper3

Lightroom is described as an alternative to Photoshop by many professional reviewers. It is obviously

not as powerful, nor does it have the plethora of features that Photoshop does.

 

It is certainly intended to be used as an alternative for those who want something quicker and less

complicated then Photoshop, something especially suited for the everyday, working photographer who

does not need to spend an hour on each photo.

 

One only has to read the product description and read several reviews to know what it is, and what it is

intended for.

 

At any rate I have begun the trial. I love the spot removal too, very very nice. It does not have the

automation I was seeking, but it is well laid out and very simple to use, so far. It appears to be worth

every penny of it's asking price.

 

I really love the posts and comments so far, been extremely helpful! Thanks everyone!

Thanks guys. Before I rule out Lightroom, I will see if I can download a trial, see just how complex it is. If

that is too complex I will try Picasa.

I shoot for fun, my subjects being friends and acquaintances. I particularly enjoy outdoor portraits and urban scenes

with an occasional landscape.

 

I very much like Portrait Professional for touching up faces, works well for me. Problem, it is limited to faces. Is there a

program available that works similarly for general photos? I currently use an old version of Fireworks for adjusting

brightness and contrast, etc., but it's old and I want something better.

 

I have no desire to learn Photoshop. I suppose I'm looking to find something that offers some automation and

suggestions that can be dialed back as needed.

 

I was looking at Lightroom, but I would appreciate something even simpler than that, if it's available.

<p>I just refunded Thomas' money, and he can keep the lens. I can't imagine it was damaged in shipping, these lenses are too tough, but I"m no expert either. It was packaged pretty well. Maybe he can find someone to clean it.</p>

<p>Thomas we were posting simultaneously, it appears. I'm anxious to see if anyone else has a thought. Mark, your ideas about the buyer were of course appropriate not knowing, but I had to smile. <br>

The guys on the forum that we met are the best, it reminds me how lucky I am to have these places. </p>

<p>Mark, thanks for your response. I am certain the buyer is honest, no issue there. <br>

What is bothersome is I used the lens, maybe ten times for wedding shoots, never an issue. Movement of the focus ring to inifinity, never an issue. If it was damaged during shipment, I cannot know.<br>

Lens had the nicest movement, typical Canon FD quality. I didn't care for the lens on my particular camera, but as far as focus, the focus was a joy to use, so smooth.</p>

<p>I sold a FD 50mm F/1.4 breech mount to a gentleman a few days ago. The lens had never give me issues in the past prior to selling.<br>

The buyer (Thomas) has indicated to me this evening the focus ring is not functioning correctly. I of course feel badly, but not sure how to handle things. So for a first step, I am checking here to see if this is a common issue and what it might be. Obviously the seller would like a solution to fix the issue. <br>

You can look at the video below that he posted for an illustration of what is happening. Thanks in advance for any advice you might have.<br>

<a href="http://vimeo.com/30570856">http://vimeo.com/30570856</a></p>

<p>Frank and Larry, thanks much for your feedback, deeply appreciated. Frank, thanks for the link!</p>

<p>Mark, great tutorial, thanks for your explanation and for the link. I've been using them when I didn't need them, and it likely has been the cause of some unpleasant surprises in portraits I've shot in the shade.</p>

<p>All the best, Jeff Harper</p>

<p>I have roatating polarizing filters for all of my lenses, but I don't know when to use them.<br>

I often shoot my subjects (models, bridal parties) in the sun, then we may move to the shade, then I may shoot them walking in the sun. Then we often end up in front of a lake or water fall.<br>

Is is best to forget filters when moving around like this? Do I need filters for shaded spots, or when shooting portraits? Or if my filters are already on, can I leave them on for when we move to shade? </p>

<p>2nd question: Are there dramatic differences between filters? All of mine are of varying prices and brands, and unless I"m crazy the effects of my various filters seem radically different from filter to filter.</p>

<p>All in all, my primary concern is getting portraits right, and great skin tones, etc, though I'd like to have blue skies, of course. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance! Jeff Harper</p>

<p> </p>

<p>You might consider a fast wide zoom. The more I shoot (for enjoyment) the more I realize wide lenses are my favorite.</p>

<p>Something close to a 18-50mm F/2.8 is really nice, but it depends on what you want and need. </p>

<p>Tamron makes a really nice Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di Autofocus Lens for Canon that is under $500, decent in low light. It's not wide, but wow, what a great Lens for the money. The Canon version sells for three times as much, and is a favorite of lots of people.</p>

<p>I started off with primes, and they are nice, but they get old after awhile, at least they have for me. I've learned that capturing the subject is more important that getting a stunning image using a F/1.2 lens. Don't get me wrong, I love my fast lenses. But more and more I'm bringing out my F/2.8 zooms, and they are bringing back the fun for me.</p>

 

<p>Thanks guys for the feedback and suggestions. I'm leaning toward a think tank holster, as I don't want to attach anything to bottom of camera.</p>

<p>I'm surprised at the number of options, it's fantastic!</p>

<p>Yes Nadine, very good idea. I'm actually back to looking again at the Spider holster, as a single pouch can be used on my own belt, which will allow a tripod mount to be left on, which for me would be ideal.</p>

<p>Many workable products suggested! </p>

<p>Howard, thanks for the names! I've been looking at them all. </p>

<p>Phil, I'll be checking out Black Widown momentarily, thanks much.</p>

<p>Matt, we were posting at the same time, it appears! I'll look more closely at them!</p>

<p>Phil, thanks for your response and link, you have the exact idea. In this case, the substantial belt, etc with the spider holster seems much more than he was using, and certainly more bulky than my tiny camera would require.</p>

<p>I have found this, but even this appears a bit too deep for my camera: <a href="http://www.thinktankphoto.com/products/digital-holster-10-v2.aspx">http://www.thinktankphoto.com/products/digital-holster-10-v2.aspx</a></p>

<p>I'll keep looking, there is bound to be something out here!</p>

<p>Hello everyone. I was at a wedding during which time I saw a photographer using a holster or some such accessory whereby he had his second camera on his hip, hanging from his belt. I forget his name, or I would contact him.</p>

<p>I will be needing to do the same soon for outdoor shoots, as my second camera will be outfitted with a fisheye lens, and only used sparingly as I do outdoor work at a park. </p>

<p>Anyone know of such a device that would work for a micro 4/3 cameera?</p>

<p>Mark, appreciate the feedback, glad for your support on the lens. It will be infinitely more useful than the 200mm, as these lenses are doubled on my camera, and 400 would be almost excessive. In perfect world, I'd own them both, but I have a feeling the 200mm would just be impractical enough it would likely get left behind sometimes anyway. </p>

 

<p>Thanks for your response and for the information about the lens collars. I made an impulsive decision to abandon the 200mm and went with a 135 f/2.5. It's faster, by a bit, and with my run and gun shooting, and considering I run three video cameras alone, the 135 should be light enough and more manageable. It will also fit into my case!<br>

At 270mm, I hope it is long enough for tight shots of the ring exchange, but I feel hopeful that it will be. </p>

<p>I'm mulling the purchase of a Canon fd 200mm f/2.8, and am ready to purchase, except for the concern the lens doesn't seem to have a fitting for a lens collar. <br>

Anyone have experience mounting a lens this size without a collar? In addition, the lens will be going on an adapter to fit in onto a Panasonic GH2 micro four thirds camera, which makes things even more precarious.<br>

Is there such a thing as a line of universal lens collars, I wonder? Thanks, Jeff H.</p>

<p>Nice lens, I will look into it, thank you. Love the photos, lovely.</p>

<p>William, there's a bit to ponder with your excellent suggestions. I cannot tell you how helpful...I feel less alone and more like I'm headed somewhere. I do know photographers locally, and while most of them are excellent guys and gals, I don't feel comfortable talking with them about photo lenses, and they may feel a bit of competitive annoyance or some such thing. Some refer customers my way, and I don't want them to feel that I'm now a competitor. Even though I'm not.<br>

I have added the 135s (both) to my wish list on amazon just in case. But I do love fast primes, and I suspect I would prefer the flexibility, as you suggest, of the 100mm. <br>

The 135 f/2 is clearly an amazing lens. I haven't even used one, but the reviews are very persuasive.<br>

I actually dislike my 20mm, though it's not bad, but it's not Canon, that is clear. For the money it's OK, and works with the features of the camera just fine. But I digress.<br>

Anyway I will look at some 100mm Canons, as well as 50mm, though I want a 30mm f/1.4, which while so close to the 20mm specs, it's faster and not TOO long, as I am fearful that the 50mm would be. 50mm are popular with others with my camera, so it must be a good fit, but I don't know. I'm going to start with choosing the long lens, and let the middle one sort itself out. Or vice versa! I don't have a wedding for nearly a month, so I suppose it doesn't matter!<br>

Jeff H.</p>

 

<p>Marcus, William, thanks for your posts. William, the lens is actually for a 4/3 Panasonic GH2 that is primarily for video usage. <br>

It appears that I will need to abandon this 100-200 idea which would mean sinking $1k plus into a lens (used) that has limited potential for usage. As has been pointed out it will be long even in the longest churches, and there will many cases where the lens will be of no use at all. <br>

So, it's plan B! I have three cameras. One will be outfitted with my 20mm 1.7 with an effective focal length of 30mm. I could place it rear of main floor for a nice steady shot. <br>

I would then need, I suppose a 85mm or 100mm fixed, but not sure about the third camera. Suggestions?<br>

William, I sold my 85mm last year with my 40d to buy other gear. I have missed both it and my Sigma 30mm 1.4 terribly, and still occasionally go through those photos and sigh.</p>

<p>Encouraging news, Marcus, thanks for your reply.<br>

I am at a disadvantage today, since my camera and kit lens (14-140mm) is not here at this time, and I cannot test the 140mm in a church to get an idea of a reference point in my search for lenses. My camera kit will be returned to me in about two weeks.<br>

I realize, rather sheepishly, that I posted forgetting a critical element of this issue: the lens is built for full frame, not Four Thirds bodies. I am somewhat lost in the search for lenses for this camera, because there are numerous considerations with my particular camera.<br>

There is an adapter available, I believe, that will pull this off, and I will have to investigate that before proceeding further. <br>

I have found the Canon used for $1K, but to make a decision without being able to test the lens is unwise. So at this point I must seek the adapter first, then go from there.</p>

<p>I am trying to select an appropriate zoom lens for wedding cermonies. I have a micro four thirds body, which means the numbers double on any full-frame model lenses. the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens would become a 140-400. <br>

Is this too extreme to be practical in a church? I shoot in large catholic churches, but I also have my share of smaller protestant churches. <br>

Anyone have any thoughts?</p>