danielgreen1

<p>

<p >I bought the 300/f4 IS canon 2 years ago for my daughters graduation. I was the only one sitting in the bleachers that could get a decent shot. I took a tripod with me for the best possible shots, which was nice because the lens is heavy. I still had a little blur in her arms because they move fast when she walked. This weekend for my son’s graduation I bought Radio triggers for my flashes. I’ll have someone down close on the floor hold two hot shoe flashes mounted on a 4’ monopole. My hope is to stop the action with the flash and not get me kicked off the floor with my camera. Actually, the floor can be a bad place because you typically have nothing but heads in your way. One drawback to my fixed length 300 is you have to plan your seating to accommodate the right crop. This sounds like a good time for me to buy the 70-200/f2.8 IS zoom with the 1.4 teleconverter; making it a 100-280/f4.0. See, if you love photography, you can talk yourself into anything. Really though, my point(however meandering it is) was “buy a fast lens” or get remote flashes and a good friend that isn’t prone to getting embarrassed about holding a 4’ pole in the middle of a gym!. This is why my family won’t go anywhere with me when I bring all my camera gear.</p>

</p>

<p>I’m going to agree with Steve about the two pictures Kay picked as examples because… well…. My opinion is golden…. Right? I’m not seeing the WOW factor here. I like the foreground background subject thing but that’s about it. The crosswalk button kind of fits the street view style, but the traffic lights do tend to distract.</p>

<p>I’m going to agree with Steve about the two pictures Kay picked as examples because… well…. My opinion is golden…. Right? I’m not seeing the WOW factor here. I like the foreground background subject thing but that’s about it. The crosswalk button kind of fits the street view style, but the traffic lights do tend to distract.</p>

<p>Hey David, in hind sight, you probably could have shot him @f8.0 1/30 (to darken background just a tad more) ISO 800 and used a CTO gelled fill flash set real close and on low power. Give him just enough light to look like real candle light. The extra aperture and flash might have helped with the flare. The flash would also help with the extra noise. Oh well, maybe next time.</p>

<p>How about inventing a dual lens digital camera with the optical centers about 65mm apart. Maybe that would work. Would work well for 3D pictures. I remember my grandma having a slide viewer that was that way.</p>

<p>I consider myself a beginner too but now I have learned things here, and in other sites. I constantly find myself looking at light and shadows. I critique TV shows, Movies pictures in magazines, everywhere always day and night. I am becoming a pretty good photographer now. See easy squeezey.</p>

<p >Yeah hey Walter,</p>

<p >I just did a wedding for some friends my first also. I can’t say I spent anymore time shooting the wedding because I would have been there anyways and they gave me free drink coupons; again I do not recommend drinking while shooting !!!!! I spent the next two full days processing them in Photoshop and that was just the basics. Then even more time cropping them in 4 X 6, 5 X 8 and 8 X 10 and saving to cd. I had a local print shop print 45 pictures for the album at a cost of $120.00 and then went down to Michael’s Craft store for an album and scrapbook stuff $80.00 more and 10 more hours. Dude, I now know why good photographers charge so much. It’s a hell of a gesture but… That was probably over $600.00 worth of effort and my wife already bought them a wedding gift (apparently she doesn’t trust my picture taking abilities).</p>

<p >Lincy,<br>

I wouldn’t go in with the notion of shooting pictures. I would start out with getting equipment, holding lights changing cards, batteries and maybe post processing in their software. Just get there and observe while they explain their thoughts and techniques. </p>

<p >Hey one other note,</p>

<p >There was a relative of the groom there with a Rebel Xti I have to assume shooting in “P” with the pop up flash. AHH I looked at her pictures at the reception…. UH the only things exposed right were the people's faces, everything else black. I may be wrong here but your light will probably not change indoors so manual should work best once you get it right. Nadine? Michael? Thoughts</p>

<p >Hey Bob</p>

<p >I’m pretty new to shooting with a flash myself, so I felt it ok to give you my two cents. First off listen to Nadine, I read a lot of her advice in forums and she seems very consistent in what she has to say. I think you can trust her abilities besides, just look at her portfolio. I’m not saying everyone else has bad advice quite the opposite this is a great site for info. Anyway, I just did a wedding for a friend and one thing I seem to do is FREAK OUT trying to remember everything. Now here’s the funny thing, “ I don’t recommend this anyone if the pictures you are producing is important”, By the end of the evening I was starting to feel , well, a little tipsy, I shoot in manual with E-TTL so drinking plus manual well, you can see the problem. Alas, I have good news since the ambient lighting didn’t change indoors I got lucky and didn’t have to remember to look at my shutter speeds or at least I don’t remember looking and HEY my pictures turned out fine. I was sober enough to remember to bounce my flash of walls. I guess my long winded point is (besides don’t drink especially if you’re getting paid, which I was not) is relax move slow and don’t get wound up. This forum has given you great info but it takes time for this stuff to become natural. I bet Nadine could tell us some stories from her early days.</p>

<p><strong>Tim</strong> </p>

<p >you should do neither! Feeding them is unsafe for wildlife and creates an unsafe environment for humans, and shooting animals that you would not eat is well ridiculous. </p>

<p ><strong>Colton</strong><br>

It sounds like you would be the best type of person for both sports; you have an understanding of the relationship of both. I would prefer hunters with compassion for our environment and also an understanding of the people’s right to hunt their own food.</p>

<p>Thanks Dana,<br>

I must not have looked hard enough the first time or I Goggled it wrong.</p>

<p>Markus UUHHH?<br>

Would you care to translate? Maybe there is a english version?</p>

<p >I’m just going to assume..<br>

you haven’t used your histogram. I find it best (and I’m just a newbie) to quick check your white balance and then use your histogram. If you look at the LCD it will blink where you are blown out. Drop your exposure until you no longer see it blink. Sometimes it’s hard to see them blink maybe just one little dot so look for a few seconds to be sure. Most of the time average white balance setting is fine but sometimes certain conditions will throw it off. I have had it on my camera where 2000K makes a difference of 1 stop.</p>

<p><strong>I'm no pro so....</strong></p>

<p >take this with a grain of salt:</p>

<p >It looks to me like the girl wasn’t in the mood to be posed with the boy at that time. Did you start out with those shots first? If so you might want to start out with games or dancing to get them warmed up. It looks like at some point during the shoot they were a little happier. Maybe throw in a quick posed shot then. I also noticed two catch lights in some of the shots; I would clone one out (preferably the one most off center to the camera axis) or move the lights. Speaking of lights did you use any or was that light from a window and the room? Looks like they are reddish in color, tungsten lights in the room? I quick check my white balance with a white cloth and if the camera is picking up something you’re not seeing I would set the “K” manually. I only do this because I “chimp” (I think that’s the buzz word) and check the LCD for the “Blinkys” (again buzzzz) and I find if the WB is off it throws off your best exposure reading (sometimes by 1 1/2stops). I still fix it in Raw conversion, but I like to be as close as possible at shooting besides, pushing exposure after the fact can bring in unwanted grain.<br>

I don’t know, I’m new to it also but I like it when people give me pointers (good and bad). Feel free to look at my stuff but I don’t have much yet. I joined a week ago. </p>

<p >Jeff</p>

<p >You took that picture with a camera no Massive Photo retouching. It’s just that with this medium it’s hard to type everything I want to say. I have to hope you all can assume some things (especially because I am a slow typist) or I’ll be typing a paperback. Know what I mean?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Steve</p>

<p >Wow Steve, your insight is amazing. I never said I don’t want to look at them. I like that kind of art but, I just feel it shouldn’t be called a photograph but Photographic art.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Will</p>

<p >Sometimes when it comes to words on a page, you can’t read the emotion in the words. Some people are good at writing with emotion some are not. Don’t mistake that for being personal. </p>

<p >Although that statement above “ your insight is amazing” that..now that was a little sarcastic and hopefully Steve wasn’t offended.</p>

<p >Silly John<br>

Do you really think there is a moral wrong because people view an internet site and then shop locally? If you think it costs an internet site more for two people to browse then 6 million, you’re wrong. Their employee costs are the same no matter how many people look. You’re trying to be over simplistic in your analysis.</p>

<p><strong>Anyone else have this problem ?</strong></p>

<p >I realize when famous artists painted they too had an image or a model in front of them. Some painted what they saw (like in a photo), some warped the eyes and faces (like liquefy), and some blew them in to bizarre images (like layers upon layers upon layers :) ). OK fine, but I think the term photograph should be “what you saw” it’s ok to adjust small things, sharpen, blur backgrounds add skin tones ECT As long as you don’t distort the photo. Then I think we should have a new word added to Webster’s dictionary “photographic Art” meaning, a work of art that was created from a photograph. Photoshop isn’t any different than an artist that goes wild, it’s just a new form of art. I don’t know I would just like to know the difference when I look at them.<br>

<strong></strong></p>

<p >Sorry John</p>

<p >It sounded to me like your earlier post was trying to turn the point around and say that some people would shop online and then buy locally? My point was simply If someone outside of your local area lost money because of that so what. None of their revenue will benefit your community.</p>

<p >Your follow-up post</p>

<p >It is not absurd of me to go into two stores and ask question’s become informed and then make a purchase. The cost of doing business for two identical stores would be on par with each other i.e.: same overhead costs, Employment, triple nets, inventory levels. So the only determining factors would be who has better service, price and return policies. Internet retailers do not have those costs so it’s not an apples to apples comparison</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Jerry</p>

<p >What about your principles to your employer. Do you think his business and his vision benefits from your principles? And if you’re being paid to perform a task for him, shouldn’t you do just that? Trust me your employer knows more about customers than you do.</p>

<p>Kelly<br>

People, who say customers are ignorant of how a business is run, say that out of ignorance! Customers don't run businesses they make businesses. The day a business person forgets that, and thinks’ a customer should help run there business, will soon be closing their doors. You can't give the argument of "Free Rent or Returns" either, because everyone deals with those. If you close your doors it's not due to the customer, it's due your philosophy. America was strong because of this very principal but we are becoming weak because of people with the opinions like yours. Sorry. L</p>

<p>Yeah, but John do you really care about a store that's not in your community? I don't care if Home Depot goes out of buisness and they don't care if I die! or you for that matter. :(</p>

<p>Don't Worry Folks The Messiah Starts in Office tomorrow. All will be well with the world LOL.<br>

I just wanted to say (since I'm obviously a republican) if you think internet shopping is killing the community by driving out the mom and pop stores then, you could also say, the automobile killed the country store. People drove to the bigger towns because they were better. You can't say the automobile hasn't been a great invention? Most Mom & Pop stores failed because technology passed them by. If you want to sell camera's and you already have buyers and inventory what's to stop you from selling online. I would say "The local store owner dosen't understand the technology" They stay away from things they don't understand. They think that personal attention, customer service will make them succeed! More than likely they come from the time (and it's not that long ago) of the "Counrty Store". I think Home Depot has proved my point "People will leave". I do have good news however, Home Depot just like Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac will fail. The pendulum will swing, as long as Mr. Obama (and others) don't let us fall into Socialism. Just a side note "I don't think he will (I do stand behind him even without my vote). I will also stand behind anyone who help's out our communities ie: I am happy to start the pendulum swinging, but that doesn't mean I don't use technology. I would rather talk with everone on this forum in person but that's impossible. See technology has it's place and when everything comes back to the center, I hope my local store Kenmore Camera (just a shout out) stay's up with technology and will be there when we come. </p>

<p>I have a really big lens. It'a a off brand name, I think it's french "Viagra 800mm-1200mm VR". It's real light weight so I can keep it up to my eye most of the evening! : ) Lucky me HUH?</p>