iris_van_den_broek

<p>Thanks!<br>

I have been trying a few things<br>

I spotmetered on the face and slightly overexposed. That did, indeed, give me the nice bright faces I was looking for. However: as I said the background completely blows out since the background is often lighter than the subject in the picture.<br>

When I try to get back the background and therefore use a faster shutterspeed, the background gets more detail but then I lose the nice bright faces since they get a little underexposed then.<br>

To the people who say they see nothgin unusual about the lighting in the link I posted: can anyone explain in detail then what was done there??<br>

Because I am not getting photos like that straight out of my camera by just measuring the light on the subjects face (like some of you suggest is the simple solution)</p>

<p>Well, I wasn't saying there was something unusual about the lighting<br />I was just wondering how to get it like that, since my photos don't turn out like that straight out of the camera.<br>

But if I understand you correctly I should just measure the light on the subjects face and then overexpose a little. My problem with this is, that a lot of times the background will be too overexposed then and lose the detail and colors.<br>

In the pictures in the link that does not seem the case, so that was why I was wondering if anything special was done.</p>

<p>Sorry have been away for a couple of days and see the images were removed. Did not know about the "linking only"rule so excuse me for that!</p>

<p>Anyway: I can't find the exact photos anymore but here is a link to a series of photos that kind of show what I mean<br>

<a href="http://blog.amandakeeysphotography.com/?p=752">http://blog.amandakeeysphotography.com/?p=752</a><br>

I love how the face of the girl is lit up and bright in every shot but the background is also very dreamy with the sunlight and everything.<br>

Do you think she used reflectors to get this result?</p>

<p>What I see a lot these days are very bright, colorful pictures of weddings and children where the photographer claims to not have used any form of flash, hence: only used natural light.<br>

I really love the fresh feel that is in these pictures but am not sure how to obtain the same result in my own photos. How do you meter for this? And how is it that the background is so bright and colorful but the subject is perfectly lit as well?<br>

When I try something like this I meter for the background and then use fill flash, I don't know how to do it without flash.<br>

Is this a lot of post processing in photoshop or is this just a technique I need to learn to master?<br>

This is kind of what I mean: </p>

<p>Could anyone here explain what to do with metering and what to do afterwards in Photoshop to get images like this? Thank you very much!</p><p><B>Images removed. Per the photo.net Terms of Use, do not post photos that you did not take. Feel free to post links to the images in their original location below.</b></P>

<p>Thanks Brad, really appreciate it! Since I'm not from the area I don't know where to post the message best but its good to hear that at least some local photo people heard about it!</p>

<p>IT is also good to hear that most people are really surprised that a thing like this happened there and during daytime! Means that it is at least not a very common thing and that I just had very bad luck</p>

<p>Oh i didn't realise the @ sign is not used here on this forum<br />In The Netherlands we use it all the time on fora to reply to multiple posters in one answer, so that it is clear who you are directing your comment too. But since Twitter came along maybe it's a little confusing.</p>

<p><br />Brad, thank you for putting the word out! You just never know where it turns up, the more people know the better</p>

<p>@Brian: you know I am always careful when shooting at night. I actually didn't do it in San Francisco, because I felt it to be not so safe for a girl alone with such expensive gear. And then this happens in broad daylight in Alamo Square.............it only shows you can never be prepared for anything.<br>

I wouldn't worry too much about it, from everyone I've spoken to over there I heard this was something they've never heard before. Not in this way at least.......I just hope I can recover from it and can enjoy walking around with my camera as much again as I used to, because for now I just can't imagine myself in a strange city exploring neighborhoods.</p>

<p>@Doug: I had a GREAT time in California and the Bay Area......after all: this could have happened anywhere. </p>

<p>Thanks for all the great response<br>

@Brian: I didn't mean to offend you, but it's indeed very obvious that calling 911 was the first thing to do (fortunately some locals had heard me scream and already did it for me which was so helpful and nice because I really felt totally lost at the moment)<br>

@Alex: good idea of the google alert but dont know how to set that up. I will try and find out.<br>

I also thought of the pawnshops but it seems around Alamo Square there aren't many. Lots of them in Mission though. I also keep checking craigslist..yoiu know they have some pretty serious stuff in their hands but in a very strange way to offer. I just hope they get caught if an honest buyer calls the police, but I doubt that will happen and that more people would be like: 'hmm a 1DMarkIV with the hard to get right now 24-70/f2.8 for 1500 dollars? Great deal!'<br />And not even mind if it was stolen or not <br /><br /></p>

<p>@Brian: what do you think the first thing was I did?<br />Locals already called the police and they arrived pretty fast. They also have all the serial numbers, but since I doubt that they will make this their main priority and they simply cannot keep checking craigslist every day, I thought it wouldn't hurt to let people know about it here.<br />You never know where it turns up after all<br>

I am from The Netherlands by the way, but I keep checking the Bay Area Craigslist........<br />The camera was not paid for with a creditcard by the way</p>

<p>I have insurance but they won't cover the full thing so in the end I'll always lose money (and of course my trust in other people).<br>

I already reported the event to Canon, I don't know if they do anything with it but I have a pro account and the serial numbers are indeed registered there.<br />I just wonder what happens if someone enters the serial numbers in their account. I'm sure they will just get an errormessage and not a report to Canon I guess?</p>

<p>Since this forum has a very large usergroup I thought I post it here, you never know<br>

During my vacation in San Francisco I was robbed off my Canon 1DMark IV with an attached 24-70/f2.8 lens. It happened last Thursday (May 12th) in Alamo Square. Four guys attacked me from behind and took the camera off my shoulder. I managed to keep my backpack because I started screaming real loud and since it was broad daylight they did not have much time so they ran.'</p>

<p>The stolen camera is a Canon 1DMarkIV with serial number: 0830900936<br />The stolen lens is a Canon 24-70/f2.8 with serial number: 1592752<br />The lens also had a polarizing filter on it.</p>

<p>I think it is a very strange combination they're trying to sell now, since there are no lenscaps, no batterycharger and theres a filter attached to the lens (which they don't know of course, they have no idea what they've stolen apart from it being very expensive stuff).</p>

<p>So that's why I post here, because the person who's going to buy it from them probably is a professional or serious hobbyist.<br>

If anyone sees this stuff (or something suspicious) coming by on craigslist or ebay please let me know!<br>

I can also be contacted through my website<br>

<a href="http://www.eyerisphotography.nl/">www.eyerisphotography.nl</a><br>

<br /><br /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Just a question in general: normally you use some kind of diffuser on your flash to create a softer light.<br>

But if you're in the bright sun and need your flash' full power, I guess you just shoot without a difffuser (like Lightsphere, Stofen etc.), to make sure you use all the light your flash can give you, right?</p>

<p>Thank you for the very detailed explanation william. I will sure go out and try and practice!<br>

ps. I studied in Columbus, Ohio for several months. Your signature just reminded me of that :)</p>

<p>Thought I would post my question here rather than opening a new topic<br>

I am wondering what lenses to attach to my 2 body's and which ones to take so that I can change<br>

I have a Canon 40D and a Canon 1DMarkIII (so also different crop factors)<br>

Lenses I have: Tamron 17-50 f2.8, Canon 70-200 f2.8 (no IS), Canon 50 f1.2 , Canon 135 f2.0.<br>

<br />What I miss is something like a 24-70 f2.8, but do you think I could manage with the 17-50 and the 70-200? I love my 50 f1.2 but I am not sure whether it is sensible to put that lense permanently on a body.<br>

What I am worried about with my 70-200 is that is has no IS. I am afraid my photo's will become blurred because of movement.</p>

<p>I have a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and am very happy with it.<br>

The only thing is: it makes so much noise while focusing! Sometimes when it can't find a focuspoint it will zoom in and out like every lense would, but the sound it makes is a little bit too much if you ask me. I am in doubt whether to use it for my first wedding, because I don't want to interrupt the whole ceremony with my focus-noises</p>

<p>@William: how do you generally find a midtone? what can you recognize them by?<br>

Someone said grass is a midtone, but it's bright green: how should I recognize that as a midtone? I think your practice tips are really helpful, but I don't have a clue what a midtone looks like :)</p>

<p>Thanks for all the information. So in general it's not completely necessary to use spot metering?<br>

I was wondering about the overexposing in bright sunlight though: yesterday I took photos of a guy with bright white hair. I took it in P mode but his hair was totally blown out but the very bright sun. So you don't want to overexpose in that case, but I really had trouble shooting him in that bright sun with all the shadows and everything.<br>

So it's better to pose the couple with the sun coming from behind them and then use fill flash? (strong flash I assume?). the only thing I am worried about then is flare....but I guess it depends on the situation and from what point the sun is coming.<br>

I will try and practice with a friend in white clothing, or a bedsheet :)</p>

<p>thank you for your answer<br>

I do understand all the basics and am shooting more and more in manual mode. I am just very nervous about weddings since Í've never done any (the bride and groom know that but still wanted me) Therefore I am reading a lot here and wanted to ask what the pro's do.<br>

What to do in very bright sunlight? Do you use flash to fill in the shadows?<br>

I know my way around in the combination aperture, shutterspeed, ISO-speed but when it comes to flash I have a lot to learn. I already read Planet Neil and learned a lot from that, but it's so much information that it's a little dazzling sometimes.<br>

What if I've spotmetered the dress, dialed in a +2 exposure for example and then use fill-flash? Will my exposure still be correct then or not? </p>

<p>I will be shooting my first wedding in May this year. I am already nervous and do as much reading as I can but I am often wondering how photos are exposed/metered.<br>

First question: In general: do you usually use spot metering? Or matrix metering?<br>

And if you're outside in the sunlight and you want to prevent the dress from blowing out: how do meter there? Do you use spot metering on the face? Or on the dress? Or no spot metering at all?<br /><br />I know with snow that you have to overexpose to make it actually white on your photo, but does the same go for a wedding dress? I think if you overexpose the dress will be blown out.<br>

thanks for any advice on this</p>

<p>I think I don't understand exactly what you're saying. Are you saying I should NOT use the Center point?<br>

I've always read that sports-shooters use the center AF-point with the surrounding 6 points active.<br>

I will look at Cfn 10-III, but I dont understand what the difference is between a registered and an active focuspoint.</p>

<p>I can shake hands with Howard<br>

We also used Macs at school and man were they a horror. They kept crashing and you'd get that little rainbow wheel just spinning around for minutes on end.<br /><br />I've never understoodd why a Mac is superior to a PC when it comes to graphic design. They both do exactly the same. Also: lots of applications online don't work well on a Mac....</p>

<p>Gymnastics qualification meet for the european Championships (Dutch team): 22/2<br>

<img src="http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/6461/joy3.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="600" /><br>

2.<br /><img src="http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/5589/fieke1.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="600" /><br>

3.<br /><img src="http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/4118/wyomi.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="600" /><br>

4.<br /><img src="http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/6635/joy.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="600" /><br>

5,<br /><img src="http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/4205/turnster.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="600" /><br>

<a href="http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/6461/joy3.jpg"></a></p>