ron_steedman

<p>The original is good, but I really like Marc's post-processing. The tighter crop and conversion to B&W de-emphasizes colorful background elements like the red house and the cars.</p>

<p>Very nice! These photos capture some great moments and likely the bride and groom will be happy. I also like that the photographer nailed the exposures and then chose black & white, as opposed to many albums where black & white's used to hide poor exposures. One thing troubles me--why doesn't the photographer in photo #2 match the photographer's picture at the bottom of the webpage?</p>

<p>A few comments --</p>

<p>Photo #1: I like the angle, but why is there a splotch of purple in the bride's hair? It's not on the edge so I doubt it's fringing, her hair isn't purple elsewhere, and the other photos don't look Photoshopped.</p>

<p>Photo #10: This photo doesn't fit into the "story" as we can't make out who the man is.</p>

<p>Photo #13, #15, #16 - Obviously, the over-exposed windows are not so nice.</p>

<p>Photo #36 - I'm not sure blurring the groom was the right idea here, since one's eye naturally focuses on the man in focus and then follows his arm to the groom. Also, the B&G are the primary customers.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>With the exposure compensation set to -2 stops, you effectively get ISO 6400.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I described how to simulate ISO 6400 on an XSi, and explained that even after typical post-processing in Lightroom and NeatImage it's clearly worse than a faster lens provides.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Unless you have enough money to be on Forbes Richest list, it may be better for a beginner to buy the slower and cheaper lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I did encourage her to pick up the kit lens, at the very least to re-sell it! But there are budget fast lenses like the Canon 50mm f/1.8 ($100) or the Tamron 17-55 f/2.8 ($450).</p>

<p>I don't see the desire to be able to take good photos in one's home, at restaurants, at malls, at museums, etc. as something peculiar to advanced photographers. If Krista is content to shoot outside in the daytime then I agree she may not need a fast lens. For her benefit, I'll also mention that a Speedlite (flash) can often (but not always) compensate (to some degree) when your lens isn't fast enough.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For a fast zoom, you are looking at a fixed f2.8 and the difference with a slow f3.5-5.6 zoom can be as little of 1/2 stop.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True, but only if she always uses her 18-55 IS at 18mm! In normal usage, the two lenses I mention above are going to be 1-2 stops better. Try a faster lens sometime, and you'll see why the Tamron 17-55 f/2.8 is so common in the bags of wedding photogs. :)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>However today when you can switch to ISO 1600, 3200 or even 6400 with a flick of a dial it makes much less sense to pay extra for a fast lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That may be true for a 5D, but her XSi only goes up to ISO 1600.</p>

<p>Even if you try to simulate ISO 6400 (via shooting raw, underexposing, recovering in LR, and using NeatImage), the picture will look clearly worse than those captured with a faster lens (at ISO 1000).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>ANYWAY, I'd like to know if you all would recommend buying the XSi kit (comes with F-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens) OR if I should just buy the camera itself, body only, and buy a lens separately.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The kit lens is a bargain since it usually adds $50 to the kit and can be re-sold for $100. However, if you plan to take low-light pictures (in your house, at restaurants, at churches), definitely consider buying a faster lens like a prime or the Tamron 17-55 f/2.8 now or in the near future. Anyone can leverage a prime's ability to capture better images indoors--that doesn't require advanced skill, special equipment, or a tripod.</p>

<p>I skimmed the first paragraphs of KR's page. He says, "I don't know of any serious photographer who shoots from a backpack." He seems to be baiting photogs to entice clicks or discussion.</p>

<p>My small bag has room for a camera plus lens, an extra lens or flash, and a light-modifier... besides equipment that takes up little space like flash cards, batteries, and filters. What I choose to carry for any particular trip depends on the scenario and conditions I'm expecting.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I shoot a 50D... How far will i have to be from the subject in general to get a fullbody?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You need to stand 15' away to shoot a 6' standing adult's full body with a 50mm lens on a 50D or other Canon crop-sensor camera. If you check the technical reviews of the 50mm f/1.4 you'll note it's soft at f/1.4, but great at f/2 and up. I use f/2 when I want blur and f/4-11 when that's not necessary.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/9594076 50mm f/1.4 @ f/2</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/9607195 50mm f/1.4 @ f/4</p>

<p>I agree that on bright days you're going to want a better flash to avoid raccoon eyes, and to avoid ending up with an overexposed sky or underexposed guests. You obviously need enough batteries and flash cards to cover the event. A wide-angle lens would help you take in the big picture and a circular polarizer would help you avoid nasty reflections. Would any of the guests be willing to loan you gear?<br>

<br /> You know, if the B&G hired a pro photographer, it wouldn't be so bad for you, especially if they were willing to let you help so the B&G got good photos and you got a chance to learn. :)</p>

<p>I would appreciate constructive critiques of a recent portrait session, besides the obvious one that the baby blinked in the fourth photo! The recipient was very happy, but I'm always looking to improve.</p>

<p>I was only able to use one 200W strobe due to space limitations, positioned 45 degrees to the right/front of the subjects with a 46" white shoot-through umbrella (although, again due to space limitations, it might as well have been 36"). I also used a 32" round gold reflector for warm fill-light and a black backdrop.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=926718</p>

<p>Thanks in advance! :)</p>