tomislav_kovacicek

<p>D700, 50mm, f2.2, ISO 2500, 1/160 sec.</p><div></div>

<p>Nikon D700, 50mm 1.4 @ 3.2, ISO 250, 3 sec, tripod, iphone for lightpainting (2x)</p><div></div>

<p>24mm 1.4<br>

I'm in similar situation like you (considering equipment) and I thought 35mm is too close to 50mm 1.4 which you already have. Now, 24mm 1.4 is excellent wide all-rounder for non flash photography, you can use it in dark church and restaurants as well as in daylight as a documentary lens.. Just ordered it and cant wait to hold it in my hands :)</p>

<p>I agree David. I didn't quite understand you the 1st time.<br />Well, fyi, this bride was a semi-pro dancer and she liked to dance. Later at the reception her friends wanted to suprise her so they dressed upto their usual dance costumes and started to dance (similar tap-dance). She joined in :)<br />It was so beautiful that the crowd went crazy cheering for more. 3 times. :)</p>

<p>LOL, no, this is the original image. I'm happy though that you think its a fake. :)<br>

And the shadow of her right arm is probably behind her. I dont know :)</p><div></div>

<p>LOL, no, this is the original image. I'm happy though that you think its a fake. :)<br />And the shadow of her right arm is probably behind her. I dont know :)</p>

<p>-to <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1769024">David Schilling</a> - Of course this image wasn't staged, its from a real wedding. Its form and looks are presenting it as a capture in moment - 9 out of 10 ppl would say its not staged. Dont you agree?<br>

-to <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=6107953">Laetitia Pat</a> - Taken in Croatia</p>

<p>I dont like anyone's crop simply because cropped - looses energy. The flags on the right are enpowering the picture already strong because the bride's energic dance and the girl to the left as an opposite to those flags - opens the view to the center - the bride.<br>

Blownout drees - eh, yes, my bad. Taken in the mid-day strong sun and didnt have time to meter off something else.</p>

<p>Thank you all on your comments so far!</p>

<p>Nikon D700, 50mm/1.4G@f1.8, ISO 200, 1/8000 sec</p><div></div>

<p>Example:</p>

<p>2 days ago I got new clent enquiry by email and the client looked like she knew why she picked me. In her mail there was roughly described wedding plan of her big day and question if I were available for her day. Also there was a sentence: In case ur'e available, I'd like to meet and discuss the details..bla, bla..<br>

So I didn't send her my price list or offerings because she never asked for it, just the info that I'm available for her day.<br>

Today she writes off that she had found some other photographer!<br>

<strong>Question 1:</strong><br>

Was I supposed to send her my offer for her wedding?<br>

<strong>Question 2:</strong><br>

Do you usually take aggressive approach or take it slow?</p>

<p>Thx</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Sunsets in Dubrovnik..</p><div></div>

<p >Hello,<br>

just realised I bought set with 1 transmitter 19351 and 2 RX tranceiver 19353, which don't fit to regular hotshoe flashes. RX tranceivers are supposed to work only with Elinchrom RX units. Does anyone have any idea what to do?<br>

Should I exchange RX trancievers with someone for universal recievers or is there a way to make this work?<br>

Thanks for advice..</p>

<p>Hi, image taken this saturday. Nikon D90, 17-55/2.8, 17mm, 1/8 sec., iso 200 (obviously a mistake..lol)</p><div></div>

<p>For all 'motion-blur' believers, SS was 1/250s. Soo, it must have been filter (Hoya UV HMC super 77mm). I'll try to do some more testing on this subject..<br>

What's cropping concern, I like Marc's crop and b&w transform better than Bob's - in term of photography. I'd use Bob's crop for wedding book element though. I could agree about color not making any decisive element on this picture, thats why I also like it colorless.<br>

And yes, image was taken without any flash whatsoever (so no fill flash).</p>

<p>TY all so far on great comments. :)</p>

<p>Hello everybody and thanks for your C&C's..<br />I'll try to explain this situation more clearly:<br>

@<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=817037">David Wegwart </a>- The placement of the picture (therefore the background also) was on the parking lot in front of the restaurant the wedding was about to take place. Formal pictures were taken behind those parked cars, in the park. Grooms wish :) We were running out of time actually so I didn't return back in the park where picture might have been more background friendly.<br>

@<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2224471">Simona Buna</a> - I'm from Croatia and the wedding also took place in Croatia, so you are almost right about eastern europe guess. We also have our 'car thing' - but this cars arent from guests at the wedding, just some randomly parked cars. I agree with you, to make this picture 100% - a bouquet should had been in the bride's right hand, for instance.<br>

@<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5233527">John Deerfield</a> - this picture isn't photojurnalistic, nor posed. At least - not posed 100%. As I mentioned earlier, we were in a hurry to get back from formals down to the restaurant, the couple was flirting on their way back so I just turned back and saw them, so I said 'stop there', and I told Rebecca (the bride) to look at me. There was no time to put the sb900 on the stand and fire remotely. About the bracelet - I dont have a slightest clue why it is so blurred. I am using UV filter, yes. Are you telling me it is it's fault for the blurr? WB is a little green, I wanted to grass to be greener in a special way, and I liked what I've done. Sky was a little blown so I extracted the blown area and returned some detail in PS. Little vignette effect also helped in this area. Taken in jpeg.<br>

Thank you all so far, I'm on a road so cant promise to answer before saturday, but will try..<br>

:)</p>

<p>Chaunchey, If I were you, I'd skip buying D300 and get D90. For the rest of the money I'd get Nikkor 17-55/2.8 and if any left - save the money for D700.</p>

<p>Why?</p>

<p>Because I think D300 isn't gonna get you more picture quality nor usability in wedding jobs you're about to do, it can only be more comfortable to use it. It has better grip (you can buy mb10 grip for D90 like I did), better autofocus (I haven't noticed much focus speed difference though + 11 points is more than enough), weatherseal, etc..<br />And the price difference isn't small, despite d90 using same sensor as D300 - which means the exactly same picture quality.<br>

I'm curently using d90+17-55 combo for my weddings and I'm satisfied. Very satisfied.<br>

In future - D700+24-70 is obvious choice, until then -- D90 is my best value for money.</p>

<p>Hello all, this is my 1st post here on photo.net and also 1 st upload. I've been in photography for two years, this was my 4th wedding. Nikon D90, Nikkor 17-55/2.8.</p><div></div>