davyherben

<p>While Francisco's insinuation is quite rude, I do believe that curbing illegal downloading is one of the big reasons for Adobe's move. I would be surprised if even half of all photoshop installs in the world are legal versions. A lot of people want photoshop, but either can't afford it or prefer not too pay for software if they have the choice. I know there's Photoshop Elements, but it doesn't have the same appeal IMO.</p>

<p>For adobe as a company, a subscription model also makes a lot of sense. A steady income stream is always preferable to having to wait to see what percentage of users will buy an upgrade. </p>

<p>I get the 'I want to own my software' argument, but I think it is a bit misguided. The software world is moving to the software-as-a-service model. We'll probably see the day where photoshop will run completely in the browser, without anything installed on your local computer. That may or may not be a good thing, but it's happening. People will pay for online backup and photo gallery/storage services using a subscription model without complaining that they don't own the software. Why should photoshop be any different?</p>

<p>You have never 'owned' photoshop in the first place. You've owned a few optical disks and the box they came in, and you've own a license to use the software on those disks. What has changed is that the license has gone from a perpetual one to one that needs to be renewed.</p>

<p>The new pricing may not work out favorably for you, if you don't upgrade Photoshop often, or don't use a lot of other Adobe products. It works out nicely for me. I use Lightroom and Photoshop often, and had already bought them. I need Illustrator, InDesign and Acrobat once a year or so, never enough to justify the purchase. I can now use them whenever I want.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Warning: long post ahead :/</p>

<p>Hi, I though I'd post my experience, coming from the 'other side' of this story. I've been 'doing' photography for 6 or 7 years now, but not very actively. I have fairly decent gear (Canon 60d, nice set of lenses), not because I consider myself good enough to get the most out of it, but because I don't like to be limited by my equipment. I've been taking my camera to social events like birthday parties, and parents have had some of my pictures of their kids printed and framed. Nothing more fancy than that.</p>

<p>Last year, a colleague of mine, who knew I had a nice camera and had seen some shots I took at the company party, asked me to shoot his wedding. I didn't feel up to that challenge and politely declined. A few weeks later, I found out that they had decided not to hire a wedding photographer, but rather have the father of the bride (entry level dslr with kit lens, no experience, divorced from mother of the bride) shoot some pictures. I told him that in that case, I was willing to give it my best shot, being very clear that I'd never done this before and that I could well fail.</p>

<p>I spent weeks reading all books I could find on wedding photography, portraits and lighting. I bought a good flash, a reflector, tons of batteries and memory cards. I borrowed another colleague's 70-200 zoom and bought a monopod for it. I rented an identical 60d backup and synced time and settings.</p>

<p>I asked the bride for pictures and names of the important guests. We made a list of required group photos, went over preferred picture style. I went through the day planning with her and slotted in time for the pictures.</p>

<p>I spent my lunch breaks taking test pictures at the location of the formals session (the park around the castle where we worked). I took the couple for a test shoot there. It took too long and was too unstructured, some locations didn't quite work out, and I found posing them difficult. So I redid my homework. I practiced posing in front of the mirror with my wife, went through professional wedding photographers' websites for ideas. I made a list of which pictures to take where, and in what order. </p>

<p>I checked out the church, checked in with the priest, and asked another colleague to take pictures from the balcony above the entrance. I bought a wide-angle lens because space in front of the church was very cramped. I went with the couple to see the venue. </p>

<p>On the wedding day, I took my wife as an assistant. We took a clear plastic sheet, makeup, insect repellent, talcum powder, stain remover, band-aids, safety pins, duct tape and some non-greasy sunscreen. My wife laughed about it. We used all of it.</p>

<p>We were there for the entire day, from the makeup artist in the morning to the cleanup of the venue at 3am. We knew the schedule, and we became the de facto wedding planners that day. We were prepared enough to fix small problems, which helped the family relax. </p>

<p>The pictures were fine. There were some stupid mistakes, like having a traffic sign and power line in the background of the group photos, which I had to remove in post. I struggled with focusing during the first dance, because I had not practiced using the flash IR focus enough, and I underexposed a bit, requiring some post-processing to make them ok. </p>

<p>I think I did well. The bride and groom were very happy. I am proud of my pictures and think they would hold up against those of the local pro. The difference is that it took me weeks to prepare, and a few weeks of post-processing, to deliver professional quality for one single wedding. A real pro would soon be out of business like that.</p>

<p>I never asked for help here on the forum. I didn't have anything specific to ask. There are a lot of 'first wedding, help!' posts on here. I read them all. I was prepared because of all the valuable information that you put out here. It's long overdue, but THANK YOU for that. You haven't made me a professional wedding photographer, but you've allowed me to act like one :)</p>

<p>All the warnings on here were enough to make me decline the request initially. That's because most of the warnings contain a lot of information about why exactly you should not do it. 'Just don't do it' would not have been as powerful. The warnings also gave me enough information to decide that it would, in this case, be worth the shot.</p>

<p>A pro would quite possibly have done a better job. The couple couldn't afford a pro, so what they got was a lot better than nothing. I didn't charge them, I considered it my wedding present to them. If I ever get another request, I'll decline again, though :)</p>

<p>Coming from a 450D, I actually quite like the sound of the 60D's shutter. It's a bit softer and has less of a ka-chunk! to it. It seems to attract less attention, but that may just be my idea.</p>

<p>Not enough experience with 'classic' sounding cameras to compare, I'm afraid :)</p>

<p>Marcus,</p>

<p>Your post came in as I was writing mine. Yes, I absolutely agree that for me, a second 60D would be better than anything else. I've been studying very intensively since I accepted the job, and there is still much more to digest. I don't need the extra hassle of learning a new camera, so I'm glad that my shop is offering them now. Strangely, the 16-35/2.8 has disappeared though, oh well...</p>

<p>As for the lens combos: exactly what I was thinking. You're probably right that a cheap-and-cheerful zoom would suffice as a backup, but I don't have one of those, and my shop only has the standard 'good stuff' for rentals. So I'll probably go for the 24-70/2.8, which will also serve me well in church (no flash)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>It looks like my prayers have been heard. I just checked the website of my local camera shop, and they have started offering the 60D since this afternoon. This is good news, I feel much more confident about a dual-body setup with two identical bodies that I know well.</p>

<p>Nadine, your point about becoming overwhelmed by multiple bodies is well taken, though. I've got a test shoot with the couple lined up a week before the wedding. I'll make sure to have both bodies by then, and if I can't handle them there, in a lower stress situation, I'll stick to a single body at the wedding.</p>

<p>Part of the reasoning for using two bodies is as a safety measure. The 60D doesn't have a dual-card setup, so if, heavens forbid, a card would die, I'd at least have some shots with the other body. I've got plenty of cards, but I probably won't remember to swap them every 30 minutes.<br />Nadine, I was indeed planning to keep my 24-105 on most of the time, on my main body, and then keep a complementary lens on the second body on a blackrapid strap on my back (70-200 in church, 50/1.4 for the B&G formals...). I'd expect to use the 11-16 mainly for some overview shots at the church and reception.</p>

<p>One thing I'm not so sure about yet, is if 24mm on crop won't be too long for close quarters stuff, like the bride getting ready etc. That's why I was looking for the 17-55/2.8, but it looks like that will not work. I guess I could rent a 16-35 instead. Or I can let the 16mm end of my Tokina 11-16 fill that role, might be a bit limiting though. Maira, don't you feel limited at the wide end with your 24-70 on crop?</p>

<p>Also, Maira, I was intrigued by your suggestion (if I've understood correctly) to use only the 50/1.4 and the 70-200 during the reception. That sounds like a difficult combo for candid, PJ-style shots?</p>

<p>And finally, yes I do have an EX580II speedlite (with a second one rented for the backup body), and 8 sets of eneloops to go with them. I think that should get me through the day.</p>

<p><br />Thanks a lot for all the advice. </p>

<p>Hi everyone, <br>

I will be shooting my first wedding in a few weeks, as a favor for a colleague of mine. And before you ask: yes, I've considered this well, and your advice to those before me has been a tremendous help in getting prepared. A big thank you for that :)</p>

<p>I've got a 60D, and I know that I need a second body (to limit lens changes and as a backup). My initial plan was to rent a second 60D, but it looks like this will not be possible in my area. My options are 50D, 7D or 5DMkII. </p>

<p>In any case, I plan to rent this body a week in advance, so that I have time to get to know it. Still, I think it would be best to choose a backup that is as similar as possible in handling and controls to my own camera. I'll have plenty on my mind already, without having to make the mental click between wildly different bodies all the time.</p>

<p>What is your take on this? Will the 50D or 7D will be more similar? Or should I let the improved high ISO and AF performance of the 7D be the deciding factor? In that case, shouldn't the 7D become my 'main' body with the most used lens, instead of the 60D, or should I stick to the most familiar body for that? Or will I be better served by the 5D2, for even better low-light performance, and probably a better combo with my lens setup.</p>

<p>I have the following lenses: Tokina 11-16/2.8, EF 24-105/4 L, EF 50/1.4, EF 70-200/2.8 L IS (on loan). I will probably need to rent an extra lens for backup, too. I was looking for the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS, but I can't find that one for rent either. Buying is not an option, I've already spent quite a bit of money on getting prepared to do this favor well :)</p>

<p>Any advice would be greatly appreciated.<br>

Davy</p>

<p>If you plan on going 7-11 August, you may want to take into account the annual Perseid meteor shower that will be hitting us around that time. You may or may not want to capture streaks of light, as in Jeff's picture.<br>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_shower">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_shower</a></p>