mike_hollander

<p>Something like this.</p><div></div>

<p>The timing certainly appears to be perfect and the bride's expression seems to show her personality.</p>

<p>The composition could be better. The groom is hanging off to the side and the flowers are in a dead spot in the middle of the frame. Maybe this could have been taken from an point of view more to the right-hand side, revealing more of the groom and separating his head from the flowers. Or, keeping the current angle, it could have been a more closely framed three-quarters shot, showing both of the man's shoulders and cutting out most of the flowing veil.</p>

<p>There's an ongoing thread about Canon vs. Nikon entry-level DSLR at</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/beginner-photography-questions-forum/00Vur0</p>

<p>Bengt Rehn: <em>"Nikon are still alone to offer a fast high quality 35mm lens at a relatively low price."</em></p>

<p>I'm not exactly sure that that's true. The Canon EF 35 mm f/2 is practically the same price as the new Nikon lens, and Olympus has a Zuiko Di 25 mm f/2.8 Pancake, also at about the same price (the focal length is equivalent on the smaller Olympus sensor). Pentax has a good selection of fast primes, too, but they are more expensive.<a href="http://www.topshot.fi/product_info.php?pid=1768&sid=00346d98e68375892e6d8c37679c5fc2" ></a></p>

<p>One nice thing about the D5000 is the swivel screen. I have one on a point-and-shoot, and I use it all the time.</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4263465">Srikanth Kondeti</a> : <em>"But I would prefer Nikon as Most of the PRO use Nikon than Canon."</em></p>

<p>This is beside the point, but for the record, I don't think there's any basis for that claim at least as far as digital cameras are concerned. Canon had a full-frame DSLR long before Nikon and they also had a better selection of fast prime lenses for a long period, and still do to some extent. There were and are lots of pro photographers using Canon DSLRs. (I have a Nikon system myself and I've never owned a Canon SLR.)</p>

<p>The point about no autofocus motor in the D3000/5000 body may hit you sooner than you think. Some of the Nikon lenses that would be obvious inexpensive first additions to your system do not have a motor, notably the cheap f1.8 / 50 mm. It's manual focus only on D3000/5000. Of course, there are similar lenses available that have a AF motor, but they cost more.</p>

<p><em>"I would think that for interior use an accessory flash with a bounce & swivel head, like a 430EX II (and learning to use it)"</em></p>

<p>Especially if you need to get all of the 12 - 20 people into one group shot indoors. A fast lens is nice, but at a wide-open aperture it might be difficult to keep everyone in focus because of the limited depth of field. The solution probably is flash.</p>

<p>That said, the f1.8 / 50 mm is a no-brainer. It's very inexpensive and excellent for shooting people indoors.</p>

<p>Howard Vrankin: <em>"John: The later small digicams use MUCH less battery power now. You could get a couple hundred shots easily on a set with the later A series Canons."</em></p>

<p>+1</p>

<p>I have a Canon Powershot A620 (one of the swivel-screen ones), and I routinely get 250 shots on four AA rechargeables. Of course, the power consumption depends a lot on how much browsing and viewing and menu-fiddling is done on the screen, but shooting itself is not particularly power-hungry. A620 is from 2006 if I remember right, and it's 7.1 MP. The four AAs inside the grip part make it nicer to handle and a little less likely to shake, but it's big and heavy as P&S cameras go.</p>

<p><em>"I just want to take some really awesome pictures and wanted to know the best camera under 1,000 that will give me professional pics like of family and scenery thanks"</em></p>

<p>To repeat the other comments, what will give you consistently "professional pics" is a professional photographer, regardless of the camera. Short of that, you can study and practice the craft. If you are willing to spend $1000, you should probably get one of the entry-level DSLRs. As noted above, all of the major manufacturers make competitive cameras and kit lenses. The important differences tend to be personal preferences for the handling and ergonomics of one camera over another, rather than the technical specifications, and it's almost impossible for an inexperienced person to find the camera they will like best in the long term based on a quick handling in a shop. So, if you cannot borrow a DSLR for a longer period before making a decision, just pick one. As mentioned, the majors are Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Sony. The cheapest entry-level kits are all quite close to each other in price, too (around $500 including a 18-50 or thereabouts lens). Nikon and Canon put together have a very large share of the market, so either of those would be an obvious safe choice and would give you access to a large variety of lenses and other components for the system.</p>

<p>I think the common threads to most of the pictures you linked are: a limited palette of mostly desaturated and light colours, strong uncluttered compositions, and in at least the cattle ranch and Iceland series, beautiful natural light conditions. I guess if I'd have to give some sort of a recipe, it would be 'remove clutter, especially colourful clutter, and wait for nice light', but then again, that probably goes for all photography anyway.</p>

<p>If your budget really is just $200, then there's pretty much no other alternatives than the 50 mm 1.8 AF (no autofocus on D60) or maybe a used lens.</p>

<p>I got the Sigma 30 mm f1.4 AF-S before Nikon made the 35 mm f1.8 AF-S. The Nikon one is smaller, lighter, better optically and somewhat cheaper, if marginally less bright.<br>

<em><br /> </em><br>

<em>I really want to be able to shoot photos where the subject is very sharp and the background is really blurry. I guess I need to start reading up on how to start that process because I would imagine it has something to do with your settings.</em></p>

<p>The out-of-focus backgrounds are produced by limiting the depth of field (the area in focus in the depth dimension) by opening the aperture and by using longer focal lengths. The larger the aperture, the longer the focal length and the closer you focus, the smaller the depth of field is. The trouble with DX sensor cameras (D60) is that the focal lengths used are shorter than on full-frame 35 mm film or sensor, making the depth of field larger than at the equivalent focal length on full-frame. The effect is even stronger on point-and-shoot cameras, whose sensors are tiny and focal lengths very short. That said, the depth of field at 35 mm or 50 mm at f1.8 is very small and will get you blurry backgrounds (and make it difficult to focus correctly).</p>

<p><em>I understand a regular AF lens won't auto focus on my D60...can it be used if I learn to focus manually...is it difficult to learn and worth the effort?</em></p>

<p>Yes, only AF-S lenses will autofocus on D60. You can practice manual focus with your current zooms to get a feel for it. The focus ring on the 50 mm 1.8 and other prime lenses is probably a lot nicer to handle than the ones on the inexpensive AF-S zooms, which are not designed with manual focus in mind, but there's nothing to stop you from trying it now. It's not a black art (everybody did it in the bad old days), just slower than autofocus. Focusing manually on kids that are running around can be very tricky, depending on how hyperactive the kids are.</p>

<p>The more I look at that picture, the more I'd like to see a version of without the flash on the ground. It quickly starts to look like a gimmick. (Sorry, I realize that the original post was not a request for criticism).</p>

<p>Jeremiah: <em>"Mike, I guess that they could have selected throwback colors. Anyone remember Avocado colored appliances?"</em></p>

<p>Grrr, more like throw-up colours. I do remember, and peach coloured ones, too. I took another look at the website and those would have actually fit right in along with ''beige", "chocolate" and "turquoise". I suppose I'm too conditioned or something, as I find it actually difficult to look at those DSLRs. This sort of thing has been done many times with point-and-shoots and, of course, phones, but for some reason it looks completely wrong on a 'real' camera.</p>

<p>Yikes. When non-black camera is ugly, it is very ugly, but when it is colourful, it is truly horrid.</p>

<p>I have always been partial to Pentax (although I don't currently own a Pentax camera), so I hope they sell a lot of these, but those colours are gouge-your-eyes-out ugly.</p>

<p>> I thought Nvu was canned? I'll have to look again.</p>

<p>Kompozer is a fork of the Nvu code base, which is no longer being developed. Kompozer was started to keep the code base alive, but I'm not sure about how active the project actually is at the moment.</p>

<p>I use Emacs and its various modes (HTML/CSS/PHP/Python) and Firebug on Linux, but this not WYSIWYG by any means and Emacs is a... hmm... acquired taste. I have trouble writing with anything else than Emacs at this point.</p>

<p>> <em>Another member of the noble Hollander clan? Do you have a long lens fetish too...?</em></p>

<p>No idea what you're talking about, sorry. I don't know that I'm related to anyone on PN and a about 90 mm equivalent or so portrait lens is the longest I would be interested it. I'm not much of a gearhead at all, actually - I didn't even know that Samsung was collaborating with Pentax before I read this post.</p>

<p>Russell Yee: <em>"what I'm really curious about is why is there a firmware update for the lenses if the camera isn't even out yet?=)"</em></p>

<p>It's not that unusual to have updates to software products that are just released. Typically when a new product is put into wider use, bugs get discovered, and the quick way to distribute the fix is to issue an update online. The cameras may not be in shops yet, but they may have already left the manufacturing plant and the manufacturer does not want to try to update them while they are in the warehouses and being delivered. I don't know much about camera-making specifically, but this is the situation with a lot of other products, at least.</p>

<p><em>> "On a 16x20 print you can see eye detail- the people were about 25 feet away. <br /> How much more do you need?" </em></p>

<p>+1</p>

<p>I don't know of anyone making poster-size prints of wedding photos. A DX-size sensor should be good enough as far as resolution is concerned. Then there's low-light performance. I suppose you have to decide if that's worth the cost of full-frame.</p>

<p>I have the non-VR version of the cheap 18-55 kit lens, and I agree that it's surprisingly good optically. It has actually made me dissappointed in some prime lenses, which turned out to have more noticeable distortions.</p>

<p>Hal B: <em>"on American Idol (I imagine you've heard of it? Britain's Got Talent?)"</em></p>

<p>Idol is originally a British format. The closest equivalent in UK is currently The X Factor, which Simon Cowell is about to export to the US.</p>

<p>I suppose the relevant difference between the US and most of Europe is the culture around the judicial system. Most places in Europe don't have quite the level of media circus around high-profile trials, attorneys are banned from soliciting (no ambulance-chasing etc.), I imagine a retired judge would be looked down upon if he were to do what Judge Joe does on television, etc. Most of the rest of reality TV is the same, with the same licensed formats.</p>

<p>Everyone's talking and no-one's listening. I suppose it's good for the show. The guy has worked as a real judge... a little disturbing.</p>

<p>Hey, maybe this should be the format for PN criticism threads. Get an inquisition on the bench in front of a camera to bark comments at the candidate. Better than Idol.</p>

<p>I understand that it's not allowed to post links to other photographer's sites? I just happened to see a site of one wedding photographer in the Caribbean whose packages ranged from $1900 to $4900 and the portfolio showed a handful of snapshot-quality pictures. I got the impression that this person had been in business for at least a couple of years, although based on the size of the portfolio, it looked as if he may have not done very much. Anyway, it's not particularly difficult to find bad portfolios on the net from people who cite prices of over $1500.</p>

<p>Based on some googling, the Sears body probably has a Pentax K mount. The lenses are still usable on current Pentax DSLRs. See e.g. this forum post</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/pentax-camera-forum/00VsPM</p>

<p>Pentax and Nikon have taken much better care of lens compatibility than Canon over the years, but I'm not so sure that it matters a whole lot. The large manufacturers have put so much effort into the current zooms that they are now often optically better than twenty or thirty-year-old primes (or even current primes, if the design is old). Of course, if the old prime is fast and free and you don't mind manual focusing, why not use it.</p>

<p>> And if a person is proficient enough in his/her craft to not use the advantages that RAW offers, then why bother.</p>

<p>I have a feeling that this cuts both ways. Not everyone is capable of taking advantage of RAW and setting up good post-processing workflows.</p>

<p>> The exceptions to that, are my beloved Leica M2, M4, M6, III and IIIg bodies. ;-)</p>

<p>I read this thread waiting for Leicas to pop up, and almost got to the end with no sign of them, but sure enough, there they are. Unfortunately the M9 is very far from my price range, and the recent 'cheap' alternatives don't seem that great yet.</p>

<p>I have a D40 and it's certainly light enough to be carried around for traveling etc., but it's still a pretty big lump compared to a rangefinder.</p>

<p>Overall, I think it's a very good job. I liked the pictures of the ceremony 'from above'. It's an unusual angle and captures the location beautifully.</p>

<p>For some reason, the first association to the hanging dress picture in my mind was execution by hanging. There's something disturbing about it hanging from the two thin straps dead center in the frame. This is probably just my dysfunctional mind at work, but maybe something a little less geometric would look more romantic.</p>

<p>The picture of the bride in her boots, sitting with her legs open and holding the flowers in between her legs is not exactly pretty and seems to suggest something that was not intended. Or maybe it was done on purpose for fun and I'm being puritanical?</p>

<p>In the two pictures of the groom standing next to the minister, waiting for the bride, the little boy's head is cut in half at the bottom of the frame. It looks pretty bad. There seems to have been a lot of room for a better composition, but of course I don't know what else would have come into the frame if the boy's head and shoulders were included.</p>

<p>@Shawn</p>

<p>I think it was a very good idea to remove the link to your blog when you revised your website. The explanations of the dreams you'd had the night before etc. were a bit... much for a business site.</p>

<p>The gallery looks much better. People like to dismiss Flickr, but I think their gallery/slideshow thing actually works a lot better than many of the Flash galleries on pro photographers' sites.</p>

<p>@<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=151237">G. Raychaudhuri</a> <br /> "We went to the moon (and more importantly returned safely) 40 years ago with an on board mainframe whose power was probably less than the laptop most of us carry - but we did it. However, we did prepare to do this."</p>

<p>This is completely off-topic, sorry. You're rather overestimating the 1960's computers. The typical laptop of today is likely more powerful than any single computer anywhere in 1969. The pocket calculators and cell phones of today are a lot more powerful than the Apollo flight computer was (which certainly wasn't what computer people understand by the term 'mainframe'). In fact, even the Space Shuttle was stuck with a computer design from 1970's for a shockingly long time. I think they flew for all of the 90's with a flight computer that had much less computing power than any PC of the day.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Ah, the photos are on Flickr at a decent resolution. His website does have a link to the Flickr account. The small number of wedding pictures are actually not too bad, but then there's a portrait session with a girl, and the posing and composition seem to be off in every shot.</p>

<p>It's a great shot. I don't think the DoF is too thin, but ideally it could be a little further back. I.e. get all of the bride's face in focus and lose some of the fingers. Of course, it's very difficult to control it at f1.8 in a moving situation like that (I like doing things like this myself (I've got a f1.4 lens), but with my lack of experience it's pretty much completely up to luck what ends up being in focus). I think the woman behind her would be very distracting if she was any less blurred.</p>