matttonkin

<p><img src="https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/11401581_700131496783235_4915615605102551954_n.jpg?oh=ea71bc1f5505139730b0842a4f629bff&oe=55F005F1" alt="" width="960" height="640" /><br>

A bridal shot from a yacht wedding in Toronto Harbour from the weekend. It was a late afternoon shot with the sun still pretty high in the sky but a beautiful backdrop.</p>

<p>I have a fotopro C5I and functionality wise I think it is a great deal. Normal price they usually sit between $150-$220. They come in a variety of colours usually the ugly ones end up on sale for pretty cheap but if you don't care about aesthetics too much that can actually make it more of a bargain. I have had a 400mm Lens attached without it feeling unstable. It isn't as tall as some tri-pods I've used but I'm 6'3 and I can have the camera at close to eye level with only slight stabilization sacrifice.<br>

http://www.fotopro.com/en/?page_id=1056</p>

<p>The 6D won't take CF cards it uses SD so keep that in mind. Like others said equipment wise extra cards is the main thing you'd need. Some people like having large cards to avoid switching, I prefer having a ton of smaller cards so that if (knock on wood) one ever craps out on me I lose the least amount of images I can.<br>

Edit: The best solution to that would be the 5D Mark iii and using a CF and SD card simultaneously.</p>

<p>You probably never need all of them at the same time. At least I can't think of a situation. The three different filters all serve different purposes. The UV filter is largely used as a protective element, Polarizing filters help to cut the amount of reflection from reflective surfaces and also boosts contrasts and colours somewhat. Neutral density(ND) filters evenly cut the amount of light reaching the sensor, usually used when one wants to have a slow shutter speed without using an extremely small aperture, such as when there is just way to much light to use a slow shutter. I'm sure others can give better examples of uses for the filters I don't use filters too often myself. Basically to answer your question I would recommend only using one at a time.</p>

<p>Hi Jeff, <br>

Not sure if you are still looking but I will throw my hat in the ring. I'm based out of Guelph but I lived in Hamilton for 3 years. You can look at some of my stuff on my Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/MattTonkinPhotography or at tonkin.ca </p>

 

<p>I find it better to not talk to people right before you take their picture at events, rather capturing them when they don't know you are, natural shots look much better. Since you like macro and landscape and you say it isn't serious work I would say you approach it like you would your landscapes, a bit more methodical. I would first pick a subject, say a group of people. Wander around a bit with this group in mind until you find a nice vantage point and the compose your shot. After you have it the way you want just wait until the perfect moment, probably when everyone laughs or has nice natural smiles. A longer lens might help you stay back a bit and be less noticeable so people don't feel compelled to turn and say cheese when you take a shot of them. <a href="/photo/16539434">Here is an example: </a> In this shot I knew I wanted someones reaction to the bride but I didn't know who so I got myself in position and waited until her sister gave me a good reaction. Now with all this said of course working on your ability to socialize with strangers will help you feel comfortable and help your shooting as well.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Take a look at the the fotopro c5i series, I have one works great and is sturdy and can be used as a monopod as well. http://www.fotopro.com/en/?page_id=1056 Several places offer it. </p>

<p>As others have said the photographer has likely just fallen behind slightly. Running a week behind is certainly frustrating but remember the photographer may be stressed trying to polish off some great photos for you. I don't know why you seem to think that the photographer is going to try to hold your photos hostage when he has done nothing at all to suggest that is the case. People miss deadlines in every industry and photography is not different. You certainly have the right to ask for an idea of when to expect the photos but I think you should try to avoid thinking that the photographer is trying to extort additional money from you, this could offend a photographer whose only crime is being a week late. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>While it doesn't say this in the contract, the intent was for my spouse and i to choose which photos to edit and process, what to put in albums , what to enlarge... -- not the photographer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You kind of contradict yourself by saying that the contract said all photos and no editing and then this. If it didn't say in the contract how do you expect the photographer to know that this was your intention. As others have said there are many photographers (I count myself among them) that avoid giving un-processed photos to clients to view because it is an incomplete reflection of their work. He probably wouldn't want to give you unprocessed photos because you may share photos that he feels are a poor reflection of his work. <br>

Anyway in conclusion I think you should just contact the photographer in whatever way you are comfortable and say that you are really hoping to have them soon. Gently remind him that the timeline stipulated in the contract has passed. However I would refrain from getting worried that the photographer is attempting to ransom your photos.</p>

<p>What about a colour that complements the colour/theme of the wedding, if there is one.</p>

<p>Hi Gary,<br /> If you are doing this through the Image Size... option uncheck the box that says resample image. This will keep the amount of pixels the same while changing the listed size. In reality this isn't really changing anything at all except a part in the meta-data that records physical dimensions. It isn't really that necessary, and in fact does nothing to change the digital file and only comes into play when printing, but even then not that much. On the other hand if you want a smaller file size there isn't much to be done that won't loose quality in some way by throwing away pixels or compressing the jpg file and leaving some artifacts. So I guess I should ask the question, Why do you want these images smaller and what is the final use for them?</p>

<p>Hi Bob,<br /> If you go here http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d5200/10 there is one example chart for jpg and one for RAW you can change which camera's you compare and looking at the 60d next to the d5200 I would say the d5200 does have a slight edge, but whether it is enough to change a whole system is up to you. I also looked at the 5D mark iii, D800 and 6D and would say they all have better noise control than the d5200.<br>

Edit: I have to agree with Wouter's comment I use a 60d and have not had any problem using photos up to 1600 or even more.</p>

<p>Hi Cher,<br /> Some example pictures would be great to see so we have something to judge the noise. I shoot with a 60d as well and, so long as I don't need to push the exposure a whole lot in post I find 1600 fine, even 3200 occasionally. I just slightly reduce noise in Lightroom but not much. I have a feeling Nico might be right about the couples intentions.<br /> <a href="/photo/17433835&size=lg">This shot</a> was ISO 2000 and i put luminous noise reduction in Lightroom to around 25. Some noise but doesn't bother me or the bride at all. Is this similar to the amount of noise in your shots? If so then you are not at fault.</p>

<p>Keith while there may be some excellent responses here I don't think too many people on here are qualified to practice law in your jurisdiction. So I would say, contact a lawyer.</p>

<p>Chris I think Rick means that if for some reason the refurb did end up needing a repair, the repair would likely be less than $800 therefore you are still spending less in the long run over buying new.</p>

<p>Hi Adrian, I have the sigma 17-50 2.8 OS and use it as one of my main lenses. With my copy at least I have been very impressed with it. It is sharp throughout the range, though it can be a little soft wide open stopping down even 1/3 of a stop for me helps. I would recommend the lens and haven't found any distortion or sharpness problems in real world situations. Here are a couple of recent shots from the lens, one at the wide end and one on the long end.<br /> http://www.photo.net/photo/17433834<br /> http://www.photo.net/photo/17433835</p>

<p>edit - I should add I use it on a 60D so the same sensor as your 7D</p>

<p>Don't think there is a definitive answer. Phill, if I am shooting sports and need to get photos quickly to someone else for one reason or the other I may shoot both. The reason is so that I can quickly offload a jpg file to them without any post while also having a RAW file if I wish to do some editing later on.</p>

<p>This kind of thread has popped up quite a bit lately. Basically the camera itself has nothing to do with dpi because the camera only thinks in total pixels. DPI settings are entirely related to photoshop (or whatever program is used) and only need to be considered when printing. I'm sure there is probably a photoshop setting so that the default dpi when opening a photo is 240 or whatever but I've never really bothered because I don't bother with dpi for my print workflow unless I am working with a low res image and worried about how large I can make it without it looking horrible.</p>

<p>Rob is right the dpi value is meaningless in terms of the resolution of the camera. This thread way on a similar topic a few days ago: <a href="/beginner-photography-questions-forum/00bXZR?unified_p=1">http://www.photo.net/beginner-photography-questions-forum/00bXZR?unified_p=1</a></p>

 

<p>Rob is right the dpi value is meaningless in terms of the resolution of the camera. This thread way on a similar topic a few days ago: <a href="/beginner-photography-questions-forum/00bXZR?unified_p=1">http://www.photo.net/beginner-photography-questions-forum/00bXZR?unified_p=1</a></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>for example 240 ppi at 23" x 15" is the image size I currently have but I want to print a large print at say 48" x 32" how do I do that without compromising the quality?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hi Natalie, since you are already using the highest quality settings there is nothing you can do in camera. If you want a 48"X32" image to be printed at 300 dpi it is possible in photoshop in the image size option by checking the resample image box. BUT..... you don't need to do this. that would result in a 14400 X 9600 pixel image or 138MP. Absolutely HUGE. since you will be viewing a 48X32 image from quite a ways further than say an 8X10 you do not need as hi resolution because the human eye will not discern the difference from further away. This relates to Bob's example of the billboard. <br>

I learnt that the 300ppi mark should be used at around magazine reading distance, and as the viewing distance gets further away you can drop the ppi. So with your 5520X3600 pixel image you can print at 48X32 at around 115ppi. That may or may not be sufficient depending on the viewing distance.</p>

<p>You should know that if you really feel you need the extra pixels doing the photoshop resize won't actually add more detail, it will just add pixels based on an (though admittedly very good) algorithm.</p>

<p>Hi Natalie,<br>

Its a question that a lot of people have. You really only need to worry about ppi when you are printing and then yes you would want images around the 240-300 ppi mark. No matter what the ppi is set at the total pixel dimensions will be the same. So say you have an image with 2400X3000 pixels, set to 300 ppi you will have an 8X10 inch image. Say it was set to 100 ppi you would have a 24X30 inch image. Even though the sizes are different the total number of pixels does not change. The photoshop usually opens jpgs as 72 dpi because this is approximately the pixel density on the average screen. You will notice if you change the dimensions or ppi in the <em>image size...</em> option of photoshop and have <em>resample image</em> left unchecked then you will not be able to change the total number of pixels in the image. <br>

Basically you probably don't need to worry about making it 300 ppi when sending clients photos to print because if they send away to get prints the printer will have their own workflow to ensure optimal ppi for printing and most home printers are sophisticated enough to automatically adjust ppi. I hope that explains it a little bit. Someone else may be able to put my thoughts in better words.</p>

<p>Focal length is a property of the lens and not the sensor that it is being mounted to, therefore the focal length of the lens is the same regardless of what camera it is mounted on. They say equivalent because it would have a similar angle of view as an 88-400mm lens on a 35mm camera, but physically it is still a 55-250. As for would it cover full frame, no it would only project a circle partially covering the frame. Also Canon makes their EF-S lenses so that they won't mount to full frame so trying to mount it to a 6D could cause damage and is not recommended.</p>

<p>Try directing her to the first paragraph of this page of dpreview. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1dmarkIV/4 <br /> I've don't own the camera but it says here that they don't light up unless selected, so it seems like normal behaviour. I do use a 1D mark III on occasion and it acts in a similar way, if they all lit up all the time it would be quite distracting.</p>

<p>In my personal experience if there is going to be a manufacturers defect they usually present themselves in the first year, and if they don't most of the fixes are less expensive than the warranty costs to extend it. So I personally don't go for extended warranties, makes you wish Canon had warranties like Tamron does.</p>