ed_h.1

<p>Hi All. Thanks for the input.<br>

@Williams. Regarding your question, they charge cheap hence they don't deal with the problem. They use B&W maybe but again, I don't really call that a solution, because the entire wedding area is under a tent and an entire B&W album is just silly. Quite unacceptable in my book since they get paid after all.</p>

<p>As a compilation of Laur, Ian, Ohara and Williams, there are my new thoughts:</p>

<p>Sol.1<br>

I tend to insist on off camera solutions whenever I could, but I know its a lot of fiddling. But preserving ambient light for mood is out of the question here so flash it is. Strong gelled flash maybe, I will need to try to simulate this and see the results, I'm thinking the flash would need more color density that might just mean a wink to intensify what ever color gel I put on and match it with WB adjustments on camera, which brings me to the question, with a Red scene which WB would I be looking at? A very high K Blue compensation perhaps?<br>

I try to minimize color related POST work if I can help it.</p>

<p>Sol.2<br>

Daylight flash seems more practical but I think it also means higher maybe even 1/1 power to over power traces of ambient on my main subjects (the couple). But to simply kill ambient lights means higher shutter speeds smaller aperture which would mostly mean HSS and therefore mean MANY flash strobes required to deal with the f/ loss. Am I sounding right here?</p>

<p>Hi Guys, thanks for the time. Question and situation is as listed below and the link to the image in question is --> <a href="http://i1237.photobucket.com/albums/ff467/tabubu2010/image.jpg">here</a><br>

<strong>Cultural Background:</strong> Asian weddings do not "fully" enjoy B&W pictures simply because in Asia B&W is the "theme" for funerals, so it's really a sensitive topic when approached by a photographer, of course most people today still accept a B&W picture if they appear sensible enough or if it is simply an amazing take.<br>

<strong><br /></strong><br>

<strong>Problem:</strong> An economic solution to for some couples could mean to hold a wedding a in place with tents (red, yellow, blue or stripes of any mixture of color) and under broad daylight. Once these daylights actually pass through these translucent tents (they act like dense color filters) and hit skin tones of any type, it's a color nightmare. <br>

<strong><br /></strong><br>

<strong>Question: </strong>Since B&W is only a last stand solution for a color demanding wedding culture, is there a sensible practical solution for such problems? Keep in mind that this is not just a single row of one colored tent that is translucent, but a like a row of disco lights in a short catwalk, as the couple walks through them to greet guest for EACH (again, a cultural must) table, whatever solution implied would HAVE to vary under each different set of tents.</p>

<p><strong>My thoughts: </strong>I'm sure everyone knows the simple notion that when a subject is hit with so much color density, there is no color "correction" the subject IS simply lit with that color, red is red. I thought about solutions with filter lenses like the case of using 30 Magenta for fluorescent dominated fields, but it still doesn't seem possible. I really couldn't imagine a solution so here I am. Please, any sensible advice would do. Maybe there isn't a solution but in that case I'm sure it would help to let a beginner like me know why there isn't one.<br>

Again, thanks so much for reading and helping out!</p>

<p>@WW<br>

errr ok...you win Mr. Frequent poster...except using sayings don't cover your poor typing...or is it your English lol~</p>

<p>@WW<br>

Yea jus wouldn't be fair if you wrote a chunk then I squirt out a short thanks. Bugs me. Thx again.</p>

<p>I really want to express my gratitude to you all. But I don't want to write an essay so after I did some thinking, I'll summarize the ideas and try my best to mention who's point lead to which decision - not in an orderly fashion though (pretty much like my life)</p>

<p><strong>Clarifications:</strong><br /> By wedding cases I refer to work that I do. I don't charge, I was the Hulk of my wife - the green man with a chunky camera told to shoot her interactions with her clients (B&G) as the wedding planner and her performance on stage as hostess. Green as in initially having no idea how to turn a DSLR on. That was 6 cases ago.</p>

<p><strong>Read this part if you really want to:</strong><br /> To clarify even more, I <em>was</em> stationed in Taiwan, and weddings there are (still is) a bit...different, than what most of you all have in mind, and if I show you what <em>wedding</em> <em>photographers</em> do there, most of you will probably have <a href="http://i1237.photobucket.com/albums/ff467/tabubu2010/1938265471.jpg">nightmares</a>. Of course I'm sure there are those who are good, most just aren't but they charge cheap. So who am I to say right from wrong? I just think cheap doesn't have to mean you can shoot like you-know-what because your clients don't have the eye to tell or care. You get paid after all.</p>

<p><strong>Current status:</strong><br /> Software Engineer. It ticks me to tell my wife I've seen far better pictures taken and that it doesn't take a $1000/hour wedding photographer or Joe McNally himself here to do it and then get replied "Who cares? They charge cheap. It's the style here, clients have no idea what is a <em>good</em> picture."<br /> It's been more than a year since I first touched my 550d, wasn't even my choice, just following orders here. After a year of shooting with Canon (all ambient no flash) and later on 6 months of studying photography (all read no touch very unfortunately), I decided to go for Nikon instead. Hence my current updated budget:</p>

<p><strong>Flash: SB900, SB800</strong><br /> ref:WW,Rick,John,Nadine<br /> <strong>Modifiers: Softbox, C Stand Complete, Umbrella, Discs, Gels</strong><br /> ref: discussed later<br /> <strong>Body: D300s (</strong>No Back up? Discussed later.)<br /> ref: WW,Rick,Mark<br /> <strong>Lenses: Tokina 11-16mm f2.8, 17-55mm DX f2.8, <strong>80-200mm F2.8 </strong></strong><br /> ref:WW,Rick,<br /> Comes down to roughly: <strong>$5800 USD</strong><br /> <strong><br /></strong><br /> <strong>What do I want?</strong><br /> To use this gear for practicing and learning, for an undetermined amount of time (I do have a job after all), if it survives till the day I'm qualified for charging people, update it when deemed stupid not to.</p>

<p><strong>You need a C-Stand to practice!?</strong><br /> <em></em>It's durable, it's part of what I want to learn to use properly, and it lasts, not too expensive either (depends on your market of course). I can use it on field when needed later on, might as well have one now. I'm very into learning how to use light modifiers properly, I believe my market will like its effect (yes, never seen one used, most I've seen used is an Umbrella and Sto-Fen, period), hence I had to include reflector and softbox.</p>

<p><strong>@Mark</strong><br /> Yes I totally agree to your last sentence (and the ones before too). It's what I'll work on as well.</p>

<p><strong>Decision?</strong><br /> This is the part where you will all try to give me a slow death:</p>

<ul>

<li><strong><strong><strong><strong>Flash: 580 + SC cord</strong></strong></strong></strong></li>

<li><strong><strong>Body: CANON 550d (current)</strong></strong></li>

<li><strong>Lenses: Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 (current), Tokina 11-16mm F2.8</strong></li>

<li><strong><strong>Modifiers: Softbox, C Stand Complete, Umbrella, Discs, Gels</strong></strong></li>

</ul>

<p>Those that I do not own adds up to: $1500 with another 1k for Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 in the future.</p>

<p><strong>WTH?</strong><br /> After a discussion with family, this was a comment I got, "Photography is not a profession, its a rich hobby, and you're not Bill Gates." Shall I be enraged or discouraged? You decide. As for me I decided to prove them wrong, through practice then through my clients. As you all know, it's a long battle - for me at least. And plus I don't need 7k of gear to prove photography is a profession. Yes, this does mean I'm stuck with Canon until...forever?<br /> ref: ALL + John<br /> For the record, I earned every penny of that 7k alone :)<br /> Love you all!</p>

<p>@Dave<br>

Yep, I'll rent out that second due to cost issue, just not until I'm out in the field. Point highly taken though. The stands and booms are gonna have to live with me though too damn lazy to keep renting them all but the flashes I'm still indecisive, I keep thinking of renting them for practices and buy them later if I really can afford them without compromise.<br>

@John<br>

Please don't kill me. Story is: wife bought canon, wife want hulk to shoot, hulk shoot, hulk stupid, hulk study, hulk like nikon, hulk want practice, hulk save nikon money.<br>

And I'm shooting with a 24-70mm f2.8 (sigma), 50mm f1.8, 17-50mm kit, NO FLASH (like I said pls don't kill me). Yeah I know, a long way to go from a wedding photog it's why its my entry kit, more like my <em>practice</em> kit. Hulk like practice...</p>

<p>@Jos<br>

Yep. That would be in my "Other" list once I'm actually charging for anything. I'll most likely rent it each time as a starter. But not until I'm in the market. PERFECT point though thanks!<br>

@Vail<br>

OMG your'e right (really deserve a slap on my forehead), no one said anything about it HAVING to be a 24-70mm (for me, at the moment that is). Definitely checking out my options there. THX!<br>

@Rob<br>

Hmm must be my poor typing, shoulda used a semi colon, I meant "practice what I've learned, build a portfolio" for 1 year at least <em>then</em> enter the market<em>. </em>Hope this clears up the confusion for everyone. Oh right, that would be a "no" just to clearly answer your question :)</p>

<p>Hi, thanks for reading, my question is as below. I included a brief description of my situation as well, just so people can get an idea of what I'm facing and trying to accomplish.<br>

Me:<br>

I'm not <em>new</em> to photography but of course not anywhere near a veteran. I perform journalistic photography for my wife who is a hostess and a wedding planner. I've taken part in 6 wedding cases so I know enough of what I lack as least - both in skill and gear. I'm looking to start honing my skills for wedding photography instead (typical yeah).<br>

Here's my planned budget and the breakdown(all USD):</p>

<ol>

<li>Nikon D700 Body = $2300</li>

<li>Speedlight SB-900 x 3 = approx $1390</li>

<li>Stands, Booms, Light Shapers Estimate = $800</li>

<li>Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 AT-X PRO FX = $870</li>

<li>AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor ED 70-200mm f/2.8G IF *used FIRST version* = $1500</li>

</ol>

<p>This is around a 7k budget not including things like SC cords and Pocket Wizards. What I'm greatly doubting is my foregoing of the 28-70mm range. I notice I rarely dwell in the region when working. But I fear of making a great mistake, but budget is the issue and I really think the 70-200mm would help me more than an expensive 28-70mm lens, since I'm doing weddings and studios (only). <br>

I need a valid compromise, and I really couldn't think of a better place to bounce my ideas around than here (thanks again). Even went for Tokina instead of all Nikon - taking the suggestion of "the best lens is the one you have."<br>

I've read enough about photography to understand what people can throw at me, what I lack is real experience, I'm as green as you can call a photog, but a nerd at least in most of its principles. Again, I'm aiming to have an <em>entry</em> level gear just so I can at least practice what I've learned, build a portfolio then enter the market, a 1 year plan at least, after which I would probably need other gears as well.<br>

Question than is: is my selection a valid one or do I need to get a new list...?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>@Hector<br>

Thanks! Your comment clears up a lot of my doubts. I've been wondering if super steady hands were a must have for non IS users who don't use tripods, since plenty of L lenses there aren't for telephoto don't come with IS - I mean, they MUST need to move around with it some time, so somehow they managed</p>

<p>@Brett<br>

Yup I've also thought about that you said about how within such a focal range that IS wouldn't be that much of a big difference anways, nice of you to confirm this, thanks!</p>

<p>@James<br>

Alrighty, non VC is it then. I can understand how it ultimately ends up with personal techniques then preferences, plus there's always a first step in trying, this will be mine<br>

I'll just need to work on a steady set of hands. saying of which I'm hoping the extra weight from the battery grip not only ease my portrait taking but also add to the stablility of the body when i press the shutter during handheld shots - much like a heavier mouse for a gamer who needs accuracy and doesn't have a set of fingers with ninja touch agility....I wonder this thought makes any sense?</p>

<p>Hi Guys<br /> It took me awhile to decide how to categorize my question since it's also very related to lens quality, Wedding photography and lens technology. I lastly decided to categorize it on based on my status in photography - beginner.</p>

<p><strong>The Question</strong><br /> For those who hate reading long questions these are the main ones :)<br /> 1. Does experience and skill eliminate the need for image stabilizing technology assuming one is willing to devote time to practice?<br /> 2. Is it the difference between the 2 Tamron Lenses enough to pick 1 out of the 2 for better image quality? Or just go for VC since its always a plus and the difference in quality is not visible to the naked eye.</p>

<p><strong>Details</strong><br>

So here goes - My wife's a wedding planner. So I took on the habit of helping her take photo records of the wedding events she help manage. Are my photography requirements related to Weddings - yes, always. My skills - I'm sure you can image.<br /> I'm trying to decide which lens to suite me more, out of 2 from Tamron:<br /> <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/289-tamron-af-17-50mm-f28-sp-xr-di-ii-ld-aspherical-if-canon-test-report--review?start=1">Tamron 17-5mm F2.8 DI II</a><br /> <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/482-tamron_1750_28vc_canon?start=1">Tamron 17-5mm F2.8 DI II VC</a><br /> other reviews I reference to include <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=400&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=679&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0">The-Digital-Picture</a> for ISO12233 crops</p>

<p>Firstly I picked Tamron because its a 'lesser' version of the more ideal (to me) Canon 17-55mm F2.8 IS USM lens and therefore more affordable. Secondly, it may be the lesser competitor but it ain't bad either according the many reviews I've read through. Thirdly, I feel its a waste for someone like me without enough skill to use nice and expensive lenses. Hopefully I'll be worthy of using even better lenses someday.</p>

<p>Here's the catch, after comparing the VC and NON-VC version of them sets from Tamron, it appears clear to me the NON-VC really does have better optical quality than the VC one - but VC is VC. Here are the major factors that concern me:<br /> 1. Huge difference in terms of Sharpness between Center and Border for the VC version across all Focal Lengths. I.E. It's center sharpness even beats canon's at many focal length and/or apertures (according to data from <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/482-tamron_1750_28vc_canon?start=1">photozone</a> but its ALL border and extreme is worse than the cheaper NON-VC and we can forget about Canon.<br /> 2. ISO12233 crops show generally softer results on the VC, Chromatic Abberation is also more obvious<br /> 3. Less Vignetting in the NON-VC than the VC.</p>

<p>Hence what I mean by better optical quality of the NON-VC over the newer VC lens. Some of you probably have an even better idea of why its better (or not?).</p>

<p><strong>Current Gear and Workspace</strong><br /> I have a free-shaky Takara tripod and a Canon 550D/Rebel T2i casual DSLR w/ Kit lens and a Canon 50mm f1.8 plastic lens. Not planning on buying a new tripod - yet. But what I do plan to buy together with a new lens is a E8 battery grip, I take people often and portraits always my first choice. Finally a 430EX II flash. Still wondering about what kind of bouncer/diffuser.</p>

<p>I'm very very pick in terms of composition so even if I'm not doing a real wedding photographer's job, I always try my best to take good pictures with creative compositions, following principles and such...it's a serious hobby for me and yes I know my gears are real beginner-toys but for me it's a start :P</p>

<p>I always need to walk around, rarely have time to setup tripods and prefer people-doing-what-they-do pictures, I don't often take look-here-and-smile ones, to me it's not natural enough. I always try to stay out of the way of the hired photography guys with the real big <strong>L </strong>guns (gosh they always make me feel puny). Hence you can image what time of situations I often face when taking pictures. Does experience and skill eliminate the need for image stabilizing technology assuming one is willing to devote time to practice? Is it the difference between the 2 Tamron Lenses enough to pick 1 out of the 2 for better image quality? Or just go for VC since its always a plus and the difference in quality is not visible to the naked eye.</p>

<p>It's a pain, to consciously make inexperienced decisions. I need some opinion guys - HELP~!</p>

<p> </p>