alex_bruce

<p>Hi Everyone,</p>

<p>The short version of my question is, "What is a good lens for food photography on a full frame body?" I used to shoot with a Rebel and using the Rebel, getting tight shots was simple because of the magnification I was getting from the crop sensor. I recently upgraded to a 6D (wonderful camera by the way) and realized I’m not able to fill the frame as much as I would like as my minimum focus distances are too great, and I lost the magnification I was getting from the crop sensor. The lenses I have now are the 70 – 200mm f/4 and the 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5.</p>

<p>Should I consider getting a macro lens, or are there other lenses with very short minimum focus distances that would work? To give you a rough idea of the type of food photography I’m aiming for, I attached an example of a shot I got with my Rebel before I lost the magnification of the crop sensor. I should mention I'm renting Canon's 100mm f/2.8 macro lens this weekend from Calumet to see how that does.</p>

<p><img src="http://image12.photobiz.com/6048/36_20121119203528_462822_medium.jpg" alt="" width="679" height="490" /></p>

<p>Thanks Everyone!</p>

<p>Thanks everyone for some fantastic responses and options! </p>

<p>Will – Thanks for this summary. As you might be able to tell I’m a photo student and a total rookie with weddings but it was great reading your response because in essence you validated what I had already suspected. My hope is that as I would be using the speedlite just as fill, my 430EX II would be have enough power to get the job done fairly easily. As for the shade of the church, because it will be mid day the church itself won’t cast much of a shadow. I shouted the location at mid day and the shade of the church was minimal and the only option I’d have if I wanted to use it was to put my subjects against the church’s stucco wall…yuck!</p>

<p>Ian – Yes, especially because the assistant is ,my 5’3” wife! Haha! A potential alternative though would be to get a smaller scrim for the bride and groom shots and do the group shots with their back to the sun using flash as fill.</p>

<p>John – Thanks for your suggestion; I did a test shoot with my wife and tried this idea of having a reflector either on the ground or propped up by a light stand. The problem I had was because the light from the reflector originated from a low vantage point the light it reflected created unnatural and kind of weird lighting patterns…similar to the flashlight under the chin move.</p>

<p>Bob –I like your DIY solution, however it’s a small wedding party and I doubt I’d have enough people to wield my homemade scrim. I like that idea though! Hey, I see you’re in LA…I’m on Orange County, you can come hold by the wedding and be one of the scrim “pole bearers”! Haha!</p>

<p>Dave – the Sunbounce stuff looks awesome, however way out of my price range for the time being.</p>

<p>Hi Everyone!</p>

<p>I have a quick question about outdoor light diffusion options for an upcoming wedding I’m shooting. The wedding is taking place in a church on the beach. The lighting inside the church is fine, no issues there. The issue I am having is with the outdoor portraits after the wedding. The church won’t let me shoot inside the church after the wedding so that option is out. The primary issue is the post-ceremony portraits that will take place outdoors. There is NO shade nearby AT ALL! I scouted the location and it’s right on the beach so there just aren’t any trees nearby or really anything that provides shade. The shoot will be taking place mid-day on a fairly sunny day so my primary concern is being able to shoot the post-ceremony portraits outdoors and somehow eliminating the super-harsh shadows that will spear naturally mid-day on a sunny day. </p>

<p>So far my ideas are, if I can position everyone accordingly I could have the sun to the back of my subjects and use my speedlite for a little fill. As far as I can see now, this will be my go-to option, however there are a few situations where I will NOT be able to have the sun behind my subjects. I was thinking that maybe I should get a large scrim that my assistant could hold over everyone to diffuse the harsh sun; does this sound like a good idea? Can anyone recommend a product that will work for this purpose? If getting a scrim large enough to work with group shots isn’t a doable, I think I can position all the larger group shots with their back to the sun using my speedlite as fill, and move to the location where the sun will <strong>not</strong> be at my subject’s backs for the shots of just the bride and groom, so I would require a much smaller scrim. What does everyone think, are these good ideas and do you have any products you can recommend? I’m also a photo student so money is a consideration and I’d like to keep the cost for this at or below $200. Oh, and I should mention this is taking place on public property so I will likely get a hard time for anything that requires a stand.<br>

Thanks everyone for your input!</p>

 

<p>I completely agree with you that the camera makers bear much of the responsibility for this problem, but to me that's beside the point. I pay the camera makers to make cameras and adobe to make image manipulation software so ultimately the responsibility is Adobe’s to make their product work <strong>properly</strong>.</p>

<p>Yes I can convert to DNG but this is another step I don’t want to have to take. I can’t see the images before I convert them so I have to convert everything and go from there which isn’t the end of the world but it is an extra step. You are right that this is a doable workaround but my point is more on the principle that if I pay $600 for software, I want it to work. I don’t want to have to use workarounds and I don’t think I should have to.</p>

<p>I'm not suggesting Adobe provide this support for all of their legacy products, simply 1 version older than whatever is current. Your point about the 18month photoshop life-cycle assumes that someone actually buys the newest version of Photoshop as soon as it comes out which is frequently not the case. My point is I could buy the most current version of photoshop 12 months into the 18 month cycle. 6 months later a new version of photoshop comes out and I buy a new camera. Suddenly my 6 month old version of photoshop isn’t working as intended and I either need to buy the new version or work with DNG files which I may not want to do. What if it was even worse and I bought a new version of photoshop 16 months into the 18 month cycle and then 3 months later I get a new camera and a new version of photoshop comes out? I have photoshop for 3 months until it can’t operate properly?</p>

<p>You also make a point about it costing Adobe money to reverse engineer the new proprietary raw file formats. What about this as a solution? If I have an old version of photoshop and a new proprietary raw file type comes out, Adobe can <strong>sell</strong> me an update that allows me to use the new raw files. I would happily pay for something like that; it's not that I don't see value in Adobe's engineering it's that I don't want to buy a whole new version of photoshop just for this reason.<br /> The fact that Adobe doesn't offer a solution like this, as JDM pointed out earlier, makes it look like they are intentionally taking advantage of their customers who happen to be in this situation.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>what happens if your 6D goes down and you have to finish with your Rebel?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>James that is a FANTASTIC point and frankly one that I didn't consider. I'm not sure how much good the 2.8 would do for me in that situation though; if the f4 on my Rebel doesn't cut it then I don't know how much better the f2.8 would be given that it's only 1 stop faster. Maybe what I need to do if I go with the f4 is get a 1.4 or 1.8 prime for the Rebel in case the 6D goes out. The prime plus the 70-200 f4 combined would probably still be cheaper than the 70-200 f2.8.</p>

<p>Your point about the bokeh is true, but the bokeh from the f4 still looks pretty good and the f4 with the current rebate is literally half the price of the f2.8. While the f2.8 is undeniably better I'm just not sure if it's better to the point of convincing my poor student wallet to pay double.</p>

<p>I hadn't considered this but I had a photographer tell me they shoot with the f2.8 but rarely go below f4 because from certain angles it can be tricky to keep both the bride and groom in focus with the f2.8 all the way open.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I fail to see how Adobe and everyone else who has to update their software for a new proprietary file format is the bad guy instead of the camera makers who insist in making a new format for each camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Here's my take on this. I pay Canon to give me a camera. I pay Adobe to give me image manipulation software. If I pay Adobe to give me image manipulation software I do think the onus is on them to keep their software current which includes staying up to date on the various camera manufacturer's raw file formats. If you agree with my premise then it also follows that Adobe should provide at least some support to prior versions of the CS, at least one version back when it comes to file format support.</p>

<p>The bottom line is if I am paying Adobe, I expect the product i pay <em>them</em> for to have a decent shelf life, regardless of what the camera manufacturers do or change.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I've shot a few weddings and wouldn't even consider taking anything over 100mm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jamie - Out of curiosity are you shooting on a full or cropped sensor body? </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>As an aside, do you have backup gear?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Devon - Thanks for bringing that up; yes, I have backups for just about everything and will have at least a full set of backup gear before I start. I have a Rebel Xsi body and corresponding EFS lenses as a backup. At the moment I only have one speedlite but will probably get one or two cheapie 3rd party units to bring as a backup. I also have some studio equipment I can bring...don't know if I would ever need to but I suppose if I ever had to shoot large parties at night it might be handy.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks everyone for your responses!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>what lenses do you have already?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have a 28 - 105/f3.5-4.5 and i crappy old telephoto zoom...I forget the specs at the moment but I wouldn't use it on a paid job. I am upgrading from a Rebel so i have that body as a backup and a few efs lenses to go along with it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why SPECIFICALLY (i.e. list tasks) do you think that you will get more use from the 70 to 200 compared / contrasted to the 24 to 70?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My thinking very well may be flawed but I just got my 6D and upgrading from a Rebel I'm used to the extra reach of the cropped sensor so I thought getting the 70 - 200 would give me some of that reach back. I also plan to do portrait work and this lens gives me range that would be useful for that. Frankly I assumed that during the ceremony in the church the 24 to 70 would be wider than I would want for most of it and that I'd likely use something in the wider range more at the reception. I also looked at the lens I used most on my Rebel which was the 28 - 105 which on a crop sensor looked like 44 to 168 which is relatively close to how the 70 - 200 will look on my new full frame body telling me that my general shooting style may coincide with the 70 - 200 more than the 24 - 70.</p>

<p>I see many people suggesting primes and maybe that's something to look in to but I'm so used to working with zooms I'm honestly a little afraid of giving of the flexibility a zoom offers. </p>

<p>Hi Everyone,</p>

<p>I’m a photo student and I’m just starting to pursue some professional work. I also hold a full time office job so for the time being my professional work is limited to things like portraits, events, and weddings that I can do on the weekend. I just happen to come into a little bit of money which makes purchasing a new lens a possibility, and I was looking at the Canon 70mm – 200mm f4 WITHOUT IS. I usually don’t like to make rushed buying decisions but I realized there’s an $80 rebate on it that happens to end tomorrow so if I’m going to buy it, I’d like to do so within the next 24 hours.</p>

<p>Being that I’m still a student I don’t know ultimately what type of photography I will end up doing career-wise but at least for the next few years it’s going to be weddings and the like so I want my gear to be appropriate for that type of work. I was hoping I could get away with using the 70mm – 200mm f4 without IS for indoor weddings. I know either getting the IS model or the 2.8 would be ideal but I don’t have the money for that at the moment so I either get the f4 with no IS or save and get a different lens down the line. The primary reason I thought I could get away with the f4 without IS, is that I just purchased a 6D specifically for its low light capabilities. So if I compare the f2.8 lens to the f4 lens that’s only one stop difference and because the 6D is so good with low light my thought was using the f4 I could just push the ISO an extra stop if needed.</p>

<p>I’d love to get everyone’s opinion, does it make sense for me to get this lens?</p>

<p>As a side note, the 24mm - 70mm will probably be my next purchase but I think overall I'll get more use out of the 70mm - 20mm so I'd like to get it first.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone for your help!</p>

<p>I just wanted to thank everyone for all your input! I got my 6D last night and used the Adobe DNG converter which worked like a charm. Within the week I'll probably get LR4.</p>

<p>Hi Rich,</p>

<p>I'm with Vail...RENT! Not sure if you're in a metropolitan area where you can stop into someplace like Calumet and talk to the rental guy but if not you can still rent online. I've never done it but I hear it's relatively cheap and easy. You could rent a body like the 5DmkIII as well as some really fast glass and you very well might be OK.</p>

<p>I would suggest renting some very fast glass way ahead of time and going down to the venue with the rented glass on your 7D for a little test to see what kind of results you get. You might find that the 7D and rented lenses will work fine which would save you the expense of renting the body.</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The situation may not be created by Adobe, but you are naive if you think they are innocent of taking advantage of it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have to agree with JDM. It's great that I can convert to DNG or upgrade Lightroom which is only $75 or so as a workaround but if I pay $600 for a piece of software, I expect the company that made it to do everything in their power to give it a shelf life of more than 6 months or so. I don't have the exact timeline of when when the 6D came out versus when CS6 came out but the point is someone could have easily paid a hefty sum of money for CS5 only to have it made basically obsolete by new camera technology in a very short time.</p>

<p>So no, this is definitely not Adobe's fault however if Adobe is going to accept my $600 for Photoshop with a smile on their face, I expect a little more support, at least going one version back.</p>

<p>Thanks Howard and Andrew! I've never worked with DNG files before and didn't realize until some research after your posts that they are lossless and seem to retain all of the metadata and other benefits of using RAW files.</p>

<p>In general when you have a RAW or DNG image with some adjustments you have applied in LR and want to bring it into Photoshop, is exporting it to PSD and loading the PSD file in to Photoshop the best way to go? I have always assumed it would be better to load the actual RAW or DNG file into Photoshop but I haven't figured out a way to take a RAW file with LR edits and load the file into Photoshop while retaining the edits made in LR. I have a feeling I'm missing something very basic...</p>

<p>Hi Everyone,</p>

<p>I have a Canon 6D on the way (upgrading from a Rebel Xsi) and I understand that as <a href="/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00bFRM">this post</a> discusses, anything older than CS6 or LR4 will not recognize the 6D's RAW files due to Canon changing something in the "guts" of the RAW file. </p>

<p>Of course as my luck would have it, I have CS5 and LR3, purchased shortly before their successors came out. Bummer! I really don't want to spend the money to upgrade to to CS6 at the moment, but I could be OK upgrading to LR4 as the $75 won't kill me (but it will make me whine and complain like a small child). I have a plan of attack with my RAW file handling and wanted to run it by you all before getting LR4 to see what you think.</p>

<p>I prefer using LR for most of my basic RAW editing, so my thought was to upgrade to LR4, do all my RAW editing in LR and if I think the file needs additional work click the "Edit In Photoshop" option within LR which would create a PSD file for editing in PS that includes the edits I made in LR. This would give me the ability to edit RAW files without having to pay for CS6, and ultimately be able to apply any finishing touches in PS.</p>

<p>My primary question is does anyone see any problems with this workflow? When you click the "Edit in Photoshop" button on an image in LR and bring it into PS as a PSD file, I'm not entirely sure what goes on in the conversion from RAW to PSD and was concerned maybe I was losing some image quality or that the image was being degraded in some way.</p>

<p>Thanks for any input you can give. BTW I'm brand new to the forum and seems like there's a great community here!</p>

<p>I think you definitely made the right choice. I was in a similar situation recently with a Rebel Xsi and trying to decide if I should upgrade the body or get some L glass. I finally decided on the body and ordered the 6D primarily for one reason: lenses are MUCH cheaper to rent than bodies. I know this won't help you while you're deployed, but when you're back stateside you'll find that renting a 6D is likely $200+ for the weekend while renting an amazing lens is more like $45.</p>

<p>I think Craig hit the nail on the head. I just finished a Business of Photography class and Craig's post is basically right-on, at least as far as I was taught. For what it's worth we used BlinkBid which was pretty intuitive to use and I believe cost a bit over $100. I'm sure many of the other programs people listed do this too but BlinkBid was nice because it helped create the bid, generate a contract with terms and conditions, track your production, and track payment.</p>

<p>I think David has the right idea. The question here is really what will put you in the best light with potential clients viewing your site and the reality is potential clients don't care about versatility, they want someone who is an expert in whatever it is they're looking to have shot. David's point of keeping the sites separate and creating a prominent link to the theater site on the portrait site sounds like an excellent idea and plays on the perceived creative edge you have working in the artistic community of theater.</p>

<p>Not sure where you're located but I believe here in California you can take pictures in public (for the most part) basically unrestricted but you run into problems when you start to set up gear, especially anything on a stand; basically anything that members of the public could potentially trip over. As I understand it if you have equipment on a stand (lights, background supports, even a tripod) you will likely get hassled by security and/or police depending on where you are.</p>

<p>If you want to shoot in public, the appropriate public agency will likely give you a permit without much hassle but will also probably ask you to prove that you have general liability insurance which is a type of insurance policy that covers you in case you accidentally hurt anyone, damage their property, or if people hurt themselves as a result of your presence by, say, tripping on your gear. It's not too expensive and if this is something you wanted to explore could probably get the insurance for about $30/mo.<br /> <br />I'm not an attorney and don't claim this answer covers the complete law on the matter but I am a photo major and I've discussed this at length with my instructors and several pros because I was interested in doing something very similar to what you're talking about.</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>