Messages

46

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D III Dynamic Range

« on: February 11, 2013, 07:43:35 PM »

It is funny, for all the histrionics that these threads throw out, the highest level pros are still using Canon cameras and 24-70 f2.8 MkI's, just today I came across this video of Patrick Demarchelier shooting Beyoncé for Vouge
Behind the Scenes Beyoncés March 2013 Vogue Shoot   Small | Large


Or look at any of a multitude of videos of Annie Liebowitz,
Behind the Scenes: Meryl Streep by Annie Leibovitz for Vogue US January 2012   Small | Large
that show her happily working successfully for the high end of the photo industry with her faithful 1Ds MkIII's and, again, the 24-70 f2.8 MkI.

I got in several disagreements over the "upgrade" the MkII 24-70 gave, these people have more money than God yet they are more than happy with the quality they are getting from "outdated, outclassed, second rate" gear, well if they can do it with what they have surely we should look to ourselves a little if we can't regularly get exposure to within two stops of normal.

In too many instances increased camera capabilities are used as an excuse, by people with ever lower photographic capabilities, for their inadequacies. Rule 1 get your exposure right, rule 101 for RAW shooting Canon users, ETTR

thats because Subject > Quality of Light > Gear. (i could be swayed to put QoL first but i did this order because Leibovitz is renown for her handling Subject matter above all else) 

47

Lenses / Re: 70-200 f2.8II + 2xIII on 7D vs 300 f4 + 2xIII on 5D3

« on: February 11, 2013, 07:34:14 PM »

one thing that hasn't been discussed is that if you go with the 300mm for reach on the 5d3 then you lose the ability to zoom.

that leads me to ask for more specifics towards whats water sports are you shooting in particular and what kind of access can you get during these events? are you stuck in the stands with the rest of the parents or can you get down to ground level and close to the field of play?

i shot swimming and diving a few times (all indoors) but had access to anywhere i wanted to go...even right up to the edge of the pool if i wanted. never had a problem with reach on the 70-200 under those circumstances. the bigger issue was not being able to use flash and trying to find enough light to get a decent shutter speed.

more specifics please...i feel there may be better solutions than to tie your horse to the 300mm cart.

48

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Ring Lights

« on: February 10, 2013, 07:33:59 PM »

here are examples with the PCB ABR800. fun strobe unit. perfect for the budget minded portraitist.

49

Lenses / Re: I can't stop thinking about A MONSTER!

« on: February 08, 2013, 07:19:14 PM »

LOL! Well, you guessed wrong! And the funniest thing is: My girlfriend totally approves this lens. If it was for her I would already have it - she even offered to pay for it! I know I'm a lucky sob...

lol...thats awesome! get it, it might turn her on.

my wife still insists that the first time she saw me shoot with my hasselblad she thought it was sexy. cant say i blame her but it surprised me a non photo person would think of it in such a way.

she still says i shouldn't sell it every time i have thoughts of cashing it out.

50

Lenses / Re: IS or no IS?

« on: February 07, 2013, 09:09:36 PM »

will you be hand holding the 70-200 while doing video? that seems like a little much for video purposes.

everytime i see a videographer with a 70-200 its on a tripod or dolly. never hand held. in that case, you dont need IS and shouldn't have it on.

in this instance i think IS wouldn't be as useful. if you are planning on working handheld at that focal length or shooting alot of stills in low light then yes get the IS.

51

Lenses / Re: I can't stop thinking about A MONSTER!

« on: February 07, 2013, 12:27:42 PM »

There are more stupid ways of spending €250 per year I guess (smoking for example  ).

depends on what you are smoking....

rent it first to see if it really fits your needs. if it does, then go for it.

i'm guessing there is no woman in your life, this type of venture seems indicative to a single persons lifestyle.

52

Canon General / Re: What's your definition of "Pro"?

« on: February 07, 2013, 12:11:51 PM »

its as if we need Jeff Foxworthy to do a "You Might Be A Professional Photographer If...." bit.

you are a professional photographer if your main source of income is from photography. plain and simple.

now whether or not you ARE "professional" is a whole nother story....

53

Canon General / Re: anyone had someone over their shoulder on a job?

« on: February 07, 2013, 11:50:54 AM »

obviously you haven't had to work with a pesky art director, sales manager, marketing manager, or the anal retentive micro managing general manager on commercial shoots...  You can easily be bothered or intimidated by how they can be... Some shoots, not often, my sets have to be approved by top management before I fire the shutter, just so I dont bother wasting my time if they dont like the set or want something changed... It happens

i have. the difference there being that there is usually as much time as you need to get the shot right. on weddings there is typically so very little time that even the slightest interruptions can start cutting into the opportunities for photos. not to even mention that if there is a distraction or someone getting in your way during a moment...its gone. no redoing it.
 
i love working with art director's because of the collaboration and the ability to craft a shot for a clients needs. weddings don't afford that luxury. there needs to be one person running the show...otherwise you are inviting potential troubles.

54

Canon General / Re: anyone had someone over their shoulder on a job?

« on: February 07, 2013, 09:34:45 AM »

i am a professional and do all kinds of work including alot of weddings. i always try to handle these situations in a friendly manner but i do have it in my contract that i will be the only photographer there for the day. that is of course not designed to stop family from taking pictures but i have run into situations where a Dj brought a camera guy and they were jumping into the action during the reception....definitely NOT ok.

my take on it is this...i think it is incredibly rude and inconsiderate to photograph during ANY important moments throughout the wedding if you are not the hired photographer. and i don't mean towards the photographer...i mean towards the bride and groom. they have spent a good deal of money to hire a professional. you should not disrespect the BRIDE and GROOM's investment by potentially being a distraction or getting in the way.

i have stopped bring any sort of camera at all to weddings i attend. i'm there to enjoy myself not to be distracted by "working". my wife is beyond thankful for this now.

55

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Emergency wedding, of sorts.

« on: February 06, 2013, 11:52:19 AM »

if the friend is going to be unhappy with the results after asking this HUGE favor of you then i would say it is not that good of a friend. so long as you have thoroughly advised him of your capabilities and offered no guarantees.

if friends stopped asking friends to shoot their weddings i don't think that would curb the enormous amount of bad wedding photographers out there. there are just too many of them....

56

Lenses / Re: How much would you pay for Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L IS

« on: February 05, 2013, 12:45:41 PM »

IS may not be what you look for or need for your own particular usage, however for others (particularly those focussed on video, or who make significant usage of video) IS is a massive advantage in a lens.

as a still shooter this is something that i have come to understand despite not having any real experience shooting video.

my question is however, how useful is a mid range zoom for video? would a prime be more desirable at those focal ranges? i see plenty of 70-200mm 2.8 IS lenses being used by video guys on the weddings i shoot but they are always locked down on tripods/dollys and as far as i know the focal length is not being changed during filming.

i still contend for still shooting that IS is usually a bad solution for low light at wider focal lengths. i completely understand it for longer focal lengths in all lighting conditions but i think faster shutterspeeds at higher ISOs is always a better solution. IS cannot overcome the physics of motion in the scene below 1/60th of a sec. only faster shutterpeeds can and on occasion strobed light.

57

Software & Accessories / Re: Need help with developing in LR

« on: February 05, 2013, 01:34:12 AM »

i can second the suggestion of Martin Evening books. he works very closely with Adobe on developing their products so that they are the best they can be. he also writes simply about topics so that a novice can understand some of the more complicated techniques. there are always tons of examples, figures, and charts in his books as well.

as far as the OP's question, it would be much easier to answer if we could see a posted image that you are dissatisfied with. the outline you provided only deals in general terms and there are far too many variables in post production to get an idea of what could "make your photos look better".

my gut feeling is that the minimal amount of post production you apply only yields good results if the lighting in your shots is great and that you might be dealing with poor lighting resulting in lack luster images.

its rare for me (outside the studio) that i get lighting conditions that are so good that i "only" have to apply a lens adjustment and a camera profile. more often than not i am doing that AND adjusting exposure, fill, blacks, then using an adjustment brush for dodging and burning. then i bring an image into PS and apply Nik Filters and sometimes Portraiture filters.

not sure if this is the degree at which you want to go but there usually isnt an "auto" method that makes photos look great. if you don't have that great light to start with it typically takes alot of work to make a photo shine.

58

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Finally moving to full frame, maybe. Help/advice/criticism needed

« on: February 04, 2013, 04:27:31 PM »

for a non pro shooter who is mainly interested in landscapes and group shots, the 5DC is still a fantastic camera. its low light performance is not great...i personally don't like pushing it past 800 iso but will hit 1600 in a pinch.

as far a shutter counts and ratings...even if your shutter does explode its a relatively cheap fix. the shutter on my 5DC blew up at 186,000 actuations and Canon fixed it for me as well as putting a new glass filter in front of the sensor for 200.00. it shot like a brand new camera after that!

so even if you went used 5DC (probably for around $500.00) you could spend $200.00 to put a brand new shutter in it and still have a good chunk of change left over for lenses. or how about a speedlight?

59

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: First big job using FF - for all the FF nay-sayers

« on: February 04, 2013, 09:33:23 AM »

i owned a cropped body for all of about a month before the 5D came out and when it did i scrambled to get it. i could never get over the crop factor killing the wide angle end of my lenses and hated the idea of getting lenses that couldn't migrate to any body i would get in the future. i'm a full frame fool.

welcome  to the world of FF!

60

Lenses / Re: A Hands on Review of the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Autofocus Lens

« on: February 04, 2013, 08:54:36 AM »

yup....but i never use reverse macro for true macro purposes. i only really use it to get a creative look for smaller type objects (like ring shots at a wedding). for true macro work i would never do the reverse technique.