billybob40 wrote:
If your going for prints later. Look in to smugmug my account is www.snapshots2010.com it cost me $40. a year. I sell my photos on the site. Its the best place on the net for the price, look into it. You can lock your photos where they can't right chick too.
Definitely a great way to go! Smugmug is a great company, and you eliminate having to run to the photofinishers all the time for prints. Mailing is also costly. Also as an added feature your images are full resolution on another site in case you should ever have a hard drive failure. Good back-up
katbandit wrote:
look into how photographers do that gallery thing that they post on the computer ..i honestly don't know how to set it up but thats how its being done now..you get each person that requests a photo write their email.. ..keep that list..then you set up all the proof shots with watermarks ..email them to all the guests with a password to that gallery and then they find their photos and choose..i would not recommend choosing the photos for them..take about 2 or 3 shots of each ..let them choose...do you know any studios that could show you how to do that gallery..or maybe google instructions...all i know is that every event from weddings to school portraits thats how its being done..i assisted for a wedding rehearsal dinner recently and turned my photos into the photographer that hired me...she set the whole thing up on line...sent even me an email ..i got to see all the photos that way..
give them a set price on line for various sizes..then let them pay via pay pal..or by charge..or even send you a check that clears first ..use a good lab that will send the shots to the customer for you so you can avoid that much work..such as a pro lab..Mpix.com ..i just do the photography now and let the computer geeks figure out how to do the selling..lol
i just thought of how i would do it..not being so computer savvy..depending on how many guests ask .get a list of their emails with their names.....i would watermark all my photos..right through the middle..opacity not so strong...take all their emails and then send out all the photos in an email to all on the list...make sure they email the number of the photo they want..how many ..what size..and then you can have them mail you a check..when the check clears you send them the photos..worth a try ...just an idea
look into how photographers do that gallery thing ... (
show quote)
Some good advice here. I sell lots of prints on-line and use JAlbum photo gallery. (Free program - same company as Blurb) Customers can order through Paypal system directly. You can check out a sample gallery by clicking here - http://www.weddingguy.ca/cancun/index.html
At present I do not watermark my photos . . but it's a good idea. There is a download protection in the gallery program, but it doesn't stop the downloading of the thumbnails. Only a real hack could make a printable image out of those.
Hope that helps
If you would like access to that JAlbum program, there is a link at the bottom of the gallery above. Watch for the JAbum logo and click on it. Wonderful program
Bill gomberg wrote:
Rent, borrow , buy or steal .50 mm. F 1.8 Or 1.4 . On your APS Canon they're eqivalent to an 80 mm. Affordable 85 on a full frame 24 X 36 format. Excellent for for head and shoulders portraiture . Good look and I hope you don't get caught stealing .
FYI . . . a 50mm lens is not equivilant to an 80mm lens on an APS Canon camera . . . it simply crops the area of the image used by the APS sensor, to the same size as an 80mm focal length lens on a 35mm or full frame camera.
It is still a 50mm lens with the same DOF and perspective of any 50mm lens. A true portrait lens which is about 1 and 1/2 times the focal length of a standard lens, has a different perspective and DOF
The standard lens for 35mm and DSLR cameras is 50mm, therefore the ideal portrait lens would be considered about 75mm
If you have your camera further away from the subject and crop the image by about 40% you will get a good portrait perspective, but a professional would never do that because producing a wall size portrait from a 40% cropped image would produce far less than desirable results. Also at the extended distance from the subject the 50mm lens would not produce the desired shallow DOF
DLTA48 wrote:
I was asked to take photos of the whole event. She told me I could charge a fee for guest if they want their own personal 8x10 photo sent to them. Should I still have each guest who gets a photo sign a consent? And what kind of consent? How do know whose photo is whose?
Easiest way to keep track of "whos who" is to have a small pad of paper . . have each guest who wishes photos to write their name and address and phone number on a sheet. Then simply take a quick picture of the name before shooting the subject. Isn't digital great? . . . cost nothing!
GoofyNewfie wrote:
Weddingguy wrote:
I got a "Donald Duck" camera for Christmas at age 11. By age 17 I was in the business and haven't been without a camera since. Worked as a photographic journalist for a major newspaper in Nova Scotia for two years, was the public relations photographer for the Chateau Lake Louise in Banff National Park in Alberta, studied studio portrait lighting and posing under one of British Columbia's finest Master Photographers, then jumped into my own business which I still operate today. Still have an intense passion for photography that started with that darned "Donald Duck" camera in 1949.
What is the lifespan of a photographer? You do the math.
I got a "Donald Duck" camera for Christm... (
show quote)
Do you still have the Donald Duck camera?
quote=Weddingguy I got a "Donald Duck" ... (
show quote)
I wish! Bet it's worth something today. All I have of my old cameras now is a folding camera from 1906. Takes a 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 film pack and has an incredible lens and shutter.
Fun just to look at on occasion.
I got a "Donald Duck" camera for Christmas at age 11. By age 17 I was in the business and haven't been without a camera since. Worked as a photographic journalist for a major newspaper in Nova Scotia for two years, was the public relations photographer for the Chateau Lake Louise in Banff National Park in Alberta, studied studio portrait lighting and posing under one of British Columbia's finest Master Photographers, then jumped into my own business which I still operate today. Still have an intense passion for photography that started with that darned "Donald Duck" camera in 1949.
What is the lifespan of a photographer? You do the math.
planepics wrote:
Just over week ago, I was notified that one of the pics I submitted for a monthly contest with the Experimental Aircraft Association, of which I am a member, won. This is the most major photographic accomplishment so far. Last year I had a different pic (my avatar) win Picture of the Week on a daily aviation e-newsletter, for which I received a baseball cap. Here is a link to the current pic on the website. Enjoy! (now if only I could get a job taking "plane pics.")
http://www.eaa.org/wallpaper/
Just over week ago, I was notified that one of the... (
show quote)
Congratulations!!! Awesome shot!!! :thumbup: :thumbup:
agej1001 wrote:
great advice for us newbies! Helps not jus one but us all out!
Weddingguy wrote:
Hi Greg
Sounds like you've taken on quite a challenge. Your location choice for the shoot is a particularly difficult one. Beaches generally don't have shade, so you'll probably be shooting in bright sunlight. Near noon will put the sun almost overhead, which is the worst case situation. Under those conditions your flash will not really be of much use to you if you don't have the high speed sync capability. A softbox will make the situation even worse, so leave that at home. It takes a very powerful flash to match the sun and the softbox will waste too much of your power.
I faced the same situation with a beach wedding on a destination wedding I did in November in Cancun. Bright sun, bright water, bright sand and no shade. Not an impossible situation, but a challenging one. With the equipment you have, here are my suggestions . . .
1) The better of your two lenses for portraits is the long one (75-300mm) Ideally use it at the widest zoom setting of 75mm (the perfect focal length for portraits on your camera)
2) Leave the flash ON the camera and don't use any diffusers or reflectors on the flash . . . you'll need all the power it can muster.
3) Place the subjects with their backs to the sun. Squinting at bright sun makes terrible pictures and bright sun is too harsh for facial tones.
4) With the camera set on shutter priority and set at 1/200th second, take a few test shots of the background scene that will be behind the subjects. When you get an exposure that gives you a perfect result, change the camera to "M" manual and use the settings that gave the best results in shutter priority mode.
5) Set the ISO at 100, the shutter at 1/200th second and the aperture at whatever worked for the perfect background exposure.
6) I would shoot each pose/subject with a reflector (soft white and the bigger the better) in very close, just out of camera view, and then the same pose/subject with fill flash. If the flash is TTL it will set the exposure needed automatically for the fill. You'll have to get as close as the 75mm will let you.
7) As for poses, google "photo poses" and find some written posing ideas with images . . . download the images and make yourself some small prints that you can carry along on your shoot day as reference. All you really need is a half dozen ideas and that will please your friends to no end. Don't get fancy, but do some reading on some of the basic rules.
8) The above is really for shooting in bright sunlight. In Cancun I had to do that for the wedding ceremony, but when it came time to do the formals, I got them into the shade of some buildings but using the same ocean and palm tree background that were still in bright sunlight. Still exposed for the background and used flash for lighting the subject. The only difference from what I've suggested above is that I had my flashes off-camera.
You can take a look at the results I got at:
http://www.weddingguy.ca/cancun/index.html
Good luck my friend . . . just keep 'em laughing and they'll love it!
Hi Greg br br Sounds like you've taken on quite a... (
show quote)
great advice for us newbies! Helps not jus one but... (
show quote)
Thanks for that . . I was beginning to think that nobody reads the advice given. I'm sure 90% of those that post don't take the time to read the whole thread so that they know if they have something to say that is relevant. I see from your comments above that you really do read it all. Good on you girl!
Lilli480 wrote:
50 mm 1.8 is good also.
Manual setting. 1/250 shutter with f/8
Are you suggesting that he can use this setting under all lighting conditions? In the sun? . . in the shade? . . . in the rain? . . . in the snow? . . on the beach?
He is shooting portraits and technically a "portrait lens" is 1 and 1/2 times the focal length of a standard lens. The standard lens for a DSLR or a 35mm film camera is 50mm . . that makes a 75mm lens the ideal focal length. He already has that focal length in one of his lenses, so the need of an additional lens would be a waste of $$$$
Sorry, but that is bad advice.
Hi Greg
Sounds like you've taken on quite a challenge. Your location choice for the shoot is a particularly difficult one. Beaches generally don't have shade, so you'll probably be shooting in bright sunlight. Near noon will put the sun almost overhead, which is the worst case situation. Under those conditions your flash will not really be of much use to you if you don't have the high speed sync capability. A softbox will make the situation even worse, so leave that at home. It takes a very powerful flash to match the sun and the softbox will waste too much of your power.
I faced the same situation with a beach wedding on a destination wedding I did in November in Cancun. Bright sun, bright water, bright sand and no shade. Not an impossible situation, but a challenging one. With the equipment you have, here are my suggestions . . .
1) The better of your two lenses for portraits is the long one (75-300mm) Ideally use it at the widest zoom setting of 75mm (the perfect focal length for portraits on your camera)
2) Leave the flash ON the camera and don't use any diffusers or reflectors on the flash . . . you'll need all the power it can muster.
3) Place the subjects with their backs to the sun. Squinting at bright sun makes terrible pictures and bright sun is too harsh for facial tones.
4) With the camera set on shutter priority and set at 1/200th second, take a few test shots of the background scene that will be behind the subjects. When you get an exposure that gives you a perfect result, change the camera to "M" manual and use the settings that gave the best results in shutter priority mode.
5) Set the ISO at 100, the shutter at 1/200th second and the aperture at whatever worked for the perfect background exposure.
6) I would shoot each pose/subject with a reflector (soft white and the bigger the better) in very close, just out of camera view, and then the same pose/subject with fill flash. If the flash is TTL it will set the exposure needed automatically for the fill. You'll have to get as close as the 75mm will let you.
7) As for poses, google "photo poses" and find some written posing ideas with images . . . download the images and make yourself some small prints that you can carry along on your shoot day as reference. All you really need is a half dozen ideas and that will please your friends to no end. Don't get fancy, but do some reading on some of the basic rules.
8) The above is really for shooting in bright sunlight. In Cancun I had to do that for the wedding ceremony, but when it came time to do the formals, I got them into the shade of some buildings but using the same ocean and palm tree background that were still in bright sunlight. Still exposed for the background and used flash for lighting the subject. The only difference from what I've suggested above is that I had my flashes off-camera.
You can take a look at the results I got at:
http://www.weddingguy.ca/cancun/index.html
Good luck my friend . . . just keep 'em laughing and they'll love it!
I bought one of the first Canon 10Ds (6.1 MP) on the market . . . upgraded to a 20D (8.1 MP) . . . upgraded to a 40D (12 MP) . . . upgraded to a 50D (15 MP) . . . upgraded to a 1D MK III pro body . . . and was still never completely satisfied until I upgraded to "L" glass. I would rather go back to the 20D and "L" glass, than have a new 5D MK III (full frame) with lesser glass. Once you work with the best glass the upgrading question becomes easier because you only have the camera to upgrade.
My personal opinion from many years of experience is that you are better off with a $500 camera and a $1500 lens than the other way around. The best glass is an investment in your photographic future . . . the best camera is a temporary fix until they announce the newer model
The answer is definitely not an upgraded camera and a downgraded slower lens. Your F/1.8 is fast . . . but poor glass at best, not one of Nikon's finest.
Another point of interest is your love of available light photography. To accomplish great results in this field you have to give your camera a chance to help you. It cannot do it with a lens that is F/3.5 - F/5.6 or F/6.3. The camera cannot see very well with these slow lenses, so has difficulty focusing. On your F/1.8, even if you have it set at F/8, it still is wide open at F/1.8 to focus until the shutter is released.
One more point . . . high ISO can cause increased noise,yes, but not as much noise as even a little underexposure will cause. Ask yourself if you had to increase the brightness even a half F/stop in your image above. One F/stop of underexposure = 50% quality loss in your image . . . two F/stops underexposure costs you an additional 50% of the 50% quality . . . that's 75% of your image down the drain with only two stops of underexposure. I understand your desire to be able to shoot at higher shutter speeds than 1/20 second, but maybe a good investment would be a monopod so that the 1/20 second shutter works for you.
You are a very fussy photographer . . . I personally think that is good (I am myself). Trust me . . . we fussy photographers cannot afford to mess with cheap glass, or even expensive glass that is not Nikon or Canon. We can't handle the frustration! :-)
There . . . you've got still another opinion.
wilsondl2 wrote:
f/stops - Think of them as fractions f1/2.8 is a sider opening that f1/16. When they were set up it was using fractions but the 1/x was dropped just for x. - Dave
Sorry . . . they were not fractions but ratios. Just FYI
I would look seriously at PS Elements. It really is PS without some of the horns and whistles, and does an incredible job at a really affordable price.
marcomarks wrote:
russelray wrote:
Weddingguy wrote:
russelray wrote:
Weddingguy wrote:
The best and safest policy is to always format the cards in the camera in which they will be used. Corruption of the images can also happen on occasion if images are deleted in the camera. Don't know why manufacturers put that feature in cameras when the experts warn us against deleting in camera.
You're the first I've ever heard or read of anyone telling us not to delete in camera. Do you have any links to those experts? I'd love to read them and know why?
Sorry . . . no longer have the source as I found it some 6 or 7 years ago. At the time I did copy the quote for my files and here is what it said:
Yes, you should format your card before each use in the camera of intended use. The thing is, if you simply delete pictures in camera, the MFT (master file table) at the beginning of the partition can get heavily fragmented, and the card can start losing data. It doesnt really wear away a particular bit of the card they all have wear-leveling algorithms built in so that they write data evenly across a card rather than using it sequentially.
Plus, when you delete, youll still end up with folders and hidden thumbnail files and that lot, which can fragment the MFT even more.
Ive lost a card full of images that way.
It was in an online digital photography school, but can't recall which one. It seemed logical to me at the time, so I have never deleted any images in my camera since reading it. Better to be safe than sorry.
quote=russelray quote=Weddingguy The best and sa... (
show quote)
Perhaps that was true six or seven years ago. That's an eternity in the technological world. I suspect it's no longer true. However, I've been deleting pictures in camera since around 1995 using Kodak, GE, Samsung, Canon, Nikon, and HP cameras. Never a problem. Never had a problem with any of the cards, either, and I have a few billion of them from when I had nine employees taking hundreds of pictures each day.
quote=Weddingguy quote=russelray quote=Weddingg... (
show quote)
I agree but I don't think it was even true 6 or 7 years ago. Some teachers take liberties with what they teach to add unnecessary precautions, or they teach from books without personal knowledge of the subject, or teach from the experiences and opinions of others - so the validity of this learned knowledge can be suspect. I also doubt the validity of this teaching because the file is not called a Master File Table (MFT), it has been called a File Allocation Table (FAT) for as long as I can remember - since the beginning days of DOS. My first PC was in 1980.
Just because something is taught doesn't make it God's honest truth set in stone and everybody should realize that. Learning from your own personal experiences has the most validity.
Deleting a photo file in the camera is no different than deleting a photo file in a PC. Both devices use a DOS-based function to take action on storage devices. DOS functions are always working under the surface of the Windows User Interface in a PC. A memory card's File Allocation Table (FAT) is no different from the FAT of a hard drive.
This is verified by a memory card plugged into a PC is immediately being recognized as a properly-formatted hard drive with a valid PC-compatible FAT as far as the PC is concerned. You can pop the card out and plug an USB external hard drive into the PC instead and the PC again sees a hard drive formatted the same way with a similar FAT. The only difference is how the device identifies itself and the PC happily display that identity in Windows Explorer or File Manager.
Some digital cameras even used a micro-hard-drive instead of a memory card in the early days of larger bodies they could fit into. I suppose any camera that uses CF cards could still use those hard drives too. Those drives could be directly connected to a PC for transfer, deletion, etc. because their FAT and method of storage were also the same.
The process the camera uses to delete a file is the same process a PC uses - that's why deletion can take place in either device. A PC can read the FAT that a camera created during formatting and a camera can read the FAT a PC modified while the card was in a PC card slot.
While it's true that the formatting and FAT creation of a camera memory card should take place in the camera itself so FAT and DOS compatibility with the camera are absolutely assured, this old wife's tale of one type of deletion being a no-no and the other type being correct is bunch of hogwash.
I have deleted tons of files using both methods since 1998 (even on Sony-formatted 3.5" floppy disks) and have never experienced a single problem yet - but I always format the memory cards IN CAMERA.
quote=russelray quote=Weddingguy quote=russelra... (
show quote)
I agree . . . except,
"Just because something is taught doesn't make it God's honest truth set in stone and everybody in the world should realize that. Learning from your own personal experiences is the most valid."
Being in the business I can't afford to experiment to find out what will corrupt files on my cards when the images are for a client. If there was even a remote chance that the information was correct I just have to take the caution, especially when it costs nothing and can do no harm to leave bad images on the card until the next formatting.
Just my opinion though. ;-)
By the way . . . that's why the "pros" stick with Canon and Nikon. Most manufacturers of camera equipment know that the biggest market is with those two companies, and make their equipment specifically for them. They need the volume to compete. For example all the new Pocket Wizards are available for Canon and Nikon only.