5D's AF and ISO3200 saved my b*tt

I'm sorry I must have missed your response. But would you give me your settings again. ISO 3200 - AV ? - TV ? and lens 28-300? Thanks

--
http://www.pbase.com/rianeli
5 Million hits and counting

Do contracted wedding photographers ever really shut down if they see a guest taking a photo in contradiction of the contract? I don't think so. Or, I've never heard of that myself.

It's worthwhile to have that in the contract perhaps because it gives you or others something to mention during the ceremony but to actually throw a hissy fit and walk out? It's all bluff.

Is that supposed to be something sexy to wear at night or an evening gown for pregnant women. I can't tell.

and it's handheld at 1/30 !
on the make up shots you can count pores and body hair........
here's a crop of the dress just for fun



Guillaume

' Most americans aren't racist or stupid. Why should I be burning cars, or dissing americans? Just because I'm french? '

I even tried to reproduce USM banding with my 28-135 but couldn't.
Banding is fixable or at least I think I can fix the occasional banding.

Vance Zachary said:

I have not resorted to using 3200 ISO either with the 5D or the 20D
yet but am tempted to play around with it and see what develops
other than banding and hot pixels.

Click to expand...

try it, like it!

Guillaume

' Most americans aren't racist or stupid. Why should I be burning cars, or dissing americans? Just because I'm french? '

Guillaume paris2 said:

that I use to burn cars

Click to expand...

Hello there, is this some kind of humour attempt?
I'm a bit surprised as the tone of the original question was quite polite.



--
There is always some darkness behind the light.

Gulli you mentioned earlier that you wanted to shoot RAW but didn't because you don't have enough CF cards or didn't bring your laptop. Why don't you get hold of an Epson P2000/4000? They are pretty small, have 40gb or 80gb disks and an if your brides like the look of the 5D screen they'll do backflips when they see the P2000/4000 screen. At the moment, I'm not sure the Epsons will display 5D RAW (they do show jpgs) but they've been pretty good about updating their software to include new cameras, so it an update can't be far off. Check out the review here:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/epsonp2000/

Note, the 8.9MP limit is out of date. The P2000/4000 now supports images up to 17.8MP in size with a firmware update available at http://www.epson.com .

--
Cheers
Ben

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=15818317

see my legitimate post (since when truth is considered an agression?)
then stiks racist answer

hence my reply (and my signature!)

JeF* said:

Hello there, is this some kind of humour attempt?
I'm a bit surprised as the tone of the original question was quite
polite.

Click to expand...

Guillaume

' Most americans aren't racist or stupid. Why should I be burning cars, or dissing americans? Just because I'm french? '

but I think I like them. I might turn the yellow a bit down, bringing it closer to white...
your version is very "NTSC to PAL without conversion"!!

(magenta+green)

Guillaume

' Most americans aren't racist or stupid. Why should I be burning cars, or dissing americans? Just because I'm french? '

Rianeli said:

I'm sorry I must have missed your response. But would you give me
your settings again. ISO 3200 - AV ? - TV ? and lens 28-300?
Thanks

Click to expand...

1/30, manual mode. Indoors with a 28-300, you have high hopes! it was a 28mm 1.8 USM at f2.

Guillaume

' Most americans aren't racist or stupid. Why should I be burning cars, or dissing americans? Just because I'm french? '

jjl,

without offending anybody I can easily answer that you must be living in some fantasy world of imaginary wedding reception photography: I seriously doubt that you do understand what Im talking about, for lack of experience or not enough of it.

Then, and I need to make it clear, if your game is just to offend me then I'm good on that too. Just I don't care at the moment.

I was just trying to help, but I can switch to the defensive mode anytime. If I cared which I don't so we're all safe. (for now)

--

http://www.ImagingPhotographics.com

and shooting an entire reception at 3200 also reminds me of some extreme (at least) interpretation of a professional coverage. that's also true. But I never enter into the details of another photographer work so I won't.

In the real world weddings are booked months in advance, and there is plenty of time to be prepared. Again, that's also true.

I did give you (politely) some tips, the same that I've been given when I started. It's up to us to accept it or reject it, but the intention of the tip giver was in good faith and for the best interest of the recipient.

again that's true too.

As I see it, it won't happen again.

--

http://www.ImagingPhotographics.com

MarkLe said:

the (professional) wedding
coordinator gave you the chance to adjust the situation regarding
the lighting and you missed the point completely. I believe that
she does it for a living and she knew that that kind of lighting
wasn't enough for a (professional) coverage. And you just smiled?

Click to expand...

I think for many of us, it's a big no-no for any reportage photographer to "adjust the [environment's] lighting" for the sake of his or her photos photos...except of flash when shooting the posed/formal shots. In fact, you typically find that the higher-end the wedding or event you shoot, the LESS obtrusive they want the photographers to be. That means not playing around with the ambient lighting or shooting with flash. If the bride and groom want a candle-lit reception, you'll be damned if you change it in any way. Nothing is going to p!ss off your clients like unilaterally "adjusting the lighting situation" from their planned/desired low intimate lighting to bright photographer-friendly lighting. So if a bride and groom want to have a reception in a cave lit with nothing more than tea lights, yes, as a professional you DO JUST SMILE and get the job done!

You are not a professional because you use high ISO in low light and then push because a professional wouldn't do that. What you need is a D70 and a Sigma consumer zoom - that's the ticket!

But that's not a critique of you because I would never would do that, except I just did. Like, when I say "your kid is ugly". I never talk about people's kids so I won't talk about how ugly your kid is. You know which one I mean, you know, the ugly one. That's the one I won't talk about. It's just not my style to even raise the subject.

You had months to prepare and you failed to do so, so you are not a professional.

You are a rookie so you are wrong. I have experience so I am right, even though I am wrong and others with more experience regularly disagree with me.

I intended to do well so I can't be wrong about anything.

I know what's best for you.

I know everything.

I am never wrong.

Ok, maybe I was a bit harsh, but I'd really like to know what you do when you get to a dark church and flash photography isn't allowed - which is a very common situation. Tell the minister you're "taking charge"? give me a break. It's not "your" wedding to make such decisions.

Certainly, it's reasonable to inform the bride that low lighting will make the photos more grainy, and your job more difficult. But, the bride doesn't want to hear about your problems - she has a wedding to enjoy. As a pro, it's your job to have multiple solutions, and there are a lot of better solutions than "turning the lights up" and ticking everyone off. It's just common sense.

-Jonathan

that doesn't (simply) happen: I'll tell you why and for the last time because I'm tired of this discussion.

Sudden weddings are a rare event: 99.99% of the weddings are booked between 6 and 12 months in advance. By then I know pretty much everything, not considering that the church and venues for the reception are most likely the same around. But I know where, when and how.

If (I repeat) IF there is a ban on flashes don't you think that I'd know about it well in advance and go there well prepared?

The scenario you're painting here doesn't match with the reality of things.

Now if we're talking about some family event when the photographer (part of the family or a friend) is called a day before then there are risks. But it's rare. No need to say that I don't do family weddings or friends as a matter of fact.

--

http://www.ImagingPhotographics.com

ah! what's wrong with the sigma zooms?

I use one and I can tell that it works better than the canon L which I sold for it. Sigma is fine when you get a good copy. The problem is to get a good copy. I know....



--

http://www.ImagingPhotographics.com

that the first chance Canon gets, they'll reconfigure their body design to unaccomodate the use of this lens. It's very possible the 24-60 is a good lens. I've never seen one myself. Although, I'll note the Canon goes to 70, which is nice. Maybe the Canon could be sharper at 2.8, that's true.

Seeing how your latest post is surprisingly devoid of veiled insults, I'll consider my work here to be done. Maybe I'll just lurk around and deprive the world of my wisdom. I'll leach off of others without providing information in return. I'm embarrassed over how much time I spend on DPR so maybe that's a sign I should take a break.

sure wants to sell and there was some sort of incompatibility before (and many sigmas needed the chip to be re-programmed)

no, the sharpness is pretty much the same wide open but I couldn't get focussed pictures with my previous EF 28-70: not saying that every 28-70 can't take sharp pictures: just saying that the 28-70 I had couldn't do it. The sigma does an honest job for a zoom and now I get better focussed pictures even in studio. That's all Im saying.

In the end we're talking about zooms. For a better quality a prime will always deliver of course.

On a full frame the 60mm end of the 24-60 falls a bit short but at least I get shorter but well focussed pictures

And when I use a zoom means that I'm outdoors or something and there most of the time there is no time to think too much about the shot. You're gonna have to trust AF and the lens you have.

If only canon had the counterpart of the (cheap and beautiful) nikkor 35-70 2.8!!!!!!

I like your posts, jimbo: just it happens that we don't agree sometimes, but we're talking about this passion that we have in common and it's all good.

--

http://www.ImagingPhotographics.com

I like photos man, is there somewhere that I can see the full gallery? and yeah that groom looks like hes a bit irrirtating.

Julian

--
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=15816234
My latest 5D gallery, all critiques welcome.

really, I'd like to. But even if this wedding was booked 2 months before the date which is most enough for me (I've seen worse and it has come out perfectly well), the fact that it took place literally over 150 km away from where I'm located, it wasn't financially feasible to drive there and do a rehearsal. Even the wedding planner mostly saw the bride, rarely the groom. Looks like they didn't hire a WP for nothing (they didn't have time, or will to prepare it all). I feel they got married at this time of the year because of financial reasons, namely to pay less taxes next year, once they're married.

I'd say a rehearsal would've been welcome, but not for the dinner lighting issue. It really was no big deal with a recent camera... dial ISO3200, open up aperture, get away with the slowest speed I could handle. In 30 seconds I had it figured out and I was shooting.

No, a rehearsal would have helped me a lot for the succession of places during the afternoon, the town hall, the patio nearby, the cocktail... I'd have preferred to see it all before because, there, I was really in a hurry to find good angles, I'd have liked to know how to preceed the couple (and the groom was a PITA).

You know, I made the effort to drive to Deauville and inspect the places for the wedding I had in late august. But then it was a 2500€ affair! Not like this one (half the amount).

I'd like to be able to do rehearsals everytime, but I also like the idea that I force myself to be trained and ready for anything that can happen... unknown path between places, rain, etc... I'm not perfect yet but I do my best to adapt.

I've already began a search for a better bag to swap lenses more easily and pack my stuff faster when we leave a place where I laid all my glass ready to be picked up in the middle of the action. I know I lost time doing that.

You say most weddings are booked in advance, and by then you know everything so you don't get any surprise. Do you rehearse everything, even the far away weddings? or do you request photos of places and stuff? do the travel fees for rehearsal get added to the bill? is it widely accepted by the couple (i.e. "can't you do without this $200 rehearsal fee?")

Guillaume

' Most americans aren't racist or stupid. Why should I be burning cars, or dissing americans? Just because I'm french? '