Author | Thread |
|
03/21/2008 11:09:11 PM · #26 |
I'm biased, but I would have to say grigrigirl seeing as she is my wife. Julia is made of fire and shoots with her soul. She can find the beauty in a disaster and draw your eyes to the sources of what is good and right and, the essence of life and love, without soul your bride is sitting in the water in a dress, woopie doo... Take the same bride and capture her essence and she is a mermaid or the fishqueen. I can't do that but I will someday.
well hell I don't know and probably sound like a hippy.
I sit next to her every weekend and shoot the same people and don't find half of what she does in our couples. I can stand in the same spot and take the same picture and I can't even come close to anything she has done and deleted out of her can. |
|
|
03/22/2008 02:51:00 PM · #27 |
Here's a very cool collection of Wedding images...
I have no idea if it's one photographer or a few but the shots are very creative and fun. |
|
|
03/22/2008 10:18:47 PM · #28 |
Great link, pawdrix! That photog does beautiful work.
Okay, quick question for all of you...
If you had about $1200 to spend, and you already had a Canon 20D, Canon 70-200 2.8L IS, and Canon 24-70 2.8L, which would you buy:
This: 15 mm EF f/2.8 Fisheye Lens AND Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM (or another combo)
OR
This: Canon 40D
--------------------
If I can afford it, I want to buy a full frame in the Fall of 2008 when the upgrade to the 5D comes out with the new chip! In the meantime, I just booked a quick web design gig, and want to spend my earnings on either a new set of lenses or a new body. My 20D doesn't seem to be able to focus at at far away objects (people) when zoomed out with either of my amazing lenses. It's great close-up, but I don't know if this is a 20D issue or just something that's common in most photography.
PS... all of this is keeping Weddings in mind!
Message edited by author 2008-03-22 22:19:06.
|
|
|
03/23/2008 12:58:42 AM · #29 |
The fisheye loses much of its effect on a 1.6x crop camera. (because most of the effect is around the outside edges of the frame) So save up for when you have a FF camera before buying the fisheye. Also, since you're thinking about FF ... you may want to think twice about getting the EF-S 10-22mm lens because that one won't work on a FF camera. So, I'd hold off on either of those and either go for the 40D (if you don't have any other lenses you're itching to buy), or save your money and wait for the 5D to come down in price when its replacement is announced.
|
|
|
03/23/2008 01:05:12 AM · #30 |
About your focusing issue... see if this helps any: Testing Auto Focusing Accuracy
|
|
|
03/23/2008 03:47:12 AM · #31 |
What other lenses in that price range (1 or 2 lenses) would you recommend for the 20D for weddings? I may just get the 40D now, sell my 20D and then save up for the newer 5D for it's release in Fall... buying lenses later. Thanks for the note on the 10-22mm not working on the 5D. I forgot about the EF-S thing.
:) Arie
|
|
|
03/23/2008 12:07:01 PM · #32 |
These wide angle lenses will work on either your 20D (or 40D if you upgrade) or on a Full Frame Camera which, I believe, gives them longer life in your camera bag. On a 1.6x crop, you finally get a decent wide angle. On a FF these are super wide!
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM (approx cost $688)
Tamron SP AF 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon (approx cost $300)
I went with the Tamron because, at the time, I couldn't afford the Canon. I expect that I'll replace it at some point.
|
|
|
03/23/2008 12:34:30 PM · #33 |
I have that Tam, but it's not clear enough for me... I like L quality and 2.8 or better, as I work indoors without flash a lot. Hmmm Any other suggestions?
|
|
|
03/24/2008 01:29:22 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by mirdonamy: I want to take more creative photos at weddings; but, though I have the eye for them, I find I have trouble executing them.
For instance, I have a Canon 20D, a 70-200 2.8L and a 24-70 2.8L that I use at weddings. I don't really have a wide angle, hmmm. I often want to take shots of the cake close up, but with the couple in the background, also in focus. Impossible it seems. I stop down to f11, holding tight as the light goes down and shoot... still, a blurry background. What can I do to get more in focus, I wonder!?! I zoom out completely, increase speed to 400 and stop down to f16, still... blurry background. I know I'm too close to the cake - but that's just it... I want to be!
What are my options here? I can't afford a new lens right now, nor a new body; so, how can I get more artistic with the lenses I have. They are great lenses, but I seem limited to out-of-focus backgrounds (which I don't always want, even though they are gorgeous).
Any suggestions?
When I can afford a new lens or camera, do I buy a tilt-shift or a full-frame camera? They're about the same price?! Please, put that question 2nd, with a focus on the first... as, I can't afford to buy right now, and I have a few weddings coming up.
Thanks a million, friends!
Arie :) |
|
|
|
03/24/2008 01:34:53 AM · #35 |
You have covered 95% of shots, with current lense's. Work with what you have, try some collages (take a wide angle shot and zoom in on same shot, with maybe a glaussian blur. Sometimes the most creative things, are keeping things simple. Save your money and experiment. |
|
|
03/24/2008 03:21:20 AM · #36 |
|
|
03/24/2008 11:37:27 AM · #37 |
You've all been awesome, great suggestions! :)
|
|
|
03/24/2008 08:28:46 PM · #38 |
Question... how does one go about taking a shot of a group of people (some in front and some in back), close up, with everyone in focus:
Like this one...
or this one
or
This one!
All by Lisa Zader
If anyone knows how to do this with a Canon 20D, please let me know! My shots of these subjects would have someone in focus and everyone else out of focus... but I really want to take these types of shots just like this... with everyone IN focus! Any tips?
|
|
|
03/24/2008 08:38:09 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by mirdonamy: Question... how does one go about taking a shot of a group of people (some in front and some in back), close up, with everyone in focus:
Like this one...
or this one
or
This one!
All by Lisa Zader
If anyone knows how to do this with a Canon 20D, please let me know! My shots of these subjects would have someone in focus and everyone else out of focus... but I really want to take these types of shots just like this... with everyone IN focus! Any tips? |
set your aperture to around 5.6.. depending on how many people are in the back.. plus use a tripod if you can. |
|
|
03/24/2008 09:11:19 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by mirdonamy: If anyone knows how to do this with a Canon 20D, please let me know! My shots of these subjects would have someone in focus and everyone else out of focus... but I really want to take these types of shots just like this... with everyone IN focus! Any tips? |
Originally posted by lentil: set your aperture to around 5.6.. depending on how many people are in the back.. plus use a tripod if you can. |
At close range, I'd say double that or go to f/8.0
Depth of field radically changes the closer the subject is to the focal plane. The closer they are, the higher the f/stop number will need to be. Much of the technicals also depend on the lens being used and how close it is to the minimum focus distance. The closer it is to the lens' minimum focus distance, the less depth of field there will be, requiring a high f/stop number yet.
As an example, this was shot at f/9.0 with the 16-35mm f/2.8L at 33mm and basically is just a little bit of a crop.
Notice the far background is a touch soft, so an f/8.0 may have been good enough:
By contrast, this was shot at f/4.0 with the 16-35mm f/2.8L at 16mm and it's easy to see where the focus falls off:
The Canon DSLRs have a depth of field preview that cam come in handy to see how much will be in focus. Darkens the viewfinder, but you can get a good idea. Also on a shot like that, manual focus on the person in the middle of the pack, that way the focus falls off evenly in front and behind it.
|
|
|
03/24/2008 09:41:38 PM · #41 |
the 16-35 2.8 is another one to consider.
It'll give you the wide end on the 20D (which the 24-70 doesn't quite get to), and when you move up to the FF 5D, or its replacement that 16-35 will give you a nice super-wide.
it's a little more than 1200, but well worth it.
Check out the link above for a pretty indepth review, or poke around elsewhere at The Digital Picture.com for some other Canon lens reviews.
I've found that site very useful. |
|
|
03/24/2008 09:45:19 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Brad: ... Also on a shot like that, manual focus on the person in the middle of the pack, that way the focus falls off evenly in front and behind it. |
As usual Brad, your advice is well placed... but this one could use a tiny bit more info: Your tip above will work perfectly < IF > the nearest object is further than your MFD (minimum focusing distance), and that depends on which lens is being used. The DOF link I posted above includes that info. I know, I know, its a pain to figure out all that technical garbage... but it WILL make your shots better <{smiles}>
I'm not in any way trying to correct Brad; just that I've made the unfortunate mistake of not considering MFD tooooooo many times :D :D :D
|
|
|
03/24/2008 09:56:44 PM · #43 |
Uh huh.
I do things so automatically I forget to include the tiny bit of more info.
Easiest way to do that is to see if the AF will do well on the closest subject, then if OK, recompose and focus on the center of the crowd, and take 3-5 shots that way, set aperture up a notch or down, take another 3-5 and so on. Some one will ALWAYS blink so taking a number of shots is a requirement. Even helps when you need to clone a person's eyes from one shot into a shot that was overall better, but that person's eyes were closed. Hey - it's not photojournalism so we can play in PS *grin* |
|
|
03/24/2008 10:06:13 PM · #44 |
Thanks everyone.. I'd be using the 24-70 on my 20D; so, even F16 makes the person in the back look blurry. I'd really like to understand MFD a little better, but the technicalities will take me some time. How far would you stand, with my set up, from the groom (being in the front)? ;)
|
|
|
03/25/2008 12:26:10 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by mirdonamy: Thanks everyone.. I'd be using the 24-70 on my 20D; so, even F16 makes the person in the back look blurry. I'd really like to understand MFD a little better, but the technicalities will take me some time. How far would you stand, with my set up, from the groom (being in the front)? ;) |
Hi Arielle, I've entered your settings in the DOF calculator - click on the photo below:
For example, (with the 24-70 @ 24 mm, using the Canon 20D & an aperture of f/16), if we focused at an object 10 feet away , the nearest point still in focus would be 3.85 feet away from us. (The illustration really helped me to understand this concept.)
Hope this is helpful, and feel free to ask more questions! :D
Billy
Message edited by author 2008-03-25 12:33:39.
|
|
|
04/03/2008 07:59:47 AM · #46 |
For those of you who haven't seen this already:
Trash the dress session with Julia Bailey ( grigrigirl)
...and THIS ONE.
Message edited by author 2008-04-03 08:02:05.
|
|