Tales of a C3, a Goddess and some BMW's.

[Xaccers]

Really wish we could have had you at our wedding Richard, it was left up to guests, and while so far we have quite a few good photos taken with my DSLR, my cousin who was using it (who said she was into photography) hadn't tried it out in the two weeks I'd given her before the day, and kept it in the creative mode, consequently the photos are blurry, or of such low size jpeg they can't be used in the photo book I wanted to make. When she used the flash, rather than my proper flash gun she used the popup so there's lots of red-eye and dark backgrounds. Dad refused to use my 14Mpx compact which can also do HD video, preferring to use his own old compact, which it turns out is only 2Mpx so the quality of the photos is atrocious
I'm hoping my uncle and brother in law took some better ones.

[DickieG]

Xac, it sounds like your cousin was about as much use as the photographer I used at my wedding who turned off autofocus then didn't bother manually focusing at all so every photo she took is out of focus/blurred

Having said that, wedding photography isn't easy that's for sure, I'd liken the experience to a series of parachute jumps where you suffer ground rush on several occasions. The day started gently, taking photo's of the bride and her bridesmaids getting ready then a mad rush to catch the groom and ushers before they left for the church followed by steadily snapping guests as they arrived followed by another rush to grab shots as the bride arrived at the church. Same thing again for the ceremony, prayers/hymns then suddenly the rings are out, on fingers and they're kissing, all of which you are expected to capture.

Thankfully I managed to capture all that but during the ceremony you obviously can't use flash so have to crank up the iso and due the brides white dress and dark suit of the groom so using any auto mode is fraught with the danger of wildly differing/wrong exposures so it's back to good old fashioned manual mode except that the lighting in the church varied wildly from side to side not to mention front to back meaning that as I moved around I had to constantly adjust the camera. Next minute you're out of the church madly making more adjustments to the camera for correct exposure whilst requesting guests to gather and pose as you direct them, if I had a pound for every time I had to encourage people to smile I'd have made a fortune!!

I'm so glad I spent ages preparing for this day reading books galore on the subject and practising like mad not to mention visiting each venue several times and taking practice shots to have some idea of the settings I'd require, if anyone thinks that they can just go and wing it on the day they are playing with fire or simply don't understand/care about the job they are undertaking.

[Xaccers]

From what you've said and that photo above you've done a cracking job!
Trying to get some guests to line up for group shops can be like herding cats!
At my cousin's wedding I took my old 300D which was running 10D firmware. I think my cousin had the same camera so I was showing him the homemade remote trigger and also that the firmware let the ISO go up to 3200 rather than the 1600 that the 300D should do.
I then took some lovely shots of him and his wife dancing, but when I looked at them on the computer I couldn't work out why they were so noisy. I'd gone and left the ISO on 3200!
Thankfully I had a copy of noiseware (definitely worth getting) which stripped the noise away but it could have ruined the best photos.
With my 40D I've got a 50mm f2.5 lens which is great for low light, but there are ones that have a lower f number.

[DickieG]

From what you've said and that photo above you've done a cracking job!

Thanks Xac

With my 40D I've got a 50mm f2.5 lens which is great for low light, but there are ones that have a lower f number.

Your 50mm f2.5, I take it that's the macro lens? I haven't got a proper macro lens but I'm quite tempted to get one, any recommendations (especially around focal length) you can offer?

For the wedding I used my Canon 5D Mk11 with 24-70 f2.8L, 70-200 is f4L and for that shot a 16-35 f2.8L at 16mm hence why there's some distortion to the tree's on the left side of the shot. Re low f number lenses Canon do a 50mm 1.2L which sells for the not inconsiderable sum of £1185+, what I can't work out with that and some other large aperture lenses is that until they are shut down to say f2 or f2.8 their definition can be rather soft yet the much cheaper 50mm f1.8 (£282+) achieves a similar sharpness thereafter, weird

[Xaccers]

If memory serves the f1.8 macro lens came out not long after I got my 40D and the f2.5, the reviews of them were excellent, especially for the price.
It's plastic so can't take any knocks, the auto focus is apparently very slow and the manual focus can be stiff to use, but for less than £90 it is an absolute bargain. Some reviewers are saying you get vignetting at 1.8 and 2.0 but I don't remember any of that from the review photos in the mags so t might just be the corners.
If I hadn't bought my f2.5, I'd have gone with the f1.8 and saved myself a packet, then later on when the f1.8 had finally fallen apart/been dropped too many times (I've never dropped a lens yet though), I'd spend a few hundred and get the f1.4
Although, if you buy the f1.2 before the end of May, Canon are doing a £320 cash back...

Here's a photo I took of the lovely Amy Studt after the staff asked me to stop using my "rather more powerful than anyone else's camera" flash. In hindsight I could have probably used the pop up flash instead but I wanted to try out the lens.


original is here " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It was shot at 3200ISO, so I'm pretty sure I've applied noiseware to it.

[Citroening]

A very nice picture that Richard.

Talking of 50mm, I know it's not Canon but I've the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 D - basically the older version of the f/1.8 G but does the same job, costs less and weighs less. In all honesty I should use it more along with the Nikon AF-S 35mm f/1.8G that I've got - it took some getting used to being my first prime lens but I was very happy with the results considering the very small outlay price wise. I was suitable impressed with this pic (obviously there's some Photoshopping that has gone on too...) but I liked the outcome. Trouble is I've become a bit lazy and just stuck the ol' trusty 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G on and away I went, but I need to utilise the lenses more which I have been doing a bit more. At the other end of the scale, if anyone's looking for a ultra wide zoom I'd heartily recommend the Sigma 10-20mm in either f/3.5 or f/4-5.6 form (I've the latter) - my favourite lens...

Having just sold my Sigma 8mm F/4 Fisheye (I didn't use it much, and TBH the fisheye lens is a bit of a gimmick really) I've a feeling I may be looking for another lens soon. Either that or wait until I go full frame which I will do when my D90 kicks the bucket...

[DickieG]

Although, if you buy the f1.2 before the end of May, Canon are doing a £320 cash back...

I think that offer only applied if you bought a 60D/7D/5D body before the end of February, just as well really otherwise i might have been tempted

Here's a photo I took of the lovely Amy Studt after the staff asked me to stop using my "rather more powerful than anyone else's camera" flash. In hindsight I could have probably used the pop up flash instead but I wanted to try out the lens.

The shot is possibly all the better for not using flash as you'd have had different colours and shadows running across her, looks like a pretty good shot to me as it is.

obviously there's some Photoshopping that has gone on too

Interesting you mention photoshop Franklin, my photography dates back from film days where unless you had a darkroom the shot you took was what you ended up with so a great deal of time and thought went into composing the shot. I'm now wondering whether some so called 'professional photographers' are really 'professional photoshoppers', a guy I used to work with is now a pro photographer yet when I look at his photos they bear little resemblance to what his camera recorded, at times I feel somewhat cheated by these pro photoshoppers. In an effort learn more about photoshop I've just bought a couple of book's on using it, as I can't beat em I'm having to join em just to get some idea of how try and keep up

Having just sold my Sigma 8mm F/4 Fisheye (I didn't use it much, and TBH the fisheye lens is a bit of a gimmick really) I've a feeling I may be looking for another lens soon. Either that or wait until I go full frame which I will do when my D90 kicks the bucket...

Apparently that's quite a good lens, but as you say fisheyes are a bit of a gimmick/of limited use, I'd still like to have a play though.

Once you've tried full frame you'll be reluctant to go back, as I understand it (might be wrong here) on a full frame the pixels are larger so record more detail as well as the sensor being larger, anyway comparing my 5D to my 550 using the same lenses the 5D wins hands down for definition, not to mention the advantage it holds when you crank up the iso. Mind you carrying the 5D and that brick of a lens (the 24-70) is quite a handful if you're doing it for very long.

If you're looking to buy new camera equipment, apart from this website comparing prices a very good supplier I've just started using after reading excellent reviews is Flash Camera do a google on "Kerso" and you should find further info. He sources equipment from the USA but unlike Hong Kong supplied goods Canon UK still honours the USA supplied stuff, can't say if that applies to Nikon but I've had excellent service so far.

[Xaccers]

One of the best resources for Photoshop/Elements is Digital Photo magazine, get a subscription when they're offering the sort of free gift you're after too
Just before Xmas they normally have a load of calendar templates to add your own pics to and print off.

Whether to use photoshop or not depends on how you want to treat the artwork.
It can make a bad photo (light, noise, inconsiderate lamp posts sticking out of people's heads) look better, but it's difficult to make a really badly taken photo look good.
At the low end of interference/application there's red-eye correction, sensor dust spots removal, and then at the high end you've got blending of reality with CGI.
There are certain shots you can't do just with a DSLR that you could with film such as multiple exposures, but then with PS you can take that to the extreme (imagine a Xantia being worked on by 10 Jim's for instance).
It can make amateurs lazy at times, I've seen it where people just take a snap then try and work it through photoshop where as if they'd spent a little more time taking the photo they'd not have to do much in PS.
Another thing is correcting brightness to match the output of your printer.
And of course with Lightroom/PS/Elements there's no nasty chemicals.
Now you've got me reminiscing about making holograms at college...

[red_dwarfers]

I've been mucking about with bash scripting in osx recently and I must say that I do have a soft spot for it. The silly little commands that you first read about and think 'What an earth would I need that for?' and then find yourself not being able to live without them, awk and sed along with the ones Jim mentioned in particular. I do like using vim, took me a little while to get my head initially but it makes sense now, its just so quick to use.

On a similar note, OSX Lion has a lot to learn from Snow Leopard. Maybe straightforward Active Directory integration that works properly would be a start...

Kev, is this some local west country dialect?

If so can you name it so that the English speaking population know what Google translator to use

I guess this is a south east one. I like the languages interesting use of forward slashes. Of course slashes in my part of the world are only used to escape characters or separate directories and files in a directory structure

[Citroening]

In an effort learn more about photoshop I've just bought a couple of book's on using it, as I can't beat em I'm having to join em just to get some idea of how try and keep up

When I started to get into photography as a 'hobby' I wouldn't touch Photoshop, but I have started to move across to it. It's great to tweak the levels slightly to produce a better, IMO, picture. For when I'm taking lots of pictures (like the CX, XM and Xantia Rally or the X Rally) I won't bother going through all 300 odd pictures but instead I go for putting all on Photobucket (they still come out 'good' from the camera) and then a few of them I will tweak and put on my Flickr. I've tried shooting RAW on some occasions which is good, but once again for large shoots I'm not going to go through all of them, even though the RAW comes with the JPG as well...

Apparently that's quite a good lens, but as you say fisheyes are a bit of a gimmick/of limited use, I'd still like to have a play though.

It was a very nice lens I must admit, and produced nice pics. I took this one out of the roof of a car that shows the view it gives, but I don't think I'd buy another Fisheye lens after having this one. Great lens, but I didn't use it much.

Once you've tried full frame you'll be reluctant to go back,

A friend recently upgraded from D90 (same as me) to D700 (full frame) and the results are brilliant, I must admit. Thanks for the links, they might come in handy at some point. The D90 seems to be going alright at the moment though (touch wood) which is 1 year 5 months old now and around 20K shutter actuations...

[DickieG]

I guess this is a south east one. I like the languages interesting use of forward slashes. Of course slashes in my part of the world are only used to escape characters or separate directories and files in a directory structure

Oi! It's the Queens English we speak raannd ere, nun of dat carrot crunching straw in your ear's wierdo puter stuff. Now see if you can work this one out /\[]{}()

I've tried shooting RAW on some occasions which is good, but once again for large shoots I'm not going to go through all of them, even though the RAW comes with the JPG as well...

Kev shut your eyes RAW is the way to go if you're after greater definition and want to get the best out of photoshop as you still have the full file, I use it pretty much all the time.

The D90 seems to be going alright at the moment though (touch wood) which is 1 year 5 months old now and around 20K shutter actuations...

Only another 80K actuations to wear it out

[XantiaMan]

Richard, have you seen my track wheels? Did send you a message, i can get the BM's wheels done in Shadow Chrome for you if you want.

[DickieG]

Richard, have you seen my track wheels? Did send you a message, i can get the BM's wheels done in Shadow Chrome for you if you want.

Yes I have and yes I did, apologies I meant to get back to you to find out more details, when's the best time to give you a call? BTW I'll get those photo's sorted if it ever stops raining here long enough to wash the car and take the photo's.

[XantiaMan]

Richard, have you seen my track wheels? Did send you a message, i can get the BM's wheels done in Shadow Chrome for you if you want.

Yes I have and yes I did, apologies I meant to get back to you to find out more details, when's the best time to give you a call? BTW I'll get those photo's sorted if it ever stops raining here long enough to wash the car and take the photo's.

Wed- Fri is usually a bad time as I'm dodging the bloody weather constantly, past 6 weeks have been a nightmare trying to paint outside! Give us a shout over the weekend. My wheels were much worse than the BMW's and the chap does MV2's all the time, top notch!

[DickieG]

Will do thanks.