Wedding Photag. Gear

[gsgary]

Had a look at some photos and changed my mind

Nope, not allowed to change your mind! You could do that shot with a kit lens I bet!

Also, you should send your lenses to me instead of pgriz because he doesn't even know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin! :lmao:

Allan

Pfft. I know. I just didn't want to prejudice your answers. And GSGary, that's really terrible bokeh you've got there. No, you deserve better. Now, just let go of the box and give it to the postal service guy....

Ahh, but you only got one image out of your photo... he could get 4-5 usable images out of a photo with a kit lens because he would have shot it much larger and crop it since he has a larger megapixel camera. Just think, you only captured the surfer - there were probably great white sharks, nursing mothers, baby seals and UFO's that you missed in this shot by using superior gear.

You = Lose

I used to get all those too, until someone pointed out the sensor needed cleaning...:er:

What do you expect from a 300F2.8L + 2x extender

 

[mrpink]

I think everyone should post a different photo of their work with each post. This way it would be easier to weed out the crap.

Where is your photo to accompany this post?








p!nK

 

[sobolik]

Oh boy. We pick apart your quotes to Ken Rockwell, you find someone else to quote. Funny thing is I don't think you ever really read what is said, you just yank parts out and go to it. So here we go again....

I say the average beginner asking about lenses on this forum has very little interest in edge sharpness for example nor will they or their audience ever care.

I agree, but for the millionth time, to which you never respond, this thread is not about beginners, it is about someone who is getting paid "MAJOR money" to shoot a wedding. Please understand that.

Same with the flaw called "good" bokeh

Again with the bokeh is a flaw comments. Where, exactly where, does it say that it is a flaw?

I am going to over simplify this so hopefully it will make sense to you. If you want the real story, go take some physics classes.

In order to get an image on the focal plane (sensor or film), light passes through some kind of hole (as in a pinhole camera) and creates an inverted image on the opposite side of the hole. This works pretty well and gets pretty much everything in focus at once. There are however a couple of problems.

1) Since the hole is very small, very long exposures are required.
2) To change the image (get an object larger or smaller on the film or sensor) you have to move the hole forward or backwards by quite a large distance.
3) Controlling the image can be very difficult since you can not use too wide an angle and still have room for a shutter, film transport (or digital equipment), etc.

To solve these problems lenses were introduced. Unfortunately, even though the lenses fixed all of the above problems (much larger hole so faster exposures, 300mm lenses can be 5" long instead of 12", wide angle lenses are very possible) now we have a new problem, focusing.

For this next part, I am going to ignore convergance, divergance, difraction, and some other problems with light traveling through several glass elements, coatings, bouncing around in tubes, etc, even though they have tangable and real effects, they are not needed to understand where this is going.

The reason focusing is an issue is that as light travels through different parts of the glass it actually travels different distances and that has to be corrected. That is not an issue when you are talking about a pinhole that might be 1mm or less. It is a huge issue when you are talking about 30mm or more.The better corrected, the better the lens, the more expensive the lens.

Now an object at one distance will be different than an object at another distance. Think of it like a building in the distance. Although you can see the top and bottom of the 100 story building, the light traveling from the top takes a much longer path to get to you than the light traveling from the bottom. You can place a coke bottle on the table in front of you and although it appears the same size as the building in the distance, it is much closer so the light from the top of the bottle and light from the bottom of the bottle are much closer to the same length than it is for the building.

So in order to get the benefits, you have to deal with only some things being in focus. This is OK because that is how we precieve things anyway. Our brains relate to this very well so it is a non-issue. Images with close and distant objects all in focus at the same time seem disturbing, too busy and surreal anyway as a general rule.

So, if only certain things can be in focus at one time, other things must be out of focus. This is understood, it is part of physics, it is not a flaw, it is a design decision based on what we want to achieve.

The visual qualities or attibutes of the areas that are not in focus is called bokeh. Yes, this area is caused by a misalignment of the lenses in relation to the area in question, but it is not a flaw, it is by design, it is intentional. It can be controlled and achieved in different ways, one of which is spherical abberation. You can increase or decrease spherical abberations in the in-focus area, out-of-focus area, both or neither, and you can do it partially, totally, or not at all.

Now lenses can be taylored to specific uses, and to specific attributes. Some lenses are taylored so that the bokeh is considered more pleasing. If you think lens manufacturer's ignore bokeh why did Nikon produce two DC lenses (DC stands for Defocus Control, they allow user modification of the area that is not in focus, in other words change the bokeh)? Why does Nikon also produce the 85mm 1.4 which is specifically sold and marketed as a portrait lens know for it's outstanding bokeh?

Get it?

Allan

I'm on an international photography forum and I am having to explain the basics of photography to someone, arg! I'm going to bed.

"I agree, but for the millionth time, to which you never respond, this thread is not about beginners, it is about someone who is getting paid "MAJOR money" to shoot a wedding. Please understand that."

Flea you really are an annoying flea. Compare you ranting contentious big mouth venom with the OPThe original post:
"Wedding Photag. Gear
I was hoping to get a little guidance on what gear to buy- bare minimum- to do a wedding. And am I playing with fire if I dont have a backup camera body? What lenses specifically do I need??"

--


It has been established that the flea has no idea what he is ranting about rather it appears to just be a person full of venom.

The"fake it till you make it" crowd like you seldom make it. They are too busty running the mouth to ever progress.


flea you should just shut your venomous mouth and learn something. Again compare the OP to your false claims.

Another of the OP's posts

"Wow...this entire forum is full of a bunch of egotistical jackasses that think they are God's gift to photography. Not sure why everyone jumps everyone's case around here, this is, afterall, a BEGINNER'S forum, so if you are so magnificent, why don't you wander your way out of the beginner forum. A lot of people get on these forums to learn, not to read what some jackass that takes mediocre pictures and works at the Wal-Mart photo studio thinks. Clearly not many people on here shoot weddings because of their lack of ability and people skills. My opinion is that everyone on this forum (with a few exceptions) is so rude because they are completely worried that they aren't very good and someone with actual talent might someday swoop in and snag what few clients they may have."

Flea, pay attention and keep the mouth from running.

 

[PatrickCheung]

Oh boy. We pick apart your quotes to Ken Rockwell, you find someone else to quote. Funny thing is I don't think you ever really read what is said, you just yank parts out and go to it. So here we go again....

I say the average beginner asking about lenses on this forum has very little interest in edge sharpness for example nor will they or their audience ever care.

I agree, but for the millionth time, to which you never respond, this thread is not about beginners, it is about someone who is getting paid "MAJOR money" to shoot a wedding. Please understand that.

Same with the flaw called "good" bokeh

Again with the bokeh is a flaw comments. Where, exactly where, does it say that it is a flaw?

I am going to over simplify this so hopefully it will make sense to you. If you want the real story, go take some physics classes.

In order to get an image on the focal plane (sensor or film), light passes through some kind of hole (as in a pinhole camera) and creates an inverted image on the opposite side of the hole. This works pretty well and gets pretty much everything in focus at once. There are however a couple of problems.

1) Since the hole is very small, very long exposures are required.
2) To change the image (get an object larger or smaller on the film or sensor) you have to move the hole forward or backwards by quite a large distance.
3) Controlling the image can be very difficult since you can not use too wide an angle and still have room for a shutter, film transport (or digital equipment), etc.

To solve these problems lenses were introduced. Unfortunately, even though the lenses fixed all of the above problems (much larger hole so faster exposures, 300mm lenses can be 5" long instead of 12", wide angle lenses are very possible) now we have a new problem, focusing.

For this next part, I am going to ignore convergance, divergance, difraction, and some other problems with light traveling through several glass elements, coatings, bouncing around in tubes, etc, even though they have tangable and real effects, they are not needed to understand where this is going.

The reason focusing is an issue is that as light travels through different parts of the glass it actually travels different distances and that has to be corrected. That is not an issue when you are talking about a pinhole that might be 1mm or less. It is a huge issue when you are talking about 30mm or more.The better corrected, the better the lens, the more expensive the lens.

Now an object at one distance will be different than an object at another distance. Think of it like a building in the distance. Although you can see the top and bottom of the 100 story building, the light traveling from the top takes a much longer path to get to you than the light traveling from the bottom. You can place a coke bottle on the table in front of you and although it appears the same size as the building in the distance, it is much closer so the light from the top of the bottle and light from the bottom of the bottle are much closer to the same length than it is for the building.

So in order to get the benefits, you have to deal with only some things being in focus. This is OK because that is how we precieve things anyway. Our brains relate to this very well so it is a non-issue. Images with close and distant objects all in focus at the same time seem disturbing, too busy and surreal anyway as a general rule.

So, if only certain things can be in focus at one time, other things must be out of focus. This is understood, it is part of physics, it is not a flaw, it is a design decision based on what we want to achieve.

The visual qualities or attibutes of the areas that are not in focus is called bokeh. Yes, this area is caused by a misalignment of the lenses in relation to the area in question, but it is not a flaw, it is by design, it is intentional. It can be controlled and achieved in different ways, one of which is spherical abberation. You can increase or decrease spherical abberations in the in-focus area, out-of-focus area, both or neither, and you can do it partially, totally, or not at all.

Now lenses can be taylored to specific uses, and to specific attributes. Some lenses are taylored so that the bokeh is considered more pleasing. If you think lens manufacturer's ignore bokeh why did Nikon produce two DC lenses (DC stands for Defocus Control, they allow user modification of the area that is not in focus, in other words change the bokeh)? Why does Nikon also produce the 85mm 1.4 which is specifically sold and marketed as a portrait lens know for it's outstanding bokeh?

Get it?

Allan

I'm on an international photography forum and I am having to explain the basics of photography to someone, arg! I'm going to bed.

"I agree, but for the millionth time, to which you never respond, this thread is not about beginners, it is about someone who is getting paid "MAJOR money" to shoot a wedding. Please understand that."

Flea you really are an annoying flea. Compare you ranting contentious big mouth venom with the OPThe original post:
"Wedding Photag. Gear
I was hoping to get a little guidance on what gear to buy- bare minimum- to do a wedding. And am I playing with fire if I dont have a backup camera body? What lenses specifically do I need??"

--


It has been established that the flea has no idea what he is ranting about rather it appears to just be a person full of venom.

The"fake it till you make it" crowd like you seldom make it. They are too busty running the mouth to ever progress.


flea you should just shut your venomous mouth and learn something. Again compare the OP to your false claims.

Another of the OP's posts

"Wow...this entire forum is full of a bunch of egotistical jackasses that think they are God's gift to photography. Not sure why everyone jumps everyone's case around here, this is, afterall, a BEGINNER'S forum, so if you are so magnificent, why don't you wander your way out of the beginner forum. A lot of people get on these forums to learn, not to read what some jackass that takes mediocre pictures and works at the Wal-Mart photo studio thinks. Clearly not many people on here shoot weddings because of their lack of ability and people skills. My opinion is that everyone on this forum (with a few exceptions) is so rude because they are completely worried that they aren't very good and someone with actual talent might someday swoop in and snag what few clients they may have."

Flea, pay attention and keep the mouth from running.

I see you have given up arguing about bokeh and kit lenses!

 

[pgriz]

You know, guys, pissing contests are not the least bit entertaining or enlightening. We come to these forums presumably to share in our enjoyment, to learn from others with experience, and to participate in advancing our understanding of our common interest. When the dialogue swerves into invective and insult, it reveals little about the arguement, and much about the ones resorting to this.

There are some who like to argue. An arguement is a useful mechanism to present the various aspects of an issue and to debate the relative merits of each proposition. However, once it descends into emotion and namecalling, then we have the witnessed the classic definition of a troll. Internet Trolls talks about trolls and what they are and do. So let's discuss and even argue, but argue with reason and with substance. If we think a viewpoint has no merit, then let's discuss the viewpoint and its lack of merit. Let us NOT start mudslinging. I have no power (nor do I seek it) to make participants "play nice" but at the same time, it lessens whatever pleasure I get in participating, and rooms with a stink are soon deserted.

Ok, rant off.

 

[nonamexx]

You know, guys, pissing contests are not the least bit entertaining or enlightening. We come to these forums presumably to share in our enjoyment, to learn from others with experience, and to participate in advancing our understanding of our common interest. When the dialogue swerves into invective and insult, it reveals little about the arguement, and much about the ones resorting to this.

There are some who like to argue. An arguement is a useful mechanism to present the various aspects of an issue and to debate the relative merits of each proposition. However, once it descends into emotion and namecalling, then we have the witnessed the classic definition of a troll. Internet Trolls talks about trolls and what they are and do. So let's discuss and even argue, but argue with reason and with substance. If we think a viewpoint has no merit, then let's discuss the viewpoint and its lack of merit. Let us NOT start mudslinging. I have no power (nor do I seek it) to make participants "play nice" but at the same time, it lessens whatever pleasure I get in participating, and rooms with a stink are soon deserted.

Ok, rant off.

I think you make a good point and I would like to share my general thoughts on this, having been online and participating in forums for nearly 6-7 years. (haha.. I'm boasting)

There are several factors why such discussions, even though they start off decently end up invariably becoming slanging matches with lesser and lesser useful content and more and more abuse and invective (if you like).

I think people generally start off with hugely different expectations and come from such different backgrounds even though they might share one common interest. The argument part of it usually begins when one person states a point as completely factual and dismisses every other point of view as false.

Then again, the more knowledgeable people usually have what is called a slight intellectual arrogance (I can be accused of this myself, but I do try to control it). This makes them very difficult to convince (if anybody can be convinced) that some things that are presented as facts might just be opinions. This leads to more slanging.

Finally what happens is this. Invariably when such an argument gets circular and increasingly heated somebody makes a statement like: "your assertion or statement is stupid" and that is read as "you are stupid" and then abusing starts off.

One thing my experience has taught me is that people seldom "read" the conversation properly at a certain point of time. The eye tends to scan the posts quickly when you're emotional and you pick out parts that you interpret wrongly and get agitated and respond more heatedly. This leads to everybody getting upset and results in flaming.

My summary of why flaming becomes inevitable in highly subjective matters?

1. People take any attack on their opinion as a personal attack.
2. Some more knowledgeable and/or experienced people often present their opinion as undisputed facts.
3. Inevitably the issue becomes "for/against" and arguments become circular and repeated.
4. Somebody in frustration makes a statement like "your argument or statement is stupid" and this is interpreted as "you are stupid"
5. All round flaming starts until things cool down. This is the stage when people post quickly and heatedly and seldom "read" anything in response properly.

As a former forum admin and moderator, I've always felt it's better to stop discussions when it reaches point #4. It makes no sense to allow arguments to continue until the serious flaming stage is reached. At that point no useful content is added and people become more emotional and defensive.

In actuality this particular thread is no biggie. I actually find that people have been more restrained and more focussed on topic in spite of the inevitable clash of viewpoints. So I admire and understand your concerns and just thought I'd share something on this.

 

[flea77]

Flea you really are an annoying flea. Compare you ranting contentious big mouth venom with the OPThe original post:
"Wedding Photag. Gear
I was hoping to get a little guidance on what gear to buy- bare minimum- to do a wedding. And am I playing with fire if I dont have a backup camera body? What lenses specifically do I need??"

--


It has been established that the flea has no idea what he is ranting about rather it appears to just be a person full of venom.

The"fake it till you make it" crowd like you seldom make it. They are too busty running the mouth to ever progress.


flea you should just shut your venomous mouth and learn something. Again compare the OP to your false claims.

Another of the OP's posts

"Wow...this entire forum is full of a bunch of egotistical jackasses that think they are God's gift to photography. Not sure why everyone jumps everyone's case around here, this is, afterall, a BEGINNER'S forum, so if you are so magnificent, why don't you wander your way out of the beginner forum. A lot of people get on these forums to learn, not to read what some jackass that takes mediocre pictures and works at the Wal-Mart photo studio thinks. Clearly not many people on here shoot weddings because of their lack of ability and people skills. My opinion is that everyone on this forum (with a few exceptions) is so rude because they are completely worried that they aren't very good and someone with actual talent might someday swoop in and snag what few clients they may have."

Flea, pay attention and keep the mouth from running.

Yep, you are correct. In the middle of the night I got two threads where you are posting drivel about lenses confused. The thread at http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...m-photo-gallery/229725-kit-lens-weddings.html is the one I was refering to where the OP was doing a wedding for "MAJOR money" as she stated in another post at http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...lery/228931-shooting-wedding-8-days-help.html when she stated:

I'm getting paid MAJOR money so I want the pics to be PERFECT because I never shot a wedding so I just need tips!

Both threads involve you proclaiming nonesense about lenses so they were easily confused.

Regarding this thread, if you read the thread from the start you will see where I answer the OPs question (post #4) with a few questions and my bare minimum list. Things remain pretty much civil although she finds one post rude, right up until post #18 where someone makes some smart remoarks about having to purchase all the latest and greatest equipment.

Up to the post you made, no one suggested the latest and greatest (there was no mention of D3s or 1Ds at all). When you were called on this fact by heyjoe and ajkramer87 you stated you had no model reases for the wedding photos you have (that would imply you had no contract, what kind of wedding photographer would have no contract?!?!?!?) and that you basically wont post any of your pictures because you think everyone will dump on them because they don't like you (although I have no idea what could ever give you the impression you are not liked).

Once you get called out on that you divert the conversation to Light Artisan's signature line because you claim that attributing a quote about the internet to Abraham Lincoln was "presenting false information" and was "harmful" and "legally libel". This tactic worked because no one could possibly believe you were seriously calling that obvious attempt at humor as a libelous comment (Under US law I believe the plaintif (Lincoln) would have to prove that the information is false, which will be rather difficult since he is dead).

At this point you shift the conversation over to explaining that bokeh is a flaw and somehow that makes the kit lens on the same level as the pro lens, just with different flaws........

and on we go. Now, you once again avoid the meat of the conversation and would rather call me names. That is fine, it clearly shows you have no leg to stand on and have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Thank you for your assistance

Allan

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I need a bigger one of these:

 

[flea77]

I need a bigger one of these:

Ask and ye shall receive!

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Perfect! Thanks, Venom McVenomson.
Can I just call you Venny?

 

[ghpham]

New Year....same ol' sh!t.....

 

[eric-holmes]

I need a bigger one of these:

:lmao::lmao::lmao:

 

[Joshua_Lee]

I think everyone should post a different photo of their work with each post. This way it would be easier to weed out the crap.

Where is your photo to accompany this post?








p!nK

Sorry, let me be more specific. If you are going to bust balls on here, back it up with work. Otherwise, shut the heck up!

 

[usayit]

You guys should invest in one of these:

National Presto Industries, Inc.

Sure saved me a lot of $$$ over buying micro-bag-poppers. Enough popcorn to keep up with the TPF.

 

[o hey tyler]

Wow, this thread really happened?