How to shoot banquet?

[Cheesecake]

I agree that monitor calibration is important to get get as close to the correct exposure and colour correction. But what I was refering to was the colouration that is not obvious on LCD monitors. It wasn't apparent on the lab's monitor as well. It was my friend at the lab who clued me in on those subtleties of photo editing that don't print very well, and I think it has to do with the limitations of the LCD monitor in capturing these. Or perhaps its because we are using cheap monitors :dunno: Also will check out the book you recommended. Thanks.

no such problems with printing at labs at all even at 12X18.
maybe becos i use Philips LCD monitor.:bsmilie:

 

[azul123]

i understand.thanks.
but that also means i have to learn how to tune my camera.phew!:bigeyes:
i need 8 days in a week to really get more serious about photography.
given my work schedule and such...sigh...

There's more... if you are serious about photography. Many in CS if you notice, they calibrate everything in the their workflow. Meaning from the camera (getting exposure right), flash (the "bestest" one they can buy) and even their replies constantly remind us to buy the best you can afford, there's good reason I am sure (me seeing the wisdom of it), using lenses that are right for the occassion, using fast memory cards (because they don't want to miss a shot). Oh, back to flash the type of diffuser, bounce card etc...

That's just camera gear.

Now onto the workflow... for digital it means you have to ensure and control consistent colours all the way thru, from camera to screen (Post Processing) and to print (type of ink and paper). That's why many CSer here have their own screen calibration device and printers calibrated with the different types of paper, their print quality even supersede those printed by labs, that's how far they would go to get good images.

We have to sieve thru many posts to really understand who they are (the pro and serious hobbyist).

../azul123

 

[CreaXion]

There's more... if you are serious about photography. Many in CS if you notice, they calibrate everything in the their workflow. Meaning from the camera (getting exposure right), flash (the "bestest" one they can buy) and even their replies constantly remind us to buy the best you can afford, there's good reason I am sure (me seeing the wisdom of it), using lenses that are right for the occassion, using fast memory cards (because they don't want to miss a shot). Oh, back to flash the type of diffuser, bounce card etc...

That's just camera gear.

Now onto the workflow... for digital it means you have to ensure and control consistent colours all the way thru, from camera to screen (Post Processing) and to print (type of ink and paper). That's why many CSer here have their own screen calibration device and printers calibrated with the different types of paper, their print quality even supersede those printed by labs, that's how far they would go to get good images.

We have to sieve thru many posts to really understand who they are (the pro and serious hobbyist).

../azul123

Things to note is cash. Not everybody who is serious abt photography can afford it. To me it is the attitude that makes a photographer a photographer. How does he make best use of his existing equipment to get the photo out?

 

[CreaXion]

I agree that monitor calibration is important to get get as close to the correct exposure and colour correction. But what I was refering to was the colouration that is not obvious on LCD monitors. It wasn't apparent on the lab's monitor as well. It was my friend at the lab who clued me in on those subtleties of photo editing that don't print very well, and I think it has to do with the limitations of the LCD monitor in capturing these. Or perhaps its because we are using cheap monitors :dunno: Also will check out the book you recommended. Thanks.

That was also the problem I faced, Colouration. Cannot see it on screen despite calibration. Probable reason is the Monitor 72 DPI only. Photo 300 to 400 DPI. That is why can see.

Scott Kelby book solid:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: . Read so many books and that is my fav also.

 

[azul123]

To me it is the attitude that makes a photographer a photographer. How does he make best use of his existing equipment to get the photo out?

I won't argue that, but he/she would be a frustrated one without the right gear aiding him/her.

../azul123

 

[CreaXion]

I won't argue that, but he/she would be a frustrated one without the right gear aiding him/her.

../azul123

Agree also lah. I am not disputing the fact that rt equipment is impt. However, it is a balance of both.

 

[Cheesecake]

I won't argue that, but he/she would be a frustrated one without the right gear aiding him/her.

../azul123

Agree also lah. I am not disputing the fact that rt equipment is impt. However, it is a balance of both.

valid points raised.:thumbsup:


alot depends on the photographer's attitude and his/her quest(or lack of) for self-improvement. pretty much the same outlook to life, i feel.

 

[CreaXion]

I also frustrated that time when I was using my D70s kit lens. Just not enough depth in the photo. Finally changed to a 2.8 lens and the difference is great. Point is that shd exploit the current eqpt until all possibilities exhausted before upgrading.

 

[ortega]

I also frustrated that time when I was using my D70s kit lens. Just not enough depth in the photo. Finally changed to a 2.8 lens and the difference is great. Point is that shd exploit the current eqpt until all possibilities exhausted before upgrading.

don't understand your statement

Just not enough depth in the photo. Finally changed to a 2.8 lens and the difference is great.

what do you mean by not enough depth?

what difference does the f2.8 lens do?

Better contrast?

 

[blazer_workz]

what do you mean by not enough depth?

what difference does the f2.8 lens do?

Better contrast?

i think Creaxion means a better lens has better optics which gives better color and sharpness..which is usually one of those lens with constant f/2.8 apertures..

 

[jeanie]

there's really a difference between pics shot with 17-35 f2.8 vs the 18-200 vr.
at least, for me, there's a difference.

noticable when you zoom into details.

 

[CreaXion]

don't understand your statement



what do you mean by not enough depth?

what difference does the f2.8 lens do?

Better contrast?

Majority of my shoots would have bright and shiny clothes during the events. When u shoot shiny stuff, it tends to get burnts quite easily when u use flash. Flash photography is a must for me as all the photos must be high key. When u hit clothes of other colours with shiny beads and stuff, it is okay. When u got to shoot shiny tiny white beads agst shiny white satin or silk clothes, wah lau eh. Got to underexpose a bit so as not to burn the clothes. Then when underexposed a bit, brown cast came out. Sian. It is even worse when white shiny clothes meet dark clothes like navy blue, black, etc sitting side by side with human subjects being dark skin.

There may be other ways of overriding the problem but I may not be competent enough. When I changed to 2.8 lens, I can shoot the subject without problem. There is more differentiation in the grey zones. Hence, shiny white beads agst shiny white clothes is differentiated provided that your control of flash is done properly. No more brown cast from that day onwards when I changed to my Sigma 2.8 lens.

 

[ortega]

OIC, thanks for the explanation

i think you mean that the f2.8 lens has got better optics as blazer_workz mentioned

 

[Cheesecake]

there's really a difference between pics shot with 17-35 f2.8 vs the 18-200 vr.
at least, for me, there's a difference.

noticable when you zoom into details.

to be honest, u pay for wat u get.

an all-in-1... i guess the 18-200VR comes closest.

close, but no ciggie.

 

[Cheesecake]

Majority of my shoots would have bright and shiny clothes during the events. When u shoot shiny stuff, it tends to get burnts quite easily when u use flash. Flash photography is a must for me as all the photos must be high key. When u hit clothes of other colours with shiny beads and stuff, it is okay. When u got to shoot shiny tiny white beads agst shiny white satin or silk clothes, wah lau eh. Got to underexpose a bit so as not to burn the clothes. Then when underexposed a bit, brown cast came out. Sian. It is even worse when white shiny clothes meet dark clothes like navy blue, black, etc sitting side by side with human subjects being dark skin.

There may be other ways of overriding the problem but I may not be competent enough. When I changed to 2.8 lens, I can shoot the subject without problem. There is more differentiation in the grey zones. Hence, shiny white beads agst shiny white clothes is differentiated provided that your control of flash is done properly. No more brown cast from that day onwards when I changed to my Sigma 2.8 lens.

creaxion, i know what u really want. :devil:

ditch ur sigma and get the lens that really matter. :devil:

 

[jeanie]

to be honest, u pay for wat u get.

an all-in-1... i guess the 18-200VR comes closest.

close, but no ciggie.

very true.
i wish there's a 10-600mm though.i'll surely get it.:bsmilie:

 

[azul123]

very true.
i wish there's a 10-600mm though.i'll surely get it.:bsmilie:

Even if you have to carry it on a pickup truck? :bsmilie:

../azul123

 

[Cheesecake]

very true.
i wish there's a 10-600mm though.i'll surely get it.:bsmilie:

make it an f2.8 lens. :thumbsup:
:thumbsup: u mux be the strongest woman in the galaxy. :thumbsup:

 

[CreaXion]

creaxion, i know what u really want. :devil:

ditch ur sigma and get the lens that really matter. :devil:

Wah lao eh. Bo lui liao:embrass: Sigma is currently serving my needs well. If I upgrade my D70s to D200, then the Sigma will sux on the cam sia.

 

[CreaXion]

creaxion, i know what u really want. :devil:

ditch ur sigma and get the lens that really matter. :devil:

By the way, how u know:devil: Yeah u can really read my tots but as what i can say, Boh Lui Liao. U got some to spare:devil: Just joking.