# New Member ;-)



## Warninglabel (Sep 22, 2011)

New Member here, I have been visiting this website for a long time and though it was time to become a member since I visit it everyday.

My Wife and I both have full time jobs but on the side we have been taking Soccer pictures of our son and daughter games. 

*Our equipment* 
Canon 7D 
Lens Cannon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

*Future ideas and upgrades*
-My wife would like to do wedding in the future
*Equipment *
-5D III
-Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
-and maybe a 300mm lens

I was wondering if anyone would checkout some of our Pictures to give us some pointers especially night time photographs (http://www.mitchellparson.com) and maybe future equipment or lens upgrades 

This is our hobby not our profession so don't slam us lol but I know we have lots of improvement to make 

The night album is located @ http://www.mitchellparson.com/?p=1781 

Thanks in advance ;-)


----------



## DJL329 (Sep 22, 2011)

The 24-70 f/2.8L might be a better choice for indoors, instead of the 24-105mm f/4L, as it's a stop faster, and you already have the 70-105 range covered with the 70-200mm.

An ultra-wide angle, such as the 16-35mm f/2.8L (the 17-40mm f/4L, is a cheaper, slower alternative) is another must: group shots, interior shots of the church, etc.

The 15mm fisheye is also popular. For instance, in posed shots of the bride (with the train laid out in front), it helps to exaggerate the train.

And don't forget a flash! 

Here's an article I just found on the subject:

http://www.slrlounge.com/6-must-have-lenses-for-wedding-photography

In the end, do lots of research. I'm sure there are _plenty_ of books and articles on the subject.


----------



## Capnbill (Sep 22, 2011)

I'm a new member, too; so welcome!
I am a hobbyist photog as well, but I have shot at a few friends' weddings and can offer a bit of advice. Canon lenses are great, especially the "L" series. I personally have the same 70-200 2.8 IS, and it is FANTASTIC. I also have an old 16-35 2.8L and it works very nicely when I need something a bit wide. The other lens I use a whole lot is a Sigma 24-60, again 2.8. See a trend here? If you are going to invest in the 24-70, go for the 2.8. Yes, it costs more, but I have shot as slow as 1/10 handheld at weddings, without flash, where the official photog was struggling with a 3lb flash unit on top of the camera, he was using the f4 24-70. For general purpose, daylight/evening/indoors the slower aperature is fine, but if you're shooting once in a lifetime moments, in the dark; you can't go wrong with the fastest glass possible. The 5Dii has good performance at high ISO, I can't imagine the mkiii losing anything there. Good luck!


----------



## Warninglabel (Sep 22, 2011)

Awesome info people, thanks for the help, looks like I got a lot of reading to do


----------



## scottkinfw (Sep 23, 2011)

Hi and welcome.

I am not a sports photographer, and I would only hold myself out as an avid novice.

That said, and for what it is worth, you are off to a great start. Colors, exposure, focus all seem great. I enjoyed facial expressions too.

A few things to consider. Be aware of backgrounds. If you can cut the clutter/fences, etc. focus would be more on the subjects. Try opening up f stop, or change camera position if possible. I would also try different shutter speeds to see how you like those effects.

The other thing I would say is to look at your cropping. Use the rule of 1/3rds. See if you like closer or farther out crops. Also, try different camera positions high, low, strange angles, whatever.

Again, great job, keep working, I do.

sek



Warninglabel said:


> New Member here, I have been visiting this website for a long time and though it was time to become a member since I visit it everyday.
> 
> My Wife and I both have full time jobs but on the side we have been taking Soccer pictures of our son and daughter games.
> 
> ...


----------



## Hillsilly (Sep 23, 2011)

Hi. Great photos. My initial thought is that some photos were overexposed (the ones with a lot of black and white clothing). On some, the white seems to jump out. It looks like you've blown the highlights and lost detail. This works well on the sports photos, but might be a problem with wedding photos. But on closer inspection, I've changed my mind. The photos aren't overexposed, I think its just that with your chosen exposure and contrast levels, you don't have the dynamic range to keep the detail in both the dark shorts and the white shirts and socks. Unfortunately, these are common colours for weddings and difficult subjects to meter correctly due to the dynamic range. I'm not sure what the soluton is - reducing contrast settings, shooting raw or spending more time in post production? Anyway, I'm sure some of the pros could provide a few tips on photographing black suited grooms with white dressed brides. Otherwise, looks fine. Good luck!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 23, 2011)

Low light and the Canon 7D are not the best mix. Even with my 85mm f/1.8 lens, it was very difficult to impossible to photograph a recent night time rodeo. A high shutter speed is needed for fast motion, which makes it very difficult.

F/2.8 would have been worse.

I was trying out my new7D, but if I was seriously doing night sports under marginal lighting, I'd use my 5D MK II or a 1D MK IV. I had a 1D MK III, it was getting pretty noisey at ISO 3200, which is the minimum for a wide aperture prime and night use. The 5D MK II has limited sports capability, but at least I could get a image in low light, just not a high FPS.

7D at ISO 4000, f/1.8, 1/320 sec. With 85mm f/1.8 lens. I used a ton of NR and lost a huge amount of detail getting the images to be viewable at all.














Barrel racer coming straight at me at full tilt and heading for home even faster. This was earlier in the evening before full darkness.

7D f/2.5 ISO 3200 85mm f/1.8 1/400 sec. 






7D f/2.0 ISO 3200 85mm f/1.8 1/400 sec.


----------



## John Thomas (Sep 23, 2011)

Well, I made many night / low light shoots and, perhaps, I can give you some hints on this. 

Because I have strong connections with the Holy Mount Athos, through the years I made many photos at vigils / night services / dark churches aso, like https://vatopaidi.wordpress.com/2011/09/19/spiritual-picture-of-the-day-6/ for example.

In fact, there is an entire series of photos, most of them in low light, one per day (except Saturday and Sunday) @ http://is.gd/spiritual_pic.

I think that (one of) the most important thing (imho) in the low light photography is _the mood_. You should keep the mood. I think that the viewer must know that your scene / subject was in low light because low light influences (sometimes a lot) the characters in your photo. 

For example: https://vatopaidi.wordpress.com/2011/09/21/spiritual-picture-of-the-day8/

Also, at least for me, the low light is more powerful than the mundane, day light, allowing to pass much stronger messages to the viewer, like in this one:

https://vatopaidi.wordpress.com/2011/09/23/spiritual-picture-of-the-day10/

Yes, I know, sometimes you should comunicate a feeling and/or a happening without leting the viewer know that it is low light. So, you need to be prepared also for these:

https://vatopaidi.wordpress.com/2011/09/14/spiritual-picture-of-the-day-â€“/

or

https://vatopaidi.wordpress.com/2011/09/12/spiritual-picture-of-the-day-1/

You can also see more examples on the 'Spiritual Picture of the Day' (see the address above) also in the past as well as in the future. 

And now the least important part, the technicals:

All were shot with Canon 1Ds Mk II. Usually I shot at 1600 ISO. The camera is old and compared to nowadays standards, isn't very good at it. Sometimes there is enough noise, if you cannot eliminate it without noticing, you should embrace the noise. Sometimes it helps, depending on the photo's message.

Also, you should underexpose your photos with 1/3 till 1 EV or even more. You should be careful to avoid having burned highlights from a powerfull light source which happens to be somewhere near to or in scene. Also, go for the faces and/or strong (body) lines.

The lenses: 
- Canon 50mm F1.8 - Cheap, very good. Does the job. Highly recommended. Unfortunatelly at 50 mm it is rather difficult to get environments in tight places (churches etc.)

- Canon 17-40mm L F4 - Workable. F4 is a little bit slow but since we speak about wide lens you can get slow shutter speeds without too much trouble. But beware at distortions and moving subjects (even sometimes this can help you to accomplish your photo message).

- Canon 28mm F2.8 - so, so. Flare prone. Too much flare, especially in churches (candles etc.). Usually I go with 17-40. Yes, I know - one stop wider aperture. 

- Canon 28-135mm F3.5-5.6 - (almost) useless. F3.5 at 28 mm - too slow for me. 'nuff said.

Flash? - Well, usually no flash. Very hard light. Disturbs the monks in the churches and that's why I try to avoid it. Also, you must bounce it to have nice results. The churches are one of the worst places to bounce the flash. Very irregular surfaces and painted in many colors. But if you have a simple, normall room with white walls you can use a fill flash at -1/5 or -2 EV with a diffuser on it. And don't forget the gel.

Good luck,

just my2c & hth


----------

