POTN Aussie Club #5: Our focus rings rotate the other way too.

Not a bad shot, the vignetting is a bit much IMO though. Looking at the EXIF, you'd think f/5 would be enough to get both faces in focus but it seems that it's only just missed your dad's face and gone to his chest/ears.

Unrelated to Phil's post, anyone got any comments about this? I posted it earlier and need to get back to the band soon.

Boucher wrote in post #7675864
the ND400 is here can't wait to use this thing.

Well there's this long-weekend thing coming up I hear...

S7000 wrote in post #7675987
Tax:

My old man and my kid brother.

SB-26 off camera right 1/4 power bounced off the roof.

C&C on colouring as always.

While bouncing off the ceiling does give you nice soft light, it tends to be a little flat, and you don't get catch-lights. Try extending the bounce card next time you do it, it'll at least give you some catch-lights in the eyes.

The Moose wrote in post #7676015
Unrelated to Phil's post, anyone got any comments about this? I posted it earlier and need to get back to the band soon.

Yeah that's probably the easiest way to do it. Pick a number, charge that per hour, and stick to it. Remember that post processing can be charged extra (per hour) or if not, include that in your hourly rate.

DAdeGroot wrote in post #7676019
Well there's this long-weekend thing coming up I hear...

not to mention the 3 days in broulee and a week at pambula..

The Moose wrote in post #7676015
Not a bad shot, the vignetting is a bit much IMO though. Looking at the EXIF, you'd think f/5 would be enough to get both faces in focus but it seems that it's only just missed your dad's face and gone to his chest/ears.

Yeh, I focused on the little one's eyes. I would've been about 2m back, I thought f/5 would've been ok. Obviously not. I added the vignette like that because their shirts were a little over exposed and drew attention from the faces. I might play around with it a little more.

DAdeGroot wrote in post #7676019
While bouncing off the ceiling does give you nice soft light, it tends to be a little flat, and you don't get catch-lights. Try extending the bounce card next time you do it, it'll at least give you some catch-lights in the eyes.

Didn't think about that. I might pick myself up and umbrella too. If I had some gels I would've coloured up the curtain, but alas. No swatch pack yet.

DAdeGroot wrote in post #7676024
Yeah that's probably the easiest way to do it. Pick a number, charge that per hour, and stick to it. Remember that post processing can be charged extra (per hour) or if not, include that in your hourly rate.

Thanks. I think I'll leave it at the same rate. They're all only year 11 (16 years old) so they might expect to pay little. I work with one of them so if he tries to be cheap, I know he gets the same amount of shifts as me Now I just have to figure out a rate. For what the band is and for how inexperienced I am, does $20/hour seem too much?

S7000 wrote in post #7676042
Yeh, I focused on the little one's eyes. I would've been about 2m back, I thought f/5 would've been ok. Obviously not. I added the vignette like that because their shirts were a little over exposed and drew attention from the faces. I might play around with it a little more.

Looking at it again, I can see that your dad's face is sharp but at the same time it seems as if it's either OOF or he has a bit of movement but since you used flash, it'd have to be the DOF causing it. Makes sense to add the vignette, I've done that before but not with any portraits.

The Moose wrote in post #7676048
Thanks. I think I'll leave it at the same rate. They're all only year 11 (16 years old) so they might expect to pay little. I work with one of them so if he tries to be cheap, I know he gets the same amount of shifts as me Now I just have to figure out a rate. For what the band is and for how inexperienced I am, does $20/hour seem too much?

It's just under the award rate for working casual at a club. If they're teens, I wouldn't charge much more. Pocket money's hard to come by in these tough times.

S7000 wrote in post #7676063
It's just under the award rate for working casual at a club. If they're teens, I wouldn't charge much more. Pocket money's hard to come by in these tough times.

It is for me, I've got no pocket money for any new gear! Well, until I get Rudd's $900, that'll help me acquire a 40D I'll message them back and say $20/hour then, thanks.

I'd like to use Mr. Rudd's bonus for that. I'm choosing to fix my car though. Has some unsightly dents in it from some drunk prick kicking the panels. It's been 2 years and needs to look new again. lol

HEY HEY !!!!!

Got to work this arvo and found that my 5dMK2 + 50-500 had been delivered.
Talk about Cheshire Cat grins
One thing I noticed right away, the 24-105L is a heavy lens. The old 75-300 was no where near as heavy. Not that I'm complaining mind you.

Looking forward to the Zoo trip in a fortnight !!!

The Moose wrote in post #7676075
Well, until I get Rudd's $900

Are you sure you will get it? If you were eligible for the student on youth allowance money, then you would have gotten it by now. If you were waiting for the tax payer package, then unless you earned over the tax free threshold last year, you wont see a dollar of it.

The Moose wrote in post #7676075
It is for me, I've got no pocket money for any new gear! Well, until I get Rudd's $900, that'll help me acquire a 40D I'll message them back and say $20/hour then, thanks.

Ok, glad I didn't just post my rates

Yeah better to charge something and be affordable than charge nothing, as they'll value the work more for having paid for it.

Fut wrote in post #7676087
HEY HEY !!!!!

Got to work this arvo and found that my 5dMK2 + 50-500 had been delivered.
Talk about Cheshire Cat grins
One thing I noticed right away, the 24-105L is a heavy lens. The old 75-300 was no where near as heavy. Not that I'm complaining mind you.

Looking forward to the Zoo trip in a fortnight !!!

Congrats

Wait until you try a 70-200/2.8L IS or better a 300/2.8L, then you'll have some idea what a decent weight lens is like (I won't say heavy, 'cause that's reserved for the super-teles).

Anyone know about putting a 1.4X teleconvertor on a 70-200? Will it work? Its the Tamron model btw.