Fantastic imagery! These photos flawlessly convey the warmth of the inviting hearth and joy of the convivial company. Now, I must ask, did you edit all of these in Lightroom? Nearly every one is absolutely imbued with a vibrancy of color more than I usually see in unedited photos. Or, maybe, did you set your WB to Cloudy, or another warm setting, to achieve the effect? I have noticed this in Rachel's photos, and now that I see more of yours, I am observing the same characteristic. In each of your images, there is often a "finished" look concerning the color. It is not drab or dry; rather, your pictures seem to have just enough of an enhancement in color to make them pop, but not too much which makes them artificial. Rachel has told be she uses Lightroom presets that add a desired effect to the entire photo in one setting. From what I can infer, those presets are a combination of settings all performed in one operation: i.e., a slight vignette, soften, and saturation all in one. Is that what you do to your photos as well? Sadly, I don't own any of the Adobe programs (yet). Instead I use Gimp, DPP, Picnik and Neat Image. Two professional photographers with whom I am friends have each told me that Photoshop takes ones pictures "to the next level." I believe it! Is Lightroom the reason your pictures appear so complete? I don't think it is the prime lens, although that too is another contributing factor. Recently I had an opportunity to purchase the 50mm prime you and Rachel use, but instead chose to buy the 430 EX II Speedlite. Although I have not regretted buying the Speedlite for one second (definitely worth getting! It is AMAZING), I would still love to get that prime lens. Now I have used it before, and the coloring it produces seems to be equal to that of my 18-55mm and 55-250mm. If I employ a custom/varied picture style or white balance, I can enhance the coloring in camera, but I have had too many photos appear "fake" after using, say, the Landscape picture style while indoors. All of these observations lead me to conclude that the gentle touch of coloring I consistently see in Rachel's, and now your, photos must be largely the result of using Lightroom. Would you corroborate my hypothesis? One more question to help me further determine how you get your results, when you edit photos taken with the two kit lens we mutually own, are the results as pleasing - with regard to color - as photos taken with your prime? You are a perfect person for me to ask since you own, and have therefore used, both of my lenses and have since added the prime to your collection. At the game night in November, you said that the prime produced superior sharpness to the other lens. Would you say it also produces superior color quality? On the few occasions that I have used the prime, I did not notice extensive differences in color, but I did not shoot much with it, so my conclusions are without a solid foundation.
Anyway, I am just curious about how you and Rachel get such awesome quality edits. These pictures on this post are excellent! Of course I know that the prime offers better low light performance and more shallow DOP than I can get on either lens (or at least when I am not racked out wide open with the 250), but I am just wondering if it is providing other benefits as well.
Three favorites in this post: the one of the fireplace, the image of your family, and that super fun photo of the three triangulated kids on the floor. :-) Enjoyed this post very much! Thanks for sharing!
In response to your question, first of all, I was not using a 50mm, but rather the 35mm f/1.4. I do think that a good prime lens can effect the coloring when you play around with setting a bit, but for the most part the effects in these photos are from Lightroom. Interestingly, the preset that I used on these photos is called "Summer Glow" but apparently is perfect for winter Christmas pictures :P
I actually just purchases the 430EX. I shot a reception last weekend and finally felt like I had a hang of the speedlite, so I purchased one this week with the money that I made from that reception, and I plan on using it for the wedding that I'm shooting this coming weekend. :D
I see, Lightroom or Photoshop would be a good investment to make. I hear from more and more users that once one owns it, he would never want to be without it!
Do you also own the 35mm f/1.4 USM lens? Or did you rent it for Christmas? Ah! Why doesn't Wheeling have a camera renting store!!!!! ;-) JK Anyway, that one is a dandy lens. A friend of mine at church just purchased the L-Series 70-200mm lens. It blows you away! :-)
Yes, I use the flash everywhere now. I got a Sto-Fen Omni Bounce as well. It makes a subtle difference. The flash has propelled me over the hump of entering manual mode nearly all the time now. Before, I always shot in AV or TV (and still do under many conditions), but for two weeks now I have been shooting in Manual with the flash. I quickly discovered that the flash and semi-autoexposure modes don't blend well! ;-)
Good luck with your weddings! It is fantastic you are able to have those type of experiences!
I love love love love *love* love the picture of Grace. She's so cute. And the way her hands are crossed...aww!! :D And you're wearing the camera strap! :P And those are some crazy pictures of Jacob at the end. WOw. :D
Eee! I know, Rachel! Me too! Haha :D And yes, I adore my camera strap, though it needs some fixin' or it's not gonna be around much longer :(
Ryan: I don't own the 35...WHY DOES IT HAVE TO COST SO MUCH? :P But it's on my wish list. I rented it for the reception, and was glad to have it with the low lighting. Yup, and I lov the 70-200; it's on my wish list too, probably ahead of the 35. Manual is the way to go...shutter speed is to slow on AV. I haven't got a diffuser yet, I'll probably just put on a makeshift one for this weekend. I dislike that the 430 doesn't come with a bounce card...had to make one, but it'd be easier if it had a built in one like the 580.
Oh, I know. This business is hard on a teenage pocketbook! Some of these lenses that go for 4 and 5 thousand ... Gee. Well, I guess I must admit that they are crafted with precision, just maybe not five thousand dollars worth of precision! ;-)
I am becoming terribly curious about this renting place you and Rachel frequent. How much does that 35 rent for? Rach had a lens here in the spring which she was using for family photos. Since she had it all the way down here, the rental must have been for like a week or something. Are the prices around $100 for a week? $75? Generally speaking, how much is the insurance? It is marvelous that you girls can just go and rent any lens any time!!!
BTW, that email I sent about the bounce card - one more point: while experimenting I - like an idiot - shot a photo with the flash aimed straight ahead with the big card attached. The photo came out worse than a point-and-shoot run over by a truck. ;-) I'm sure you already know, but the bounce card is called "bounce" for a reason! Just wanted to make sure you aren't shooting some nice formal scene tomorrow and decide to swing your flash head forward with the card on. It comes out really weird. :-)
Also, just noticed that I shortened depth of field to DOP instead of DOF. Mistake there, just in case you thought I spelled it Depth-of-Phield. :-)
The 35 rents for $35 a day. Soooo...$245 for the week, I guess. Idk though, I've never rented for more than a weekend. You can either put down a deposit for the equipment, or buy the insurance. I've got no idea how much that costs though, my dad did it for me.
Yeah, I just made myself a flash card with a note card; I like it cause it just slides in the back, like the 580 one, and it's not a huge, annoying thing. And yeah, I don't shoot with my flash pointed forwards anyhow, cause it's way to overexposed, haha.
The 35 rents for $35/day ONLY if you pick it up through Dodd's camera shop warehouse in downtown Cleveland. I rented my lens in June for a family reunion from a completely different company called lensgiant.com and was very impressed with their customer service, packaging, etc. It cost $65 for the 16-35mm 2.8 for 4 days, which included insurance and shipping. They provided a sticker so I could ship it back without paying at the post office. I'll definitely be using them again in October.
And uh...sorry to butt in.
P.s. Kate, I've thought about you every day. :P <3 <3 <3 <3
Wow, I just went to lensgiant.com and their prices are fantastic!! The 100-400 USM goes for $61 for FIVE days! Gee! The 50mm 1.2 is only $58. Thank you so much, Rachel, for sharing the company name. This is a serious consideration. If I'm not mistaken, it appears the price is lower now than what you paid. The website has the 16-35 at $43 for five days. Eight dollars insurance puts it at $51. Unless the shipping is another $14 - which it could be! - then they might have tapped prices down a tad. Anyway, that is an exciting little find. Very glad you "butted in." ;-)
I was just telling a friend of mine at church about Dodd. I mentioned I knew a couple people who rented lens and he inquired where. He knew Dodd right away; his job takes him everywhere so he's been to Cleveland before. But forget Dodd! Lensgiant.com will give me the 35 for $47 for FIVE days!!!
Kate, ... I have not thought about you every day. :-) Just lettin you know! ;-)
Ah! Why does my Google name have the little red X beside it all the time now! What happened to my picture?!
Oh, I am not planning to rent any lenses for anything! I was just enthusiastically remarking that I can rent it at that price, significantly lower than Dodd's fees.
Sadly, I have nothing to rent it for at the moment. But, perhaps that might change sometime this semester. :-)
Yeah, I reloaded a profile photo. We'll see if it appears this time.
Love these pictures. Love you. The tree is picture perfect!
ReplyDeleteAw, thanks Love! Mmm...it would be more perfect if it were real :\
ReplyDeleteLove you!
Fantastic imagery! These photos flawlessly convey the warmth of the inviting hearth and joy of the convivial company. Now, I must ask, did you edit all of these in Lightroom? Nearly every one is absolutely imbued with a vibrancy of color more than I usually see in unedited photos. Or, maybe, did you set your WB to Cloudy, or another warm setting, to achieve the effect? I have noticed this in Rachel's photos, and now that I see more of yours, I am observing the same characteristic. In each of your images, there is often a "finished" look concerning the color. It is not drab or dry; rather, your pictures seem to have just enough of an enhancement in color to make them pop, but not too much which makes them artificial. Rachel has told be she uses Lightroom presets that add a desired effect to the entire photo in one setting. From what I can infer, those presets are a combination of settings all performed in one operation: i.e., a slight vignette, soften, and saturation all in one. Is that what you do to your photos as well? Sadly, I don't own any of the Adobe programs (yet). Instead I use Gimp, DPP, Picnik and Neat Image. Two professional photographers with whom I am friends have each told me that Photoshop takes ones pictures "to the next level." I believe it! Is Lightroom the reason your pictures appear so complete? I don't think it is the prime lens, although that too is another contributing factor. Recently I had an opportunity to purchase the 50mm prime you and Rachel use, but instead chose to buy the 430 EX II Speedlite. Although I have not regretted buying the Speedlite for one second (definitely worth getting! It is AMAZING), I would still love to get that prime lens. Now I have used it before, and the coloring it produces seems to be equal to that of my 18-55mm and 55-250mm. If I employ a custom/varied picture style or white balance, I can enhance the coloring in camera, but I have had too many photos appear "fake" after using, say, the Landscape picture style while indoors. All of these observations lead me to conclude that the gentle touch of coloring I consistently see in Rachel's, and now your, photos must be largely the result of using Lightroom. Would you corroborate my hypothesis? One more question to help me further determine how you get your results, when you edit photos taken with the two kit lens we mutually own, are the results as pleasing - with regard to color - as photos taken with your prime? You are a perfect person for me to ask since you own, and have therefore used, both of my lenses and have since added the prime to your collection. At the game night in November, you said that the prime produced superior sharpness to the other lens. Would you say it also produces superior color quality? On the few occasions that I have used the prime, I did not notice extensive differences in color, but I did not shoot much with it, so my conclusions are without a solid foundation.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I am just curious about how you and Rachel get such awesome quality edits. These pictures on this post are excellent! Of course I know that the prime offers better low light performance and more shallow DOP than I can get on either lens (or at least when I am not racked out wide open with the 250), but I am just wondering if it is providing other benefits as well.
Three favorites in this post: the one of the fireplace, the image of your family, and that super fun photo of the three triangulated kids on the floor. :-) Enjoyed this post very much! Thanks for sharing!
Thanks!
ReplyDeleteIn response to your question, first of all, I was not using a 50mm, but rather the 35mm f/1.4. I do think that a good prime lens can effect the coloring when you play around with setting a bit, but for the most part the effects in these photos are from Lightroom. Interestingly, the preset that I used on these photos is called "Summer Glow" but apparently is perfect for winter Christmas pictures :P
I actually just purchases the 430EX. I shot a reception last weekend and finally felt like I had a hang of the speedlite, so I purchased one this week with the money that I made from that reception, and I plan on using it for the wedding that I'm shooting this coming weekend. :D
I see, Lightroom or Photoshop would be a good investment to make. I hear from more and more users that once one owns it, he would never want to be without it!
ReplyDeleteDo you also own the 35mm f/1.4 USM lens? Or did you rent it for Christmas? Ah! Why doesn't Wheeling have a camera renting store!!!!! ;-) JK Anyway, that one is a dandy lens. A friend of mine at church just purchased the L-Series 70-200mm lens. It blows you away! :-)
Yes, I use the flash everywhere now. I got a Sto-Fen Omni Bounce as well. It makes a subtle difference. The flash has propelled me over the hump of entering manual mode nearly all the time now. Before, I always shot in AV or TV (and still do under many conditions), but for two weeks now I have been shooting in Manual with the flash. I quickly discovered that the flash and semi-autoexposure modes don't blend well! ;-)
Good luck with your weddings! It is fantastic you are able to have those type of experiences!
I love love love love *love* love the picture of Grace. She's so cute. And the way her hands are crossed...aww!! :D And you're wearing the camera strap! :P And those are some crazy pictures of Jacob at the end. WOw. :D
ReplyDeleteLove. Joy. Peace. Happy ramahanaquanzmas. Belated.
Eee! I know, Rachel! Me too! Haha :D And yes, I adore my camera strap, though it needs some fixin' or it's not gonna be around much longer :(
ReplyDeleteRyan: I don't own the 35...WHY DOES IT HAVE TO COST SO MUCH? :P But it's on my wish list. I rented it for the reception, and was glad to have it with the low lighting. Yup, and I lov the 70-200; it's on my wish list too, probably ahead of the 35.
Manual is the way to go...shutter speed is to slow on AV. I haven't got a diffuser yet, I'll probably just put on a makeshift one for this weekend. I dislike that the 430 doesn't come with a bounce card...had to make one, but it'd be easier if it had a built in one like the 580.
Oh, I know. This business is hard on a teenage pocketbook! Some of these lenses that go for 4 and 5 thousand ... Gee. Well, I guess I must admit that they are crafted with precision, just maybe not five thousand dollars worth of precision! ;-)
ReplyDeleteI am becoming terribly curious about this renting place you and Rachel frequent. How much does that 35 rent for? Rach had a lens here in the spring which she was using for family photos. Since she had it all the way down here, the rental must have been for like a week or something. Are the prices around $100 for a week? $75? Generally speaking, how much is the insurance? It is marvelous that you girls can just go and rent any lens any time!!!
BTW, that email I sent about the bounce card - one more point: while experimenting I - like an idiot - shot a photo with the flash aimed straight ahead with the big card attached. The photo came out worse than a point-and-shoot run over by a truck. ;-) I'm sure you already know, but the bounce card is called "bounce" for a reason! Just wanted to make sure you aren't shooting some nice formal scene tomorrow and decide to swing your flash head forward with the card on. It comes out really weird. :-)
Also, just noticed that I shortened depth of field to DOP instead of DOF. Mistake there, just in case you thought I spelled it Depth-of-Phield. :-)
The 35 rents for $35 a day. Soooo...$245 for the week, I guess. Idk though, I've never rented for more than a weekend. You can either put down a deposit for the equipment, or buy the insurance. I've got no idea how much that costs though, my dad did it for me.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I just made myself a flash card with a note card; I like it cause it just slides in the back, like the 580 one, and it's not a huge, annoying thing. And yeah, I don't shoot with my flash pointed forwards anyhow, cause it's way to overexposed, haha.
The 35 rents for $35/day ONLY if you pick it up through Dodd's camera shop warehouse in downtown Cleveland. I rented my lens in June for a family reunion from a completely different company called lensgiant.com and was very impressed with their customer service, packaging, etc. It cost $65 for the 16-35mm 2.8 for 4 days, which included insurance and shipping. They provided a sticker so I could ship it back without paying at the post office. I'll definitely be using them again in October.
ReplyDeleteAnd uh...sorry to butt in.
P.s. Kate, I've thought about you every day. :P <3 <3 <3 <3
Wow, I just went to lensgiant.com and their prices are fantastic!! The 100-400 USM goes for $61 for FIVE days! Gee! The 50mm 1.2 is only $58. Thank you so much, Rachel, for sharing the company name. This is a serious consideration. If I'm not mistaken, it appears the price is lower now than what you paid. The website has the 16-35 at $43 for five days. Eight dollars insurance puts it at $51. Unless the shipping is another $14 - which it could be! - then they might have tapped prices down a tad.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, that is an exciting little find. Very glad you "butted in." ;-)
I was just telling a friend of mine at church about Dodd. I mentioned I knew a couple people who rented lens and he inquired where. He knew Dodd right away; his job takes him everywhere so he's been to Cleveland before. But forget Dodd! Lensgiant.com will give me the 35 for $47 for FIVE days!!!
Kate, ... I have not thought about you every day.
:-) Just lettin you know! ;-)
Ah! Why does my Google name have the little red X beside it all the time now! What happened to my picture?!
Glad you liked the site! What will you be renting the 35mm for?
ReplyDeleteDon't have a clue what happened to your picture. :)
Oh, I am not planning to rent any lenses for anything! I was just enthusiastically remarking that I can rent it at that price, significantly lower than Dodd's fees.
ReplyDeleteSadly, I have nothing to rent it for at the moment. But, perhaps that might change sometime this semester. :-)
Yeah, I reloaded a profile photo. We'll see if it appears this time.