Afterimage

I'm sorry if this has been covered, I only skimmed through the posts-

I always thought using your own name for a photography business was a strategy in branding and name recognition.

"Who did your wedding photos? We need a photographer too."

"Oh, that was Joe Smith, he was great! Check him out at JoeSmithPhotography.com!"

vs

"Who did your wedding photos? We need a photographer too."

"Ummm, It was John something... no, Joe. He has a website... it was Notyouragveragejoe.com ... I think."

Thank you for the very detailed breakdown of how you processed these. I really love the Kodak Ektachrome 100 VS version the best. The splash of magenta hue adds a little something to the image that makes it appealing to me. I also have the DxO Film pack ... I think I got it as a free download last year, but I haven't played with it much. I might have to take another stroll through the program and see if there are things I should be using  

My processing was a pretty straight-forward saturated / contrasty version of the RAW file. Nothing fancy:

Well I've had the bag for over 3 months now and it's still giving me what I want out of a camera bag, I've added to my filter collection and got a few other things since buying it. Still have plenty of room. A little heavy but still loving it.

I picked a Tamrac Pro 12 off of eBay using bits of this conversation to help me decide. Choosing a bag without seeing it is really hard! But the Tamrac Pro 12 ended up being perfect for my needs as well. 

I use it to gear up for a shoot so I can carry everything I think I need

Something might be a miss with the lens. Mine is insanely sharp with a decent AF response time:

large size here:  

http://foxglen.smugm...DSC_7739-X3.jpg

Mediocre lighting, fast action, high ISO, low fStop:

You have a full year to get squared away.. I say take the "job" but let them know that if they change their mind and want to hire a pro you'll gladly come as a "second" (a lot less pressure on both parties that way!)

for your gear... I shot my sister's wedding with a D7100 which is very very similar to the 5300. Heck the 5300 might be better here and there... so that's not a problem. The 50mm prime is excellent too. The only real gap I see is the Tamron 70-300. I own that lens as well and it's a fantastic piece of glass but it's a little slow for a wedding shoot. You need a fast intermediate - wide lens like a 17-50mm f2.8 or that new Sigma 18-35mm f1.8. And, if you can swing it, a fast telephoto for candids. You really don't want to be on top of the wedding party during the "I Do's" trying to capture that intimate moment with a 50mm lens LOL. Renting a lens like that would be a good solution since they can be pricey. 

Hope this helps!

I shot my sisters wedding and will be doing my cousins in a few months... I HATED the idea of shooting weddings but it ended up being a fun learning experience leading to some professional and artistic growth.

I say give it a try. Explain you are not a professional and cannot guarantee results but you will do you best. Research key shots, look at other wedding photographer's work, practice in similar lighting conditions, and just give it a solid effort. I also recommend NOT charging for your work. That eliminates a TON of mental stress and the problem of "disappointing results" coming back to bite you. Just explain you are doing this as a friend not as a professional... 

What kind of gear do you have? Body/lenses? 

Hi, I am using the Sigma 10-20/3.5 and am quite pleased with it.

Just adding two outdoor pictures hereafter, taken with that lens, both at 10mm.

 

I concur , the Sigma 10-20 is a great lens! This was shot w/ a D7100 as well.

Congrats!

The 5300 is an amazing camera. People get jaded so quickly with new gear and stats that they forget that a modern "entry-level" DSLR would crush (or at least match) the performance of a Pro-body from just a few years ago. This is especially true when you consider the price point. 

Case in point: The 5300 is, in some ways, better than the D3... at something like 1/5 the cost:

Kaypi - you got it right, the additional 1.3x Crop does , basically, make the 18-35 into a "36-70mm lens". Keep in mind that it's just "turning off" the extra pixels making the 24MP convert to down to 16. I've heard that it's better than cropping in post by some and worse from others. I tend to believe that since you are using the sharpest part of the lens to fill the frame the IQ would be the same if not better in certain circumstances. It certainly feels that way when I use the 1.3X on a macro lens...

Personally I use the additional 1.3x frequently. The big bonus you get in using it is that the entire frame if filled with the 51 AF-points... edge to edge which is especially useful for actions shots.

I tested one out for a quick afternoon vs. the Sigma 18-250 Macro (the newest version). I felt the Sigma did a better job in nearly all areas and was surprisingly OK at macros ... so I bought that one.

Now realize that these lenses are jack-of-all-trades and really won't do anything very well. "Acceptable" is the word I'd use to describe the image quality. The Sigma was more consistently "not bad" to use technical terms

If you have a bead on a good price for the Tamron, snag it! I am actually a fan of Tamron and own 4 or 5 of their lenses. I just felt this one wasn't their best effort. I'm itching to try out the 16-300 to see if it's any better... 

Congrats everyone!

It gets excellent reviews.

 

I was going to get it, but have rethought my camera future, which may include FX.

Same here... I was this  ---> <---- close to pulling the trigger on that lens and stopped. Next body is going to be an FX and I decided to just purchase FX compatible lenses. I'm thinking to just keep the D7100 for action/wildlife shooting but I don't really want to spend the extra $$ on DX-Only glass. 

Glad we were able to help!

I botched this shot but I still think it looks neat