|
Hi there,
I could be of potential service for your friend!
My name is Marcel of MV Photography based in (soon to be) Ferntree Gully. I specialise in smaller weddings with a natural, spontaineous and candid style (I also do the standard formals too). My wedding experience is about 15 months, but I have dabbled in photography for about 12-13years.
My main piece of gear is a Canon 50D, my back up is a Canon 400D. I have 5 lenses from super wide angle 11mm and they range up to 200mm. I have two off camera flashes, pro grade tripod and monopod. My editing suite contains Adobe Lightroom 2 and Adobe Photoshop CS3.
My coverage includes the Bride getting ready, ceremony, formals, Bride and Groom portraits, 1st half an hour to hour of the reception. I also have an optional reception coverage package.
I offer two packages, the most popular is the Deluxe Digital package, where you get a PDF proof slideshow, a slideshow to email to friends and family of the top shots of the day, an archival grade DVD containing the edited selection of full res photographs which have basic retouching provided and a selection of photographs supplied in both colour and Black & White/Toned.
I have a printing service available too provided by a pro lab and we both have a colour controlled work flow.
Have your friend email me at marcel@mvphotography.com.au to discuss pricing and timing of the day and get them to have a look at my photostream www.flickr.com/photos/marcelvanderhorst/sets/721576038190...
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Thanks Marcel - ill pass on my details to my friend :)
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
No problem, thanks. Note that time of year is busy for weddings!
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Plugging a possibly not required service, but I run a wedding stationery business, and am based out that way, and thought I'd mention it ;)
Flickrmail me if you think that they may be interested and haven't already organised it - I am pretty competitive and love small weddings ;)
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Hello
A Canon 50D and 400D just wont cut it
I been doign weddings for 5 years and have a Nikon D3X, Nikon D3 14-24,24-70,70-200, 85.1.4 to name a few lenses. However its the image quality you are interested in
www.mauriceguerrieri.com
Let me know how you go
Kindest Regards
Maurice
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
re: 'A Canon 50D and 400D just wont cut it'
that's a bit of an stretch isn't it? - you can have the most professional equipment in the world or the most basic, but if the eye, brain and heart behind the camera isn't there then any equipment 'just won't cut it'.
I'll go further and suggest it comes down to what the bride & groom want as well. I shot a wedding with a Diana (at the request of the bride & groom) a few years back and they were very happy with the results.
*note - I am not a professional wedding photographer and the above is my own personal opinion of course but statements like maurice's above annoy me for some reason, it just sounds a bit elitist to me...
:-)>
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
What Cameron said.
Oh, and once you've done a bit of medium format portraiture, high-end Nikon and Canon rigs just won't cut it either.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Just shot a wedding this morning, I used a 450D LMAO. Yikes. ;) Lucky I had back up, hey?
Cameron, you're a man of wise words :)
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
☆naughtyword☆ edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
Used to shoot weddings in 1998 on two Nikon 801s with two lenses on 2 sometimes 3 rolls of film. Oops! I guess I didn't cut it.
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
fotodudenz edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
You mean I cant use my mobile phone camera?!? :(
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
hehehe.
i actually did once take an awesomely good shot of the bride at a wedding with my phone!! she even looked right at me when i took the shot.
goes to show, its not the equipment lol
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
"goes to show, its not the equipment lol"
It may have not been for that shot TheOne, but try covering the whole wedding with it.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
agree with Cameron - expensive gear and high megadipsules doesn't make a (wedding) photographer.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
My mum always told me that if I can't say anything nice, I shouldn't say anything at all.
I'll just leave now...
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Hello
You need teh best gear for weddings, how can you shoot in low light churches when flash is not permittied?
No choice but to use f1.4 and iso 3200 combined.
Please have a look at my wedding work if u are interested
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
But sure if the bride dosent care what the photos turn out like, by all means
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I agree with the low light thing, but that's got nothing to do with the camera body - maybe ISO performance, but I assume the 50D can handle this?
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
no it cant
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Oh dear Maurice, how did photographers ever cope back in the old days? Your statements ARE elitist, equipment centric and a little bit rude (especially considering your initial comment was a insult to Marcel's ability to take good Wedding shots, simply because of his equipment)
If your seeming arrogant attitude is any indication of the way you do business then I would seriously advise people to avoid using you as a Wedding Photographer.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Your opntion artpunk
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
ISO 3200 on a 50D looks fine to me...
www.flickr.com/search/?q=iso+3200&ss=2&ct=6&c...
And on a 50D, that 85mm could be an f/1.2 version.
But then it's a well-documented fact that prior to the release of the D3 a couple of years ago, nobody had ever taken a decent wedding photo.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Mugley you have some nice work on here
If you ever wanan shoot togetehrlet me know
Maurice
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
mauriceguerrieri how can you be so sure a 50D can't handle it when your a Nikon shooter? :@
50D can handle low light pretty well IMO
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
Highlight Photography edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
|
Thanks Maurice.
Can we all give up on the gear stuff and be friends now?
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
A good attitude is something that is badly missed in Wedding Photogs - I have lost count of the people who have been married and have horrible stories to tell about their photographer - they think they are leaches, often rude and charge prices that I just can't understand - not saying that's you Maurice - just an observation.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
This thread has suddenly become very amusing ;)
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
better than work AND facebook!
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
LOL.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I hope there are no requirements for a wedding photographer to be well-spoken, friendly, and able to write coherent and correct paragraphs, or you're SOL, Maurice :)
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
A good 'photog' can even take pretty pictures with ... a film camera!
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I was trying really hard not to mention the Photoshopping :)
edit: although that is also each to their own - some people may gush over it...
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
aeonmouse edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
|
Ken Rockwell could even take good photos with a T70. But only if you flew him to a desert island.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
LOL LOL LOL
Excellent work Mugs.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
This thread really is becoming most most amusing... (thanks all - yes, you know who you are, for giving me a good chuckle)
@ maurice - Yes, my opinion Maurice, just like your statements are your opinion. (and you know what they say about opinions)
My opinions in this thread prove that I am a cranky old bastard who won't shut up when he sees rudeness and misinformation spouted. I'm a bit of a stirrer too. I'm also wrong every now and then but I don't think I am in this case...
Your opinions in this thread show that you are...
what?
LOL
;-)>
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Hmmm, people had access to 1600-3200 asa for quite a long time, on full frame too, with fast lenses:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/135_film
What's a pro level Canon EOS film body go for these days- ?$100
What's the full frame equivalent digi body go for? ~$4000
Looks like a T70 could handle it too:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_T70
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_FD
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
silvermiketrate edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
|
But could the T70 handle Ken Rockwell?
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
imagine my shock to discover whose pics suck ass
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
What's the meme about the T70 all about?
(Is it like the equivalent of the Nikon FA or something? Like, one of the early cameras that was primarily automatic and thus opened up photography to whole new range of people, many of whom didn't understand photography principles and thus we react snobbishly to them? Or is it something else? Ta!)
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
i used an eos3 + 3 rolls of trix400 &Tmax for my cousins wedding.... she loved them over the digi shots, i havnt told her yet they were film
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
how else would you get blinding rainbow hdr if you weren't using a D3X and a D3? i thought all good photos were meant to have halos n stuff around them correct me if i'm wrong photography friends
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
...and the entertainment just hotted up a notch.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Wintrmute:
www.kenrockwell.com/canon/fd/t70.htm
"I could shoot forever with this and miss very little"
"exposure is perfect, even for professional transparency film!"
and Mugs reference:
"If I was stuck on an island and only had one if these, I've have no problems making great photos with it. "
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@ Toby - I don't know if it counts as a meme if it's just me and Vinnie regurgitating the same joke over and over.
But yeah, what Mike said. That, and the T70 is just a "special" camera. It's like one of those kids you just can't help poking fun at. I might bring mine along to a meet sometime. (The camera, not a kid)
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
a little synchronicity to round the day out.
checked out maurice's stream, and whilst page was loading, my playlist ticked over to the next song...
artist : Dave Graney and the Lurid Yellow Mist...
there is meaning behind the universe ...
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Ah, I see. Quotes like this help make sense of the legendary status:
"The battery tester is excellent! You might want to keep a T70 around just for testing pairs of AA batteries. "
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
As a female who has thought about what sort of wedding photography she might like, I can tell you that a photographer who thought this was a creative reresentation of my day wouldn't be getting the job!
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
overblown highlights must be all the rage this season.
there. I said it.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
"why are people so unkind" - kamahl
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
*shifts uncomfortably in seat*
Bowing out of this thread as gracefully as I can (which those that have met me can vouch is not so graceful lol) before the atmosphere becomes toxic.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I LOOK GREAT IN BACK FOCUS so if i ever managed to trick some dame into marrying me, youre booked hdr rocket boy!
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Yep, I have said (and seen) enough. Bowing out of here too. (not even making an effort to be graceful, people would just laugh and rightly so)
@ Maurice, all the best to you. I hope you can understand (and feel) what I was trying to say one day.
@ element_photography - I hope your friends find a great photographer with a lot of heart to capture their special day.
:-)>
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
instead of writing on here, i suggest go out and shoot, perfect night for it
www.mauriceguerrieri.blogspot.com
if anyone is interested
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I'm glad none of you took my mother's advice. I'm even more glad you all decided to broadcast your thoughts to the Flickr world, it's been most entertaining.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
the delete key is an often overlooked photographic tool
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@Maurice the following ppl love ur photography and would love to shoot u
Sabra
Rob
Ross
maybe Ziz
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Just tryed out my Nikon D3x.....Loving the Auto mode :D
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Wow. I've missed a bit over the last week. Too busy shooting stuff and prepping prints to go out to clients.
@Skye J: What could you possibly mean? -0034 looks great!
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I haven’t visited Flickr for a while but logged on to find this amusing thread. Time for a re-cap.
Marcel says he has the expertise and tools to do the job. Maurice says that Marcel doesn’t have the tools. He claims that he has the tools. Others claim that the most important tool is the photographer. Most people claim that Maurice is actually a tool! I agree with most people.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
^^ loled
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
was that you?
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I think I just wet my pants @ faranga's post. Well done mate
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
that's awesome
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@Marcel:
if by great you mean bridal stuff just dropped haphazardly on the carpet, rubbish composition, not horizontal horizonals, and burnt highlights, then yes i do agree
but i suppose it was taken on the D3x so by definition it is a great shot... regardless of what you point it at
i heard the put some of Ken Rockwells DNA into the new camera... seems to work...
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
move aside Ken Rockwell.
I have a new favourite 'photog'.
Mugley - Please please please save us all, and leave the T70 at home. It might be the best camera in the world - next to the D3X - but dang it's ugly.
Ok, so now I have a new favourite camera too - the D3X (can't wait till I get one).
And boy, my retinas weren't burnt off by the HDR. I think that is my newest and bestest technique ever too.
And now, I bow out.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Haven't we gone a little far now though?
i.e. it's acceptable to argue with someone's words, but insulting their work is another step which we should try to avoid.
Especially when it's a lot of people ganging up on one person- an ugly mob mentality.
If we look at anyone's stream we can find work that looks odd/ugly/ill composed to us.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@ mike agreed,
but when you openly insult another member of the group and their ability to carry out their business, especially by claiming that their work isn't up to standard because of equipment used, then you'd bloody well better have the goods to back it up, or else you open yourself up to comments as seen on this thread...
but i suppose enough is enough, perhaps to some tastes, images of neonised HDR ultra-vivid melbourne, with compositions that push beyond traditional structures and 'soft' focused wedding portraits might look good,
what would i know, none of my cameras are younger than myself and shoot BW film that could never hope to reach the heights of retina burning vividness that one can only achieve with a D3x
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
i second jesper.
for someone to come on here and insult others just on the merits of they have something worth less than their own equipment, well then they are just getting what they asked for.
been someone who used to sell cameras for a living, i have seen that stupid mentality in all its forms, people buying a $2k DSLR and then go out using it in auto, then wonder why their photos look like crap. no matter the price, if the photographer isnt good enough, the photos wont be either.
and going through the guys photos, to be honest, i wouldnt have him do an work for me either. excessive use of photoshop for one is a turn off for most.
now, back to *element photography
have u found some one yet to do the work?
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I think Mike's point is being missed.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
OK. I'm sorry for those things I said about Ken Rockwell..
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Mike's right.
If we can give constructive critique like "the photoshopping could be taken back a notch or two to let the image speak for itself" (similar to what Stel said) or something like that, then all well and good, but for a lot of us to gang up and bag any one individual is probably a bit harsh and not really in the spirit of the Melbourne group, we are and can be better than that.
Having said that I can see why this sort of reaction has taken place however.
I do feel a bit responsible as I initially replied to Maurice in the spirit of "hang on, that's just not right" after being annoyed at his insult of Marcel's potential as a viable Wedding Photographer based on equipment.
You see Maurice, it wasn't just an insult to Marcel but to all photographers who perhaps can't afford the latest full-frame DSLR but still manage to take incredible photography. If I hadn't replied I am fairly sure someone would have responded in kind though.
If Maurice had taken my reply in the spirit it was intended and perhaps apologised to Marcel & acknowledged that its not all about the equipment, then that may have been the end of it, so I feel to some degree he has brought a lot of this on himself.
As it is I see his part in this as someone who is a bit naive, certainly having a degree of ignorance and lacking the polite manners that are often necessary for 'getting along nicely' in forums like this. But perhaps it is time for some reconciliation, or at least we could lay off now certain points have been made...
I really did mean it when I said to Maurice, "all the best to you. I hope you can understand (and feel) what I was trying to say one day"
Cheers,
Cameron
*note - edited to correct some spelling, acknowledge that some people have given constructive critique and to clarify some of my expression.
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
artpunk edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
|
nicely said artpunk.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
"excessive use of photoshop for one is a turn off for most. " -
TheOneAndOnlyStel
d'Oode...care to show same stats to back up that claim? comments like that put you in the same bucket as mr D3X
well said silvermiketrate, artpunk
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
Catastrophic Plan edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
|
Mike, Cameron, glad someone else got to this before I did.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
let's just take it to norestrictions where maurice has already been thoroughly trashed multiple times for his HDR work.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
nothing wrong with having and expressing an opinion, perhaps the sage like advice as usual would best be directed inwards.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
The thing that is bugging me off is that you are making out that wedding shooters need the top of the range DSLR etc. My opinion is afford what you can at the time and work your way up for their. Not everyone can afford a top of the range DSLR these days.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
i shoot weddings with a matchbox pinhole
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Your right Highlight Photography, my kit is not bad for a starting out kit and I hire the 'L' lenses for the higher paying jobs. I hope to work up to medium format one day.
Last time I had tequila......oh hang on, it was a blur, so I don't remember.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I just read on Scott Bourne's site - Don’t get hung up on gear. This absolutely causes some photographers to think they are inferior. There’s no need to judge yourself by your gear. Some of the best photographers in history worked with less gear than you have. Just like you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover – you shouldn’t judge a photographer by his/her gear
The last time I had tequila I blanked out for a while until I remember this "DING DING DING" ringing in my head, it turns out I was throwing up in the middle of Hawthorn Rd, Caufield (outside of another pub called The London Tavern) and my friends were trying to save me from being flattened by a tram, (of course if they were true friends they wouldn't have given me so much Tequila in the first place! Nurses are evil. LOL)
:-)>
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
artpunk edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
|
Point Taken so i am sorry to those who i offended
But, those who shoot in auto mode and have a fancy camera and call themselevs a pro without first using teh available light iso aperature etc then i dont say sorry to you. Yes some of my work is photoshoped but are we not in the business to please clients?
Does anyone want to do some actuals hooting with me? Any nikopmn people i be happy to lend lenses. Does anyone know any good vantage points on roof tops except the rialto and eukera?
Cheers
Maurice
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
*2000bc
i did say that, and yes, most people i know like some photoshop work done to their photos, but not when its way over the top, wedding shots for most people are meant to be nice warm shots, "smooth" shots, in a way, Maurices style resembles a bit more towards grunge shots.
i agree that some do like to go that extra bit and have something out of the ordinary done to their photos, but all i was pointing out is that most people prefer less.
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
Sp-Photography edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
|
Thanks Maurice.
I think that people who use 'auto' mode all the time probably need guidance, education & encouragement to use manual control over aperture, shutter speeds and so on, so they can get more out of their photography, perhaps they are just unsure of themselves or their creative potential outside of their 'auto' comfort zone.
Point taken about photoshopping + clients wants and your professional responsibility to meet those desires. Boy am I glad I don't do Wedding Photography for a living! I think some clients need a degree of guidance from the professionals as to what would really please them. However there are many different tastes in the world and you do have to please the people who are paying you.
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
artpunk edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
I'd be scared of a client that demands that much photoshopping :-/
ah at the end of the day it's all art
we may not all like the same thing and that's what makes it/life/people/art/photography interesting
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
nettsu edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
|
the new Bob Dylan CD is pretty good
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
no its not
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
You need Blu-Ray for music to be any good, CD doesn't cut it.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
here we go again!
"Have you listened to it on a Nikon D3x?"
I was gona type that - but I thought better of it... no really, it's not too bad, a couple of fillers but some good stuff on there too..
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
mauriceguerrieri didn't say his gear makes him a better photographer! He didn't claim any correlation between gear and talent.
Also, I have a 400D, and they have bad problems with digital noise, especially at higher ISOs. They're not ideal for weddings if you have a choice.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Digital noise doesn't necessarily ruin a photo.
Look at the street portraits that velco was doing back in 2006. He was shooting in low light at ISO 1600 on a super-noisy D70s sensor. We've seen the photos printed out at decent sizes, and they look fine.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Karen - no, no he didn't if you want to take what was said literally, but when one states that certain equipment 'just won't cut it' and that other equipment, like a DX3 will, (photographic talent not being brought into the argument until I piped up)...then what is the difference, except splitting semantic hairs? He has apologised for the just won't cut it comment and I admire that and would really like to move on constructively but let's not forget the lesson that IMHO should be learned here, and it pains me to mention it again, is:
PHOTOGRAPHY (WEDDING OR NOT/PROFESSIONAL OR NOT) IS NOT ABOUT THE EQUIPMENT - any more than fine art PAINTING is about the type of CANVAS, BRUSH and/or MEDIUM used.
Coming back to discussions about digital noise or sensor size or image processing algorithms or whatever just misses that important point (and also completely side-lines the validity of film, which annoys me)
:-)>
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
artpunk edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
|
i'm not sure whether you're being wilfully misleading, but he states clearly in his first post that it's the image quality that is the important thing, not the equipment.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Karen, I'm not being wilfully anything and yes he does say that, but how does that fit in context with the 'just doesn't cut it' statement? (I don't expect you to answer that as you didn't write the statement) but really how are we to define and/or judge image 'quality' and how it relates to different equipment anyway, again it can be down to who is behind the equipment, the subject matter and so on? (and NO I don't want to get into a discussion about that right at this moment)
What I meant was exactly what I said in my post above.(Which was, in case anyone missed it - Forget about the equipment) so if anyone wants to wilfully misinterpret THAT then I'm at a loss how to state it any clearer.
edited to correct some spelling & add a couple of points that slipped my wilfully naughty obtuse mind.
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
artpunk edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
|
"If you are interested please email me on my flickr account with your details, and a little about your self. Ie/ how many years you have been shooting, your gear ect."
If THAT had actually happened, none of THIS would have happened :D
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
aeonmouse edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
|
aaanyway....soopakrush is right, maurice is a nice guy after all and i like grungy wedding shots. (not soo keen on the standard horror)
....and Mugley has no retinas
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I pooped them out with the cheese.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
cheese???
i thought only corn made it out with retinas...
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
For the record I don't don't shoot full auto mode, I come from the old school shooting film on manual cameras Maurice and I understand the implications of using a high ISO on high speed film and digital sensors. I haven't had to use anything higher than ISO400 yet anyway I think.
Now I'm worried about Mugley, pooping chessy retinas.
I wonder if we have successfully have scared off the OP?
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
Marcel of MV Photography edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
Melbourne /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Melbourne discussion threads
