Reply To: Annoying thing about weddings…

[fstopper89]

Wow, I didn’t realize I was as far from my subject as I was… looked in the Exif data and it says 17.8 meters! Which is over 50 feet. I should have shot it at 24mm zoom and been up closer. Though I think I was trying to avoid wide-angle distortion. I honestly don’t think I was 50 ft away but I don’t think the Exif data lies, right?

I also had thought that I saw the second version for sale with IS, but upon looking again, you are right. f/4 isn’t bad and on a full-frame body the DOF is probably still quite shallow. I would have to do some more research before I purchase either one of those, I really like the benefits of IS but I also love the flexibility of shooting wide-open. After borrowing this one, the first version, I was unhappy with several shots that I felt weren’t up to par in sharpness which I equated to it not having IS. It is partially my own fault, handholding heavy equipment is a risk. I got some shots with that lens that day with impeccable sharpness where you could see the fine hairs on their faces.

Sharpening usually is my last step. After I’m done editing in Photoshop I bring it back to Lightroom and do a few adjustments, including sharpening, before exporting as a jpg. I just downsize in the export menu though for the separate files.

As for watermarks I should say part of the reason is that it helps advertise/brand my images so others who see them when their friends are tagged on FB and such can see my name right on the photo. But you’re right, if one really knew what they were doing, they could remove the watermark.