It looks like the photographer left room for the groom on the left side of the photo. If he'd shot it as a vertical, he wouldn't have had to cut off part of her head and arm. At the very least, I think he should have put her in the left third of the frame rather than the right.
The effect consists mainly in exposing for her face, which is in open shade, overexposing the background and using shallow depth of field. This style can be shot in an actual outdoor location or in front of a painted drop in the studio, although this was pretty clearly shot outdoor.
The style is consistent with the pose, and except for the composition, it's a pretty nice example of that style. I don't particularly like that style, but then I almost never worked that market.
If I were working the wedding/portrait market, I would want to have some of this style, along with some of the more traditional approaches, in my portfolio. Hopefully all of it well composed.
A varied portfolio shows the possibilities to the client and lets her/him choose the style.
I have to confess, I don't know what you mean by "the pp," so I just responded to what I saw. I don't think that asking more than one question a day offends anyone.
I am with you on the top of the head and the arm at the bottom of the photo. Bad move. As one poster notes, she spent a lot of time and effort on the hair so a photographer should take note. Also, cropping body parts has rules. Partial appendages are not usually a good idea. This one falls into that category.
Ah the rule of thirds. Not centering a subject and how to do it right. This rule is one that can be rethought. Typically, when the subject includes movement, like a car or plane, there should always be space in front of that object to let the mind perceive forward movement. But not always. A plane may be towards the leading edge of the photo if you wish to show a particularly spectacular contrail, lets say.
When I first looked at this photo the idea that popped into my head is that she id focused on the bouquet, not for what lies ahead, but for where she came from or what brought her to this time and place. So really, its a matter of what you want to portrait. That part of this photo was to me, interesting.
As for the tone, colors, exposure, etc. I am not a good critic. But I agree that could be what the bride wants. So as many of us know, a happy bride is a good thing.
Need ideas for ground cover plant on a slope for event venue
Our wedding event venue is in a rural area and the drive way is a good block and a half long. Both sides slope terribly down making it nearly impossible to mow, one side slopes straight into a barbed-wire fence. It is a pain to mow the long and sloped area every couple of weeks, not to mention dangerous. I wanted to plant a English Ivy along both sides along the whole drive which would look great to me, but I read that horses can get sick and even die from eating ivy which is a pain since the shortest distance of the slope drops down to my neighbors horse pasture right next to the most used area for the animals. Is this true that Ivy can kill them and if so what would be another litle-no maintenance ground cover that would be safe for the animals, not take over the countryside and still kill all the grass/weeds growing along these slopes?
English ivy is toxic to horses should they choose to graze in it, but they rarely do due to its very bitter taste (meaning also if they're starved for food elsewhere too, otherwise they steer clear of it). Also, any intake of it would have to be in very large quantities to spark a physical reaction (foaming mouth, enlarged pupils/eyes) and is rarely, if ever, fatal in any event. Ivy would be PERFECT for your slope the in event venue although it does creep, including climbing up fences and trees, so is not maintenance free and needs to be sheered back a few times each summer where not wanted. It also has the advantage of being a very dense cover such that unsightly tall weeds are a lot less likely to peek out and grow through, thus not requiring more than the initial mulch-job when first planted and establishing itself.
Another choice - which is NOT toxic to horses or any other pets for that matter - would be crepe myrtle (which also has a lovely little blue flower in spring) but it is nowhere near as dense a cover, takes longer to 'fill in' and thus you WILL see unsightly weeds peek through unless you double up on plants and jam them in to get as thick and protective cover as possible. Another idea, but MUCH more expensive initially, is the vast array (and colors from deep green to medium green to blue-green)is creeping juniper. Another good choice is Euonymous Fortunei, which is also great for erosion control, is evergreen and dense, with inconspicuous flowers. You haven't said whether you are dealing with full sun, part shade of full shade, so choices should be made in consideration of same (for instance lily-of-the-valley works too, has great fragrant flowers, but burns out in full sun, needs part shade.
English ivy is toxic to horses should they choose to graze in it, but they rarely do due to its very bitter taste (meaning also if they're starved for food elsewhere too, otherwise they steer clear of it). Also, any intake of it would have to be in very large quantities to spark a physical reaction (foaming mouth, enlarged pupils/eyes) and is rarely, if ever, fatal in any event. Ivy would be PERFECT for your slope the in event venue although it does creep, including climbing up fences and trees, so is not maintenance free and needs to be sheered back a few times each summer where not wanted. It also has the advantage of being a very dense cover such that unsightly tall weeds are a lot less likely to peek out and grow through, thus not requiring more than the initial mulch-job when first planted and establishing itself.
Another choice - which is NOT toxic to horses or any other pets for that matter - would be crepe myrtle (which also has a lovely little blue flower in spring) but it is nowhere near as dense a cover, takes longer to 'fill in' and thus you WILL see unsightly weeds peek through unless you double up on plants and jam them in to get as thick and protective cover as possible. Another idea, but MUCH more expensive initially, is the vast array (and colors from deep green to medium green to blue-green)is creeping juniper. Another good choice is Euonymous Fortunei, which is also great for erosion control, is evergreen and dense, with inconspicuous flowers. You haven't said whether you are dealing with full sun, part shade of full shade, so choices should be made in consideration of same (for instance lily-of-the-valley works too, has great fragrant flowers, but burns out in full sun, needs part shade.
What's More Important Digital Zoom or Megapixels?
I'm looking into upgrading my Digital Camera. I'm wondering what is more Important the zoom or the megapixels? For example a camera with 20.1 mp w/10x digital zoom VS a camera with 16 mp w/20x Digital zoom?
The most important element is training your vision, learning the functions of the basic camera settings and how they affect an image, and other basics such as how to hold the camera steady when making an image. With rare exception, digital zoom is fairly useless. Very quickly into the "zoom" range, the image begins to degrade.
Depending on the particular sensors being compared, the differences between 16 and 20 megapixels will be minimal and trivial. Other features such as the quality of the lens, the controls the camera provides, how the camera handles for you, etc., are at least, and likely more important than the features you asked about.
Also increasing megapixels means more information is recorded providing sharper pictures. Digital zoom is really nothing more than increasing the size of the image shown and cropping to fit. You can get the same effect at the printing stage, but either way it will result in a loss of quality.
The most important element is training your vision, learning the functions of the basic camera settings and how they affect an image, and other basics such as how to hold the camera steady when making an image. With rare exception, digital zoom is fairly useless. Very quickly into the "zoom" range, the image begins to degrade.
Depending on the particular sensors being compared, the differences between 16 and 20 megapixels will be minimal and trivial. Other features such as the quality of the lens, the controls the camera provides, how the camera handles for you, etc., are at least, and likely more important than the features you asked about.
Also increasing megapixels means more information is recorded providing sharper pictures. Digital zoom is really nothing more than increasing the size of the image shown and cropping to fit. You can get the same effect at the printing stage, but either way it will result in a loss of quality.
But if I had to choose, then megapixels. Digital zoom is absolutely useless. You can crop and enlarge photos on your computer and achieve the same result.
However, the megapixel number can be nearly as useless. Some cheap cameras use lower megapixel sensors and use digital black magic to increase the number of megapixels by interpolating extra information.
I'm guessing a camera that advertises 20.1mp and 10x digital zoom or 16mp with 20x digital zoom is pretty much a piece of crap and the company depends on marketing ploys like these to unwitting people to buy them.
Advance preparation for traveling to events in a different city
A little advance prep can save precious travel time. Check where, how much and how to catch the basic transport you'll need on arrival and leaving. Know how much a taxi, train, bus, etc. should cost from airport to destination to avoid rip-off's and ensure you've got enough local currency and directions.
Photograph your ID, passport, travel or airline docs and suitcase contents. Save to Cloud if possible and your camera and phone. Helps in case of theft or loss.
Pack laundry dryer sheets, great for static cling, refresh clothes and keep in dirty clothes bag to cover any scent. A Shower cap or extra plastic bag cover germy hotel remote controls nicely.
When sightseeing, don't attempt to see every museum. It's better to limit yourself to the best of what a place has to offer. This way you don't get jaded and tired of it all. It's best to limit yourself to one art museum, one monument, one palace, one church, and one historical site or museum per place visited. However, you can visit several neighborhoods within a place.
Also, when visiting museums, don't attempt to see everything there. Instead focus on what is best or most unique in what they have to offer.
Photograph your ID, passport, travel or airline docs and suitcase contents. Save to Cloud if possible and your camera and phone. Helps in case of theft or loss.
Pack laundry dryer sheets, great for static cling, refresh clothes and keep in dirty clothes bag to cover any scent. A Shower cap or extra plastic bag cover germy hotel remote controls nicely.
When sightseeing, don't attempt to see every museum. It's better to limit yourself to the best of what a place has to offer. This way you don't get jaded and tired of it all. It's best to limit yourself to one art museum, one monument, one palace, one church, and one historical site or museum per place visited. However, you can visit several neighborhoods within a place.
Also, when visiting museums, don't attempt to see everything there. Instead focus on what is best or most unique in what they have to offer.
Using reflected light to judge proper exposure
It is at best a guess. Sure, you might get close, but it's still a guess. You might even get lucky and nail it, but it was still a guess...a lucky guess.
Modern cameras have all kind of crutches to try and help. There are "spot" metering modes, highlight blowout views on the EVF, average metering, matrix metering, but in the end, all the camera and photographer are doing is guessing at the setting for best exposure.
I can't say for sure, but I'm assuming the people that contracted me to provide pictures of this event would have preferred it that I did not guess. So I showed up the night before for dress rehearsal and took a few measurements. I now knew that at f2.8 (the widest my lens can go) and 1/125 shutter (the slowest I dare shoot to freeze motion), I needed to set the ISO to 1600. Done.
I could have brought a grey card and took a reflective reading off that, but why? I already measured the light that would be falling on the stage. Sure, it changes from scene to scene, but in this case, if it was darker on the stage, I wanted the image to be darker. I wanted the cameras to see exactly what my eye was seeing. The last thing I wanted was an in-camera meter brightening, darkening or heaven forbid averaging the exposure. What a nightmare that would have been.
If you'd care to, click on the image I posted and surf through all the shots from that performance. You will see that 90% are ISO1600, f2.8 and 1/125 shutter. A few are 1/250 when all the stage lights came on. There was no need for an in-camera meter to be constantly making adjustments depending on where I was pointing the lens and how much reflected light happened to hit the sensor at that moment.
If I didn't have the opportunity to get on stage and directly measure the light, my second choice would have been to spot meter off Cinderella's white-white dress and go 4 stops down from there leaving her dress in zone 9.
The point is once I have this measurement, the only stupid thing I could do would be not to turn off my camera's meter for the rest of the evening.
I guess the reason I harp on incident light is that it seems to be a forgotten path to perfect exposure in this day and age of modern, "do everything for you" cameras. No one has to educate or advocate for in-camera reflective metering.
A meter works the same for digital or film. The problem is an in camera meter takes a reading of reflected light but, not all surfaces will reflect the same amount of light. Even worse are the meter modes that use part or all of the scene and the camera guesses what you're metering for.
In camera meter can be just as accurate if you use a grey card or other known surface to meter off of, palm of your hand for example. It's easier to use a hand held meter though and I most often carry mine.
The biggest problem lies in people not understanding how to meter with what they are using. In camera or hand held meter will both be just as accurate if the person operating it knows what they are doing.
There is an entire generation of shooters (maybe two generations) that don't have a clue how to calculate an exposure and think the only way is to set their camera on auto "something" and shoot away, making adjustments on the fly from a 2" LCD screen.
I was one of them until I saw the light.
Modern cameras have all kind of crutches to try and help. There are "spot" metering modes, highlight blowout views on the EVF, average metering, matrix metering, but in the end, all the camera and photographer are doing is guessing at the setting for best exposure.
I can't say for sure, but I'm assuming the people that contracted me to provide pictures of this event would have preferred it that I did not guess. So I showed up the night before for dress rehearsal and took a few measurements. I now knew that at f2.8 (the widest my lens can go) and 1/125 shutter (the slowest I dare shoot to freeze motion), I needed to set the ISO to 1600. Done.
I could have brought a grey card and took a reflective reading off that, but why? I already measured the light that would be falling on the stage. Sure, it changes from scene to scene, but in this case, if it was darker on the stage, I wanted the image to be darker. I wanted the cameras to see exactly what my eye was seeing. The last thing I wanted was an in-camera meter brightening, darkening or heaven forbid averaging the exposure. What a nightmare that would have been.
If you'd care to, click on the image I posted and surf through all the shots from that performance. You will see that 90% are ISO1600, f2.8 and 1/125 shutter. A few are 1/250 when all the stage lights came on. There was no need for an in-camera meter to be constantly making adjustments depending on where I was pointing the lens and how much reflected light happened to hit the sensor at that moment.
If I didn't have the opportunity to get on stage and directly measure the light, my second choice would have been to spot meter off Cinderella's white-white dress and go 4 stops down from there leaving her dress in zone 9.
The point is once I have this measurement, the only stupid thing I could do would be not to turn off my camera's meter for the rest of the evening.
I guess the reason I harp on incident light is that it seems to be a forgotten path to perfect exposure in this day and age of modern, "do everything for you" cameras. No one has to educate or advocate for in-camera reflective metering.
A meter works the same for digital or film. The problem is an in camera meter takes a reading of reflected light but, not all surfaces will reflect the same amount of light. Even worse are the meter modes that use part or all of the scene and the camera guesses what you're metering for.
In camera meter can be just as accurate if you use a grey card or other known surface to meter off of, palm of your hand for example. It's easier to use a hand held meter though and I most often carry mine.
The biggest problem lies in people not understanding how to meter with what they are using. In camera or hand held meter will both be just as accurate if the person operating it knows what they are doing.
There is an entire generation of shooters (maybe two generations) that don't have a clue how to calculate an exposure and think the only way is to set their camera on auto "something" and shoot away, making adjustments on the fly from a 2" LCD screen.
I was one of them until I saw the light.
Wedding Costs
Having been fortunate enough to be a guest at numerous weddings over the years I've witnessed quite a variation in the ceremonies and receptions from one couple to another. The ceremonies have ranged from a minister speaking briefly while standing within a few yards of abandoned chicken shacks to a priest celebrating a formal Mass held in a cathedral.
The differences between the least and most elaborate wedding receptions are notable.
"Couple A" held their reception at a simple log cabin style community center. There was no alcohol served. The meal, for no more than 40 guests, consisted solely of baked chicken and garden salad that was prepared in the community center's basement along with a modest wedding cake that was made by the bride's mother. The entertainment was a a few cassette tapes played on a boom box provided by one of the guests.
"Couple B" held their reception at an elaborate function hall. There was an open bar during the entire event. The meal, for over 200 guests, consisted of appetizers including an incredible buffet of fresh fruits and cheeses, plus your choice of entree and a slice from the huge bakery produced wedding cake. There was a live band to provide musical entertainment.
I feel that most couples really wish to provide a highly enjoyable event for themselves and their guests and are willing to bite the bullet in terms of the costs. Hopefully as the couple ages they will be able to look back and share the fond memories and not be regretting the money they spent. However it does makes good financial sense to reduce spending for insignificant extras since traditionally the bride's parents shoulder much of the costs.
For the majority of couples it takes at least a moderate effort to be able to save enough funds for things that are essential and not put themselves deeply into debt from their wedding at the very start of their marriage. Perhaps there is a reason that some couples decide to avoid all the planning and costs involved and just "shack-up" together!
The differences between the least and most elaborate wedding receptions are notable.
"Couple A" held their reception at a simple log cabin style community center. There was no alcohol served. The meal, for no more than 40 guests, consisted solely of baked chicken and garden salad that was prepared in the community center's basement along with a modest wedding cake that was made by the bride's mother. The entertainment was a a few cassette tapes played on a boom box provided by one of the guests.
"Couple B" held their reception at an elaborate function hall. There was an open bar during the entire event. The meal, for over 200 guests, consisted of appetizers including an incredible buffet of fresh fruits and cheeses, plus your choice of entree and a slice from the huge bakery produced wedding cake. There was a live band to provide musical entertainment.
I feel that most couples really wish to provide a highly enjoyable event for themselves and their guests and are willing to bite the bullet in terms of the costs. Hopefully as the couple ages they will be able to look back and share the fond memories and not be regretting the money they spent. However it does makes good financial sense to reduce spending for insignificant extras since traditionally the bride's parents shoulder much of the costs.
For the majority of couples it takes at least a moderate effort to be able to save enough funds for things that are essential and not put themselves deeply into debt from their wedding at the very start of their marriage. Perhaps there is a reason that some couples decide to avoid all the planning and costs involved and just "shack-up" together!
I've seen many youtube videos shot on DSLR's that look incredible
At an amateur level I've been told DSLR's do better than most consumer video cameras. The guy at the store said I need to spend at least $1,500 on a video camera if I want it to do a better job than a DSLR. I just shoot some basic YouTube videos, and I do very basic editing with Adobe Premiere Elements. I figured it would just be better to buy a DSLR.
I bought a couple of different cheap consumer grade video cameras for about $300 (Sony & Canon). I hated both and returned them. Couldn't even turn off the auto focus feature.
DSLR's with video capability, such as the T3i-T4i-T5i, and the 60D or 70D put out stunning video- video that looks like high end cinema. I know much of this is due to the skill of the photographer in shooting & in post processing, but nonetheless, they look incredible. You would need professional lighting especially if you plan to produce the videos indoors. If it were me, I would look for a standalone prosumer-grade video camera to purchase.
The limitations I hear about tend to be with regard to certain shooting limitations, like with some DSLR's, you can only shoot 30 minutes or so at a time, and that the ergonomics aren't as nice, and some can heat up when shooting for prolonged periods.
But, if you shoot short youtube videos, they can look unbelievable. Shooting a feature length film can be challenging, but can also come out great if you know what you're doing.
The problem with autofocus on moving subjects has been addressed with the new focus system on the 70D- it can focus quietly and quickly on moving subjects with very good accuracy. Check out some videos for examples- just go to youtube and look up 70D video- I've seen some that look amazing. I'm starting to think my next camera will be a 70D for this reason. Unless they come out with something better that's in a price range I can pay.
But, it all depends on what kind of video you want to shoot. many youtube videos could just be shot with an iPhone. It all depends on the subject matter, and the aesthetics you are going for.
I've had my Nikon D70 for almost a decade. Still does fine, except I want video as well. Saw the sale sign at a local camera shop. The salesman claimed the D7100 is right for me as it's mid-level (since I'm migrating from a D70, I shouldn't step in the beginner SLR). I wanted a Nikon since I already had Nikon lenses, but was told my old lenses are crap and need to be upgraded. So if I have to get new lenses, I don't have to stay with Nikon.
I take lots of pics for selling stuff on the net. I usually take 50 pictures of each item. I really like the newer camera's with HDMI output so I can instantly see the results on a monitor. I also make some basic YouTube videos and hence want video functionality. Some outdoor photography while hiking.
He showed me the D7100 w/18-105mm lens for $1,400. It's priced similarly all over the net (it's the authorized Nikon price). Before buying this, thought I'd ask the experts. I haven't followed camera technology since I bought my D70, so I'm lost. What would you buy for $1,500 (camera and one quality lens)? Nikon, Olympus, Sony, Canon, etc? If you know of a really good deal somewhere, it's ok if it exceeds $1,500, but not by much.
Photography-wise, if you want quality results, get quality lens. That's where you'll see the most improvement. I'm not saying that you shouldn't upgrade the body or that it's unimportant - certainly it does factor in, but rather, it's less critical to getting quality awe-inspiring shots. If that makes sense?
I bought a couple of different cheap consumer grade video cameras for about $300 (Sony & Canon). I hated both and returned them. Couldn't even turn off the auto focus feature.
DSLR's with video capability, such as the T3i-T4i-T5i, and the 60D or 70D put out stunning video- video that looks like high end cinema. I know much of this is due to the skill of the photographer in shooting & in post processing, but nonetheless, they look incredible. You would need professional lighting especially if you plan to produce the videos indoors. If it were me, I would look for a standalone prosumer-grade video camera to purchase.
The limitations I hear about tend to be with regard to certain shooting limitations, like with some DSLR's, you can only shoot 30 minutes or so at a time, and that the ergonomics aren't as nice, and some can heat up when shooting for prolonged periods.
But, if you shoot short youtube videos, they can look unbelievable. Shooting a feature length film can be challenging, but can also come out great if you know what you're doing.
The problem with autofocus on moving subjects has been addressed with the new focus system on the 70D- it can focus quietly and quickly on moving subjects with very good accuracy. Check out some videos for examples- just go to youtube and look up 70D video- I've seen some that look amazing. I'm starting to think my next camera will be a 70D for this reason. Unless they come out with something better that's in a price range I can pay.
But, it all depends on what kind of video you want to shoot. many youtube videos could just be shot with an iPhone. It all depends on the subject matter, and the aesthetics you are going for.
I've had my Nikon D70 for almost a decade. Still does fine, except I want video as well. Saw the sale sign at a local camera shop. The salesman claimed the D7100 is right for me as it's mid-level (since I'm migrating from a D70, I shouldn't step in the beginner SLR). I wanted a Nikon since I already had Nikon lenses, but was told my old lenses are crap and need to be upgraded. So if I have to get new lenses, I don't have to stay with Nikon.
I take lots of pics for selling stuff on the net. I usually take 50 pictures of each item. I really like the newer camera's with HDMI output so I can instantly see the results on a monitor. I also make some basic YouTube videos and hence want video functionality. Some outdoor photography while hiking.
He showed me the D7100 w/18-105mm lens for $1,400. It's priced similarly all over the net (it's the authorized Nikon price). Before buying this, thought I'd ask the experts. I haven't followed camera technology since I bought my D70, so I'm lost. What would you buy for $1,500 (camera and one quality lens)? Nikon, Olympus, Sony, Canon, etc? If you know of a really good deal somewhere, it's ok if it exceeds $1,500, but not by much.
Photography-wise, if you want quality results, get quality lens. That's where you'll see the most improvement. I'm not saying that you shouldn't upgrade the body or that it's unimportant - certainly it does factor in, but rather, it's less critical to getting quality awe-inspiring shots. If that makes sense?
Batteries die and memory cards run out inevitably right in the middle of a scene. Many DSLRs and mirrorless cameras have to be removed from a tripod before batteries can be replaced. If filming a commercial where I can say "cut" when my batteries run out, fine. But if you're filming live action...get a video camera.
BONE THUGS N HARMONY - LIVE IN MANILA
BONE THUGS N HARMONY - LIVE IN MANILA
DATE: June 11, 2014 08:00 PM
LOCATION: Mall Of Asia Arena
BONE THUGS N HARMONY - LIVE IN MANILA *EPLUS 15% on LOWER BOX tickets
LADDERHOUSE AND WAVE 89.1
PRESENT
BONE THUGS N HARMONY
LIVE IN MANILA
-OVER 40 MILLION RECORDS SOLD WORLDWIDE
-GRAMMY AWARD WINNING HIP-HOP GROUP
PERFORMING ALL THEIR HIT SINGLES
-CROSSROADS
-NOTORIOUS THUGS
-1ST OF THE MONTH
-THUGGISH RUGGISH
-DAYS OF OUR LIVES
& MANY MORE
ALSO PERFORMING
BIG SLOAN OF MO THUGS
ABRA
URBAN MUSIC AWARDS 2014 & BENEFIT CONCERT
11 JUNE 2014 WEDNESDAY 8:00PM
MALL OF ASIA ARENA
PORTION OF PROFITS FROM THE EVENT SHALL BE DONATED BY LADDER HOUSE TO HELP WITH THE REBUILDING OF THE CITIES THAT WERE AFFECTED BY THE RECENT TYPHOON
PROMO: EPLUS 10%
EPLUS MEMBERS GETS 10% DISCOUNT UPON PRESENTATION OF THEIR EPLUS CARDS. NO LIMIT ON TICKET PURCHASE. PROMO UNTIL JUNE 11, 2014.
ONLINE PROMO CODE: EPLUS10
LADDERHOUSE AND WAVE 89.1
PRESENT
BONE THUGS N HARMONY
LIVE IN MANILA
-OVER 40 MILLION RECORDS SOLD WORLDWIDE
-GRAMMY AWARD WINNING HIP-HOP GROUP
PERFORMING ALL THEIR HIT SINGLES
-CROSSROADS
-NOTORIOUS THUGS
-1ST OF THE MONTH
-THUGGISH RUGGISH
-DAYS OF OUR LIVES
& MANY MORE
ALSO PERFORMING
BIG SLOAN OF MO THUGS
ABRA
URBAN MUSIC AWARDS 2014 & BENEFIT CONCERT
11 JUNE 2014 WEDNESDAY 8:00PM
MALL OF ASIA ARENA
PORTION OF PROFITS FROM THE EVENT SHALL BE DONATED BY LADDER HOUSE TO HELP WITH THE REBUILDING OF THE CITIES THAT WERE AFFECTED BY THE RECENT TYPHOON
PROMO: EPLUS 10%
EPLUS MEMBERS GETS 10% DISCOUNT UPON PRESENTATION OF THEIR EPLUS CARDS. NO LIMIT ON TICKET PURCHASE. PROMO UNTIL JUNE 11, 2014.
ONLINE PROMO CODE: EPLUS10
PROMO: LOWER BOX EPLUS 15%
EPLUS MEMBERS GETS 15% DISCOUNT UPON PRESENTATION OF THEIR EPLUS CARDS. NO LIMIT ON TICKET PURCHASE. PROMO UNTIL JUNE 11, 2014.
ONLINE PROMO CODE: EPLUS15
TeamManila x Itchyworms Launch
TeamManila x Itchyworms Launch
Date: June 12, 2004 4pm
Location: SM City Manila
Arroceros cor. Concepcion & San Marcelino sts., Ermita, Manila
Come out and meet the band for free!
Date: June 12, 2004 4pm
Location: SM City Manila
Arroceros cor. Concepcion & San Marcelino sts., Ermita, Manila
Come out and meet the band for free!
Taylor Swift - The Red Tour - Manila The Philippines - Presented By Cornetto
Taylor Swift - The Red Tour - Manila The Philippines - Presented By Cornetto
Date: Friday, June 6, 2014 8:00pm
Location: Mall of Asia Arena
Taylor Swift - RED Tour Asia Dates
~ May 30th - Presented By Cornetto - Mercedes Benz Arena - Shanghai - China - SOLD OUT ! -
~ June 1st - Presented By Cornetto - Satima Super Arena - Tokyo - Japan - Sold Out !! -
~ June 4th -Presented By Cornetto - Meis Ancol Jakarta International Staduim -Indonesia. - Sold Out -
~ June 6th - Presented By Cornetto - Mall of Asia Complex _ Manila The Phillippines - Sold Out -
~ June 9th - Presented By Cornetto - Impact Area - Bangkok Thailand. - Sold Out ! -
~ June 11 - Presented By Cornetto - Putra Indoor stadium - Kuala Lumpur Malaysia - Sold Out ! -
~ Final Show - June 12th -Presented By Cornetto - Singapore Indoor Stadium - Singapore - SOLD OUT !
~ Congrats Asia on Achieving the #REDtour
Hope Its Us Next!!
~ Please Taylor Scott #REDtourDublin
The most well rounded lens for Canon
I'd suggest a Canon 28~135mm lens till you learn more . It's not expensive and can do a fairly good job. That lens is a "kit" lens that Canon sells along with their cameras. Sort of a package deal. A lens is something you will keep forever, But as you do more shooting, you will have more specific needs, and will want to purchase a lens that is of higher quality to meet specific types of shots. I would suggest a Canon 24~105mm F4. I use this lens as my walk around, as it meets most of my requirements. Working photographers have lots of lenses. I use this lens for head shots, weddings, & many special events. But It won't do for sports and concerts.
When shooting portraits; distance from the subject, long focal length, and large apertures, will contribute to the bokeh effects. Head and shoulder shots are easier to get more bokeh than full body shots. I use Canon 24~105 F4 lens and get excellent results. Putting aside the issue of bokeh, I use that lens in my studio for corporate head shot work & it is very versatile for weddings too. When shooting panoramic scenes: Distance determines what is in focus. I had the 24~70mm F2.8 and sold it right after doing one wedding. It was way too heavy and I needed the extra zoom, since sometimes I am not able to get close. For me the Canon EF-24~105mm F4 is a good all around lens. For those tight spots where I cannot get back far enough, I bought a wide angle lens EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM to fit my 7D. It is tucked in my bag for those special occasions. Again, I repeat myself, there is a lens for different shots, for instance, shooting sports. For that I need my long zoom Canon EF-70~200mm F4. ( couldn't afford the 300mm) .
When shooting portraits; distance from the subject, long focal length, and large apertures, will contribute to the bokeh effects. Head and shoulder shots are easier to get more bokeh than full body shots. I use Canon 24~105 F4 lens and get excellent results. Putting aside the issue of bokeh, I use that lens in my studio for corporate head shot work & it is very versatile for weddings too. When shooting panoramic scenes: Distance determines what is in focus. I had the 24~70mm F2.8 and sold it right after doing one wedding. It was way too heavy and I needed the extra zoom, since sometimes I am not able to get close. For me the Canon EF-24~105mm F4 is a good all around lens. For those tight spots where I cannot get back far enough, I bought a wide angle lens EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM to fit my 7D. It is tucked in my bag for those special occasions. Again, I repeat myself, there is a lens for different shots, for instance, shooting sports. For that I need my long zoom Canon EF-70~200mm F4. ( couldn't afford the 300mm) .
Hurrikane in Manila Dance Workshop
Date and Time: Wednesday, June 4 at 6:00pm - 8:00pm
Location: Brewing Point Dance Studio
56 T.M. Kalaw St., Tierra Pura Homes, Tandang Sora 1116 Quezon City, Philippines
In partnership with Allstars Dance School and BP Dance Studio, we bring you HURRIKANE IN MANILA. As one of the best lockers known in the dance community worldwide, we give you this chance to learn from the best.
Better not miss this opportunity!
Workshop fee rates:
P400.00 for walk-in registration
P350.00 for online registration
How to register and reserve slots:
1) Comment on the event page with your name and the studio you'll be attending
ex. James Eric Wong, ADS South
BP Dance Studio Reservation:
1. Neil Russell Bilon
2. Vin Castaneda
3. Santillana Jan Recz
4. Eyang Recoter
5. John Ray Castillo
6. Tank Canky Bautista
7. Jomo Tan
8. John Paul Javier Fausto
9. Patrick De Jesus
10. Yrwin Ty
11. Judge Soriano
12. Jemie Grace Calonge
13. Toni Enriquez
14. Joshua De Jesus
15. Rhys Gabriel Ferrer
16. Angelo MeGusta Noel Singson
17. Jemie Grace Calonge
18. Luigi Bagos
19. Gian Coronel
20. Miguel "Casado
21. Donao Amoranto
22. Aeimhard Cunan
23. Nico Mantorino
24. Yani Talam
25. Jay Torres
26. Ramo Bais
27. Jeffrey Manreal
28. Kathleen Kaye Bermas
29. Vika Enoza
30. Steph Yao
31. Praxe Villanueva
32. Alex Gutierez
33. Ejay Lim
34. Manuel Dupaya
35. Viriato Dupaya
36. Jeremy Vidal
37. Gabby Dario
38. Eva Pasagui
39. Luke Lasam
All Stars Dance School Studio Reservation:
1. Raffy Gonzales
2. Apple May Amarado
3. Jay Hilvano
4. Jarrett Cross Pinto
5. Vergil Andrew Bermudo
6. Yani Talam
7. Zyro Santos
8. Daniel Mendoza
9. Lucksley Maravillas
10. Jamil Al Aboodi
11. lucksley maravilla
12. Erica-Marie Carangalan
13. Jordan Price
What are you waiting for? Sign up and stretch your mind, body and funky souul!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
