 Robyn Gwilt |
Lets Pretend... money is no object You already have a Canon Digital SLR...(say a 350D or 20D) and you were to buy a 2nd body (ok, not the 1DS range, thats not for us dreamers!!) what would your ultimate kit be in terms of lenses for a wedding? Bearing in mind, you have 2 camera bodies, and don't particularly want to change lenses every 5 minutes. You'll need flashes as well. (OK, you can throw in the 1D)!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jerry Frazier |
The body doesn't matter too much. A little because of the crop, but it's not a gigantic factor. I would, and do have, the... 16-35L 2.8 I have more, but these are essential. You didn't specify a budget. On a budget, I'd purchase primes. With the 20D, I'd get the 24 1.4, the 50 1.4, and the 85 1.2. I shoot entire weddings with those 3 lenses...mostly with the 24 and 85. However, when I got my 5D, I tend to use my 35mm instead of my 24. I don't dig the 50, although it's a beautiful lens. But, it's too typical a look. It's what you expect to see. I like to use lenses that show unique perspective. The reason I say to get primes is because it sucks to be in a dark reception room with a crappy 2.8 lens. Zooms are neat, but the 85 1.2 can suck light like you've never seen. But, I don't use flash much, so even when it's pitch dark, I am at ISO 3200, aperture is at 1.2, speed is around 1/30th or maybe a little less, and the flash is dialed down -2 or -3. So, for my style, it's critical to have the faster lenses. I know we have some flash blasters here who probably shoot at 5.6 all night. That aint my thing, so the 2.8 lenses are too slow for me. The 1.2's and 1.4's give my that little extra I need to push my equipment as far as I can. Also, I truly believe the opposite of what most people tell you. Most will tell you that a zoom lens is better bang for the buck. I don't agree. I think every budget concious photographer should first invest in very high quality prime lenses, and move into zooms later on, because the higher quality glass is in primes. And, you need to invest your hard earned money properly. Then, later on, you can go into zooms, and use those like I do, for all the day time stuff. It's funny though, even with zooms, I don't zoom very much. I tend to move my body rather than zoom. I shot a wedding using my 24-70, and when I looked at the stats from it, almost every shot was at 24mm. So, it's just the way I think. I'm watching the scene and moving with it, rather than standing still and zooming in and out all the time. No right or wrong way to do it. Just my $.02
|
|
|
|
||
|
Robyn Gwilt |
Hi Joe. Money was not object, so there was no budget. Interesting selection of lenses here. But do you change them all the time? Or does it depend on where you're positioned, the light and space to move around, and then you'll decide - ok, for the ceremony/in the church, I'm sticking with x lens, and then when you move outside (lets say its bright sunshine), I'll stick with XX lens? I find it a schlepp, and worry about dust/losing an opportunity/missing a moment/putting the lens away correctly etc, but I guess thats practice. What does a 35 lens do that a 50 doesn't or vice versa? SOrry, I haven't worked with primes, so can't judge what would be the best option. If I had to invest in a 1.4, how would I decide whether to go with the 35 or 50 or 85? Thanks
|
|
|
|
||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
1 Canon 1D Mark II 3 Canon 20D’s 1 Canon 300D (as back-up, just in case) 2 550EX flash units 1 580EX flash unit 2 CP2 flash battery packs for quick flash recycle 2 flash diffusers (for bouncing the flash) 1 16-35mm zoom lens 1 24-70mm zoom lens 1 70-200mm zoom lens with IS 1 28-135 f/4.5-5.6 mm lens with IS 1 8mm Sigma fish-eye f/4 lens 1 15mm Canon f/2.8 lens 1 24mm f/1.4 lens 1 28mm f/2.8 lens 1 35mm f/2.0 lens 1 50mm f/1.4 lens 1 50mm f/1.8 lens 1 85mm f/1.2 lens 1 135mm f2.0 lens This is all that JoeBlow has. Why not share all the info, since you do on your blog.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Oliver Anderson |
I think I've got a pretty sick set up going right know. All I'd add is maybe a H2D39 or a full format camera. I've got 1Ds MarkII 10D 2x 70-200 2.8IS (1 non IS) 2x 17-40L 100MM Macro 180MM Macro 24MM 1.4 28mm 1.8 50mm 1.4 100mm 2 550 &580ex quantum turbos 4 strobes w/pocket wizards
|
|
|
|
||
|
Robyn Gwilt |
Brady, not sure what your comment is about. Oliver, did you mean a slick set up?! Why/when would you use the 70-200 IS, vs the non IS, why would you have 2x 17-40 lenses? What is a quantum turbo, and the strobes w/pocket wizards? Again my question to you all, is how many of the above lenses would you reasonably use during a wedding shoot, surely if you're changing lenses all the time, there are moments lost? Do you have absolute favourites that you tend to use over and over, or does it really depend on the venue/lighting/situation?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jon Close |
Regardless of budget, I would want the 2-3 camera bodies to be very similar so that one could switch between them seamlessly. The control interfaces and features of the 1-series, 10D/20D/30D/5D, and the 300D/350D are all different. The different format sizes of the 1Ds/5D ("full frame"), 1D (1.3x), 10D-30D/300D-350D (1.6x) also means using different lens focal lengths for getting a particular shot.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jerry Frazier |
Robyn, As you can see, we all kind of have the same stuff. I don't changes lenses very much. I could have a 35 and 85 on 2 bodies all day long and shoot just fine. The lens I use has little to do with the brightness, except for extreme dark. Just because my 24mm lens is a 1.4 doesn't mean I have to shoot it there. I can shoot it at 4.5 too. So, what I do is decide what I am trying to do. Then, I pretty much stick with that lens. I change about 10 or 15 times through out the day. If I'm shooting in avaialble light, like a beach wedding, I use my zooms all day. So, outside, I might use my 70-200 on one body, and my 24-70 on the other. If I was shooting with 20D's I'd use the 16-35, and the 70-200. I don't like the 24-70 range on the 20D. I prefer primes because it forces me to create an image the way I see it at that moment. I don't know if this helps at all. It's probably doesn't. But, anyway, you have to just do what you feel comfortable with. In weddings, you deal with alot of dark situations. Even while the B&G are getting ready, hotel rooms, and peoples houses, are really dark. You don't realize it, but they are. So, having the fast primes is essetial in those situation. That is, unless you're a flash blaster, and then it might not matter to you.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Robyn Gwilt |
Thanks all - just curious to see how different people approach it. Jon, you comment is valid, I've a 350D, and was thinking about getting a 20D as my main body, and keeping the 350D as my 2nd, or back up - are they very different? Joe, your input is also very interesting - I do prefer natural light, but need to rely on a bit of fill flash, as my lowest is a 2.8. I was just interested to see that no-one has the Canon (I might be wrong here) but I think its a 28-105 IS lens - I'd have thought that was quite a handy one. Do you think that if you have a 1.4 or 1.8, this negates the need for IS - is it preferable to have the wider aperture, AND its prime, rather than the IS in a zoom, or is it going to give you the same thing? Sorry if its not coming across well - I talk with my hands a lot, so I'm a bit buggered here :) LOL
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jon Close |
350D v. 20D controls: The Mode Dial is virtually the same, but is left of the viewfinder on the 20D v. right for the 350D. Exposure Compensation and setting the aperture in M are done directly with the Quick Control Wheel on the back of the 20D, v. turning the Main Dial while pressing the AV button on the 350D. There are different controls for selecting an AF sensor, metering mode, and setting ISO and WB.
|
|
|
|
||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
here is my personal list and you dont need more. Buy the best for the best results and save yourself a headache. 70-200 Then if you still have room in your bag
|
|
|
|
||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
now lets pretend you won't start making a profit for a while because you have to pay for your gear unless you by chance still have that spoon in your mouth. And by the time you've got that under control you want some of the newer gadgets. Back to square one. So buy the best and that will save you money in the future or at least for 5 years. It takes about 2 years to break even and to build a name for yourself, just have to be patient and very artistic. As you get older your bag will get lighter, because you'll figure out a way to shoot with only 3 lenses. You could shoot a whole wedding with a 85mm but you'll be walking back and forth alot.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Oliver Anderson |
The reason I have 2 17-40L is because I was buying one for a friend that didn't have the money...he never will have the $$ so there. The 70-200 2.8 is supposedly sharper than the IS so I use it with the tripod for some set up shots since you cant use the (IS) with a tripod. plus I wanted to look symetrical when walking around and enjoy having 2 large lens cases on my belt...the primes were purchased a while ago prior to the zooms.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Robyn Gwilt |
LOL, Cool Hand Luke. I have the 70-200 L IS - and was not happy with my images, very soft - at first I thought it was me, then realised, it could NEVER be operator error, so sent it in to Canon, and its being re-calibrated. So, it wasn't me! Why is the other sharper, then whats the point of IS? And why can't you use the IS on a tripod without switching off the IS - doesn't make sense to me! Brady, that spoon never did make it to my mouth unfortunately. But I have learnt to rather wait and buy the best (I can afford) There is a saying "I'm too poor to buy cheap". I also think I could get down to 3 lenses - my 70-200, my Sigma 17-70 is very sharp, and has a great macro, and maybe at a later stage a 1.4, but thats where I wouldn't know which one to go with - 24, 28, 50? How do you decide, especially if you've never used any of them.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jerry Frazier |
The 28-105 is a piece of crap. I use it for walking around, you know, like not serious but just snap shot type stuff on my Rebel. I would NEVER use that lens professionally. Primes don't need or have IS. One thing to think about. I know alot of women pros, and most prefer primes because they are lighter. You can put one on a 20D or 5D all day long, and not feel the same amount of wear and tear as you do holding a 1D with a 70-200 on it. If you decide on primes, which obviously, I recommend, get yourself a belt system, so you can keep 2 or 3 lenses in it. I have a belt, and I will have my 24, 50, and 15mm in it. And, the 35 on one body and the 85 on the other. And, then I just switch them out as I need to. If you go with the zooms, you already have the 70-200, so the next I would buy is the 16-35, NOT the 24-70. You can eventually buy the 24-70, but right now, you have the long lens, so now you need wide. But, I really have trouble with those lenses at receptions. I don't know. Rent some lenses and see what you like.
|
|
|
|
||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
I do know one pro who shoots by himself and only uses the 70-200, 24-70 and 16-35(wide) and his wedding packages start at $5999. I won't name names, but it is possible. A prime lens will make your shots look more professional.
|
|
|
|
||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
hey Robyn how about "Champaign on a beer budget" LOL all the way to the LOL BANK
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jon Close |
>>"Why is the other sharper, then whats the point of IS? And why can't you use the IS on a tripod without switching off the IS - doesn't make sense to me!"<< The difference in sharpness between the IS and non-IS model is immaterial, and can only be measured in controlled lab setting. When used on a tripod, IS can be left on - it can help to counter act vibrations from the tripod and mirror slap. That's why it is included in lenses that are almost always used on a tripod (400 f/2.8L IS, 500 f/4L IS, 600 f/4L IS) Only the four 1st generation IS lenses need to have IS turned off when tripod mounted.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jerry Frazier |
Uh, I should ignore the comment, but a prime lens wont make your shots look more professional. Your eye makes your shots look professional. A professional contractor can use a piece of crap hammer, and still do the job, and the tools are totally immaterial to you. Similar to photography. Ok, here's a case. A good friend of mine was shooting, her camera went bad, picked up her other, it starting acting weird, picked up her backup, it went whacky too. So, during the first dance, she grabbed a guests camera, a little Sony P&S and continued working while she sent someone scrambling to find a local photogapher with gear she could borrow. A few of the P&S images made it into her album, and were very nice. Really no difference in quality. It's the eye, not the equipment. The equipment is just the means by which you execute your vision. I have a large image on my wall of an image I took with one of those little plastic P&S cameras that my friend bought out of a shack hut on the beach. I grabbed it from him, laid down on the sand, and took this killer shot. There's a guy who is travelling the world doing documentary work with a P&S camera. He is out to prove that photography is not about the equipment. I forget what he uses, I think it's a Sony of some sort. And, he has won awards for his photography. After he won his award, he came out saying that everything was shot on a P&S. The world was amazed. It's like James Natchway announcing that all his work was done on a little Kodak Instamatic or something. That would certainly send a shockwave through the industry.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Oliver Anderson |
Like I said Robyn I really love the 2 cases hanging on my belt...looks are very important in the LA and OC area...
|
|
|
|
||
|
Robyn Gwilt |
"Only the four 1st generation IS lenses need to have IS turned off when tripod mounted." What do you mean by this sentence? I also agree that the 70-200 is very very heavy - gave me tennis elbow, and I had to have a cortisone shot!!! I'll look into the belt system, but I don't want to look like GI Joe!! :) Someone told me James Natchwey shoots everything on P - says if he's paying that much for a camera, it better do the job!!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jon Close |
EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM (discontinued) EF 300 f/4L IS USM EF 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM were introduced in 1995-1998. On these 4 lenses only it is recommended that IS be turned off when used on a tripod. The lack of movement may cause the IS to act erratically, trying to correct movement that isn't there. Every IS lens introduced since is "IS-sensing" and automatically adjusts to being tripod mounted, correcting for small camera movements caused by the mirror flipping up.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jon Close |
argggh.... "IS-sensing" should be "tripod-sensing".
|
|
|
|
||
|
Robyn Gwilt |
oh ok. But then why did the insert in my new (6 weeks old) 70-200 suggest I switch off the IS on a tripod. If you forget to switch off, will it damage the lense in any way?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jon Close |
There is absolutely no risk of damage in leaving IS on when on a tripod, even with the 1st generation lenses. Don't know why your instructions say that, but suspect whoever wrote it simply copy/pasted IS section from one of the older lens manuals. Per Canon's Technical Paper on the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM (link): Image stabilizer effects on monopod equal to in hand-held shooting
|
|
|
|
||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
"Uh, I should ignore the comment, but a prime lens wont make your shots look more professional. Your eye makes your shots look professional. A professional contractor can use a piece of crap hammer, and still do the job, and the tools are totally immaterial to you. Similar to photography."
Primes have better glass and if you know how to compose correctly you will see the difference compared to a zoom. Yes, I can make a great photo with my P&S, but it wouldn't beat out my DSLR shot. Zooms are great when you can't get from here to there or want to be unoticed when taking the picture.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Robyn Gwilt |
Thanks, great link - at least I know I'm not damaging it if I put it on a tripod. I was a bit ticked off when I looked at my first pix, as they were really soft. Its being re-calibrated, so am looking forward to getting it back, and seeing what it really can do. Is it unusual to get a brand new lens, and have to have it re-calibrated? Is it possible that something got dislodged during shipping? Is re-calibrating something you need to do as part of lens 'maintenance'?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jerry Frazier |
"If you are a pro then you should be using high end tools for a high end job." I didn't say otherwise. What I said is it is not a requirement to taking great photos. One of the fallacies is that great equipment will make you a great photographer. I was a musician a while back and used to teach privately. The guys would always say, 'I could sound like that too with that equipment.' So, I'd ask for their instrument, and play it on theirs. Pretty much shut them up. It aint the equipment. However, that doesn't mean I am going to walk on stage with a crappy instrument. I am going to buy and use the best. I can take the same shots with a P&S as I can with an $8,000 SLR with a $2,500 lens. That's all I'm saying.
|
|
|
|
||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
Without composure you are dead in the water, as for the technical side you can learn the math as you go and learn by your metadata what looks good at what F-Stop's, shutter speeds and iso's. Also learn what looks good with different lenses at different focal lenghts.
Thanks for the ride anyway
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jerry Frazier |
"I can make a better shot with my 5D then I can with my 20D" No comment. I often grab my 2nd shooters 20D's to take photos, when they have the lens I need on their bodies. I don't know what your problem is, but you rely too much on your equipment. It's NOT the equipment. It is actually impossible to take better photos with a 5D than a 20D. They are pretty much the same camera. I would have to understand what you mean by 'better'. Composition and exposure have little, if anything, to do with megapixels. Those are independant of the camera itself. In fact, I have a Mamyia Sekor taht my uncle purcahsed in Veitnam in the 60's that I still use for film sometimes, that takes killer photos. Again, it's not the equipment. It's the eye.
|
|
|
|
||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
better sensor + better glass + better composition + better lab + better lighting + better editing = a better photo if you can't see that I can't help you
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jerry Frazier |
the glass has nothing to do with it. you said that you can take better pictures with a 5d than a 20d. so, what does the glass have to do with it? again, what does the composition have to do with the camera??? again, what does the lighting have to do with the camera??? what does the editing have to do with the camera??? i don't know about the sensor, but I think the underlying technology is the same between the 5d and the 20d. you have not presented a case where a pro with a p&s could take the same or better photos as a pro with a dslr. again, all you do is focus on the equipment. and, it's really funny because it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EQUIPMENT. well, it has a little to do with it, but I could use the plastic table cameras, and take better pictures than 99% of the population using my equipment. anyway, I know this is pointless. and I know that even if you agree, you'll just continue changing your name and acting like an idiot. fine. you have alot of growing up, and learning, to do.
|
|
|
|
||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
"I could use the plastic table cameras, and take better pictures than 99% of the population using my equipment." -The growing up part is in your court I have a better eye, that I know by comparing our pictures and prices. I can also tell by the thousands of hours at the computer seeing the difference between the markII, 5D and 20D.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jerry Frazier |
One day I was walking in a forest, and I saw a tomcat. And, I thought to myself, what's a tomcat doing in the forest, hundreds of miles away from civilization. Then, it occurred to me, that the tomcat was asking the same thing of me.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Oliver Anderson |
I think we should have a dance off and see whos got talent....
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jerry Frazier |
I heard the Navy is selling submarines.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Robyn Gwilt |
Yeah right, and the Irish Navy is hiring deck-hands for their submarines!! Ok guys - you've all had some interesting input and advice, but its time to put you watsits on the block, put images in your galleries - let us be the judge. Its too easy to chirp, but stop hiding behind your skirts!
|
|
|
|
||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
its a walkoff!!
|
|
|
|
||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
but stop hiding behind your skirts! Think you got me mixed up with Sipho better know as the name changer to name famer
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jerry Frazier |
It's never too late to eat a sandwich.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christopher A. Vedros |
I have a better game. Let's pretend . . . ONE (or ANY) of Brady's identities has actually told the truth about himself. How do we figure out which one has told the truth? The names are actually too many to list. We can lump the "early days" together as Steven, Slick Digital, Digital King, Savy, Steven Ford, Justin Ritz, Ed Peterson, Lynn Boyer or just Ford. During this period, he was usually a photographer in Hawaii, sometimes shooting weddings with an assistant who held a big flashlight with wax paper over it. He usually either shot with a Canon 1ds MarkII, or someone was buying him one as a gift since they loved his work so much. At one point he had to hire a professional service to edit his images because he shot 10,000 at 11 weddings in one month. He had so many bookings that he put a downpayment on a house. A week later, he wanted to know how to book a wedding without a portfolio (since he had sued his boss over the film that they had shot). At one point, he made a "confession" that he was really 14, worked for his photographer dad, and was just posting for fun. There was even a post at one point that was supposed to be from the dad who said his kid was using his account and he apologized for any trouble he caused. During the "Dr.Evil period", his goal seemed mostly just to antagonize some of the regulars here (myself included). Some of his names included Tamara Lynn, Tamara Tuday, I'm a Big Idiot (I actually suggested that one!), Sara Mitchell, Bruce, Clickity Click, and of course, Dr. Evil. At one point, he even opened an account with my name and stolen mini-pic, and made some very rude comments posing as me. BP shut that account down quickly. We can't forget the "Craig Paulsen period", where he was a big-time wedding photographer who was looking for student photographers to train. He also showed up as Brenda Lee, BrendaLea, a.n., and I think Jessica something. There was a scene where he was heading to Vegas for a convention, and he was trying to convince two women to meet him there. One of the women was actually his Jessica account, but the other was an actual real person who was falling for his bull. He posted a photoshopped certificate showing that Craig Paulsen was a member of WPA. And now we have the "New Brady Period", which started with his own admission that he was just starting out in photography with a Fuji 3.2MP camera. He apologized for causing trouble and said that most of his posts were things he had Googled and used cut & paste. He now lives up North and has found religion. This admission was posted with the same account he is using on this thread. Apparently he saved his lunch money and bought some new equipment. So, anyone want to make a guess as to which Brady is the real Brady?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christopher A. Vedros |
Oops, made a mistake. The "New Brady found religion" apology post was made from a different account, also named Slim Brady. Of course, by saying that, I'm pretty much guaranteeing that he'll change the names on one or both of these accounts.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jerry Frazier |
I'm slim shady, the real slim shady all you other slim shady's are just imitating so wont the real slim shady please stand up please stand up please stand up!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jerry Frazier |
You know chris, it's really a shame. It was because of that one member that I remain anonymous here. I really like bp.com, and feel bad that I can't share and contribute more. But, this one personality has really ruined the entire experience. I don't even trust people on here anymore. He really messed with me, personally. Emailing and such and asking for advice. At first I thought it was real, then realized it was him just messing around. So, now, al bp.com members get the cold shoulder. I decided to be the bigger person and share with someone today. I hope I don't get burnt by it, not really knowing if they are genuine, or the name changer. It is for this reason, that I have asked BP.com to consider tightening up. But, I don't think that they really want to do the administration it takes to do that. Anyway, one day, I'll come back out and contribute and share. But, not until IT leaves.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Robyn Gwilt |
Chris you had me roflmao - I remember all those characters. I guess when you're spending wacks on anti-physcotic medication for all those personalities, theres not much left for photographic equipment. Also with so many personalities to service, there's no time left for life, let alone taking pix in the real world! Anyway, thanks all for the input - most of it was informative. I still believe that you should put yourself up for scrutiny and criticism in terms of your artistic/photographic talents. Adios
|
|
|
|
||
|
Robyn Gwilt |
One more, Sipho has never hidden behind anything, including the closet door - his pix and bio are there for all to see, AND he's a successful photographer, who's name change just might have helped him sky-rocket, which was his initial unabashed intention! So good for Sipho/Andrew - we all know who he really is. Plus he's got a great sense of humour!
|
|
|
|
||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
grin'n from ear to ear.
|
|
|
|
||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
I have a better game. Let's pretend . . . ONE (or ANY) of Brady's identities has actually told the truth about himself. How do we figure out which one has told the truth? The names are actually too many to list. We can lump the "early days" together as Steven, Slick Digital, Digital King, Savy, Steven Ford, Justin Ritz, Ed Peterson, Lynn Boyer or just Ford. During this period, he was usually a photographer in Hawaii, sometimes shooting weddings with an assistant who held a big flashlight with wax paper over it. He usually either shot with a Canon 1ds MarkII, or someone was buying him one as a gift since they loved his work so much. At one point he had to hire a professional service to edit his images because he shot 10,000 at 11 weddings in one month. He had so many bookings that he put a downpayment on a house. A week later, he wanted to know how to book a wedding without a portfolio (since he had sued his boss over the film that they had shot). At one point, he made a "confession" that he was really 14, worked for his photographer dad, and was just posting for fun. There was even a post at one point that was supposed to be from the dad who said his kid was using his account and he apologized for any trouble he caused. During the "Dr.Evil period", his goal seemed mostly just to antagonize some of the regulars here (myself included). Some of his names included Tamara Lynn, Tamara Tuday, I'm a Big Idiot (I actually suggested that one!), Sara Mitchell, Bruce, Clickity Click, and of course, Dr. Evil. At one point, he even opened an account with my name and stolen mini-pic, and made some very rude comments posing as me. BP shut that account down quickly. We can't forget the "Craig Paulsen period", where he was a big-time wedding photographer who was looking for student photographers to train. He also showed up as Brenda Lee, BrendaLea, a.n., and I think Jessica something. There was a scene where he was heading to Vegas for a convention, and he was trying to convince two women to meet him there. One of the women was actually his Jessica account, but the other was an actual real person who was falling for his bull. He posted a photoshopped certificate showing that Craig Paulsen was a member of WPA. And now we have the "New Brady Period", which started with his own admission that he was just starting out in photography with a Fuji 3.2MP camera. He apologized for causing trouble and said that most of his posts were things he had Googled and used cut & paste. He now lives up North and has found religion. This admission was posted with the same account he is using on this thread. Apparently he saved his lunch money and bought some new equipment. So, anyone want to make a guess as to which Brady is the real Brady? You almost have enough to write a mystery
|
|
|
|
||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
Thanks for the record so I know who I am this week. If anyone can guess another member that I am right now (1 use alot, the other 2 not so much) then I will clear all accounts and disappear for good.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jerry Frazier |
There is no truth within a liar. Now, where's my sandwich?
|
|
|
|
||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
in your camera bag next to your brain
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christopher A. Vedros |
Okay, Brady, since you like to play games, I have a game for you. I challenge you, better yet, I double-dog-dare you to play along. Here are the rules: For the next month, you post from ONLY ONE account. In that account, you pretend you are a normal person. Take a minimum of 3 pictures (of anything) with a camera you actually own. Post these pictures in your gallery. Then just post anything photography-related, ask questions, answer questions, whatever. But this person can't pretend to own any equipment that you don't actually own, or pretend to have a job that you don't actually have. You can talk about stuff you'd like to buy, or would like to do, you just can't pretend you already have it or do it. Follow these rules, and I'll try to see if I can figure out who you are. If I can't, then you win. Interested?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Craig Paulsen |
account closed
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
Aw, come on Chris. You know some things are just impossible. What I suggest is that we all take up a collection to pay for his meds. After all, Preparation H ain't all that expensive.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Robyn Gwilt |
ROFLMAO Kerry !! Chris there's more chance of Osama and George doing T together!!!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jerry Frazier |
Nope. Couldn't find it. The sandwich, that is. As for the brain, that is a very cruel and childish comment. But, I understand that you can't help yourself, since you are only 14, and ugly. :)
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||