faulknerwn

The issue is more of just how much of my own money I want to spend taking pictures of a wedding :-( This is a very last minute fill in deal and I've already spent a bunch of money on this.. The stuff I get to keep I can justify but going even more in the hole for rental is tough to swallow. Especially last minute right before Christmas - spending that much money (especially since its not my wedding!) is getting harder and harder to justify. I don't have the absolute best lens, but I've got some dang good ones.. The Tamron's not that slow. Its not crazy fast but its definitely not crazy slow either. Its definitely not as fast as the 18-200 but that's a $2000 lens.. And an expensive rental.. And heck - I don't shoot across the room ever - cuz I'm too short to see over anyone! I learned years ago I can squirm through crowds fast by going under - I can't shoot or see anything from across the room as short as I am! Paying 5% of the cost of the lens for a 1-day rental just seems crazy. That's a lot of money for a couple hours worth of pictures.. Absolutely it would get better pictures, but in all honesty, with my camera skills, I think they would only be marginally better because without weeks to learn the lens, I don't think there would be that much difference. When I first got the 10-22 for skydiving, my pictures improved a bit over the stock lens, but 2 years later they're a lot better. With less than 1 day to learn that lens, I just don't imagine the pictures would be that different to justify the large expense.

I am fairly small and started off without wings. I did fine on all but the smallest of tandem pairs. Then I got a pair of small wings and I loved them. Now I have a pair of large wings and I REALLY love them. I have range everywhere and I have such control. I feel naked in freefall when I'm without them...

I bought a Canon 50mm because that was HIGHLY recommended in all the wedding sections of my camera books.. I also own a Tamron 18-270 so the 10-22 would only be used for really wide angles.. The portraits are definitely going to be done after the wedding. Its already in the schedule.. I'm hesitant to spend $100 on lens rentals - I have 3 good lenses, and I've already spent $400 on random stuff for this ! (external flash, camera bag, 50mm lens, monopod, and I know there's at least another thing or two - the UPS guy will like me next week!) I know the 18-200 is a great lens, but its expensive to rent and extremely heavy, especially when I'm going to be carrying it around all day..

Unfortunately the wedding is a good drive away so I probably won't be able to see much till that day. Reading my photography books I'm thinking I should be shooting in av mode rather than my skydiving tv mode so I can adjust more depth of field. Sound right?

Those are definitely nice pics. I'm trying to stay vaguely not crazy expensive here - already spent a bunch of money I wasn't planning on right before Christmas. I have NO desire to get into wedding photography for a living and dz party pics probably don't need a $1600 lens :-) Is it a problem to leave the ISO setting on auto? Or should I pick my own settings?

This is the park where it will take place at 1 PM. Assuming that the weather is decent I don't think the lighting will be too bad. http://www.bryantx.gov/departments/default.asp?name=pf_heritage_park#

Yeah I have never used an external flash. I'll make sure to bring lots of batteries and practice beforehand.. And I always figured the bride was my primary client :-) She's a skydiver too at least :-) Don't know anything about the mother! The bride did point me to a facebook album of a friends wedding which had shots she liked.. Hopefully the lightning will be ok - its in a gazebo in the park. Will definitely try and play ahead of time. I've found lots of lists on the internet of the classic shots so will make sure to print one out. And they do know that I've never done this before - I made that abundantly clear :-) And I'm decent at photoshop - question of the day is - some books recommend shooting in raw others jpeg.. Preferences?

Just found out that the actual vows (weather permitting) are going to be outside under a gazebo so that makes things easier than if they are in a church. I own a remote control but its on a lanyward not RF. But your idea isn't bad. What do you recommend for flash diffusers? (I'd rather notb use a walmart bag :-)

Yeah I'm wandering around adorama right now. I own a T1i and a Canon 10-22 and a Tamron 18-270 I'm also going to have the grooms T1i with probably the kit lens (not positive about the lens). The books I'm looking at highly recommend a 50mm/1.8 lens and those are only ~100 bucks so that I can do. I don't own an external flash so that I'll need to get too. I own a Tripod but figure maybe a cheap monopod too. Not sure about making a diffuser... WHat do you recommend for external flash and diffuser (not too expensive?)

A friend of mine is getting married in a couple of weeks, and his planned wedding photographer fell through and I somehow managed to get recruited. I understand the photography side of things (f stops, lenses and such) but I don't understand weddings :-) I haven't been to a non-skydiving wedding in 15+ years :-) I need help! I know bring 2 cameras - with 2 different style lenses for easy swapping between shots. Extra batteries, memory cards and such. Don't have a clue about such things as where to be taking photos from while they're taking their vows, wedding portraits, and what else to do :-) I'm especially concerned about getting the shot during the ceremony without getting in the way! Monopod? Tripod? Hand hold? Where to hang out? I own some photography books so I'm reading their wedding sections but they seem to be more focused on lightning and aperture etc rather than the more practical stuff... I'm wedding challenged - help! :-)

I saw that but nothing had been updated on that site since 2002 and none of the cart stuff worked. Thanks tho

I had a copy of the 2001 Martini Shots Video of the World Freefall Convention. Awesome video, but my copy disappeared from the dz at some point. I'd love to find another copy (happy to pay) but have no clue where. Any ideas?

Alex Legault was a long time Texas skydiver - from the early 80's on. He was hit by a car crossing a street in Austin on foot Thanksgiving evening. He didn't survive. I'll post any news about Memorial Services and such as I hear them. He's also on facebook so news may be posted there..

Yes! Gotta love automatic spell check!

The most common wing loadings for lightnings out there is 1.3-1.4. So you're a bit heavy on the tri and would be more compatible one size up. The storm is a good choice but only if you are around other people with storms. There rate of descent is radically different than triathlons/lightnings/specters and they don't fly together. But if your crw buddies all have storms then they'll work fine. If your crw buddies have tris or lightnings then you should go with the triathlon choice. Definitely get the casual crw option on either - the canopies are still fine to take into Freefall but are better for crw So I would definitely say find out what canopies and wing loadings the people you are wanting to do crw with are jumping - you don't want to be at a 1.5 wig loading if they're at 1.3 - crw is about flying as similar canopies as possible. You don't want to be on a storm if theyre all on triathlons ( or vice versatile )

Triathlons, Lightnings, and Spectres all fly well together for casual CRW as long as the wing loadings are similar. Storms only fly well with other Storms because their angle of attack is so steep. I would only suggest Storms for casual CRW if other people around you are jumping Storms..

Competitors are jumping Storms but fun jumpers and big-way jumpers are still on Lightnings. Biggest problem with the Storms is that they are only compatible with other Storms. Lightnings are compatible with Triathlons and Spectres as well - and there are tons of those out there.. And yeah wing-loading of 1.3-1.4 is pretty typical.

I'll admit that I never thought of that (~10 years ago). My setup was made by the rig manufacturer and wasn't ad hoc so I felt pretty comfortable with it.. Had no problems. And I didn't do it for learning - I did it cuz it was frigging fun! I did have the parachute in my main container hooked up backwards, and had one on my belly facing forwards. The belly one I launched after the back one. Had no issues at all - worked out very clean..,

I've done it on purpose (on a rig with a tertiary canopy) and I did end up "hanging by my armpits" it felt like flying feet to earth.. Twas funny - the video guy had no problem at all staying with me until I released the brakes

It sounds easy but on the jump on the 375 I know I tried switching the toggles, twisting in the harness ( kept accidentally untwisting ) and heck I eve flew upside down for a bit :). No technique worked better for me than keeping the toggles in the standard hand. I would never have guessed it was that hard till I tried it! I have done backwards crw too on a lightning 113 but that was on an intentional cutaway rig and I didn't land that main.

My student days I was 110 lbs jumping the "small" rig - a 250! I landed backwards too. I must say its far easier if pulling the right toggle still goes right and left goes left!

Its funny - in CRW we do that sometimes because any abrupt toggle movement kills energy.. I'm really big on accuracy (on sport-style canopies) and I'll pop toggles regularly if I'm planed out and going to overshoot the target. A couple sharp jabs of the toggle like that kill airspeed. Any time you do anything abrupt with the toggles it kills airspeed. Obviously if your goal in the landing is the longest possible swoop - its not good because it kills your horizontal speed. If you have plenty of lift (i.e. a good flare and you are flying on a nice modern canopy), once you are planed out, popping toggles can rapidly drop your forward speed, causing you to have to run less. Absolutely its not the most efficient way to land - you can probably keep surfing quite a while - but on a lot of canopies in no wind you may still have to run like heck after touchdown. I use the technique both to stop my landing short to land on target (and again - my canopies have plenty of extra lift and so I still land really soft when doing so, but its just a method to kill extra forward speed) and to slow down so I don't have to run so fast. I'll be the first to admit - you get a far shorter swoop and planeout than if you don't do it, but hell I hate running and the technique is for stopping horizontal speed. I first learned it doing CRW - when we're flying in for a wing dock - you're ideally coming completely in horizontal to your slot, and since you're going pretty much perpendicular to the formation you're hauling ass. Basically when you do your final turn to have your canopy matching the formation's heading, you're hauling ass at them. What we've learned is you either slap your brakes or your front risers and you stop on a dime. Its got to be fast and abrupt - literally we often hear the canopy "crack." But its the abrupt change in the airfoil which kills your speed and its a standard CRW technique that is taught.. I love the technique - it absolutely works - its funny to me because a lot of the "odd" techniques - using deep brakes to sink or back up for accuracy - slapping the toggles - and other stuff I can't think of right now - seems to be a dying art because of the rise in swooping - everyone is all about getting max speed/lift/distance/swoop on the landing. I couldn't care less about that. Deep brakes and popping brakes are techniques that work well for accuracy - absolutely I could get more distance if I didn't do it - but at the point I use it I'm leveled off a foot above the ground - lift is no longer an issue as I'm going to drop at most 12 inches - but I'm getting old and I hate running and I can get the canopy to slow down and stop that way.. I do it by killing the lift and efficiency of the canopy. Its just important that you only do it 6-12 inches across the ground at a height where losing lift won't hurt you..

I gotta say - talking about landing backwards is WAY easier than doing it. A few years back, I was bored one summer afternoon, and i have a rig with extra 3-rings and we hooked up a 375 square foot canopy to it. I thought forwards, turned out backwards. I landed that one. Really light wing loading obviously :-) Trying to fly that thing backwards was so challenging that I swore I would never do it on a "regular" main. A few years later, opened up and had my Triathlon 99 hooked up backwards.. Oops! Didn't blink an eye in chopping that sucker.. Flying a canopy backwards is WAY WAY WAY more difficult than one might think. I seem to remember a fatality at the freefall convention back in the late 90's - a guy tried to land a 170ish square foot canopy backwards (accidently hooked up wrong) and managed to kill himself.. If you think you can land it backwards - find someone who has a rig you can hook up a third canopy to and try flying it around backwards at altitude.. Its way harder than one might think...

Ditto to what Craig said. What are the people around you jumping and at what wing loadings? Are you trying for local recreational CRW, or are you looking to travel to big ways?

My first canopy was a Monarch 135 and it opened great and landed soft. And it was all ZP. If you can get the seller to let you make a jump on it to make sure you like it - that'd be good...