PDA

View Full Version : My first Game



cornick
01-16-2007, 08:45 PM
So I did my high schools game on Friday night. And this was the first game with the 'nifty fifty'. I felt WAY to close on the baseline, mostly because there was no room, and I think that made getting shots very difficult. Also, the lighting stinks in that gym. And I'm not good enough to do any changes yet. Had a ton of blurry shots, again.

Also, these are untouched mostly because I don't know how to 'touch' them in photoshop. :)

But I thought I would share some of them and see what you guys think for the rookiest rookie there is. And any suggestions would be helpful. :)

1.
http://www.cornick.us/Other/SCS/01-12-07/IMG_2423.jpg

2.
http://www.cornick.us/Other/SCS/01-12-07/IMG_2446.jpg

3. I LOVE this shot, you can see the other coach in the background.
http://www.cornick.us/Other/SCS/01-12-07/IMG_2451.jpg

4. I liked this one because of the ball. Very dark picture. :(
http://www.cornick.us/Other/SCS/01-12-07/IMG_2474.jpg

5. Camera focused on the crowd and not the shooter...d'oh!
http://www.cornick.us/Other/SCS/01-12-07/IMG_2592.jpg

6. Once again, very dark. :(
http://www.cornick.us/Other/SCS/01-12-07/IMG_2651.jpg

zacker
01-16-2007, 11:03 PM
nice, did you shoot raw? if so, you should be able to correct the white balance... the nifty is great, isnt it?

zacker
01-16-2007, 11:04 PM
actually, looking back on it... the WB looks pretty good... levels adjustment might be of some help!

Orgnoi1
01-17-2007, 08:39 AM
I think for your first game you did great!!

zacker
01-17-2007, 09:16 AM
lol #5 is funny because the black sox and what ever it is behind him on the floor make it look like his pants fell down!

TomNanos
01-17-2007, 09:47 AM
I agree, pretty damn good for your first game.

EXIF looks like it's missing from the shots - what ISO were you shooting at? If you can, I'd bump that up a touch next time to try to keep your shutter speed up and get a bit more light on the sensor.

cornick
01-17-2007, 10:26 AM
I agree, pretty damn good for your first game.

EXIF looks like it's missing from the shots - what ISO were you shooting at? If you can, I'd bump that up a touch next time to try to keep your shutter speed up and get a bit more light on the sensor.

Thanks guys.

ISO was 1600. That's the highest it woudl go with that lens. None of the photos were using any flash.

It was not RAW. It was just the highest resolution the camera has. Should I try RAW for the next one?

TomNanos
01-17-2007, 11:17 AM
What camera are you using?

cornick
01-17-2007, 11:20 AM
Canon 20D.

TomNanos
01-17-2007, 11:32 AM
You could try 3200 - it's a custom function to turn it on. I think it's called ISO Expansion or something like that in the CF menu. It'll display "H" on the top LCD when you go past 1600. Warning, it can be quite noisy. If you do that, what I'd suggest is shooting RAW, and overexposing by about 2/3 of a stop. Then with the RAW, you can bring the exposure back down (you can use either EOS Viewer or Digital Photo Pro that came with the camera, or Photoshop - whatever you use. And if you need advice on that, feel free to ask). What this will do is reduce the noise from the ISO 3200. Here's a couple examples of mine at ISO 3200:

http://www.nanosphoto.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/wm_normal__MG_2764-01.jpg

http://www.nanosphoto.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/wm_normal__MG_4610-01.jpg

cornick
01-17-2007, 12:53 PM
Okay, I'll take a look at that tonight. I've got another game Friday night that I'm going to try and get to, if anyone wants to go.

Thanks for the tip.

TomNanos
01-17-2007, 01:03 PM
Not a problem - good luck! Can't wait to see the results...

convergent
01-19-2007, 09:20 AM
Pretty good for a first game. I disagree with shooting RAW, simply because it takes so much time to process. A big difference between shooting in this gym... or most gyms for that matter... and shooting in other venues is that the lights cycle. If you set your WB and then fire a series of shots on rapid fire, you will get totally different color from frame to frame. Even though you could have greater lattitude to repair this with RAW, it would take a lot of time. I've had pretty good luck in high school gyms with an Expodisc and custom WB.... before that I used a grey card and did almost as good. You do have to check it after you take it though, as if it catches a bad cycle it will mess up your WB... about 1 out of 6 times I have to set it twice to get a pretty good overall WB.

I've shot in this gym, and it is pretty dark. I just checked some of my old shots and at f/2, I had to use ISO1600 to get 1/400s shutter speed. That is marginal at best. The depth of field at f/2 is barely enough to get one player in sharp focus. I'll try to dig up a few shots from that gym and post them.

I was hoping to get over to the game tonight with you, but I'm not going to make it. Give me a call today if you want to chat about shooting basketball. I should be around the office most of the day... 320 8660 .

convergent
01-19-2007, 10:04 AM
Here are a couple of shots I dug up from last year. One of them was pretty under exposed. My processing was solely a levels adjustment for color/exposure and mild USM sharpening.

Both were with a 1DMk2N and ISO1600, 1/400, f/2. With the 50mm f/1.8, I would stop down to f/2 and pretty much confine your shooting to the baseline. This will give you a little bit more room to play with on depth of field and also that lens isn't its sharpest wide open. It looks like your shutter speeds were moving around so I assume you were shooting Aperture priority. This can present problems since the white jerseys can dominate the frame and through off your exposure. You should be able to shoot Manual in that gym at ISO1600, f/2, and 1/400s. You may give up some highlights in some hot spots, but in general you'll get pretty good exposure. The exception will be under the net when the players have the lighting behind them. Not much you can do about that unless you want to use some fill flash... which I don't do. That 85mm shot below was underexposed because of that, but it cleaned up pretty good with a levels adjustment. (this would not have worked with Nikon, as the noise would have really taken over with the amount of exposure adjustment I made).

200mm
http://www.northeastfoto.com/gallery/files/3/2/2/web_TSS16375.jpg

85mm
http://www.northeastfoto.com/gallery/files/3/2/2/web_TS2_0693.jpg

TomNanos
01-19-2007, 11:32 AM
Mike-

Curious, and you've probably answered this before, but how many shots do you typically take in a game?

-Tom

convergent
01-19-2007, 12:30 PM
Mike-

Curious, and you've probably answered this before, but how many shots do you typically take in a game?

-Tom

It varies depending on what I'm shooting. If its a tournament where I'm doing a ton of games and have to get all pictures processed and print proofs in about 15 minutes, then I limit it to 100-150 per game. Any more than that will break the process and really mess things up. Additionally, any more than that will cause parents to have a melt down trying to pick what they want. I (or my photographers) basically chimp things down to this if we have more... deleting most OOF and duplicates in the camera. The exception is that sometimes a shot captured something special, or its the only picture of a particular player that doesn't play much, but is still OOF or has some other defect. I'll keep those because often a parent will want it anyway.

If I'm shooting a regular high school game, I usually end up with about 100-150 per camera (times 2). I then process them on the computer and kick out about 2/3 of them to get down to around 100 for making available. I do some chimping and deletion still, but I will tend to keep more in this mode, especially if my kids are in the games because they like to look at shots of them, even if they are a little OOF... because it reminds them of something.

If I'm shooting a championship, I'll usually end up with 200-250 per camera, and mull it down to around 150-200 on the computer.

Now, the question you didn't ask, is how many shots from a game are "special". That number, for me, is also an "it depends". If I'm shooting for a team, and they are playing lousy, then I may have only a handful of special shots. If they are on a roll, then I may have a couple of dozen, but that's usually the peak. The game that I posted a few from above, I probably had about 10 special shots from the game. I did another game for the same team a week later where they were in Glenns Falls Civic Center in a sectional game and I got probably 3 dozen really special shots... which was very unusual. But, they were playing incredibly well and the timing was just good. Some days you come away with a lot of stuff, and some days you come away getting nearly shutout... just like the teams I guess.

There is a lot of timing involved in this stuff. The last game I did, one of the players did 2 dunks and 1 ally-oop. I missed all three of them because the officials back-side was planted squarely in my face for two of them, and the 3rd one I was on the left-hand side of the play... so I got it, but no face in any shot. There was nothing as a photographer I could have done in the limited space of that gym to get those shots... just wasn't meant to be. Same night my son made a really awesome move to the hoop and the shot would have been awesome. I was in the right spot, the officials back-side was in the way again.

cornick
01-19-2007, 05:02 PM
Pretty good for a first game. I disagree with shooting RAW, simply because it takes so much time to process. A big difference between shooting in this gym... or most gyms for that matter... and shooting in other venues is that the lights cycle. If you set your WB and then fire a series of shots on rapid fire, you will get totally different color from frame to frame. Even though you could have greater lattitude to repair this with RAW, it would take a lot of time. I've had pretty good luck in high school gyms with an Expodisc and custom WB.... before that I used a grey card and did almost as good. You do have to check it after you take it though, as if it catches a bad cycle it will mess up your WB... about 1 out of 6 times I have to set it twice to get a pretty good overall WB.

I've shot in this gym, and it is pretty dark. I just checked some of my old shots and at f/2, I had to use ISO1600 to get 1/400s shutter speed. That is marginal at best. The depth of field at f/2 is barely enough to get one player in sharp focus. I'll try to dig up a few shots from that gym and post them.

I was hoping to get over to the game tonight with you, but I'm not going to make it. Give me a call today if you want to chat about shooting basketball. I should be around the office most of the day... 320 8660 .

I'll probably call you a bit later when I have the camera in front of me, if that's okay. Thanks for the tips!

convergent
01-22-2007, 09:21 AM
The mornings are better this week.

JustinL
01-22-2007, 01:37 PM
good job for your 1st time. Only thing i'd say is when taking pics of them dribbling, make sure you get them with the ball actually in their hands, not down on the floor like this:

http://www.cornick.us/Other/SCS/01-12-07/IMG_2474.jpg

convergent
01-22-2007, 02:13 PM
Yep, the ball stuck to the floor syndrome... this is totally a timing thing and with experience you'll find that you get most of them with the ball in the hand.

JustinL
01-22-2007, 03:36 PM
Yep, the ball stuck to the floor syndrome... this is totally a timing thing and with experience you'll find that you get most of them with the ball in the hand.

could always say they started playing kickball at mid-court!

cornick
01-22-2007, 04:54 PM
lol, yea I know having it in the hand is better. But I thought it was cool because the ball is all squished and everything. :)

Hopefully tonight I'll post some pictures from Fridays game. I left my book at the inlaws so I never got to really change any settings that I'm not familiar with. :(

convergent
01-23-2007, 10:16 AM
lol, yea I know having it in the hand is better. But I thought it was cool because the ball is all squished and everything. :)

Hopefully tonight I'll post some pictures from Fridays game. I left my book at the inlaws so I never got to really change any settings that I'm not familiar with. :(

They are always cool shots when the ball is squished to the floor... but most of the shots people want are with it in hand. I think this is because it portrays the action better, and a sense of control. The shots that would probably work with the ball on the floor are in the sports like volleyball or tennis maybe where someone is diving for the ball as it comes down the line and is either in or out of bounds.

If you want to talk settings, give me a call this morning... I'm good until 12:30, then will be on the phone until 6:00 :(

cornick
01-23-2007, 01:33 PM
If you want to talk settings, give me a call this morning... I'm good until 12:30, then will be on the phone until 6:00 :(

How about Thursday? I'll make sure to bring my camera into work.

convergent
01-23-2007, 01:36 PM
Morning is pretty good.

Neutron Jack
01-23-2007, 10:07 PM
I definitely recommend shooting raw. I've completely abandoned JPG in favor of it. The amount of correction power and flexibility it gives you, it just blows jpg out of the water. The 2 biggest things are the ability to correct the white balance and adjust the actual exposure, so if you shot the same speed at a lower ISO and purposely underexposed it, you could jack the exposure back up after the fact and save yourself the aggravation of doing (and the softening effect) of noise reduction (Noise Ninja is an ANIMAL at that, btw). I noticed on your shots the gym lights were throwing a red cast on everything. If it were RAW, you could fix that in about a second and a half. Using custom WB wouldn't be a bad idea, either.

Then there's the vignetting elimination or introduction, color balancing, color correction, selective saturation and a few other handy things. It more than justifies the bigger files. I bought bigger cards to handle it because I was able to save SO many pictures (that if they had been in jpg) I would have had to discard. I guess if I were a better shooter, that wouldn't hurt either.....but I digress.

convergent
01-24-2007, 09:14 AM
Jack... I'm sure this is in the "personal choice" category, but I tend to shoot all sports in JPG for a couple of reasons. The biggest reason is that I don't have the time to adjust them all anyway, and with the JPGs I can publish proofs immediately. Then, for the few that need additional work I can usually get them suitable for 8x10 or smaller relatively easily in PS CS2 from JPG. That is assuming that I've set a custom WB. You'll still sometimes get a color cast since the lights are constantly cycling through different temperatures, but is better than AWB. One of these days I'll have to learn how to do RAW faster I guess, but for now I prefer JPG because I have to do nothing to get my proofs.

Neutron Jack
01-24-2007, 03:41 PM
You can always shoot raw and small jpg, or use abobe bridge to generate thumbnails. As far as adjusting individual photos, you have the ability to batch edit raw files. Also, you never actually edit a raw file--the data in it is exactly what the chip recorded when you snapped the pic; it records your changes in a sidecar file. If better software for editing comes along, you always have the origional to work from. Kind of like having the negative from a film camera, vs. working off of a scanned copy of a print. You use the power of the PC you're using to do post processing instead of the power of the proccessor in the camera. While you may need to alter your workflow to accomodate the different file type, but the benefits you'll reap are vast. Also keep in mind you're capturing 16 bit color in raw, vs. 8 bit in jpg.

I'm not knocking anyone for using jpg. I just don't think anyone would continue to shoot in JPG if theyfully understood the power and advantages of shooting in raw. As an aside, the amount of adjustment you can do in raw is dependent on the software you are using. The stuff that comes with the camera sucks, you need something like PS to reap the benefits. If you don't have it now, look to the future. When you do get it, you'll be able to go back and re-edit past photos that you weren't able to save as usable in jpg. Try it for a bit, and I'm sure you'll be convinced of the advantages to be had.

convergent
01-24-2007, 04:04 PM
I think I do understand what RAW offers, and I do use it when shooting "one offs" or shoots that have a relatively small number of images, and "may" require larger than 8x10 output. The vast majority of my work never sees output greater than 8x10. It is a time thing with me. I don't have the time it takes to do what RAW requires in order to get to proof stage. If I get things relatively right in the camera, I can make any adjustments on the JPG in a few seconds usually (for final output), and don't need to touch them at all to do proofing. Sometimes I will crop before proof... but I have two different tools that I can use to do that which work very rapidly... Photo Mechanic (for in house work) and Express Digital Darkroom Pro (for event work).

Neutron Jack
01-24-2007, 04:35 PM
Just offering an opinion, I'll get off the soapbox now.

convergent
01-25-2007, 08:59 AM
Just offering an opinion, I'll get off the soapbox now.

No problem... there is definitely a RAW vs. JPG view which is largely personal preference. I think we can both agree that purely from a photographic quality view, RAW is better. I know that there are people that say they can process RAW as fast as JPG (probably some can do it faster). It comes down to choices, and choices are good. No right or wrong answer here. I think the debate is healthy and informative.... its a good way to learn new ways of doing things.

How do you process your RAW images?

Neutron Jack
01-25-2007, 09:25 AM
I tend to process individually, as I prefer to tweak them individually..crop, exposure, noise reduction, etc. (I routinely take half baked pictures because I'm not that good) because I'm a bit of a perfectionist on the finished quality. I think the extra time is well justified. Check out the shots from the Albany winterfest. http://davecraig.smugmug.com/gallery/2295043 They all needed a just a little fixing. About an hour and a halfs worth of editing total. I think theres 27 pictures there, so about 3 minutes each.