![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
Football pics
- Thread starter Mr_Bucket
- Start date
You complain about the night games, but the one you posted is your best in my opinion.
All in all though pretty good.
I'm wondering a few things.
I'm assuming you were using your 500 for the day games. What lens at night?
And what ISo is that shot. I'm wondering how the ISO noise compares to the original 1D
All in all though pretty good.
I'm wondering a few things.
I'm assuming you were using your 500 for the day games. What lens at night?
And what ISo is that shot. I'm wondering how the ISO noise compares to the original 1D
shot 3 is my favorite ... your last one is quite good for a night shot, but the background is really distracting plus it could use a pass through NeatImage and will fix the noise right up. If you want me to post a filtered shot of that last one I will be happy to do so.
I'm not an experienced sports shooter, but I like to see the ball in photos ... many of your shots have people running into each other but no ball in site. this might just be something to think about for next time. you're obviously not hindered by your gear in this situation.
I'm not an experienced sports shooter, but I like to see the ball in photos ... many of your shots have people running into each other but no ball in site. this might just be something to think about for next time. you're obviously not hindered by your gear in this situation.
Mr_Bucket said:hrm?the only 2 shots you cant see the ball in are #13 making a tackle and the stiff arm shot
sorry, not many, but some. 2/7 day shots is around 30%.
If you want me to take that last shot through NeatImage I can do this. The results are pretty nice. It will make you want to buy this program.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2001
- Messages
- 15,829
i dont have any quality issues shooting my MK I @ ISO 1600, after i run it through neat image it looks like an iso 200~400 image... it works wonders with the MK 1 files
[TQ] said:Spray and pray
at f/2.8 ISO 1250 1/250 my flash keeps up with me as fast as i can push the shutter.
how nice, a condescending comment from tq
do you think that someone from sports illustrated or any other sports photographer doesn't do the same?
Mr_Bucket said:how nice, a condescending comment from tq
do you think that someone from sports illustrated or any other sports photographer doesn't do the same?
No, i do it too at times.
But given the choice i'd rather shoot at ISO 1600 and 5fps then 8fps at ISO 3200.
But...i'm not looking to start a fight.
You do realize the football doesn't need to be in the shot for it to be good? In fact many of the better football photos I've seen don't have the ball anywhere near.Mr_Bucket said:hrm?
Already went over this on genmay, so it's not worth the effort again.
HorsePunchKid
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2003
- Messages
- 1,414
Sorry, man, but that first one is a perfect example of why a flash kills a shot like that. Granted, it's better than nothing and better than something horribly noisy. But with the kind of falloff you get in shots like that first image, it ends up killing any depth the image might have. The players end up looking like they're being posed on a tiny patch of grass. It's possible you could do some heavy Photoshopping to bring up the brightness in the background, but I suspect it'd be tough to recover that feeling of depth.[TQ] said:Yeah...i guess
The second shot is pretty nice, though. Partly because it's a great bit of action, but I think you've got an unusual combination of factors that mitigates the effects of the flash. First, the light figures in the background and the general lightness of the field really help the size of the arena come through. Second, judging by the lighting on the player's uniform, you had some significant help from the stadium lighting, which gives some much-needed contrast and texture in the uniform. I'm guessing you'd have completely lost those crucial hilights if the angle had been slightly different.
Anyway, just my opinions as someone who doesn't do much in the way of sports photography. Nice shots, Mr_Bucket, and it looks like you had some very fortuitous lighting (looks like the skies were overcast, but not thickly?).
I'm sorry but i have to disagree, sports photography isnt an art form. The point is to get the photo as best you can.
I just find it funny that he doesnt use a flash simply so he can hold the button down at 8fps and hope to get a shot.
It makes for a lengthy post process session and preaches improper technique.
I guess it could just be prefrence, but i've got zero problems with the way the flash makes this photo look:
It's all in the way you learn to use your equipment...would i shoot available light no doubt. I'm not going to try and tell you that it doesnt look nice. Does it always look better? No, not really. And does flash photography look bad? No, not at all.
I just find it funny that he doesnt use a flash simply so he can hold the button down at 8fps and hope to get a shot.
It makes for a lengthy post process session and preaches improper technique.
I guess it could just be prefrence, but i've got zero problems with the way the flash makes this photo look:
It's all in the way you learn to use your equipment...would i shoot available light no doubt. I'm not going to try and tell you that it doesnt look nice. Does it always look better? No, not really. And does flash photography look bad? No, not at all.
torment said:
*sigh*
Again, i'm not saying they dont look better. I dont think you want to see an ISO 3200 shot from my 1D though.
That said the flash photos are not bad and if you thinkt hey look bad for any reason other then content then your one hell of a nit-picky person.
Furthermore, i dont think any highschool football stadium outside of odessa texas has enough light to shoot at reasonable speeds without a flash. I still havnt seen a shot from bucket that isnt blurred at night. In fact he went so far as to say that he wasnt able to get any good shots from football at night.
This is what happens when you mix a cocky kid who gets littered with $10,000 of camera equipment by his parents.
If he was even remotely serious about football photography and had the indespensible parent fund that he aparently has he would have taken the time to realize that 500mm is really too long for a football field, and f/4 is too slow
*EDIT*
I still odnt understand why i get into technique or hardware debate on this forum
HorsePunchKid
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2003
- Messages
- 1,414
That's cool, TQ. Like I said, the second one was quite good, in my amateur opinion. The first one wasn't, and it seems like the flash was why. That's all. I really do hope you get a chance to do some football photography in better lighting, though with daylight getting shorter, a well-lit (better-lit, anyway) stadium is probably your best hope. Is it possible to get good, non-flash-assisted photographs under stadium lighting? (Like this kind of stadium, as opposed to a high school level stadium, I'm thinking.)
[TQ] said:*sigh*
Again, i'm not saying they dont look better. I dont think you want to see an ISO 3200 shot from my 1D though.
That said the flash photos are not bad and if you thinkt hey look bad for any reason other then content then your one hell of a nit-picky person.
Furthermore, i dont think any highschool football stadium outside of odessa texas has enough light to shoot at reasonable speeds without a flash. I still havnt seen a shot from bucket that isnt blurred at night. In fact he went so far as to say that he wasnt able to get any good shots from football at night.
This is what happens when you mix a cocky kid who gets littered with $10,000 of camera equipment by his parents.
If he was even remotely serious about football photography and had the indespensible parent fund that he aparently has he would have taken the time to realize that 500mm is really too long for a football field, and f/4 is too slow
*EDIT*
I still odnt understand why i get into technique or hardware debate on this forum
obviously f/4 or 500mm isnt the best for night football but i'll use it anyway, i get plenty of shots that arent blurred at night
and obviously other people feel the same way about the look that flash gives pictures, its just plain ugly
Well, *I* said I think they look better. I wasn't commenting on your thoughts on the pictures, rather I was giving my own comments on flash versus non-flash football pictures.
When I watch football I don't see these flash shots with my eyes and I understand the use for flash in this situation when you don't have enough available light. However, I don't find the flash pictures as appealing.
When I watch football I don't see these flash shots with my eyes and I understand the use for flash in this situation when you don't have enough available light. However, I don't find the flash pictures as appealing.
Well folks, you may not like them...but the $80 check from the newspaper seems to work ok for me
As for stadium lighting, http://www.questphotos.com/october2004/spike.jpg . That is at ISO 800 f/2.8.
Most pros use strobes mounted on the ceiling. A little out of my price range though.
There are no hard feelings here folks, if you dont like my pictures thats fine, if you dont like them because of the fact i used a flash...whatever.
As for stadium lighting, http://www.questphotos.com/october2004/spike.jpg . That is at ISO 800 f/2.8.
Most pros use strobes mounted on the ceiling. A little out of my price range though.
There are no hard feelings here folks, if you dont like my pictures thats fine, if you dont like them because of the fact i used a flash...whatever.
HorsePunchKid
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2003
- Messages
- 1,414
True. I remember reading about that in this article about Sports Illustrated's photography setup. (Or possibly in an article linked from there; I really can't remember.) But basically, they have to go through this whole contractual agreement with the venue and the NBA/NFL/N[A-Z]* to specify exactly the intensity and frequency that the strobes can be used with. It sounded like a total pain in the ass, money concerns aside. I'm sure you wouldn't have to go through anything like that for highschool games, but then the price is still horrid anyway[TQ] said:
.Olympics don't allow strobes at the events i think, but they have their lighting set up to allow for good exposures... i forget the details now unfortunately.HorsePunchKid said:True. I remember reading about that in this article about Sports Illustrated's photography setup. (Or possibly in an article linked from there; I really can't remember.) But basically, they have to go through this whole contractual agreement with the venue and the NBA/NFL/N[A-Z]* to specify exactly the intensity and frequency that the strobes can be used with. It sounded like a total pain in the ass, money concerns aside. I'm sure you wouldn't have to go through anything like that for highschool games, but then the price is still horrid anyway
emorphien said:Olympics don't allow strobes at the events i think, but they have their lighting set up to allow for good exposures... i forget the details now unfortunately.
yeah any pro sporting event has great lighting, i shot at giants stadium last year with a 10D and a 400mm f/2.8 and i was getting about 1/500 at f/3.5 and iso800
it has to be bright enough for tv so it works out very nice for stills
HorsePunchKid
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2003
- Messages
- 1,414
This is what I was thinking of; found the link (indirectly) in the article. I'm guessing they wouldn't have all of these rules if people didn't actually use strobes. But I suppose this is NCAA, not "pro". Have you ever gotten a chance to shoot a pro basketball game? I wonder how the lighting would compare to a place like Giants Stadium.Mr_Bucket said:
Also, they apparently stay at ISO 800 or lower, for what it's worth.
[TQ] said:Just imagine being in that lighting, say a basketball game, and having strobes setup so you can use a 1Ds at ISO 200
what lens would you use? 200mm f/1.8? 135 f/2? the only lens i have that is fast enough for basketball is a 85mm f/1.2 and it focuses so slowly and is a little short for basketball
i used a 1Ds once at b&h and it just takes massive photos that are so detailed but you really need to know how to post process them
I've used the 1Ds quite a bit and will probably use it more soon, and hopefully the MK II before too long. They're beautiful images and great for post processing because you get so much information off that sensor. It's not the same as the medium format or large format backs but it's close to some of them.Mr_Bucket said: