Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Sports & Action Photos

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 16, 2007, 4:51 PM   #11
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Trojansoc wrote:
Quote:
1) I'm starting with such a small image sample due to the percentage of original frame being so small.
That's going to be your biggest culprit. Your subject needs to fill 1/2 the frame IN-CAMERA. If it doesn't, you need to get closer. Until you do you'll continue to get low image detail.

I'd say start there.

Eliminate that one from the equation and then deal with #3. If you have more image detail to start with, the noise reduction will cause less damage.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2007, 5:14 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 2,093
Default

Trojansoc wrote:
Quote:
Unfortunately, my choice of camera position was limited. Since I was the meet announcer, I had to shoot from a tall pressbox.
Looks like the choice was these images our none.
ac.smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2007, 6:13 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Trojansoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Hot Springs, AR
Posts: 3,723
Default

a.c.....you're right. It was this camera position or none. I was being paid to announce the meet. I tried to get some shots for the kids between times I was running my mouth.

John, I'm focusing on the shot of the hurdler. Here is the original shot, resized to fit the forum.
Attached Images
 
Trojansoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2007, 6:23 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Trojansoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Hot Springs, AR
Posts: 3,723
Default

This is a replication of the crop.....size of the crop was 861 X 829. Thus, the image is about 713 K as it comes out of the crop. My viewer shows JPEG compression reducing file size to about 160 K. This has not been resized, nor any post-processing applied.

ISO was 400....f 5.6.....1/1144th....focal length of the lens is shown in the EXIF at 29mm, which means this one was not taken at full zoom. I'm not sure what the multiplier with the Fuji is to convert to 35mm equivalent but it would be 29mm x 1.7 x multiplier. If it is a linear scale, the multipler would be about 4.4 because 67mm (lens fully extended) converts to 300mm equivalent.

When comparing to the wedding shots you mentioned, John, none of them violated the HALF FRAME rule you mention. These
Attached Images
 
Trojansoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2007, 6:28 PM   #15
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Trojansoc wrote:
Quote:
a.c.....you're right. It was this camera position or none. I was being paid to announce the meet. I tried to get some shots for the kids between times I was running my mouth.

So the moral of the story is - you can't do both. You were paid to do a job and you did it. If you're really interested in taking photos then do it at a different time. You just can't get quality shots with this type of approach.

I agree 100% with your priorities - doing the job you're paid to do first. Now you know if you want decent, usable shots you'll have to try and get them when you're not doing another job!

Good luck!
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2007, 6:38 PM   #16
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

ac.smith wrote:
Quote:
Looks like the choice was these images our none.
I respectfully disagre here. The other choice if it's important to you is to shoot a meet where you are not being paid to do another job. Then you have the freedom to get down close and do quality work. Lots of meets in a season.

The real choice is: do 2 jobs at once and do half-way job on both or do one job at a time and do quality work for both. I know it sounds harsh, but I believe it to be true. Trojansoc or anyone else will not get quality results with half-hearted effort.

I don't buy into 'anything is better than nothing' philosophy - especially not for predictive sports (i.e. you can choose to shoot another meet) vs a once-in-a-lifetime shot. If you want good results you have to put in the work. But it comes down to what level of quality you want to achieve. If someone is happy with this level of quality - no need to change. If you want better quality at least we've worked out ways it can be achieved without any new equipment.


JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2007, 6:42 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Trojansoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Hot Springs, AR
Posts: 3,723
Default

and here is the original crop on the high jumper. This one was much later in the day, after two rain delays. ISO still 400, but focal length at full zoom, f 5.6, 1/247th, EV - 0.7
Attached Images
 
Trojansoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2007, 6:49 PM   #18
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Trojansoc wrote:
Quote:
and here is the original crop on the high jumper.
This is what I'm talking about - you can't even make out the eyes - not enough detail to be a keeper. Way too much of a crop.

Get up close and you'll see necessary details. No your camera won't get shots quite this good but a heck of a lot better than the heavy crop you've shown. See the eyebrows, the wrinkles, the hairs in the face, texture in the uniform. These are the same types of details in the wedding photos because you were close enough. The heavy crops look like the people were painted.



JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2007, 7:04 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
tjsnaps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sacramento, Ca
Posts: 652
Default

Try less of a crop

Yes I cloned out two of the runners. But hey, it's not for the news right?


Attached Images
 
tjsnaps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2007, 7:46 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 2,093
Default

JohnG wrote:
Quote:
ac.smith wrote:
Quote:
Looks like the choice was these images our none.
I respectfully disagre here. The other choice if it's important to you is to shoot a meet where you are not being paid to do another job. Then you have the freedom to get down close and do quality work. Lots of meets in a season.

The real choice is: do 2 jobs at once and do half-way job on both or do one job at a time and do quality work for both. I know it sounds harsh, but I believe it to be true. Trojansoc or anyone else will not get quality results with half-hearted effort.

I don't buy into 'anything is better than nothing' philosophy - especially not for predictive sports (i.e. you can choose to shoot another meet) vs a once-in-a-lifetime shot. If you want good results you have to put in the work. But it comes down to what level of quality you want to achieve. If someone is happy with this level of quality - no need to change. If you want better quality at least we've worked out ways it can be achieved without any new equipment.

I wonder, assuming there was no cost to the parents of the athletes involved in shots 1 and 2, if they'd rather have those two images or none?
ac.smith is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:08 AM.