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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 16, 2007, 7:52 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
Trojansoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Hot Springs, AR
Posts: 3,723
Default

Dr. Mr. Vandertramps, I am going to definitely download Noiseware and try it. (Trial version is only for 15 days--after that $ 26. )Looking at theoriginal cropof the hurdler I posted and comparing it to the "finished product," there is definite loss of detail in the noise reduction stage. PSP XI does not let you customize the amount of reduction. I have used Neat Image in the past, and I'm going to either go back to it or use Noiseware. I think the PSP is definitely too heavy-handed.

Thanks for the suggestion.
Trojansoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2007, 8:21 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Trojansoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Hot Springs, AR
Posts: 3,723
Default

John, I can go along with many of your criticisms of my photos. (I hesitate to call them "work" because everything I do is because I want to.) Many of them have led to significant improvements in the photos I provide kids. However, to call my efforts "half-hearted" is far too strong. The photos I took were the best I could under the conditions I was presented.

I noted the limitations of my camera position in posting my photos. Your position of "I don't buy into the 'anything is better than nothing' philosophy would confine those who do not have the full professional rig to the sidelines completely. Many of us simply try to maximize the resources we have, particularly those of us who provide our photos free of charge to the kids. Our track team toils in obscurity, and no, there were not other meets on our track. No one had bothered to take any shots of them at all. As far as wearing more than one hat, anyone who has ever coached or taught knows it's far more often the rule, rather than the exception.

Any sports shots I do are posted on a free website for the kids to enjoy. I have spoiled them to expect their soccer photos to be on the site by the time they get to school the next day. Last night, many of the athletes who I also have in class saw that I was shooting and came by the booth to find out if their pictures were going to be available in the morning, like I do for the soccer kids. Thus I edited till 1:30 this morning to not disappoint those kids. It was worth it this morning when they came to my classroom to see the pics.

My camera, accessories, etc. all come out of my pocket. And yes, I have ordered a new Pentax K10D because I want all of my photos to be even stronger. I don't have any problem accepting criticism on the merits of my photographs because I want them to be better. However, to call those efforts "half-hearted" is simply not fair.
Trojansoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2007, 8:58 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
tjsnaps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sacramento, Ca
Posts: 652
Default

Trojansoc

I have been taking pictures for over 30 years. One thing I have learned is that some people just don't understand the concepts of budget or holding down a job that doesn't include photography.

I'm not into sports. But when my daughter signed up for little league I shot every game. At the end of the year they had a party. I walked in with a bag full of hundreds of prints and spread them out on a table. They disappeared in minutes. The praise and gratitude of the parents was worth every penny.

I suppose I could have made a killing. Lots of parents asked about enlargements. But I didn't have the time for that.


Not an action shot but one of my favorites

Attached Images
 
tjsnaps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2007, 9:53 PM   #24
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Trojansoc wrote:
Quote:
Your position of "I don't buy into the 'anything is better than nothing' philosophy would confine those who do not have the full professional rig to the sidelines completely.
If by sidelines you mean down by the field of play - absolutely. If by sidelines you mean not shooting at all - that's not the case. You said yourself you were in a booth doing a job. During breaks in your job you pick up a camera and fire off snaps. How is that not half-hearted? I don't question your motives at all - they are the best of intentions and I'm sure the kids are vary greatful - as well they should be. But if you're being paid to do one job at a specific time and you're trying to fit something else in during the breaks in that job - how is that not half hearted? I never mentioned buying a pro rig. I merely suggested you attend a game with your current gear and give the photography your undivided attention. Get close to the action and you'd get 500% better shots.

There isn't a legit quality sports shooter anywhere that would advise you it's OK to be doing one job and just pick up the camera between breaks and take snaps. Sports shooting is too much work.

Regardless of how much money you spend - even on the best gear - if you take this approach to the shooting, you'll still get poor quality results. In the end, I would caution you against spending a lot of money on better gear. If you don't have the dedication to use it correctly - you'll get equally poor shots with your new SLR gear.

You may think my advice harsh - and it probably is. But this is a photography forum - so I provide feedback on the photos. In this case the photos suffered because the photog was too far away. I merely suggest if you want quality results you need to be closer. If that means going to an away meet, so be it. If it means giving the camera to another (as you did with soccer) then that's another avenue.

In the end, you can choose to either accept the feedback or ignore it. Always your choice. Is the criticism fair? I think it is. The quality of the pics suffered because you were too far away. All the spin doctoring in the world isn't going to change that. So yes, while I applaud your kind heart - and I really do, this isn't a forum about kind deeds - it's about the photos. And these photos were poor quality NOT because you didn't have expensive gear but because you were too far away. And you were too far away, not because the venue restricted you but because you were doing another job. You were paid to be there to do one job and during breaks you took out your camera and fired off snaps. And I don't know of a competent sports photog that would tell you that's a good recipe to get quality shots. In fact, you won't find a single one that will tell you it's OK to sit in a booth (while working another job) and take shots.








JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2007, 9:56 PM   #25
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

tjsnaps wrote:
Quote:
I have been taking pictures for over 30 years. One thing I have learned is that some people just don't understand the concepts of budget or holding down a job that doesn't include photography.

By the way - my job is not photography so I understand it completely. Not once did I suggest buying new gear. My advice was to get closer - that's what it takes for quality shots. And to take shots when not distracted by performing another job. That advice is as a hobbyist and someone who takes pride in their work. The equipment the OP has is capable of much better results - if they get closer. Wherein lies the fault in that argument?
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2007, 11:02 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
tjsnaps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sacramento, Ca
Posts: 652
Default

JohnG wrote
Quote:
By the way - my job is not photography so I understand it completely. Not once did I suggest buying new gear. My advice was to get closer - that's what it takes for quality shots. And to take shots when not distracted by performing another job. That advice is as a hobbyist and someone who takes pride in their work. The equipment the OP has is capable of much better results - if they get closer. Wherein lies the fault in that argument?
JohnG

Don't misunderstand I did not mean to imply that you promoted the need to buy new equipment. I was simply pointing out that those people exist. As for the job that was a reference to time. Someone who holds down a job and has a family can not just up a say "I think I'll go shoot the track meet tonight" Hence the multitasking. What I took umbrage to was the assumption that he had a choice. Your advice, though good advice on the surface was simply not helpful in Trojansoc situation. My post was an attempt to keep him from being discouraged by such comments and keep looking for salutations that work for him.
tjsnaps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2007, 11:35 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
tjsnaps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sacramento, Ca
Posts: 652
Default

Bluring the background was not a bad idea. You just need to do when you have time and are not tired. Play with it and get it right. Notice I added niose after bluring to make it match the rest of the image. Some noise it expected in low light shooting. I would rather see noise than something that looks like a plastic barbie doll.
Attached Images
 
tjsnaps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17, 2007, 6:38 AM   #28
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

OK, I'd like to clarify my statements a bit. I can see how they might have been misinterpreted.
When I say I don't believe in the concept that something is better than nothing I don't mean to imply you shouldn't shoot at all. What I mean is, if it's worth doing it's worth giving your best effort.
The 'something is better than nothing' is fine when you've given your best effort. But, let me try to give some examples to show you where I'm coming from.

Example 1: Let's say the OP posts photos from the wedding he shot in the people forum and they look like this. In the discussions of why the quality doesn't seem as high as other work he's posted, it comes out that he was taking the photos from 70 yards away in a large reception hall because he was really working as the DJ. So all the shots were taken from the DJ booth.
Is the feedback and response still: hey, something is better than nothing - you did the best you could while being a DJ.

I submit that A) that would not have been the feedback given. The feedback would be - you can't take quality wedding photos while acting as the DJ - the 2 are mutually exclusive.
But also B) most people would never consider trying to be the wedding photographer while acting as a DJ because they would be too constrained to do a quality job

I think the same is true here.

Example 2: As a soccer coach, you have a defender who doesn't move outside of a 5 foot area - he doesn't attack & challenge the opposing players but waits for them to come to him. When you ask him about this he says - Hey, something is better than nothing right? I'm defending the people that come within 5 feet of me.
Is he right? Something is better than nothing after all. No, he didn't give his best effort. If he gave his all and the opponent still got past him and took a shot on goal you probably wouldn't be upset - he did his best. In this example I don't mean to imply you were lazy. I just point out why I don't think the something is better than nothing argument works.

So, how does this apply to Trojansoc's situation?

Here. If providing sports shots to the deserving kids was a worthwhile goal (and I agree it was) you had several options available to you:

1. Shoot another game because you were already commited to another job for this game.
2. Loan your camera to someone else who is not encumbered by prior responsibilities and has the freedom to get closer and take better shots. You did this for soccer - why not for track.
3. Find someone else to do the announcing - explaining to them that this is the only home meet and you really want to give these kids some quality sports shots - which can't be done from the booth.

Any of those 3 options would have produced better results - if the goal was to give quality shots to the kids. I merely suggest that the responsibility of taking sports shots for this track meet should be given the same attention to detail you did when you offered to shoot the wedding. Is the event just as important? No - of course not. But if it's worth doing - it's worth giving your best effort.

That's all I'm saying.

Hopefully that made some sense
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17, 2007, 12:03 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 574
Default

This is an intereseting discussion that's going on. I can see the reasoning behind both schools of thought and in no way is one correct over the other. Its just a matter of personal opinion. This isnt aimed towards your images Trojan, just some of my thoughts on the topic. Personally, for what ever its worth-which isnt much-the wayIlook at it is...if I cant give you a photo of your child that you would proudly display and show others, then I wont give you anything at all. I dont want to hand out a picture that I think will end up in the trash or in a drawer to be thrown out at a later date.I not only want people to appreciate thegesture, I want them to appreciate the effort that goes into capturing a moment that will last a lifetime. Whether or not Im being paid for it makes no difference to me.I was shooting a baseball game the other night-a freebie, and there reached a point that darkness overcame the extent to which my camera would producegood quality shots at the exposuresI needed. I couldve continued and relied heavily on NR to producesome images but instead, I put up my gear and enjoyed the rest of the game.
DRGSin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17, 2007, 12:35 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
Dr. Mr. Vandertramps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 471
Default

i look at it this way - if trojansoc hadn't taken these shots, he might not be aware of different noise reduction software. By the way, Trojansoc - check your private messages up top!

But my opinion is thus: he was doing the best he could under the circumstances. If his students don't want to take them, he's not losing anything - it's not like he's invested any money into film or anything, he just saw the opportunity to take some shots and took them. I don't see why there's any reason to assume he was trying to break into the professional sports photography market.

I am, of course, a staunch advocate of quality control, and i look at a 5% retention rate as a good day of shooting. Nevertheless, sometimes people want the shots that i might consider to be sub-par, so who am I to deny them that? Trojansoc should be applauded for spending his free time at the meet doing something that his students might potentially enjoy. if they don't, no harm done!
Dr. Mr. Vandertramps 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 4:29 PM.