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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 4, 2008, 7:44 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
k1par's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 608
Default

1 week to go to the end of the regular season. Then a round of prelim games and onto the tournaments.

Canon 30D w/Sigma 28-70 F4 zoom. ISO 3200 F 2.8 1/400 Photoshop CS2 and NoisewarePro. Gym has metal halide lighting and a lot of orange on the walls. Really plays with the WB.










k1par is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 5, 2008, 8:37 AM   #2
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

some nice action here. But these have an 'over processed' look to them. Too much noise reduction, sharpening, contrast. The result is the skin looks like plastic rather than human.

if the exposure is correct in-camera and the focus is on, you shouldn't need this much processing. I think if you back-off a bit you'll get more natural looking photos.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2008, 10:58 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
k1par's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 608
Default

You caught me on the noise reduction, a lot of times I don't use it but decided to on this set and yes I did use USM. Contrast, this is what I face in this gym, no contrast correction was used except on #1. What you see if what I got. There are differences in lighting between the ends of the gym and as you can see some "hot" spots.

Usually I shoot manual settings (f/2.8 1/400) at this gym, one more game left there on Friday night. Maybe I will set the camera on AV mode at f/2.8 and let the camera set the shutter speed and see what happens.

Thanks John.
k1par is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 6, 2008, 5:51 AM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16
Default

JohnG wrote:
Quote:
some nice action here. But these have an 'over processed' look to them. Too much noise reduction, sharpening, contrast. The result is the skin looks like plastic rather than human.

if the exposure is correct in-camera and the focus is on, you shouldn't need this much processing. I think if you back-off a bit you'll get more natural looking photos.
I was admiring the quality of these pics when I came across this comment. I dont own a digital, and the more i read about it , the more i get put off. No doubt to the trained analytical eye there could be improvement but to the untrained eye (which is probably the majority of the population of this planet) these shots are excellent. Plastic skin indeed !
glent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 6, 2008, 6:05 AM   #5
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

glent wrote:
Quote:
but to the untrained eye (which is probably the majority of the population of this planet) these shots are excellent. Plastic skin indeed !
But then that's the reason to ask the opinion of other sports shooters - to get the opinion of a "trained eye". To my wife, every shot looks good. So getting her opinion on my sports shots doesn't help me improve.

Everything is "relative" to. Comparing sports shots with todays technology against shots of 30 year old technology is not really a valid comparison.

Here are a couple of shots in the same light levels as shot here:

Note there aren't nearly the contrast problems. And to me the skin looks much more natural. And it's the same lighting except I chose 2.0 andISO 1600instead of 2.8 and ISO 3200





JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 6, 2008, 6:12 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
k1par's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 608
Default

glent wrote:
Quote:
JohnG wrote:
Quote:
some nice action here. But these have an 'over processed' look to them. Too much noise reduction, sharpening, contrast. The result is the skin looks like plastic rather than human.

if the exposure is correct in-camera and the focus is on, you shouldn't need this much processing. I think if you back-off a bit you'll get more natural looking photos.
I was admiring the quality of these pics when I came across this comment. I dont own a digital, and the more i read about it , the more i get put off. No doubt to the trained analytical eye there could be improvement but to the untrained eye (which is probably the majority of the population of this planet) these shots are excellent. Plastic skin indeed !
Thank you for the comments. Don't be put off by what you read in this thread. I have seriously taken photos for over 30 years and did a complete switch to digital about 5 years ago and there is no way I would switch back. It is an excellent medium to work with and Ienjoy it. John was right I did go a little overboard with the post processing andI knew better. John and I have had some great discussions and there are times I do not agree with him but have also learned from him. I don't care whether it is film or digital, it is a lifelong learning process to be enjoyed.

Phil


k1par is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 6, 2008, 8:43 AM   #7
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16
Default

WOW ! My apologies.Now I understand plastic skin. Skin tones are so different on latest images.So obvious, now i have a comparison. thanks
glent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 6, 2008, 9:27 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
k1par's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 608
Default

One other difference is lens choice. I use a Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 zoom. A lens that I like very much. John (and this is just a guess) is probably using an 85mm f/1.8 lens which is also a very good lens. Both lens will produce an excellent quality shot. (I bring this up just to expand on one of the reason there is a little difference in the settings for the respective shots).

I chose the Sigma zoom for a couple of reasons. One being that I regularly shoot in two smaller gyms (junior high and peewee ball) that my size 13 shoes will almost touch the end line and the wall (I am serious) and out of the six gyms that I go to only two have any real amount of space between the wall and end line. The zoom allows me to get shots that normally I would have not even tried to get with my 50mm f/1.8. Secondly most of the gyms are lit well enough so that f/2.8 will give you a decent phot, although most I shoot at ISO 3200 except one that is exceptionally lit and I shoot ISO 1600 there.

I post on this forum quite often although I don't want to show off (yeah,,right) I do look for comments about the shots to help me do better. When (or if) you go digital these forums are a great place to learn from. There are a lot of good people here who are willing to help.

Phil




k1par 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 12:31 AM.