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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 28, 2011, 10:59 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
umdaman1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 290
Default Major League

Shots from the Orioles/devil Rays game 6/12/11
Attached Images
     
umdaman1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 28, 2011, 12:03 PM   #2
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

OK. I'll start with my standard statement: there are no bonus points for it being MLB. My comments are based upon these being baseball shots.

shot 1: tough angle - you're a bit too far behind the pitcher. Given that, the shot is still loosely framed - lots of dead space - especially behind the pitcher. You want a little space in front of the pitcher but you don't want him dead center in the frame. Did you crop this photo at all? Focus looks good, but detail is a bit lacking - that can be a result either of the optical quality of the lens being used or due to cropping. So, what lens was used and how much did you crop?

shot 2: I like the expression. But how much was this cropped? Neither the batter nor the catcher is really in focus. At 1/800 it shouldn't be due to motion blur - although a faster shutter speed would certainly help with the ball. But my guess is the camera is focused on the grass behind the batter.

shot 3: too much dead space. You got the ball in the frame, which is good. But you don't need the umpire or catcher in the frame - just the batter and the ball. If you get out to another game, practice framing as tight as you can. You've got hundreds of pitches in the game so you'll get timing down on some when framing tightly.

shot 4: I like the shot concept. wide framing works because the pitcher, first baseman and runner are all part of the play. What doesn't work is the focus is on the pitcher's behind - it needs to be on the first baseman. Additionally your shutter speed is too low. No need to be using ISO 200 - jack it up to 800 and get rid of the motion blur / camera shake.

shot 5: same comments as shot 3 - with the addition of this shot being crooked. That last part is easily fixed. What's tough about this shot though - is exposure. The most interesting thing in sports photos is usually the face. Tough to get a good exposure on a face with such dark skin tones in that light - get the face exposed properly and the uniform highlights will be all blown out. So, I suggest picking your shots so to speak - go for other players with lighter skin tone or frame much tighter and blow the uniform highlights if you really want a shot of that particular player.

In general you have to be careful about how much you crop photos. Especially with consumer grade glass - so frame as tight as you can, and resist the urge to crop the photos much afterward.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 28, 2011, 1:50 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 516
Default

#4 my only question is this; was he safe or out????
Good set, does need tweaking a bit, but overall good.
Favorite is # 4 then # 2 good expression caught on the batters face. Grimace.
lisalonewolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 28, 2011, 2:50 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
bluesman graham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 890
Default

HI, I have absalutely no idea what's happening in these pics other than what I can relate to Cricket in my country (not dissimilar in a few ways!). However as sports images here's my 2 pence worth!.
first off it would be a bonus if you numbered the images!.

#1, I like this one, (how do they bend their arms like that), but could do with a lot tighter crop & as mentioned by JG a bit of space to the front of the Pitcher. Horizons off a tadge too!
#2, Doesn't work for me TBH!, back focused?, (look at the grass behind the batsman!), leaving the subjects OOF.
#3, has potential! try cropping down to the "bank of America" netting (straighten first!), & up to the white line below the plate? making it a long landscape.
#4, action captured way too early & OOF on the important figure (the catcher).!
#5, again way to early! & horizons are way out!.
Take my comments as someone who knows absalute jack** about Baseball, but I don't think it's too far removed from cricket to include the same shooting disciplines IMHO. Kind regards Graham

Last edited by bluesman graham; Jun 28, 2011 at 2:57 PM.
bluesman graham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29, 2011, 6:13 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
umdaman1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 290
Default

Thanks for all the comments and suggestions. I've seen some of you guys' work so I really respect the input. Grahm, your rugby shots, in particular, are some of the best sports shots that I've ever seen. This was the first baseball game, or any other sport besides motorsports, I've ever shot. I'm sure the cold, tasty libations being consumed didn't help my focus or composition. I'll keep all of your advice in mind if I ever happen to attend another game. Thanks again.

Scottie
umdaman1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29, 2011, 8:23 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 627
Default Lens?

I think that JohnG’s comment about your lens an excellent observation in regards to the quality of your photograph.

It’s the depth of field (5.6f) that detracts from your photo. You’re shooting at 270mm lens on a 1.5x camera.

If you had been using Nikon’s 70-200 lens (info below) you could shoot at 200mm at a 2.8f. That would blur more background, make your subjects sharper and the difference in the quality of the shot would be quite noticeable.

This is the lens I am referencing: Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II AF-S Nikkor Zoom Lens For Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

If you're not familiar with "pro" lenses, you might be in for some sticker shock. This is a great lens but it comes with a serious price tag.

Nikon makes some great lenses. And this is one of them.

However, Nikon is rather proud of those lenses when it comes to pricing them. This Nikon lens retails for about $2,200. That’s a big number.

Now, all my Nikon buddies take a deep breath before you read further.

You might look at that price and think that’s not in my budget. You might want to consider this:

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO EX DG HSM OS FLD for Nikon Digital DSLR Camera

Is it as good of a lens as the Nikon? No. Is it close? Yes. And it costs about half of what the Nikon does.

I’m a Canon shooter and I have Canon’s 70-200 2.8 IS lens and I love it. It’s a little heavy, but is a great lens. It’s sharp, fast focusing and versatile. I know that the Nikon counterpart is equally sharp, fast and versatile. But for half the price, the Sigma would make a remarkable difference in the quality of the shot with it’s 2.8f all the way thru from 70-200mm.

DPReview’s concluding paragraph of the review of this lens states:

Overall, then, the 70-200mm F2.8 OS HSM is a fine lens, that offers functionality and image quality close to the equivalents from Canon and Nikon at a distinctly lower price. For some users, the features that it lacks (such as weathersealing and a focus limiter switch), along with the slightly less impressive optics, may well be deal-breakers. Likewise, it almost goes without saying that Sony and Pentax owners happy to rely on their camera's in-body image stabilization systems will find better value elsewhere. But for anyone else, it's worth a very serious look. (End of DPReview’s comments)

As for framing, angles and being out of focus, that’s mostly in the control of the shooter. I’m still working on all that myself. I’m getting better, but I still stink at it. I just don’t stink as badly as I once did.

Again, my apologies to my Nikon friends out there. You guys sometimes get a bit touchy when we compare you glass to anything else.

Faithfully yours,
FP

Last edited by FaithfulPastor; Jun 29, 2011 at 8:26 AM.
FaithfulPastor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29, 2011, 11:05 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
umdaman1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 290
Default

I'm one of those Nikon guys of which you speak! Just kidding. I shoot with a Nikon D5000. These shots were taken with a AF-S 70-300vr lens. While not on par with the lenses you mentioned (I am familiar with them and their price tags) it is pretty good for what it is. The responsibilty for the quality of these shots falls squarely on the shoulders of the shooter. I'm not your typical Nikonian who will only consider Nikon gear. I actually own a sigma lens (10-20mm) and love it. I would most certainly buy another and would consider buy Tamron as well. The fact of the matter is that where I am right now in my photography I can't justify spending that kind of money on lenses. In a few years who knows...Thanks for the comments.
umdaman1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29, 2011, 11:16 AM   #8
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

FP - unfortunately, the 70-200 2.8 is a poor solution for this particular use. Why? 200mm isn't enough focal length. If you're shooting from the stands you'll want 400mm at a minimum.

You simply can't crop your way to quality with sports shots. Of course who can afford a 400mm 2.8? Not many.

It's a common misconception among people that don't shoot sports that the 70-200 2.8 is the penultimate sports lens - it's really not. F2.8 is really nice and for some things it's absolutely necessary. But for certain sports, focal length is more important. The few times I take my camera to a major (or minor league) game I use the canon 100-400 and 400mm really isn't enough when shooting from the stands. It's only f5.6 but you need the reach. And while you don't get the background blur you would with 2.8 you get a much sharper image than you would get with a 200mm 2.8 lens with TC or cropped down. Then you can take an image framed like this:


and crop down to something like this (because you're no longer cropping to make up for lack of focal length and the lens provides enough detail to satisfy the crop):
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29, 2011, 8:20 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
umdaman1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 290
Default

John, point taken. The proof is in the pudd...uh photo. The difference is clear. Great shot.
umdaman1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30, 2011, 4:24 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 441
Default

I know nothing about Baseball or how hard it is to shoot a game, I tried a few weeks ago to shoot a soccer match and thought, how hard could it be ??? I take cars and bikes going past me at high speed. A few kids playing football no problem, How wrong i was. Never got one decent shot. So to you lot who shoot Football, Rugby and the rest well done but i will stick with Motorsport it's a lot easier !!
Maxsamsung 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 3:08 AM.