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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 10, 2005, 3:09 PM   #11
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Terry,

You've peaked my curiosity. What areas are you seeing improvement in for sports shooting in RAW? Especially in newsprint. I'm just curious if it would be worth a try as I'm covering some playoff games for football over the next couple weeks (or at least this week if my team loses).



Thanks,



John
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2005, 3:49 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,538
Default

JohnG,

I was finding that shots right out of the 20D lacked contrast when printed black and white in newsprint at 200 dpi.

I first played with increasing the brigthness a little and increased the contrast. I found that helped a little.

Then I realized that Rawshooter has an option to select pre-determined curves, anything from medium to high contrast adjustment. I plan to see how that adjustment looks as printed.

I'm thinking that if I use a little flash to pull the players out of the background, then set highhigh contrast curvesin RAWSHOOTER, I might get a better printed image.

I've noticed that some of the publicity stills sent to the paper look really good, but I think they are scanned photos.

I'd be interested if anyone could offer tips.

-- Terry






terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 23, 2005, 3:05 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 269
Default

Dragon--
I'll take a stab at answering your questions. Should you get a DSLR? I'd say that depends. If you're just a proud parent shooting his son, I would say the expense isn't worth it. If you're shooting pics you are hoping to get printed and/or sold, a DSLR would be a viable solution. If you figure a cost of about $1,000 or so, only you can really answer if that's worth it.
If you did get a DSLR, getting a 50 1.8 is a good cheap way to deal with bad lighting (i.e. gyms). Only thing is, unless you're on the floor you will have to crop pics a ton using a 50. Which leads me to another point: shooting tighter would be a good thing, regardless of which camera you buy or don't buy.
I've found that 1/250 tends to be as low as I can go for shutter in sports without getting blurry pics, so 1/60 won't capture much action. I tend to shoot without flash whenever possible so I can take advantage of my camera's frame per second (using a D1H, and D70 backup). With basketball, I found last year the 85 1.8 to be great, often shot about 1/250 or 1/320 (depending on lighting), wide open and 1600 ISO. But then again I was shooting from the baseline. If I was further away the 85 probably wouldn't be tight enough, hence something like an 80-200. But that's some pretty big money. If lighting is really bad, 2.8 might not be enough anyway, might have to get a 1.8 (either 50 or 85) and crop heavily.
Hope that helps somewhat.
murphyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 23, 2005, 1:33 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
thatsanicepicture2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 859
Default

murphyc wrote:
Quote:
If you figure a cost of about $1,000 or so, only you can really answer if that's worth it.
AND!!! That's just a start. Flash 300 to 400.(A lot more if you get crazy) Ya just gotta have a couple of studio lights too. With the 2.8 or 1.8 Murphyc was talking about you'll look at a super wide $400 at least(You'll want one). Lets see, what else,good tripod... remote switch... Big pictures need a good printer. (I'm looking at my second 13 x 19 printer at 500 bucks) IT NEVER STOPS! It is said the best way to put a person in debt is give him a camera.

But if you can afford it you'll never regret going Dslr. I never did.... However... My wife does.

dale

PS: You'll really want to take it with you when you go hiking... Hey... You'll need the $250 back pack for sure!



thatsanicepicture2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2005, 3:20 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 256
Default

I have been shooting basketball for a few years, primarily my son (middle school) and some college games with an Olympus C3000 and Minolta Dimage z3

Two weeks ago I took the dSLR plunge and even though I still have a ton to learn, I am blown away by the pictures I have taken so far. Even the most mediocre, uneditedpictures the Canon has turned out are a hundred times better than what the point and shoots could produce with extensive editing.

I bought a Canon Digital Rebel XT with the kit lens. For shooting basketball, I bought a Canon 100mm f2.0 and the Canon 50mm 1.8 I also bought a 2gb and 1gb CF card, 2 extra batteries and a camera bag, all for $1450.00. There are two more lenses I want, and a Sigma flash, so, I am looking at around $700 bucks in teh next year to complete what I have.

Is that alot of money? Sure it is. I saved for over a year. Is it worth it? To me, absolutely. These are lifetime memories, not just pictures. While Our memory fades with time, I want the moments we freeze in time to be crystal clear.

I find the 100mm f2 to be great shooting college games and can get great shots at 50 - 60 feet or more. I can normally shoot f2.2 - f 2.5 at 800 ISO and get shutter speeds around 1/400.If I bump to ISO 1600 I get 1/500 - 1/640 which freezes the action nicely. Shooting in the high school gym, I use the 50mm 1.8 which at times isnt quite wide enough. At 1.8 and ISO 1600 I get 1/400 shutter speeds. Thats the difference in the lighting used. While the 50mm is nowhere near as sharp as the 100 ( I would be pissed if it was given the price difference) it turns out good shots, although the noise is slightly more noticeable. Compred to a point and shoot at ISO 400, the noise present in my dSLR at 1600 is not noticeable at all.

Do I have to crop images? Uh huh. BUT... I am shooting an 8MP image and even if I crop to the equivelant of a 4 or 5 mp image I still get great looking prints. The noise is slightly more noticeable in the cropped image. I use Noiseware and apply as little as possible so that the subjects look real and not plastic and I dont lose the sharpness.

As I said, I still have a ton to learn and I expect that will take a long time ( and tons of trail and error) to approch the proficiency of some of the guys on here who so unselfishly, patiently and willingly share their knowledge. I read these forums religiously.

To your original point, is it worth it? Only you can answer that. I make DVD slideshows of my stuff and watch it on TV and share that way and I print and frame those exceptional shots I get. I can tell you, there are no framed shots from either of my point and shoots. Your kids are only young once and they age quickly. I look at old pictures of my youth and those pictures have not aged gracefully.

If you looked at the same image taken with your Canon and a dSLR side by side, I think you would not even hesitate.

Hope this helps.

Dang, I hate it when I ramble .....
davidreeves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2005, 3:40 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,538
Default

DAvidReeves,

I'm surprised you didn't look at the Canon F1.8 80mm lens.

Next I'll be hearing about your 80-300 F2.8 lens and I'll get jealous!

Terry
terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2005, 3:53 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 256
Default

Terry, you will hear about my 80 - 300 the same day you read about me winning the lottery ..lol

The list of wants is VERY long. I bought what I thought would get me started balanced with what I could spend andstill remain married!

At this point, I want to learn and understand and get better. After I think I sort of know what I am doing, I will pick up a lens or two that are more versatile. My choice of the 50 1.8 was based on it being 65 bucks !

I am following alot of Dustins guidance and hopefully, someday, I will be doing one of those lingere shoots lol
davidreeves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2005, 3:56 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 256
Default

and Dragon, I absolutely miss coaching and watching bball played by kids your guys age. It was SO much fun then.

My son is a freshman and while it is still fun, its alot of work too.

Good luck to your son!
davidreeves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2005, 10:50 PM   #19
Member
 
Brian Randall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 56
Default

Dragon,

I also have the G2 and it does not do real well indoors. I know from experience also, but outdoors it is STILL great.

Anyway, I have learned to post process all my indoor shots, and here is my attempt on your photo. Hope you don't mind me playing with it.

I used a levels adjustment layer and simply adjusted all the colors into the histogram (RGB), then sharpened just slightly with a high pass filter, and then ran Neat Image.

Here is my attempt for you.

P.S. I referee High School basketball here in Indiana and love working with the young kids. Makes me feel young at heart.....lol
Attached Images
 
Brian Randall 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 4:55 AM.