Baseball under the lights (sony dsc f717)

[Angel L.]

This picture #26

apeture prioity, F2.4, iso800, shutter 200, -1 oev

full explosion to the plate (motion)

[Angel L.]

this picture #43

manual mode, F2.1, iso800, shutter 500, no oev

Great shot, but dark, can software polish an underexposed pic?

[Angel L.]

same as picture #43

This is #85

manual mode, F2.1, iso800, shutter500, no oev

any suggestions with my camera and rookie photographer.

[JimC]

Both 24 and 26 were both at 1/200 second, f/2.4 and ISO 800 (you said 1/500 second for 24). That's why the exposure looks about the same for them.

That's abouit the best you're going to be able to do unless you want to deliberately underexpose more and brighten them later. That would make the noise look worse (underexposing and using software to brighten them). You're probably better off putting up with a little bit of motion blur instead.

If lighting is consistent, you could just use manual exposure with those settings (1/200 second, f/2.4, ISO 800)

If not, use it the way it's working now (Av mode, f/2.4, -1.0 EV setting). It should be underexposing a bit more with a -1.0 EV setting. But they don't look too bad that way (and if you try to expose brighter, you'd have slower shutter speeds).

You may also want to change your WB settings from Auto. Try incandescent (or better yet, use your camera's custom White Balance feature).

If you want even faster shutter speeds (and usable exposure), you'll probably need to get a DSLR with a bright lens (you'd need f/2.8 throughout the focal range, and would need to use ISO 1600 or 3200 to do any better with shutter speeds).

You can expect to pay about $800 for a lens (discounted) like a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 (not counting the cost of the camera). That would give you a 35mm equivalent focal range of around 105-300mm on most DSLR models (lenses will appear longer on most DSLR models compared to the way they work on a 35mm camera).

If you can get by with a Prime (non-zoom lens), you could lower your cost some if you don't need a lens that's too long. Most manufacturers make 85 or 100mm lenses that are f/2 or brighter that aren't too bad from a cost perspective.

P.S.

Quality is subjective. If they're only going to be used for web or small prints, you may want to see how well they brightnen up with faster shutter speeds (which will increase noise if you deliberately underexpose and brighten later).

Try the "fill light" feature in Picasa (an easy to use free editor) and see what you think. Don't forget to try noise reduction tools with them, too (I posted links to two popular tools earlier in the thread).

http://picasa.google.com/index.html

[rjseeney]

Under the circumstances, these are about the best you can do with the equipment you have. Despite the underexposure, these are composed and framed nicely, with great timing. JimC's advice is sound. I shoot alot of baseball, but do it during the day or in a brightly lit stadium (minor and major league). Even witha DSLR, and a bright prime, the conditions that were present for this shoot would still be tough to overcome.

[VAtechtigger]

just run through neat image or noise ninja and these will be even better. I would lose the date stamp as well. Thats a sure fire way to ruin a good shot.

[Angel L.]

Wow noiseware truly helps. I am so greatfull for the advice. My next step is to play with white balance.

How can white balance help with low light?

ps #24 and 26 were taken with the same settings. Shutter 200.

Can I use a tripod from the other side of the fence?

[JimC]

Let us know if you mind us posting edits of your images and we can remove them.

Here is one of your underexposed images taken at F2.2, iso800, 1/500 second after Picasa (free download). Note the increased noise after brigtening it using the fill light feature.

[JimC]

Then, I ran it through the free edition of Noiseware (defaults except for sharpening at +1).

[JimC]

That softens it a bit (but, you get a lot of noise to remove brightening an underexposed ISO 800). ;-)

Do these steps on the full size originals, and set JPEG Quality to max in Picasa when exporting to get rid of the noise using something like Noiseware. Then, see if you can live the results if you deliberately underexpose.

I'd probably use something more "in the middle" (around 1/250 - 1/300 second) versus 1/500th (plus you'll be down to f/2.4 versus f./2.2 at longer zoom settings if shooting at wide open apertures).

Then, see if you can live with the results at the viewing or print sizes you need after a bit of post processing (and experiment with some of the tools available).

That's a bit better than the original: