Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > Newbie Help

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 18, 2011, 6:20 AM   #21
Senior Member
 
tacticdesigns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 998
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
Actually two points:
First: the biggest issue with aperture priority OR auto-iso is that you're letting the camera choose values and the camera can get it wrong - do to background color/brightness or uniform colors. THAT is the single biggest problem. ...
The 1st year I shot aperture priority mode, the 2nd I tried manual mode a bit. And there were a couple things that I think was messing up using aperture priority mode. The uniform my daughter has is a dark blue uniform, so if using aperture priority mode I should probably dial in negative exposure compensation, but then it has a bright pink line that goes through it, so when the meter is point to that, that might mess it up. After thinking about it, I realized that for each single event, the lighting is pretty uniform so I just switched to manual, figured out what I wanted to be at, and shot. Doing this I noticed the shots were more consistent. And I was more aware of ISO, f-stop and shutter speed for this situation.

The other time I messed around with manual is when there was a really bright window behind Madelyn. The pictures were ending up all over the place. So I decided, what have I got to lose, and switched to manual.

Anyway, I'm planning to try manual more this coming season.

Take care, Glen
tacticdesigns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 18, 2011, 7:07 AM   #22
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

My point about using large apertures is that, because of the shallow depth of field, focus is more critical, and less that excellent AF systems in less than $1,X00 cameras are going to have problems with that. And, btw, M Mode isn't going to help with that. So for focus accuracy, shooting in continuous mode in longer bursts means giving the camera more opportunities to get it right.

To be sure, M Mode may have some advantages over A Mode, depending on the circumstances. That's a choice that each of us must make, depending on the circumstances.

Yes, I conceed that shooting continuous in long bursts will result in a lot of wasted shots. (I believe I already said that.) But it also increases the possiblility of catching the shot you want. And it greatly increases the possiblility of catching the shot you didn't know you wanted.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 18, 2011, 7:20 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

I know that, while my Nikon D90 is better than some, it's not as good as others.

I also know that, with SanDisk Extreme or Lexar Professional cards, I can capture 9 RAW images before the buffer is full, and that I can capture about 2.5 RAW images per second thereafter. And for Large Fine JPEG images, the buffer never fills and I can capture about 4.5 images per second as long as I want to hold down the shutter button.

According to the Canon 7D manual, when shooting Large RAW + Large Fine JPEG, the buffer fills at 6 shots. At 8 fps, that's 3/4 of a second.

I'd pray too.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.

Last edited by TCav; Aug 18, 2011 at 7:23 AM.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 18, 2011, 9:45 AM   #24
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
To be sure, M Mode may have some advantages over A Mode, depending on the circumstances. That's a choice that each of us must make, depending on the circumstances.
Absolutely. If light levels are constant, even if lighting is dim, manual mode properly used will produce better results. If light levels are variable then aperture priority can produce better results. In that instance you just have to understand how the camera is going to meter and use EC to your advantage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
Yes, I conceed that shooting continuous in long bursts will result in a lot of wasted shots. (I believe I already said that.) But it also increases the possiblility of catching the shot you want.
Again, relying on long bursts is an extremely poor substitute for learning how to shoot a given sport. Continuous long bursts is the very definition of "spray and pray" and it's a poor substitute for learning how to shoot. It may increase the chance you "get the shot" by a little bit but learning how to shoot properly and shooting short bursts will increase your chance of "getting the shot" exponentially more. It's very similar to using a "sports mode" on a camera. It's a crutch that helps the neophyte get better results than "bad" but you have to get out of sports mode to really start getting quality. Same with your shot taking approach: spray-and-pray (or if you prefer the term "continuous in long bursts") will get you slightly better shots than not knowing how to shoot and taking short bursts. But if you want to make the jump to quality - ditch the "long continuous bursts" early and learn the sport and how to shoot it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
And it greatly increases the possiblility of catching the shot you didn't know you wanted.
I just really disagree with this. Are you going to have your finger pressing the shutter for an hour and a half and take ten thousand frames? No. What you SHOULD be doing is continue to track a player through the play. Again, there are exceptional circumstances where contact continues for several seconds. And in that case, it is beneficial to keep taking shots. But that is the vast exception. Normally there is peak action, down turn, peak action, down turn. The experienced sports shooter continues to track the action and starts and stops the shooting. If you keep the hammer down every time you'll fill your memory card with thousands of shots and you STILL may have missed the shot unless you're shooting at 10-12fps. But the notion of keeping the hammer down in the off chance you'll luck into a great shot I don't buy. Much better to just focus track and be PREPARED for more action.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 18, 2011, 10:55 AM   #25
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

The techniques players use to mislead each other work just as well on photographers, no matter how good they are.

Shooting continuously is a tool. You can use it or not. Certainly, your percentage of keepers will be low, but there's no reason to expect that your number of keepers will be fewer than if you hadn't, and it might be greater.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 18, 2011, 11:26 AM   #26
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
The techniques players use to mislead each other work just as well on photographers, no matter how good they are.
Not really. A player is trying to fake out another player about things like which direction he will move. A photographer is more interested in whether he as the ball and if an opposing player is moving in on him. For a good photograph, it isn't really relevant who wins the battle of wits -- you just need to know that the battle is being joined.
tclune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 18, 2011, 11:51 AM   #27
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tclune View Post
Not really. A player is trying to fake out another player about things like which direction he will move. A photographer is more interested in whether he as the ball and if an opposing player is moving in on him. For a good photograph, it isn't really relevant who wins the battle of wits -- you just need to know that the battle is being joined.
Exactly so. After shooting sports for 6 years and shooting, selling and being published with softball, baseball, soccer, football, volleyball, basketball, wrestling, gymnastics, swimming I've "been around" a bit as a sports photographer. Thanks tclune for saying it in a different way. I guess i just don't understand, TCAV, why you're being so argumentative on this. And I promise you, the advice I'm giving is not unique. Find another sports photographer that has sold, been published in a laundry list of sports like that for several years and they'll agree with what's being said. Spray and Pray is a very poor substitute for learning the sport. When you know a sport (as you should if you want to be a sports photographer) there simply isn't a need (for the sports above) for taking long continuous bursts as a matter of course. It's the exception. But TCAV, if you can find another sports photographer with relevant experience I'll be glad to hear the other argument. But as tclune indicated, your 'fake out' example just isn't a justification for the approach. He stated it perfectly - as a photographer you're interested in the peak interaction, not who wins. The difference between the neophyte shooter and the experienced sports shooter is the experienced shooter starts and stops when the peak action does. You'll end up with a lot better shots with that approach than taking 5,000 shot and HOPING you lucked out and some of them captured peak action.

But since you want to continue to argue the issue, here are the types of sports photos you can get following my advice (understand the game, plan your shots, anticipate action and take short/controlled bursts):




















Tcav, perhaps you can share with us the photos demonstrating the sports photo results your advice provides?
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 18, 2011, 2:21 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Yeah. That's why they have those lights on top of the goals ... because everyone always knows where the puck is.

When was the last time you watched a hockey game on TV, and the camera operators were able to always keep the action in the frame? ... and they're not trying to frame as tightly. Aren't they pros? Don't they know the sport?
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.

Last edited by TCav; Aug 18, 2011 at 2:39 PM.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 18, 2011, 3:41 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

I'm afraid I'm being misunderstood.

I'm not saying that shooting hockey is easier than you say it is. I'm saying it's tougher. I'm saying that we should embrace the ability to shoot continuously, for exactly that reason.

For every pro sports photographer I've heard or read that regards continuous shooting with distain, there's at least one that is thankful for the capability. The difference is that the ones that are thankful for it don't have any catchy phrases to describe it. And people who face the choice of whether to use it or not, all they remember is "Spray and Pray".

It's a tool. Try it out and see how it works for you.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 18, 2011, 4:30 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
tjsnaps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sacramento, Ca
Posts: 652
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
It's a tool. Try it out and see how it works for you.
Sense I think I started this argument I'll jump in here.

My original point was: It's not a "tool" that's going to work well with low end cameras? And if there are exposure issues as discussed above, would not shooting in Raw be wise for PP?

This is the type of thing that prompted me to make this post a few days ago http://forums.steves-digicams.com/ge...-thoughts.html

The original poster asked for help which he is not getting because the answers and discussion is not taking into account the abilities and limitations of his equipment.
tjsnaps 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 6:53 AM.