Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Panasonic / Leica

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 2, 2012, 7:24 PM   #11
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

[QUOTE=saly;1321176]True. However, the big difference is that the Sports Photographer is only shooting the star players while "my" child is lost somewhere in the background.
QUOTE]

I disagree. Sports photography is about including what you want to include and excluding what you don't. It's about including action, facial expressions and emotions. Your subject can be any player on the field. For example, here's an interior lineman opening a hole in the endzone for a touchdown:


Now, it is often true that the PUBLISHED photos are often the star players. But the principles for making quality sports photos are the same regardless of the player's ability or position.

There is no question that superzooms allow parents to get better and better shots. But, I think it does people looking for advice a disservice to say a shot is just as good as a sports illustrated shot just because it's taken with a camera brand a poster happens to own.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 2, 2012, 8:06 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Bangor,North Wales
Posts: 3,741
Default

JohnG- these are the "Panny pages" and here, anything is possible- so long as you own a Panasonic...
I'm waiting for National Geographic to call as I have a TZ10 in my pocket...
SIMON40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2012, 1:52 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Mount Shasta, California
Posts: 1,525
Default

Here a couple more lightened up. I like to leave the light as natural as possible, which is one of the reasons I never use a flash. The other is with a flash you can't get the fast fps. Lightening up the shots can also up the noise. These came out pretty well. I like the last shot because it was team winning by a lot coming back on the field after the half with one of our guys just watching.
Attached Images
    
pboerger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 5, 2012, 6:29 PM   #14
TG
Senior Member
 
TG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 615
Default

Great effort from the FZ150, but I do agree if JohnG these shots would be better if they were tighter to isolate the subject.
The original shots do look under exposed and need some exposure compensation or PP (as you have done later). If you are concerned by image noise at High ISO try shooting RAW as most RAW software does a better job of Noise Reduction than the camera does (DXO Optics does a real good job), You can also fix exposure & adjust White Balance and I think you get a much superior image than the camera's JPEG pictures.
TG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 6, 2012, 1:09 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Mount Shasta, California
Posts: 1,525
Default

I am well aware of the advantages of RAW. If had been the main reporter/shooter for the newspaper, by sheer cooincidence three of us showed up, I would have shot RAW. On the other hand, if it had been my assignment I would have shot my DSLR. I just wanted to see what the FZ150 could do. I'm frankly amazed at what the small sensor camera was able to capture. The shots are not as underexposed as they look as this field is poorly lit. Thanks to everyone for the feedback. I appreciate you all taking the time to comment. Next up is indoor volleyball. That will be a TOUGH shoot with the FZ150. Should be interesting.
pboerger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 7, 2012, 7:47 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Bangor,North Wales
Posts: 3,741
Default

I'll look forward to see how that pan's out...
SIMON40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 7, 2012, 10:52 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Franko170's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 303
Default

Impressed by the photos, great job with them considering the equipment used. If I find the funds for the fz200 I will be trying available light sports with it indoor and night.

As to the comments about closer crops, isolating subjects - I would agree - but most of the sports photos in the local daily nearby where I live - one would never know there were more than 2 people on the field because they are cropped so close. They are great shots, but a photo showing someone throwing a block in football that cleared the way for a running back to crash through for a touchdown can be a much more meaningful photo.

Or trying to capture the tension in the air . . .
__________________
Nikon D600, D90, D70, N90s, FM2, Canon S3 1S, Panasonic FZ35; Nikon 18-105 VR, 28-70 2.8 Sigma, 35-70 Nikkor, 70-200 2.8 Sigma, 70-300 4-5.6 Sigma, 85 1.8D Nikkor, 55-300 4-5.6 Nikkor, Sigma 17-50 2.8.

Last edited by Franko170; Oct 7, 2012 at 10:56 PM. Reason: added comment/photo
Franko170 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 8:20 AM   #18
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Frank - I agree that having a key blocker as well as a runner in the frame can be an impactful photo. The problem is 90% of the time that type of shot doesn't work out. What provides impact to a sports photo is detail - action, emotion, etc. One of the biggest contributors to that impact is faces. Especially with night football - when you frame loosely you don't get that emotion because you just don't see enough facial detail. I think the shot you posted of the kickoff team is a great example - I don't get the sense of tension because you can't really see the faces well. And, unlike day games at lower ISOs you cannot frame loose and crop heavily and still have good detail. More often, when you frame loose you end up with several players really not involved with the action - and a lot of dead space between them all. For example, here's a shot from the end-zone. I could have shot wider and tried to get some of the blockers. But, to me, what makes this shot more impactful is the eyes. At these ISOs if you frame more loosely you don't get enough detail in the eyes. The eyes make the shot:
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 10:43 AM   #19
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pboerger View Post
The shots are not as underexposed as they look as this field is poorly lit.
Proper exposure is driven by the faces. If the faces are dark the shots are underexposed. The fact that the lights are bad just means it's more difficult to get a proper exposure - it doesn't mean that dark faces suddenly is more acceptable. Again, as an experiment for how a digicam can do in the challenging environment I think the results are great. But, if the faces are dark the shot is underexposed - regardless of the amount of ambient light.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 4:53 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Franko170's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 303
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
Frank - I agree that having a key blocker as well as a runner in the frame can be an impactful photo. The problem is 90% of the time that type of shot doesn't work out. What provides impact to a sports photo is detail - action, emotion, etc. One of the biggest contributors to that impact is faces. Especially with night football - when you frame loosely you don't get that emotion because you just don't see enough facial detail. I think the shot you posted of the kickoff team is a great example - I don't get the sense of tension because you can't really see the faces well. And, unlike day games at lower ISOs you cannot frame loose and crop heavily and still have good detail. More often, when you frame loose you end up with several players really not involved with the action - and a lot of dead space between them all. For example, here's a shot from the end-zone. I could have shot wider and tried to get some of the blockers. But, to me, what makes this shot more impactful is the eyes. At these ISOs if you frame more loosely you don't get enough detail in the eyes. The eyes make the shot:
I disagree on the 'tension' - one look at my photo and a person can get a feel for what is about to happen - energy. Your example photo is a great shot of eyes and good exposure but doesn't really show 'action.' He hasn't even wrapped the ball up yet. Whether he has a clear field ahead or looking at a 250 lb linebacker. Difference of opinion.

But no way are the Panasonic shots equivalent to shots taken with a full-frame camera with a 400-500 2.8 lens.

As this is a "Panny" thread I'll not post any more photos from anything but a Panny.
__________________
Nikon D600, D90, D70, N90s, FM2, Canon S3 1S, Panasonic FZ35; Nikon 18-105 VR, 28-70 2.8 Sigma, 35-70 Nikkor, 70-200 2.8 Sigma, 70-300 4-5.6 Sigma, 85 1.8D Nikkor, 55-300 4-5.6 Nikkor, Sigma 17-50 2.8.

Last edited by Franko170; Oct 8, 2012 at 5:42 PM. Reason: additional comment
Franko170 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 6:25 PM.