Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Photo Critiques

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 2, 2008, 9:48 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Lyrics51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Northwest Ohio
Posts: 1,954
Default

I think the photo could use a little exposure help, but I think what would have helped it a lot more was to have gotten the kids coming at the goalie. Just seeing the end of the one stick makes me wish I could pan left and see what was going on there! I really like seeing the little guys (or girls) all dressed up in their goalie gear!

Glenn
Lyrics51 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 2, 2008, 11:02 AM   #12
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Interesting how interpretive photography is. I take the opposite view to Glenn's. My preference is that action should fill the frame. The challenge with including the attackers in the shot is they're really fairly far from the goalie. The goalie is already taking up a small portion of the frame. Widening the shot would, imo, result in too much dead space and too little detail. Additionally the angle of the shot is such that if the attackers were included their backs would be to the camera. Not very interesting, IMO. If you want shots of the attackers you need a different position - either perpendicular to the goal front so you get profile of attacker and goalie - again difficult with small kids unless they're getting really close or from the corner so you can get the attackers front on with the goal in the bottom corner of the frame to give some context.

The current crop gives context that the puck is coming so it's not like the goalie is just standing there. My preference would be for slightly later timing so the puck is closer to the goalie. Which would allow for a tighter shot - both puck and goalie in the frame but less dead space than currently there. Of course that's tougher than it sounds. But that tight framing provides DETAIL which makes a shot better.

Again, not saying Glenn is wrong - only that different people look at the same image and have different opinions. That's what's great about a forum like this - you can get all different opinions.

Exposure and whitte balance have already been addressed but to summarize 3 things you need to improve your photos:

1. Proper exposure - meaning exposing for faces

2. Tighter framing in camera to get more accurate focus and get more detail

3. Proper White Balance

Exposure and WB are the easiest to fix. Tighter framing will take practice. It's a tough hurdle to get over.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 2, 2008, 11:25 AM   #13
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 16
Default

hi
Thank you all very much for your time and thoughts. I will play more with iphoto to see what it all can do.

Still need a bit of clarification though:

To get a better white balance in the photos should I be using a custom white balance of the ice?

How can I get a slightly faster shutter speed without getting darker photos? (just simply increasing the exposure compensation?) When I am looking at the camera's histogram should the peek be fairly close to the middle? Is this a good judge if I have close to proper exposure?

Thanks again - I have lots to learn.
CarsonS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 2, 2008, 11:40 AM   #14
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

CarsonS wrote:
Quote:
To get a better white balance in the photos should I be using a custom white balance of the ice?
Yes - give that a try.
Quote:
How can I get a slightly faster shutter speed without getting darker photos? (just simply increasing the exposure compensation?)
The sad answer is - you cannot with your current gear IF you were shooting atf2.8. YOu stated your ISO was 1600 - the max value for your camera.If you had the aperture set to f2.8 then it's not possible to get a properly exposed shot with a faster shutter speed without a different camera or a different lens. That's the sad fact of low light sports shooting.Your only options are to either go prime (85mm 1.8, 135mm 2.0) which severely restrricts the types of shots you can get or to invest in a40d nowthat the 50d is out.

Increasing exposure compensation won't work. EC is not a magic tool. In AV mode, all EC does is adjust shutter speed. It can't magicallycreate a wider aperture or higher ISO.ISO, aperture and shutter speed are the3 components of exposure. You want a faster shutter speed. You can only get it by increasing aperture (lower f-number ) or increasing ISO. If you're already at f2.8 and ISO 1600 you can't increase those parametersany more.

Quote:
When I am looking at the camera's histogram should the peek be fairly close to the middle? Is this a good judge if I have close to proper exposure?
No - not necessarily. The important thing to expose properly is the FACE. That face is filling a very small portion of the frame. Depending on what fills the rest of the frame your histogram could be all over the place. With a lot of ice in the frame the histogram would be pushed to the right quite a bit. With a lot of black jersey in the frame it would likely be more centered. Judge your exposure by how FACES look not histogram. If anything you want a histogram pushed to the right.


JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 2, 2008, 4:58 PM   #15
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 18
Default

Hi

Thanks for the explanation - I think it is starting to make sense. The 40d would be a better camera I am sure in a lot of ways - I almost bought this but then cheaped out at the last moment - for my hockey shots would the biggest advantage be the higer ISO ability? ( I was already at 2.8 and the 1600 ISO max for the Rebel)

I think I will start looking for a fast prime though as it will be a bit more budget friendly for now. Would a 2.0 make that much of a difference comapred to my 2.8 or would I need bigger?

Thanks again. - at least if he continues to play goal he won't move around too much!
Carson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 2, 2008, 5:32 PM   #16
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

a 2.0 lens will allow you to double your shutter speed. But the reality with primes is - what focal length makes sense.

Options:

50mm 1.8 - $75 - good for about 15 feet of coverage so not too many shot opportunities for hockey.

85mm 1.8 - $375 - fantastic lens. But good for about 25 feet and that's it.

100mm 2.0 - $375 - another good lens. Good for about 35 feet or so. BUT now you're getting to a point where on a 1.6x crop camera action that is close is too large for the frame. This is what makes shooting with short prime lenses so terribly difficult for sports.

next step is the 135mm 2.0 - outstanding lens but $1000.

So, be careful when you think a prime route is the easier/less expensive. It CAN be less expensive but it's MUCH more restrictive as to the shots you can take. Everything is a trade-off.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 2, 2008, 5:36 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

The difference between f/2.8 and f/2.0is the same as between 1/250 and 1/500 or between ISO 1600 and ISO 3200.

You might look at the following lenses:
  • Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM (~$330)[/*]
  • Canon EF 100mm f/2 USM (~$400)[/*]
  • Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM (~$900)[/*]
  • Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM (~$1,800)*
[/*]
*The difference between f/2.8 and f/1.2 is the same as between 1/250 and 1/1500 or between ISO 1600 and ISO 9600.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 2, 2008, 6:38 PM   #18
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

TCav wrote:
Quote:
You might look at the following lenses:
  • Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM (~$1,800)*[/*]
I would recommend skipping this lens. It's slow to focus compared to the others. It's not a good sports lens in general - with the price tag, even more so.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 2, 2008, 6:45 PM   #19
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

John is right, it's a faster focusing lens than the previous version but still not great. If money is no object then a 2nd hand 200mm f1.8 will do the trick or a nice shiny new 200mm f2.

You would be better upgrading the body to give you increased ISO if you were looking at spending some cash as the 70-200mm f2.8is a strong lens and used by both John and myself (no we don't share one we have our own LOL).

Sports shooting is a gear intensive area of photography as generally we are working extreme conditions and our desire is to get high shutter speeds. Unfortunately this relates to $$$ (well £££ for me), and I've invested 1000s to get my kit and still have gaps that I would like to fill.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 2, 2008, 6:55 PM   #20
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 16
Default

Hi
Thanks for the info - lots of food for thought.
CarsonS 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 10:28 PM.