Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   Sports & Action Photos (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/sports-action-photos-75/)
-   -   Basketball - horrible lighting (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/sports-action-photos-75/basketball-horrible-lighting-78413/)

The Barbarian Jan 20, 2006 8:07 PM

http://static.flickr.com/31/88877209_c03e15f120.jpg

This is the best I could do. Notice the greenish tint on on shoulder, and the pinkish cast on the other? Depends on which way you're facing.

Hards80 Jan 20, 2006 8:44 PM

time to go black and white when conditions are that bad..

JohnG Jan 21, 2006 9:29 AM

Ah the joys of a place that replaces lights one bulb at a time (with a completely different color cast!!). I agree with Dustin, B&W is the quickest solution. Otherwise you need to correct color cast in specific locations only via layers and that's time consuming. I do like the picture though - nice expression.

Africa Jan 26, 2006 3:50 AM

I would really like the oportunity to work on this one but I can't download it.

If you can repost it as a jpg, I'd like to try.

If you did then it's just my inablility to understand how to download.

For some of my color-correcting efforts, look in this category for "other concert shots". OR

http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...06&forum_id=82

klfatcj Jan 27, 2006 4:20 AM

I've had limited experience with custom WB- still learning, but wonder if it would help. If you can get into the facility before a game with all the lights on and take a few shots of a white sheet of paper on different parts of the court, you could see which the predominant colour cast is, use that to set a custom WB and then only have to PS adjust for the other lights when shots are affected by them.

Kevin

Africa Jan 28, 2006 3:59 PM

klfatcj is absolutely right!

Get out that instruction book and figure out how to use the custom white balance function. Everyone who shoots indoors or under mixed lighting should learn that puppy.

It's been a while since I've used it and I forgot how good it was, it soooo cuts down on post processing!

I've got a basketball game tonight, I'm going to work it!

Thanks for the reminder klfatcj.

JohnG Jan 28, 2006 5:08 PM

A slight reminder. Custom WB is only good in CONSTANT lighting. So lights that cycle mean that custom WB won't work. It also means that in a situation where you have different color temperatures because the bulbs or fixtures are different, custom WB can be useless. It's always worth a try - at best you save post processing and can shoot JPEG to get better burst / buffer handling. At worst, you'll notice it pretty soon when the colors are drastically off on a burst of 5 (cycling lights) and you're back to fixing in post conversion. In the case of cycling lights I prefer to stay in RAW since you don't have a constant color cast to remove

[email protected] Jan 29, 2006 11:22 AM

Another approach is to fix the WB after the fact using software.

One of the sorrows of indoor sports photography is lack of light.

We have to push the technical limits ofour camera and lens tothe max to eak out decent shots.

Having said that, the average happy snapper that attends these meets are lucky if they get one or two decent shots becaus they don't understand how to set up their ISO, shutter speed, aperture, etc. etc. for the conditions.

But people like Barbarian and myself and others who are willing to learn, max out our cam's, constantly tweak, learn new techniques, etc. etc. end up producing photos that set us apart from the rest of the crowd.

Of course, when I see Sports Illustrated I practically weep because my shots are almost always nowhere near that category of excellence.

However we all have to set goals. lol.

-- Terry



davidreeves Jan 29, 2006 3:23 PM

yea, I agree Terry but given teh fact that we arent using $5,000 lenses, I think we all do just fine.

I bet, if there was a way to weight the shots by developing a scientific method that takes into account camera, lens, etc what us pro amateurs produce would be close ....

Or at least thats what I tell myself lol

[email protected] Jan 29, 2006 4:04 PM

DR,

There's no question that a more expensive camera body and lens can result in more professional looking photos, all other factors considered equal.

A buddy of mine owns a professional film develop/print shop used by high end professionals; fashion, product, art house, you name it.

He would develop shots each week from 100's of photographers.

He'd review the shots with me, discussing what works, what doesn't, where the exposures were off, sharpnessetc. etc. etc.

It seemed to me that the best photographers consistently produced the best results.

The poorer photographers would occassionally create a great image, but it was more a factor of luck than skill.

Even the most amateur of photographers can occassionally take a lucky shot, which may well end up framed as an 8 x 10 on their wall in their office or home.

Having said that, my buddy said he could tell crap within the first couple of shots on a rolll.

If the shots were crap, he'd quickly develop and print the remainder of the roll, with little effort to correct.

However, certain photographers he knew, or rolls he'd see, would come in with some very special shots. World class stuff.

Then he'd slow down, and use his 35 years of experience to really coax the most out of each image, and print beautiful stuff.

I know all this sounds snobby as hell, but it's a reality.

There really are stratospheres of photographers ranging from holiday happy snapper right up to the Ansel Adams types.

The pro's in the business can very quickly tell who is "hot" or where one is at, in terms of the whole food chain of photographers.

Of course, when I was giving him my stuff, it was pretty pathetic at the time. lol.

I think I've moved beyond pathetic, but I still have a long way to go before I'm satisified.

-- Terrry


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:40 PM.