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/)
-   -   H.S. Basketball C & C Welcome (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/sports-action-photos-75/h-s-basketball-c-c-welcome-114621/)

in_the_gym Feb 16, 2007 9:56 AM

I'm shooting with a Nikon D50 and used the 70-300G for all but the last one, in which I used the kit lens. Currently I do not have an external flash so I am using onboard. I used ISO 1600 and 1/250 shutter. They have all been run through Neat Image at varying degrees. Any comments or critiques are very welcome, as I am still getting the hang of shooting sports.

http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l4.../Freshman1.jpg

http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l4...s/Varsity4.jpg

http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l4...s/Varsity3.jpg
Is it bothersome that I have amputated his hands on the free throw shot? I seem to have done that to quite a few. I'm afraid to shoot just before the shot. Do I just need to not zoom in quite so tight?
http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l4...s/Varsity1.jpg

http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l4...l_4_edited.jpg

btrips Feb 16, 2007 10:23 AM

Great shots! Indoor action shots are tough, I am also in the process of learning this. There is a goldmine of information in this website about action photography. Almost an complete how-to, if you just search back on this thread you will find a lot of very helpful tips. With what little experience I have, I might would suggest a little less zoom, then you can crop down after. It takes a lot of trial and error. Great start with these pics.

btrips

JohnG Feb 16, 2007 11:04 AM

Good job for just starting out - especially with less than desirable equipment. You made the most of what you had!

The first and last shots are the best. The one thing that keeps the last shot from being great is the eyes - did you use some kind of red-eye fix on these? The eyes look silver - not the usual glow I see from flash. But, they look very unnatural and distract from an otherwise very good image. Same problem in 2nd to last image as well.

The other images are sharp but as sports images, relatively uninteresting because there's no action or no ball. You really want to get the ball in the frame. Some of that is framing and some timing. Take your second shot for instance - I'm assuming he put up a layup but this shot is about 1/2 second late - so you're missing the ball and any expression from the player.

All in all I think you've made a very good start. Your photos are sharp (a definite benefit of narrow aperture) and colors are good. So from a technical standpoint the only thing that needs fixing is your red-eye correction. The next step in your evolution as a sports shooter is to work on your framing/timing so you're capturing the ball and some more action/expressions like you have in the first and last shot.

Well done!



in_the_gym Feb 16, 2007 3:07 PM

btrips wrote:
Quote:

Great shots! Indoor action shots are tough, I am also in the process of learning this. There is a goldmine of information in this website about action photography. Almost an complete how-to, if you just search back on this thread you will find a lot of very helpful tips. With what little experience I have, I might would suggest a little less zoom, then you can crop down after. It takes a lot of trial and error. Great start with these pics.

btrips
Thanks btrips for taking the time to comment. It all seems so easy when you are sitting in front of the computer and then you get down on the court . . . I had been using the kit lens for a while and decided to try the zoom again. I only have two more H.S. games to practice on, but my youngest plays AAU through the spring. Thanks again and good luck to you too !

in_the_gym Feb 16, 2007 3:48 PM

JohnG wrote:
Quote:

Good job for just starting out - especially with less than desirable equipment. You made the most of what you had!

The first and last shots are the best. The one thing that keeps the last shot from being great is the eyes - did you use some kind of red-eye fix on these? The eyes look silver - not the usual glow I see from flash. But, they look very unnatural and distract from an otherwise very good image. Same problem in 2nd to last image as well.

The other images are sharp but as sports images, relatively uninteresting because there's no action or no ball. You really want to get the ball in the frame. Some of that is framing and some timing. Take your second shot for instance - I'm assuming he put up a layup but this shot is about 1/2 second late - so you're missing the ball and any expression from the player.

All in all I think you've made a very good start. Your photos are sharp (a definite benefit of narrow aperture) and colors are good. So from a technical standpoint the only thing that needs fixing is your red-eye correction. The next step in your evolution as a sports shooter is to work on your framing/timing so you're capturing the ball and some more action/expressions like you have in the first and last shot.

Well done!


Thanks John for taking the time to look and give me your advice.

About the red eye (more like alien eyes) -- don't all the kids in the Northeast have those, it's all the rage here in my corner of Ohio ! LOL LOL I have been using the red eye removal tool in PSE 3. In many cases, the eye is not all red, but has quite a few very light to almost white areas in it. I have tried cloning from the surrounding area and painting on a new layer to improve the eyes. Sometimes this works and sometimes it just makes them look even weirder.

I have been using the kit lens during most of the season. I decided to try the zoom for a couple of games and see what happened. I was happy that I got quite a few shots of kids that had heads, arms, and legs -- now you tell me I need to have the ball in the shot too !:? You're asking for a lot ! LOL

All kidding aside, I really appreciate your advice. I saw your thread a few weeks ago on helpful hints on shooting basketball. Back to practice my timing !

Thanks Again !




MINOLTANUT Feb 19, 2007 3:21 AM

HAVE YOU TRIED NO FLASH...??

JohnG Feb 19, 2007 6:33 AM

MINOLTANUT wrote:
Quote:

HAVE YOU TRIED NO FLASH...??
Those lenses are too slow for using without a flash. Apertures of 2.0 are usually required but 2.8 can be doable with a slow shutter speed of 1/200 or using ISO 3200.

MINOLTANUT Feb 19, 2007 7:28 AM

1 Attachment(s)
250 F2.8 150MM 800 ASA

MINOLTANUT Feb 19, 2007 7:32 AM

I CAN RUN 100 ASA AT 2.8 500 SPEED+ AND PUSH IT WITH THE COMPUTER EASY ENOUGH TOO

JohnG Feb 19, 2007 8:22 AM

MINOLTANUT wrote:
Quote:

I CAN RUN 100 ASA AT 2.8 500 SPEED+ AND PUSH IT WITH THE COMPUTER EASY ENOUGH TOO
OK, but the OP doesn't have a 2.8 lens.

Also, this claim seems a little hard to believe. Your shot above was 2.8 1/250 at ISO 800 (and I'm guessing brightened up a bit unless you have the world's brightest gym :-) ).

So, 100 ISO and 1/500 is a 4 stop difference. I find that very difficult to believe. If you don't mind, please post an unedited jpeg (strait conversion if you shoot raw) with EXIF still intact (it was removed from your posted photo) and the 4 stop push of the same photo with the same crop (again with exif still intact in the image). Sorry, but even in good light 4 stops is too much. No way you'd get acceptable quality with a 4 stop push in low light.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:37 AM.