Son's basketball game

[JohnG]

Terry,

You've peaked my curiosity. What areas are you seeing improvement in for sports shooting in RAW? Especially in newsprint. I'm just curious if it would be worth a try as I'm covering some playoff games for football over the next couple weeks (or at least this week if my team loses).



Thanks,



John

[[email protected]]

JohnG,

I was finding that shots right out of the 20D lacked contrast when printed black and white in newsprint at 200 dpi.

I first played with increasing the brigthness a little and increased the contrast. I found that helped a little.

Then I realized that Rawshooter has an option to select pre-determined curves, anything from medium to high contrast adjustment. I plan to see how that adjustment looks as printed.

I'm thinking that if I use a little flash to pull the players out of the background, then set highhigh contrast curvesin RAWSHOOTER, I might get a better printed image.

I've noticed that some of the publicity stills sent to the paper look really good, but I think they are scanned photos.

I'd be interested if anyone could offer tips.

-- Terry

[murphyc]

Dragon--
I'll take a stab at answering your questions. Should you get a DSLR? I'd say that depends. If you're just a proud parent shooting his son, I would say the expense isn't worth it. If you're shooting pics you are hoping to get printed and/or sold, a DSLR would be a viable solution. If you figure a cost of about $1,000 or so, only you can really answer if that's worth it.
If you did get a DSLR, getting a 50 1.8 is a good cheap way to deal with bad lighting (i.e. gyms). Only thing is, unless you're on the floor you will have to crop pics a ton using a 50. Which leads me to another point: shooting tighter would be a good thing, regardless of which camera you buy or don't buy.
I've found that 1/250 tends to be as low as I can go for shutter in sports without getting blurry pics, so 1/60 won't capture much action. I tend to shoot without flash whenever possible so I can take advantage of my camera's frame per second (using a D1H, and D70 backup). With basketball, I found last year the 85 1.8 to be great, often shot about 1/250 or 1/320 (depending on lighting), wide open and 1600 ISO. But then again I was shooting from the baseline. If I was further away the 85 probably wouldn't be tight enough, hence something like an 80-200. But that's some pretty big money. If lighting is really bad, 2.8 might not be enough anyway, might have to get a 1.8 (either 50 or 85) and crop heavily.
Hope that helps somewhat.

[thatsanicepicture2]

murphyc wrote:

If you figure a cost of about $1,000 or so, only you can really answer if that's worth it.

AND!!! That's just a start. Flash 300 to 400.(A lot more if you get crazy) Ya just gotta have a couple of studio lights too. With the 2.8 or 1.8 Murphyc was talking about you'll look at a super wide $400 at least(You'll want one). Lets see, what else,good tripod... remote switch... Big pictures need a good printer. (I'm looking at my second 13 x 19 printer at 500 bucks) IT NEVER STOPS! It is said the best way to put a person in debt is give him a camera.

But if you can afford it you'll never regret going Dslr. I never did.... However... My wife does.

dale

PS: You'll really want to take it with you when you go hiking... Hey... You'll need the $250 back pack for sure!

[davidreeves]

I have been shooting basketball for a few years, primarily my son (middle school) and some college games with an Olympus C3000 and Minolta Dimage z3

Two weeks ago I took the dSLR plunge and even though I still have a ton to learn, I am blown away by the pictures I have taken so far. Even the most mediocre, uneditedpictures the Canon has turned out are a hundred times better than what the point and shoots could produce with extensive editing.

I bought a Canon Digital Rebel XT with the kit lens. For shooting basketball, I bought a Canon 100mm f2.0 and the Canon 50mm 1.8 I also bought a 2gb and 1gb CF card, 2 extra batteries and a camera bag, all for $1450.00. There are two more lenses I want, and a Sigma flash, so, I am looking at around $700 bucks in teh next year to complete what I have.

Is that alot of money? Sure it is. I saved for over a year. Is it worth it? To me, absolutely. These are lifetime memories, not just pictures. While Our memory fades with time, I want the moments we freeze in time to be crystal clear.

I find the 100mm f2 to be great shooting college games and can get great shots at 50 - 60 feet or more. I can normally shoot f2.2 - f 2.5 at 800 ISO and get shutter speeds around 1/400.If I bump to ISO 1600 I get 1/500 - 1/640 which freezes the action nicely. Shooting in the high school gym, I use the 50mm 1.8 which at times isnt quite wide enough. At 1.8 and ISO 1600 I get 1/400 shutter speeds. Thats the difference in the lighting used. While the 50mm is nowhere near as sharp as the 100 ( I would be pissed if it was given the price difference) it turns out good shots, although the noise is slightly more noticeable. Compred to a point and shoot at ISO 400, the noise present in my dSLR at 1600 is not noticeable at all.

Do I have to crop images? Uh huh. BUT... I am shooting an 8MP image and even if I crop to the equivelant of a 4 or 5 mp image I still get great looking prints. The noise is slightly more noticeable in the cropped image. I use Noiseware and apply as little as possible so that the subjects look real and not plastic and I dont lose the sharpness.

As I said, I still have a ton to learn and I expect that will take a long time ( and tons of trail and error) to approch the proficiency of some of the guys on here who so unselfishly, patiently and willingly share their knowledge. I read these forums religiously.

To your original point, is it worth it? Only you can answer that. I make DVD slideshows of my stuff and watch it on TV and share that way and I print and frame those exceptional shots I get. I can tell you, there are no framed shots from either of my point and shoots. Your kids are only young once and they age quickly. I look at old pictures of my youth and those pictures have not aged gracefully.

If you looked at the same image taken with your Canon and a dSLR side by side, I think you would not even hesitate.

Hope this helps.

Dang, I hate it when I ramble .....

[[email protected]]

DAvidReeves,

I'm surprised you didn't look at the Canon F1.8 80mm lens.

Next I'll be hearing about your 80-300 F2.8 lens and I'll get jealous!

Terry

[davidreeves]

Terry, you will hear about my 80 - 300 the same day you read about me winning the lottery ..lol

The list of wants is VERY long. I bought what I thought would get me started balanced with what I could spend andstill remain married!

At this point, I want to learn and understand and get better. After I think I sort of know what I am doing, I will pick up a lens or two that are more versatile. My choice of the 50 1.8 was based on it being 65 bucks !

I am following alot of Dustins guidance and hopefully, someday, I will be doing one of those lingere shoots lol

[davidreeves]

and Dragon, I absolutely miss coaching and watching bball played by kids your guys age. It was SO much fun then.

My son is a freshman and while it is still fun, its alot of work too.

Good luck to your son!

[Brian Randall]

Dragon,

I also have the G2 and it does not do real well indoors. I know from experience also, but outdoors it is STILL great.

Anyway, I have learned to post process all my indoor shots, and here is my attempt on your photo. Hope you don't mind me playing with it.

I used a levels adjustment layer and simply adjusted all the colors into the histogram (RGB), then sharpened just slightly with a high pass filter, and then ran Neat Image.

Here is my attempt for you.

P.S. I referee High School basketball here in Indiana and love working with the young kids. Makes me feel young at heart.....lol