Dog Agility--the border collie conundrum

AustinThor

I'm looking for some editing tips here. I shoot dog agility in absolutely horrible conditions--60Hz lights (invisible to the human eye, they pulse different wavelengths of light each second, so in a series one shot will look green, the next red, the next orange, etc) about 50 feet up as the only light source, no flash allowed and dogs (often black and white ones) running about 35mph. It's kind of like photographing a bride and groom running at 35mph!

The fastest dogs are usually black and white border collies and they are exceedingly difficult to photograph in these conditions so some post processing will be necessary. I'm wondering if someone could comment on these photos with some editing advice (or any other advice you'd like to give).
Thanks!
i




Heidi
www.flydogphoto.net (a work in progress)

clemensphoto's

I'm only seeing red "X"'s

AustinThor

Whoops, sorry 'bout that. I had to enable external links. Try now.

clemensphoto's wrote:

I'm only seeing red "X"'s

johng

Heidi,

It's tough to judge focus/sharpness on the agility shots with such small images. But the first thing that jumps out is they're very much underexposed. What camera/lens and what exposure settings were you using?

cpagility

Heidi -

I'm interested in the responses to this as I also shoot agility but in CA we're mostly outside so I don't have to worry about lighting very often.

I tried to look at your gallery but the link didn't work for me.

Karen Moureaux
www.dogsportphotos.com

AustinThor

John,
For all of the pictures:
Nikon D300
80-200 f/2.8 AF-S lens
ISO 1600
1/320s
f/3.2
200mm

And a few comments about those numbers...If I up the shutter speed (keeping everything else equal) to 1/400 I end up with very, very, very underexposed pictures.

If I shoot at f/4 or f/4.5 keeping all other settings equal I also end up with very underexposed pictures.

I cannot shoot lower than ISO 1600. I'm worried about shooting at ISO 3200 but then I shoot in raw and I could always use Noise Ninja or something like that.

Actually, the pictures are not as underexposed as you might think (according to the brightness and R/G/B curves). Both brightness and R/G/B histograms look quite good considering the horrible lighting there. None of the curves are way to the left.

The first picture is the most underexposed, with a peak close to the left and one just to the right of center. The second picture peak is just barely to the left of center. The third picture also peaks just barely to the left of center.

Shooting raw allows me to add back exposure to the whole picture. I just don't know what to do with the border collie faces.

How can I get the full-size files in your hand?

Thanks so much for responding!
Heidi

johng wrote:

Heidi,

It's tough to judge focus/sharpness on the agility shots with such small images. But the first thing that jumps out is they're very much underexposed. What camera/lens and what exposure settings were you using?

AustinThor

Hi Karen,
Here is the link to the gallery:
http://flydogphoto.smugmug.com/gallery/7001210_fRVGF#448156781_DLCeG

Wow, you are so lucky you get to shoot outside. What a dream!!!!!! You should see all the photographers at each venue. We go up to each other and compare camera settings (in between running our dogs) to find the best-of-the-worst ISO/shutter speed/f-stop/white balance settings.

I also have a YouTube channel with agility videos...www.youtube.com/DivineCanine.

Heidi

cpagility wrote:

Heidi -

I'm interested in the responses to this as I also shoot agility but in CA we're mostly outside so I don't have to worry about lighting very often.

I tried to look at your gallery but the link didn't work for me.

Karen Moureaux
www.dogsportphotos.com

AustinThor

Karen,
One more thing...you probably know my trainer, Gerry Brown. Two of those pics I posted are of his dog Raptor (flat coated BC).
Heidi

cpagility wrote:

Heidi -

I'm interested in the responses to this as I also shoot agility but in CA we're mostly outside so I don't have to worry about lighting very often.

I tried to look at your gallery but the link didn't work for me.

Karen Moureaux
www.dogsportphotos.com

Qarik

well this doesn't help now but for still shots you can try shooting with 1/60 shutter speed to match teh 60Hz lighitng noise to at least..blend the colrs to match more closely what the human eye sees.

AustinThor

Yep, I tried 1/60 and the dogs are but a blur; I need to think to reset the shutter speed for stills. Also any "1/any multiple of 60" shutter speed works too, so if I had 1/120 or 1/180 the works as well, but I don't have either of those speeds...

Qarik wrote:

well this doesn't help now but for still shots you can try shooting with 1/60 shutter speed to match teh 60Hz lighitng noise to at least..blend the colrs to match more closely what the human eye sees.

johng

AustinThor wrote:

John,
For all of the pictures:
Nikon D300
80-200 f/2.8 AF-S lens
ISO 1600
1/320s
f/3.2
200mm

And a few comments about those numbers...If I up the shutter speed (keeping everything else equal) to 1/400 I end up with very, very, very underexposed pictures.

If I shoot at f/4 or f/4.5 keeping all other settings equal I also end up with very underexposed pictures.

I cannot shoot lower than ISO 1600. I'm worried about shooting at ISO 3200 but then I shoot in raw and I could always use Noise Ninja or something like that.

Actually, the pictures are not as underexposed as you might think (according to the brightness and R/G/B curves). Both brightness and R/G/B histograms look quite good considering the horrible lighting there. None of the curves are way to the left.

Heidi

Heidi - a couple points. I took a look at the large files in your gallery - large is good enough. First to your comments about moving to f/4 and keeping everything else equal - absolutely that will underexpose the images. You can't change the aperture and keep everything else the same.

In looking at the images I still say they're underexposed. The histogram should be pushed far to the right for a proper exposure - not centered. Why you ask? Because the face is black. Whether it's dogs or humans, faces are what make a shot compelling. Of the 3 shots you posted the stationary is the most compelling because you can see the eyes.
In addition to the underexposure, 1/320 is too slow for these fast moving dogs. My advice - go to ISO 3200, f2.8 and 1/500. Shoot raw and use it to RECOVER the highlights rather than to recover the detail from the faces. At least give that a try and see how it works for you.

AustinThor

John,
Thanks so much! I will give this a try. I have a couple of questions based on your advice:

1) What program do you recommend for handling noise?
2) Should I look for a "shifted right" histogram for only the black dogs? And would a more centered one be acceptable for lighter dogs?

I appreciate your time in answering my question/providing guidance.
Heidi

johng wrote:

Heidi - a couple points. I took a look at the large files in your gallery - large is good enough. First to your comments about moving to f/4 and keeping everything else equal - absolutely that will underexpose the images. You can't change the aperture and keep everything else the same.

In looking at the images I still say they're underexposed. The histogram should be pushed far to the right for a proper exposure - not centered. Why you ask? Because the face is black. Whether it's dogs or humans, faces are what make a shot compelling. Of the 3 shots you posted the stationary is the most compelling because you can see the eyes.
In addition to the underexposure, 1/320 is too slow for these fast moving dogs. My advice - go to ISO 3200, f2.8 and 1/500. Shoot raw and use it to RECOVER the highlights rather than to recover the detail from the faces. At least give that a try and see how it works for you.

Shane422

I have a friend who shoots dog agility and I have shot with him once. He found that he needed a shutter of at least 1/640 more for smaller dogs. To get this, required f2.8, and an ISO of 6400. Which meant he needed to upgrade to a D700. You can see his pics on flickr. Just search for Dr_Ranch

johng

AustinThor wrote:

John,
Thanks so much! I will give this a try. I have a couple of questions based on your advice:

1) What program do you recommend for handling noise?
2) Should I look for a "shifted right" histogram for only the black dogs? And would a more centered one be acceptable for lighter dogs?

I appreciate your time in answering my question/providing guidance.
Heidi

1. I use Noiseware. I've used it for years and it's worked well so I've had no reason to try neatimage or noiseninja two of the other popular programs out there. I think all 3 should have free trial versions you could try.

2. I might be a little different than other sports shooters. With the newer LCDs, resolution and brightness aren't a problem. So I judge my exposures more on how the FACE looks in the lcd. But I shoot humans not dogs. Still I would say this - if you zoom in on the playback so the dog is filling the frame and you can't see the dog's eyes then it's underexposed. So the eyes would be my guide for underexposure - the histogram only to determine if I was clipping too many highlights. Again, I may be a bit unusual but I rarely display the histogram on my lcd for my sports work anymore. I know what a properly exposed image looks like on my lcd and I almost always judge my exposure by the face. With a 3" lcd it's easy to tell with a quick glance how well the face looks. The real key? A face in poor light should look just as "bright" as a face in good light

AustinThor

Yep...I know...I dream of the D700. Soon...soon! His photos are crisp!

Shane422 wrote:

I have a friend who shoots dog agility and I have shot with him once. He found that he needed a shutter of at least 1/640 more for smaller dogs. To get this, required f2.8, and an ISO of 6400. Which meant he needed to upgrade to a D700. You can see his pics on flickr. Just search for Dr_Ranch

AustinThor

John,
**Great** words of advice. Thank you very, very much!
Heidi

johng wrote:

1. I use Noiseware. I've used it for years and it's worked well so I've had no reason to try neatimage or noiseninja two of the other popular programs out there. I think all 3 should have free trial versions you could try.

2. I might be a little different than other sports shooters. With the newer LCDs, resolution and brightness aren't a problem. So I judge my exposures more on how the FACE looks in the lcd. But I shoot humans not dogs. Still I would say this - if you zoom in on the playback so the dog is filling the frame and you can't see the dog's eyes then it's underexposed. So the eyes would be my guide for underexposure - the histogram only to determine if I was clipping too many highlights. Again, I may be a bit unusual but I rarely display the histogram on my lcd for my sports work anymore. I know what a properly exposed image looks like on my lcd and I almost always judge my exposure by the face. With a 3" lcd it's easy to tell with a quick glance how well the face looks. The real key? A face in poor light should look just as "bright" as a face in good light

cpagility

AustinThor wrote:

Karen,
One more thing...you probably know my trainer, Gerry Brown. Two of those pics I posted are of his dog Raptor (flat coated BC).
Heidi

I was going to ask if the first pic was Gerry's dog. I like that dog and was thinking about breeding to him.

Karen

AustinThor

Karen,
He has a very good disposition around people as well as other dogs. I'm around him a lot and he's very well-behaved. A good canine citizen .
Heidi

cpagility wrote:

I was going to ask if the first pic was Gerry's dog. I like that dog and was thinking about breeding to him.

Karen

Lethal White Aussie

Heidi,

Yeah, i know exactly what you are going through. I did some 'testing of the waters' doing agility photography a few years ago, and this year jumping back into it. If you can shoot BC's indoors under differential lighting, then you can shoot just about anything. You have decent gear, so your lucky that isn't a problem.

I found that there is such a small window of error shooting agility inside. Another big problem is lens focus during inside shooting, which is often low contrast and throws the focus mechanism off.

I had to often shoot in full manual settings, preferably ISO 800-1600 depending on the lighting, and sometimes had to go with manual focus as well, and setup a zone of shooting that I would preset. The head on or 3/4 frontal shots worked best instead of side to side panning shots. My canon 30D with a 5/6 frames per sec drive is slightly slow for agility shooting, but your camera should be a bit faster, and a big advantage. I used to shoot military jets for several years, so i got pretty good at panning, and with some practice you should be able to get your shutter speed down a bit. P.S. i don't have any stabilizer lenses, so I have to be right on with movement.

Another important thing to consider, as some other users mentioned....is use and get comfortable with RAW shooting. I'm not sure if your camera performs as good shooting RAW compared to JPEGs, but RAW is awesome and with some practice you can get a lot of detail out of those dark looking images. Lynda.com has some good paid DVD tutorials and maybe a good class or two in your area for RAW/Photoshop would help?

I'm on the fence between putting more $$ into my Canon gear or switching to Nikons. I'm going to demo some higher end cameras soon, and make a decision. I need to decide before my next big purchase, because I really want to start making some money for agility and other animal photography.

The noise plug-ins are a great suggestion and the next topic on my list of things to test.

Agility is still inside here in the Midwest, but next month, starts some outdoor events...and really looking forward to seeing some crazy BC's and Aussies running on grass. Just a bit of clouds and perfect conditions for shooting. Keep us posted. Good luck.

Nick

donek

AustinThor wrote:

John,
For all of the pictures:
Nikon D300
80-200 f/2.8 AF-S lens
ISO 1600
1/320s
f/3.2
200mm

As you're shooting at the limits of your camera, you might as well get there. Push your ISO to 3200. If properly exposed, you'll get a better image and faster shutters. As for your WB issue, shoot raw and fix the WB in post. The real expert in shooting fast dogs is Greyhound Rick. Here's one of his posts: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=117840&highlight=greyhound
Try sending him a PM. You can also look for him over on nikcafe.