Freshman Girls Hoops

double_b

Shot some basketball for the first time as an assignment, only other time shooting basketball was for a friend. Not horrible lighting but the light flicker in colors made for more PP than normal.

Used D300 and 50 1.8 and 85 1.8. Was around 1600 to 2000 ISO for most. F2 and preset WB.

1.


2.


3.


4.


5.

Erbeman

Colors look pretty good.

double_b

Erbeman wrote:

Colors look pretty good.

How do you feel the action and compostions look?

I ask because you're the fourth person whose first comment was "The colors look good"....and I think I'm getting a complex. !! Seriously.

Is it kind of like "Is she pretty" and the response being "Well, she's nice". hahaha

I need to get more consistent, and I feel I am the more I shoot, but I want to know I'm on the right path.

A note...and question for anybody who has a tip..in shot #3 I can see now it's not quite level...but I am having a difficult time getting a good level when there is not a level line across the frame...and I can't seem to figure out how to use a vertical line for leveling in PSE 7.0. It only seems to want to use a horizontal reference. And when I try to eyeball it I can only seem to get it close without undoing and redoing 10 times!! haha

Thanks

Erbeman

I think they're a little soft. I don't know if it's from too slow of a shutter speed or because you were shooting at F/2, which would make the outer edges of the pic a bit out of focus. I do know that your hands are a little tied by shooting with the D300. I've never shot basketball, so unfortunately, I can't tell you what a good shutter speed would be, but I would guess about 1/500 if you could pull that off.

Maybe next time you go, you can try different settings throughout the game, then you can tell which would be your best setting afterwards when you are looking at them in post. Maybe try to go up to F/2.8, or try to bump the iso a bit more and then bump your shutter speed a bit.

When I first started shooting football with my D300, I was trying so hard to get the best color but my shutter wasn't fast enough and a friend of mine who is a local Pro, told me that you can always go back in afterwards and add color, you can't go back in and add crispness. So, lean more towards getting sharp pics over good color. Otherwise, you'll continue to get the same responces you've been getting "Color looks good" instead of "Great shots." Hope this helps.

BTW, if you're going to do much indoor or low lighting sports pics, you should do everything in your power to pick up a D700. I have both the 700 and 300. The 700 is an amazing camera especially in low light. The ISO capabilities are incredible. Here are a few pics that I've shot to show you just how good it is. BTW, I don't use or have any noise software like noise ninja.

These high school football pics are at ISO 4000, F/2.8 with the shutter speed listed above the pics.



1/800



1/800



1/500



This pic was shot at ISO 5000!!!! F/2.8, 1/60 Handheld!!


ISO 4000, F/2.8, 1/60 handheld

Dbl

Take a look at your first shot, see the green and red lights? You've done a really nice job of working with the light you had. Just make sure when you do your custom white balance shot you shoot at a shutter speed around 1/30s or even less. It doesn't have to be in focus but this helps somewhat with lights because you give them a chance to complete a cycle. I didn't pull a shot into CS4 but a levels adjustment with a white dropper might get you slightly better color balance but really these are pretty close.

Your compositions also look good, I'm not a huge fan of portrait when you get under the basket but that is for you to decide. A few might be better with slightly tighter crops but you know what you are cropping for, print sales, etc. If you are just posting these for C&C then I would crop tighter.

When straightening your shots and this isn't just basketball but most sports look for something vertical. Verticals don't lie, for the most part! In shot #1 you have the railings and windows to help, #3 curtains between gyms, pilars, railings you see what I mean?

Keep doing what you are doing, you have some strong work here!

double_b

Thanks. They were even softer before I applied a good dose of sharpening in ACR....most print sales are 4x6 and usually nothing bigger than 8x10 so I should be OK when they are printed..just don't want to pixel peep at 100%. .

I think it was a combination of having to drop to 1/400 to get between ISO 1600 and 2000....and the shallow DOF of f2.

One thing I considered trying was changing my focus point on the D300 to one that would be near the face of the player when in portrait orientation...sometimes I wonder if when the players fill a good bit of the frame their solid jerseys hinder the grabbing of the AF since there isn't much there other than a solid color(currently using 9 pt dynamic area)...whereas the face would provide more for the camera's AF to "see" and grab plus it would get in focu what I want...the face. Haven't tried it yet but I will be the next time out. I realize that brings up a whole other set of issues as to making sure I knwo what's in the area I have it set to.

I will definitely be getting the D700 at some point. Probably not anytime soon but within the year maybe.

johng

Some good stuff from Dan. I would add - to me, it's not an issue of softness as Russ had indicated so much as it is one of perhaps too much noise reduction. They look fairly sharp but lack texture. For example - shot #2 - the focus is right on. But look at the ball and her face - completely smooth. Granted girls that age aren't going to have a lot of texture to their skin but even at the knees/elbows its just too smooth.

double_b

Great info Dan and John....the SS for the custom WB especially...never considered what effect that would have. And I see what you mean John by the smoothness of the skin. Thanks.

Paul L

johng wrote:

They look fairly sharp but lack texture. For example - shot #2 - the focus is right on. But look at the ball and her face - completely smooth. Granted girls that age aren't going to have a lot of texture to their skin but even at the knees/elbows its just too smooth.

I know just what you mean, but I still laughed at this.... I'm wondering how many Freshman girls will be upset with their skin looking TOO smooth!

rainbow

Overall, an excellent set. You have a number of excellent well-timed shots.

What I notice: A few seem to have funny aspect ratios (not 3:2 or 5:4) -- did you use cropping with "custom or free" ratios?

Majority of shots should be portrait, not landscape.

To straighten with verticals only in PSE7, try lining up on a vertical, and THEN rotating the photo back after it straightens and rotates the photo.

L40

My 2-pence, fwiw:

I shoot quite a bit of bb, although only as a hobby.

For bb I think an ss of 1/500, or even 1/640, is needed to stop the action properly at a girls/womens game like the one in your pics (for men's bb you need even faster ss). You will still get a slight motion blur on hands/ball/feet in some shots at 1/500, but not noticeably so.

Personally I prefer shooting at higher ISO, often using 3200 and sometimes at 6400, and an ss of 1/500 or faster. It will require a pass through a de-noiser but I'd rather have a bit of high-ISO artifacts than having (too much) motion blur.

double_b

rainbow wrote:

Overall, an excellent set. You have a number of excellent well-timed shots.

What I notice: A few seem to have funny aspect ratios (not 3:2 or 5:4) -- did you use cropping with "custom or free" ratios?

Majority of shots should be portrait, not landscape.

To straighten with verticals only in PSE7, try lining up on a vertical, and THEN rotating the photo back after it straightens and rotates the photo.

I'll try the straightening on vertical tip. Thanks.

Shouldn't be any funny aspect ratios. I crop 90-95% of my stuff 4x6. If it's not 4.6 it will be 8x10.

Thanks

Dbl

L40 wrote:

My 2-pence, fwiw:

For bb I think an ss of 1/500, or even 1/640, is needed to stop the action properly at a girls/womens game like the one in your pics (for men's bb you need even faster ss). You will still get a slight motion blur on hands/ball/feet in some shots at 1/500, but not noticeably so.

Personally I prefer shooting at higher ISO, often using 3200 and sometimes at 6400, and an ss of 1/500 or faster. It will require a pass through a de-noiser but I'd rather have a bit of high-ISO artifacts than having (too much) motion blur.

I see this comment all the time, I can assure you in the last 10 years of mainly sports shooting I have well in excess of 75,000+ basketball shots from the lower ages to college that were shot at 1/320s. Most are very sharp even when blown up to 20x30 sizes. Until very recently ISO 3200 was the highest you could get with a camera. Many of the venues just don't have much light unless you start strobing. With newer cameras ability to get to higher ISO's relatively clean I am now shooting at 1/500s or 1/640s. Quite honestly there is not much difference in quality or keeper rate at these speeds.

Light is what it is, if you have to shoot at 1/320s you will get many, many usable, sharp shots.

Erbeman

Dbl wrote:

I see this comment all the time, I can assure you in the last 10 years of mainly sports shooting I have well in excess of 75,000+ basketball shots from the lower ages to college that were shot at 1/320s. Most are very sharp even when blown up to 20x30 sizes. Until very recently ISO 3200 was the highest you could get with a camera. Many of the venues just don't have much light unless you start strobing. With newer cameras ability to get to higher ISO's relatively clean I am now shooting at 1/500s or 1/640s. Quite honestly there is not much difference in quality or keeper rate at these speeds.

Light is what it is, if you have to shoot at 1/320s you will get many, many usable, sharp shots.

Do you have a gallery of your work? I'd like to see it?

L40

EDIT: Deleted.

double_b

L40 wrote:

EDIT: Deleted.

???

Dbl

Please don't take my above post wrong, I would shoot the highest shutter speed I could get, but as I said until recently that was not available with the given equipment to work with as an available light shooter. You work with what you are given, all of these shots are 1/320s or possibly 1/400s. Will these shutter speeds freeze the action, not entirely, but you will have more than usable shots!

I've been shooting a lot this year at speeds in the 1/500 to 1/640 range and I honestly am not seeing a huge difference in quality or keeper rate. Obviously your experience may be different.

Erbeman

Dbl wrote:

Please don't take my above post wrong, I would shoot the highest shutter speed I could get, but as I said until recently that was not available with the given equipment to work with as an available light shooter. You work with what you are given, all of these shots are 1/320s or possibly 1/400s. Will these shutter speeds freeze the action, not entirely, but you will have more than usable shots!

I've been shooting a lot this year at speeds in the 1/500 to 1/640 range and I honestly am not seeing a huge difference in quality or keeper rate. Obviously your experience may be different.

Color looks good.


Hahaha, just pulling your leg buddy. Those are pretty good. I still would have gone to a faster shutter speed to give up some color on these, but that's merely my personal opinion. That's the thing with photography, there's more than one way to do things and everyone doesn't agree on what looks best. Thanks for the post. What area of the US do you live in?

Dbl

Russ, believe me if I could have gone to a higher shutter speed I would have. That is my whole point, the equipment I was using was already doing the best it could do. You can get good shots at the lower shutter speeds. That is why I made the suggestion that you don't have to shoot at 1/640s to "stop the action".

Last year and this year I've been shooting higher shutter speeds because of newer camera bodies and as I mentioned earlier my keeper rate and the amount of blur has not been a whole lot different. Again YMMV. Oh and I am from Minnesnowta!

L40

Dbl wrote:

Russ, believe me if I could have gone to a higher shutter speed I would have. That is my whole point, the equipment I was using was already doing the best it could do. You can get good shots at the lower shutter speeds. That is why I made the suggestion that you don't have to shoot at 1/640s to "stop the action".

Last year and this year I've been shooting higher shutter speeds because of newer camera bodies and as I mentioned earlier my keeper rate and the amount of blur has not been a whole lot different. Again YMMV. Oh and I am from Minnesnowta!

Very true and I do agree. 1/320 will work quite decently if you cannot use a faster ss. It also depends on your personal preference. I can live with a little (little) blur but I'd rather take some high ISO impact, given that I have a camera, a D90 - I'm just a simple hobbyist, that works decently at high ISO.