Wet, Cold . . . blergh
Maybe I'm a candy-ass, but last night's Regional semi-final game became "not-fun" after a while. I'm posting these to show the results of shooting the D300 at ISO 6400 and running everything through LR3.2. The stadium lights were just plain weird. I'm certainly not bragging on the photos:bluduh.
One thing though: I now have a greater degree of comfort regarding the weather-sealing of the D300, D700, and Nikkors.
1.
2.
3.
One thing though: I now have a greater degree of comfort regarding the weather-sealing of the D300, D700, and Nikkors.
1.
2.
3.
John :
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
0
Comments
1) post slightly smaller image files
2) lots of uninteresting dead space in the frame
Why?
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
Less scrolling to see the full image. If someone is impressed enough with your photos and wants to see larger they can go to your website or ask. 800x600 or smaller is usally plenty large enough to provide feedback. It's free advice, you can choose to ignore it. It's just my personal experience that if I have to enlarge my browser to take over the whole screen and I'm still clipping the edges then the photo is too large for standard review/critique.
"Most time its not the gear that makes the shot"
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
http://imagesbyjirobau.blogspot.com/
Thanks. How would you feel about it if you looked again and realized it was shot at ISO 6400??
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
Your picture size in posting is right-on as far as I'm concerned. The " dead space " someone mentioned is quite often necessary to impart a real feel for the field of play.
Keep up the good work.
Tom
Tom, when you're talking about an empty HS stadium there's no real added context for showing "the field of play". Everyone knows field hockey, soccer, lax and football are played on a field. The times you need "context" are when it's near the net/goal/goal line. Otherwise it's just empty grass and in many cases for below-DI college - uninteresting stands.
Tight framing draws attention to the action and fills the frame with interesting player expressions. It also eliminates players who aren't really involved in the action and thus distract attention from the action:
Different sport - but the concept is the same. Having more empty grass and seeing background stands for HS doesn't really add much and distracts more. It's a bit different at major college or pro stadiums where the background can be more interesting.
Additionally - framing tighter in camera keeps more detail - especially if you decide to shoot available light vs. flash.
Tom
Certainly a tight frame is often what you want to go for. Always though . ? . ? Hell no. I didn't post these in the refinery as examples of my best work. I posted them here with the idea of saying "sometimes shooting sports is soggy."
All criticism is accepted with the idea that I ain't done learnin' till I'm either dead or terminally stoopid.
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
So, tell me John - let's take shot 1 - what is added by including the player on the left edge? What does she add to the story of the play? Or is it the empty stands that add to the story? Or shot 3 - the player on the right isn't in focus, lots of grass at the bottom of the frame, empty stands at the top of the frame. Walk me through what those aspects do to help the story? I agree there's a time to be wide -when there is something about what you're including that helps the story. Just not seeing how being so wide on these shots helped at all. And, in fact it hurt quite a bit - and to the point of what you say is your purpose - the high iso ability of your kit - theres almost no detail. Part of that is over agressive noise reduction but part of it is not being close enough to have a lot of pixels on the faces/bodies. So when you do use so much noise reduction you end up with faces that look like barbie dolls. That's why it's even more important to shoot tight at high ISOs. So you can perform noise reduction and still keep detail.
I'm sorry you obviously weren't looking for, or apparently willing to accept criticism of your photos. But if you're going to post in a public sports forum, you have to be ready for other sports shooters to offer critique.
So the top is full of soggy-ness, coming down from above. Without that upper portion the rain is not brought to attention, it just would be dots on the photo.
I think that the photo is whimsical in that way. I'm not a sports photographer. I see a photo that is chilly, wet, and maybe the empty stadium seats say something about the players, playing in the rain, with no audience; rather noble I think.
--Trav--
Nowhere in my remarks was there an expression of a negative connotation toward your pictures. I posted a response that was complimentary to your posting. There are others who, obviously, have different feelings about some issues. The fact that others took the time to express their position is, to me, a very positive thing.....interaction among forum members is one way we all learn.
Tom
Johng. Are you actually reading what I post? I think I said pretty clearly that I was not holding these up as particularly good photos. I have some pretty good ones from that evening. I have no interest in posting them here at this point, nor am I interested in analyzing the images I did post. Dissect all you want. I'm not defending a position I did take to begin with.
I also think I was reasonably clear in saying words to the effect that I take any constructive criticism as an opportunity to learn. There are a few people on DGrin whose posts I no longer waste my time reading. You have not yet joined that small club. I had looked through your galleries long before this thread started. You are good at what you do. I will say that IMO you do have a pretty consistent "style" and that is very tight framing. I'm glad you like your style. Sometimes I do too. In general I tend to like shots that have more context, but I also like what you seem to prefer almost exclusively.
The longest reasonably fast glass I have is a 200mm f2.8. Under the weak lights I had for the last couple games, I had to shoot at ISO6400. To me it's a marvel of technology that I have any images to work with at all. I'm not trying to hold these images up as outstanding examples of photographic excellence. You'll get no argument from me about the advantages of longer fast glass so you can get those tight shots from across the field. I just don't have it.
Moderator: Is it possible to "unsubscribe" from one's own thread?
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
No doubt - I wish I could afford a 400mm 2.8. Sadly not the case
The suggestion for posting pictures is usually 800px on the longest edge (Horizontal or Vertical). It makes it easier to view for most users.
Go up to the thread tools drop down menu and pick "unsubscribe".
I don't know why you'd do that though. There's some great advice here
Well, I could probably afford the lens, just not the divorce.
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
First, nice shooting in horrible conditions.
Second, regarding the cropping, I know the book answer is that sports shots should be "tight." Otherwise, they shots can begin to look like point and shot snapshots done from what appears to be a mile a way (That dot on the left is my daughter, etc....) However, my opinion is that any rule applied without exception also has it's drawbacks. Tight cropping done too often can get claustrophobic (spelling?) and leave out a lot of information, feeling, etc, except for the facial expression.
In this particular instance, the miserable conditions, the rain and dark, are the important points in this post, and I think you have to have a bit of empty grayness and the rain drops to convey that feeling.
I also think the 2nd shot succeeds because it is not cropped tight. The book answer would probably be to fill the frame with #12 in red. However, that wouldn't show how much she has beaten the two defenders in white who are trying to get back and how close she is to the goal, which is shown by the goalie being in the frame. Actually, I think this one would have been just a touch better if you been even wides and had also been able to get a piece of the goal in the frame on the right edge.
So, my feeling is that used conciously, a wide shot is equally effective to the tight one. Here is my example. Admittedly, not the greatest capture ever. The light, whitebalance and background all leave much to be desired. However, I liked the set up of one girl about to run the gaunlet of four defenders and conciously kept wide (I was at 100 mm on a 50-500 mm zoom lense -- I could have gotten much tighter!).
I'm glad to see the variations in shooting styles as I try and figure out where my own style is going to lead...
Will
________________________
www.willspix.smugmug.com
I like the shot you posted. To me it says something about that particular game situation. I look at the shot and imagine that #17 has left her mark to attack the ball, and if the girl with the ball gets off a good pass White's in trouble.
The shots I posted here were chosen mainly because they showed the stinky conditions I was shooting in.
What's funny is that of all the hundreds of shots I took of this particular team this season, the shot that the girls, coaches, and parents went ga-ga over was really crappy. I had actually retreated under cover from the downpour, and was shooting from a distance when they broke through the defense in 6 v 6 OT and scored the goal that sent them to the State Tournament. Here it is.
Shooting through netting sux, but it just goes to show that it never hurts to push the buttom.
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
#3 I think the noise reduction is a bit strong.