Options

Some gentle feedback please

r9jacksonr9jackson Registered Users Posts: 129 Major grins
edited April 15, 2011 in Sports
I have started to shoot more sports this year and would like a little feedback on some of my shots. I have never posted a picture to dgrin so I hope I do it right. I'm still learning each and every day. I need to learn how to upload more than one photo. I will read the FAQ's.


This was a shot in a game between the Air Force Academy and University of Kansas in the Coca Cola Classic in Surprise, Arizona. Shot with a Canon 7D sporting a Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L II USM. 1/2000 sec f/2.8, ISO 100 at 200mm.

I call it Twister

RjImages-4746.jpg
Randy

SmugMug: www.randyjacksonimages.com
Email: randyjacksonimages@cox.net
Photography Blog: http://randyonphotography.com

Comments

  • Options
    MJRPHOTOMJRPHOTO Registered Users Posts: 432 Major grins
    edited April 12, 2011
    Looks soft on the focus to me.
    www.mjrphoto.net
    Nikon D4, Nikon D3, Nikon D3
    Nikon 14-24 f2.8, Nikon 24-70 f2.8, Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR II, Nikon 50 f1.8, Nikon 85 f1.4
    Nikon 300 f2.8 VR, Nikon 200-400 f4.0 VR II, Nikon 600 f4.0 II, TC-1.4, TC 1.7, TC 2.0
    (1) SB-800, (2) SB-900, (4) Multi Max Pocket Wizards
  • Options
    donekdonek Registered Users Posts: 655 Major grins
    edited April 12, 2011
    soft focus, nice color, no faces.
    Sean Martin
    www.seanmartinphoto.com

    __________________________________________________
    it's not the size of the lens that matters... It's how you focus it.

    aaaaa.... who am I kidding!

    whoever dies with the biggest coolest piece of glass, wins!
  • Options
    IcebearIcebear Registered Users Posts: 4,015 Major grins
    edited April 12, 2011
    Whatever . . . runner's safe.
    John :
    Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
    D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
  • Options
    MDalbyMDalby Registered Users Posts: 697 Major grins
    edited April 12, 2011
    Twister anyone?
    Nikon D4, 400 2.8 AF-I, 70-200mm 2.8 VR II, 24-70 2.8
    CBS Sports MaxPreps Shooter
    http://DalbyPhoto.com
  • Options
    r9jacksonr9jackson Registered Users Posts: 129 Major grins
    edited April 12, 2011
    Thank for the tips
    Yes, he was safe.

    Here is another one I shot at one of the spring training games. Got the face this time. Texas Ranger's Josh Hamilton scores. Canon 7D with an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II USM at 1/2000 at f/4.0, ISO at 200 at 200mm.


    RjImages-7895.jpg
    Randy

    SmugMug: www.randyjacksonimages.com
    Email: randyjacksonimages@cox.net
    Photography Blog: http://randyonphotography.com
  • Options
    nipprdognipprdog Registered Users Posts: 660 Major grins
    edited April 12, 2011
    r9jackson wrote: »
    Got the face this time.

    But the focus is still soft.....
    Jim

    http://www.knippixels.com
  • Options
    jheftijhefti Registered Users Posts: 734 Major grins
    edited April 12, 2011
    The soft focus looks to me like the effect of cropping too much, or some other PP issue. Could that be the case? Otherwise a really nice pic!
    http://johnhefti.com/
  • Options
    IcebearIcebear Registered Users Posts: 4,015 Major grins
    edited April 13, 2011
    Yes. I would expect crispness from that lens at 1/2000 & f/4.
    John :
    Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
    D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
  • Options
    KikopriceKikoprice Registered Users Posts: 153 Major grins
    edited April 13, 2011
    Hey Randy, why dont you post the shot uncropped and right out of the camera?
    Frank
    Frank

    http://www.youatplay.com
  • Options
    johngjohng Registered Users Posts: 1,658 Major grins
    edited April 13, 2011
    the issue in both photos is the same - the softness is a result of over-cropping. 200mm is too short for the shots taken. 200mm is too short for baseball even if you're shooting from on the field. If you're in the stands, forget it. If you want to shoot from the stands, the 100-400 is a nice fan lens for that type of thing. But plays at 2nd base will still be so-so because of the distance involved.
  • Options
    insanefredinsanefred Registered Users Posts: 604 Major grins
    edited April 13, 2011
    johng wrote: »
    the issue in both photos is the same - the softness is a result of over-cropping. 200mm is too short for the shots taken. 200mm is too short for baseball even if you're shooting from on the field. If you're in the stands, forget it. If you want to shoot from the stands, the 100-400 is a nice fan lens for that type of thing. But plays at 2nd base will still be so-so because of the distance involved.


    YOU MEAN THAT THE GREAT "CROP FACTOR" OF THE APS-C SENSOR AND THE UBER HIGH RESOLUTION OF 17 MEGA PIXELS WON'T MAKE UP FOR USING THE WRONG LENS?!!?!?

    :beatwax:poke:moon

  • Options
    BlueHoseJacketBlueHoseJacket Registered Users Posts: 509 Major grins
    edited April 14, 2011
    No pictures of Hamilton breaking his arm???
  • Options
    metmet Registered Users Posts: 405 Major grins
    edited April 14, 2011
    Try imbedding rather than attaching the images. That might make a significant difference in the compression of how they appear.
    My website
  • Options
    r9jacksonr9jackson Registered Users Posts: 129 Major grins
    edited April 15, 2011
    Cropped
    jhefti wrote: »
    The soft focus looks to me like the effect of cropping too much, or some other PP issue. Could that be the case? Otherwise a really nice pic!

    Yes, it was cropped. I am re-working the photo now to try to get it sharper. Thanks
    Randy

    SmugMug: www.randyjacksonimages.com
    Email: randyjacksonimages@cox.net
    Photography Blog: http://randyonphotography.com
  • Options
    johngjohng Registered Users Posts: 1,658 Major grins
    edited April 15, 2011
    r9jackson wrote: »
    Yes, it was cropped. I am re-working the photo now to try to get it sharper. Thanks

    The problem with over cropping isn't just sharp edges it's detail too. That's what adds to the perception of 'softness'. More MP helps us crop but you still can't crop as much as you might think - especially when the subject was far away. The fine detail isn't there. It's very similar to using too much noise reduction. When a subject fills the final image frame as it does in your shots, our brains expect to see detail in muscle, hair, etc. That expectation is re-inforced by viewing photos that were captured with the subject filling the frame in-camera. So those types of images have the detail.

    So, for these images, I think the best approach is less of a crop. You've got the right idea for final framing but you need a longer lens to achieve that, not cropping. For now, I think the images will be better with looser framing so the lack of detail isn't as noticable.
  • Options
    r9jacksonr9jackson Registered Users Posts: 129 Major grins
    edited April 15, 2011
    Thanks, this is helpful
    johng wrote: »
    The problem with over cropping isn't just sharp edges it's detail too. That's what adds to the perception of 'softness'. More MP helps us crop but you still can't crop as much as you might think - especially when the subject was far away. The fine detail isn't there. It's very similar to using too much noise reduction. When a subject fills the final image frame as it does in your shots, our brains expect to see detail in muscle, hair, etc. That expectation is re-inforced by viewing photos that were captured with the subject filling the frame in-camera. So those types of images have the detail.

    So, for these images, I think the best approach is less of a crop. You've got the right idea for final framing but you need a longer lens to achieve that, not cropping. For now, I think the images will be better with looser framing so the lack of detail isn't as noticable.

    This is very helpful. I see what you mean about the deficiency in the lens. Maybe next year I will try to shoot with a 400 or more. I have a lot to learn.
    Randy

    SmugMug: www.randyjacksonimages.com
    Email: randyjacksonimages@cox.net
    Photography Blog: http://randyonphotography.com
  • Options
    IcebearIcebear Registered Users Posts: 4,015 Major grins
    edited April 15, 2011
    r9jackson wrote: »
    Maybe next year I will try to shoot with a 400 or more. I have a lot to learn.
    It's not too early to start weight training.
    John :
    Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
    D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
  • Options
    johngjohng Registered Users Posts: 1,658 Major grins
    edited April 15, 2011
    r9jackson wrote: »
    This is very helpful. I see what you mean about the deficiency in the lens. Maybe next year I will try to shoot with a 400 or more. I have a lot to learn.
    The lens is fantastic, it's just deficient for the job you wanted it to perform. The toughest thing new sports shooters have to get used to is working within their equipment.
    For example, here's a play at 2nd base taken with a sigma 120-300 2.8. That lens is NOT as sharp as your 70-200. But, I was on the field, distance on softball is less, but the end photo looks sharper/more detailed because I was within the capabilities of the lens:
    276853630_vK779-L.jpg
  • Options
    johngjohng Registered Users Posts: 1,658 Major grins
    edited April 15, 2011
    keep in mind though - trying to improve as a sports shooter shooting major league games from the stands isn't a great way to go. Even with great seats, a 400mm lens will only get you so far. That and MP can get you good crops of a pitcher:
    183277000_9nmia-L.jpg

    But the distance to say second base is still too great. What MP will allow you to do is get a crop like the above from framing like this:
    183276393_9suPA-L.jpg

    MP does NOT make up for distance in my experience. So, even though I had the 100-400 at this game (in canon that's a great fan lens from the stands) I still wasn't going to get great shots of plays at second base. Just too far away. Even shots of Jeter at short have the same problem of lack of detail when cropped as your shots do - not to the degree of your shots. But they're already below a quality I would care for and that's a heck of a lot closer than a play at second from my seat:
    183308393_JMrto-L.jpg

    If you want to improve as a sports shooter - shoot youth sports where you can get closer. You can really learn HOW to shoot doing that.
  • Options
    IcebearIcebear Registered Users Posts: 4,015 Major grins
    edited April 15, 2011
    johng wrote: »
    If you want to improve as a sports shooter - shoot youth sports where you can get closer. You can really learn HOW to shoot doing that.

    15524779-Ti.gif
    John :
    Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
    D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
  • Options
    KikopriceKikoprice Registered Users Posts: 153 Major grins
    edited April 15, 2011
    Thats great advice, as always.
    Frank

    http://www.youatplay.com
Sign In or Register to comment.