I can't quite figure out in the first photo why the defender is so blurry. Did you do something to the image in post processing to blur him? Shutter speed shows 1/400 - won't freeze everything, but no part of him is sharp, while the ball carrier which is in the same focal plane is sharper. It just doesn't look natural.
On the second shot - the concept is nice, but the background is hugely distracting. Seeing the exif says 190mm I'm guessing the image is cropped quite a bit. - especially with a full frame sensor. That's part of the problem with cropping vs. appropriate focal length. If you get another opportunity to shoot, you might want to consider renting a 300mm or 400mm 2.8
John -
Thanks for the inquiry. I'll answer in 2 parts:
On the first photo - Nope, didn't do anything to make it less crisp. I was actually not thrilled with the issue you point out, but was glad to be in the right spot to catch it at all. it was a burst of pics and the one with just the ballcarrier may be more to your liking. The defender totally missed him and slid right out of the frame. (see below)
On the other pic: point taken. I think the part I should have added is that I'm a hobbyist not a pro or paid photog, so the odds of me buying an $9k 400mm lens any time soon are pretty low. In fact, focal length was a concern of mine before I shot the Oregon game and I got some good input from other Grinners b/c I was considering a teleconverter. With a 70-200mm lens, I get the best shots from the endzone when they're close OR from the sidelines when the play is coming at me. Otherwise, it's all zoom and crop.
I feel like football is a different animal than what I shoot a lot of (dance battles, concerts, street, etc...) Since this was only my 2nd football game, I'm happy with the results but clearly see that there is a TON for me to learn. I got better with more NBA games (I've done 5-6 of them), but still not where I want to be on those either. At least with this I have better access. The NBA games, I am shooting from my (sometimes good) seats... (examples below)
Help me out here: My goal was to shoot manual with a shutter of at least 1/400 to reduce the blur. Then I actually tried to back off of f2.8 as much as I could to INCREASE the DOF. As a football newbie, i was having trouble tracking the action and felt that a deeper DOF would give me a little more "room for error" on my focusing. I usually have 51pts on and manually select the one i want (d700). On some, it sounds like you'd suggest i shoot closer to 2.8 and deal with the consequences of my focusing mistakes.
It appears that the 1st image was taken in low light & 1/400th simply won't cut it (if it was low light). Giving yourself some room for error is good thinking but it's also good advice to allow the camera & lens to work fluently together. With sports, the goal is to focus as much on the helmet/face area as possible. However, this is very difficult to accomplish 100% of the time. In my experience at f2.8, I'm able to capture tack sharp image even when the focus is on the chest area of the player. I will only shoot in manual when my camera meters anything below 1/1250th as I typically shoot in Aperture Priority. Even on bright days, I'll use an ISO of 320 or better in an effort to achieve faster shutter speeds. Are you using center point AF?
Travis M. Chance
twin Mark IV's & a bunch of "L" glass site ∙ facebook
I usually try to shoot manual in settings where the lighting isn't going to change much. The game was in an indoor, domed stadium and nationally televised, so it was very good. What drives me crazy is when my camera re-meters because of someones flash or if I shoot with a light in the background while panning with the action. If you can get sharpness at 2.8, then I'll give it a shot. At the very least, it'll let me cut the ISO down a bunch (I was around 800 or 1000, which is just "OK" on a d700 IMHO) or increase the shutter speed a little more.
I always feel like manual is the way to shoot if the lighting and your discipline allow it. I also shoot RAW, which gives me a little more post-processing flexibility.
So Travis, when you're at f2.8, what shutter speed do you try to capture at? 1/1250? I was nowhere near that, which sounds llike part of the problem.
The other part is getting better at tracking the "faces" in action... but that will take more practice...
I usually try to shoot manual in settings where the lighting isn't going to change much. The game was in an indoor, domed stadium and nationally televised, so it was very good. What drives me crazy is when my camera re-meters because of someones flash or if I shoot with a light in the background while panning with the action. If you can get sharpness at 2.8, then I'll give it a shot. At the very least, it'll let me cut the ISO down a bunch (I was around 800 or 1000, which is just "OK" on a d700 IMHO) or increase the shutter speed a little more.
I always feel like manual is the way to shoot if the lighting and your discipline allow it. I also shoot RAW, which gives me a little more post-processing flexibility.
So Travis, when you're at f2.8, what shutter speed do you try to capture at? 1/1250? I was nowhere near that, which sounds llike part of the problem.
The other part is getting better at tracking the "faces" in action... but that will take more practice...
I'm with you. I also shoot 100% raw. You can definitely shoot at 2.8 & achieve sharpness only if you have a fast enough shutter speed. For me, the minimum is 1/1250 but I'll bump up the ISO (even on daytime games) to get me to 1/4000 or even 1/8000. Another suggestion would be to use the backfocus button in lieu of the shutter release. I found that I had more keepers using this method.
Travis M. Chance
twin Mark IV's & a bunch of "L" glass site ∙ facebook
The "backfocus" button. Say more. I'm shooting on NIkons and haven't hear of a button with that "name'. I do very rarely use the AF-ON button on the back of the camera, if that's what you mean.
I usually try to shoot manual in settings where the lighting isn't going to change much. The game was in an indoor, domed stadium and nationally televised, so it was very good. What drives me crazy is when my camera re-meters because of someones flash or if I shoot with a light in the background while panning with the action. If you can get sharpness at 2.8, then I'll give it a shot. At the very least, it'll let me cut the ISO down a bunch (I was around 800 or 1000, which is just "OK" on a d700 IMHO) or increase the shutter speed a little more.
I always feel like manual is the way to shoot if the lighting and your discipline allow it. I also shoot RAW, which gives me a little more post-processing flexibility.
So Travis, when you're at f2.8, what shutter speed do you try to capture at? 1/1250? I was nowhere near that, which sounds llike part of the problem.
The other part is getting better at tracking the "faces" in action... but that will take more practice...
You should have no problem with shooting at ISO 3200 on the D700. Bump it up and get your SS to 1/1250 min. Set up the lens wide open f2.8
The "backfocus" button. Say more. I'm shooting on NIkons and haven't hear of a button with that "name'. I do very rarely use the AF-ON button on the back of the camera, if that's what you mean.
Yes. While I'm not that familiar with a Nikon body, this is what I found when I did a Google search of "Nikon back focus button"
Travis M. Chance
twin Mark IV's & a bunch of "L" glass site ∙ facebook
I usually try to shoot manual in settings where the lighting isn't going to change much. The game was in an indoor, domed stadium and nationally televised, so it was very good. What drives me crazy is when my camera re-meters because of someones flash or if I shoot with a light in the background while panning with the action. If you can get sharpness at 2.8, then I'll give it a shot. At the very least, it'll let me cut the ISO down a bunch (I was around 800 or 1000, which is just "OK" on a d700 IMHO) or increase the shutter speed a little more.
1/400 is definitely too slow. Not sure how far you can push your ISO (I'm a Canon shooter) but it's almost always best to push it as far as you can to get the SS you need. Usually for pro sports events like this I'll keep it at 1/1000 or higher.
Regarding manual v Av mode, I find that shooting manual is best under stadium lights, as there are just too many sources of contrasts to let the camera choose the exposure. And anyway, the light is fairly uniform (with some notable exceptions).
I thought you did a great job on the shoot, but I would have been happier if Stanford had won.
Amen - The final score of the game was by far the worst part. My D700 can go much higher on ISO and still do OK. Next time, I'll try to go higher so I can get the shutter speed up.
I don't know if the OP does this, but always try to keep both eyes open. It aids in tracking the action far better: apologies if this is an obvious, but I find a lot of folks, including big-end press guys, don't ... personally, I think it's a mission-critical skill.
Newspaper photogs specialize in drive-by shootings.
Forum for Canadian shooters: www.canphoto.net
I don't know if the OP does this, but always try to keep both eyes open. It aids in tracking the action far better: apologies if this is an obvious, but I find a lot of folks, including big-end press guys, don't ... personally, I think it's a mission-critical skill.
Never hurts to be reminded of this...it's a skill that takes some practice, but very important.
It's an interesting point. In my case, however, I'm left-eye dominant. And since 90% of my shots are made in portrait orientation for sports, it's impossible to see with my right eye as it's blocked by the camera.
It's an interesting point. In my case, however, I'm left-eye dominant. And since 90% of my shots are made in portrait orientation for sports, it's impossible to see with my right eye as it's blocked by the camera.
Rotate camera clockwise? Not trying to be facetious ...
Newspaper photogs specialize in drive-by shootings.
Forum for Canadian shooters: www.canphoto.net
Rotate camera clockwise? Not trying to be facetious ...
If he has a vertical grip with its own shutter this is hard. It is designed to be rotated counterclockwise. Hmmm...maybe there is a market for vertical grips designed for left-eyed shooters??
I am right eye dominant but routinely switch eyes depending on where the action is. I know it is uncomfortable looking out of your non-dominant eye, but it can be done with a bit of practice (unless you can't see out of that eye, which sometimes is the case).
we all adapt. As mentioned, rotating the camera counter clockwise doesn't work well. I've managed through the issue and never found the need to try and train my right eye.
we all adapt. As mentioned, rotating the camera counter clockwise doesn't work well. I've managed through the issue and never found the need to try and train my right eye.
What's interesting to me is how methods differ significantly from one shooter to another, yet the results are all good (assuming the shooter is good to begin with). Whatever works...
Comments
http://www.wlpearce.com
On the second shot - the concept is nice, but the background is hugely distracting. Seeing the exif says 190mm I'm guessing the image is cropped quite a bit. - especially with a full frame sensor. That's part of the problem with cropping vs. appropriate focal length. If you get another opportunity to shoot, you might want to consider renting a 300mm or 400mm 2.8
Thanks for the inquiry. I'll answer in 2 parts:
On the first photo - Nope, didn't do anything to make it less crisp. I was actually not thrilled with the issue you point out, but was glad to be in the right spot to catch it at all. it was a burst of pics and the one with just the ballcarrier may be more to your liking. The defender totally missed him and slid right out of the frame. (see below)
On the other pic: point taken. I think the part I should have added is that I'm a hobbyist not a pro or paid photog, so the odds of me buying an $9k 400mm lens any time soon are pretty low. In fact, focal length was a concern of mine before I shot the Oregon game and I got some good input from other Grinners b/c I was considering a teleconverter. With a 70-200mm lens, I get the best shots from the endzone when they're close OR from the sidelines when the play is coming at me. Otherwise, it's all zoom and crop.
I feel like football is a different animal than what I shoot a lot of (dance battles, concerts, street, etc...) Since this was only my 2nd football game, I'm happy with the results but clearly see that there is a TON for me to learn. I got better with more NBA games (I've done 5-6 of them), but still not where I want to be on those either. At least with this I have better access. The NBA games, I am shooting from my (sometimes good) seats... (examples below)
Help me out here: My goal was to shoot manual with a shutter of at least 1/400 to reduce the blur. Then I actually tried to back off of f2.8 as much as I could to INCREASE the DOF. As a football newbie, i was having trouble tracking the action and felt that a deeper DOF would give me a little more "room for error" on my focusing. I usually have 51pts on and manually select the one i want (d700). On some, it sounds like you'd suggest i shoot closer to 2.8 and deal with the consequences of my focusing mistakes.
Again, appreciate the dialogue here.
twin Mark IV's & a bunch of "L" glass
site ∙ facebook
I always feel like manual is the way to shoot if the lighting and your discipline allow it. I also shoot RAW, which gives me a little more post-processing flexibility.
So Travis, when you're at f2.8, what shutter speed do you try to capture at? 1/1250? I was nowhere near that, which sounds llike part of the problem.
The other part is getting better at tracking the "faces" in action... but that will take more practice...
I'm with you. I also shoot 100% raw. You can definitely shoot at 2.8 & achieve sharpness only if you have a fast enough shutter speed. For me, the minimum is 1/1250 but I'll bump up the ISO (even on daytime games) to get me to 1/4000 or even 1/8000. Another suggestion would be to use the backfocus button in lieu of the shutter release. I found that I had more keepers using this method.
twin Mark IV's & a bunch of "L" glass
site ∙ facebook
You should have no problem with shooting at ISO 3200 on the D700. Bump it up and get your SS to 1/1250 min. Set up the lens wide open f2.8
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
Yes. While I'm not that familiar with a Nikon body, this is what I found when I did a Google search of "Nikon back focus button"
twin Mark IV's & a bunch of "L" glass
site ∙ facebook
1/400 is definitely too slow. Not sure how far you can push your ISO (I'm a Canon shooter) but it's almost always best to push it as far as you can to get the SS you need. Usually for pro sports events like this I'll keep it at 1/1000 or higher.
Regarding manual v Av mode, I find that shooting manual is best under stadium lights, as there are just too many sources of contrasts to let the camera choose the exposure. And anyway, the light is fairly uniform (with some notable exceptions).
I thought you did a great job on the shoot, but I would have been happier if Stanford had won.
Thanks again!
Forum for Canadian shooters: www.canphoto.net
Never hurts to be reminded of this...it's a skill that takes some practice, but very important.
Rotate camera clockwise? Not trying to be facetious ...
Forum for Canadian shooters: www.canphoto.net
If he has a vertical grip with its own shutter this is hard. It is designed to be rotated counterclockwise. Hmmm...maybe there is a market for vertical grips designed for left-eyed shooters??
I am right eye dominant but routinely switch eyes depending on where the action is. I know it is uncomfortable looking out of your non-dominant eye, but it can be done with a bit of practice (unless you can't see out of that eye, which sometimes is the case).
What's interesting to me is how methods differ significantly from one shooter to another, yet the results are all good (assuming the shooter is good to begin with). Whatever works...