Indoor soccer & shooting RAW

Ann McRae

Well, the season is young so I am still experimenting with technique and workflow. Discovered late in yesterdays game that I was not in AI Servo - had way too many OOF shots. However, last night I shot RAW. I took about 90 shots. I processed one in RAWShooter Essentials, sved the settings and ran a batch conversion. Took the computer less than a minute per shot to do this. I then tweaked them (curves, cropping, USM) in PSPX. They may be oversharpened - sharpening via RAW conversion and then USM. However, I am sooooo pleased with the whites!
Here is the meager offering from last night:
http://canadian-ann.smugmug.com/gallery/936475

and from the first game where I shot jpeg, took 150 shots, went through the process of adjusting histogram, curves, saturation and brightness on each shot, then cropped and usm. Necessary to do each shot as, despite custom WB, still had lots of variety in the whites.
http://canadian-ann.smugmug.com/gallery/932649

Thoughts?
Thanks
ann

Chase

Those look really, really noisy in that first gallery, even for iso 1600...... perhaps it would be better to get the exposure dead on in-camera?

Ann McRae

Chase wrote:

Those look really, really noisy in that first gallery, even for iso 1600...... perhaps it would be better to get the exposure dead on in-camera?

Would that it were. There is no way to shoot in these buildings, be properly exposed and have a high enough shutter speed -I do think that the graininess could be being exasperated by the sharpening this go 'round - I mentioned that.

But the color - really if you could see what I have had previously, well you'd understand....

ann

ian408

The first batch look at tad OE. But the whites are white--the WB is
definetly better. The pizza shot demonstrates that. The second batch
seems to have a bit of a blue color cast which is apparent in the skin
tone.

May I suggest no sharpening in RAW but instead just USM?

One thing that would help with exposure is to shoot manually. If you can,
have someone hold a gray card, meter off of that and set the exposure.
Alternatively, you could try metering off the turf but I suspect that would
only get you part way. Looking at your shots, I'd say the place was more
evenly lit than not? Meaning you might have to make little adjustments here
and there but otherwise, I think manual would be a much better option for
you.

Also, I forget. How are you doing WB? Have you tried the coffee filter or
expo disk?

I know what you mean about the dunge...I mean indoor fields. The
one here in town is lit so poorly as to make even the oldest hockey rink
up the road look professionally lit

Looking forward to more soccer pix!


Ian

Ann McRae

The first batch look at tad OE. But the whites are white--the WB is
definetly better. The pizza shot demonstrates that. The second batch
seems to have a bit of a blue color cast which is apparent in the skin
tone.

Hi Ian - well if over exposure is the problem I can fix that as I adjusted the ec by 1.5 in the RAW conversion.

May I suggest no sharpening in RAW but instead just USM?

Good suggestion and I will certainly try that.

One thing that would help with exposure is to shoot manually. If you can,
have someone hold a gray card, meter off of that and set the exposure.
Alternatively, you could try metering off the turf but I suspect that would
only get you part way. Looking at your shots, I'd say the place was more
evenly lit than not? Meaning you might have to make little adjustments here
and there but otherwise, I think manual would be a much better option for
you.

Manual focus or manual camera settings? I use auto focus but manually set the shutter to 1/1000 or 1/800 or 1/640 depending on the field. For the second set (the ones shot on Hallowe'en) I used a grey card, held by someone lese, to set white balance. As for even lighting, the real probelm is the cycling of the metal halide lights - a series of shots can go from blue to orange cast when white balance isn't done manually.

Also, I forget. How are you doing WB? Have you tried the coffee filter or
expo disk?

I know what you mean about the dunge...I mean indoor fields. The
one here in town is lit so poorly as to make even the oldest hockey rink
up the road look professionally lit


Yep. Its like the green surface sucks up all the light - a black hole
Looking forward to more soccer pix!

I am too now. I wasn't sure if I'd still do them - not a lot of 'sales' and alot of PP. But this system seems to just need tweaking and time per pic is much less.


ann

mercphoto

Ann McRae wrote:

Manual focus or manual camera settings?

I believe he was referring to manual camera setting but keeping auto-focus on. However, I don't think that will work for you given:

I use auto focus but manually set the shutter to 1/1000 or 1/800 or 1/640 depending on the field. For the second set (the ones shot on Hallowe'en) I used a grey card, held by someone lese, to set white balance. As for even lighting, the real probelm is the cycling of the metal halide lights - a series of shots can go from blue to orange cast when white balance isn't done manually.

With shutter speeds that high and cycling lights you can't reliably go manual exposure control. You can't even go with a custom white-balance either, and AWB is likely to be fooled.

I am too now. I wasn't sure if I'd still do them - not a lot of 'sales' and alot of PP. But this system seems to just need tweaking and time per pic is much less.

It is likely that a bulk of your PP time is due to the cycling lights. I only know of two ways to deal with that: shutter speed of 1/125 second, or faster shutters but use strobes. The former might let in too much motion blur. The latter lets out too much cash from your wallet.

ian408

Yes. I meant manual exposure settings.

Cycling lights are a PITA to deal with. Over time though, they should
at least even out. I'm not sure what to suggest but one thing, I might
do is close down the lens a bit. Maybe try a full stop. You'll sacrifice
shutter speed but for the 85, that might not be too bad.

Ian

mercphoto

ian408 wrote:

Cycling lights are a PITA to deal with. Over time though, they should at least even out.

What do you mean they should even out over time?

ian408

mercphoto wrote:

What do you mean they should even out over time?

Once the lights warm up, things should be better. Not that the lights
won't cycle, they will.

Ann McRae

ian408 wrote:

Yes. I meant manual exposure settings.

Cycling lights are a PITA to deal with. Over time though, they should
at least even out. I'm not sure what to suggest but one thing, I might
do is close down the lens a bit. Maybe try a full stop. You'll sacrifice
shutter speed but for the 85, that might not be too bad.

Ian

Hi Ian

Could you explain further what this is to achieve - I am unsure if you are suggesting smaller apeture (large f number) and slower shutter, and if so what this will accomplish wrt the final result?

I appreciate the help and feedback.

ann

Steve Cavigliano

Ann McRae wrote:

Well, the season is young so I am still experimenting with technique and workflow. Discovered late in yesterdays game that I was not in AI Servo - had way too many OOF shots. However, last night I shot RAW. I took about 90 shots. I processed one in RAWShooter Essentials, sved the settings and ran a batch conversion. Took the computer less than a minute per shot to do this. I then tweaked them (curves, cropping, USM) in PSPX. They may be oversharpened - sharpening via RAW conversion and then USM. However, I am sooooo pleased with the whites!
Here is the meager offering from last night:
http://canadian-ann.smugmug.com/gallery/936475

and from the first game where I shot jpeg, took 150 shots, went through the process of adjusting histogram, curves, saturation and brightness on each shot, then cropped and usm. Necessary to do each shot as, despite custom WB, still had lots of variety in the whites.
http://canadian-ann.smugmug.com/gallery/932649

Thoughts?
Thanks
ann

Ann,
I see you have some of the same issues as I do. One of the biggest things I've found is to use Rutt's Lab Color sharpening on the full sized converted RAW image. Setting a high threshold seems to not bring out that high ISO noise anywhere near as much as traditional USM.

The first gallery looked overly bright to me. I believe this also contributed to the graininess. I like the look of the second galleries pics much better. Yes there is some lost shadow detail in the uniforms, but the color, saturation, contrast and skintones look more pleasing to me. Another trick I've started using is a mask with Katrin Eismanns "Fill Flash" action. This will brighten the shadows in the pic. I just use it on the players and erase it in the background (so it doesn't show even more noise). If you want a further explanation of how I use this action, let me know.

Good action in those galleries Ann


Steve

Baumann

Oy. I just find this forum and I'm commenting? Anyway -
These suggestions are made not knowing what tools you have available
for your workflow, or what your budget is - both of which, of course
have an effect. Or, for that matter what your skill level is, since I'm horribly new so if I am preaching to the choir, *SORRY!*. I don't use RawShooter, but that's because I "don't do Windows" so I can't comment on
1) While the noise level at 1600 seems high for a 20D, take a look at
NoiseNinja for cleaning it up - it does wonders, even some of my
ISO3200 pictures look spotless after NN has gotten through with them.
There are other tools out there if you prefer them - but NoiseNinja will
operate as a photoshop plugin (and as I understand it PSPx takes
photoshop plugins?) Just make sure to disable the USM in this.
(why does everything want to sharpen !?!)
2) Remember to play with that threshold setting on the USM, especially
with noisy images, to avoid sharpening the noise.
3) Also, to avoid sharpening noise - at least in Photoshop CS2, we've got a
a sharpening filter called "Smart Sharpen" - that I *much* prefer to a
normal USM - if google the term, you'll find the details, but in a nutshell
it is an USM modified to only sharpen the edges (which is all we want
anyway) and helps avoid some of the sharping artifacts that come about
otherwise.

ian408

Ann McRae wrote:

Hi Ian

Could you explain further what this is to achieve - I am unsure if you are suggesting smaller apeture (large f number) and slower shutter, and if so what this will accomplish wrt the final result?

I appreciate the help and feedback.

ann

Just trying to get you a bit more DOF.

mercphoto

ian408 wrote:

Just trying to get you a bit more DOF.

I'm not sure that will solve her issue though. I looked at a lot of her shots. She was complaining about out of focus shots. The ones I saw that were out of focus would not be helped by a touch more depth of field. The problem was, as I think she mentioned, was the camera focused on the background, not on the action. This is a problem of camera technique, not of depth of field.

Ann, how many focus points did you have active, what AF mode were you in, and what exposure mode were you in (Av, Tv, or M)?

One other thing I noticed was you shot a lot of people's backs. If you can't see their face I'm not sure I'd bother taking the picture in the first place.

ian408

mercphoto wrote:

I'm not sure that will solve her issue though. I looked at a lot of her shots. She was complaining about out of focus shots. The ones I saw that were out of focus would not be helped by a touch more depth of field. The problem was, as I think she mentioned, was the camera focused on the background, not on the action. This is a problem of camera technique, not of depth of field.

Ann, how many focus points did you have active, what AF mode were you in, and what exposure mode were you in (Av, Tv, or M)?

One other thing I noticed was you shot a lot of people's backs. If you can't see their face I'm not sure I'd bother taking the picture in the first place.

Not trying to solve the focus. But the shutter speeds were high enough that
sacrificing for better DOF would be worth it.

Ian