HS Boys BB

OldGuy

Cross-town rivals Kalamazoo Loy Norrix & Kalamazoo Central met Saturday at Western Michigan's Reed
Field House for their annual clash. Norrix kept it close for the 1st half, but Central's height and 3 point
hot shots took over in the 2nd and never looked back. :cry

Here are a few, C&C always welcome.

1.


2.


3.


4.


5.


6.


7.



Regards,

Ferguson

Quiet here, so I'll take a shot.

#1: straighten it (tilted is artistic, but not great for pj). OK action, good crop.

#2: Nice. I hate when I get these (as situations) where the ball and hand are kind of hidden by the basket, but your timing is about as good as it gets given that. Got enough of the face to be good also.

#3: Personally I don't like it. It's ambiguous action, and the hand reaching in has no body. Disconnected body parts are common, and often accepted I think, but in this case it looks relevant and probably needs half if not a whole body. But it's still a bit ambiguous on the action.

#4: That arm is relevant and enough body included. Nice shot in general, wish it were about a 20th of a second earlier, but close enough to be identifiable as a shot. Some people don't like the crop cutting people in half, but frankly I think this is fine, and nicely frames it, though if you have the pixels you might try removing the player behind in favor of a whole body in front.

#5: Good timing, be nice to include a bit more of the defender if you have it and move the shooter to the right. Straighten -- the down hill is annoying. Personally I think if you are going to tilt them, they need to be REALLY tilted to show you intended it, like the first - a little tilted just looks like oversight.

#6: Nice "sportrait" (a new word someone used today I had not head), isolating one player, but as an action shot for a game it's a bit boring. As a shot for the school to use later, though, good expression, both feet off the ground, sharp and clear face - nice for that.

#7: OK action (wish the defender wasn't drawing back). Any chance the feet could be included since there's so little missing? (If you have my luck that's the frame edge). Straighten.

It's a bit hard to tell from such small images, but they look well exposed and good color and contrast, and decent separation from the background. #6 in particular seems to really have good color/contrast, especially given the backlit sign (as opposed to #4 whic is a bit muddy). Can't tell much about sharpness but appear OK, which is really surprising at 1/400th which at least the ones I looked at are. But if it works, it works (are they OK made large?) Looks like you had nice light at ISO 2000 and F2.8 (even given the 400th), I would anticipate (but can't see) that they had low noise as well.

Don't mean the above to sound harsh, but I personally hate when people just say "nice work" and don't give you something actionable.

OldGuy

Ferguson wrote: »

Quiet here, so I'll take a shot.

#1: straighten it (tilted is artistic, but not great for pj). OK action, good crop.

#2: Nice. I hate when I get these (as situations) where the ball and hand are kind of hidden by the basket, but your timing is about as good as it gets given that. Got enough of the face to be good also.

#3: Personally I don't like it. It's ambiguous action, and the hand reaching in has no body. Disconnected body parts are common, and often accepted I think, but in this case it looks relevant and probably needs half if not a whole body. But it's still a bit ambiguous on the action.

#4: That arm is relevant and enough body included. Nice shot in general, wish it were about a 20th of a second earlier, but close enough to be identifiable as a shot. Some people don't like the crop cutting people in half, but frankly I think this is fine, and nicely frames it, though if you have the pixels you might try removing the player behind in favor of a whole body in front.

#5: Good timing, be nice to include a bit more of the defender if you have it and move the shooter to the right. Straighten -- the down hill is annoying. Personally I think if you are going to tilt them, they need to be REALLY tilted to show you intended it, like the first - a little tilted just looks like oversight.

#6: Nice "sportrait" (a new word someone used today I had not head), isolating one player, but as an action shot for a game it's a bit boring. As a shot for the school to use later, though, good expression, both feet off the ground, sharp and clear face - nice for that.

#7: OK action (wish the defender wasn't drawing back). Any chance the feet could be included since there's so little missing? (If you have my luck that's the frame edge). Straighten.

It's a bit hard to tell from such small images, but they look well exposed and good color and contrast, and decent separation from the background. #6 in particular seems to really have good color/contrast, especially given the backlit sign (as opposed to #4 whic is a bit muddy). Can't tell much about sharpness but appear OK, which is really surprising at 1/400th which at least the ones I looked at are. But if it works, it works (are they OK made large?) Looks like you had nice light at ISO 2000 and F2.8 (even given the 400th), I would anticipate (but can't see) that they had low noise as well.

Don't mean the above to sound harsh, but I personally hate when people just say "nice work" and don't give you something actionable.

Thanks for the details, Ferguson. Sometimes I get so caught up in the action when it's my home team
( I'm a coach at Loy Norrix High School ) that I loose my camera "focus" pun intended.


Regards,

timberrattle

Wow! So sharp and vibrant!

My questions if it's ok to ask. What camera and lens did you use? What were the specs on the first shot? I've never seen indoor basketball shots so crisp. I'm guessing you deployed some type of flash or lighting system? Thanks!

timberrattle

Ok, I saw the specs on your pictures by looking at your Smugmug page and I saw the camera type. But what lens are you using for indoor basketball? I'm struggling with lousy indoor lighting.

perroneford

timberrattle wrote: »

Ok, I saw the specs on your pictures by looking at your Smugmug page and I saw the camera type. But what lens are you using for indoor basketball? I'm struggling with lousy indoor lighting.

I would guess based on the look, the aperture (F2.8), and associated gear, it's probably the 70-200/2.8 or 80-200/2.8

I was going to remark at how nice the light must be since it was at ISO 2000, then I realized he was shooting at 1/400. That would put the lighting levels around what I see all the time. I tend to shoot ISO 3200 around 1/640 or 1/800. I get far too much motion blur at 1/400.