Baseball action photos - to blur motion or not

DrDavid

I've been taking action photos for the little league here; and I've been shooting most of the images where there is a motion blur to show the 'action'. i.e. the bat is blurred, but the face is sharp, etc.. But, when I see other sport action photos, I see a lot of them are tack sharp, and really stop the motion. That's OK for higher-level sports I guess, but, for kids, it doesn't seem to be as exciting. Or, am I just missing the point? Anyways, I'd love some input into my photos so far. I have a LOT of the season left, so, if there's something I should be doing different, please let me know. Whip away LOL

http://www.wolfsnap.com/gallery/4281536_DUcKE

http://www.wolfsnap.com/gallery/4281575_sRogZ

Those are two of the galleries that have been uploaded so far. They haven't had the final go-through, but, I was hoping that I'd get some tips and pointers before I pruned the photos down some more.

I'd appreciate any C&C. I have thick skin, so, don't worry about hurting my feelings.

Thanks!

David

DrDavid

Sorry.. Just as a follow up to my own post.. I've been shooting at ISO100 because, well, I'm used to getting crystal clear images. Should I be dialing up the ISO so that I can get the speed down to 1/500 or 1/640 or better and still maintain a reasonable DOF? My lens is a 70-300 IS USM f/4-5.6. I wish I could get a faster f/2.8 or something like that, but the reality, at this point in time, is that I can't afford it. Hopefully once I sell a ton of the action photos, I will be able to get some new equipment (and faster lenses).

I tended to do a lot of portraits before landing the Little League gig, so, while I have super fast portrait lenses (f/1.4), I don't have super fast telephotos.

David

frozenrope

DrDavid wrote:

I've been taking action photos for the little league here; and I've been shooting most of the images where there is a motion blur to show the 'action'. i.e. the bat is blurred, but the face is sharp, etc.. But, when I see other sport action photos, I see a lot of them are tack sharp, and really stop the motion. That's OK for higher-level sports I guess, but, for kids, it doesn't seem to be as exciting. Or, am I just missing the point? Anyways, I'd love some input into my photos so far. I have a LOT of the season left, so, if there's something I should be doing different, please let me know. Whip away

http://www.wolfsnap.com/gallery/4281536_DUcKE

http://www.wolfsnap.com/gallery/4281575_sRogZ

Those are two of the galleries that have been uploaded so far. They haven't had the final go-through, but, I was hoping that I'd get some tips and pointers before I pruned the photos down some more.

I'd appreciate any C&C. I have thick skin, so, don't worry about hurting my feelings.

Thanks!

David

David, I didn't look at all of your shots but I'd like to give you a bit of feedback. The majority of the shots seem to be static moments rather than action. Some of the framing seems shifted to the side too much. Here are a few guidelines that may prove helpful.

Shoot wide open

Faster SS are better than blurred bats, balls, arms etc. But some of that is fine. the blurred action in the shots I looked at was too blurred and looked more like a mistake than an intended affect.

Look for peak action. Too much static shots in your bunch.

Work on your timing shooting hitters, all the kids hit so this is a good place to get them actually doing something. Infield practice for the bigger kids (AAA and up) is a good time to get those players doing something but it's not always reliable. You have to watch your backgrounds so as not to give away when the shot was taken (practice rather than during game). Also, sometimes the kids are a little too casual with their infield work so it's a dead give away. But it's something to look for and take advantage of when the right opportunity presents itself.

Watch your horizons. A lot of tilted shots in what I looked at.

Get lower, even sitting with your butt on the ground. This will give you a much more pleasing perspective on the players.

Shoot tight, crop a bit tighter. Your lens is a bit short but if you position yourself right you should be able to frame much tighter in camera.:photo

Shoot from as much distance away from your subject as your subject will allow while still getting a decent full frame. This will improve your DOF blur and help your subject stand out. When you can afford it, a faster lens will help you too.

Try to get faces, faces sell, backs - not so much.

I hope that was helpful...

KMCC

I think your shots look fine. I didn't look at all of them, but I didn't see any that were particularly blurred.

I'd only suggest two things. Where possible, crop a little tighter and get lower when you're shooting. Most of the shots appear to have been taken from standing position or maybe from the bleachers.

Some famous sports photographer, can't remember which one, said that shooting up at the athlete (or any subject for that matter) makes them appear heroic. And it's true.

Shoot from a kneeling position or sit on a small stool. You'll see a difference.

By the way, I'm still trying to learn to follow these two rules myself.

DJ-S1

You have a lot of good stuff in there, but I would cull out a bunch of them rather than show everything to the parents. Some are too blurred, some are burst mode shots that look identical, some are too dark, some have sun glare...you get the point. Rather than put 500 shots online, put the 250 good ones.

Better still, take the 50-100 "wow" shots, do minor post-processing to them to make them pop (crop, etc), and just post those online. I definitely don't get shots perfect straight out of the camera, so this is what I do. With a good dSLR you can crop fairly heavily and still have a good image. I shoot with a 70-200, so you have more reach than I do. You should use it and get tighter.

I have to agree with the other comments so far - especially with little kids you need to get lower. You definitely need to crank the ISO to get faster shutter speeds. Again, dSLR's can handle an ISO boost without noise being unacceptable.

I also would try to get batting shots face-on. It's a bit of a pain to switch sides for lefties, but it makes a difference.

I noticed in some you used flash. In my mind that's a no-no for Little League. First of all, little kids get distracted easily. Second, the shots themselves don't look natural. For me, when it gets too dark to keep my shutter speeds up I put the camera away and enjoy the game.

I'm no pro, but that's my 2 cents. I've really enjoyed shooting Little League games, have fun with it!

johng

I'd like to reinforce some of the other advice:

• Reduce # of posted shots. You've got way too many shots in the gallery. Cull the ones that are blurred and that are just plain uninteresting - e.g. having 4 shots of the same batting sequence is usually a bit too much or several different versions of helmets on the fence. It's OK to take that many but you have to cull it down.
• have to get lower. Perspective is a HUGE part of things. an upward angle really helps them look more like ballplayers and less like little kids.
• Need to frame much tighter. Do NOT rely on cropping - you need to frame tightly in-camera - that's how you get sharp photos. Again, that tight framing and upward angle makes them look more like ball players.
• much faster shutter speeds. You've got a lot of camera shake and / or motion blur in these such that the faces aren't sharp. 1/1000 is a good shutter speed for little league.
• Timing - both on the batters and the fielders, you want to time things so the ball is in the frame during the action. There are quite a few shots where the ball is out of the frame. I'm not talking about the portrait shots (which are often good sellers) of batter at the plate or in the field - although there's rarely a need to have more than a couple of those per player - i.e. no need to have 10 shots of the same player standing at the plate - just pick the best. But back to timing - you cant rely on burst mode and spray-and-pray - you've got to work on timing it so the first shot catches the action.
• Get more close-ups of the faces. Especialy on the portrait shots - moms like seeing the expressions on faces.
• Pay attention to whether or not the kid looks good in the photo - i.e. nobody will want to see a missed pitch or themselves getting thrown out - so the shots you keep should always show your subject in a godd light. Unfortunately this can mean some of the best action shots dont get posted - timing that play at the bag - it's a coin flip. It either goes your way or doesn't. The photo might be great either way but no one wants to be reminded of getting thrown out (or missing the tag).

But getting low and framing tight really makes the difference. Here are some tee-ball shots to show you what I mean - even these tiny kids look bigger and more like players because the framing doesn't point out their small size:






A little older:
Get those expressions:


More head-on action:

jonh68

I would to getting on your knees and shooting lower. There is nothing wrong with shooting higher ISO in the daytime to get faster SS. If it's properly exposed, the noise is not a major problem. Besides, you are probably trying to sell 4x6.

Try to get between the sun and the players. You will be able to get faster SS and get better face shots, especially if the games are in the afternoon.

I also recommend cutting down on your shots you upload. Pay attention to your best shots and work on those to make them the best they can. Parents don't want to go through several pages of the same shots. I was guilty of that too.

caro

advice

frozenrope wrote:

David, I didn't look at all of your shots but I'd like to give you a bit of feedback. The majority of the shots seem to be static moments rather than action. Some of the framing seems shifted to the side too much. Here are a few guidelines that may prove helpful.

Shoot wide open

Faster SS are better than blurred bats, balls, arms etc. But some of that is fine. the blurred action in the shots I looked at was too blurred and looked more like a mistake than an intended affect.

Look for peak action. Too much static shots in your bunch.

Work on your timing shooting hitters, all the kids hit so this is a good place to get them actually doing something. Infield practice for the bigger kids (AAA and up) is a good time to get those players doing something but it's not always reliable. You have to watch your backgrounds so as not to give away when the shot was taken (practice rather than during game). Also, sometimes the kids are a little too casual with their infield work so it's a dead give away. But it's something to look for and take advantage of when the right opportunity presents itself.

Watch your horizons. A lot of tilted shots in what I looked at.

Get lower, even sitting with your butt on the ground. This will give you a much more pleasing perspective on the players.

Shoot tight, crop a bit tighter. Your lens is a bit short but if you position yourself right you should be able to frame much tighter in camera.:photo

Shoot from as much distance away from your subject as your subject will allow while still getting a decent full frame. This will improve your DOF blur and help your subject stand out. When you can afford it, a faster lens will help you too.

Try to get faces, faces sell, backs - not so much.

I hope that was helpful...

That's some great advice, I'm fixing to start shooting for the local little league as well. I was wondering what your thoughts would be on which lens would work better, a 70 to 300 f/4-5.6 or a 100 to 400 f/5.6? I know I probably need a faster lense, but as of right now this is what I have to work with. Any suggestions?

DrDavid

Thanks so much for all the feedback. I'm going to try to dial up the ISO tonight for an A-League game and, bring a short stool to sit on (or knee pads to save my knees!) and shoot up. I'll post some results and see if the difference.

Also, you're right. I really need to crop the images tighter. I meant to do it, but, I've been overwhelmed with the sheer VOLUME of images. I might crop some images and reupload them. I did a few on smug, and the results were much nicer.

I think the sheer volume of pictures is causing me to ignore some of my best practices..

Note to self: even if it takes a few days longer, get the photos done RIGHT!

David

frozenrope

DrDavid wrote:

Thanks so much for all the feedback. I'm going to try to dial up the ISO tonight for an A-League game and, bring a short stool to sit on (or knee pads to save my knees!) and shoot up. I'll post some results and see if the difference.

Also, you're right. I really need to crop the images tighter. I meant to do it, but, I've been overwhelmed with the sheer VOLUME of images. I might crop some images and reupload them. I did a few on smug, and the results were much nicer.

I think the sheer volume of pictures is causing me to ignore some of my best practices..

Note to self: even if it takes a few days longer, get the photos done RIGHT!

David

David-
Your best tool will be learning from the things you do and the feedback you get. You're on the right track asking questions. I echo what others have said above, crop tighter but I want to emphasize that most, if not all, ot that should be done in camera not in PP. As you go along, you will also be more discerning of when to hit the shutter. You can drastically reduce the number of shots you take by eliminating repetitive shots and reducing your non-action or static shots. One more thing to add, getting it right in the camera, cropping tighter in camera, being selective on when to shoot will save you a lot of time and effort in post production. And without question, PP should take place prior to posting them on the web for sale or viewing and the sooner after the event the better.

frozenrope

caro wrote:

That's some great advice, I'm fixing to start shooting for the local little league as well. I was wondering what your thoughts would be on which lens would work better, a 70 to 300 f/4-5.6 or a 100 to 400 f/5.6? I know I probably need a faster lense, but as of right now this is what I have to work with. Any suggestions?

For Little League with those two choices, I'd go with the 100-400. I use that lens quite a bit and get good results. If you can afford a bit more, I'd suggest the 120-300 f2.8 Sigma lense and add a 1.4x when you need a little more reach. IMHO

DJ-S1

DrDavid wrote:

I've been overwhelmed with the sheer VOLUME of images.

I think that's a key to what has been said. Be brutally honest when you cull down your shots and you will have fewer to do post on. And again, the more elements you get right in-camera the less things you have to fix.

jonh68

I think the sheer volume of pictures is causing me to ignore some of my best practices..

Note to self: even if it takes a few days longer, get the photos done RIGHT!

You are on the right track. May I suggest getting a software program like Expression Media? You can go through the pictures and get full size previews before they are loaded onto the computer. You can rank them as you go through them. Once you have sorted, you can name them and then download to the computer for processing.

I know it has helped me when I shoot about 100-300 shots a game and then have to find my best two or three to submit to the paper. Whatever I don't send in gets combined with the 20-50 decent pictures for posting. You are going to kill your self and get burned out if you try to PP 100 or so. They all start to look the same after 20 or so anyway. Get a couple of the pitcher in different angles and different parts of the motion etc.

DrDavid

I actually use Lightroom to deal with the photos. It makes it easier, but, still takes time (obviously).

I'm going to shoot tonight using an ISO800; I did a few tests this morning and the noise isn't anything I can't deal with. And, I can get an f/10 at 1/500 easily. The ISO might be the piece of the puzzle I was ignoring thinking that I wanted no noise more than crisp stop-action.

David

frozenrope

DrDavid wrote:

I actually use Lightroom to deal with the photos. It makes it easier, but, still takes time (obviously).

I'm going to shoot tonight using an ISO800; I did a few tests this morning and the noise isn't anything I can't deal with. And, I can get an f/10 at 1/500 easily. The ISO might be the piece of the puzzle I was ignoring thinking that I wanted no noise more than crisp stop-action.

David

David, shoot wide open. You don't want f10 as it allows too much DOF that is distracting to your images. You should be able to shoot wide open at 4.5-5.6 (using the lens you listed) at ISO 400 and get very good SS in daylight. At night, shooting wide open is the only option. Are you shotting under lights or dusk lighting? As was mentioned previously, your minimum SS should be 1000 - 1200 unless you are strobing or flashing.

DrDavid

frozenrope wrote:

David, shoot wide open. You don't want f10 as it allows too much DOF that is distracting to your images. You should be able to shoot wide open at 4.5-5.6 (using the lens you listed) at ISO 400 and get very good SS in daylight. At night, shooting wide open is the only option. Are you shotting under lights or dusk lighting? As was mentioned previously, your minimum SS should be 1000 - 1200 unless you are strobing or flashing.

Ok, I'll do some trial shots wide open 4-5.6 & 1/1000-1/1200 and see how they look. I guess I can always slow the shutter down a bit if I'm not getting enough light.

You'd do ISO400 with a wide open aperture and 1/1000? I'm concerned about underexposing, but, I guess a few trial shots will put my mind at ease

Thanks so much for the tips!

David

DrDavid

DrDavid wrote:

Ok, I'll do some trial shots wide open 4-5.6 & 1/1000-1/1200 and see how they look. I guess I can always slow the shutter down a bit if I'm not getting enough light.

You'd do ISO400 with a wide open aperture and 1/1000? I'm concerned about underexposing, but, I guess a few trial shots will put my mind at ease

Thanks so much for the tips!

David

Just tried ISO 400, f/4-5.6 with 1/1000-1/1250.. Works like a charm. Thanks! You guys rock!

David

johng

Cool!

DrDavid

Ok, that's it.. You guys have caused me SO much extra work! The tips on here were AMAZING!! The results look SOOO much better I need to reshoot pretty much everything I've already done.. lol

Thank you SO much for the help and advice. They're seriously gorgeous now! I'll post a link later once they're uploaded (it'll probably be tommorow some time).

I don't know why I didn't think to bump up the ISO to begin with, but, I just totally didn't think of that as a good option for some reason. So.. THANK YOU!

Now.. All I need is to get the parents to BUY the photos! But, with photos that look as good as what I got today, that should be easy :ivar

David

DrDavid

Oh.. One other thing I did different.. I turned OFF my Image Stabilization.. It made the photos WAY clearer than when the IS was on. I'd heard that it needs time to 'settle', so, I bet that was one of the reasons I kept on being disappointed about how soft the photos look. Now they're tack sharp

David

frozenrope

DrDavid wrote:

Oh.. One other thing I did different.. I turned OFF my Image Stabilization.. It made the photos WAY clearer than when the IS was on. I'd heard that it needs time to 'settle', so, I bet that was one of the reasons I kept on being disappointed about how soft the photos look. Now they're tack sharp

David

OK sounds like you're making progress. I look forward to seeing your new images. On the Aperture/SS settings, I'd shoot Av or aperture preferred and let your SS adjust accordingly. If you need to boost your SS you can bump up your ISO.

I didn't mention the IS before, but definitely leave it off. Now that you're shooting with faster SS, it really won't be helping you anyway and leaving it off may help your focus speed. I think the likely reason your shots looked soft was more likely lack of SS than it did the IS but nevertheless, leave it off for this kind of work.

bikingbets

I hope this isn't too off-topic, but could someone explain to me about getting sharper images with IS turned OFF? I'm getting ready to start my first outdoor photography season (probably lots of soccer, baseball and fast-pitch softball). I sure needed IS when shooting indoor basketball...why not for baseball? Better lighting?

Thanks for any help!
Betsy

johng

bikingbets wrote:

I sure needed IS when shooting indoor basketball...why not for baseball? Better lighting?

Thanks for any help!
Betsy

Actually no difference. You want minimum shutter speeds of 1/400 in basketball - so at 200mm, IS shouldn't really be necessary. But by the same token, in many venues 2.8 isn't fast enough unless shooting at ISO 3200.

But back to your question - there are several reasons why IS isn't needed and is in fact undesirable:
1. You want fast shutter speeds - over 1/1000 for baseball. At 200mm you should be able to hand-hold at 1/1000.

2. IS CAN slow down focusing a little but not much

3. IS can fight lens movement. Even if a lens has a mode 2, it is expecting you to pan strait along a given axis. Especially with a sport like soccer that isn't the way panning happens - you might have to pan on a diagonal. And when you make a sudden switch in direction the IS can fight you a little bit for the first part of a second. Not a huge deal but it can mess up a few shots. So, given the fast shutter speeds in play there's no reason to really use it.

bikingbets

Thanks, John!

johng wrote:

Actually no difference. You want minimum shutter speeds of 1/400 in basketball - so at 200mm, IS shouldn't really be necessary. But by the same token, in many venues 2.8 isn't fast enough unless shooting at ISO 3200.

But back to your question - there are several reasons why IS isn't needed and is in fact undesirable:
1. You want fast shutter speeds - over 1/1000 for baseball. At 200mm you should be able to hand-hold at 1/1000.

2. IS CAN slow down focusing a little but not much

3. IS can fight lens movement. Even if a lens has a mode 2, it is expecting you to pan strait along a given axis. Especially with a sport like soccer that isn't the way panning happens - you might have to pan on a diagonal. And when you make a sudden switch in direction the IS can fight you a little bit for the first part of a second. Not a huge deal but it can mess up a few shots. So, given the fast shutter speeds in play there's no reason to really use it.

sportsshooter06

DrDavid wrote:

I've been taking action photos for the little league here; and I've been shooting most of the images where there is a motion blur to show the 'action'. i.e. the bat is blurred, but the face is sharp, etc.. But, when I see other sport action photos, I see a lot of them are tack sharp, and really stop the motion. That's OK for higher-level sports I guess, but, for kids, it doesn't seem to be as exciting. Or, am I just missing the point? Anyways, I'd love some input into my photos so far. I have a LOT of the season left, so, if there's something I should be doing different, please let me know. Whip away <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/Laughing.gif&quot; border="0" alt="" >

http://www.wolfsnap.com/gallery/4281536_DUcKE

http://www.wolfsnap.com/gallery/4281575_sRogZ

Those are two of the galleries that have been uploaded so far. They haven't had the final go-through, but, I was hoping that I'd get some tips and pointers before I pruned the photos down some more.

I'd appreciate any C&C. I have thick skin, so, don't worry about hurting my feelings.

Thanks!

David

without evenn reading the rest of this thread

IF YOU WANT TO SHOOT SPORTS< baseball, basketball etc.

Unless you have a good reason for the artsy stuff, TACK SHARP, Excellent exposure, clean backgrounds (when possible), proper toning or wb.
It gets old and difficult to look at oof stuff,
You can show the motion, by cropping effectively, and shooting carefully.

This is just my dumb opinion, we have been shooting sports forever.

caro

question about lighting
I've been shooting volleyball and I'm having a hard time finding the right setting to get my pictures light enough and yet not blurring the motion. I'm using a Canon 30D, 70-300 mm, 4.-5.6. I've tried everything I can think of. Is my lens just not fast enough, do I need a flash, or am I just doing something wrong?

johng

caro wrote:

I've been shooting volleyball and I'm having a hard time finding the right setting to get my pictures light enough and yet not blurring the motion. I'm using a Canon 30D, 70-300 mm, 4.-5.6. I've tried everything I can think of. Is my lens just not fast enough, do I need a flash, or am I just doing something wrong?

If it's indoor volleyball that lens is nowhere near fast enough. 2.8 would be a minimum, 2.0 aperture preferred.

caro

Would you need something equally fast for baseball that is played at night, and do you happen to have a lens you would recommend?

johng

caro wrote:

Would you need something equally fast for baseball that is played at night, and do you happen to have a lens you would recommend?

Depends on the level of play - are you talking a fan at a pro game or High School?

If it's high school then 2.8 is what you need.
I use the Sigma 120-300 2.8.
Next step down is a 70-200 2.8 but you wont get much coverage. From the field or dugout you can get a little more than 1/2 the infield with 200mm (i.e. you cant shoot corner to corner and get very good CONSISTENT results) on a full size diamond.

Of course a 300mm or 400mm 2.8 would work too

caro

I will mainly be shooting little league up to high school level. I have a 100-400mm which I've used some for youth soccer but it's a 4.5-5.6. I guess it's time to get a faster lens, that would work better for all sporting events I assume. Thanks for the info.

DrDavid

Here are some of the photos from AFTER I set the camera to the right settings..

http://www.wolfsnap.com/gallery/4281592_m9Cnd

Please, let me know what you guys think. Be brutal; I want honest C&C.

Thanks!

David