Options

Game called on account of fog...

ruttrutt Registered Users Posts: 6,511 Major grins
edited June 29, 2004 in People
I went to a game on Nantucket yesterday. The field really sucks for photography, high fence all the way around except for the outfield. But I noticed the two photographers for the two local newspapers had brought a lader and were atop the visitor's dugout, clinging to the rough roofing material. So up I went and shot until the game was called because of the fog.

These guys are good. But I miss little leage.

5531684-L.jpg

5531796-L.jpg

5531899-L.jpg

5531951-L.jpg


5531953-L.jpg
If not now, when?

Comments

  • Options
    pathfinderpathfinder Super Moderators Posts: 14,696 moderator
    edited June 27, 2004
    rutt wrote:
    I went to a game on Nantucket yesterday. The field really sucks for photography, high fence all the way around except for the outfield. But I noticed the two photographers for the two local newspapers had brought a lader and were atop the visitor's dugout, clinging to the rough roofing material. So up I went and shot until the game was called because of the fog.

    These guys are good. But I miss little leage.
    Great action shots!! - Were you using the 100-400 or the 70-200? Was it really that foggy too?
    Pathfinder - www.pathfinder.smugmug.com

    Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
  • Options
    damonffdamonff Registered Users Posts: 1,894 Major grins
    edited June 27, 2004
    Hey Rutt! Longtime no read. Even though the shots are foggy, they still look great. The first one is my favorite.
  • Options
    ruttrutt Registered Users Posts: 6,511 Major grins
    edited June 28, 2004
    pathfinder wrote:
    Great action shots!! - Were you using the 100-400 or the 70-200? Was it really that foggy too?
    I brought 100-400 because I loved it so much for little league. But in this venue on this particular day, the 70-200 might have been better. The only shots were on the 3rd base line and I was on top of the visitor's dugout, so I was close enough. I missed the very shallow DOF of the 70-200 because the backgrounds are pretty distracting.

    It was really that foggy. The game really was called on account of fog at the end of 5. The umpires said they just couldn't see the ball. The park is right on the south shore of Nantucket, one of the foggiest places on the East Coast, and this was a foggy day. I think you can get an idea from this shot. Notice the difference between the pitcher and the people and cars in the background.

    5531882-L.jpg
    If not now, when?
  • Options
    ruttrutt Registered Users Posts: 6,511 Major grins
    edited June 28, 2004
    damonff wrote:
    Hey Rutt! Longtime no read. Even though the shots are foggy, they still look great. The first one is my favorite.
    Yeah, I considered using for the Challenge, but I don't think there was one as good as the one I entered. For me, there is something so great about good little league! The kids are just getting good and are so involved with the game and proud of themselves when they make the plays. It is still innocent, but they are playing hard. I would have needed a really exceptional shot of these guys...
    If not now, when?
  • Options
    ruttrutt Registered Users Posts: 6,511 Major grins
    edited June 28, 2004
    pathfinder wrote:
    Great action shots!! - Were you using the 100-400 or the 70-200? Was it really that foggy too?
    BTW, something that has been known to work for me in the past with pictures shot in the fog or mist is white/black point correction. I'll have to try it on some of these.
    If not now, when?
  • Options
    wxwaxwxwax Registered Users Posts: 15,471 Major grins
    edited June 28, 2004
    I've noticed that increasing the contrast removes fog/mist. This is actually an irritant when you want to preserve the foggy feeling.
    Sid.
    Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
    http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
  • Options
    ruttrutt Registered Users Posts: 6,511 Major grins
    edited June 28, 2004
    wxwax wrote:
    I've noticed that increasing the contrast removes fog/mist. This is actually an irritant when you want to preserve the foggy feeling.
    What do we think about the foggy feeling in these baseball shots? It's sort of unlikely...
    If not now, when?
  • Options
    wxwaxwxwax Registered Users Posts: 15,471 Major grins
    edited June 28, 2004
    rutt wrote:
    What do we think about the foggy feeling in these baseball shots? It's sort of unlikely...
    Personally, the only shot I feel the fog is part of the story is the last, of the pitcher. All of the others look more like they have too little contrast, instead.
    Sid.
    Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
    http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
  • Options
    ruttrutt Registered Users Posts: 6,511 Major grins
    edited June 28, 2004
    wxwax wrote:
    Personally, the only shot I feel the fog is part of the story is the last, of the pitcher. All of the others look more like they have too little contrast, instead.
    Yes, I totally agree. I was asking sort of a rhetorical question. Fog + baseball < baseball, IMHO. Even XC skiing was better without the fog. Fog is nice, but so far I have not been able to blend with sports photography. Perhaps raincoat ads or noir novel illustrations. (Though the LL pictures from the It Was Ugly story were not sunny day baseball. But not fog either.)
    If not now, when?
  • Options
    ruttrutt Registered Users Posts: 6,511 Major grins
    edited June 29, 2004
    Here is a before and after of one of these with B/W point correction, USM, and a little crop. The fog just vanishes. Hmm, I wonder what would happen with B/W correction on the shot of the pitcher with the foggy background. If it makes the pitcher sharper and preserves the fog in background...

    5531951-L.jpg

    5618623-L.jpg
    If not now, when?
  • Options
    ruttrutt Registered Users Posts: 6,511 Major grins
    edited June 29, 2004
    rutt wrote:
    Hmm, I wonder what would happen with B/W correction on the shot of the pitcher with the foggy background. If it makes the pitcher sharper and preserves the fog in background...
    Here is what happens:

    5531909-L.jpg

    5618952-L.jpg
    If not now, when?
Sign In or Register to comment.