wow... i SUCK...

[Ltdave]

i used to shoot film way back...

i just started shooting a DSLR recently having 'retired' to a point and shoot just for the convenience of it all...

i 'flipped through' a couple of posts in the G-N thread (LOVE glamor shots) and moved to here since ive been shooting the local NAHL (tier II Jr Hockey) most of the season...

my stuff SUCKS! for the most part my shots are sharp but even with the 4 metering patterns on my T2i, i cant get a break on my exposures which with my limited (digital) editing experience (ive only used the crummy microsoft software) and so when i lighten the shots, the contrast goes to 'plank like' as in FLAT...

the couple of hockey threads here just blow me away...

since i havent set up a sig line yet heres the gear:

T2i
18-135 f4-5.6
55-250 f4-5.6

i know those lenses arent very fast (all of my film primes were f2 or better, except my 200 f2.8) but with all of the exposure compensation built in i guess i really dont know what the camera can do...

granted i mostly try and just get 'playing card' type shots so that the kids can 'collect' memories of their playing time and ive NEVER done much of anything other than journalism photography so i dont have super skills...

the lighting is mercury vapor, 40-50 feet off the ice...

here are some examples:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v155/ltdave/hockey/IMG_4988.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v155/ltdave/hockey/IMG_4128.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v155/ltdave/hockey/IMG_4954aa.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v155/ltdave/hockey/IMG_5005.jpg

most of my shooting was from stand level but i recently started shooting from a ladder just over the glass in the neutral zone, much to some of the fans' chagrin since my melon is in the line of sight lol...

[TheBrick3]

Are you looking for constructive criticism?

In all but one picture, your shutter speed is under 1/500th. Hockey isn't the fastest moving sport ever, but you still want to be around there for any sports shots. Shooting with a f/5.6 lens indoors is always going to be a losing proposition. Even outdoors a Rebel/55-250 combination is not going to produce excellent results.

I hate to take a "it's all the gear stance, get new stuff!" but in this case that's your only option if you want to shoot indoors. Some lenses to consider are a 200 f/2.8 prime ($700, I think) and a 85 f/1.8 ($350). The 55-250 is a nifty budget lens and I've owned one, but I'd sell it to fund better stuff. An 18-135 is worth a far amount at $250 and I'd sell that too. A 18-55 ($100) and a 200 prime is actually a pretty lethal combo on a budget if you learn to foot zoom.

[watt100]

In all but one picture, your shutter speed is under 1/500th. Hockey isn't the fastest moving sport ever, but you still want to be around there for any sports shots. Shooting with a f/5.6 lens indoors is always going to be a losing proposition. Even outdoors a Rebel/55-250 combination is not going to produce excellent results.


I agree shooting indoors at f5/6 is going to be tough
outdoors - a cheap rebel and 55-250IS can get "excellent" results but I suppose it depends on the meaning of "excellent"

XSi (450D)
Canon 55-250IS
f5.6
(cropped)


http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2550/3874885917_70c8344173_b.jpg

[Daship]

I agree shooting indoors at f5/6 is going to be tough
outdoors - a cheap rebel and 55-250IS can get "excellent" results but I suppose it depends on the meaning of "excellent"

XSi (450D)
Canon 55-250IS
f5.6
(cropped)


http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2550/3874885917_70c8344173_b.jpg

Less not get misleading here. That shot is not even close to excellent.

@ OP:
You want shots like you see here on the forum, well your going to need to buy the same or better equipment. I owned the 55-250mmIS for 1 week and returned it because it made images like ^ all of the above. I purchased a 70-200mm F4 non IS and now I get shots like you see on the forums.

If you want indoor shots that look pro, you will need a 5D II or better because you need the high isos and some better glass.

[watt100]

Less not get misleading here. That shot is not even close to excellent.
.


OK. what about this shot?
is it misleading?
can any of the cheap rebels even get close to excellent shots with the 55-250IS?


XSi (450D)
Canon 55-250IS
f5.6
250mm - cropped



http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2602/4117657403_dce5c31013_b.jpg

[TheBrick3]

I owned a 70-200 f/4 non-IS and it's the best bang for buck lens ever. Learn to use your flash well and you can even use it indoors.

The "famous" airplane picture above while solid is not a hard picture to take. For one, 250mm is pretty short for a lot of aviation pictures, so you have a lot of latitude to crop in for better composition. Furthermore, airplanes are large objects moving in a predictable fashion against a clear, unmuddied background. Unlike human beings, you don't have things like faces that need to be in clear focus nor are there objects like a ball which you need the timing to get in the picture. Your often touted airplane picture is not analogous to a sports action shot.

[watt100]

The "famous" airplane picture above while solid is not a hard picture to take. For one, 250mm is pretty short for a lot of aviation pictures, so you have a lot .


What about a "famous" motorcycle pic?

Are any "excellent pics" possible with the 55-250IS?

Or is it by definition "impossible" ?


XSi (450D)
Canon 55-250IS


http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4136/4936064462_f243e1b43f_b.jpg

[pokdeng]

What about a "famous" motorcycle pic?

Are any "excellent pics" possible with the 55-250IS?

Or is it by definition "impossible" ?


XSi (450D)
Canon 55-250IS


http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4136/4936064462_f243e1b43f_b.jpg

This a wonderful shot using your gears...

[Daship]

About the same shot as the plane same blue sky and all. The plane and the bike are decent, but nothing to brag about. Go to the lens sample archives and take a look at some Ls.

[Brikwall]

To the OP:

Your first shot looks to be about a stop underexposed. Dropping the shutter speed from 1/800 to 1/400 would have fixed that (but the auto-mode prevented it). The exposure on the others doesn't look all that bad but the shutter speeds are all over the place because of the auto-mode. In the second shot there is a slight motion blur due to the slow shutter speed as well as a loss of contrast from shooting through the glass. The latter could be fixed with a contrast boost in post. The third shot is just slightly soft but whether that's from motion blur or the glass is hard to tell. It also looks like a fairly tight crop, and that might be the problem. In the final shot, you missed focus - the camera locked on either the boards or the spectators.

Shooting indoors with your lenses will be tough. Ideally, you should have either a fast, constant aperture zoom like the 70-200/2.8 or a fast prime (50/1.4, 85/1.8, 100/2 are the cheaper ones that work fairly well for sports).

Stop using the automatic modes on your camera. The so-called "sports mode" really isn't all that good for sports in spite of what the brochures tell you. Go manual to control your exposure, and learn how to read your histogram so you can judge your exposure. Don't rely on the camera.

If you want to shoot indoor sports you will have to invest in better glass, either fast primes or fast zooms (constant f/2.8). Eventually, a better camera body will also be in order but glass should be the first investment. Better yet, you should invest some time in learning (or re-learning, as the case may be) the basics of exposure, etc, as well as getting to know both the capabilities and limitations of your camera. I'm not saying this to be arrogant: it's just that you can have the best gear in the world but if you don't know how to use it, it won't do you a lick of a good. More often than not, a little bit of knowledge goes farther to improve the quality of your images than the gear ever will.

My first hockey shots were far worse than anything you posted here. I have upgraded my gear since then, of course, but I can guarantee you most of the improvement in my images came from education and practice, lots and lots of both (and I still think I suck, and compared to some of the others on here, I really do :oops: ).

I typically shoot hockey at 1/400 to 1/500, f/2.8 and ISO 3200. Yes, I'd like faster shutter speeds but it's not possible in the local barns. You'll see some motion blur at those speeds, especially in the hands and feet, but it's acceptable given the conditions. With kids you might get away with slightly slower speeds depending on their skill level.

http://pcdn.500px.net/5269349/4ded5e9c439fa2c024e6be7187e6183f7e4ac7eb/4.jpg

http://pcdn.500px.net/3650782/c3f1d0491f66bec3b7db5740eb2e1d88d5475617/4.jpg

http://pcdn.500px.net/2810332/736f592ed6f4e35aca1726ee8180239de88c1f6f/4.jpg

[Stuuk1]

What about a "famous" motorcycle pic?

Are any "excellent pics" possible with the 55-250IS?

Or is it by definition "impossible" ?


XSi (450D)
Canon 55-250IS


http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4136/4936064462_f243e1b43f_b.jpg

Watt100:

Take no notice, your images are awesome!

[TeleFragger]

i agree you need a better lens..

the 55-250 is a great lens under great lighting and great conditions..
i used it this weekend when it looked like it was going to pour... i figured the pics wouldnt be great and they are not..

to me these are horrid and people will agree.. but the parents love them (and i dont charge..... yet...)..

these are not ice.. so sorry.. but to give you an example..
and i know.. my WB is off.. i need to get my machine setup as im editing on a laptop and it isnt helping...


i only have a few pics handy off of my free flickr account... so my flickr is my playground.. usually screwed up stuff to post to ask q's about.. but can show some examples too how not having the right lens hurts ya..

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6224/6891126806_7e66b52b9b_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/56197228@N05/6891126806/)
Inferno (5 of 15) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/56197228@N05/6891126806/) by TeleFragger / RootBreaker (http://www.flickr.com/people/56197228@N05/), on Flickr


now my 85mm 1.8 @ f1.8 and MASSIVE CROP!!!! and ISO 1600...
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7174/6670951929_cd7697f660_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/56197228@N05/6670951929/)
KyleSave2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/56197228@N05/6670951929/) by TeleFragger / RootBreaker (http://www.flickr.com/people/56197228@N05/), on Flickr

borrowed a tamron 17-50 2.8 to see how i liked it.. and i dont.. not for night hockey..
i had to go to ISO 6400!!!!!

pic is not cropped so i can get a visual on a few things...
i know normally u crop in tighter to the players with the ball and maybe towards the direction they are going...
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7172/6676451909_9dcee498f5_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/56197228@N05/6676451909/)
tamron17-50_2_8-1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/56197228@N05/6676451909/) by TeleFragger / RootBreaker (http://www.flickr.com/people/56197228@N05/), on Flickr


few pictures im posting are from me.. a hobbyist.. personally i feel my pictures SUCK.. most of the time... and other times they are OK.. looking at what others here post...

now it is about the equipment partially.. yes u need to know how to use it too.. but super hard to get ok pics with equipment that isnt going to make life easier...

that is why im having a tough time getting a 70-200 2.8 cuz even the 17-50 @ 2.8 isnt enough.. unless zooming in more with the reach will give me clearer results...

hope that helps some...

[watt100]

Watt100:

your images are awesome!

Thx - I attribute it to the awesome $150 lens !

[NeverFollow]

you have to suck before you get kinda good

[Ltdave]

so, practice today...

hit the ISO to 6400...
set the shutter to 500...
was able to go with the f5.6 without any 'indication of under exposure' based on the meter and still...

lots of muddy looking, washed out (flat) images...

ive got the 70-200 f2.8 IS on the way but even when i shot the guys standing around, and deliberately let it go about 2 stops over exposed (slowing the shutter down from 500 to 125), they look crummy...

is is safe to say that EF-S glass just isnt as good, as good ol' fashioned FD glass?

i looked at the histogram deal and most of my shots are inverted bell-curves with high levels on the ends...

heres a couple of examples, with info from the DPP software (its the only thing i can do with that software. i dont know how to use if for editing, or if i even can. i did some cropping and a little bit of lightening with microsoft office 2010)...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v155/ltdave/IMG_5391.jpg
Shooting Mode Manual Exposure
Tv( Shutter Speed ) 1/400
Av( Aperture Value ) 5.6
Metering Mode Center-Weighted Average Metering
ISO Speed 6400
Auto ISO Speed OFF
Lens EF-S55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS
Focal Length 250.0mm
Image Size 3545x3253
Image Quality Fine
Flash Off
FE lock OFF
White Balance Mode Auto
AF Mode One-Shot AF
AF area select mode Automatic selection
Picture Style Standard
Sharpness 3
Contrast 0
Saturation 0
Color tone 0
Color Space sRGB

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v155/ltdave/IMG_5430.jpg
Shooting Mode Manual Exposure
Tv( Shutter Speed ) 1/500
Av( Aperture Value ) 5.6
Metering Mode Center-Weighted Average Metering
ISO Speed 6400
Auto ISO Speed OFF
Lens EF-S55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS
Focal Length 109.0mm
Image Size 3454x2307
Image Quality Fine
Flash Off
FE lock OFF
White Balance Mode Auto
AF Mode One-Shot AF
AF area select mode Automatic selection
Picture Style Standard
Sharpness 3
Contrast 0
Saturation 0
Color tone 0
Color Space sRGB

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v155/ltdave/IMG_5432.jpg
Shooting Mode Manual Exposure
Tv( Shutter Speed ) 1/500
Av( Aperture Value ) 5.6
Metering Mode Center-Weighted Average Metering
ISO Speed 6400
Auto ISO Speed OFF
Lens EF-S55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS
Focal Length 232.0mm
Image Size 2903x4145
Image Quality Fine
Flash Off
FE lock OFF
White Balance Mode Auto
AF Mode One-Shot AF
AF area select mode Automatic selection
Picture Style Standard
Sharpness 3
Contrast 0
Saturation 0
Color tone 0
Color Space sRGB

could the lighting quality just be THAT BAD, but im not seeing it? my eyes are definitely not what they were when i was 20...

[Noitca]

do you shoot Raw format or jpg?

And, yes, the light could be that bad.

Also, if you don't mind people goofing with your pictures you put on here, you could turn on "image editing OK" in your user settings. I can't remember exactly where that is though in the menus.

EDIT...

To turn on the image editing ok option...
Click "User CP" (upper left option on the top bar), then click "Edit Profile", then it's the first option in "additional information"... might have to scroll down a bit to get to it.

[Ltdave]

will the editing allowed, screw with the originals that are hosted on photobucket?

i shoot JPG... L with the quarter round icon beside it (18mp)...

[Brikwall]

Set your AF point to the center one and switch your drive to AI-Servo. Those were taken in one-shot mode with auto selection for the focus point.

[Noitca]

No, that just gives permission for someone on here to save your picture, do some edits, rehost it somewhere on their space (photobucket or similar), then post back here to explain what "adjustments" they are talking about.

-----

Shooting in JPEG, I think the only edits in DPP you can do are on the second tab of the tools window ("RGB" is the title of the tab, at least what is in the version I have). There you get some adjustments for brightness, sharpness, and a couple of others. On the third tab, you will have some noise reduction sliders available, which you can use to remove the noise you get at higher iso... The stronger the noise reduction, the greater sacrifice to "detail and sharpness" of the underlying picture.

Managing JPGs are certainly easier. However, the white balance that the camera calculates (right or wrong) pretty much sets it for the picture. Those are the "sunny", "cloudy", and whatnot settings on the camera.

IF you were to shoot RAW format, the first tab in DPP is active, and that will give you a lot more options for altering the image after it has been taken. You aren't married to the white balance chosen by the camera when the shot was taken, you can get a lot of control on stuff like tones, brightness, and a ton of other stuff that I don't even begin to understand.

IMO, I use RAW as a safety net, and use it often. If I miss a setting at taking the shot by a bit (or a lot), RAW format provides a chance to recover.

elrey shoots jpeg, and pretty much posts straight from the camera (I think he pretty much crops and resizes for here)... dude has skills. I am sure others here also shoot jpeg with great success and minimal editing.

[rammsteinmatt]

MOD EDIT: Removed quote of deleted post and response.


OP: unfortunately you are trying to shoot one of the most difficult things out there. Shooting with a high shutter speed in low light requires high end equipment to get the best results, there's just no getting around it.

At NHL games the photogs frequently have 70-200 f/2.8 in hand on a pro body shooting highish ISOs, those barns are loaded with lights, and the official photographer still uses the house strobes.

[Ltdave]

Set your AF point to the center one and switch your drive to AI-Servo. Those were taken in one-shot mode with auto selection for the focus point.

some of my earlier shots were with the center point. i didnt change it after a game and screwed up some group shots so i left it on multi-point. ill change it back thanks...

No, that just gives permission for someone on here to save your picture, do some edits, rehost it somewhere on their space (photobucket or similar), then post back here to explain what "adjustments" they are talking about.


okay. ill do that. i dont mind constructive criticism but i dont need any smart-assed or otherwise snarky comments...

unfortunately you are trying to shoot one of the most difficult things out there. Shooting with a high shutter speed in low light requires high end equipment to get the best results, there's just no getting around it.

At NHL games the photogs frequently have 70-200 f/2.8 in hand on a pro body shooting highish ISOs, those barns are loaded with lights, and the official photographer still uses the house strobes.

i know the lighting is far from optimal. there wasnt any hockey program going on when i worked on the college paper or for Gannett. really about the first time shooting in there...

i shot last night's game in RAW L but i dont have any software to open them let alone edit them. im going back to just plain L. i went manual (could have just as well shot on Tv) and went with 3200 ISO, 1/500" (sometimes 1/400") and f5.6 since that was as far open as the lens would go. HOWEVER, i just got in the USPS today, my 70-200 f2.8L IS so we'll see what that brings. 200 is a little bit short for shooting into the corners from the redline though. could use a 100-300 but then id need another body with a shorter lens for action in the neutral zone. of course a camera port in the glass would be nice for down in the corners, since we have such crummy 'glass'...

[Daship]

Let's get this straight, there are excellent pics and there are excellent pics for the gear being used. Those are not the same thing.

Both are commendable in their own right, but when you substitute one for the other - that's where the thin ice lies. I'll agree, your pics are good for the equipment you have; but for people who shoot high end equipment, the pitfalls of inexpensive equipment are IMMEDIATELY apparent. Look at the sharpness and colors of the T-28 (airplane) compared to say this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattshinavar/7028468367/in/set-72157629699141031/lightbox/



OP: unfortunately you are trying to shoot one of the most difficult things out there. Shooting with a high shutter speed in low light requires high end equipment to get the best results, there's just no getting around it.

At NHL games the photogs frequently have 70-200 f/2.8 in hand on a pro body shooting highish ISOs, those barns are loaded with lights, and the official photographer still uses the house strobes.



My point exactly.

[Fuhrtographer]

i shot last night's game in RAW L but i dont have any software to open them let alone edit them. im going back to just plain L. i went manual (could have just as well shot on Tv) and went with 3200 ISO, 1/500" (sometimes 1/400") and f5.6 since that was as far open as the lens would go. HOWEVER, i just got in the USPS today, my 70-200 f2.8L IS so we'll see what that brings. 200 is a little bit short for shooting into the corners from the redline though. could use a 100-300 but then id need another body with a shorter lens for action in the neutral zone. of course a camera port in the glass would be nice for down in the corners, since we have such crummy 'glass'...

It seems you have a fair amount of photography skills, you just need a little work on the digital end Dave! Once you start developing some PP skills you will want to shoot in RAW. DPP is a great PP tool, here is a tutorial to get you started, http://learn.usa.canon.com/galleries/galleries/tutorials/dpp_tutorials.shtml

Your gear is probably maxed out, (your photos are a little noisy) but there is nothing "wrong" with them. With a little PP you can clean that up and give them some Pop, and they will look a lot better.

[Ltdave]

It seems you have a fair amount of photography skills, you just need a little work on the digital end Dave! Once you start developing some PP skills you will want to shoot in RAW. DPP is a great PP tool, here is a tutorial to get you started, http://learn.usa.canon.com/galleries...utorials.shtml

Your gear is probably maxed out, (your photos are a little noisy) but there is nothing "wrong" with them. With a little PP you can clean that up and give them some Pop, and they will look a lot better.

thank you. shot for quite a few years and must have done SOMETHING right along the way because Gannett never canned me, the Air Force never canned me and i actually got promoted for doing the job, its just the digital thing i think...

im definitely going to look into the tutorial. ive opened stuff with DPP but i dont seem to be able to manipulate anything...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v155/ltdave/IMG_5666.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v155/ltdave/IMG_5649.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v155/ltdave/IMG_5603.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v155/ltdave/IMG_5575.jpg

the first pics i had taken was with my wifes T1i. granted im not shooting with a Lincoln but the T2i does have a bit more to play with. i just got my 70-200 f2.8L today and wow it really DOES make a huge difference. i shot 1600 iso, 1/500" and f2.8. i could have bumped the iso another notch but the pics are so MUCH better (at least to me). used to be you didnt need the L lenses to get such better quality (back in the FD days) but nowadays....

having skated in this particular barn, i never thought the light was so bad but my shots were so darned muddy...

[Fuhrtographer]

im definitely going to look into the tutorial. ive opened stuff with DPP but i dont seem to be able to manipulate anything...





Them shots are a lot better, amazing what a faster lens will do!

When you open an image in DPP, push control-T to bring up the tools. The tool menu has three tabs; RAW, JPEG and Noise reduction/lens. RAW will be blank when the image is in JPEG format.

I touched up one of your latest images in DPP. I spent literally 30 sec on it. Just added a little saturation, contrast, hue, sharpened and quite a bit of Noise Reduction.

Noise would be the equivalent to grain in film shooting and from my experience is related to ISO. A fast lens will most definitely help but a professional body like a 5d3 will help as well, they can shoot at ISO 6400 without hardly any noise no matter what lens it seems.

http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x176/1967rs/IMG_5575.jpg

[Ltdave]

a 5d3 will help as well

yeah, i wish it were that easy....

i dont use my camera to make money (anymore) and a $3,500 body is definitely not in my immediate future...

i was asked by my nephew just yesterday whether or not i was going to be moving to a 5DII but i had to explain i had JUST GOT my T2i a month ago...

[Fuhrtographer]

yeah, i wish it were that easy....

i dont use my camera to make money (anymore) and a $3,500 body is definitely not in my immediate future...



I am in the same boat!

[burnet44]

me too
and no one is as bad as I am
coaching 16 year olds in football was easier

[Ltdave]

well...

it would appear maybe i dont suck as bad as i thought i did. with the faster lens, ive got a lot more to work with AND with knowing a bit more and more (every time i play with it) about DPP and RAW, id say these lastest pics are much better...

i still have to figure out a way to get consistent in my PP editing because ill edit some, edit some others and then when im going through them, ill see that the first set needs more editing. i really like the way you can make the colors POP but like someone else posted on the site, i dont like to create an image, but to RECREATE the scene as it was when the picture was made...

here are a couple more examples with the faster f2.8 lenses. no color manipulation other than a notch or two of saturation increase..

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v155/ltdave/IMG_5506.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v155/ltdave/IMG_6218.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v155/ltdave/IMG_6177.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v155/ltdave/IMG_6175.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v155/ltdave/IMG_6389.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v155/ltdave/IMG_6351.jpg

i still need some more shutter speed but im trying to keep the ISO noise down...

[burnet44]

always a battle inside

[drvnbysound]

so, practice today...

hit the ISO to 6400...
set the shutter to 500...
was able to go with the f5.6 without any 'indication of under exposure' based on the meter and still...

lots of muddy looking, washed out (flat) images...

ive got the 70-200 f2.8 IS on the way but even when i shot the guys standing around, and deliberately let it go about 2 stops over exposed (slowing the shutter down from 500 to 125), they look crummy...

is is safe to say that EF-S glass just isnt as good, as good ol' fashioned FD glass?

i looked at the histogram deal and most of my shots are inverted bell-curves with high levels on the ends...

heres a couple of examples, with info from the DPP software (its the only thing i can do with that software. i dont know how to use if for editing, or if i even can. i did some cropping and a little bit of lightening with microsoft office 2010)...



Without even seeing it, the histogram makes sense to me. It's high on the left because there are parts of the uniform and much of the background that are darker colors as well as black. The right side of the histogram is high because of all the ice and boards that are white. The middle is relatively low because there aren't a ton of midtones.

I thought the comment about Office 2010 above was funny actually. I don't know that I've ever heard any photographer say that they used Microsoft Office to do any image editing... I suggest picking up Lightroom 4 (it's $150) (http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop-lightroom.html)

[Ltdave]

I thought the comment about Office 2010 above was funny actually. I don't know that I've ever heard any photographer say that they used Microsoft Office to do any image editing... I suggest picking up Lightroom 4 (it's $150)

when i played with the P&S that was all i used because i rarely needed anything other than some cropping or a little bit of exposure up/down...

its actually pretty easy to use but quite limited...

i plan on getting LR and PS but im just so jammed up right now, i need a couple of more hours in the day before i chase some software. any stores (brick/mortar or online) have 'extra hours in the day' in stock? lol

[watt100]

well...

it would appear maybe i dont suck as bad as i thought i did. with the faster lens, ive got a lot more to work with AND with knowing a bit more and more (every time i play with it) about DPP and RAW, id say these lastest pics are much better...

i


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v155/ltdave/IMG_6218.jpg


.

a sharp f2.8 telephoto zoom really helps the shots!

and I agree about post processing, shooting in RAW and adjusting levels, contrast, exposure, etc. can add a lot

[Pierceclothier]

well...

it would appear maybe i dont suck as bad as i thought i did. with the faster lens, ive got a lot more to work with AND with knowing a bit more and more (every time i play with it) about DPP and RAW, id say these lastest pics are much better...

i still have to figure out a way to get consistent in my PP editing because ill edit some, edit some others and then when im going through them, ill see that the first set needs more editing. i really like the way you can make the colors POP but like someone else posted on the site, i dont like to create an image, but to RECREATE the scene as it was when the picture was made...

here are a couple more examples with the faster f2.8 lenses. no color manipulation other than a notch or two of saturation increase..


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v155/ltdave/IMG_6351.jpg

i still need some more shutter speed but im trying to keep the ISO noise down...

I like this one!

[Ltdave]

well...

i wouldnt say that these are super, but after learning a little bit of DPP and taking some time to play around, i think i might be getting a handle on this post processing...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v155/ltdave/IMG_5391aa.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v155/ltdave/IMG_5391aa-1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v155/ltdave/IMG_5430-1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v155/ltdave/IMG_5430aa.jpg

[Choderboy]

OK LT Dave. You don't suck!
Been interesting to see good advice, encouragement and progress.

I saw thread a few days ago, seemed to be good stuff happening in the thread, was hoping it would be identified that main problem is equipment.
Not a case of good photographer should be able to get good shots. More a case of good example where the higher end equipment will show why they cost more.

[Ltdave]

In the last set of shots (the goalies) same body (T2i/550d) as all of th others, but also with the 55-250team zoom (f3.5-5.6)...

Both that and the 70-200 f2.8 require PP but the L requires LESS work from considerably more data...