Bodybuilding Show Finally

[drisley]

Well, after asking all those questions about using a 70-200mm F4L at a bodybuilding show, I finally just did it.

I took that lens, but it was in fact too slow. BUT we were almost center, row 4! So, my trusty 50mm F1.8 did a fine job. An 85mm would have been nicer still, but still great. I mainly used ISO400 at 1/60s.
I can't believe how little noise there is. For the action shots, I used 1/125 at ISO800, and I thought for sure it would be noisy. Know what! NO NOISE AT ALL! I couldnt beleive it! I've taken shots at ISO800, and I've had noise, but these are virtually noise free, without using neatimage or anything! I am so impressed! I guess when the exposure is spot on, noise is very minimal.

ISO400
http://www.fotop.net/albums/sharpnsmart/mabba032004/CRW_0707.jpg
ISO800
http://www.fotop.net/albums/sharpnsmart/mabba032004/CRW_0747.jpg

I have about 4 pages of pictures here:
http://www.fotop.net/sharpnsmart/mabba032004

I used no flash at all. THe only problem I had was that the heads of the judges, and other photographers, were getting in the way. I didnt want to stand up either.
Thanks for everybody's help before. :)

[Tom W]

Hey, you did a great job there. Exposures look good and pictures are pretty doggone sharp. Nice!

[defordphoto]

Sweet! The photos, not those girls. Sorry, not my thing.

Actually you'd be suprised how clean 1600 is. With a bit of cleanup in PS they look great.

These are good testimony to the performance of that little 50 1.8. What a little sweetheart of a lens. These photos are awesome. Magazine quality, except for that person's head. ;)

[drisley]

Thanks alot!
As I started a few of the pictures were a little soft.
Then I learned to set the focus to the center point, and try to focus on a competitors face, and recompose if I had to, with shutter half pressed. Better results as the competition went on. :)

I put a 100% crop of an ISO800 shot here:
http://www.sharpnsmart.com/mabba2004/iso800.jpg

I think my problem before with ISO800 was that I was slightly underexposing, and recouping the lighting in C1. I read here that that is a big no no as far as noise is concerned. So, I metered in manual first, set to 1/125, and the noise is so minimal.

[defordphoto]

Yeah. It's better to overexpose than underexpose for noise issues.

[Tom W]

I put a 100% crop of an ISO800 shot here:
http://www.sharpnsmart.com/mabba2004/iso800.jpg



Excellent choice for a 100% crop. ;)

[ssim]

Those shots came out really good. Nice job

Why do people do that to themselves :roll:

[garethhhhh]

Why do people do that to themselves :roll:

Low self esteem/vanity probably? :|

Some really good pics though! :D

[drisley]

Thanks for the comments people.
:)

Personally, I think they look great!
But as the french say "chacun son gout"

I just noticed some strange white blocks in the dark areas of some of the pictures.
The problem doesn't show up when you view just the jpg, but only when viewed in the gallery. I notice this problem with a few of the custom html layouts for breezebrowser. Weird!
So, I just changed the layout.

[CyberDyneSystems]

The images look great!

I am glad to see the lighting was done by a competent designer. Very nice look.

[drisley]

Yes, they had GREAT lighting.

BTW, they just posted the pictures on their website by the "official" photographer.
How does this compare to my shots?

http://www.sharpnsmart.com/mabba2004/novice2004.jpg

[CyberDyneSystems]

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!


Yours BLOW that photo away!!!

I can't belive they would even put that blurry mess on the net!

Good Job!

[drisley]

Hehe, thanks.
Of course I picked one of the worst pictures he had :wink: , but most were of similar quality.

I am fairly sure he was using an advanced sample of the 1D MkII
:lol: :lol:

Actually, he was using a neat looking little fuji or sony.
It looked sort of like the fuji s20 pro, or maybe the sony f828, but it was hard to tell. It most definately was not a canon.
It was the same shape as the above mentioned cameras, and quite small.

[garethhhhh]

Well done! http://www.photo-chat.com/forum/images/smiles/eusa_clap.gif

Your photos are far superior to the "Official Photographer's" stuff,.
And so what if that's one of his poorer photos, I didn't see any of your photos looking as bad as that.
The only thing that spoilt your photos was that some people had their heads in the way, and when you think about it, that "Official Photographer" probably had prime postition. :?

Maybe you should be taking the pictures next time... :mrgreen:

[nosquare2003]

Congrats for the great photos.

The official photographer couldn't stay focus to the girls. Perhaps, he was not interested in the girls nor he was scared. :lol: But to be fair, it would be difficult to use "small" camera to shoot such events. (In fact, the Sony F828 kind of camera is not small but I don't know how to describe it.)

[drisley]

Thanks again.

Yes, the "heads"!
The theatre has a very low rise to the seating, hence the problem.
I didnt want to stand up, but I did try a couple of pictures where I held the camera up over my head. I think it worked for one or two shots, but that was about it.
It was stilll alot of fun!

[rodbunn]

Like your camera is back focusing.....
at least all I can focus on is their backsides :lol:

Sorry, had to comment.....

Nice shots, Rod

Simple question, how come I can't read their #'s ?
Is it my eyes or ?

[Ballen Photo]

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!


Yours BLOW that photo away!!!

I can't belive they would even put that blurry mess on the net!

Good Job!

I couldn't agree more Cyber. Nice job drisley.
.......Bruce

[Tom W]

Yes, they had GREAT lighting.

BTW, they just posted the pictures on their website by the "official" photographer.
How does this compare to my shots?

http://www.sharpnsmart.com/mabba2004/novice2004.jpg

Your pictures are considerably better than the official ones. Perhaps you ought to contact the sanctioning body or federation about possibly working for them.

[drisley]

Like your camera is back focusing.....
at least all I can focus on is their backsides :lol:

Sorry, had to comment.....

Nice shots, Rod

Simple question, how come I can't read their #'s ?
Is it my eyes or ?

Hehe, thanks guys.
Seriously, there were a couple pictures that back focused, 708 and 710 come to mind. It was just after that I switched to center point focusing.

I think the numbers are hard to see because the white material is slightly specular. Also, it's probably because the images were sized down so much. Image 697 has a fairly clear number. But that image was cropped significantly, so it was only resized by about 50% or a little more.
Does that make sense?

[drisley]

Good news!
I had my photos forwarded to the president of the local BB federation...
and guess who has been given prime seats to the next show as the honourary guest photog?
:D

[PacAce]

Congrats, drisley! Bet you're really excited about that opportunity! :)

[Tom W]

Good news!
I had my photos forwarded to the president of the local BB federation...
and guess who has been given prime seats to the next show as the honourary guest photog?
:D

That's excellent news - congratulations!

[Ballen Photo]

Good news!
I had my photos forwarded to the president of the local BB federation...
and guess who has been given prime seats to the next show as the honourary guest photog?
:D

Congrats Dude!

[drisley]

Thanks, I had so much fun doing it, I was going to the next show anyway.
:wink:

I ordered my 85mm f1.8 from B&H Sunday, so it should be here soon.
Should make better shots next time, as I learned alot from the last show.
ie, dont be afraid to use ISO800 and faster shutter speeds since correct exposure will yeild low noise.

8)