Really Interesting-Sports Illustrated's Superbowl Workflow

[garethhhhh]

It's all about how Sports Illustrated Shot & Covered the Superbowl

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6453-6821

[tommy_t]

Wow, great link. Amazing what they do at that level to get a good shot.

[Mills]

Caught that a couple of days ago. How much fun would that be? SI Photographer! Super Bowl!! Wading through all of the pictures would be great too.

[drisley]

That is a great read!

[BobbyC]

I thought it was real interesting to read that they only use RAW converters from the manufacturer and not 3rd party programs.

[The Photo Tuell]

I thought it was real interesting to read that they only use RAW converters from the manufacturer and not 3rd party programs.

Interesting, not surprising.

I've always thought that C1 was overrated, and that FVU gave the best looking pictures even if it's slow.

[BobbyC]

You may be right, I pulled out a couple of ISO 1600 shots that had been through C1 and tried breezebrowser again (which is basically FVU with a different dress on), I'd been using it for generating web pages lately instead of converting and they did look better, grain was not as apparent. I'm going to be making some more comparisons from now on.

[nikee]

You may be right, I pulled out a couple of ISO 1600 shots that had been through C1 and tried breezebrowser again (which is basically FVU with a different dress on), I'd been using it for generating web pages lately instead of converting and they did look better, grain was not as apparent. I'm going to be making some more comparisons from now on.

as breezebrowser is based on the canon SDK, AFAIK it applies the same smoothing & sharping algorithm as the FVU. which makes it look good, but you can't really control it, whereas with other tools you can skip those algorithms (which of course leads to a less sharp, more grainy picture) and then do with it in PS what you want to. personally, I prefer this approach over the "you-don't-really-want-to-know"-automagic functions. this applies most to important photos - if I want quickly (sounds like irony!) a good, sharp and smooth image, then I use FVU as well.

woops, I kind got off thread-topic... :)

regards
nicola

[BobbyC]

I agree, I still think I like C1 better, the workflow is much better, because of the real time previews. I seem to do much less tweaking in PS when I use C1.

But back to the subject at hand, did anyone check out the SI Photo site? It's mentioned in the article with a link. It has some interesting reading on it, suggested camera settings, etc...

http://www.siphoto.com/