Recent basketball dabblings

[creechjs]

Most, if not all shot at 1/500, ISO 3200, f/3.5

1.
http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/6098/dayton1dy4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

2.
http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/6589/indianastatehs2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

3.
http://img481.imageshack.us/img481/2773/indianastate5ab0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

4.
http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/5124/dayton2fs7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

5.
http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/9220/dayton3oo4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

6.
http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/2707/indianastate2bx7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

7.
http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/1579/indianastate3fj8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

8.
http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/3226/indianastate4nw4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[TopGear1Ds]

why did you shoot at f/3.5? Your 3200 looks worlds better than my xt's 1600, but why not use all of the 2.8 that you paid for?

Very nice shots though. Excellent action, and framing.

[creechjs]

why did you shoot at f/3.5? Your 3200 looks worlds better than my xt's 1600, but why not use all of the 2.8 that you paid for?

Very nice shots though. Excellent action, and framing.

Because 2.8 dof I find to shallow with basketball. It's so dark that my AF has problems focusing on what I want it too and I find my keeper rate goes up a considerable amount if I give myself a larger margin of error with the f/3.5.

[H20boy]

great job at removing the noise at 3200!

[TopGear1Ds]

Because 2.8 dof I find to shallow with basketball. It's so dark that my AF has problems focusing on what I want it too and I find my keeper rate goes up a considerable amount if I give myself a larger margin of error with the f/3.5.

Makes perfect sense.. I shot basketball at f/2 iso800 today, and AF/dof was a big issue, but my shots would've only been worse if I pushed it to f/2.8 iso1600 (rebel xt). Did you do any noise removal on these shots? They look remarkably clean.

[creechjs]

Makes perfect sense.. I shot basketball at f/2 iso800 today, and AF/dof was a big issue, but my shots would've only been worse if I pushed it to f/2.8 iso1600 (rebel xt). Did you do any noise removal on these shots? They look remarkably clean.

Yeah, just got Noise Ninja. I had always used the trial version of neat image and was never really that impressed, so I always avoided using it and instead would shoot at ISO 1600. However once I got Noise Ninja I realized I could shoot ISO 3200 no problem and have since switched over my settings permanently.

[michael_]

great shots, some of the better basketball stuff posted on POTN

[khall]

You've done a good job, in the taking and the processing. "Well Done"

[disneydork06]

nice shots. love that number 4 with all the crowd and ref in the bg.

[creechjs]

great shots, some of the better basketball stuff posted on POTN

Wow, thank you. This is my second year shooting for the paper and I had generally thought that basketball was the only sport that I hadn't improved in. This gives me some confidence in my basketball abilities, but I still feel like my shots from last year are better.

You've done a good job, in the taking and the processing. "Well Done"

Thanks alot khall. :)


nice shots. love that number 4 with all the crowd and ref in the bg.

I think you mean number 5. haha

[disneydork06]

yes 5...don't know why I was thinking four...:-P

[yonni]

Six is a killer shot. I bet he would like a copy of that one.

[Sauk]

that would be awesome to be able to shoot in that light :)

hey what camera lens combo were you using?

[creechjs]

that would be awesome to be able to shoot in that light :)

hey what camera lens combo were you using?

Four were taken with my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. I switched it up a bit because i was tired of the same ole shots that I always take with my 70-200 f/2.8. 1, 3, 4, and 5 were all taken with my 70-200 which leaves 2, 6, 7, and 8 taken by my tamron.

[Sauk]

now that I have strobes for light a zoom might be good enough...

How is the tamron lens? does it focus quick?

[creechjs]

now that I have strobes for light a zoom might be good enough...

How is the tamron lens? does it focus quick?

No, it doesn't really handle the ISO as well as the L glass either. It was the first lens I bought and it's not that I hate it, but if I could do back I think i would have saved up for the 24-70. Tamron's optics just arent up to par with L glass.

[racquetball_ron]

Wow I am amazed, I have just started taking my son's basketball game photos and I am not getting near the image quality. I used the Tamron 28-75mm-f/2.8 at ISO1600 and used noise ninja as well. I must not be using noise ninja correctly. Do you have any pointers for noise ninja?

Again great photos.

[creechjs]

Wow I am amazed, I have just started taking my son's basketball game photos and I am not getting near the image quality. I used the Tamron 28-75mm-f/2.8 at ISO1600 and used noise ninja as well. I must not be using noise ninja correctly. Do you have any pointers for noise ninja?

Again great photos.

Well just make sure you have downloaded the correct camera profiles. After that noise ninja pretty much does everything else for you. I will usually increase contrast in neat image to 12. Then will use their Unsharp mask and increase it to get it so a semi-sharp state. After using the unsharp mask you will see that the picture gets noiser, so then I go and increase the strength of the noise reduction. No picture is the same. it's all a matter of finding a balance that looks good in your eyes.

[michael_]

jeff out of interest do you only use your tammy and 70-200? im hoping to start shooting the national league here in a few weeks and am ondering if the 300 will be to close and if the 24-70 and 70-200 will do just fine

[creechjs]

jeff out of interest do you only use your tammy and 70-200? im hoping to start shooting the national league here in a few weeks and am ondering if the 300 will be to close and if the 24-70 and 70-200 will do just fine

I would rather use a 24-70 than my Tammy and I would love to have a 300mm if I had another body and the money to afford one. A lot of the local paper guys I shoot with have a 70-200 on one body, which they will alternative with the 24-70 and then another body with a 300mm for the other side of the court.

[michael_]

so another words, shooting from the baseline (hoop area) they use and alternate between the 24-70 and 70-200 and shoot plays coming towards them and the 300 from the sidelines shooting action going up and down in front of them?

[creechjs]

so another words, shooting from the baseline (hoop area) they use and alternate between the 24-70 and 70-200 and shoot plays coming towards them and the 300 from the sidelines shooting action going up and down in front of them?

Nope. Our stadium usually doesn't allow photographers to sit on the sideline. They sit on the baseline like near the sideline, just like if they were using the 70-200, but instead use the 300 to shoot action on the other side of the court. Most of them never even move, except at half time when we switch sides.

[michael_]

ahh, now i get it, cool thanks.