HS Baseball - First with 70-200 f/2.8L

[swampler]

Shot with 30D and 70-200 f/2.8L non IS. First time out with this lens. Still have more to process...some non-batter/pitcher action shots to go. Comments appreciated.

http://lh6.ggpht.com/stephen.wampler/R_2MZASo_YI/AAAAAAAAV9E/2jP9f8axvtE/s800/IMG_2014_filtered.jpg


Finally got ball on bat, but my shutter was too slow.
http://lh5.ggpht.com/stephen.wampler/R_2MhwSo_mI/AAAAAAAAV_s/sHwYnxAZWY4/s800/IMG_2028_filtered.jpg


http://lh6.ggpht.com/stephen.wampler/R_2MmASo_sI/AAAAAAAAWA0/4msH9cVjXcw/s800/IMG_2034_filtered.jpg


http://lh6.ggpht.com/stephen.wampler/R_2MtASo_5I/AAAAAAAAWDQ/EYqQpK8etzc/s800/IMG_2048_filtered.jpg

[RGolfJ]

I agree...number 2 has the only potential. What were your settings and at what ISO?

[swampler]

I agree...number 2 has the only potential. What were your settings and at what ISO?I never said it had the only potential...not everything HAS to be ball on bat, but it would have been nice to have gotten my first.

Settings were below, that shot was in Av mode and it picked the slower shutter thanks to that black wall behind home. I switched over to ISO 3200 and M right after that shot.

ISO: 1600
Exposure: 1/250 sec
Aperture: f/2.8
Focal Length: 200mm

[Magic 24]

Since you know your shutter was too slow...that would be one fix.

You aren't using the f2.8 are you? Open that baby up, gain some shutter and watch your images pop of the screen.

[namasste]

okay, this may not be what you want to hear but there really aren't any keepers in the group imo. #1 should have that pitcher isolated which means stepping about 4 paces to your right. #2 has already been addressed. #3 and #4 do not reflect well on the athlete. by that I mean, if you wanted to illustrate the strike, you'd need the pitcher in the frame as well. unless it's a key play and I am shooting pj for a paper or whatnot, I never keep images that don't make the player look good. sorry if this all sounds very negative but hopefully it helps. I am surprisedc at your settings...that's some really crappy light there if you are at 1600 and f2.8 and can only squeak out 1/250s. I almost thought it was a night game but the grass near the bleachers appears to have natural light falling on it.

[swampler]

Scott,

I appreciate the honest opinion. There was about 30 minutes of daylight before it got dark and the day portion was overcast. That's why there is some natural light, but still so dark. I understand what you're saying about the athlete not looking his best in #4...not sure I agree on #3.

Magic 24, I was at f/2.8...on all those shots. First two at ISO 1600 and the other two at ISO 3200. I still have some to go through, then I'll post some other stuff for comments.

[namasste]

I understand what you're saying about the athlete not looking his best in #4...not sure I agree on #3.

.

no worries, photography is so subjective in this regard. If you care to know why it would not be a keeper for me, post back and I'll be happy to let you know. otherwise, no sense in beating it up.

peace.

[swampler]

no worries, photography is so subjective in this regard. If you care to know why it would not be a keeper for me, post back and I'll be happy to let you know. otherwise, no sense in beating it up.

peace.
Actually, I would like to know. I wouldn't have posted had I not wanted opinions.

[namasste]

Actually, I would like to know. I wouldn't have posted had I not wanted opinions.

agreed with that logic Steve. Okay here goes:

1) seems to need color adjusted (could be my monitor so bear that in mind)

2) harsh shadows obscure face (may be able to recover some of this in post)

3) not exactly great action (no swing, no emotion, just not much)

4) no eyes (one of the keys..if no eyes, then it has to be absolutely peak action)

5) still not flattering to the athlete (from where his bat is positioned, there's little chance of him getting around on that one which will be obvious to most who follow the game..heck, if I were his coach, I'd be all over him about it unless he was watching for a ball on a take in which case, it's not a photographically significant shot anyway, especially without any eyes)

6) a little dark still but that can be fixed

7) lacks some sharpness (probably due to slow ss and poor light)

Don't get me wrong, it's not a terrible image and that's not my point. What I am getting at is that it's not a keeper for me had I shot it. Everyone has their own standards for what is acceptable. Having been critiqued here for some time as well as trying to adhere to the standards I am held to by groups I shoot for, my standards are pretty high (which means I let myself down at times). In the end though, it makes me a better shooter and for that, I am thankful.

Hope this helps out and clarifies my comments before. Keep shooting Steve and enjoy that glass, it's one fine lens.

[swampler]

Thanks, Scott. Very constructive comments.

[swampler]

A couple more from the same night:

http://lh4.ggpht.com/stephen.wampler/R_7BeASpA4I/AAAAAAAAWQY/t7WqYQ5id_0/s800/IMG_2121_filtered.jpg

2nd image removed...shouldn't have been posted...

http://lh4.ggpht.com/stephen.wampler/R_7BXASpAsI/AAAAAAAAWOI/l9acXLqpfwo/s800/IMG_2107_filtered.jpg

[JeffreyG]

I like the 1st and third of the second set better. #2 is blurry.

#1 shows the relay for the DP, perhaps better a fraction of a second later but it is close to peak action.

#3 shows him beating the pickoff - not a huge play but it can be a keeper.

[swampler]

doh. Not sure why I posted the 2nd one, you're right about it being blurry.

Thanks for the comments.

[angela6571]

okay, this may not be what you want to hear but there really aren't any keepers in the group imo. #1 should have that pitcher isolated which means stepping about 4 paces to your right.

I dont think that is always the case. I think many times you can get a great picture without separation. Take these two for example. Theyre not mine. Theyre my fiance's but I think its ok to post them as a link.

http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa67/adamlewis88/UL%20Baseball%20Apr%2009%202008/AL_BBC2008vMarshall0097.jpg

http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa67/adamlewis88/UL%20Baseball%20Apr%2009%202008/AL_BBC2008vMarshall0222.jpg

[namasste]

Thanks for the comments Angela. Adam and I talk here regularly and I respect his work. That said, I wouldn't keep these two either. Again, its not that they are bad images, just not what I'd keep or be able to use for the outlets I shoot for. The key to my earlier comment on this, as well as this one, is the addition of the phrase "in my opinion". You'll see I mention the subjectivity of photography as well. I'm sure Adam would concur with what I am saying as far as providing an honest critique. If anyone on this board appreciates that, it's him (we've had pretty frank discussions on and off the board on this issue).

Hope you see what I am saying here. If those images are working for Adam or Steve, then that's awesome. I certainly never suggested that there isn't more than one way to skin a cat. On the other hand, I can only give my opinion as critique and let others weigh in with theirs (such as this post of yours), that's what makes the boards a great place to learn, right?

[swampler]

Thanks for the comments, Angela. I certainly try for more than just 1 style of shot. I like the shot as posted, i.e. showing the batter for a frame of reference, but I also got some shots as Scott is talking about as shown below, from the same night. From a PJ point of view, the below would work better (if cropped tighter), but for selling to parents, I suspect either would sell.

Scott, I would be interested in your comments on the 2nd set I posted above.

http://lh6.ggpht.com/stephen.wampler/R_2McASo_dI/AAAAAAAAV-A/MxLFv7XWD1I/s800/IMG_2019_filtered.jpg

[RGolfJ]

Swampler....I think Scott is spot on with his explanations. Your last post appears very soft and framing is alittle awkward. Might be rule of thirds, but I don't think it works here.

[namasste]

Steve, the action on the first is very nice and the second is close enough to keep even without the faces. I also like the angles on the sample posted above. Too bad the lighting wasn't better so you could up that shutter speed. Last game I shot (daytime though) I was using speeds of 2500-4000 routinely and it really does make a difference. I'd also recommend a monopod if you don't use one. That 70-200 isn't a big lens but at 200mm and slower shutters , you'll definitely get softness if handheld. Check em out, they are cheap and very worthwhile (again, IMO).