Why can't I get sharper sports shots?

[HarrisonClicks]

OK, This is perhaps my best baseball shot of my son on his first game ever pitched. I think i did ok... but this shot is not as crisp and sharp as others I see on this Board.

The shot was taken with a Mark III, 70-200 IS f/2.8L, at ISO 800, 155mm, f/4.0, 1/1600. I wanted to blur the background so I used a wide aperature. I wanted to freeze the action so I used 1/1600. To get the proper exposure, I needed to push to ISO 800 (it was dusk outside). Am I using the wrong parameters? Is it a post processing thing? I mean, maybe it is sharp, but it does not have the 'pop' I see on other photos here. C&C appreciated!!!

[EasyPic10D]

it might be post processing. try to increase the hue and saturation, or the contrast, it makes the picture pop a bit more. i can't think of any thing else, sorry i couldn't help more. its a good picture though.

[johndevane]

I'm not the one to give much advice, but for what it's worth... It seems like the backlighting hurts on the "pop". Look at his shoulder where the sun hits, it seems to "pop" more there. Do you have shots with the sun in his face to compare to? Maybe try to dial up the exposure by a 1/3 or 2/3. You'll blow out some highlights but expose his face better in his own shade.
Hopefully others will chime in with good advice. I'm curious too.
It's a great shot anyway.

[pigtailpat]

OK, This is perhaps my best baseball shot of my son on his first game ever pitched. I think i did ok... but this shot is not as crisp and sharp as others I see on this Board.

The shot was taken with a Mark III, 70-200 IS f/2.8L, at ISO 800, 155mm, f/4.0, 1/1600. I wanted to blur the background so I used a wide aperature. I wanted to freeze the action so I used 1/1600. To get the proper exposure, I needed to push to ISO 800 (it was dusk outside). Am I using the wrong parameters? Is it a post processing thing? I mean, maybe it is sharp, but it does not have the 'pop' I see on other photos here. C&C appreciated!!!

You did not use the lens at the widest aperture - I believe you said you were shooting at f/4, the lens can go to f 2.8, that is the widest aperture available. Especially since you were in a dusk situation, you should be opening the aperture as wide as it can go to let in the most amount of light. If the aperture were wider, it would have affected your ISO/shutter settings.

Regarding focus, I am not familiar with the Mark III camera, I only have a 30d. I am not sure whether or not there is a separate focus button on the Mark III, or, if it is the same as the 30d wherein a separate focus button is activated by setting a custom fuction. What actual button are you pressing to focus, and what mode are in you in?? (ii.e. servo, AI focus, one-shot?).

On focus points, the Mark III has the choice of many different focus points (is it like 39 points or something?). Most of the people here shoot on a center focus point only. Is your focus point on the Mark III set to the center point only?

People with alot more experience on the Mark III will chime in, but these are what comes to mind and perhaps will help you.

Pat

[HarrisonClicks]

Thanks for the responses. First, I picked f/4 and not f/2.8 because I thought that if the DOF was too wide open I would lose some focus from front to back, i.e., either the ball would be out of focus compared to the face or glove, etc. So by closing it down a bit I was hoping to get a sharper shot. Maybe I am wrong here but I thought I read on the Board here that shooting wide open...as in WIDE open... can make for a softer shot, so I thought it was good to close up a bit.

As for focus, I was in the 'almost' center focus spot and not the ring of fire. When I say almost, I had the camera in portrait mode and I bumped up the focus spot one notch to hit bullseye on the chest to be sure I got the feet in the shot. I should add, also, this is a cropped shot. Not cropped by too much, but it is cropped.

Also, I do have the CF set to separate focus and shutter. I keep the Mark III in servo mode, use the * button to start and stop focus, and the shutter to set exposure. In this shot, I had * pressed continuously to keep it in servo, and I set exposure to spot metering and I metered off the blue shirt (I have exposure set to the active focus point).

As for lighting, I cant change the sun or field orientation. ;) So it is what it is, but for the real pros, I know this would have been a sharper shot.

[Dan-o]

What did you do in post pros.? It looks like it was cropped quite a bit. It also looks to be suffering from artifacting due to compression when you converted for upload. Post the shot without any thing done to it.

[Nikolaos]

Looks like the 800 iso on a sunny day killed the dynamic range.

[HarrisonClicks]

What did you do in post pros.? It looks like it was cropped quite a bit. It also looks to be suffering from artifacting due to compression when you converted for upload. Post the shot without any thing done to it.

OK. but I need to ask first... This is a RAW file. I use Lightroom. What is the best way to post here to keep within file size limits? This is what I did: I exported from Lightroom to .JPG as a full size .JPG file at 100% quality. I then used the Microsoft Image Resizer Powertoy to reduce the image to "large" which made me a 54 KB file size picture, which is what I posted.

I did do lots of PP by the way, and I am new to Lightroom. But maybe my posting method is not as good as it could be. I will post the original image after i read your ideas on how to convert it.

[waynedsargent]

keep in mid DOF @ 155mm approx 50ft away with f2.8 is 4 feet. At f4 it is 5.8 ft. The kid should not take up 6 ft of focal plane distance. And given that the ball, face, chest, knee, and fprward foot are all within at least 2ft I would have opted for 2.8 and dropped the iso.

[HarrisonClicks]

Looks like the 800 iso on a sunny day killed the dynamic range.

It was dusk... but I could not get the shutter / aperature combo and correct exposure at less than 800. Maybe I need to remove noise?

[stathunter]

Looks like the 800 iso on a sunny day killed the dynamic range.

The photo looks like you might have had too high of ISO. I took the liberty of adding a little more contrast to your shot to see if that makes any difference.http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g303/stathunter/139U0850Large.jpg

[HarrisonClicks]

keep in mid DOF @ 155mm approx 50ft away with f2.8 is 4 feet. At f4 it is 5.8 ft. The kid should not take up 6 ft of focal plane distance. And given that the ball, face, chest, knee, and fprward foot are all within at least 2ft I would have opted for 2.8 and dropped the iso.

That is interesting and very helpful.

[Zivnuska]

"54 KB file size picture, which is what I posted."

Not nearly big enough.

[fslshooter]

Try these MkIII custom functions for baseball: C.FnIII 2 on slow, C.FnIII 5 on 1, C.FnIII 8 on 2, C.FnIII 13 on 1 and all other C.FnIII settings at 0. Personally I prefer to shoot in manual exposure mode and use the shutter button for auto focus rather than * -- you might want to give that a try too. As for f/4 vs wider aperture, f/4 might be better at the distance you were shooting for the best subject DoF. After cropping and resizing for posting here, apply levels and unsharp mask as necessary to sharpen the image.

[gromeo]

Try these MkIII custom functions for baseball: C.FnIII 2 on slow, C.FnIII 5 on 1, C.FnIII 8 on 2, C.FnIII 13 on 1 and all other C.FnIII settings at 0. Personally I prefer to shoot in manual exposure mode and use the shutter button for auto focus rather than * -- you might want to give that a try too. As for f/4 vs wider aperture, f/4 might be better at the distance you were shooting for the best subject DoF. After cropping and resizing for posting here, apply levels and unsharp mask as necessary to sharpen the image.

Jerry, did you upgrade to the MKIII? If so how are finding it.

[fslshooter]

Jerry, did you upgrade to the MKIII? If so how are finding it.

Romeo - Yes -- had to. I broke my MkII the last day of ST and got the MkIII so I could shoot opening day MiLB. No AF issues and the MkIII is great in low light -- acceptable images up to ISO 6400 and good card quality and 8x10 images at ISO 3200. I wanted to wait until Canon's next 1D upgrade but couldn't.

[HarrisonClicks]

Try these MkIII custom functions for baseball: C.FnIII 2 on slow, C.FnIII 5 on 1, C.FnIII 8 on 2, C.FnIII 13 on 1 and all other C.FnIII settings at 0. Personally I prefer to shoot in manual exposure mode and use the shutter button for auto focus rather than * -- you might want to give that a try too. As for f/4 vs wider aperture, f/4 might be better at the distance you were shooting for the best subject DoF. After cropping and resizing for posting here, apply levels and unsharp mask as necessary to sharpen the image.

Thank you! I will try these settings.

[Dan-o]

e-mail me the original RAW and I can see what I can do. dmunsonphoto@yahoo.com.

[HarrisonClicks]

OK. I found this EXCELLENT post on how to resize. Apparently, i was doing it ALL wrong.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=265690

Here is the image again resized via Photoshop CS3 at 800 pixels on its longest side while under 100KB (actually, its at 97.3 KB).

Better? I think so !!! (new one is on the left - original one is on the right from the first post)

[Dan-o]

That deff. looks better.

[HarrisonClicks]

I am going to take the various suggestions so far and try it at the next game.

I also need to learn unsharp mask and sharpening in general, rather than simply sliding the various sharpening sliders up the scale in Lightroom to the mid point of the slider scales to get 'some general' random sharpening which actions I am sure make some of you cringe. ;) I did send my RAW photo to Dan-o to see how its supposed to be done:D

[oaktree]

Another "problem" could be the color of the background compared to our son. The upper part his body is blue against a green/blue background and the lower part is white against a light tan background. So it could be hard to get a "pop". If the background was switched, the "pop" might be easy to see.

[danaitch]

If you were at ISO 800, 1/1600th and f4, it stands to reason that you could open up to f2.8, shoot at ISO400 and keep your 1/1600th. ALWAYS shoot wide open for sport. If you'd dropped your shutter speed to 1/1000th you could have hit an even lower ISO and retained more image quality.

I'm curious why you wanted the ball to stay in focus. If you keep the players face/eyes in focus, you're usually onto a winner - the ball is incidental to the emotion and action in shots like this.

And there's only one 'a' in aperture!! :p

[dmwierz]

I'm gonna be the Contrarian here and say I'd stay at f/4.0, but not for the increase in DOF. With every one stop move in aperture, DOF only changes by the square root of two (1.414) , not doubling which many people wrongly think, so it really doesn't make that much of a difference. However, if you can stop down your lens, you will most likely see an increase in sharpness, and this IS worth doing. I frequently shoot baseball at f/4.0 or even f/5.0 when the light allows me to keep my ISO at 1000 or less.

Don't worry about keeping the ball in focus in shots like this. I agree with danaitch - the ball adds something to the context of the shot, and it is good to have, but there's really no need to have it tack sharp. In fact, some blur will add to the sense of motion.

In this shot, taken at a freakish 1/8000s and f/3.2, the ball is sharp, but it also just left Kip Wells' hand and is still in the focal plane.

http://www.pbase.com/dmwierz45/image/75144114.jpg

In many instances (I'd have to dig through my archives to find one), I actually think a shot of the ball a few feet in front of the pitcher makes for a better shot, and in this case, it's almost always OOF.

[pigtailpat]

I'm gonna be the Contrarian here and say I'd stay at f/4.0, but not for the increase in DOF. With every one stop move in aperture, DOF only changes by the square root of two (1.414) , not doubling which many people wrongly think, so it really doesn't make that much of a difference. However, if you can stop down your lens, you will most likely see an increase in sharpness, and this IS worth doing. I frequently shoot baseball at f/4.0 or even f/5.0 when the *light allows* me to keep my ISO at 1000 or less.

Dennis -

Your input - as always - is very treasured. However, remember the OP said he was working at DUSK, which was the only reason I had initially suggested he go to the full 2.8 because of the light conditions that then existed. Dusk can mean alot of things to different people, but it almost always means the light is fading and he may have been struggling to keep shutter speed up.

Your post was very helpful to me, personally, as I am having such trouble with the 120-300 at f. 2.8, that perhaps I should be trying stopping down to see what happens. It was suggested to me by one person privately off forum, and I'll have another go.

Pat

[dmwierz]

Dennis -

Your input - as always - is very treasured. However, remember the OP said he was working at DUSK, which was the only reason I had initially suggested he go to the full 2.8 because of the light conditions that then existed. Dusk can mean alot of things to different people, but it almost always means the light is fading and he may have been struggling to keep shutter speed up.

Your post was very helpful to me, personally, as I am having such trouble with the 120-300 at f. 2.8, that perhaps I should be trying stopping down to see what happens. It was suggested to me by one person privately off forum, and I'll have another go.

Pat

Pat -

I understand the OP was shooting at dusk, but ISO 800, 155mm, f/4.0, 1/1600 tells me he had plenty of light. Lotsa folks were jumping on the "shoot wide open" bandwagon, but since the OP was already at 1/1600s (usually fast enough for kids stuff) there's really no need to open up to f/2.8.

I have shot pro sports with some success at ISO1250, f/4.0 and 1/640s (night time MLB games and NHL hockey, for example).

You are correct. The 120-300 does much better stopped down. With mine, I only shot it wide open when I needed the extra shutter speed. Even my 400 f/2.8L is sharper at f/4.0 or f/5.0.

The question might be asked "why have an f/2.8 lens if you're gonna shoot stopped down?" and this is a legitimate inquiry. There are three reasons: first of all, you might need the large aperture to be able to enable you to use fast enough shutters speeds to shoot under low ambient light conditions, such as with night football (though I'll often stop down when shooting this, and use a flash) or when shooting indoors. The second reason is fast glass hits its "sweet spot" at larger apertures than slower glass. Typically, an f/2.8 is its sharpest between f/8 and f/11 - an f/4.0 lens is sharpest at f/11 and an f/5.6 lens gets the best results between f/11 and f/16. In other words, the faster the lens is, the wider you can shoot and be withiin the "sweet spot". The third reason is to minimize DOF and make the subject stand out against the background. There are some times when only f/2.8 will suffice for this - however, if you have enough "air" between the subject and the background, excellent results can and will be achieved shooting stopped down one or more stops from wide open.

[jonnythan]

I'm gonna be the Contrarian here and say I'd stay at f/4.0, but not for the increase in DOF. With every one stop move in aperture, DOF only changes by the square root of two (1.414) , not doubling which many people wrongly think, so it really doesn't make that much of a difference. However, if you can stop down your lens, you will most likely see an increase in sharpness, and this IS worth doing. I frequently shoot baseball at f/4.0 or even f/5.0 when the light allows me to keep my ISO at 1000 or less.

Don't worry about keeping the ball in focus in shots like this. I agree with danaitch - the ball adds something to the context of the shot, and it is good to have, but there's really no need to have it tack sharp. In fact, some blur will add to the sense of motion.

In this shot, taken at a freakish 1/8000s and f/3.2, the ball is sharp, but it also just left Kip Wells' hand and is still in the focal plane.

http://www.pbase.com/dmwierz45/image/75144114.jpg

In many instances (I'd have to dig through my archives to find one), I actually think a shot of the ball a few feet in front of the pitcher makes for a better shot, and in this case, it's almost always OOF.

Why is this image so much sharper than the OP's?

Is it the ISO?

[HarrisonClicks]

If you were at ISO 800, 1/1600th and f4, it stands to reason that you could open up to f2.8, shoot at ISO400 and keep your 1/1600th. ALWAYS shoot wide open for sport. If you'd dropped your shutter speed to 1/1000th you could have hit an even lower ISO and retained more image quality.

I'm curious why you wanted the ball to stay in focus. If you keep the players face/eyes in focus, you're usually onto a winner - the ball is incidental to the emotion and action in shots like this.

And there's only one 'a' in aperture!! :p

I have never been a good spellar! ;) I have not yet mastered what shutter speeds I need to stay above to get crisp in focus sports shots, whether baseball, soccer, etc. I will definitely stay at 2.8 for the next series to give that a try, but are you saying 1/1000 would be sufficient? (for pitching)? What about batting to keep the bat in focus? Based on this answer I will reduce the ISO to the lowest i can to get proper exposure.

[HarrisonClicks]

Why is this image so much sharper than the OP's?

Is it the ISO?

This is the EXACT essence of my reason for posting this thread. I am going to try the suggestions posted, but this is what frustrates me. I have the gear but i can't get the sharp as a tack sports shots like dmwierz.

[jonnythan]

I'm actually thinking that perhaps 1/1600 just wasn't enough to really freeze motion here.

The shoe and the dirt look really sharp. Perhaps the upper body is still just moving too fast.

[HarrisonClicks]

I'm actually thinking that perhaps 1/1600 just wasn't enough to really freeze motion here.

The shoe and the dirt look really sharp. Perhaps the upper body is still just moving too fast.

Cool. I'll take it to 2.8 and up to 3200!!! But since his games are always at 6:30 EDT i will continue to have fading light - maybe not technically dusk - but I will be forced to stay at 800 ISO.

What also concerns me is that I did not microcalibrate my lenses using that function on the MKIII.

[bobbyz]

Why is this image so much sharper than the OP's?

Is it the ISO?

I think Dennis is using canon 400mm f2.8 IS for the shot. Being good at what you do also helps a lot.

[bobbyz]

One more thing about f2.8 glass.

With f2.8 glass the focussing is much faster and more accurate.

With my tests, I have seen that canon superteles are quite sharp wide open, lot more than canon zooms. Sure sharpness does increase when stopping down.

[jonnythan]

The OP was using f2.8 IS L glass as well.

Sure, "being good helps," but that's not very helpful is it?

I still suspect just a little bit of motion blur, but I'm not sure.

1080i, do you have any similar static shots where the pitcher isn't moving so quickly?

[HarrisonClicks]

1080i, do you have any similar static shots where the pitcher isn't moving so quickly?

Sure. Here is one that I processed the same way - but NO crop on this one - and it was resized the proper way also.

edit: i also attached a crop.

[jonnythan]

That one does indeed seem much, much sharper.

[tomd]

This reminds me of the thread about the SI settings
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=510005&highlight=si

[bobbyz]

The OP was using f2.8 IS L glass as well.

Sure, "being good helps," but that's not very helpful is it?

I still suspect just a little bit of motion blur, but I'm not sure.

1080i, do you have any similar static shots where the pitcher isn't moving so quickly?

70-200mm f2.8 is NOT 400mm f2.8 IS. I have 70-200mm f2.8 and my 500mm f4 blows it away. 300/400mm f2.8 are bit better than 500/600mm f4.

Still lot can depend on shooting technique/experience besides technical stuff, IMHO.

[jonnythan]

70-200mm f2.8 is NOT 400mm f2.8 IS. I have 70-200mm f2.8 and my 500mm f4 blows it away. 300/400mm f2.8 are bit better than 500/600mm f4.

Still lot can depend on shooting technique/experience besides technical stuff, IMHO.

No, it's not, but it's f/2.8 L glass that should produce a reasonably sharp image.

Tell us how shooting technique can make the image in the OP have that sharp pop we see so often.

Yes, I'm serious. I want to know too. I'm honestly trying to learn here, because, by and large, my pictures don't have that sort of pop either.

[AdamLewis]

In many instances (I'd have to dig through my archives to find one), I actually think a shot of the ball a few feet in front of the pitcher makes for a better shot, and in this case, it's almost always OOF.

This has got the batter in it too but I think I know what youre talking about. I very rarely like the shots with the ball just barely leaving the pitchers hand. I like stuff like this much better.

http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa67/adamlewis88/UL%20Baseball%20Apr%2005%202008/AL_BBC2008vStJohns0124.jpg

As far as being sharp goes, this is another instance where a 400mm f/2.8L IS was being shot at f/4

[bobbyz]

No, it's not, but it's f/2.8 L glass that should produce a reasonably sharp image.

Tell us how shooting technique can make the image in the OP have that sharp pop we see so often.

Yes, I'm serious. I want to know too. I'm honestly trying to learn here, because, by and large, my pictures don't have that sort of pop either.

All I am saying is we don't know how good OP is in his technique. If he is getting super sharp shots all the time and only this camera/lens is giving some problems, then sure something is wrong. Is he sure his 1dmk3 is fine with other glass he has. We don't have much information to work with.

Regarding glass, even thought they are f2.8, primes (particularly canon superteles) provide very sharp pictures. Just look at the pictures from 300/400mmf 2.8. You don't get those from canon zooms, if someone does, I would love to see. There is difference between reasonaly sharp and super sharp. Not to mention the color contrast you get with expensive glass.

Here is something from 500mmf 4 IS. This is probably my 3rd game.

http://www.bobbyzphotography.com/img/v1/p305093270-5.jpg

http://www.bobbyzphotography.com/img/v1/p59148711-5.jpg

Now here is with 70-200mm f2.8 on my 30d. Now same lens on 1dmk2 is much better but still not like 500mm f4.

http://www.bobbyzphotography.com/img/v1/p442963393-5.jpg

http://www.bobbyzphotography.com/img/v1/p511768120-5.jpg

[AdamLewis]

All I am saying is we don't know how good OP is in his technique. If he is getting super sharp shots all the time and only this camera/lens is giving some problems, then sure something is wrong. Is he sure his 1dmk3 is fine with other glass he has. We don't have much information to work with.

Regarding glass, even thought they are f2.8, primes (particularly canon superteles) provide very sharp pictures. Just look at the pictures from 300/400mmf 2.8. You don't get those from canon zooms, if someone does, I would love to see. There is difference between reasonaly sharp and super sharp. Not to mention the color contrast you get with expensive glass.

Here is something from 500mmf 4 IS. This is probably my 3rd game.





Now here is with 70-200mm f2.8 on my 30d. Now same lens on 1dmk2 is much better but still not like 500mm f4.





70-200 is plenty sharp. These are all from the 70-200

http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa67/adamlewis88/AVP/AL_AVPLouisvilleOpen_Day2_0201.jpg

http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa67/adamlewis88/AVP/AL_AVPLouisvilleOpen_Day2_0212.jpg

http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa67/adamlewis88/AVP/AL_AVPLouisvilleOpen_Day4_0022.jpg

[HarrisonClicks]

All I am saying is we don't know how good OP is in his technique.

I can tell you he is not very good - but he is trying to get better! (he has only shot 3 baseball games in his life - including tonight - and only 5 soccer games before that - so his action sports shooting is brand new) ;)

OK. Here are some test shots from tonight's game. My son was not the starting pitcher so I practiced on his friend. Now I must say.... the lighting was VERY different tonight (different field - different angle of sun - - well, same 'angle' in sky but different direction of sun), I shot at f/2.8 and not f/4, ISO was 400 and not 800, speed was 1/5000 and not 1/1600. These are both crops.

I like these MUCH better in terms of sharpness. So, this thread has helped me tremendously so far. What do ya'll think?

[HarrisonClicks]

70-200 is plenty sharp. These are all from the 70-200

That is INSANE! I would love to get razor sharp like that!

[AdamLewis]

Well theres a lot that contributes to photography.

Im sorry if its been addressed but do you shot in JPG?

[HarrisonClicks]

Well theres a lot that contributes to photography.

Im sorry if its been addressed but do you shot in JPG?

I only shoot in RAW. These were converted for the posts here.

[Skrim17]

can you post exif? looks like a narrow dof on these latest ones and the ground in front of the pitcher in the second shot is sharper than the pitcher.

[Mumby]

I think the reason your latest shots are sooooo much better (which they definetly are) is mostly down to the light. I know it was mentioned before, but the shots of your son that the thread started with had him lit from behind. The more recent shots have much nice light, look much sharper (can't have sharpness without contrast) and are just overall better.

If I was worrying about why my pictures weren't sharp (which I almost always am :D ) I would ask my son to do some practice pitches just before or after the game, position him somewhere with the light infront of him, and try various settings to see what gives the best results.

I'm looking forward to seeing the latest pictures.

Paul

[AdamLewis]

I only shoot in RAW. These were converted for the posts here.

How do you convert them? What program do you use? And what amount of sharpening is applied in conversion?
Also, what do you do tho them in photoshop? Is it just a resize? Or do you sharpen more there? If so, how much do you sharpen and using what tool?

[HarrisonClicks]

can you post exif? looks like a narrow dof on these latest ones and the ground in front of the pitcher in the second shot is sharper than the pitcher.

I posted the main EXIF stuff in the text that accompanied the post. Is there an easy way (or any way) to get all the EXIF in a text file or any other way to post it here? I use Lightroom and CS3.

[HarrisonClicks]

How do you convert them? What program do you use? And what amount of sharpening is applied in conversion?
Also, what do you do tho them in photoshop? Is it just a resize? Or do you sharpen more there? If so, how much do you sharpen and using what tool?

I converted using the instructions found in first post in this thread (using CS3):

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=265690

I added some sharpening in Lightroom but nothing was sharpened after the conversion.

[Skrim17]

sorry I didn't read enough, just looked at the shots and tried to right click for the info.

[AdamLewis]

http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa67/adamlewis88/Randomness/139U0902.jpg
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=275616&stc=1&d=1212107114

[AdamLewis]

Well. I think mine may look only marginally sharper but Im having trouble deciding if thats because its a tighter crop or not. Either way, Canon actually recommends that if youre going to sharpen your files in post, to do it through Photoshop and to leave the sharpness slider at 0 during conversion. This really only applies to DPP since thats their own software.

I opened in DPP
Set sharp to 0
+.17 EC
Convert to JPG
Open in CS3
Brought up the face a little bit and brought down the green reflection on his chin/cheek
Cropped
Resized to 800xWhatever
USM
Save As

[AdamLewis]

http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa67/adamlewis88/Randomness/139U0926.jpg
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=275617&stc=1&d=1212107114

[HarrisonClicks]

hey thanks! well, this all has helped very much. Perhaps the biggest lesson is to keep shooting and learning. I am definitely addicted!

[George E.]

Good light makes a shot pop and helps the camera find good contrast to AF. In all those tack sharp shots there is good front-lighting. Also, a tight crop helps too. The tigher you can crop with the zoom (or your feet) the sharper you'll look.

George

[chauncey]

Been following this and post has been an education for me and I'm sure others as well.

Having done mostly landscape and wanting the sun at more of an angle to my shots to give texture.
You guys seem to be suggesting that, when shooting sports and the like in the afternoon and evening, I should park my camera facing east.

That about cover it?

There has been a big improvent in Addicts images.

[George E.]

I'm just saying you'll get better pictures if the light is coming from the front; doesn't have to be exactly in front. Your original shot had the sun at the subject's back which makes it tough.

George

[Right Cranium Imaging]

Few minor adjustments, buy as stated before, very small file to work with. Also as stated before ISO 800 is very high.

[S.Horton]

I read this -- couple of ideas for you.

First, use the SI setup noted above.

Second, use a monopod.

Then, get your SS up to at least 1/2000, expose properly, and you should get much better results from the camera.

From there, you will need to know how to post-process a photograph for color, tone and contrast.

EDIT: I see some comments about ISO having something to do with your problems. It doesn't; expose properly, you'll be satisfied.

[bigbaby987]

Pat -

I understand the OP was shooting at dusk, but ISO 800, 155mm, f/4.0, 1/1600 tells me he had plenty of light. Lotsa folks were jumping on the "shoot wide open" bandwagon, but since the OP was already at 1/1600s (usually fast enough for kids stuff) there's really no need to open up to f/2.8.

I have shot pro sports with some success at ISO1250, f/4.0 and 1/640s (night time MLB games and NHL hockey, for example).

You are correct. The 120-300 does much better stopped down. With mine, I only shot it wide open when I needed the extra shutter speed. Even my 400 f/2.8L is sharper at f/4.0 or f/5.0.

The question might be asked "why have an f/2.8 lens if you're gonna shoot stopped down?" and this is a legitimate inquiry. There are three reasons: first of all, you might need the large aperture to be able to enable you to use fast enough shutters speeds to shoot under low ambient light conditions, such as with night football (though I'll often stop down when shooting this, and use a flash) or when shooting indoors. The second reason is fast glass hits its "sweet spot" at larger apertures than slower glass. Typically, an f/2.8 is its sharpest between f/8 and f/11 - an f/4.0 lens is sharpest at f/11 and an f/5.6 lens gets the best results between f/11 and f/16. In other words, the faster the lens is, the wider you can shoot and be withiin the "sweet spot". The third reason is to minimize DOF and make the subject stand out against the background. There are some times when only f/2.8 will suffice for this - however, if you have enough "air" between the subject and the background, excellent results can and will be achieved shooting stopped down one or more stops from wide open.

Thank you Dennis!!!! Even though I own 2.8 glass, you said it best. It's not all about shooting "wide open." Photograph 2 people standing beside each other at 2.8 in daylight and (I hate this) pixel peep, and you'll see that in most cases the depth of field starts to make the adjacent person begin to look out of focus.

Thank you again Dennis!