LL sigma repair (round two)...

[pigtailpat]

I got the lens back from second repair. It seems to be working better. However, I made a big mess of the test shoot for a couple of reasons. First the weather was very bad, on the verge of raining and very dark. Second, I left my ISO on 200 from a prior game, and forgot to check it, so I got very poor shutter speeds. I just wasn't thinking at all about what I was doing. I had to shoot mostly at 2.8 due to the light, and I left after shooing only about 30 min., because the falling raindrops forced me.

I did get this shot (not my son, but his mom has given me permission to post). Forgetting about the obvious motion blur and everything else, would this seem a wee bit better than prior sigma posts? Alot of human error contributed to this shot, but I myself see a little bit of improvement insofar as the lens is concerned. I'm just kicking myself that I didn't pay attenion more to do a better test, which now has to await for this weekend's games (assuming the rain doesn't kill the weekend).

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b243/pigtailpat/sigma%20test/28sigmatest.jpg

[dekalbSTEEL]

If you had been shooting in manual, you would have noticed right away that your ISO was too low (by the histogram)

[pigtailpat]

I agree, but I knew immediately that my shutter was too slow, but for some reason, I just wasn't connecting all the dots in my head and didn't check the ISO as I normally do. I think I was distracted because I was totally bent on trying to determine if the lens was refocusing (via AF) properly after zooming, which was my original problem with it.

Pat

[bobbyz]

Pat, can you put side by side images, before and after the repair. Then it will be easier to compare.

[MT Stringer]

Pat, if you haven't tried out Breeze Browser, you need to. I use it all the time. According to Breeze, your center focus point was dead center on the pants zipper.

Has this image been altered (cropped, PP) any?

I downloaded your pic and did a little tinkering in Paint shop pro and it sharpened up pretty good except for the motion blur. The ground underneath and around him looks sharp.

Hope this helps.
Mike

[Bill S]

I feel like I am walking into the middle of a conversation but I looked back at some posts and feel like a have a decent idea of what is going on. A couple of observations.
If you are shooting raw looking at the images without sharpening is not really fair, they are supposed to be sharpened. I would not expect sharp images out of my 120-300 1DII combination unsharpened. If you are shooting Jpeg the camera settings determine the sharpness. I shoot raw. The 120-300 does much better with the sun at your back or at least to the side, directly behind the subject is difficult. If you are underexposed it effects sharpness in my experience. I shoot in AV at +1/3 to 2/3 EC depending on the time of day. I prefer "overexposed" images. By this I mean the white pants in most instances are blown out. I would expect them to blow out more at noon then at 9:00 in the morning. I then adjust in post.

You mention stopping down. I have been experimenting stopping down from 2/3 to one stop. It makes a huge difference. With the 1.4x on I might go 1-1/3 stop if I could get away with it. I would also experiment with the sharpening. There are many ways to skin that cat.

I messed with the levels and sharpened the photo and it looked OK.
Not bad considering the poor light.

I look forward to seeking the next series of photos.

[pigtailpat]

Pat, if you haven't tried out Breeze Browser, you need to. I use it all the time. According to Breeze, your center focus point was dead center on the pants zipper.

Has this image been altered (cropped, PP) any?

I downloaded your pic and did a little tinkering in Paint shop pro and it sharpened up pretty good except for the motion blur. The ground underneath and around him looks sharp.

Hope this helps.
Mike

I'd like more information on Breeze Browser! Yes, the center point I had been aiming for beltline/chest. I probably dipped alittle under that, because in addition, I'm trying to center the person in between the 4 x 5 crop lines so that ***if*** I can a terrific shot, then I can crop to a 4 x 5 ratio. If I raise that center point up more higher on the chest, then, what is going to happen is that the feet part will get cut-off if I decide I want a 4 x 5 crop later (some of the boys are bigger - and this kid is one of them). Given what is happening here (and Mike bless you for pointing that out), when shooting vertically, should I be using a different focus point, in light of the fact that I am also trying to compose for possible 4 x 5 cropping later? Or, should I not be so worried about 4 x 5 cropping? (I am using a 30d - so I don't know how sensitive the northern focus point is). I hope I'm explaining this so you understand what I mean.

Yes, I noticed that the ground underneath him looks pretty sharp in this shot. When I use a canon lens (specifically the 70-200), if I raise the center point too high and too close to the upper chest, I will blow out focus on the face, but on this lens, it seems like if I am too far down, the focus will shift down.

As to your question about PP, I probably did a crop, and an overall lightening of the photo using the CS2 screen method, but nothing else and no USM applied. Even though I only took it yesterday, I can't quite remember what I did before posting, but I know for sure I did not apply any USM.

Thanks!

Pat

[Palladium]

I feel like I am walking into the middle of a conversation but I looked back at some posts and feel like a have a decent idea of what is going on. A couple of observations.
If you are shooting raw looking at the images without sharpening is not really fair, they are supposed to be sharpened. I would not expect sharp images out of my 120-300 1DII combination unsharpened. If you are shooting Jpeg the camera settings determine the sharpness. I shoot raw. The 120-300 does much better with the sun at your back or at least to the side, directly behind the subject is difficult. If you are underexposed it effects sharpness in my experience. I shoot in AV at +1/3 to 2/3 EC depending on the time of day. I prefer "overexposed" images. By this I mean the white pants in most instances are blown out. I would expect them to blow out more at noon then at 9:00 in the morning. I then adjust in post.

You mention stopping down. I have been experimenting stopping down from 2/3 to one stop. It makes a huge difference. With the 1.4x on I might go 1-1/3 stop if I could get away with it. I would also experiment with the sharpening. There are many ways to skin that cat.

I messed with the levels and sharpened the photo and it looked OK.
Not bad considering the poor light.

I look forward to seeking the next series of photos.

Great Post - I agree 100%

[dekalbSTEEL]

I wouldn't worry about getting the perfect 4x5 in camera, and I also wouldn't worry too much about getting the entire body in the shot

http://jongeephotography.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p877795148-3.jpg

here's one you might like (way better than mine;) )

http://www.pbase.com/dmwierz45/image/82522385

[Big K]

Pat,

You might try doing a more controlled focus test to see how the lens is working. I would suggest get a tripod and set up the camera where you can take a picture of a fixed object. I like to use a sheet laser printed text because it has such sharp, dark edges. This will allow you to take a shot, zoom, refocus and shoot and have the only variable be the zooming and refocusing. Since you have the original as a reference, you have a good idea of how sharp the focus is on the lens.

You can fine tune your analysis by adjusting the aperture to better estimate if the level of focus is from accuracy of the camera/lens or a wider depth of field. They do make preprinted special analysis cards to really test out performance but they are very expensive and overkill unless maybe you are shooting for Vanity Fair.

Regarding your AF point and where you target on your subject, I think your approach is excellent and shows that you are taking your photos with a purpose in mind. Generally, the subjects face and stomach are close enough to the same distance from your camera that if the focus is accurate the face will be sharp. This becomes a problem when the subject is bent way forward or backward. The amount of bend required before focus is a problem is directly related to your DOF.

Unless you are a master of camera control, most baseball action where this is a factor happen so quickly that if you were trying to focus on the face you would have missed the shot anyway as their head would have moved unexpectedly. Properly composing your shots so the subject maximizes the image area of the final product is an outstanding approach and will make your work much better than the norm as you gain experience.

However, I also agree with dekalbSTEEL that you don't always need the whole body in the shot for it to be a keeper. Variety is also an important component of good overall photography skills.

Keep up the good work.

Kevin

[pigtailpat]

All of you have been so helpful. Ok well, you've given me the courage to try getting closer and not necessarily a full body shot. Playoffs start Saturday for LL. The game is at 5 PM, so hopefully I'll have much better light (and better frame of mind) than this last disasterous test.

I still would like to know about Breeze Browser - what is it? I think it would be really helpful to me to know how accurately I am aiming my center focus point.

Thanks!

Pat

[Bill S]

There are some great tight pitcher shots in my opinion'.
1 F5 120-300 1.4x ISO 500, shot through a fence
http://www.smugmug.com/photos/305163888_e2Jzm-XL.jpg

Shoot lots of photos vary the F stop, use good technique. Post lots of photos.

I have the same equipment yet my photos get better and better year over year.
I have concluded it is the nut directly behind the camera that effects the image the most. The nut needs calibration.

[MT Stringer]

I have the same equipment yet my photos get better and better year over year.
I have concluded it is the nut directly behind the camera that effects the image the most. The nut needs calibration.


Me too, Bill. Me too! :-)

Mike