Photos from todays SF Giants-vs-Mets 6-4-08 baseball Game

[Strnge]

I rented a 300 2.8 and was trying it out from the stands. I was having a bad day and then I was able to get the first photo. I was suffering from a lack of sleep and could not figure out what I was doing wrong. All my photos were out of focus. (Finished collecting ballots for the election at 5 a.m., got home at 6 a.m. and then went to the game at 10 a.m.)

[c41250n]

sickness!

[GUER03]

You shot these from the stands? Great shots. Were you close to the field?Do you have more that can be seen somewhere? Thanx for sharing.

[bobbyz]

Do they allow in something like 300mm f2.8? I would love to take my 500mm f4 IS.

[KirkHMB]

Do they allow in something like 300mm f2.8? I would love to take my 500mm f4 IS.

I was in the club level Sunday, and there was a guy with a 400 or 500. The stadium will allow any equipment, but you can't block others access to the game. This guy was standing between the seats and a wall, so out of the way for certain.

http://sanfrancisco.giants.mlb.com/sf/ticketing/ballparkguide_list.jsp#cameras

CAMERAS & VIDEO EQUIPMENT
Cameras and video equipment are allowed in AT&T Park, but the equipment may not obstruct the view or path of others. Fans are not allowed to reproduce or rebroadcast any film or videotape of Giants games for commercial purposes without the written permission of the Giants and Major League Baseball.

[FZ1dave]

All my photos were out of focus. .

If those are OOF then I need to have my eyes checked. They look great to me, especially the first one.

Nice job!

[dmwierz]

I was in the club level Sunday, and there was a guy with a 400 or 500. The stadium will allow any equipment, but you can't block others access to the game. This guy was standing between the seats and a wall, so out of the way for certain.

http://sanfrancisco.giants.mlb.com/sf/ticketing/ballparkguide_list.jsp#cameras

CAMERAS & VIDEO EQUIPMENT
Cameras and video equipment are allowed in AT&T Park, but the equipment may not obstruct the view or path of others. Fans are not allowed to reproduce or rebroadcast any film or videotape of Giants games for commercial purposes without the written permission of the Giants and Major League Baseball.

Kirk - FYI, I've also seen the bag rules applied to camera gear at several MLB parks. In other words, if it can fit in their maximum bag size, you can bring in camera gear, subject to the Cameras & Video Equipment section you quoted. Here is the Bag section from AT&T park:

BAGS, CONTAINERS & COOLERS
Large bags measuring OVER 16x16x8 are NOT allowed into the ballpark. All permitted bags including purses, briefcases, and diaper bags (smaller than 16x16x8 ) will be searched before entering the park. Fans are encouraged to arrive early and to allow additional time when entering the park. Per MLB guidelines, NO HARD SIDED (soft sided OK) coolers will be allowed. (Lil Oscar's, Coleman lunch style included.) All bags and containers are subject to search.

[manutd101]

These are very, very nice! Not OOF at all, the only complaint would be that the second one seems a tad bright.

[dmwierz]

Michael - the first shot is OK, but the timing is a little late. The peak action would have been before either the runner reached the bag or Vizquel tagged him. You would like there to be some tension in the image, as in "Was he safe?". Also, the eyes of the runner and the ball would be an improvement.

The colors on these look really flat. Probably because they're in Adobe RGB, which doesn't reproduce well in Web browsers. Convert them to sRGB before saving them and they'll look better. Also, did you "Save for Web" with these? If so, this also flattens the colors. I usually boost the saturation a little before doing a "Save for Web".

The focus isn't as sharp as I'd like to see on the second shot, either. The highlights are a bit blown out (understandable considering the lighting, but still a little too blown) which also makes images appear soft. Did you sharpen these in post?

On pitcher shots taken from the side like this, you can normally pre-focus on the pitcher at the start of the wind-up, and since the motion is parallel to the plane of focus, you can just leave the AF alone and concentrate on framing. You are using C Fn 4, aren't you?

FYI, in general, it really helps to include EXIF data on images posted here, and with your two, this data isn't available.

[Strnge]

Thanks everyone. Especially Dennis. I to agree that the second one is just out of focus. That was my issue the entire day as I mentioned earlier.

Here is how the first photo transpired: With a man on second, Reyes hit a shot to left field and it went off the wall. I was sitting 13 rows up in section 129 (where the Giants pitcher stands on the mound for warm ups), I pointed the camera towards home when I saw the third baseman go out for the cut off and saw the runner rounding third headed for home. With my right eye I prefocused on home and with my left eye I saw the third baseman take the cut of throw from left field. I then saw the third baseman make a short hop clockwise and turned toward second. He threw towards second and I swung my camera around from home to second in time to take two shots on high burst. This photo was the first one. The second one was way out of focus and Reyes was blocked by the short stop. He was safe at second and if you look closely his hand had just hit the bag and the tag had not yet been made.


I have only taken this camera out to the baseball park 2 times and shot a little here and there in between. I have no idea of how to use most of the tools on the camera. I also have little to no knowledge about photoshop either. I have the MK II manual, I read it often and I practice when I can, which is not often sice I am studying for a promotional exam in my Department. I also experiment with new features to learn them. I have no idea what C Fn 4 is and how to use it. I assume it has something to do with the focus?


I have no idea how to save a photo so you can see the EXIF. This is what I have done ever since getting photoshop CS 2 about 4 months ago. I open the photo in RAW, adjusted the white balance if needed, pressed open and then the regular photoshop openes up. From there I would adjust for shadows a bit if needed. Crop if needed, then save the photo. It automaticly saves as a JPEG and the file size is still huge. I have no idea how to make the photo smaller, so I open it back up in Microsoft Paint and shrink the photo using strech and skew. This is again, is the only way I figured out how to make a photo small enough pixel wise for posting. So as you can see my knowledge is nill. Any and all help would be apreciated.


Here are some more photos:

[Strnge]

A couple more I'm so so with.

[dmwierz]

Michael - are you using any sharpening in PhotoShop? It's not within the scope of a forum like this to give a tutorial on PS, but you'll need to learn at least the basics in PS. I'd learn these features first:
Unsharp Mask (USM is still my preference Vs Smart Sharpen)
How to adjust White Balance in post
How to adjust horizons in post (actually a Rotate Canvas Arbitrary)
Levels Controls
How to resize an image (several options to learn)
Save for Web Vs. hosting elsewhere (the latter is preferred IMO)
Color spaces (Adobe RGB Vs sRGB)


I almost never, ever, shoot in RAW. In the middle of the day, especially with all that great sunlight, I just don't see the need. The only time I shoot RAW will be when the light is very, very challenging. Even then, I shoot JPEG + RAW and almost never end up using the RAW files.

Also, I shoot most of the time in sRGB since most of my stuff ends up on the Web.

The best book for learning these things is, again IMO, Scott Kelby's "Photoshop CS2 for Digital Photographers". I've had it 3 years and I still refer to it all the time:

http://www.amazon.com/Photoshop-Digital-Photographers-Voices-Matter/dp/0321330625/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212748358&sr=8-4

Here's a quick attempt at a rework of your shot of Maine, with USM, a bit of a levels adjustment, converted to sRGB, etc. I also did a "Save for Web" which further reduces the size and color depth of the image. Kinda hard to do any editing on a reduced-size image but it gives you an idea of what can be done.

[tgr141291]

Looks a bit oversaturated

[dmwierz]

Looks a bit oversaturated

Could be. Like I said, it's not easy when you're not working with the original. I wasn't exactly expecting C&C's on my rework, though ;) . The point is, all the other shots posted are WAY under-saturated.

[jevidon]

if you shot in RAW i would highly recommend a little extra contrast and color for a little better pop. Nice work otherwise!

[manutd101]

Could be. Like I said, it's not easy when you're not working with the original. I wasn't exactly expecting C&C's on my rework, though ;) . The point is, all the other shots posted are WAY under-saturated.
Agreed on the undersaturation.

[striving]

Great shots!! Love em all.

[82NoMe]

Really feeling the first one.