More HS basketball...

[Back288]

My second time shooting high school basketball, just for more practice. All shot ambient with the 40D and the 85mm f1.8. C & C always welcome and appreciated, thanks for looking!

1
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n233/Back288/Roncalli%20Boys%20Basketball/IMG_9722esc.jpg

2
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n233/Back288/Roncalli%20Boys%20Basketball/IMG_9713esc.jpg

3
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n233/Back288/Roncalli%20Boys%20Basketball/IMG_9743esc.jpg

4
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n233/Back288/Roncalli%20Boys%20Basketball/IMG_9772esc.jpg

5
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n233/Back288/Roncalli%20Boys%20Basketball/IMG_9742esc.jpg

[snyderman]

Good action shots. Nice framing. And shooting ambient, the light IS what it is!

Nice job.

dave

[Simon Turkin]

nice stuff a little noisey

[ahhhlawn]

shots look good!

[superdiver]

By George, I think you got it!

[TopGear1Ds]

I think these look nicer than your previous thread. You'll do well on your news gig. Good luck!

[strokeofg]

I just shot my second game. And while the action captured looks ok, the quality doesn't look nearly as clean as these. Is there any Post Processing? What do you feel is the reasoning the images look bright, rich, and smooth? Thanks. Trying to work out the kinks.

[Back288]

Good action shots. Nice framing. And shooting ambient, the light IS what it is!

Nice job.

dave

Thank you Dave! Yep, can't control ambient very much, I hadn't ever been to this gym before, and it took awhile to figure out the lighting. It's new lighting and looks whiter and brighter to the eye, but the camera's meter was telling me it was darker than the other gyms I've shot in. I found out...if you want the exposure right you have to trust the camera, not the eyes:D

nice stuff a little noisey

Thanks Simon! These were more practice for my newspaper shoot, so I shot them, as I call it, "newspaper style" (JPEG instead of Raw, quick minor level adjustments, etc). I didn't take the time to try reducing any of the noise as I would had I been shooting Raw, because with the tight deadlines, there's just never time to get that picky.

shots look good!

Thank you Alan!

By George, I think you got it!

Thanks David! I hope they're improving a little, it seems to be getting easier and requiring less pp every time. Practice, practice, practice...:D

I think these look nicer than your previous thread. You'll do well on your news gig. Good luck!

Thank you for the kind comments! I haven't had a newspaper assignment in a couple of months (thanks to the economy, staff/budget cuts, etc) so I'm more nervous about it than I was when shooting 3 or 4 gigs a week for them, and really want to do well so that hopefully more assignments come my way.

I just shot my second game. And while the action captured looks ok, the quality doesn't look nearly as clean as these. Is there any Post Processing? What do you feel is the reasoning the images look bright, rich, and smooth? Thanks. Trying to work out the kinks.

Thank you! These, and the pictures from my post prior to these, have very little post processing and no noise reduction at all and were shot in Jpeg. If I were shooting these to sell, or for myself where time isn't quite as big an issue, I'd have shot them in Raw and took the time to manually adjust everything. Since these were practice for the news gig, to save time while processing images for the newspaper assignments, I created a "basic news" action in photoshop (auto levels, auto contrast, auto color, minor usm) so all I have to do is shoot in Jpeg, crop to size, hit the "basic news" action to get it close, then do minor tweaking in levels to get it looking the way I want. None of these had any other color/contrast/saturation adjustments at all. That's it on these.

I've been practicing at 3 different local gyms, and all three are very different as lighting goes. I think if we shoot in ambient light our images are at the mercy of the lighting. This gym had new lights that put out very white light, but it metered darker than the other hs I practiced at even though it looked brighter to the eyes. The local college I practiced at has the brightest lighting, but the color cast is terrible, some of the individual lights are visibly red, others greenish, others yellow, and on and on. Those take a lot of pp to get the colors even close, there's even been a few that just don't look right no matter what.

Sorry I can't be of more help, I'm pretty new at this so others may be able to advise more (I'm usually the one asking:D). Nice football shots on your site by the way, mine from last fall don't look nearly that good!

[HighPixel]

Ambient Gods were on your side tonight! Very nice action and crops.
Good job!
HP

[beacherz]

Great shots. It gives us newbies something to aim at. I'm always having trouble bringing in really crisp shots. Are you using single point focus?

[gromeo]

I didn't take the time to try reducing any of the noise as I would had I been shooting Raw, because with the tight deadlines, there's just never time to get that picky.




Mike, you have some good shots there, I will have to disagree with your statement, just because it is a newspaper is no excuse not to be picky, news print is horrible on photos and this is one more reason to be picky, you want that one pic that is printed to be its best and this is done by proper toning. One thing about shooting on deadline is time management so you have time to tone your prints before submission. Remember an editor will remember a bad pic longer than a good one.
Good Luck

[Back288]

Ambient Gods were on your side tonight! Very nice action and crops.
Good job!
HP

Amen! Thanks HP! I paid for those shots tonight though when it counted, I must not have prayed to the ambient gods enough this time...if it could go wrong it did, it was a long night freelancing. As good as everything went the last couple times out practicing, tonight went that bad. Know anyone that wants to buy a 40D and 85 1.8? I think it's time to give up photography for something else...just kidding, bad night though.

Great shots. It gives us newbies something to aim at. I'm always having trouble bringing in really crisp shots. Are you using single point focus?

Thank you! I'm still a newbie too, and yes I'm using single point focus. I was just fortunate to be shooting in a well-lit gym.

Mike, you have some good shots there, I will have to disagree with your statement, just because it is a newspaper is no excuse not to be picky, news print is horrible on photos and this is one more reason to be picky, you want that one pic that is printed to be its best and this is done by proper toning. One thing about shooting on deadline is time management so you have time to tone your prints before submission. Remember an editor will remember a bad pic longer than a good one.
Good Luck

Thank you for your kind comments and tips! I really didn't mean that I'm not picky about the newspaper shots, in reality I try to get them the best I can. I enjoy shooting freelance for them and try my best to get what they want and have them look as good as possible in the time allowed. The ones above were just practice, not for print.

[Point-n-shoot-n]

What ISO were you shooting at? I think these shots look very good!

[beacherz]

Looking at these shots again tonight i really noticed that they "jump out" at me. Is the 85mm that much sharper than your 70-200 2.8L?

[Back288]

What ISO were you shooting at? I think these shots look very good!

Thank you for the kind comment! These were all shot at ISO 1250 if I remember correctly.

Looking at these shots again tonight i really noticed that they "jump out" at me. Is the 85mm that much sharper than your 70-200 2.8L?

Again, I'm relatively new at indoor sports shooting...counting assignments and practice I think I've shot less than 10 games, so keep that in mind when I give an opinion. I think the 70-200 2.8L gets overall better image quality (sharpness, color depth, etc), but at the gyms I've had to shoot in, the difference between maximum aperture of f1.8 and f2.8 makes shooting with the 85 more comfortable to me. If I shoot with the 70-200 even wide open at 2.8, I have to use ISO 1600 at the very least and even ISO 3200 most of the time. With the 85 I can stay with ISO 1250, sometimes even 1000 and still only open the lens up to f2.0 or f2.2 which gives me much lower noise levels and many times, better color.

I think if I ever had a chance to shoot at an NCAA gym or even pro facility (yeah, like THAT would ever happen:rolleyes:), it'd probably be bright enough that I'd use the 70-200 and leave the 85 at home. The 70-200 is a sweet lens, but the extra stops of the 85 f1.8 just give me a larger "comfort zone" in the dimmer gyms.

[beacherz]

Thanks Mike...btw, I totally agree. Most every gym I've shot in has me shooting either at 1600 or 3200 w/the 70-200 @2.8. Maybe the 85 would be worth the investment. Your shots are certainly a testiment to what it is capable of. Good luck!

[strokeofg]

If I shoot with the 70-200 even wide open at 2.8, I have to use ISO 1600 at the very least and even ISO 3200 most of the time. With the 85 I can stay with ISO 1250, sometimes even 1000 and still only open the lens up to f2.0 or f2.2 which gives me much lower noise levels and many times, better color.

This really resonates with me. I shoot with the 70-200 2.8 and 24-70 2.8, both L's and, in the words of the Grinch, "Oh! The noise, Noise, NOISE!" It's killing me!!!! I've posted a bunch here: www.gallery.me.com/rhalvorsen

You mentioned my football pictures earlier and it's kind of funny, because I had forgotten about those. They brought back some good memories. If you remember the player signaling with the ref, Tony Dungey's son. Good player. State champs this year. Woohaa!

Have you posted more pictures somewhere. I'd like to see more.