Why is the IQ sooo bad on this hockey image?

[namasste]

I'm posting a static shot so as to eliminate as many variables as possible but I'm losing my mind and simply can't figure out what the problem is here. I had the lens resting on the boards so shake wasn't an issue. My subject wasn't moving so that wasn't an issue. The glass I shot through was pretty clean so again, no issue yet the image looks like complete and utter crap. Seems like most of my shots from this day were similar whether with the 30D, 1DM2 and 70-200 or 300 mounted to either. This image had a slight crop done and USM of 60/.5/4, that's it. Thoughts??

http://www.sephotos.net/img/v3/p238896862-5.jpg

[cstewart]

Scott:

Not sure what you are seeing but image looks pretty good to me. Maybe the contrast or blacks could be bumped up a tiny bit (eg, get the black on his pads a bit darker) or perhaps it is a touch too overexposed? Maybe the glass in the glass wall behind the rink glass is throwing things off too? Focus looks OK except glove which appears to be out of the DOF a tiny bit.

Other than that, I wish all my keepers looked as clean as your crap!

Cheers!

Chris

[ebann]

If you're talking about it being a little soft, I think it's a focus issue on the main subject... the red goal post looks pretty darn sharp. Also, ISO 1600 won't do miracles in the sharpness department!

[namasste]

Thanks guys. Chris, I looked at some of yours and you are far too modest. For me its a combo of the noise (I know 1600 ISO) and softness that are killing me on this one. Zoombrowsser showed the focus point right on the middle of the upper chest so I began wondering about possible backfocus. I don't know but I feel sick about having to provide this set of images to parents. Maybe (hopefully) they aren't as picky as I am.

[clarence]

I agree... looks like the subject is slightly over-exposed and slightly in front of the focal plane.

The red goal post and right "Heaton" glove seem to be in focus plane.

[Brikwall]

Were you using AI Servo? If so, I've always found focus to be questionable when using it on static subjects.

Also, have you shot at that rink before? Have you had success shooting through the glass there before? Sometimes I find that cheap glass can be a major factor in poor IQ, even when it is clean. Or a pane might look good at first glance but, upon closer inspection, be somewhat flawed (had this happen to me recently - one pane of glass looked good and clean but my images were all softer than I expected. Upon closer inspection, the inside surface of that particular pane was slightly rippled. It wasn't noticeable unless you really looked for it.).

Anyways... just a couple of thoughts.

[clarence]

Sometimes I find that cheap glass can be a major factor in poor IQ, even when it is clean. Or a pane might look good at first glance but, upon closer inspection, be somewhat flawed (had this happen to me recently - one pane of glass looked good and clean but my images were all softer than I expected. Upon closer inspection, the inside surface of that particular pane was slightly rippled.

I had that happen at a lacrosse game with a new generic Circ Pol filter. The whole day's shots were ruined. Looked fine on the viewfinder, but when viewed larger than 3", the softness and ripple was sickening.

I tossed the filter in my junk drawer and bought a nice one. But then I read a thread about heat waves when shooting low on artificial turf... this was an away game for the playoffs... the first time I'd shot on artifical turf. So when LAX season gets here, I might test that filter again.

[namasste]

Clarence and Dan, thanks both. I have shot there one other time but mostly from the bench so no TTG iissues. I was in servo but for shots like this, once I lock focus and they aren't moving, my finger comes off the back button so I'm not sure that's the issue. From the distance I was shooting< would have thought my DOF would be sufficient (even at 2.8) that there'd be some margin for error. In this case, with a focus pt on the mid upper chest, I wouldn't expect much to be oof at all in my main subject (perhpas the very leading edge and that's about it).

[namasste]

. But then I read a thread about heat waves when shooting low on artificial turf... this was an away game for the playoffs... the first time I'd shot on artifical turf. So when LAX season gets here, I might test that filter again.
I learned the heat wave problem the hard way as well. It can kill your images!

[Brikwall]

Clarence and Dan, thanks both. I have shot there one other time but mostly from the bench so no TTG iissues. I was in servo but for shots like this, once I lock focus and they aren't moving, my finger comes off the back button so I'm not sure that's the issue. From the distance I was shooting< would have thought my DOF would be sufficient (even at 2.8) that there'd be some margin for error. In this case, with a focus pt on the mid upper chest, I wouldn't expect much to be oof at all in my main subject (perhpas the very leading edge and that's about it).

I figured you would lock focus and release the back button but thought I'd mention it anyways... sometimes we miss the obvious or overlook the little things...

There should be enough contrast in that logo for the camera to lock on, so the back-focus does seem odd. But you mentioned that you had the same issue no matter which lens or body you used, which leads me to believe that it might be the glass if that's the only common factor (outside of operator error, of course, but I'll ignore that in this case since you're a much better sports photographer than I am). Anyway, I know I've shot TTG in some rinks where 95% of the images were garbage, and I've spent hours in frustration going over my gear and shooting techniques trying to find the problem only to eventually narrow it down to old and/or cheap glass.

[sadler21]

If you're talking about it being a little soft, I think it's a focus issue on the main subject... the red goal post looks pretty darn sharp. Also, ISO 1600 won't do miracles in the sharpness department!

Agreed, the focus is on the post. As for why it happens, Id love to know too as I've had similar problems (focus dead on the jersey's crest yet focus is on someone off to the side despite no AF-point expansion)

[dlpasco]

I was reading a post yesterday where someone said that the 1D focus algorithm will hunt for contrast to the extent that the selected focus point is ignored. Don't know if that is true or not...

[paraphysis]

^ +1 same problem with TTG but I have chalked it up to user error in my case. I'd love it if there was another explanation. :D

[snyderman]

Focus. Appears to be sharpest on the Heaton logo on right hand pad/glove. Also, it looks like the heaton logo and the right side of goal are on about the same plane.

As for overall processing maybe just a play with levels/contrast/saturation/black levels and see what you get!

dave

[namasste]

Since this shot was the 30D 70-200 combo, I don't know but on the 1D shots, I did have auto expansion set to 7 pts and that could certainly mess things up in terms of the algorithm in this type of contrast. Operator error is always a possibility so believe me, I haven't ever considered ruling that.

[ebann]

Don't be too hard on yourself to deliver the goods to your clients... only be hard on yourself on your quest to perfection! People usually don't even notice the noise since they are used to even worse on their P&S... many times I deliver images that requires noise reduction and they say that it looks great the way it was... go figure! At least it saved me a few hours on PS. They published the images the following day without any noise reduction! They prefer impacting images way more than care for a little noise.

[Sledhed]

Maybe it's a sign that you should just give up.

[dlpasco]

Since this shot was the 30D 70-200 combo, I don't know but on the 1D shots, I did have auto expansion set to 7 pts and that could certainly mess things up in terms of the algorithm in this type of contrast. Operator error is always a possibility so believe me, I haven't ever considered ruling that.

I wonder if the xxD bodies have a similar issue? Don't know....

This isn't your first shutter click so I doubt that user error would cause a lot of images to be soft :)

I found the post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Permagrin
ooc are you shooting in aiservo?

Before the fix, mine never wanted to lock on low contrast things in aiservo. It would always choose whatever was higher contrast, no matter what focus point I chose.
My 1Dmk2 does this. It wants the contrast, and finds and tracks the most contrasty thing, even if I put the active AF point on something else. It is extremely frustrating. I believe the camera (any camera) should do exactly what I tell it to do, no matter what. It absolutely sucks to miss a shot thru no fault of my own. I can accept user error - equipment error is completely unacceptable to me. It just shouldn't happen - ever.

[PrimeGlass]

Shot looks pretty good to me. A little overexposed and a little soft possibly due to ISO. Here's a bit o touch up.


http://www.sephotos.net/img/v3/p238896862-5.jpg


http://i45.tinypic.com/23jmpex.jpg

[namasste]

Thanks Dan and PG, the touch up looks good and is probably more than acceptable to parents. Ellery, I really appreciate your comments as well. Too bad Chris has to be the proverbial bad apple, huh? LOL!

[namasste]

btw, who ever thought the words HS hockey and overexposed would be used in the same sentence!!!

[Sledhed]

Too bad Chris has to be the proverbial bad apple, huh? LOL!

Just filling in for Janes right now.

[Dan-o]

I got your back Chris. Obvious user error. I would suggest a book by Bryan Peterson...........:p

[Mike Deep]

Since this shot was the 30D 70-200 combo, I don't know but on the 1D shots, I did have auto expansion set to 7 pts and that could certainly mess things up in terms of the algorithm in this type of contrast. Operator error is always a possibility so believe me, I haven't ever considered ruling that.

My 30D + 70-200 combo does this crap on a regular basis. Only it's not consistently front or back focused, it's just off for no particularly good reason most of the time. My tracking is good and my use of the center AF point on high contrast targets is also good. The camera is just off in la-la land.

[namasste]

I got your back Chris. Obvious user error. I would suggest a book by Bryan Peterson...........:p
oh Munson, now that's just not right! :lol: Janes, you're my last hope here and that said, I'm screwed!!! :lol:

[cstewart]

Just filling in for Janes right now.

Whew! I thought you were talking about me for a second!

Don't worry about the parents...they are not too fussy about OOF shots or noise. And in any case We (you, me and others doing this regularly) likley delete from the final set many images that parents would not be able to tell anything is wrong with even before they see them!

[cstewart]

Thanks guys. Chris, I looked at some of yours and you are far too modest. For me its a combo of the noise (I know 1600 ISO) and softness that are killing me on this one. Zoombrowsser showed the focus point right on the middle of the upper chest so I began wondering about possible backfocus. I don't know but I feel sick about having to provide this set of images to parents. Maybe (hopefully) they aren't as picky as I am.

Thanks Scott and no parents won't be as picky as you and I might be!