wow... i SUCK...

[Noitca]

do you shoot Raw format or jpg?

And, yes, the light could be that bad.

Also, if you don't mind people goofing with your pictures you put on here, you could turn on "image editing OK" in your user settings. I can't remember exactly where that is though in the menus.

EDIT...

To turn on the image editing ok option...
Click "User CP" (upper left option on the top bar), then click "Edit Profile", then it's the first option in "additional information"... might have to scroll down a bit to get to it.

[Ltdave]

will the editing allowed, screw with the originals that are hosted on photobucket?

i shoot JPG... L with the quarter round icon beside it (18mp)...

[Brikwall]

Set your AF point to the center one and switch your drive to AI-Servo. Those were taken in one-shot mode with auto selection for the focus point.

[Noitca]

No, that just gives permission for someone on here to save your picture, do some edits, rehost it somewhere on their space (photobucket or similar), then post back here to explain what "adjustments" they are talking about.

-----

Shooting in JPEG, I think the only edits in DPP you can do are on the second tab of the tools window ("RGB" is the title of the tab, at least what is in the version I have). There you get some adjustments for brightness, sharpness, and a couple of others. On the third tab, you will have some noise reduction sliders available, which you can use to remove the noise you get at higher iso... The stronger the noise reduction, the greater sacrifice to "detail and sharpness" of the underlying picture.

Managing JPGs are certainly easier. However, the white balance that the camera calculates (right or wrong) pretty much sets it for the picture. Those are the "sunny", "cloudy", and whatnot settings on the camera.

IF you were to shoot RAW format, the first tab in DPP is active, and that will give you a lot more options for altering the image after it has been taken. You aren't married to the white balance chosen by the camera when the shot was taken, you can get a lot of control on stuff like tones, brightness, and a ton of other stuff that I don't even begin to understand.

IMO, I use RAW as a safety net, and use it often. If I miss a setting at taking the shot by a bit (or a lot), RAW format provides a chance to recover.

elrey shoots jpeg, and pretty much posts straight from the camera (I think he pretty much crops and resizes for here)... dude has skills. I am sure others here also shoot jpeg with great success and minimal editing.

[rammsteinmatt]

MOD EDIT: Removed quote of deleted post and response.


OP: unfortunately you are trying to shoot one of the most difficult things out there. Shooting with a high shutter speed in low light requires high end equipment to get the best results, there's just no getting around it.

At NHL games the photogs frequently have 70-200 f/2.8 in hand on a pro body shooting highish ISOs, those barns are loaded with lights, and the official photographer still uses the house strobes.

[Ltdave]

Set your AF point to the center one and switch your drive to AI-Servo. Those were taken in one-shot mode with auto selection for the focus point.

some of my earlier shots were with the center point. i didnt change it after a game and screwed up some group shots so i left it on multi-point. ill change it back thanks...

No, that just gives permission for someone on here to save your picture, do some edits, rehost it somewhere on their space (photobucket or similar), then post back here to explain what "adjustments" they are talking about.

okay. ill do that. i dont mind constructive criticism but i dont need any smart-assed or otherwise snarky comments...

unfortunately you are trying to shoot one of the most difficult things out there. Shooting with a high shutter speed in low light requires high end equipment to get the best results, there's just no getting around it.

At NHL games the photogs frequently have 70-200 f/2.8 in hand on a pro body shooting highish ISOs, those barns are loaded with lights, and the official photographer still uses the house strobes.

i know the lighting is far from optimal. there wasnt any hockey program going on when i worked on the college paper or for Gannett. really about the first time shooting in there...

i shot last night's game in RAW L but i dont have any software to open them let alone edit them. im going back to just plain L. i went manual (could have just as well shot on Tv) and went with 3200 ISO, 1/500" (sometimes 1/400") and f5.6 since that was as far open as the lens would go. HOWEVER, i just got in the USPS today, my 70-200 f2.8L IS so we'll see what that brings. 200 is a little bit short for shooting into the corners from the redline though. could use a 100-300 but then id need another body with a shorter lens for action in the neutral zone. of course a camera port in the glass would be nice for down in the corners, since we have such crummy 'glass'...

[Daship]

Originally Posted by rammsteinmatt

Let's get this straight, there are excellent pics and there are excellent pics for the gear being used. Those are not the same thing.

Both are commendable in their own right, but when you substitute one for the other - that's where the thin ice lies. I'll agree, your pics are good for the equipment you have; but for people who shoot high end equipment, the pitfalls of inexpensive equipment are IMMEDIATELY apparent. Look at the sharpness and colors of the T-28 (airplane) compared to say this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattshi...1031/lightbox/



OP: unfortunately you are trying to shoot one of the most difficult things out there. Shooting with a high shutter speed in low light requires high end equipment to get the best results, there's just no getting around it.

At NHL games the photogs frequently have 70-200 f/2.8 in hand on a pro body shooting highish ISOs, those barns are loaded with lights, and the official photographer still uses the house strobes.

My point exactly.

[Fuhrtographer]

Originally Posted by Ltdave

i shot last night's game in RAW L but i dont have any software to open them let alone edit them. im going back to just plain L. i went manual (could have just as well shot on Tv) and went with 3200 ISO, 1/500" (sometimes 1/400") and f5.6 since that was as far open as the lens would go. HOWEVER, i just got in the USPS today, my 70-200 f2.8L IS so we'll see what that brings. 200 is a little bit short for shooting into the corners from the redline though. could use a 100-300 but then id need another body with a shorter lens for action in the neutral zone. of course a camera port in the glass would be nice for down in the corners, since we have such crummy 'glass'...

It seems you have a fair amount of photography skills, you just need a little work on the digital end Dave! Once you start developing some PP skills you will want to shoot in RAW. DPP is a great PP tool, here is a tutorial to get you started, http://learn.usa.canon.com/galleries...utorials.shtml

Your gear is probably maxed out, (your photos are a little noisy) but there is nothing "wrong" with them. With a little PP you can clean that up and give them some Pop, and they will look a lot better.

[Ltdave]

It seems you have a fair amount of photography skills, you just need a little work on the digital end Dave! Once you start developing some PP skills you will want to shoot in RAW. DPP is a great PP tool, here is a tutorial to get you started, http://learn.usa.canon.com/galleries...utorials.shtml

Your gear is probably maxed out, (your photos are a little noisy) but there is nothing "wrong" with them. With a little PP you can clean that up and give them some Pop, and they will look a lot better.

thank you. shot for quite a few years and must have done SOMETHING right along the way because Gannett never canned me, the Air Force never canned me and i actually got promoted for doing the job, its just the digital thing i think...

im definitely going to look into the tutorial. ive opened stuff with DPP but i dont seem to be able to manipulate anything...






the first pics i had taken was with my wifes T1i. granted im not shooting with a Lincoln but the T2i does have a bit more to play with. i just got my 70-200 f2.8L today and wow it really DOES make a huge difference. i shot 1600 iso, 1/500" and f2.8. i could have bumped the iso another notch but the pics are so MUCH better (at least to me). used to be you didnt need the L lenses to get such better quality (back in the FD days) but nowadays....

having skated in this particular barn, i never thought the light was so bad but my shots were so darned muddy...

[Fuhrtographer]

Originally Posted by Ltdave

im definitely going to look into the tutorial. ive opened stuff with DPP but i dont seem to be able to manipulate anything...

Them shots are a lot better, amazing what a faster lens will do!

When you open an image in DPP, push control-T to bring up the tools. The tool menu has three tabs; RAW, JPEG and Noise reduction/lens. RAW will be blank when the image is in JPEG format.

I touched up one of your latest images in DPP. I spent literally 30 sec on it. Just added a little saturation, contrast, hue, sharpened and quite a bit of Noise Reduction.

Noise would be the equivalent to grain in film shooting and from my experience is related to ISO. A fast lens will most definitely help but a professional body like a 5d3 will help as well, they can shoot at ISO 6400 without hardly any noise no matter what lens it seems.

[Ltdave]

a 5d3 will help as well

yeah, i wish it were that easy....

i dont use my camera to make money (anymore) and a $3,500 body is definitely not in my immediate future...

i was asked by my nephew just yesterday whether or not i was going to be moving to a 5DII but i had to explain i had JUST GOT my T2i a month ago...

[Fuhrtographer]

Originally Posted by Ltdave

yeah, i wish it were that easy....

i dont use my camera to make money (anymore) and a $3,500 body is definitely not in my immediate future...

I am in the same boat!

[burnet44]

me too
and no one is as bad as I am
coaching 16 year olds in football was easier

[Ltdave]

well...

it would appear maybe i dont suck as bad as i thought i did. with the faster lens, ive got a lot more to work with AND with knowing a bit more and more (every time i play with it) about DPP and RAW, id say these lastest pics are much better...

i still have to figure out a way to get consistent in my PP editing because ill edit some, edit some others and then when im going through them, ill see that the first set needs more editing. i really like the way you can make the colors POP but like someone else posted on the site, i dont like to create an image, but to RECREATE the scene as it was when the picture was made...

here are a couple more examples with the faster f2.8 lenses. no color manipulation other than a notch or two of saturation increase..













i still need some more shutter speed but im trying to keep the ISO noise down...

[burnet44]

always a battle inside