Index  •   • New Posts  •   • RTAT  •   • "Best Of"  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New Posts  •   • RTAT  •   • "Best Of"  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Critique Corner
Thread started 02 Oct 2001 (Tuesday) 19:28
PREV/NEXT

VolleyBall Blues

 
mpkirby
Member
118 posts
Joined Jun 2001
MORE INFO

Beach512 wrote:

> Nice shot! I love how you captured that moment and the expression on your sons'
> face is great! We all can relate to that. It is nice to see a "real life" moment shot.
> We can only shoot so many pictures of flowers, fire hydrants, dragonflies, buildings
> at night, etc. before we all cry ENOUGH!! Thanks for sharing this! Hope to see
> more soon.
>
> Dave


I suppose then I am obligated to provide the following image:

IMAGE NOT FOUND IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
http://www.fototime.co​m/93773196495884C/stan​dard.jpgexternal link
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FOTOTIME


This was at my company picnic. The individual in question had just gotten smashed in the face with a volley ball. I was shooting in continuous shoot mode, and following the ball. Sometimes you get lucky.

Some criticism (easy with this one).

1) Too much motion blur. I should have made it a faster shutter speed (1/200 or higher)

2) Over-exposed on the face. Learn that under-exposed action shots can be recovered in photoshop, but overexposed are toast.

3) I shouldn't have been facing the sun (the original had a "haze" to it...I exposure balanced in qimage). Of course, had I not been facing the sun, I wouldn't have gotten the shot.

Mike

Oct 02, 2001 19:28



LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
philgabe
Member
95 posts
Joined Sep 2001
MORE INFO

Mike:

I don't know if it's my computer screen or the resolution on my laptop, but the volleyball picture seems way oversharpened to me. I was wondering if you tried to save some of the motion blur with additional sharpening? If that's the case I would have left the background unsharpened (or more modestly sharpened) and done additional selective sharpening on the faces.

To help over-exposed areas, you could try the following technique (it may not work if the areas are so over-exposed that no information is recorded), but it may work....

1. select the overexposed areas (feather a bit)
2. copy
3. past as new layer
4. use "multiply" mode and play with the opacity.
5. if necessary redo all these steps a second time

To bring back details in areas that are underexposed do same but use the "screen" mode instead of the "multiply".

Otherwise, cool stuff!

Philippe

Oct 03, 2001 14:23



LOG IN TO REPLY
mpkirby
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
118 posts
Joined Jun 2001
MORE INFO

You are right. I did apply a sharpening filter to it. Given the background, I probably should have applied it to just the foreground. I'll try excluding the tree from the sharpening filter.

Look for an update in a day or so.

Mike

Oct 04, 2001 05:32



LOG IN TO REPLY
mpkirby
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
118 posts
Joined Jun 2001
MORE INFO

Here is the updated volleyball picture. I don't think it made a huge difference. Perhaps its the jpeg artifacts (because I was shooting in continuous, I used jpeg, not raw.

It also could be the down-sizing for the monitor. I didn't use any fancy resolution conversion.

IMAGE NOT FOUND IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
http://www.fototime.co​m/8C1D2CE9851B809/stan​dard.jpgexternal link
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FOTOTIME


Mike

Oct 06, 2001 14:59



LOG IN TO REPLY
philgabe
Member
95 posts
Joined Sep 2001
MORE INFO

Hey Mike, I really cannot tell the difference either, but then I'm using a rather poor screen (my office laptop IBM 240). This screen just sucks totally to view pictures.

Philippe

Oct 11, 2001 12:51



LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
mpkirby
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
118 posts
Joined Jun 2001
MORE INFO

Hmm. Perhaps on the original it would be easier to tell. In the second one, there was no sharpening on the tree. I use a low sharpening setting in the camera as well.

Mike

Oct 12, 2001 05:58



LOG IN TO REPLY
gerry
Member
131 posts
Joined Nov 2001
MORE INFO

nice capture, but i would have cropped a lot tighter

left out those distracting company men in the background.

this picture pleads, crop me!

Jan 23, 2002 18:47



LOG IN TO REPLY
Leighow
Goldmember
2,844 posts
Joined Jan 2002
MORE INFO

MIKE

My reaction to the first picture was -- not knowing that you had sharpened -- the weird look of the foreground tree.

I had noticed the same condition on a leafless maple tree that I was viewing at about 15% size. That tree's thin branches looked all broken-up -- as if the sky had moved on the light spots. In fact I thought that the camera had a problem.

But zoom in, and (to my relief) every single branch and branchlet was captured in continuous detail.

I bet that on the 3 ft x 2 ft blow-up, the leaves on the foreground trees are in great shape.

Interesting! Very interesting!!

HOWIE

Jan 23, 2002 21:00



LOG IN TO REPLY

1,747 views & 0 likes for this thread
VolleyBall Blues
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Critique Corner

NOT A MEMBER YET? CLICK HERE TO REGISTER TO THE FORUMS
Registered members get all the features: search, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, own reviews...




SEND FEEDBACK TO STAFF    •   JUMP TO FORUM    •   FORUM RULES    •   Index    •   New Posts    •   RTAT    •   "Best Of"    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: By using this site you agree that some cookies will be stored on your browser. For unlogged users we store one session id cookie. For registered members we store (in addition to login session cookie) only cookies that are essential for required functionality. We do not store any personal tracking data in cookies or other browsers' data storage methods.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.1version 1.1
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.0008 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.01s
Latest registered member is dasmin5
1048 guests, 840 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 3341, that happened on Dec 11, 2014