HS Baseball follow-up

It wasn't much of a game - called after 5-1/2 due to mercy rule. Score was 13-zip, so action was scarce. The white balance is off. I tried correcting in Aperture but did not like the result.

I opted to use the 300 2.8, but will probably leave it at home in the future. It's just too long for baseball.

C&C appreciated.


1. Relief pitcher during his 3 KO inning

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

My criticism of #1 and #3 would be if you're going to cut a player off in the middle, make it help the composition and neither one looks like there's a rhyme or reason for why they're framed the way they are.
In #1, you've got the right idea compositionally though in that you're giving the player space to throw into on the right side of the image. In # 3 you've done the opposite, you're taking away the negative space that he's throwing into. As a general rule, it usually looks better if the player is throwing towards the negative space. It helps with the sense of action and movement to not have them slammed up against the edge. Hope that helps, keep shooting and posting.

You already realized what was wrong with the second one and with the space at the bottom, the head could have been included.

As for WB, was it on Auto?

V4her wrote in post #14637209
I opted to use the 300 2.8, but will probably leave it at home in the future. It's just too long for baseball.

Seriously? Why do you think that? This is high school ball right? 90 foot bases? I pretty much use nothing but my 300 for that level of baseball and it is perfect. I am surprised that you find it too much, unless your fields have very little foul room. What is your camera crop factor. My 1D Mk IV is 1.3 and I guess if you are at a 1.6 that could be the case, but I would not expect that to matter too much either.

I pretty much only use my 70-200 now on tight fields with the 11-12 year old group. Younger than that (as in my last post), they are small enough to use the 300 and get them in frame.

Also not sure why you are having WB problems. Set it on auto and don't worry about it in natural sunlight.

Other than that, work on your framing and composition

cstewart wrote in post #14637389
Seriously? Why do you think that? This is high school ball right? 90 foot bases? I pretty much use nothing but my 300 for that level of baseball and it is perfect. I am surprised that you find it too much, unless your fields have very little foul room. What is your camera crop factor. My 1D Mk IV is 1.3 and I guess if you are at a 1.6 that could be the case, but I would not expect that to matter too much either.

I pretty much only use my 70-200 now on tight fields with the 11-12 year old group. Younger than that (as in my last post), they are small enough to use the 300 and get them in frame.

Also not sure why you are having WB problems. Set it on auto and don't worry about it in natural sunlight.

Other than that, work on your framing and composition

I almost said something about the 300 as well, but he's on a 1.5x body, so it's 450, but I agree, the 300 is a great lens for baseball.

This is a 300 on a Mark IV from adjacent to the dugout and it's been cropped down to 7.5MP. No problem to fit a pitcher in vertical.

I'll not comment on the crops, as all of that has already been said. As far as focal length I'll shoot baseball with two lens', a 70-200 and a 400. Sure 300 will be a little long when shooting a close base (say first base when you're setup at the visitors dugout), but for the rest of the field it's a great lens. Your problem appears to be shooting in landscape position rather then portrait.

Also on the images I'd suggest straighten your horizons and learn to adjust images using curves. One is too flat. Here is what I'm talking about. I'd suggest bringing both of your lens and shoot half of the game with the 70-200 and the other half with your 300. 300 is not too long, you just need some more practice using it. Primes are a tad harder to shoot with then using zooms, but like anything you can master them, but it takes practice.

As far as editing in aperture, you'll be limited on what you can do. I'd suggest at least purchasing Adobe Photoshop Elements for $99.00, or spend an extra $50 and get Adobe Lightroom. The adjustments you need to do can be done very easily in either one of those programs.

White Balance: I mostly shot in AWB. I had been shooting an indoor dog scene lit by conventional bulbs and adjusted to tungsten, then forgot that I had done so .

Using curves in PP. I don't do a lot of PP so I a lot more to learn there. I am still focusing (pun intended) on getting the shots right.
Holy cow! I just compared original to PP'd image. More money to spend, err, 'invest'.

300 too long: possibly because I still had the 1.4 TC on when I swapped the 70-200 in the first inning. So, I was really shooting 420mm with 1.6 crop. Nice for Pitcher work.

Landscape vs. Portrait. I did recognize this with the 300. I also dropped the TC in the forth inning. I have a lot of work and practice to shoot well in portrait w/o a grip. Terrible horizons, overly tight framing...

Ok

Thanks for the feed back and for putting up with my unimpressive results.

V4her wrote in post #14637209
1. Relief pitcher during his 3 KO inning

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

[

Here is my take on the above photo. Done in Lightroom. It took me longer to type this up than to process. I use these settings for almost all of my daytime photos with exposure being an exception.
Steps taken.

White Balance (Auto)
Exposure (-1.32)
Recovery 100
Clarity (30)
Vibrance (15)
Tone Curve (Strong contrast)

V4her wrote in post #14638444
White Balance: I mostly shot in AWB. I had been shooting an indoor dog scene lit by conventional bulbs and adjusted to tungsten, then forgot that I had done so .

I think AWB got your color fairly correct here, and colors don't seem off. They are all a bit flat, but you are to expect that.

V4her wrote in post #14638444
Using curves in PP. I don't do a lot of PP so I a lot more to learn there. I am still focusing (pun intended) on getting the shots right.
Holy cow! I just compared original to PP'd image. More money to spend, err, 'invest'.

I'm not sure what some people expect to get. Sure we all need to focus on getting it right in camera, but it can only do so much. You just need to focus on proper exposure, white balance, focus and composition. If those four things are correct you then can work on making adjustments in post. I've had very few shots that did not require some PP to make them pop. I was talking to young photographer last year about portrait photography. She informed me that she takes pride in not post processing any of her photos and that all of her work is straight out of the camera. She then asked, don't you think all photographers should do that? I said, well no. I'm old school and grew up in the dark room. LOL

V4her wrote in post #14638444
Thanks for the feed back and for putting up with my unimpressive results.

Not a problem, that is what this forum is for. Keep shooting and keep posting.

This one needs some post work, which I will try tonight. A parent and co-worker liked and asked what kind of feed back I got. So...

4. Matt MacDonald stealing third. Only PP here so far is straightening.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

V4her wrote in post #14639118
This one needs some post work, which I will try tonight. A parent and co-worker liked and asked what kind of feed back I got. So...

4. Matt MacDonald stealing third. Only PP here so far is straightening.

That one is a lost caused as it is over exposed and the whites are clipped. You can play with it, but it would be an automatic delete in my book. You'll be able to save the colors, but the whites are gone. And you'd have more luck if you shot raw, but not a lot more luck.

Is there a reason for shooting at ISO1600?

V4her wrote in post #14639118
This one needs some post work, which I will try tonight. A parent and co-worker liked and asked what kind of feed back I got. So...

4. Matt MacDonald stealing third. Only PP here so far is straightening.

A few responses:

1. Landscape vs Portrait with 300: Personally, I shoot 90% of baseball in landscape with the 300 and then as and if needed, will crop into portrait mode (see first photo below for example). A time when I do shoot portrait is when I am close to pitchers, or from behind the plate and want to get a full body shot (see second below for example):

ISO 1600 to keep shutter speed at 1/800. I could have dropped Aperture from F5 to f/4 or 3.2. I struggled from this shooting position when I had to resort to higher ISO as the exposure would jump a lot with very little shift in focus. I am not sure if that accounts for the overexposure here or my inattention to the meter at the time.

Thanks again for the advice.

My question is related to the fact that all the photos posted by the OP are overexposed. ISO1600 is fine at dusk but usually in combination with a shutter speed higher than 1/800 to ensure you're freezing the action.

PixelMagic wrote in post #14639623
My question is related to the fact that all the photos posted by the OP are overexposed. .

I agree, they all look very overexposed and (to my eyes) not that sharp