NCAA Hoops: Cleveland St. v Wichita St.

Trying to learn from your pics, so I have some questions.

Noticed from you EXIF that you shot 1/640 at 2.8, I'm going to guess with your 70-200mm? Alot of the EXIF is missing.

Any post processing?

ISO? I'm going to guess 1600

Thanks

Bryn

jbergdoll wrote in post #9125555
Scott, these look really good. I had never really checked out your traditional sports stuff. Fantastic.

Thanks Joe, I aprreciate that a lot.

bjoynes wrote in post #9125674
Trying to learn from your pics, so I have some questions.

Noticed from you EXIF that you shot 1/640 at 2.8, I'm going to guess with your 70-200mm? Alot of the EXIF is missing.

Any post processing?

ISO? I'm going to guess 1600

Thanks

Bryn

Hey Bryn, the exif should all be there. ISO 1250 on all of these and yes, all with the 70-200. I will use the 300 at times and have even done a fisheye or the 17-40 but the workhorse is the 70-200 in there.

In post, I straighten and crop (obviously) and add some USM sharpening (most of these were 75/1/4 if I recall). That's really about it. If they don't look good then, I hit the delete key.

richbindians wrote in post #9125588
Hey Scott,

I told you they had been working on the lights! What did you think?

I have been getting a couple quick snaps at the Womens games - mostly at 1250 ISO. The thing is, they had been turning on more lights at past games, but when they turned the ones on the baseline on, players complained they couldn't see the basket when looking straight into the lights.

Rich B.

The mere fact that multiple light banks were off and I still picked up 2/3 stop from last year says it all. If they turned them all on, it would be heaven. I'll pm you about the women's games, might have something to propose.

scott,

Can you post an original untouched image? The sharpening seems weird to my eyes?

Nice to see them using more lights to make it brighter!

Sauk wrote in post #9127652
scott,

Can you post an original untouched image? The sharpening seems weird to my eyes?

Nice to see them using more lights to make it brighter!

I'll upload one to my zen and post it today. I did shoot these jpeg @ +1 sharpening if that makes a difference. Is there one in particular that stands out to you?

Scott,

All of them....I don't know what it is , but it just looks off. That is why I wanted to see the original to compare and see if maybe it is just the lights, uni's, etc..

Sauk wrote in post #9127964
Scott,

All of them....I don't know what it is , but it just looks off. That is why I wanted to see the original to compare and see if maybe it is just the lights, uni's, etc..

this is SOOC Matt. No crop, nuthin...whatcha see?

I for sure love this shot much better. What setting is your USM at? What were you using to process the images?

Sauk wrote in post #9131124
I for sure love this shot much better. What setting is your USM at? What were you using to process the images?

I gotta tell ya that it would be much easier in post if SOOC worked!

USM can vary but I think I was around 75 or 80 strength, 1 radius, and 4 threshold for just about all of these. I run them through Elements 6 but frankly, I think DPP sometimes does global sharpening better. Love to hear any suggestions you have man.

scott,

I am on my laptop but tomorrow I will look at it more

Number 6 is really nice. Love the action in some of the others, especially where it's filled the frame.

The Moose wrote in post #9132750
Number 6 is really nice. Love the action in some of the others, especially where it's filled the frame.

Thanks much Glenn.

Sauk wrote in post #9132253
scott,

I am on my laptop but tomorrow I will look at it more

Appreciate that Matt.