As many of you may know, we get plenty of sun in Colorado, and when coupled with lower cloud cover, it can be pretty bright. Was on assignment the other day, shooting HS baseball, and shot this. Nikon 7200 Nikkor 2.8 70-200 @ 200 mm. Manual format 1/3200 F4.5 to get a little more DOF, 400 ISO (was on auto). I still had to make a few corrections in Lightroom, e.g. -43 whites, as white clothing in the sun really pops, added +26 shadows, -9 red hue to get the visitors' uniforms where they should be (I've noticed my Nikon has a tendency to show them as more orange/red) and +29 overall sharpening. I'm wondering on these kinds of cloudless days, should I go with a polarizer, or just continue make these kinds of adjustments? I like to try and edit "in the can" as we used to say in TV, but with Lightroom, it's amazing what subtle adjustments can be made. Our publisher has a tendency to lighten our shots for newspaper publication, so I also have to keep that in mind, when submitting my photos. BTW, could sure use a 300mm 2.8 lens, but at $3K+, I'm not going there, yet.
SBrodsky wrote:
As many of you may know, we get plenty of sun in Colorado, and when coupled with lower cloud cover, it can be pretty bright. Was on assignment the other day, shooting HS baseball, and shot this. Nikon 7200 Nikkor 2.8 70-200 @ 200 mm. Manual format 1/3200 F4.5 to get a little more DOF, 400 ISO (was on auto). I still had to make a few corrections in Lightroom, e.g. -43 whites, as white clothing in the sun really pops, added +26 shadows, -9 red hue to get the visitors' uniforms where they should be (I've noticed my Nikon has a tendency to show them as more orange/red) and +29 overall sharpening. I'm wondering on these kinds of cloudless days, should I go with a polarizer, or just continue make these kinds of adjustments? I like to try and edit "in the can" as we used to say in TV, but with Lightroom, it's amazing what subtle adjustments can be made. Our publisher has a tendency to lighten our shots for newspaper publication, so I also have to keep that in mind, when submitting my photos. BTW, could sure use a 300mm 2.8 lens, but at $3K+, I'm not going there, yet.
As many of you may know, we get plenty of sun in C... (
show quote)
Nikon 300mm f2.8, $880.00
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-AF-NIKKOR-300mm-F2-8-ED-IF-from-Japan-263664/263552913604?_trkparms=aid%3D555017%26algo%3DPL.CASSINI%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D50687%26meid%3D38a750aef6a44bb895a5fc8af0d6752f%26pid%3D100506%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D1%26%26itm%3D263552913604&_trksid=p2045573.c100506.m3226
That is a great deal. I wonder just how "used" it is?
SBrodsky wrote:
As many of you may know, we get plenty of sun in Colorado, and when coupled with lower cloud cover, it can be pretty bright. Was on assignment the other day, shooting HS baseball, and shot this. Nikon 7200 Nikkor 2.8 70-200 @ 200 mm. Manual format 1/3200 F4.5 to get a little more DOF, 400 ISO (was on auto). I still had to make a few corrections in Lightroom, e.g. -43 whites, as white clothing in the sun really pops, added +26 shadows, -9 red hue to get the visitors' uniforms where they should be (I've noticed my Nikon has a tendency to show them as more orange/red) and +29 overall sharpening. I'm wondering on these kinds of cloudless days, should I go with a polarizer, or just continue make these kinds of adjustments? I like to try and edit "in the can" as we used to say in TV, but with Lightroom, it's amazing what subtle adjustments can be made. Our publisher has a tendency to lighten our shots for newspaper publication, so I also have to keep that in mind, when submitting my photos. BTW, could sure use a 300mm 2.8 lens, but at $3K+, I'm not going there, yet.
As many of you may know, we get plenty of sun in C... (
show quote)
Based on Sunny 16 your images are a little overexposed. You could have used 1/1600 @ f/8 or 1/3200 @ f/5.6.
But being broad daylight with a modern camera you could probably get away with ISO 800 and not have any issue with noise. That way you could use 1/3200 @ f/8. You might need to boost our shadows a little during post processing but you should be fine.
Set the WB to Daylight and your color issues might disappear.
That certainly might get a little more DOF. I often try and "freeze" the baseball and so I shoot @ the higher shutter speeds. Am shooting a game this PM, so I may try your suggestion. Thanks
SBrodsky wrote:
That certainly might get a little more DOF. I often try and "freeze" the baseball and so I shoot @ the higher shutter speeds. Am shooting a game this PM, so I may try your suggestion. Thanks
As the sunlight gets darker later in the day (or if it gets overcast) you may need to add a stop of exposure. Just watch for blinkies and you should be good to go.
Thanks. The photo as submitted was taken @ 12:04PM MDT. Today's game starts at 4P, so your suggestion definitely would come into play.
SBrodsky wrote:
I've noticed my Nikon has a tendency to show them as more orange/red)
THat is very easy to correct in Lightroom with the White Balance Dropper tool.
SBrodsky wrote:
That is a great deal. I wonder just how "used" it is?
From the photos it looks like it was not used professionally but by a collector not a user.
Also I have found the Japanese sellers generally have the best equipment for the best prices.
SBrodsky wrote:
Thanks. The photo as submitted was taken @ 12:04PM MDT. Today's game starts at 4P, so your suggestion definitely would come into play.
I'm just a learner but , wouldn't there be a difference in the brightness of your sunlight...your posted picture was at noon time and your next game is 4:00 PM . I would thing with the angle of the sun your lighting is going to be totally different than it was at 12 PM....Just my thought
Just a suggestion to maybe try a variable neutral density filter maybe at 3 and that way you could keep your shutter fast enough to stop the action. I use tiffen filter it seems to work well. Just a thought.
SBrodaky, I like the story your photo tells. It is a good example of knowingly anticipating the action. Getting the often forgotten outfielder and the cut off man as well as the runner makes it a baseball story instead of a picture of baseball players doing who knows what. I shoot baseball with a 70-300, but I like this wider view.
C
Thanks very much. It was one of those days (I had been a little late, due to traffic tie up problems) where I thought I was getting skunked. Ended up staying thru 5 merciless innings, where the visitors handed the home team a 32-0 shutout. I just kept shooting as much as I could, though as you say, I've learned to anticipate possible plays at certain areas of the field. Goes back to my umpiring experience, as I was a Colorado HS and college umpire for 8 years back in the 80s and 90s. Here are a couple more shots taken 3/20/18 at a different field and time of day. Tag play at home was 1/4000 4.5 ISO 500 200mm and the collision was 1/4000 4.5 70mm ISO 400. I only stayed for about 3 innings for these, as I felt I had grabbed a couple of keepers. Thank God we shoot w/digital cameras, so we have a pretty good idea of what we have "in the can."
SBrodsky wrote:
That is a great deal. I wonder just how "used" it is?
Japanese sellers don't generally scam you. If 42nd Street Photo was in Japan. They would be gone quick.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.