The best Indoor facility for track photos
Feb 20, 2012 22:53:10 #
This past weekend my neice had the chance to go to a fairly local college (1hr away) a compete in an indoor track meet. I have been to this school before with my daughter and knew that the lighting in this place would be perfect for some practice. I dont think you could find a nicer facility anywhere.
Camera is a Canon 1D Mark III with a Sigma 70-200 1:2.8 II Macro HSM lens
The first pic is of the building to show what I mean about the lighting
The second pic was taken at AV, 1/1600, iso 3200, f5.0, center focal point and AWB
The third pic settings are AV, 1/800, iso 3200, f5.0, center focal point and AWB
Now the question I have is I just don't feel right about these images. Am I correct that these just arent right or am I being to critical.
*** These were taken with a Monopod and IS on ***
Thanks for the feedback
Camera is a Canon 1D Mark III with a Sigma 70-200 1:2.8 II Macro HSM lens
The first pic is of the building to show what I mean about the lighting
The second pic was taken at AV, 1/1600, iso 3200, f5.0, center focal point and AWB
The third pic settings are AV, 1/800, iso 3200, f5.0, center focal point and AWB
Now the question I have is I just don't feel right about these images. Am I correct that these just arent right or am I being to critical.
*** These were taken with a Monopod and IS on ***
Thanks for the feedback
Kenyon College Indoor Facility
60m hurdles
60m dash
Feb 20, 2012 23:20:49 #
Man, I got tangled up in the high hurdles in High School. Still don't think my crotch is the same anymore.
Feb 21, 2012 06:49:31 #
Retired 1sg wrote:
This past weekend my neice had the chance to go to... (show quote)
I wonder if a circular polizarier would have help in the second and third picture.
Feb 21, 2012 06:51:25 #
the first and the second ones are underexposed the third one looks correctly exposed for the girls and looks like a fine picture...what do you think is wrong with it?
PS: this setting is a great reason to have a hand held light meter :)
With the large windows and the differential from inside light to outside light, it appears that in the first two shots your camera "averaged" the exposure which resulted in underexposing the girls.
You can't control the lighting, you can only decide what you want properly exposed, so I'd say expose for the girls and let the windows blow.
That's why I think that the third one is best; it's properly exposed and sharp as far as I can tell. You might want to repost that picture and check "store original" so we can see it at full size.
PS: this setting is a great reason to have a hand held light meter :)
With the large windows and the differential from inside light to outside light, it appears that in the first two shots your camera "averaged" the exposure which resulted in underexposing the girls.
You can't control the lighting, you can only decide what you want properly exposed, so I'd say expose for the girls and let the windows blow.
That's why I think that the third one is best; it's properly exposed and sharp as far as I can tell. You might want to repost that picture and check "store original" so we can see it at full size.
Feb 21, 2012 10:25:20 #
rpavich, Thanks fir the feedback...I will repost the original later tonite...as far as what do think is wrong with them ... They just feel off... they should have been sharp but as they were straight out of the camera I did have to sharpen them..
Question for anyone who cares to respond - I read on another UHH post that if you are using a monopod or tripod then you should turn you IS off... Is this correct and if so why.
Question for anyone who cares to respond - I read on another UHH post that if you are using a monopod or tripod then you should turn you IS off... Is this correct and if so why.
Feb 21, 2012 10:52:18 #
Retired 1sg wrote:
rpavich, Thanks fir the feedback...I will repost the original later tonite...as far as what do think is wrong with them ... They just feel off... they should have been sharp but as they were straight out of the camera I did have to sharpen them..
Question for anyone who cares to respond - I read on another UHH post that if you are using a monopod or tripod then you should turn you IS off... Is this correct and if so why.
Question for anyone who cares to respond - I read on another UHH post that if you are using a monopod or tripod then you should turn you IS off... Is this correct and if so why.
Are they "RAW" pictures right out of the camera or JPG?
Feb 21, 2012 13:16:48 #
Feb 21, 2012 13:19:45 #
Retired 1sg wrote:
JPG
Ok...I was wondering because RAW usually needs sharpening among other things.
DO post the original, I'd like to zoom in on them, they look pretty good except for the exposure.
Feb 21, 2012 15:32:00 #
rpavich wrote:
Ok...I was wondering because RAW usually needs sharpening among other things.
DO post the original, I'd like to zoom in on them, they look pretty good except for the exposure.
Retired 1sg wrote:
JPG
Ok...I was wondering because RAW usually needs sharpening among other things.
DO post the original, I'd like to zoom in on them, they look pretty good except for the exposure.
Here are the originals
Feb 21, 2012 15:43:19 #
Retired 1sg wrote:
Here are the originals
rpavich wrote:
Ok...I was wondering because RAW usually needs sharpening among other things.
DO post the original, I'd like to zoom in on them, they look pretty good except for the exposure.
Retired 1sg wrote:
JPG
Ok...I was wondering because RAW usually needs sharpening among other things.
DO post the original, I'd like to zoom in on them, they look pretty good except for the exposure.
Here are the originals
thank you...I'll take a look. other than noise...they (Initially) look good.
Feb 21, 2012 15:51:28 #
I don't know what you see that you don't like.
the first shot with the 3 girls didn't get a good focus...I'll give you that, but it's not horrible.
the second pic with the 2 girls is pretty sharp and was exposed nicely.
The biggest issue that I see in all of them is the high ISO...3200.
I'm sure that at this amount of light you could have used 1600 or even 800.
At your settings it would have looked like this:
Now:
ISO 3200
SS 1/1200
Aperture f/5
could be:
ISO 1600
SS 1/600
Aperture f/5
Or even
ISO 800
SS 1/300
Aperture f/5
The noise and slight lack of a tack sharp focus is the only thing that I can see wrong.
Here are the ones that I did a LR noise reduction on:
the first shot with the 3 girls didn't get a good focus...I'll give you that, but it's not horrible.
the second pic with the 2 girls is pretty sharp and was exposed nicely.
The biggest issue that I see in all of them is the high ISO...3200.
I'm sure that at this amount of light you could have used 1600 or even 800.
At your settings it would have looked like this:
Now:
ISO 3200
SS 1/1200
Aperture f/5
could be:
ISO 1600
SS 1/600
Aperture f/5
Or even
ISO 800
SS 1/300
Aperture f/5
The noise and slight lack of a tack sharp focus is the only thing that I can see wrong.
Here are the ones that I did a LR noise reduction on:
Feb 21, 2012 16:26:06 #
Retired 1sg wrote:
In most cases, yes. The vibration reduction systems in most lenses will try to stabilize things even when they're already stable, and may even introduce wobble. Question for anyone who cares to respond - I read on another UHH post that if you are using a monopod or tripod then you should turn you IS off... Is this correct and if so why.
IS / VR = Handheld only.
Feb 21, 2012 17:19:18 #
Thank you JimH...I actually made a mental note to take it off IS but alas I forgot...but plent of more track coming up this year.
Thank you rpavich...as soon as I posted I realized the ISO was higher than needed...what program did you run that through. I am using PSE 7 and have been wavering between PSE 10 or Lightroom 3...cant afford CS5 and cant afford both PSE 10 and LR3. I do some PP with PSE 7 not an expert but not a novice...done rearch on LR3 and it looks like an easier program to grasp...any thoughts?
BTW rpavich...those re-do's look awesome after the noise reduction..thank you
Thank you rpavich...as soon as I posted I realized the ISO was higher than needed...what program did you run that through. I am using PSE 7 and have been wavering between PSE 10 or Lightroom 3...cant afford CS5 and cant afford both PSE 10 and LR3. I do some PP with PSE 7 not an expert but not a novice...done rearch on LR3 and it looks like an easier program to grasp...any thoughts?
BTW rpavich...those re-do's look awesome after the noise reduction..thank you
Feb 21, 2012 17:26:32 #
Feb 21, 2012 17:31:28 #
JBD...that is the look I was getting and it just didn't sit right for me for some reason...I guess I am being to critcial and second guessing myself...should have opted for a more head on approach of just her (in the red uniform) and focused just on her.
Thanks for the response
Thanks for the response
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.