Dziadzi Loc: Wilkes-Barre, PA

I did try shooting @ 1/800 for a few shots. Too much blur when the batter swings.

rodpark2 Loc: Dallas, Tx

I'd suggest getting a good exposure and changing to "M" exposure dialing in the SS, Aperture and ISO manually as was on the good shot. Your meter is the culprit and the exact position of white shirt or black pants gave a different reading. If the light doesn't change, the settings won't need to either. Matrix type metering would usually average between the white and dark, but spot metering would definitely give different readings.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Of course your ISO is going to be all over the place. You are photographing a very contrasty scene, and metering it with a spot meter. Then you are accepting the results without question.

Exposure meters (and white balance meters) are just plain STUPID. They are made to see the world as an average gray. Point them at black, a dark color, or white, or a light color, and they will try to make it gray. The engineers who programmed the camera were smarter than the meter they designed, but they're not at your scene! So you ALWAYS have to take responsibility for what you get, and make necessary adjustments.

So... If you're spot metering something navy blue, the meter will raise the ISO or open the aperture to try to lighten it. If you're spot metering those white pants, the scene will get darker. The CORRECT exposure for any part of the scene could be measured by metering a Delta-1 Gray Card held in the same light as that part of the scene. The color or brightness of the object does not matter... how it is INTERPRETED is what matters. Again, the meter is STUPID. You aren't, but you do have to be proactive.

Switch to center-weighted metering or matrix metering and see if you don't get more consistent results.

OR, you could use a hand-held incident dome meter and meter the light falling on the batter's box. Set a fixed ISO, fixed aperture, fixed shutter speed, based on that reading. Then test, chimp, adjust, test, chimp, adjust, until you find the right balance for the scene.

In an outdoor scene like that, meter the light where you are, if it's the same as the light on the principal subject. Use the gray card mentioned above.

Average exposure for the "lit" side of a subject in bright sun between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM standard time is ISO 100 at 1/100 at f/16, or any equivalent of that (like ISO 400 at 1/800 at f/11). The shadows will be about two f/stops darker. At times, you will either have to use fill flash, or let the shadows plug up, or let the highlights burn out. Of course, working in raw will give you additional latitude for adjusting the image in post-production using Lightroom or something similar.

I hope that helps! Give it a go and see what improves.

agillot

i dont know what you are unhappy about , the back ground is not the best , but you dont have the choice about that , the main subject is sharp and bright , it pops out of the picture .

Dziadzi Loc: Wilkes-Barre, PA

Thanks for the information. I will give your suggestions a go on the next game.

Vince68 Loc: Wappingers Falls, NY

You may have accidentally changed from Auto-ISO to ISO without knowing that you changed it by hitting the ISO button on the back of the camera and moving the front control dial. Auto-ISO can be switched on/off that way also besides in the camera's menu settings. I have done that before myself.

fetzler Loc: North West PA

I think your camera is fine. You used spot metering and +.7 exposure compensation on the first photo. Looking at your histogram you have some blown highlights. I would have used matrix metering, probably no exposure compensation, neutral profile and normal active d-lighting as this is a rather high contrast scene.

I don't recall if the spot meter point is same as the focal point. If it is, it is mostly on the dark part of the uniform suggesting -1 to -1.5 EV adjustment
,
In NX-D I found that a -1 EV exposure correction and a bit of curve manipulation made the picture a bit better. Could perhaps do a bit more in lightroom

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I am no expert when it comes to AUTO ISO, as a matter of fact I like to set the ISO speed manually according to the scene I am going to shoot and the lighting present. For action I am sure nobody will tell you differently, a higher ISO is a must if stopping motion is the goal.
I seldom photograph sports and perhaps not more than a few times a year wildlife photography. I always start with ISO 400 in Aperture Priority and go from there. If the shutter speed the camera selected is not to my liking I could open the lens more or raise the ISO speed of the sensor.
My point here is that I never use AUTO ISO no matter what others say. For those wildlife shots I use matrix metering but if the subject is stationary and especially a bright subject then I could go with spot metering.

Idaho

I don't know who Nasin is, but while his advice might work in some conditions, it doesn't work here. This particular scene should be shot in manual. This is not rocket science.

BebuLamar

To many manual is equal to rocket science.

JFCoupe Loc: Kent, Washington

Also note that there is a bright area in the background to the left of the hitter and deeper shade as you move to the right side of the image. So if the meter sees the bright area, it would underexpose the shade and vice versa.
And as mentioned in a number of posts, metering mode and accidental change in ISO settings could be the real culprits.

LMurray Loc: North Orange County, CA

If I was shooting this using spot I think I'd meter off the coach's white pants in the shade. Or the shady side of the building either should get your exposure closer. You could also try bracketing.

Dziadzi Loc: Wilkes-Barre, PA

To this old-timer, the "tricky triangle" is difficult to comprehend.

Thanks again for the help that you all have offered.

BebuLamar

I never used the triangle for photography. The so called "Exposure Triangle" and later called "Photographic Triangle" don't compute!
But then they said it doesn't need to compute just a help for comprehension. I guess it didn't work for you.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Regardless of what you did, what I see here are blown highlights and almost blown highlights. Rather than rely on what someone else's recommended settings are, I suggest you test your camera and make your own recommendations to yourself. You'll find that once you really know your camera and its capabilities, you'll find your results will be much more satisfactory. That's what I do with the cameras I own and use before I take any photographs with them. They are tested extensively.
--Bob