Indoor Volleyball pictures - advice needed
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Eric Babula on 15 Jan 2007 14:05 Cynicor <j...tru.p...in(a)speak.ea.sy.net> wrote in news:I5WdnbNTT79oVDbYnZ2dnUVZ_qWvnZ2d(a)speakeasy.net: > Eric Babula wrote: >> acl <achilleaslazarides(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in >> news:1168881811.474733(a)seven.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be: >> >>> Hi. I suggest you read the book you got and find out what shutter >>> speeds and apertures do (I assume you don't know judging from >>> your post; if I'm wrong, apologies). Also, I vaguely remember >>> that you asked advice about this before, and was told that you >>> need a fast lens (ie numerically small max f/stop). You didn't >>> get this (I suppose it'd be too expensive to get a zoom, and you >>> didn't want a fixed focal length), so your job is made more >>> difficult. >>> >>> You probably could use something like aperture priority and >>> choose the widest aperture and highest ISO (as you did), as you >>> need a fast speed to freeze the action (or you could pan with >>> slower speeds, but this probably isn't the kind of thing you're >>> after). >>> >>> Regarding the cloth, you could use it to meter off: assuming the >>> light is the same everywhere, meter off the cloth at manual mode >>> and just leave the exposure like it is. Although you can do the >>> same thing by just taking a few shots before the game starts and >>> using the histogram to adjust the exposure, then leave it there. >>> Works just as well. >>> >>> Anyway. Read up on that book and ask questions here. Good luck! >> >> I do somewhat know what the shutter speeds and aperture do, since >> I started playing with that, with my P&S camera, trying to get >> decent pics of my daughters' volleyball games. Still learning. >> >> As for the lens - you're right, I didn't want a fixed focal >> length, just yet. I'm not sure at what length I'd typically be >> shooting, so I chose the zoom for now. And, I know I didn't get a >> really fast lens, either. But, I was told that with the Pentax >> K100D and the in-body IS, an f4.0 lens would act more like an f2.8 >> in another camera. > > Well...I don't understand how IS makes 4.0 into 2.8. It can make > 1/30 look like 1/125 second. But the big problem with sports > shooting is that you need to control for the speed first. I turn IS > off now when I shoot hockey, because the speeds at which IS makes a > difference are too slow to freeze the play. So there won't be any > hand shake, but there'll be action blur. > > You have three variables to work with for a given level of light - > aperture, speed, and ISO. You have to set the speed to where it > won't blur the action. Then you can open up the aperture as far as > you can, and set the ISO to give you something as close to the > proper combination as you can. > > If I don't have a big light or two, I sometimes shoot raw, then > batch process everything to get it to the right level. Anything > above ISO 400 on my camera starts to make noticeable noise in the > darker areas (faces) when I look at it full size. If you're > printing smaller, like 4x6, it won't be a huge issue. > > Anyway, try shooting some action RAW so that you can take it back > and fiddle with it to see exactly what settings you'd need in the > gym. > Hmm, I'm certain that's what he said. I don't pretend to understand that, either. But, your might explain why the guy at the volleyball gym was shooting at 1/240 (or something) and I found 1/90 to be a better shutter speed. Thanks! I'll try shooting at RAW, and see if I can learn from that, too. Now, to get a RAW editor. -- Eric Babula Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
From: John McWilliams on 15 Jan 2007 14:43 Eric Babula wrote: > Cynicor <j...tru.p...in(a)speak.ea.sy.net> wrote in > news:I5WdnbNTT79oVDbYnZ2dnUVZ_qWvnZ2d(a)speakeasy.net: >> Well...I don't understand how IS makes 4.0 into 2.8. It can make >> 1/30 look like 1/125 second. But the big problem with sports >> shooting is that you need to control for the speed first. I turn IS >> off now when I shoot hockey, because the speeds at which IS makes a >> difference are too slow to freeze the play. So there won't be any >> hand shake, but there'll be action blur. >> >> You have three variables to work with for a given level of light - >> aperture, speed, and ISO. You have to set the speed to where it >> won't blur the action. Then you can open up the aperture as far as >> you can, and set the ISO to give you something as close to the >> proper combination as you can. >> >> If I don't have a big light or two, I sometimes shoot raw, then >> batch process everything to get it to the right level. Anything >> above ISO 400 on my camera starts to make noticeable noise in the >> darker areas (faces) when I look at it full size. If you're >> printing smaller, like 4x6, it won't be a huge issue. >> >> Anyway, try shooting some action RAW so that you can take it back >> and fiddle with it to see exactly what settings you'd need in the >> gym. >> > > Hmm, I'm certain that's what he said. I don't pretend to understand > that, either. But, your might explain why the guy at the volleyball gym > was shooting at 1/240 (or something) and I found 1/90 to be a better > shutter speed. > > Thanks! I'll try shooting at RAW, and see if I can learn from that, too. > Now, to get a RAW editor. I think you'll find that he shot at a faster speed because he could. At 1600, wide open (smallest aperture number), you were finding that 1/180th was underexposed. That's why a shutter speed that's twice as long worked better for you. If you use RAW, you may be able to shoot at say 1/200 or so, and in processing push up the exposure slider to give acceptable results. -- John McWilliams
From: Mike Fields on 15 Jan 2007 14:46 "Flavius" <jrobarts(a)sprynet.com> wrote in message news:3ZOqh.11181$w91.7729(a)newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > "Eric Babula" <ebabula(a)care2.com> wrote in message > news:Xns98B96DBEC6409ebabulacare2com(a)66.192.254.231... >> Ok, I got my DSLR (Pentax K100D) with the kit 18-55mm lens (f3.5-5.6) >> and a Promaster 70-300mm lens (f4-5.6), and started playing with it, >> trying to shoot pics at my daughter's volleyball tournament this >> weekend. FYI - I'm new to real photography, > > > > FAST GLA$$ (GLASS) > There are a number of things you can do to get the best possible pictures: 1) as indicated above .. FAST GLA$$ (expensive low light lenses) 2) boost the ISO (which you indicated you have done) there is some software such as neatimage to help reduce noise in the image from the high ISO 3) use a tripod or monopod to help reduce camera movement 4) work at taking the pictures when there is minimum movement like right at the peak of a jump to spike the ball where the player is "hanging" in the air (takes a bit of practice). If you get it just right, you get one of those cool shots where things are mostly sharp except for the blurred arm etc. 5) use the highest shutter speed you can for the exposure (which takes us back to #1 again - a lens that is 2 stops bigger (lower number) than what you have now means you can multiply your shutter speed by 4 for the same shot - there is a big difference between 1/125 and 1/500 when you are talking action shots. mikey
From: Cynicor on 15 Jan 2007 15:16 Eric Babula wrote: > Cynicor <j...tru.p...in(a)speak.ea.sy.net> wrote: >> Well...I don't understand how IS makes 4.0 into 2.8. It can make >> 1/30 look like 1/125 second. But the big problem with sports >> shooting is that you need to control for the speed first. I turn IS >> off now when I shoot hockey, because the speeds at which IS makes a >> difference are too slow to freeze the play. So there won't be any >> hand shake, but there'll be action blur. >> >> Anyway, try shooting some action RAW so that you can take it back >> and fiddle with it to see exactly what settings you'd need in the >> gym. >> > > Hmm, I'm certain that's what he said. I don't pretend to understand > that, either. But, your might explain why the guy at the volleyball gym > was shooting at 1/240 (or something) and I found 1/90 to be a better > shutter speed. What he may have meant was that you're in a situation that calls for 1/125, f/2.8 settings. You can't get f/2.8 on the slower lens, so you set it to f/5.6. To let the same amount of light into the camera, you need 1/30. However, your lens is too long to be held at 1/30 without shake. With IS, you could neutralize the effects of hand-holding at 1/30 if it helps you go two stops slower. So yes, the IS makes f/2.8 "equal" to f/5.6 in one form of logic. However, while shooting at 1/125, f/2.8 lets in the same amount of light as 1/30, f/5.6, it freezes action differently. Otherwise, you could shoot at 1/2 second, f/22. (Which you can, if you want to create blurred motion effects.) I recommend this book: http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Exposure-Photographs-Digital-Updated/dp/0817463003. It talks about, well, exposure and puts everything together in an easy-to-read way.
From: Eric Babula on 15 Jan 2007 15:37
John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote in news:9pGdnYMuVNfCRDbYnZ2dnUVZ_vupnZ2d(a)comcast.com: > I think you'll find that he shot at a faster speed because he > could. At 1600, wide open (smallest aperture number), you were > finding that 1/180th was underexposed. That's why a shutter speed > that's twice as long worked better for you. If you use RAW, you may > be able to shoot at say 1/200 or so, and in processing push up the > exposure slider to give acceptable results. > > You might be right. I'll have to tinker some more, next weekend. Both girls will have tournaments, so I'll have two full days to play some more! -- Eric Babula Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA |