Lens or better lighting?

Multi-SportsMom · Feb 5, 2012

I used my 135mmL f2 for the first time this weekend. Its an ok lens, wasnt as blown away as I was when I rented the 70-200L 2-8 II last season.
I wish I could use the 135 in the same gym as I did the 70-200.

An ISO of 3200 would make the shots brighter, but not more vivid. Do you think its the lens or maybe I had the picture style setting different? Is there a software I can check that on "old" shots?

I was also surprised that the bokeh was not very good in my shots. Even at 2.0.

filmluvr · Feb 5, 2012

The last two look underexposed to me. Did you shoot in RAW so you can process with DPP?

--
http://jackandkelly.zenfolio.com/

William DIllard · Feb 5, 2012

I was and still am thinking about the 135L as my next prime mainly because I want something with more blur power than my 85 1.8. I am not real excited about these shots but could that be because they are at 2.8 and not 2.0 ? But you also said that you did not get great results at 2.0 ! Hmmmm maybe it was crappy light......I generally like very much the photos I see from that lens ! And what was the difference that you saw with the 70 -200L II. I was led to believe that the IQ was quite similar....I could be wrong ?

Fabian628 · Feb 5, 2012

You bought this lens for f/2. use it at f/2

If you shots look a bit dull dial in a little exposure compensation +1/3 or +2/3. It depends on how the lights are in the gym, and shooting under fluoro lights is never the best but cant be avoided.

Next time try f/2, that way there is more separation from the background and let the subject stamndout more. These shots can be recovered, if they are not vivid enough for you, increase xposure, contrast and saturation in photoshop

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/41942460@N04/sets/

Multi-SportsMom · Feb 5, 2012

yes

filmluvr said:
The last two look underexposed to me. Did you shoot in RAW so you can process with DPP?

--
http://jackandkelly.zenfolio.com/

Multi-SportsMom · Feb 5, 2012

Multi-SportsMom · Feb 5, 2012

Before..

After..

I struggle with PS. But I will say its 100% better than my shots from 2006 when my son started playing BB.

scubasteve03 · Feb 6, 2012

Multi-SportsMom said:
Before..

After..

I struggle with PS. But I will say its 100% better than my shots from 2006 when my son started playing BB.

Wow! Huge difference! What was your process to get that IQ out of that pic? Great work.

Also to OP, you were hoping you would have more bokeh with an f/2 lens while using the same aperture on both lenses. You have to use a higher aperture if you are going to want more bokeh. Also you will get more bokeh zoomed out at 200 vs using a lens at 135mm. Next time shoot at f/2, or just get the 70-200.

Multi-SportsMom · Feb 6, 2012

scubasteve03 said:
Multi-SportsMom said:

Before..

After..

I struggle with PS. But I will say its 100% better than my shots from 2006 when my son started playing BB.

Click to expand...

Wow! Huge difference! What was your process to get that IQ out of that pic? Great work.

Also to OP, you were hoping you would have more bokeh with an f/2 lens while using the same aperture on both lenses. You have to use a higher aperture if you are going to want more bokeh. Also you will get more bokeh zoomed out at 200 vs using a lens at 135mm. Next time shoot at f/2, or just get the 70-200.

I did use f2 at first. The bokeh/blur was better in front of the subject than behind.(see other picture posted) I noticed going back through the photos using the 70-200 some had more/better bokeh then others. All shot at 2.8. Will have to check the length shot at. But were all about the same. But i would assume the distance between the subject and the background would matter no?

filmluvr · Feb 6, 2012

What percentage of your shots turned out dull like this? I wonder if it's the result of shooting under 60Hz fluorescents? If it does this in natural or incandescent lighting, your new lens might be underexposing 1/2 stop or so. How do the in-camera RGB histograms look? Also, if you save one of the images as TIFF and pull it into PhotoShop, you can "eyedropper" the white areas to see how far below clipping they are. Based on what I'm seeing, I'd guess they're in the 220s or 230s.

--
http://jackandkelly.zenfolio.com/

gdanmitchell · Feb 6, 2012

Sometimes you get what you shoot. I wouldn't be blaming the lens - especially not a fine lens like that one - for somewhat flat lighting and colors that look like, well, they were shot under gym lighting.

Dan

Multi-SportsMom said:
I used my 135mmL f2 for the first time this weekend. Its an ok lens, wasnt as blown away as I was when I rented the 70-200L 2-8 II last season.
I wish I could use the 135 in the same gym as I did the 70-200.

An ISO of 3200 would make the shots brighter, but not more vivid. Do you think its the lens or maybe I had the picture style setting different? Is there a software I can check that on "old" shots?

I was also surprised that the bokeh was not very good in my shots. Even at 2.0.

--
---
G Dan Mitchell - SF Bay Area, California, USA
Blog & Gallery: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
Google Plus: https://plus.google.com/u/0/102554407414282880001/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/gdanmitchellphotography
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdanmitchell/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/gdanmitchell

Fabian628 · Feb 6, 2012

yeah distance from subject does matter like you said, but 200mm f/2.8 is likely to have more shallow depth of field than 135mm f/2 at the same distance. You could try shooting a little bit closer to the action also.

according to online calculator 200mm f/2.8 at 10m had .26m dof while 135mm f/2 has .4m, so it is quite significant

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/41942460@N04/sets/

R2D2 · Feb 6, 2012

Multi-SportsMom said:
f2 example

Distance makes all the difference in the world (both camera to subject, and subject to background). You want to decrease the former, and increase the latter.

R2

--
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.

http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries

Howard S · Feb 6, 2012

I had a look at one of your images in LR and this is what it was like after adding 1.25 stops exposure adjustment with a little vibrance for good measure.

let me know when you've seen it and I'll delete it.

Multi-SportsMom said:
I used my 135mmL f2 for the first time this weekend. Its an ok lens, wasnt as blown away as I was when I rented the 70-200L 2-8 II last season.
I wish I could use the 135 in the same gym as I did the 70-200.

An ISO of 3200 would make the shots brighter, but not more vivid. Do you think its the lens or maybe I had the picture style setting different? Is there a software I can check that on "old" shots?

I was also surprised that the bokeh was not very good in my shots. Even at 2.0.

kb2zuz · Feb 6, 2012

Custom white balance... learn how to do it. Bring a white sheet of paper or a grey card, use it to make a custom white balance in the gym lighting... the colors will look a lot better and pop more. Gym lighting can be horrible in color so a custom white balance can help a lot.
Some of your shots are underexposed. If the lighting is pretty much consistent around the court, using manual exposure may prevent accidental under exposure. But, only use manual if you are sure that the lighting is very even, if you see that some areas of the court are darker, stick to aperture priority.
Technically speaking, I think your problem with the lens is the depth of field (DOF) is not that shallow. The Bokeh is the quality of the out of focus areas, not how blurred they are or how much are out of focus... it's the quality of the blur. The bokeh is very nice, but there isn't much out of focus because you are so far from teh subject. Depth of field vary based on a combination of Aperture, Focal Length, and Distance from the Subject. The further the subject is, the deeper the DOF. The first rule of photography is: If you don't like your photos, you are not close enough. This doesn't mean you have to run out onto the court, but taking a seat on the bleechers that is closer to where you expect the action to be and make sure you're ready for the action to happen there. This usually means choosing a net to sit closer to. You can try to get shots down the other end of the court, but don't let them distract you from action that's happing in front of you. You might miss some shots from the opposite side, but the shots that happen right in front of you will look much better. It's tempting to want to be high up in mid court so you can see everything, but getting closer to one net will let you make a percentage of your shots that much better.
Lighting. Yes the lighting isn't great... but most gyms don't have great lighting. The biggest problem here is the walls are light in color which are filling the background with more light, which makes the background more visible and provides more fill on the players which makes for less definition... You can try to increase the contrast a little. You might also want to add a slight vignette which is a quick and easy way to draw attention to the subject and further hide distractions in the background. I just stress going easy, because some people (not all) will use very strong vignettes which become noticeable and can look cheesy, a good vignette should be dark enough that if you Do/Undo in photoshop you can see it, but if you just showed it to someone else, they wouldn't realize there's a vignette.

I think your equipment is fine, just keep at it.

--
~K

Multi-SportsMom · Feb 6, 2012

All were. Hate shooting in a gyms. My husband said one gym was fluorescent one was mercury vapor. I need to try it in natural lighting. I will check on the RGB etc.

filmluvr said:
What percentage of your shots turned out dull like this? I wonder if it's the result of shooting under 60Hz fluorescents? If it does this in natural or incandescent lighting, your new lens might be underexposing 1/2 stop or so. How do the in-camera RGB histograms look? Also, if you save one of the images as TIFF and pull it into PhotoShop, you can "eyedropper" the white areas to see how far below clipping they are. Based on what I'm seeing, I'd guess they're in the 220s or 230s.

--
http://jackandkelly.zenfolio.com/

Multi-SportsMom · Feb 6, 2012

Thats why I was asking. I wasnt blaming the lens. I will assume the better shots I have seen are done in better lighting. I have always said that great lighting can produce good shots even with a cheap lens.

gdanmitchell said:
Sometimes you get what you shoot. I wouldn't be blaming the lens - especially not a fine lens like that one - for somewhat flat lighting and colors that look like, well, they were shot under gym lighting.

Dan

Multi-SportsMom said:

I used my 135mmL f2 for the first time this weekend. Its an ok lens, wasnt as blown away as I was when I rented the 70-200L 2-8 II last season.
I wish I could use the 135 in the same gym as I did the 70-200.

An ISO of 3200 would make the shots brighter, but not more vivid. Do you think its the lens or maybe I had the picture style setting different? Is there a software I can check that on "old" shots?

I was also surprised that the bokeh was not very good in my shots. Even at 2.0.

Click to expand...

--
---
G Dan Mitchell - SF Bay Area, California, USA
Blog & Gallery: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
Google Plus: https://plus.google.com/u/0/102554407414282880001/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/gdanmitchellphotography
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdanmitchell/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/gdanmitchell

Multi-SportsMom · Feb 6, 2012

Thanks I used to have LR. Its lighter but still flat. Will chalk it up to terrible lighting.

Multi-SportsMom · Feb 6, 2012

I do know how to use CWB. But never in a gym. Do I need to do it in the middle of the gym. Or can I do it from the bleachers? The second shots. I slowed my shutter speed and closed down my ap as to see how the sharpness would be at 2.8. Left the ISO the same. I forget how many stops each was as to make sure it was the same. But it was also a different gym. Honestly dont remember if I exposed to the right as I usually do. "If you don't like your photos, you are not close enough." YES I can get good shots when I am pretty close. I got some sharp ones playing with it at home. My longer shots dont usually come out very good. Whats the trick for want more subject(s) in the shot, hense needing to be closer. When a smaller ap would not work because of lighting? Seating is limited at most games and changing places impossible most times. I try to sit in the middle to be close to both sides. Doesnt help shooting from the side instead of top/bottom of the court doesnt help. Thanks for all the ideas. I will be Pro by the time my grandkids play BB!

kb2zuz said:
Custom white balance... learn how to do it. Bring a white sheet of paper or a grey card, use it to make a custom white balance in the gym lighting... the colors will look a lot better and pop more. Gym lighting can be horrible in color so a custom white balance can help a lot.

Some of your shots are underexposed. If the lighting is pretty much consistent around the court, using manual exposure may prevent accidental under exposure. But, only use manual if you are sure that the lighting is very even, if you see that some areas of the court are darker, stick to aperture priority.

Technically speaking, I think your problem with the lens is the depth of field (DOF) is not that shallow. The Bokeh is the quality of the out of focus areas, not how blurred they are or how much are out of focus... it's the quality of the blur. The bokeh is very nice, but there isn't much out of focus because you are so far from teh subject. Depth of field vary based on a combination of Aperture, Focal Length, and Distance from the Subject. The further the subject is, the deeper the DOF. The first rule of photography is: If you don't like your photos, you are not close enough. This doesn't mean you have to run out onto the court, but taking a seat on the bleechers that is closer to where you expect the action to be and make sure you're ready for the action to happen there. This usually means choosing a net to sit closer to. You can try to get shots down the other end of the court, but don't let them distract you from action that's happing in front of you. You might miss some shots from the opposite side, but the shots that happen right in front of you will look much better. It's tempting to want to be high up in mid court so you can see everything, but getting closer to one net will let you make a percentage of your shots that much better.

Lighting. Yes the lighting isn't great... but most gyms don't have great lighting. The biggest problem here is the walls are light in color which are filling the background with more light, which makes the background more visible and provides more fill on the players which makes for less definition... You can try to increase the contrast a little. You might also want to add a slight vignette which is a quick and easy way to draw attention to the subject and further hide distractions in the background. I just stress going easy, because some people (not all) will use very strong vignettes which become noticeable and can look cheesy, a good vignette should be dark enough that if you Do/Undo in photoshop you can see it, but if you just showed it to someone else, they wouldn't realize there's a vignette.

I think your equipment is fine, just keep at it.

--
~K

kb2zuz · Feb 6, 2012

Multi-SportsMom said:
I do know how to use CWB. But never in a gym. Do I need to do it in the middle of the gym. Or can I do it from the bleachers?

If the lighting is roughly the same (more particularly the type of lights and the color, doesn't have to be exactly as bright). If they have a different type of light over the bleachers than they do over the court it won't work.

Multi-SportsMom said:
The second shots. I slowed my shutter speed and closed down my ap as to see how the sharpness would be at 2.8. Left the ISO the same. I forget how many stops each was as to make sure it was the same. But it was also a different gym. Honestly dont remember if I exposed to the right as I usually do.

"If you don't like your photos, you are not close enough." YES I can get good shots when I am pretty close. I got some sharp ones playing with it at home. My longer shots dont usually come out very good. Whats the trick for want more subject(s) in the shot, hense needing to be closer. When a smaller ap would not work because of lighting? Seating is limited at most games and changing places impossible most times. I try to sit in the middle to be close to both sides. Doesnt help shooting from the side instead of top/bottom of the court doesnt help.

It's a matter of preferences, but I feel mid court you can get average shots of either side. But most of the actions happen closer to the nets. If you go closer to one goal, yes you likely get worse (or completely miss) some shots that happen at the other goal, but the shots that happen at the goal right by you will look a lot better. I'm of the opinion where i prefer to get a couple really great shots than to get a bunch of mediocre shots, and I try not to mind if I completely miss a shot that might happen on the other end. Keep in mind, I'm coming from a point of view where I don't have kids and I just would want to get good shots of whoever. You being a parent might disagree, because if your child makes the game winning shot on the other end of the court, missing that shot (or getting a bad shot of it) may mean you prefer to stick to mid-court. Everything in photography is a trade off.

Multi-SportsMom said:
Thanks for all the ideas. I will be Pro by the time my grandkids play BB!

I'm certain you will. Best of luck
--
~K

Lens or better lighting?

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts