NCAA DivII Basketball 3200

Started Nov 27, 2007 | Discussions
OP Beau Long Contributing Member • Posts: 972
Re: NCAA DivII Basketball 3200

sayheywertz wrote:

My understanding is that DOF is impacted only by F stop and distance.
The lower lit gyms require F2.8 (which I believe your sample was
taken at), so your image already shows the shallowest DOF possible
with DX - the ISO is not relevant. This is my only beef with DX.

In theory, that holds true, but, this lens gets much better DOF blur in good light than it does here. I can't explain it, but it's my experience. I could post some good light shots at f4 with this same lens and the difference is dramatic.

OP Beau Long Contributing Member • Posts: 972
Re: NCAA DivII Basketball 3200

DavidVogt wrote:

You did a nice job of capturing an exciting moment, but this is
heavily overprocessed and has lost all detail. I'm guessing this is
due to postprocessing, rather than in-camera processing.

Thanks David. It was my first working night with it. I'll remember the High ISO NR next time. I got the thumbs up from the people that hired it, so all is well and it only gets better the more I learn the limits and of it. In print, it looks pretty damn good for a 3200 exposure. Better than anything I've shot yet.

Got any tips for such a condition?

sayheywertz New Member • Posts: 11
Re: NCAA DivII Basketball 3200

Yes, I would like to see those. I suspect that if the DOF is significantly more shallow in these more brightly lit situations, it will be due to distance & F stop factors. My understanding is that thiis DOF issue is all about the the optics (with it holding true that, everything else being equal, the smaller the sensor, the deeper DOF will be). But, hey, I've been wrong on at least one other occasion in my life!

OP Beau Long Contributing Member • Posts: 972
Re-edited for color correction

Don't know if any of you saw this re-edit allnak did for me. It has a color correction that warmed it up a bit and brightened the scene a little. I thought it was a bit warm off camera so I cooled it off some (original post). allnak warmed it back up for me and I think it looks much better. The shine on their arms is sweat...not plastic! LOL

OP Beau Long Contributing Member • Posts: 972
Re: NCAA DivII Basketball 3200

sayheywertz wrote:

Yes, I would like to see those. I suspect that if the DOF is
significantly more shallow in these more brightly lit situations, it
will be due to distance & F stop factors. My understanding is that
thiis DOF issue is all about the the optics (with it holding true
that, everything else being equal, the smaller the sensor, the deeper
DOF will be). But, hey, I've been wrong on at least one other
occasion in my life!

Here's one with the same lens at f5.6... busy BG. DOF blur looks alot better here shut down 2 stops. At 2.8 outside, the BG is just a total blur and 3D's the subject very well compared to the gym.

A non technical guess on my end would be that the available light has at least a little to do with DOF. The BG distance is relative in this shot to the gym shot.
--

http://beaulong.exposuremanager.com
http://www.nikonians-images.org/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/108565

monopoly Forum Member • Posts: 63
Re: Re-edited for color correction

The main problem is still the lack of any real detail though - you say that for iso3200 its not that bad, but i've shot with my canon 350D at iso3200 (underexposed 1 stop then push in post-processing) and the results are far, far better than that IMHO.

(Just for info, please don't call me a canon fanboy; i have no interest in brand loyalty. If anything i'm a bronica fanboy, as that's what i use for the majority of my work, which is done on film obviously!)

I'm sure the camera can do better - samples i've seen on this forum without any noise reduction have been very impressive; certainly head and shoulders above these samples (looking at it purely from a high iso performance/noise reduction angle)

-- hide signature --

RIP Thomas Abercrombie

sunny boaz Regular Member • Posts: 107
Re: Looks like sweat to me

snappey, what Canon guy is doing here BTW?
Do you want to convert to D300,huh?

Sunny Boaz

 sunny boaz's gear list:sunny boaz's gear list
Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Canon EF 24-105mm F3.5-5.6 IS STM Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II
snappey Senior Member • Posts: 1,050
Re: Looks like sweat to me

sunny boaz wrote:

snappey, what Canon guy is doing here BTW?
Do you want to convert to D300,huh?

Uh, because I had something to say. Just like you:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=25797222

OP Beau Long Contributing Member • Posts: 972
Re: Re-edited for color correction

monopoly wrote:

The main problem is still the lack of any real detail though - you
say that for iso3200 its not that bad, but i've shot with my canon
350D at iso3200 (underexposed 1 stop then push in post-processing)
and the results are far, far better than that IMHO.

Nah, no FB stuff... post your pushed shots of HS gym sports so we can see them. You are talking about the same lighting conditions, yes? I can go to U of SCarolina's bball DivI arena and get much better as well, but here in this gym, you won't do it. I don't think you're comparing apples to apples here. Sure, there are many 3200's that look better under different lighting. I've taken plenty testing out the camera around the house, outside at dusk, etc... that are much better. If you don't shoot these gyms, you really don't know how difficult it can be relying on gym lighting. No flash, no strobe set up... this is no secret to the guys that do it.

Please post your gym stuff. I'm anxious to see it.

OP Beau Long Contributing Member • Posts: 972
oooops. must've hit post twice. n/t

Beau Long wrote:

monopoly wrote:

The main problem is still the lack of any real detail though - you
say that for iso3200 its not that bad, but i've shot with my canon
350D at iso3200 (underexposed 1 stop then push in post-processing)
and the results are far, far better than that IMHO.

Nah, no FB stuff... post your pushed shots of HS gym sports so we can
see them. You are talking about the same lighting conditions, yes? I
can go to U of SCarolina's bball DivI arena and get much better as
well, but here in this gym, you won't do it. I don't think you're
comparing apples to apples here. Sure, there are many 3200's that
look better under different lighting. I've taken plenty testing out
the camera around the house, outside at dusk, etc... that are much
better. If you don't shoot these gyms, you really don't know how
difficult it can be relying on gym lighting. No flash, no strobe set
up... this is no secret to the guys that do it.

Please post your gym stuff. I'm anxious to see it.

Joe Ellis Contributing Member • Posts: 802
nice shots!

They look kind of like burn victims.

monopoly Forum Member • Posts: 63
Re: Re-edited for color correction

Sorry if i miss-lead you in any way there, i haven't actually shot under gym lighting - we don't really play much basketball where i live in Britiain. My examples of iso3200 are of music gigs (of which there are much more of where i live).

I do however fully understand that the gym will have extremely difficult lighting, so please don't think i'm slating your ability in any way - i'm simply commenting on how the camera (or perhaps you) have handled the noise reduction, which IMHO has gone far over the top.

Personally i'd rather see a really grainy/noisy image than an unnaturally smooth one with very little detail.

I would love to post some shots, but i'm not really sure how to do so - could you point me in the right direction please?

-- hide signature --

I've got my own darkroom in West Wales, thank you very much. Get your own.

monopoly Forum Member • Posts: 63
Re: Re-edited for color correction

Right i'll have a go at posting a shot - i didnt managed to convert it to sRGB properly i don't think (wish we could compare prints...), so the colours are a bit washed out, but i think you'll get the point about noise.

Hopefully that works...

-- hide signature --

I've got my own darkroom in West Wales, thank you very much. Get your own.

monopoly Forum Member • Posts: 63
Re: Re-edited for color correction

Oh yeah, shot details: 350D, iso1600, -1Ev, pushed a stop in my raw processor.

-- hide signature --

I've got my own darkroom in West Wales, thank you very much. Get your own.

OP Beau Long Contributing Member • Posts: 972
Re: Re-edited for color correction

monopoly wrote:

Right i'll have a go at posting a shot - i didnt managed to convert
it to sRGB properly i don't think (wish we could compare prints...),
so the colours are a bit washed out, but i think you'll get the point
about noise.

Not anywhere close to the same thing... apples and oranges.... and I don't see any of the detail you're talking about. It looks as smoothed over as the gym shots. I do see the noise which is a pleasant noise... film like, but as far as "much, much" better? I think not. The gym shots pop more, but still, totally different environments and quality of light. That's the key here... Quality of light. All light, or lack of, is not the same. Until you sit in a cave and try, you really don't know what it's all about, period. It seems so many here are so critical about what they haven't tried yet, pretend to know, and then criticize (not constructively) to make themselves look like they know what they are doing (a few exceptions granted and appreciated for the help).

Nothing personal, those are fantastic captures of the moment and I love band shots, but it is not the same.

monopoly Forum Member • Posts: 63
Re: Re-edited for color correction

Clearly we're not going to agree lol, but i really don't see what you mean; all i see in your shot is extremely high noise reduction - whereas in mine i can still see individual hairs on the subjects head - something that has been reduced to a brown blur in your shot (though i realise they have very little hair, so this is a flawed comparison).

You say i can't be critical since i don't know how hard it is to shoot under those lighting conditions - but i'd say i have a fare idea to be honest; the lighting after all is likely to be very consistent (since you're indoors), meaning you can simply put your camera on manual and you're good to go for the entirety of the game (please correct me if i'm wrong - ie. if the light was actually changing).

However, i'm not being critical of your photography skills - technically you've exposed the shot very well. The point i'm picking up on is simply how the noise reduction seems (to my eyes) give it an unpleasant look.

-- hide signature --

I've got my own darkroom in West Wales, thank you very much. Get your own.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads