Let's talk about ISO XT3 vs more current cameras

[ttusteveo]

Good thread. I wanted to echo a few thoughts here.

If your concern is image quality, I agree completely that you need to explore RAW before you consider any new gear. Even though FF sensors do have better low light performance*, you're leaving so much quality on the table relying solely on Fuji's in-camera processing. RAW opens you up to things like AI denoise (or even traditional noise reduction algorithms that are better), color profiles that may suit you better and more sophisticated sharpening tools. Even if you don't want to carefully post-process many images, you can get your software set up for quick, batch processing of RAW files against presets that can notably outperform your in-camera processing.

Personally I've never liked the Fuji JPG engine, at least on my X-T2 but I won't rant about that here.

On the lens you want - It's easy to move in and out of lenses if you buy it right. See if you can get yourself a clean used copy with a return policy in case you're not satisfied. I've been on the forums a while, and I rarely see any outright lens failures or repairs - the only noteworthy risk seems to be getting a decentered one (factory adjustment issue) so you want the ability to return if your images don't look right.

*of similar generation, assuming equivalence in aspects of your exposure and other pedantic points

 

[techgirl]

FWIW I bought my 50-140 as a minty fresh used copy. I got it from the local camera store for a good enough price that I kinda expected it to have some nebular flaw.. nope. Edge to edge and end to end, it's as good as photography gets in the X system world. Fast to focus and fantastic with the flare of bad stage lighting, it's really amazing when I need its focal length.

That is fun to read. I am looking forward to having the lens in the hope that the extra light will make taking pictures in low light a little less frustrating. May not help when doing group shots and DOF matters. Will likely be the best lens in my arsenal.

 

[dccberry]

One good option would be to rent the 50-140 from lensrentals.com, and see how you like it. They are great to deal with. You might also consider something like a Canon or Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 or Canon 200mm f/2.8 and a Fringer adapter. At that point, you have a 300mm full-frame equivalent,

 

[techgirl]

Good thread. I wanted to echo a few thoughts here.

If your concern is image quality, I agree completely that you need to explore RAW before you consider any new gear. Even though FF sensors do have better low light performance*, you're leaving so much quality on the table relying solely on Fuji's in-camera processing. RAW opens you up to things like AI denoise (or even traditional noise reduction algorithms that are better), color profiles that may suit you better and more sophisticated sharpening tools. Even if you don't want to carefully post-process many images, you can get your software set up for quick, batch processing of RAW files against presets that can notably outperform your in-camera processing.

Personally I've never liked the Fuji JPG engine, at least on my X-T2 but I won't rant about that here.

On the lens you want - It's easy to move in and out of lenses if you buy it right. See if you can get yourself a clean used copy with a return policy in case you're not satisfied. I've been on the forums a while, and I rarely see any outright lens failures or repairs - the only noteworthy risk seems to be getting a decentered one (factory adjustment issue) so you want the ability to return if your images don't look right.

*of similar generation, assuming equivalence in aspects of your exposure and other pedantic points

I really appreciate all of the information. I have to remind myself that at heart I am a photography enthusiast whose focus is travel and kids. Once our children age out of marching band I likely will have little need for gear that fits this genre. I have no doubt though that the band would be happy for me to stay on and continue even when our kids have graduated, but that is too far in the future to contemplate now. I do love how this is challenging me to learn new tools and stretching my photography skills. In the past if the lighting conditions were poor, I wouldn't take pictures. Now I have to figure out how to work with whatever lighting I have. I am finding a lot of frustration shooting in low light, but there is satisfaction when I do succeed in poor lighting.

My camera is setup to capture RAW and JPEG. So I am going to give it a go, but have little interest in switching editing packages. I recently started using Luminar Neo and i really do not have photo editing skills, but I am confident I can learn.

Having said that I am very nervous about how to edit RAW to the state that I like. And initially I may just focus on the handful of pictures from each shoot that are standouts and are likely to be selected for social media.

I am hankering for that 50-140 so I will likely bide my time to find one. And there is no reason for me to not sell lenses that I don't like or replicate other lenses I prefer to help offset the cost. I am so on the edge on whether to sell my pancake 27mm. I already have the 23mm and 35mm and zooms that cover that range. If it had the aperture ring I would keep it as sometimes I just want to have a camera that fits in my purse or (even pocket).

 

[techgirl]

And since I can only get better by soliciting input. Here is a picture from the senior shots in the theater.

Hi

If i understand right the people come to the same place and pose for some seconds - ? If you want to be fast and get it reasonably right every time ...;-) ;-)

Yes - a mass of families line up and flow through our theater and up onto the stage for photo stations. One for formal and the other for fun. I manned the fun one and it was kind of fun to take the pictures. The setup is really terrible with the area in front of the stage sloping up away from it. So if I try to get closer to use a shorter focal length I am looking up their noses. I can stand on a stool, but i am actually standing between theater rows and there is not room for a stool. So I was a decent distance away - they could barely hear me due to the noise of all the people in the queue - so when i was yelling at them to stand closer or some other kind of adjustment they really couldn't hear me and I had to resort to hand motions. Some naturally did cute poses such as this family and others not so much. I just had to roll with it. It really is an ambitious project and the pictures probably turned out better than I deserved - but thanks to this group I was pushed to adjust my white balance and exposure. And next time I hope to be even better.

1 ) You really should shoot in RAW - you can forget film situations and adjusting at home is faster, easy and nondestructive - shooting jpeg does not make this easier of faster. White balance will be OK always if you shoot RAW , often with JPEG too

Agreed. I just changed the configurations in my camera to shoot in RAW. I will need to learn how to "process" them into a JPEG. The How I do not know, but this is my cup of tea. I use Luminar Neo and I really do not want to venture out. No monthly fee and I just purchaed the extension "noiseless".

2) shoot 5 frames/ sec or something and capture 3-5 shots - someone has almost always eyes closed or something less funny - one image will be good enough

Agree gain. I used to never shoot in burst, but this genre has changed me. I truly despise the number of pictures I end up with but it does allow me to pick the picture where everybody's eyes are open. Also, for the performance the perfect shot when they all have their arms in the air, or are striking a certain pose is gone in a moment. Using burst I capture it and it is often the shot picked for social media.

3) you can check and test the light and exposure before you start - use manual exp. metering so that the f, speed and ISO stay the same all the time - same place, same light = the one tested exp. is right every time - no time wasted in new measurements. You know how the metering works and is possibly fooled when people have black or white clothes ... and so on

This!!!! My confession is that I did shoot in manual AND I tried to test the light before the session. But I still failed. I knew I could not trust the exposure my camera picked but I didn't do very well either. I suppose the benefit is they were all equally underexposed. This expereince leads me to believe that I do not know how to figure out the correct exposure. I was determining exposure by looking at my images. This may be my biggest frustration (other than shooting in low light). I am not sure I know how to manually get the right exposure in wonky lighting like our theater.

4) Your lens has OIS - handheld shots are ok if you use 1/30 and f 5,6 or 7 - ISO 2000 will give you a nice quality

Thanks - I was not sure which ISO would give me best balance (between shutter, aperture, and noise). When we perform and there is action I am still debating between 3200 and 6400. I think that may just need to be tested to see what those ISO's look like after i do my best effort of editing. 6400 sure does give me a lot more lattitude, but with an F2.8 that will be even better.

Tripod could work, but it is not a flexible way to work fast

1-2 flashes could make images look better, but adjusting the lights and waiting for the flashes to charge is a bit time consuming. One flash with some softener/box or reflector can work , but you have to test the system and practice before the D day and check how the images look - and do you like the look.

I can only learn so many new tricks at one time. Flash photography is not high up there and they usually request we do not use flash.

Enjoy !

Thanks for your detailed response!

 

[techgirl]

Hi Caroline

I like the photo. I think you did a great job.

Correcting underexposure in post is no prob, but then you can also push ISO during shooting, it's about the same noise. I would definitely not go below 1/125 s with people.

WB looks good.

Background looks good.

DoF is borderline but a more closed aperture is hardly possible under these lighting conditions. You could reduce the fl (you selected 67.5 mm - how about 30...35 mm?) and get closer, that gives you more DoF. Frame is a bit tight anyway IMO, it could be a tad more "zoomed out".

Positioning of the individuals is good.

You could get yourself a test period of Topaz Photo AI and optimize this image (denoising and sharpening). Just out of curiosity, just to see what is possible. You will not be able to use the result due to the watermark added by the test version.

I almost never use flash. If, then only w/ bouncing to the ceiling. Is bouncing possible in this location?

Well, instead of flash you could buy cheap photo lights, you'll have this more under control as compared to flash, but of course you'll increase the effort.

I personally pretty much always use available light and no tripod if possible anyhow.

Cheers,

Martin

Thanks for the critique. I cannot tell you how happy I was to read a person approves of my WB. Achieving correct WB is something I do not know (yet). It was so VERY easy to correct the white balance in Luminar Neo, I almost felt like it was too good to be true. Naturally, it would have been better to get the correct right balance by adjusting camera settings before I shot so it did not need to be corrected in processing. I have no idea how to do that (yet), but I will start googling how to tell the camera the WB to use. Right now i just keep WB in auto.

There were several limitations in the theater. I really needed to be on a stool closer to the stage, but the stool did not fit between the rows (to avoid looking up people's noses).

I did buy an extension in Luminar Neo, noiseless, to reduce noise. I did give it a little try and I was pleased with the results. What I have (gear and software) may not be the best, but as I fit this in as a volunteer, I need to balance time and cost. And right now my pictures hold up pretty well in comparison to the other volunteer photographers, but this is an opportunity to hone my photography skills. I have received such great advice, I am excited to see how I can improve my pictures.

 

[techgirl]

Hi Caroline

I would definitely not go below 1/125 s with people.

DoF is borderline but a more closed aperture is hardly possible under these lighting conditions. You could reduce the fl (you selected 67.5 mm - how about 30...35 mm?) and get closer, that gives you more DoF. Frame is a bit tight anyway IMO, it could be a tad more "zoomed out".

Positioning of the individuals is good.

You could get yourself a test period of Topaz Photo AI and optimize this image (denoising and sharpening). Just out of curiosity, just to see what is possible. You will not be able to use the result due to the watermark added by the test version.

I almost never use flash. If, then only w/ bouncing to the ceiling. Is bouncing possible in this location?

Well, instead of flash you could buy cheap photo lights, you'll have this more under control as compared to flash, but of course you'll increase the effort.

I personally pretty much always use available light and no tripod if possible anyhow.

Cheers,

Martin

I wanted to mention I love when people give me very specific recommendations on settings. I shot at 1/160 for this picture. I would have been even happier if I could have gone higher on shutter as I could be zooming in to 80mm. But trying to balance DoF and shutter felt so very tight in this lighting. I really needed a bit more DoF but that would have compromised my shutter speed. And throughout the shoot I was changing the aperture when larger groups came up who could not fit in a single line. This necessitated adjusting the shutter. I was shooting in manual (which is atypical for me) and was being told to take pictures faster as they needed to get to practice. l I felt it would take a miracle to get the correct exposure. And indeed i did not and neither did the other photographer who was doing the formal pictures on the other side of the stage. He shot in RAW and after processing his pictures looked awesome.

 

[ttusteveo]

Having said that I am very nervous about how to edit RAW to the state that I like. And initially I may just focus on the handful of pictures from each shoot that are standouts and are likely to be selected for social media.

Techgirl,

It's not as bad as you think. Remember what the camera is doing - it's applying the same JPEG recipe to every photo you take, unless you tweak it in the middle of your shoot. You can do this.

Once you're in your photo processing software, you can edit a photo to your liking. You can try on different color profiles (Fuji does this with Provia, Velvia...), sharpening amounts, etc. Once you bring the RAW image up to where you like it, you should be able to apply that recipe to the rest of your photos. Granted, this recipe won't be optimized for each image, but the camera's JPG engine isn't doing that for you either.

I use Capture One, and I have presets that I like and use as a baseline. I use settings that I perceive as balanced and how I remembered the image, and RAW+C1 gives me better detail definition and sharpness. (Time for my Fuji rant... I do this because I don't like Provia's crushed blacks; Pro Neg Std is probably my favorite with Color +4 to bring back some saturation. The in-camera JPG engine does not resolve fine details in landscape nearly as well as C1 can, and the high ISO noise reduction in camera isn't as good either.) If you do nothing else but this, you're already a step forward in image quality. You can then pick which images you want to work on more.

 

[Rightsaidfred]

Thanks for the critique. I cannot tell you how happy I was to read a person approves of my WB. Achieving correct WB is something I do not know (yet). It was so VERY easy to correct the white balance in Luminar Neo, I almost felt like it was too good to be true. Naturally, it would have been better to get the correct right balance by adjusting camera settings before I shot so it did not need to be corrected in processing. I have no idea how to do that (yet), but I will start googling how to tell the camera the WB to use. Right now i just keep WB in auto.

Hey there

I do the same. It is always on auto WB.

I have a white resp. geay card but almost never use it, it is not necessary because Fujifilm's auto WB is good. I know many members here will disagree but I am happy.

There is one place where I apply the white card because I am not happy with the auto WB, and that is in the woods. Because of the greens.

And - there is one more situation when I manipulate WB, and this is actually also your use case: photo series. Auto WB may select a slightly different WB for each photo. So I either use manual WB or I just copy and paste the WB of one good looking image to all others in post. When a colleague and I recently photographed 200 colleagues in the company, we selected the preset daylight WB.

There were several limitations in the theater. I really needed to be on a stool closer to the stage, but the stool did not fit between the rows (to avoid looking up people's noses).

Understand.

I did buy an extension in Luminar Neo, noiseless, to reduce noise. I did give it a little try and I was pleased with the results. What I have (gear and software) may not be the best, but as I fit this in as a volunteer, I need to balance time and cost. And right now my pictures hold up pretty well in comparison to the other volunteer photographers, but this is an opportunity to hone my photography skills. I have received such great advice, I am excited to see how I can improve my pictures.

I hope your community appreciates your efforts.

Ciao,

Martin

 

[KariP]

And since I can only get better by soliciting input. Here is a picture from the senior shots in the theater.

Hi

If i understand right the people come to the same place and pose for some seconds - ? If you want to be fast and get it reasonably right every time ...;-) ;-)

Yes - a mass of families line up and flow through our theater and up onto the stage for photo stations. One for formal and the other for fun. I manned the fun one and it was kind of fun to take the pictures. The setup is really terrible with the area in front of the stage sloping up away from it. So if I try to get closer to use a shorter focal length I am looking up their noses. I can stand on a stool, but i am actually standing between theater rows and there is not room for a stool. So I was a decent distance away - they could barely hear me due to the noise of all the people in the queue - so when i was yelling at them to stand closer or some other kind of adjustment they really couldn't hear me and I had to resort to hand motions. Some naturally did cute poses such as this family and others not so much. I just had to roll with it. It really is an ambitious project and the pictures probably turned out better than I deserved - but thanks to this group I was pushed to adjust my white balance and exposure. And next time I hope to be even better.

1 ) You really should shoot in RAW - you can forget film situations and adjusting at home is faster, easy and nondestructive - shooting jpeg does not make this easier of faster. White balance will be OK always if you shoot RAW , often with JPEG too

Agreed. I just changed the configurations in my camera to shoot in RAW. I will need to learn how to "process" them into a JPEG. The How I do not know, but this is my cup of tea. I use Luminar Neo and I really do not want to venture out. No monthly fee and I just purchaed the extension "noiseless".

2) shoot 5 frames/ sec or something and capture 3-5 shots - someone has almost always eyes closed or something less funny - one image will be good enough

Agree gain. I used to never shoot in burst, but this genre has changed me. I truly despise the number of pictures I end up with but it does allow me to pick the picture where everybody's eyes are open. Also, for the performance the perfect shot when they all have their arms in the air, or are striking a certain pose is gone in a moment. Using burst I capture it and it is often the shot picked for social media.

3) you can check and test the light and exposure before you start - use manual exp. metering so that the f, speed and ISO stay the same all the time - same place, same light = the one tested exp. is right every time - no time wasted in new measurements. You know how the metering works and is possibly fooled when people have black or white clothes ... and so on

This!!!! My confession is that I did shoot in manual AND I tried to test the light before the session. But I still failed. I knew I could not trust the exposure my camera picked but I didn't do very well either. I suppose the benefit is they were all equally underexposed. This expereince leads me to believe that I do not know how to figure out the correct exposure. I was determining exposure by looking at my images. This may be my biggest frustration (other than shooting in low light). I am not sure I know how to manually get the right exposure in wonky lighting like our theater.

4) Your lens has OIS - handheld shots are ok if you use 1/30 and f 5,6 or 7 - ISO 2000 will give you a nice quality

Thanks - I was not sure which ISO would give me best balance (between shutter, aperture, and noise). When we perform and there is action I am still debating between 3200 and 6400. I think that may just need to be tested to see what those ISO's look like after i do my best effort of editing. 6400 sure does give me a lot more lattitude, but with an F2.8 that will be even better.

Tripod could work, but it is not a flexible way to work fast

1-2 flashes could make images look better, but adjusting the lights and waiting for the flashes to charge is a bit time consuming. One flash with some softener/box or reflector can work , but you have to test the system and practice before the D day and check how the images look - and do you like the look.

I can only learn so many new tricks at one time. Flash photography is not high up there and they usually request we do not use flash.

Enjoy !

Thanks for your detailed response!

I understood it so, that the light in that place stays the same all the time. I would use spot metering with manual exp mode and take a exp.measurement of some "standard persons " face - some people say you could use a grey card and that works too ... take some test shots of some friends face in this terrible "studio" - you will see when it (her face) looks bright enough. IF you shoot RAW it is very easy to adjust brightness with your PC (or. Mac) - do not use the exposure slider ( it will adjust the whole image and you need to get the faces/middle tones brighter or just right ). A RAW file tolerates a lot of adjustments - 2 stops underexposure is easy to correct .

And there is a problem with DOF - you must use f5,5 or even f7 to get everyone's faces in focus (looking sharp). F 1,8 or f 2,8 is of course "faster" but then only some of the persons are standing exactly in the perfect place

I have used the same idea in a totally different circumstances. Exposure metering is difficult when there is bright white snow + sunny weather around and you take pictures of kids playing in the snow ( one has dark clothes and the other bright yellow) Because light was constant and snow is white all the time I measured exposure from the snow and added +1,5 -1,7 EV correction (stops) to the numbers metering suggest - instead of 1/1000 something like 1/300-350 or instead of f 16 a low number like f 10 or 9 . The exposure was OK most of the time and the different clothes against bright whiteness did not fool the automatic "brains " of the camera. Same light = same exposure . No time wasted in adjusting the camera all the time when kids move fast.

I your situation the background is too dark (almost black) and also the clothes look quite dark.

Of course in some countries people can be pale blonds and some really quite dark. A photographers nightmare is a situation where a black haired very dark bride uses a very bright white pearly dress and the bridegroom is dressed in black and is almost an albino like blond ... and the brides dress should look great and the happy guy should not look like a ghost ;-) . A grey card or a basic grey guy in a. grey dress will help ;-) to find the right exp.

--
Kari
I started SLR film photography in 1968. Now two systems: Fujifilm X-H1 + X-E3 and Canon FF gear 5dMkIV + R6

 

[Rightsaidfred]

I wanted to mention I love when people give me very specific recommendations on settings. I shot at 1/160 for this picture. I would have been even happier if I could have gone higher on shutter as I could be zooming in to 80mm. But trying to balance DoF and shutter felt so very tight in this lighting.

Of course.

I really needed a bit more DoF but that would have compromised my shutter speed. And throughout the shoot I was changing the aperture when larger groups came up who could not fit in a single line.

Well done.

This necessitated adjusting the shutter. I was shooting in manual (which is atypical for me)

But good as there was obviously artificial light involved - with ES there's the risk of banding.

and was being told to take pictures faster as they needed to get to practice. l I felt it would take a miracle to get the correct exposure.

No prob if you shoot raw and as long as you don't over expose.

And indeed i did not and neither did the other photographer who was doing the formal pictures on the other side of the stage. He shot in RAW and after processing his pictures looked awesome.

What does that mean, better than yours? It is awesome, too.

Cheers,

Martin

 

[Rightsaidfred]

Having said that I am very nervous about how to edit RAW to the state that I like.

Just keep the raws for later.

And initially I may just focus on the handful of pictures from each shoot that are standouts and are likely to be selected for social media.

Sounds good. For social media, noise play no big role as there's typically not the full resolution shared anyway.

I am hankering for that 50-140 so I will likely bide my time to find one.

You have more options.

• Viltrox 75/1.2
• XF 90/2
• Xf 56/1.2 "old" and "new"

Here's a list of XF as well as 3rd parts lenses that I maintain: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujifilm-X-Bajonett

It is in German but the tables are easy to understand.

Cheers,

Martin

 

[KariP]

Thanks for the critique. I cannot tell you how happy I was to read a person approves of my WB. Achieving correct WB is something I do not know (yet). It was so VERY easy to correct the white balance in Luminar Neo, I almost felt like it was too good to be true. Naturally, it would have been better to get the correct right balance by adjusting camera settings before I shot so it did not need to be corrected in processing. I have no idea how to do that (yet), but I will start googling how to tell the camera the WB to use. Right now i just keep WB in auto.

Hey there

I do the same. It is always on auto WB.

I have a white resp. geay card but almost never use it, it is not necessary because Fujifilm's auto WB is good. I know many members here will disagree but I am happy.

There is one place where I apply the white card because I am not happy with the auto WB, and that is in the woods. Because of the greens.

And - there is one more situation when I manipulate WB, and this is actually also your use case: photo series. Auto WB may select a slightly different WB for each photo. So I either use manual WB or I just copy and paste the WB of one good looking image to all others in post. When a colleague and I recently photographed 200 colleagues in the company, we selected the preset daylight WB.

There were several limitations in the theater. I really needed to be on a stool closer to the stage, but the stool did not fit between the rows (to avoid looking up people's noses).

Understand.

I did buy an extension in Luminar Neo, noiseless, to reduce noise. I did give it a little try and I was pleased with the results. What I have (gear and software) may not be the best, but as I fit this in as a volunteer, I need to balance time and cost. And right now my pictures hold up pretty well in comparison to the other volunteer photographers, but this is an opportunity to hone my photography skills. I have received such great advice, I am excited to see how I can improve my pictures.

I hope your community appreciates your efforts.

Ciao,

Martin

I shoot RAW and use auto WB - of course the WB setting has no real meaning if I shoot RAW. WB can be adjusted afterwards at home ...

I often use someone's white collar or some other white spot and use that as white when I adjust the WB closer to true levels. RAW file is just very raw material RAW - it has recorded everything there is ... in PP I decide what is "normal" or looks OK . JPEG is more like a color slide film...

 

[techgirl]

Last night we had a competition in very poor lighting. Thanks to all of you I took the leap and captured pictures in RAW. Without a workflow or clue what I was doing, I still found it quite easy to convert to JPEG. I am using Luminar Neo and with the extension of Noiseless I was satisfied with how it removed the grain. Shot at 6,400 and I am now fully confidant to shoot at that ISO again. These pictues from competition will not be printed...they will likely live in Flickr and social media.

I am attaching a few sample shots. I did not get any stellar shots, but I was delighted with what the noise reduction did - I will have so many more options to push ISO and increase shutter by using RAW. I am not sure if I am happy with how these pop, but they don't look like Disney photography anymore. Are you guys sure the field shouldn't be a little greener?

So thank you - with all of the input you nudged me to the most cost effective solution. A solution right under my nose, but I needed guidance to find it. I still have purchase approval for that 50-140. I am super excited - with the tutelege I have received here I now have the courage to give photo editing a try. Last night I randomly moved slides around in Luminar. Definitely had no idea what I was doing. I look forward to developing presets to "develop" images and honing my editing skills.

Open to any suggestions.

 

[Jim in Hudson]

Last night we had a competition in very poor lighting. Thanks to all of you I took the leap and captured pictures in RAW. Without a workflow or clue what I was doing, I still found it quite easy to convert to JPEG. I am using Luminar Neo and with the extension of Noiseless I was satisfied with how it removed the grain. Shot at 6,400 and I am now fully confidant to shoot at that ISO again. These pictues from competition will not be printed...they will likely live in Flickr and social media.

I am attaching a few sample shots. I did not get any stellar shots, but I was delighted with what the noise reduction did - I will have so many more options to push ISO and increase shutter by using RAW. I am not sure if I am happy with how these pop, but they don't look like Disney photography anymore. Are you guys sure the field shouldn't be a little greener?

So thank you - with all of the input you nudged me to the most cost effective solution. A solution right under my nose, but I needed guidance to find it. I still have purchase approval for that 50-140. I am super excited - with the tutelege I have received here I now have the courage to give photo editing a try. Last night I randomly moved slides around in Luminar. Definitely had no idea what I was doing. I look forward to developing presets to "develop" images and honing my editing skills.

Open to any suggestions.

Regarding "grass" color, synthetic turf is rather reflective so the lights from the opposite side of the field will always wash out the color. If you shot the show in daylight, you'd see a deeper green for the field.

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

Last night we had a competition in very poor lighting. Thanks to all of you I took the leap and captured pictures in RAW. Without a workflow or clue what I was doing, I still found it quite easy to convert to JPEG. I am using Luminar Neo and with the extension of Noiseless I was satisfied with how it removed the grain. Shot at 6,400 and I am now fully confidant to shoot at that ISO again. These pictues from competition will not be printed...they will likely live in Flickr and social media.

I am attaching a few sample shots. I did not get any stellar shots, but I was delighted with what the noise reduction did - I will have so many more options to push ISO and increase shutter by using RAW. I am not sure if I am happy with how these pop, but they don't look like Disney photography anymore. Are you guys sure the field shouldn't be a little greener?

So thank you - with all of the input you nudged me to the most cost effective solution. A solution right under my nose, but I needed guidance to find it. I still have purchase approval for that 50-140. I am super excited - with the tutelege I have received here I now have the courage to give photo editing a try. Last night I randomly moved slides around in Luminar. Definitely had no idea what I was doing. I look forward to developing presets to "develop" images and honing my editing skills.

Open to any suggestions.

One thing you will have to come to grips with about RAW files is that opening them in you editor with its default import processing (aside from potentially better noise reduction) probably may very well look worse than the SOOC jpeg. You will have to evaluate what the default import processing has presented you with and make whatever processing choices will be necessary to get the image to where you want it to go. To produce a better result than the camera's sophisticated jpeg processing algorithm, it's likely going to take some time to sort out what all the different development tools do and what combination of settings is going to be necessary to achieve your vision. The initial image you see at import is really just supposed to be a starting point, not a fully developed image.

Your examples look pretty good to me, but here are a couple of shooting/processing suggestions to consider...

White balance. It looks a bit off and a bit different for each of these examples - When your camera's Auto-WB gets it wrong, it can take a bit fiddling with the Color Temp and Tint controls in your RAW editor to get the color "right", it's never going to perfect with the limited spectrum lighting you're going to encounter on a football field, but once you dial in the optimal color balance, you can then apply those same WB settings to all the other photos shot in the same light and, unlike with jpegs, they will all match.

Exposure/ISO. It looks like you did pretty well to avoid blown highlights, At f/4 and 1/400' you actually had quite a lot of light to work with. These look clean enough at ISO 4000/5000, but you may find yourself in situations where you will want to drop the shutter speed some to increase exposure - You can probably get away at 1/200" or so for this sort of thing if you have to. You definitely want to avoid motion blur, but you also want to gather as much light as possible.

Geometry. With scenes like this sporting strong geometric elements (and where the subjects are clearly going to a lot of trouble to put on a visually balanced show), a balanced, symmetrical composition is generally desirable if you can manage it. The bottom image should probably be framed a bit higher to avoid cutting off the top of the flags etc., but the top and bottom are relatively level and would be east to straighten out but, the other two, not so much. You probably can't always sit on the 50 yard line (probably should if you can) but, as long as you aren't too far off-center, with a little forethought to carefully compose with bit of extra space for cropping and geometric adjustment, you can often (if your software allows) straighten everything out in a few seconds in post. If you only have simple cropping to work with in your software, you can compose with your camera squared, the scene level at the top and bottom of the frame, but wide and off-center with some sacrificial cropping space to one side. You'll waste some sensor real estate doing this, but your image geometry will be balanced.

This is most geometrically problematic composition of the three...



it's way too far off to correct without a (still) somewhat wonky result (head all the way at the top of the frame, and the folks on the left are now a tad taller than the folks on the right), but is (IMO) more compositionally closer to where you'd want it to be.


I adjusted the white balance (not nearly as well as you can do with the RAW file), tweaked the geometry, cropped, and brightened up the mid tones a bit (Lightroom)

 

[techgirl]

This is most geometrically problematic composition of the three...



it's way too far off to correct without a (still) somewhat wonky result (head all the way at the top of the frame, and the folks on the left are now a tad taller than the folks on the right), but is (IMO) more compositionally closer to where you'd want it to be.


I adjusted the white balance (not nearly as well as you can do with the RAW file), tweaked the geometry, cropped, and brightened up the mid tones a bit (Lightroom)

I really like what you did. It does make a difference having it more level and the grass doesn't look muddy. Thanks for all of the pointers!

 

[Bartolomeos]

techgirl wrote:

I am so on the edge on whether to sell my pancake 27mm. I already have the 23mm and 35mm and zooms that cover that range. If it had the aperture ring I would keep it as sometimes I just want to have a camera that fits in my purse or (even pocket).

I've recently acquired it and it's so fun to use...(though I have version with aperture ring). I also itch for 50-140 sometimes (was shooting sons football with 70-300 and I felt that 70 was too close and I rarely went over 200). But then I remind myself how big it is and how much joy shooting with things like 27mm pancake gives and I just can't justify it.