Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2013 · Div II Baseball
  
 
Bob Jarman
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · Div II Baseball


A little brisk but the season has arrived. Georgia Regents University (formerly Augusta State until this year ) vs. Carson Newman

Think I maxed out the reach on this one - your thoughts?

Curious about treatment on #2? And for full disclosure, the ball was moved into the cropped frame - was in the original but about 5 feet more into play.

Bob




  NIKON D2X    80.0-200.0 mm f/2.8 lens    200mm    f/4.5    1/2000s    200 ISO    0.0 EV  






  NIKON D2X    80.0-200.0 mm f/2.8 lens    86mm    f/4.5    1/2000s    200 ISO    0.0 EV  




Feb 02, 2013 at 10:01 PM
sbeme
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · Div II Baseball


The action, angled body on the first is great and nice capture of his expression.
The right arm looks odd below and to the left of the elbow. Wish it was sharper.
Not sure what your question is on the second, Bob.
Nice sharp capture, exposure, etc. It has almost a triptych feel, catcher, batter, ball, offering three subjects that we can link together readily. I could see choosing to keep the batter and ball in sharp focus and some selective blur on the rest, although that might be unusual for a sports photography image.
Scott



Feb 03, 2013 at 12:18 AM
Bob Jarman
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · Div II Baseball


Thanks Scott,

I must believe the forearm deformation is muscle mass movement as the result of throwing the pitch. I did not alter anything in the image in that area.

Re #2, the desaturated grunge/bleach look is what I am curious about. To me, blur would be inappropriate for this other than perhaps the signage, which is a fact of life at ball parks.

Thanks again,

Bob



Feb 03, 2013 at 01:35 AM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · Div II Baseball


The plane of focus seems to be the cap/glove ... assuming face was target focal point, so not that far off giving the dynamics of involved with this kind of shot. I know what it was like shooting manual focus for women's fastpitch.

Diggin' the muscle tension in the forearm ... yearning for a bit more dof to range from the arm to the face. Could shoot @ higher ISO with plenty of light available (i.e. noise not a real issue from the ISO bump) and get a bit more DOF @ 5.6 or 8. Just food for thought if your target comp is to be so "stretched out" over a wide dof plane(s).

Also, curious how a shallow DOF of his forearm, might look with his body/glove/face oof behind it. Of course, that'd be a trick to pull off, but I see you've got the right gear for it (D2X). Overall, the oof forearm doesn't bother me, but I do wish the sharpest part was his face rather than his cap/glove. It looks like a "near miss", but you could probably selectively soften the glove/cap a touch and sharpen the face a smidge to offset the "near miss".

Nice job on replacing the ball ... reminds me of our discussions with Ben about trophy shot vs. plausible realism. This is a very nice case of HIGHLY PLAUSIBLE REALISM that would be hard to find a "tell" in. I might consider dropping the ball a bit lower than level with the bat though. The grunge look gives it a nice throwback (60's/70's) vibe. The "peak action" in this is pretty killer ... the catcher's shoe, mask, forearm muscle and the batter's facial tension and trailing shoe ... pretty sweet, imo ... if you're into the details.

Took a stab at the bg ... not as good as natural dof would be, but you get the gist. BTW, the action in the second one takes place in more of the 'same plane' ... that coupled with the wider FL, you probably could have gone between f4 & 2.8, unlike the pitcher where the action was come through multiple planes (plus the greater compression of the FL) and a move toward 5.6 or 8 might be something to try (depending on your objective).

Just a few micro-nits for future thought ... certainly nothing that takes away from the vibe of the pics.

Thanks for sharing ... Spring Has Sprung ... WooHoo !!!







Feb 03, 2013 at 05:15 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Bob Jarman
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · Div II Baseball


RustBug,

Thanks for your insight and comments - actually one commenter on the Sports Forum found the ball's position implausible while others disagreed. Posting a less stressed version of #1 for thoughts...might have been too mcuh of a reach on the crop. Perhaps arm speed had a play in it although at 1/2000 sec?

Thanks,

Bob







Feb 03, 2013 at 10:14 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · Div II Baseball


The ball is "in line" with the bat ... which "could" suggest a line drive, but it is a bunt. While it is physically possible for the trajectory to have been "ever so slightly" upward, so that it would be back on its way down descending and now at the same level as the bat on it's way down is possible ... but that would require an "exact" condition.

That is why I suggested placing the ball at a slightly lower position to "better coordinate" with the bunt plausibility ... not that it's current position is implausible, just that "in line" looks "too straight" and might raise some eyebrows for some.

On a little different note, the "time/distance" relationship the ball has traveled from the bat relative to the amount of time elapsed for the catcher and batter how far they have moved is one that only a catcher (loved it), CSI forensic scientist or physicist would pick up on that kind of thing.

The "tell" is frequently the lighting incongruities or scale incongruities. Here, the lighting and scale really don't have much opportunity to be incongruous. Personally, I think the one person that suggested it was implausible and that he could "tell" just assumed that because it was "in line" with the bat that it was implausible.

One other possibility (lighting tell) is the lack of a shadow on the ground, cast from the ball ... check the original to see if the shadow is perceptible there. If it isn't perceptible there, is it because it is too small, or because it is in the grass where it isn't well seen.



Feb 03, 2013 at 10:50 PM
basehorhonda
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · Div II Baseball


In your 1st photo, the face seems to grainy to me for being shot at ISO 200. I understand it wasnt on the same plane of focus as whatever your focus did lock on too, but to me it just looks odd. Whatever you did to that same photo the 2nd time you posted it, whatever you did to his face and jersey is kinda bugging me.

On the other photo, did you do something to it on post other than move the ball? While its a nice action shot, it just looks unlike something that would come right out of the camera. Just curious.



Feb 08, 2013 at 04:59 AM
Bob Jarman
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · Div II Baseball


@basehorhonda,

Yes, hi-speed Ch2 on a D2x which crops down internally and I further aggravated the issue by cropping down much further. Bottom-line - 200mm ain't gonna get it for real sports action photography without being right on the sidelines.

#2 - yes, post processing was applied with no intention to imply it is SOOC.

So, I appreciate your question re #2 - no intention to misrepresent anything.

Regards,

Bob



Feb 08, 2013 at 01:20 PM





FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password