Register · Search · Software · Join Upload & Sell · Hosting

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

Sports Corner Rules
Sports Corner Resource
FM Forums | Sports Corner | Join Upload & Sell   
Search Used
1
2
3 end
  

Archive 2008 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot
  
 
P Alesse
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #1 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot


The first and most important variable and the variable that trumps all other variables when it comes to bokeh is focal length. It's more important than distance to subject, more important than aperture, more important than the amount of air behind the subject. And really, when I say, "important" I mean to say that it plays the biggest factor in determining the look of a background.

Lesson 1: Focal Length... Which image was shot at f/2.8?


This image is copyrighted by the owner




If you said, the image on the left, you'd be wrong. That was actually shot at f/8. The second image on the right is at f/2.8. However, the image on the left was shot at 400 mm, while the image on the right is at 35 mm.

The second determining factor, and the one that Dennis and Scott have spoken about is distance to subject and distance behind subject. After your prime lens is in place, this is where the real skill of a photographer comes into play. Why? Because putting a 400 on a body, while costly takes no talent. Setting your camera settings while it takes some skill, really is rote for many photographers. Knowing when to fire the shutter... that's where the skill comes in. So, when Dan made the f/5.6 argument, it has to be stressed that knowing when to shoot to becomes more critical. You have to shoot tight and be conscious of the air behind the subject.

Lesson 2: Distance to Subject... Which image was shot at f/2.8?


This image is copyrighted by the owner




If you said, the first, you'd be right. But, damn... it's pretty close aint it? Both hydrants were shot at 400mm, but the f/2.8 image is shot from a much greater distance... about 10 times further away. The second image, which was shot much closer was at f/8. I don't know about you, but I'd still take that bokeh, wouldn't you? Plus, we can now see how Dan's argument is coming into play. The image on the left is softer. It's soft because it had to be cropped, but also... it came out of the camera softer.

Lesson 3: f/2.8 vs. f/5.6: Which image was shot at f/2.8?


This image is copyrighted by the owner




If you said, the one on the left... you'd be right. But, let me ask a more important question? Could you live with the background with the image on the right? The image on the right was at f/5.6 and more of a real world test because both hydrants were shot at the same distance with the same lens and at a distance where I would normally shoot a youth soccer player. I would probably have even more air behind the subject on a soccer field, but overall, the difference in backgrounds is negligible and the image on the right is sharper, which was Dan's whole point to begin with.

Bottom line with all this is that f/5.6 while it will be sharper for all lenses, is more suited for focal lengths at 300mm or greater. It is with those lenses, where stopping down will produce BG's that are stil more than acceptable. If you intend to shoot field sports with a 70-200, you're not going to get the BG that's going to rival the BG of a 400mm especially with a TC... plain and simple. And since aperture settings have already been shown to have less of a dramatic effect than focal length and DTS, you might as well stop down and work on your DTS patience. Let the action come to you and shoot tight and you'll have the best of both worlds... sharper photos and better BGs.

Edited on Mar 30, 2008 at 11:42 PM


Mar 30, 2008 at 11:26 PM
cmilt
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot


Great post, Paul. Many thanks!

Mar 30, 2008 at 11:46 PM
James Broome
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot


Damn Paul. Were you bored today?

Mar 31, 2008 at 12:04 AM
P Alesse
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #4 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot


James Broome wrote:
Damn Paul. Were you bored today?


James... I'm in transition. This weekend and the next are the last free weekends before going hot and heavy with T&I for the next three months. So, as you can see... I have been shooting hydrants and weebles.


Mar 31, 2008 at 12:13 AM
Dean Gillette
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot


Not to hi jack, but am I the only one here who would pay big money if Paul ever put on a two day seminar?

Mar 31, 2008 at 01:00 AM
DannWunderlich
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot


wow paul thank you so much for that post ... thank thank thank you

now let me re-read it about ten times

Mar 31, 2008 at 04:12 AM
James Broome
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot


Dean Gillette wrote:
Not to hi jack, but am I the only one here who would pay big money if Paul ever put on a two day seminar?


I'd attend a Paul Alesse seminar on shooting baseball.

Mar 31, 2008 at 11:49 AM
Dan N
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot


Thanks for the back up again Paul...

Remember the photo pit at Bristol a few years ago?? I have a trick or two up my sleeve!

I was thinking of doing the same comparison but between running from Little League meetings, then Cub Scouts, then my own softball game, oh, don't forget the wife and kids, I had no time.

I think we have a new catch phrase: "When CBL talks, people listen!"

Mar 31, 2008 at 12:38 PM
vidoprof
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot


Great post Paul. That does really make a lot of sense now. I generally don't shoot outside, but man when I do I know I will be bringing bigger glass and stopping down

Ryan


Mar 31, 2008 at 02:55 PM
rbranan
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #10 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot


lot of the guys out here shoot at 2.8 during bright sunny days, including the si guy

Mar 31, 2008 at 09:11 PM
P Alesse
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #11 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot


Guys... I really appreciate the thanks, I really do, but the post wasn't meant to dictate that there is only one way to shoot. I'm just trying to explain there are many ways to get to the desired result. I still speak highly of 2.8, but understanding how the camera works in all aspects will help you to make intelligent choices when shooting. In the writeups, many, include myself speak of the benefits of shooting wide open, while Devin Dahlgren in the softball writeup talks about shooting 5.6. You can't dismiss any style of shooting as heresy and the only thing that really can be agreed upon is that creativity is in the control of the shooter. My examples are only to show how the camera works and come to the defense of Dan Neri who after his post, was ready to be burned at the stake.

Mar 31, 2008 at 10:21 PM
Dan N
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot


Who's got a match

Mar 31, 2008 at 11:52 PM
k.brown
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot


cmilt wrote:
Paul:

I have seen your advice about shooting at 5.0 or 5.6 before. I mainly shoot soccer in the daytime. Does stopping down affect the focus speed? I am using Mark 2 and 300 2.8.

Thanks

Chris

Nope! Your camera will focus with the lens wide open then stop it down to take the photo. This is why we can AF at f/11, et al.

Apr 01, 2008 at 07:01 AM
 



Bill Wood
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #14 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot


Paul you said that a 70-200 with a teleconverter will not give the same result as longer glass? Will a 120-300 with a 1.4x which gives the effective Focal length of 420 @ f4 give the same relative BG as a 400 @ f4? Does a teleconverter have a negative effect on BG?

Apr 01, 2008 at 11:17 PM
pnorth
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #15 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot


P Alesse wrote:
When we first get into sports photography, the wide open mantra is pounded into our brains. I can tell you now after having shot over 1 million sports images, that if you're aiming to get the sharpest possible images from your lens, don't shoot wide open. Dan is right.

With the 300 and 400 primes, I'll stop down to f/5 or even f/5.6 especially with a TC on. Everything is tack sharp and when you have both an offensive and defensive player in the frame, both are tack sharp, with little to no difference in the bokeh of the BG. As long as your conscious of all the other things that make for a great shot, your keeper rate will go. Having a 2.8 or 1.8 lens is never a waste of money... you can go wide open when you need to under low light conditions. You don't have that flexibility with 5.6. Plus the quality of the photo is heads and tails above a cheaper lens. You do get what you pay for.



Yup, I agree here, people would ask me why wouldn't I shoot at f2.8 if I had a lens that could do it? I would tell them the same thing every time, if you have more than one player in the frame they are both sharp! If the shot is tight enough you are still getting a nice silky smooth background as well.

Great advice from Dan and Paul A.


Apr 02, 2008 at 12:52 PM
bobbyz
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot


Paul, nice examples to proof the point. Thanks for that.

I am not a sports guy (shoot birds) and sometimes I can get very nice blurred bg even at f11/f16 but at 700mm. It depends on camera to subject and subject to bg distance, like you clearly showed in your examples.

I wasn't beating on Dan. I was just responding to his statement, where he says "he will shoot at f5.6 any day of the week" to get sharp pictures. That's was a pretty general statement also.

When I used my 400mm f5.6 wide open at f5.6, it was sharper than f8. Shouldn't be according to MFT and all that, but it was.

When one is using TCs, there is adrop in sharpness even with superteles (less with 300/400mm compared to 500/600mm). So one has to stop down somewhat to compensate for that.

I also believe that if one looks at their sports portfolio, that they will have more shorts at wider apertures than 2 stops down. With good glass, the difference is small, IMHO. Sure you will get really sharp results at say f8 but then at f8 most decent glass is sharp. If one is shooting all the time at f5.6/f8 then one is kind wasting money buying f2.8. I know f2.8 gives much you faster focus which you will loose with slower glass.

In the end, I do agree that one has to look at the situation in hand and decide what is good for that particular moment to get the sharp shot. If bg is far, light is good, you may stop down to get more sharpness. But lot of times you might have bad bg and shooting wide open might be the only option.

Apr 02, 2008 at 02:28 PM
mathwich
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #17 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot


cmilt wrote:
Great post, Paul. Many thanks!


+1


Apr 02, 2008 at 03:57 PM
Nill Toulme
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #18 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot


I love these "think again" threads. I *always* *always* shoot wide open, and this will prompt me to kick myself in the butt to try something different. In fact, yesterday I briefly tried going back to CF4-2 instead of -3 and focusing with the half shutter press, and also tried some "ring of fire" AF instead of center point. No verdict, and the match was a snoozer so I left early and went to a better one and reverted to my usual settings... but at least I was thinking! ;-)

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Apr 04, 2008 at 01:59 PM
samd12
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #19 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot


This is one of the best threads I have read in a long time, top 5. Great advice from knowledgeable people. Thanks to everyone who has contributed

One side note question, when shooting sports and the busy back round can not be avoided does, or has anyone here ever used photoshop with selection tools to help achieve some bokeh?



Apr 04, 2008 at 03:54 PM
msack
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #20 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot


I'm with Nill...this really opened my eyes. When I'm outside, I'm always shooting at 2.8 or 3.2 and this makes it clear I've been sorely mistaken. Thanks for the insight Paul.

Mike

Apr 04, 2008 at 04:17 PM
Scott Sewell
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #21 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot


samd12 wrote:
One side note question, when shooting sports and the busy back round can not be avoided does, or has anyone here ever used photoshop with selection tools to help achieve some bokeh?





No. Never. Certainly never for PJ work. Beyond the ethical problems of doing something like that for PJ work--which should be enough of a reason for any PJ shooter--that's one reason I own a 400/f2.8.

If I am creating/designing something specific (a poster or ad, for example) for a client I might do something, but that's it. (sample below)

Remember, photography and graphic design are two distinctively different things.



This image is copyrighted by the owner




Edited on Apr 04, 2008 at 08:00 PM


Apr 04, 2008 at 07:58 PM
NickyD
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #22 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot


Everything Paul said is absolutely right...

However, the reason I still shoot at F4.0 or less is because you cannot control where the action goes. If you can shoot at F2.8 and still have enough DoF to produce the images you need, why stop down and chance that you get distracting elements in the background?

When subjects aren't moving very fast, or when you *know* the action is going to stay in a certain area where you can pick the background, do whatever you want. However, if you are shooting a fast moving game, where the background is constantly changing, shooting at F5.6 or F8.0 is going to make for some ugly photos.

The one thing that this thread certainly shows though, is that we all need to be certain of *why* we are shooting at the settings we choose. The craft of photography demands that we *know* our settings and what they mean. Anything less, and what would separate us from any other button pusher with Automatic Settings on the sidelines?

Apr 04, 2008 at 09:06 PM
Mike Deuce
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #23 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot


John Patrick wrote:
I like it, Dann. Got some dirt flying from both shoes, good seperation between subject and background, good emotion, nice and sharp except for the ball/throwing hand. Hard to believe that's motion blur at 1/4000 so I'm going to assume it's DOF-caused.

John


it could be motion blur. assuming it's an 80-mph pitch, the hand/ball would move .35 inches in 1/4000th of a second...

despite the fact, its a great shot.

Apr 04, 2008 at 09:31 PM
cm0rris0n
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #24 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot


samd12 wrote:
One side note question, when shooting sports and the busy back round can not be avoided does, or has anyone here ever used photoshop with selection tools to help achieve some bokeh?


I can't see myself ever doing that for ethical, and I suppose, philosophical reasons. Besides usually heavy-handed photoshop work looks like heavy-handed photoshop work and I think it looks terrible.

Speaking of which, a local paper here had an image on their website that I found in poor taste along those lines ...

<a href="http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/photo.php?pic=http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/photos/2008/04/03/l81528-1.jpg&storyid=81528">Here</a>

They clearly used photoshop to brighten the highlights under his cap but it turned out terrible giving him a bright white halo around his head. Perhaps someone thought he was an angel, but otherwise I think it looks tacky.



Edited by cm0rris0n on Apr 05, 2008 at 12:27 AM GMT

Edited by cm0rris0n on Apr 05, 2008 at 12:28 AM GMT

Edited on Apr 05, 2008 at 07:28 AM


Apr 04, 2008 at 11:23 PM
P Alesse
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #25 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot


cmorrison... you might consider linking this photo if you are not the copyright owner

Apr 05, 2008 at 03:36 AM




FM Forums | Sports Corner | Join Upload & Sell
1
2
3 end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

  Username   Password  
Lost your password?