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   4   end
  

Archive 2008 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot
  
 
DannWunderlich
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot


then i will definetly try it out...this is why i made the post, this type of advice.

So thank you too all, Paul and Dan thank you

i feel so honored to be enlightened by P Alesse

Mar 30, 2008 at 05:15 PM
DannWunderlich
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot


wait so are you saying that @ f/5 you can get teh same bokeh as if shooting @ f/2.8?

is this due to compression? or maybe i read that wrong

Mar 30, 2008 at 05:16 PM
Scott Sewell
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #3 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot


I'm not Paul, but I've never noticed a drop in focus speed when dropping down with a Mk2 and any L lens combo.

Personally, I buy fast glass for the flexibility Paul mentioned. If I have a 400/f5.6 I might get great shots outdoors under the sun, and I might shoot at f5.6 with my 400/f2.8 under the same conditions. But get under the lights at a nighttime football game and that 400/f5.6 lens won't even make it out of the house.

With regard to DOF and "compression", there are many factors that play into this, most of which have been discussed recently in another thread.

This shot was taken at f5.6 with a 400/f2.8 just yesterday on a cloudy (and cold!) day, and I'm not sure one would really notice much difference if it had been shot at f2.8.








Edited on Mar 30, 2008 at 05:24 PM


Mar 30, 2008 at 05:20 PM
DannWunderlich
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot


thanks for the image scott


Mar 30, 2008 at 07:05 PM
dmwierz
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #5 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot


Dann,

Note Scott's statement:

"With regard to DOF and "compression", there are many factors that play into this, most of which have been discussed recently in another thread"

And look at the background in the shot he posted. There is a lot of "air" behind the pitcher so even at f/5.6 your BG is going to be very nicely blurred.

But even in "closer quarters" stopping down won't necessarily ruin your bokeh. Changing your aperture from f/2.8 to f/5.6 represents a move of 2 stops, which is a 4X decrease in light transmission into the camera (1/4 the amount of light gets through to the sensor), but it only increases the DOF by a factor of 2, not 4.

For example, shooting a 300mm lens across the diamond, say to catch a play at third base, taken from the first base side (approximately 150 feet distance from where we've been allowed to stand), would only open up the DOF from around 10 feet to 20 feet (10 feet in front of and 10 feet behind the base). Even the smallest of fields will have a lot more than 10 feet behind third base before you run into "junk" (like fences, etc). The junk in the background might not be quite as smoothly blurred as it would be at f/2.8, and it won't be as smooth as it is in the shot Scott posted above (where the background is far in the distance), but what you lose in bokeh blur will frequently be more than made up for by increased sharpness of the image.

Like Scott said,

"I'm not sure one would really notice much difference if it had been shot at f2.8"

Edited on Mar 30, 2008 at 07:49 PM


Mar 30, 2008 at 07:41 PM
P Alesse
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #6 · 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 #7 · 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 #8 · 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 #9 · 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 #10 · 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 #11 · 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 #12 · 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 #13 · 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 #14 · 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 #15 · 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 #16 · 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 #17 · 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 #18 · 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 #19 · 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 #20 · 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
1  
2
   3   4   end




FM Forums | Sports Corner | Join Upload & Sell

1  
2
   3   4   end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

  Username   Password  
Lost your password?