p.3 #1 · 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.
p.3 #3 · 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! ;-)
p.3 #4 · 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?
p.3 #5 · 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.
p.3 #6 · 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.
p.3 #7 · 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?
p.3 #8 · 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...
p.3 #9 · 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 ...
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
p.3 #11 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot
Nice shot! I personally would have liked to see just waist-up so you could have given more facial detail, but that's just me.
bobbyz wrote:
I agree. My 400mm f5.6 was sharper wide open at f5.6 than at f8. I thought something wrong with it but then I found other users of same lens who reported same thing.
Same here, my Canon 300 f/4 L isn't any sharper stopped down than it is wide open.
p.3 #12 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot
cm0rris0n wrote:
Speaking of which, a local paper here had an image on their website that I found in poor taste along those lines ...
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.
Yea, it's just not cool dropping in someone else's image into a thread, but it's something we seem to see more and more of with each passing day.
FYI...dodging and burning is something that was done in dark rooms long before computers, let along PS. I'm sure those of us who ever spent any time in a dark room can remember all the funky ways we would dodge and burn (and the make-shift tools used). Unfortunately, the digital dark room makes it easy for anyone to do this (many who've never stepped foot in a dark room), and it's sometimes overdone.
I'm not convinced all the dodging has been done in that image as has been implied, but that discussion is really better suited for another thread, in another forum.
p.3 #13 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot
sorry I tried to just link it but then the the software here still tried to display it as an image as it "read" the image url ... if anyone has any tips on how to tell the posting software not to interpret image urls that would help
and as for the dodging and burning on that image to each their own I guess ... I think it looks awful nothing should have halos like that unless you're doing some sort of artistic rendition involving religious themes.
Also, I'm well aware of dodging and burning as techniques and do them quite often in my landscape photography which is also why I'm familiar with the digitial versions of it and what happens when they go bad.
And I know it's off topic but when someone asked the question about using photoshop to manipulate bokeh that photo came to mind since I had just seen it.
p.3 #14 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot
even though it is way beyond MY thread ... i guess it is still mine, i am going to be double majoring in Graphic design and Photojournalism ... so i find it relevant
p.3 #16 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot
sorry I tried to just link it but then the the software here still tried to display it as an image as it "read" the image url ... if anyone has any tips on how to tell the posting software not to interpret image urls that would help
C- if you put it as a hyperlink (without the IMG tags), like this:
p.3 #17 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot
Thank you for this thread. I've been beating myself up mentally trying to debate whether purchasing a 300mm f/4 would work for me shooting a few motorsports track days. At the moment, any 2.8 is out of my price range (already have 70-200 2.8 covered). I've taken the advice of a fellow photog who told me that 300mm might be nice for automobiles, but motorcycles would need 400mm in the same location/shot. So I've been contemplating the look of 400mm f5.6 or even 500mm f8 in the same location. Because focusing becomes an issue, and stepping down even more... I think I'm just going to rent and borrow TC's and do it in real world tests.
p.3 #19 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot
I just re-read most of this thread and came across the following:
bobbyz wrote:
If one is shooting all the time at f5.6/f8 then one is kind wasting money buying f2.8.
It certainly is NOT a waste of money!
The whole point to having a fast aperture like f/2.8 is having the ability to shoot a few stops down. And, like others have mentioned, being able to open up if the BG need to be blown out.
If I am starting at f/5.6, then 2 stops down would be f/11. This would result in more DOF and a MUCH slower SS. Also, we loose the ability to attach a TC for some added reach.
