I covered a High School soccer playoff this week between Hilliard Davidson and Gahanna. It is the first time I have shot soccer for over three years. I have posted some of the images from the game. I used a Canon 7D with a 400mm f/2.8. All of the images accept for one (#5 ISO 4000) are ISO 5000 I also used an expo disc for custom white balance.
It looks like there might be noise reduction applied, if so do you have a "before" SOOC version you could post? I realize it may not be ideal but was wondering how much different it is from the posted pics and how much detail is in the original.
The big thing I notice is what appears to be a loss of detail with the players giving them the plastic looks as Dann mentioned.
When I look into the backgrounds I think the noise is "acceptable" but when I see the smooth silky skins and the 'greased' hair I'm not impressed.
Looking at this quality I'm not impressed bij the high iso of the 7D. I'd rather buy a second 1D mk III (maybey not the same iso perfomance, but other advantages)
Must be my old eye's because I shoot ISO 5000 at night games with my D3 quite a bit, and these look pretty good. I don't normally do any NR for newsprint, I may run a light pass thru Noiseware if I am printing for a sale.
Like I said, maybe it's just me but these don't look bad for those settings.Also you've captured some good battles here.
Even though I am not a big fan of high ISO (heve seen some good D3 stuff) I dont think they look all that bad, I did use noise ninja on the images the greased hair is because some of the guys were sweating profusely not sure why. Remember too a mark III might not have done as well under these conditions my (Mark III) certainly doesnt focus as well as the 7D.
First, good action and framing in all of them except maybe #4. Not sure what's causing the greenish faces I'm seeing in #3 and #5. Could be my monitor though I don't seem to have this problem with other images. There seems to be quite a bit of variation in detail quality between the shots. Number 10's face in the third shot seems almost painted in (nice action!) whereas #20 in the last one while showing some of the same artifact is much better.
So you are seeing the 7D has having superior AF to the 1DIII? That would be real interesting.
ron, i shoot a fair amount of soccer under poor lights and i think these look very good. the NN use shows, sure, but i don't find it objectionable.
composition's excellent. faces (w/intensity), good "battles" for the ball. the green cast - well, i get that too and i think it's just the cycling lighting - hard to deal with in post. that said, it's not bad, even against darker skin (where i notice in my work it tends to happen more often and to a greater degree).
from where i sit, these would sell very well to the parents - have u printed any?
thanks for sharing - i'm always interested in high iso sports shooting.
Thanks Mike, I agree with you on the lights probably reflecting a little green from the artificial turf as well doesn't show quite as much on my monitor. They do look very nice in print (better than on my monitor) so far 8X10 is the largest I have gone.
The blue uniforms look over-saturated to me. Sometimes a high level of saturation and contrast can accentuate the "plastic" look. On the whole, pretty nice work.
Mike Tuomey wrote:
ron, i shoot a fair amount of soccer under poor lights and i think these look very good. the NN use shows, sure, but i don't find it objectionable.
composition's excellent. faces (w/intensity), good "battles" for the ball. the green cast - well, i get that too and i think it's just the cycling lighting - hard to deal with in post. that said, it's not bad, even against darker skin (where i notice in my work it tends to happen more often and to a greater degree).
from where i sit, these would sell very well to the parents - have u printed any?
thanks for sharing - i'm always interested in high iso sports shooting....Show more →
+1
I think these look generally pretty good, although as Mike says the NR use is obvious. I personally don't like the effect of NR, and with today's cameras it's sometimes not even worth running. In print, a little noise is far less objectionable than it is on the monitors at most print sizes and I'll take that over the smearing of NR. Still, having said that, you've got some great action and expressions and good punch in the colors. What's not to like?
I agree about the NR for monitor viewing the images do get a little blocked up but they look much better as an 8X10 print without NR gives the photo kind of a film grain effect. Some of the images were taken from fringe areas of the field so the light did vary. The images taken from the center most well lit area of the field didn't need any NR (IMO)
thanks for posting the no-NN version, ron. i'm aligned with you and dj thinking that this file would print well despite the noise level evident on a monitor. there's a lot to like here, the facial intensity and the composition, even things like retaining some detail in the black shorts at this high iso level. a buyer wouldn't notice the noise. if anything it adds a bit of realism, grittiness. as an aside, i find this is often truer for matches on natural grass vs artificial turf.
i agree with your point about the spottiness of field lighting. for a typical night shoot, i could sort down my files by where they were shot (darker v lighter sections of the field) and skip NN on the lighter section shots. it's that kind of difference in noise levels (and motion blur but that's another topic).
Ronnie, FWIW, that last image you just posted is easily the most impressive IMHO in this thread. As Mike says, more detail, no significant smearing effect. It's a great image.
