Awful pictures again

kelack

kelack

TPer Emerita - But she's back!
Suspended / Banned
Messages
10,607
Name
Kelly
Edit My Images
Yes
Looking at my rugby pics fmo yesterday adn there's again - not many I would say were good. Here's a couple of them with exif data:

East%20Peckham%2017.11.07.146.JPG

ISO: 400
Exposure: 1/40 sec
Aperture: f/5.6
Focal Length: 100mm

East%20Peckham%2017.11.07.065.JPG

ISO: 400
Exposure: 1/50 sec
Aperture: f/6.3
Focal Length: 210mm


East%20Peckham%2017.11.07.043.JPG

ISO: 200
Exposure: 1/30 sec
Aperture: f/6.3
Focal Length: 150mm

And this one is just plain awful!

East%20Peckham%2017.11.07.018.JPG


ISO: 400
Exposure: 1/30 sec
Aperture: f/6.3
Focal Length: 180mm

Can anyone point me in right direction (and yes, I know my horizon is off in a couple of them). I was using monopod as well.
 
As Glo rightly said, your shutter speeds are much too slow. If you want to 'freeze' the action, you need a much higher shutter speed.
 
I agree you need to up the shutter speed, to probably at least 1/100th. Problem is you don't have much light to play with it seems. You'll have to increase the ISO rating to at least 1600 I would think. Noise may then become a problem. However a "sharp" noisy picture is better than a blurred one.
 
The settings seem to vary a lot, what mode where you shooting in?

Given the conditions I would have chosen ISO800 and Aperture Priority mode, shooting wide open to get the best shutter speed possible.
 
Thanks for your replies so I',m setting it all up wrong at the beginning then:

I set the aperture to as low a number I can and have my shutter speed set to 250 then put the camera on aperture priority - what shoudl I do?
 
what lens are you using if 5.6 and 6.3 are you largest apertures. 5.6 would normally be the largest you can get with most budget lens.
 
Set fo Av ( appature priority) go for a "low f /number and increase the ISO until you get a reasonable shutter speed around 1/ 200th I guess, I don't "do" sports so 1/ 200th was a guess but probabley a good place to start
 
I used to shoot a lot of football back in the days of film and the general rule of thumb was minimum shutter speed 1/500th and set your lens to the fastest aperture it has then adjust the asa/iso accordingly.
Oh and we used to manual focus in them days as well,
 
On your last shot you can gain 3 stops buy moving to iso 800 and opening your aperture 2 stops (if it opens that much) then increase your shutter by 3 stops and you will be some way to getting sharper shots, remember an open aperture means a shallow in focus plane so make sure you hit your focus right ;)
 
The Sigma 28-300 is f/6.3 at 200mm so I guess it was already wide open. Increasing the ISO is your only choice without getting a faster lens :(
 
As above ^^^ Or just shoot on much sunnier days!!!

As a test for yourself that it's the shutter speed at issue - put it on 150/180mm f6.3 1/30th sec (as your last 2 above) and shoot your front door handheld at 40ft - it will be blurred

It's blurred as you can't hold a long lens still enough at such low speeds so your own body movement is making a still subject look like its moved; add moving subject like Rugby players and there's no way you'll get a sharp shot EVER at those speeds

There are very specific reasons why sports togs shoot with f2/f2.8 lenses and ISO 1600, which you're proving here

Solutions then, ISO 800/1600 and sunny days only, or spend a few grand on faster glass - soz, but no easy option here m8
 
Thanks all

Pxl8 - you're right - that was as wide as I could get it.

DD - sunny days only - we wish :lol: We've been lucky actually that it's taken til November for it to get bad photography conditions. I did wonder whether it was the lens contributing. Thanks very much for your help though. What sort of lens (less than £1,000) would you recommend. I've been looking at Tamron but am open to suggestions
 
Agree with all the others have said.

At this time of the year, the other bad news is that if the matches are in the afternoon, it will go darker and darker - and even darker. The camera spots this before the human eye does. So keep checking your settings.

Good luck - and lots of gold stars for perseverence :clap::clap::clap:

btw, is it just me, or had No 10 in pic 3 just had a very painful experience? :eek:
 
kelack said:
What sort of lens (less than £1,000) would you recommend. I've been looking at Tamron but am open to suggestions
Click to expand...


My longer/faster 'sports' lens is Nikon's own 70-200mm f2.8 which is just over £1,100 or so. I just had a quick check but Tamron didn't seem to do anything similar, Sigma does do one though which I'm sure will be under £1,000. I think you need to stay with a zoom here as your subjects move about a lot and you can't possibly keep up and shoot away

You will certainly benefit from such a lens as it's about 2-3 stops faster than your current one (depending on how zoomed out you are); so your no-chance 1/50th sec becomes a might-get-something 1/250th - and if you always aim for 800-1,000 ISO and buy such as Neat Image's noise reduction software - £40 I think) you'll get another stop or more, meaning that even on an overcast day you could be shooting at above 1/500th sec even 1/1,000th sec which is fast enough

Let us know what you decide to do and see the results :thumbs:
 
jeangenie said:
btw, is it just me, or had No 10 in pic 3 just had a very painful experience? :eek:
Click to expand...

He'd just kicked a penalty and slipped over with the momentum

DiddyDave said:
My longer/faster 'sports' lens is Nikon's own 70-200mm f2.8 which is just over £1,100 or so. I just had a quick check but Tamron didn't seem to do anything similar, Sigma does do one though which I'm sure will be under £1,000. I think you need to stay with a zoom here as your subjects move about a lot and you can't possibly keep up and shoot away

Let us know what you decide to do and see the results :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Thanks DD, something I will have to think about.
 
DD - would the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG be the right one?
 
I'm hoping to upgrade to a 40D so would this still be compatible?
 
DiddyDave said:
^^^ that's the one - DG means it's optimised for digital cameras, meaning it works only with smaller sensors so check your camera isn't a full-frame one and you should be fine. Perhaps drop Kerso a pm for a price?
Click to expand...

DG means extra coatings or summit for Digital

DC is cropped sensor only
 
If you want to 'freeze' the action, you need a much higher shutter speed.
Click to expand...

Heres a small tip from me. The easier way to freeze action is by having it come at you head on, thats what i have been told by an A level photography tutor. This might be handy especially in low light conditions ?

Dave
 
Before you get a 1,000 bucks lens, get a 100 bucks tripod!
You may save 900 bucks . . . !
 
Kelak,

just as others have said, most of it is down to shutter speed and iso combination. You can also pick up lenses on ebay if you don't have a £1000 budget, I have bought a couple in the past which have been perfectly ok.

Lastly, once you are shooting with a heavier lens, might be worth an investment in a monopod at some point as it really does help steady your hands.
 
W.Smith said:
Before you get a 1,000 bucks lens, get a 100 bucks tripod!
You may save 900 bucks . . . !
Click to expand...


I have a tripod which is a pain in the rear end to use for rugby which I have found from experience so I got myself a monopod.
 
DiddyDave said:
If you already have a Canon yes, otherwise no. Buy the Canon and new lens together though - sell the wife & kids on ebay - and you're sorted!
Click to expand...

Husband and his car then :lol:

davidbridges said:
Heres a small tip from me. The easier way to freeze action is by having it come at you head on, thats what i have been told by an A level photography tutor. This might be handy especially in low light conditions ?

Dave
Click to expand...

:lol: Tried this and they all went down other end of pitch. I do try and spend some time under the posts as it were but the little blighters run away from me :lol:

Jas said:
Kelak,

just as others have said, most of it is down to shutter speed and iso combination. You can also pick up lenses on ebay if you don't have a £1000 budget, I have bought a couple in the past which have been perfectly ok.

Lastly, once you are shooting with a heavier lens, might be worth an investment in a monopod at some point as it really does help steady your hands.
Click to expand...

I was using a monopod yesterday. I do have a splint on my hand though which meant it was difficult to hold it steady but I don't think that affected it too much yesterday, I think it was down to my settings
 
W.Smith said:
Before you get a 1,000 bucks lens, get a 100 bucks tripod!
You may save 900 bucks . . . !
Click to expand...

To solve your own camera shake yes - to solve subject movement - NO

Spend the grand!

You know you want to...:D
 
DiddyDave said:
To solve your own camera shake yes - to solve subject movement - NO

Spend the grand!

You know you want to...:D
Click to expand...

:lol::lol::lol::lol: Course I do and seeing as I've already got a monopod and a tripod - don't see much point in forking out for another one :lol:

btw - you ever tried using a tripod for football or rugby matches - nightmare! My beer got in the way:lol:
 
I especially like the idea of only shooting people running towards/away from you - very practical that- don't you love 'tutors' for their advice :lol:

Why not simply ask them to run slower? Or better still 'freeze' the action mid-tackle! Oh, and say 'Cheese' presumably
 
I'm going to buck the trend a little here I'm afraid.

Kelack - you're talking about changing/upgrading camera and or lenses. All well and good but it would possibly be a better idea in the first instance at least to invest in a good, basic book on photography to teach yourself the basics and start getting things right with the gear you have before throwing more cash at the situation. You're clearly keen and you obviously enjoy your subject matter - I can understand that as I too love watching and shooting rugby. You'll get still more enjoyment out of it once you understand the basics a little better though I'm certain.

When you next have a go - start cranking up that ISO and watch your shutter speed changing - study the effect that the changing of the ISO in combination with a faster aperture affects the way the shutter speed behaves, and then translate that into the settings you use. Remember also that if you shoot in RAW you have a little more latitude with the exposure later.

Best of luck and I look forward to seeing your next efforts on here as well. :)
 
Witch said:
I'm going to buck the trend a little here I'm afraid.

Kelack - you're talking about changing/upgrading camera and or lenses. All well and good but it would possibly be a better idea in the first instance at least to invest in a good, basic book on photography to teach yourself the basics and start getting things right with the gear you have before throwing more cash at the situation. You're clearly keen and you obviously enjoy your subject matter - I can understand that as I too love watching and shooting rugby. You'll get still more enjoyment out of it once you understand the basics a little better though I'm certain.

When you next have a go - start cranking up that ISO and watch your shutter speed changing - study the effect that the changing of the ISO in combination with a faster aperture affects the way the shutter speed behaves, and then translate that into the settings you use. Remember also that if you shoot in RAW you have a little more latitude with the exposure later.

Best of luck and I look forward to seeing your next efforts on here as well. :)
Click to expand...

If I could have put it that well thats exactly what I would have said, I can tell you from personal experience its not the camera its the operator. I applaud your interest and your obvious enthusiasm but dont make the mistakes I did , basics are the answer. Regards Jim
 
As above, don't invest loads of money at the moment, perfect your technique, learn more about the basics, get your hubby down the park and make him run round like a mad man and practice on him. Try different ISO settings etc.. This is the only way you will learn. Just don't run (spend loads on equipment) before you can walk. HTH :)
 
Hi K

Got to totally disagree with the above - in the weather/sport situations you're wanting to shoot, without fantastic weather and hugely noisy ISO of 1600/3200 you'll NEVER get the results you're after

High shutter speeds on telephotos on crappy days can only be achieved by spending money on fast lenses, and even then sometimes needing very high ISO too

Hubby running around all day won't ever result in a sharp image at 200mm and 1/50th sec - this one is not specifically a technique issue. If you had the right gear, you'd then learn to follow the action and when to shoot but you need 1/500 or better to stand a chance to freezing the action as you want

Lewis Hamilton's technique in an F1 car is faultless, but without the best car he'd still end up last

Ooh - almost looks like a rant! It's not, but the point needs making totally crystal to all

HTH
 
Lewis Hamilton's technique in an F1 car is faultless, but without the best car he'd still end up last Perfectly true DD, but without the ability to drive ie learn the basics of his trade he would really be in the shumacker. Regards Jim
 
True Jim

But Kelack now knows she (sorry it is a she right?) needs much faster shutter speeds which she can't achieve with a widest aperture of f6.3 at 200mm, this is not primarily a technique issue it's an equipment one

A f2.8 200mm lens and ISO 800 will give a good shutter speed and acceptable noise. Correct telephoto posture will help with camera shake but won't freeze any Rugger boys running at 1/50th sec

If it was just a technique issue the sports togs wouldn't spend thousands on f2.8 or f2 telephotos would they. It's true that spending £thousands on gear doesn't ensure you get great shots, but Lewis would lose to me if I was in an F1 car and he was in a Honda Civic - sometimes gear is vital, here is such a case
 
I think you are all correct :D

DD is correct that the equipment you have is not going to produce the results you require.
Kentman/Witch are also correct in that you will need to improve you technique.

You have broken one of the "golden" rules of photography with the images above. If you are shooting at 100mm then you need at least 1/100th of a second shutter speed.
Upping the ISO to the max, therefore allowing you to increase the shutter speed will give you sharper results, but as already mentioned they will be noisy.

At the end of the day though there's no getting away from the fact you'll need to spend money on a fast lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top