# 2nd Track Meet - Running and Pole Vault C&C Welcome and requested



## CMfromIL (Apr 18, 2012)

2nd track meet.  Sun was out and BRIGHT!!!  Shot the pole vault for the first time, I need to work a bit on timing.  Background was tough.  Also, this is Jr. High.  Busy backgrounds are par for the course.  Not much I can do about the students, buses or outbuildings behind most scenes.  Thanks for looking.  Any suggestions on how to handle the lighting would be appreciated.  No flashes allowed.  I was using my 70-200 F/2.8.  Shutter speeds were high (between 1/500 to 1/1250)  ISO I tried to keep around 200-400.

1.







2.  






3.






4.






5.






6.






7.  My daughter


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 18, 2012)

These are well caught, nicely focused but they are as well-framed as they could be, imo.
When you clip off a single appendage and there's lots of room on the other sides, it looks like an accidental clip. Try to recrop to center on the action and make the clip part of the artistic process.
Second, fix the exposures in PPing.  You've got the detail.


----------



## CMfromIL (Apr 18, 2012)

The clipping of appendages is totally because I missed the shot, not due to cropping.  I have got to practice a bit more to get the whole athlete in the frame.  Additionally I was about 70mm for most of them, but I had to stand about 12' away.  It made it a tough place to get the whole body.  I was pleased to have gotten the facial shots though!

Thanks for your tips, I apprecaite them.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 18, 2012)

CMfromIL said:


> The clipping of appendages is totally because I missed the shot, not due to cropping.  I have got to practice a bit more to get the whole athlete in the frame.  Additionally I was about 70mm for most of them, but I had to stand about 12' away.  It made it a tough place to get the whole body.  I was pleased to have gotten the facial shots though!
> 
> Thanks for your tips, I apprecaite them.



I understand about the framing vs cropping.
Much of the time, getting every body part in the shot isn't nearly as important as a well composed shot.
Somethings lend themselves to good framing, some circumstances don't but you need to be 'ruthless' to make the shot good.
When I am shooting against the sky, I always compensate by a stop or so to make certain the subject is exposed well.


----------



## CMfromIL (Apr 18, 2012)

I think next time I'm going to bump up the exposure.  I had done that for a couple, and it looked totally blown on the LCD.  I think with a little PP they might have turned out better than I was thinking.


----------



## jfrabat (Apr 18, 2012)

CMfromIL said:
			
		

> I think next time I'm going to bump up the exposure.  I had done that for a couple, and it looked totally blown on the LCD.  I think with a little PP they might have turned out better than I was thinking.



You can also try a flash if shooting upward (if allowed)


----------



## Big Mike (Apr 18, 2012)

Yes, the ones against the sky are severely underexposed.  Because you're shooting with the sun/bright sky behind the subject, the subject is much darker than the sky behind them.  In this case, you just won't be able to expose for the sky and the subject at the same time, so you much choose....and the obvious choice here is to expose for the subject (although, a silhouette might look cool).  

Of course, if you expose for the subject, the sky will be blown out...but that's better than an underexposed subject IMO.   



> I think next time I'm going to bump up the exposure. I had done that for a couple, and it looked totally blown on the LCD. I think with a little PP they might have turned out better than I was thinking.


One of the first thing I teach my students in my DSLR course, is not to trust the image on the LCD (in terms of brightness/exposure).  A much better tool to judge exposure is to look at the histogram.  Usually when you look at the histogram, you want to be wary of clipping/blowing the highlights, but in a situation like this, the sky may have to be a little blown to get exposure on the subject.


----------



## Big Mike (Apr 18, 2012)

jfrabat said:


> CMfromIL said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That would certainly help, but he did mentioned that flash was not allowed.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Apr 18, 2012)

Those are some pretty ugly pole vault images, but I understand why.  At this level, the "standard" pole vault image isn't happening.  The best angle for pole vault is straight on, when the pole bends, or as they clear the bar against the sky. As a Jr High meet this doesn't happen.  They are really just a little too tight as well, shooting loose and then cropping may work better, even though I'm very big on shooting tight.  As a first attempt at pole vault, like you mentioned your timing is off, but this will get better with repetition.  Keep at it.


----------



## CMfromIL (Apr 18, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:


> *Those are some pretty ugly pole vault images, but I understand why*. At this level, the "standard" pole vault image isn't happening. The best angle for pole vault is straight on, when the pole bends, or as they clear the bar against the sky. As a Jr High meet this doesn't happen. They are really just a little too tight as well, shooting loose and then cropping may work better, even though I'm very big on shooting tight. As a first attempt at pole vault, like you mentioned your timing is off, but this will get better with repetition. Keep at it.



Coming from you, and your past comments I'd say thats a borderline compliment!

When I get home I'll see if I can 'uncrop' a couple of them for a wider view.  I tried to cut out the crappy background.

I like your suggestion of straight on, but that area is off limit to spectators.  Even one's with an 'L' lens :er:  

As for the pole bending, there wasn't a whole lot of that.  I think they are pretty rigid at this level, and the heights were around 7'6" at the greatest.  Thanks for the comments and tips.  I'll use them next time.


----------



## Big Mike (Apr 18, 2012)

> As for the pole bending, there wasn't a whole lot of that. I think they are pretty rigid at this level, and the heights were around 7'6" at the greatest. Thanks for the comments and tips. I'll use them next time.


I dabbled in pole vault in high school and ya, there isn't a whole lot of bending at that level...at least not the type that you see on TV etc.


----------



## AceCo55 (Apr 19, 2012)

Yes - when I was a 17yr old, I couldn't get the pole to bend; but now I reckon I could bend it pretty easily ... but for an entirely different reason! 

Getting back to the topic ... I'm not sure the POV in #6 is all that flattering (and #4 marginal for me) - even if you had nailed the exposure. I would probably delete those angles ... but I could be showing my age/values which may be out-of-step with the rest of the world. Ready to be corrected


----------



## fotograph (Apr 19, 2012)

I have to disagree, my son is 15 years old and has been bending the pole for the last couple of years. If the pole wont bend, they are using the wrong size pole. They need one set up for their weight.

Not anywhere near the caliber of others, but it does show the bend of the pole, this was a 12' attempt.

http://i1228.photobucket.com/albums/ee446/fotograph113/Sports/cks relays/0c1c1f1d.jpg


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## CMfromIL (Apr 19, 2012)

AceCo55 said:


> Yes - when I was a 17yr old, I couldn't get the pole to bend; but now I reckon I could bend it pretty easily ... but for an entirely different reason!
> 
> Getting back to the topic ... I'm not sure the POV in #6 is all that flattering (and #4 marginal for me) - even if you had nailed the exposure. I would probably delete those angles ... but I could be showing my age/values which may be out-of-step with the rest of the world. Ready to be corrected



Thanks for your comments.  I didn't have an issue with either 4 or 6 due to the fact that they are wearing spandex under their loose shorts.  I liked #6 because of the eye peeking out behind the pole, seemingly staring directly at the camera.  

#4 is my neighbors son.  He and his wife LOVED the picture, so I thought I'd leave it.  I did cull plenty of other shots.  Thanks for looking.


----------



## CMfromIL (Apr 19, 2012)

Alright, I went back and looked through all the pictures I took.  Since I had shot in RAW, I found a few that I thought I might be able to manipulate a bit.  I had adjusted the camera up a stop and tried to focus on the jumper.  I missed the composition (cut off feet etc) but it will give me something to put up to discuss lighting.

Here they are, blown backgrounds and all:

1.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




2.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




3.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Is that better on the exposure side now?


----------



## AceCo55 (Apr 19, 2012)

Completely understand your viewpoint on #4 and #6. Totally respect that people have different opinions to me.


----------



## molested_cow (Apr 20, 2012)

I think you can go higher with your aperture setting for less dof because you are showing too much background, especially the one with the wire fence in the background. This can help you with a shorter shutter speed for better still captures.


----------



## Mach0 (Apr 20, 2012)

Big Mike said:
			
		

> .
> 
> One of the first thing I teach my students in my DSLR course, is not to trust the image on the LCD (in terms of brightness/exposure).  A much better tool to judge exposure is to look at the histogram.  Usually when you look at the histogram, you want to be wary of clipping/blowing the highlights, but in a situation like this, the sky may have to be a little blown to get exposure on the subject.



x2. I had the same issue. I adjusted the brightness of my LCD to get closer to what the real image is like but I still check the histogram.


----------



## CMfromIL (Apr 20, 2012)

I may try that.  I was at f/7.1.  I didn't want DOF too shallow though because I wasn't sure about capturing the whole athlete in the frame.  I was trying to avoid the face being in focus, but the legs not, etc.

I'll try that another time, thanks for the suggestion.


----------



## jfrabat (Apr 20, 2012)

I think so...  Do you have photoshop or similar?  If so, you can multiply layers and mask the foreground to get a bit darker background...


----------



## imagemaker46 (Apr 20, 2012)

jfrabat said:


> I think so...  Do you have photoshop or similar?  If so, you can multiply layers and mask the foreground to get a bit darker background...



Yes, use photoshop to create something.  Spoken by a true camera owner.


----------



## Ryan L (Apr 21, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:


> jfrabat said:
> 
> 
> > I think so... Do you have photoshop or similar? If so, you can multiply layers and mask the foreground to get a bit darker background...
> ...



It's not like he is telling him to swap heads.  Without fill he's not going to get both exposures of the subject, and the sky. For the safety of the pole vaulter, flash isnt allowed. If the shot was worthy of photoshopping to bring them both together (which I don't think any of these are) I would say to do it.


----------



## jfrabat (Apr 21, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:
			
		

> Yes, use photoshop to create something.  Spoken by a true camera owner.



Not create; bring up whats already there.  Would you critique Ansel Adams (not that I would even dare compare yo him!) for his techniques of exposing different parts of his shots differently?  And that was done in film days...  How is my recommendation different?


----------



## tirediron (Apr 22, 2012)

jfrabat said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have to agree with you; this is a case where post-processing is going to enhance an image that wasn't ideal in-camera due to reasons beyond the photographer's control.  This is, to me, exactly what PP is intended for.  Adams and many others are known for taking far, far long to get a print out of the darkroom than they ever did capturing the image in the camera.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Apr 22, 2012)

There is nothing wrong with blowing out a background in order to end up with a good image.  It starts in the camera, a correct exposure on the subject. What I am saying is that too many people skip the correct exposure step with the plans on just using photoshop to fix the image.  In this case the op's images,exposures on the subject are off, having a clean background is more important than having a pefectly exposed background and and incorrect exposure on the subject.  There have been lots of great photographers that spent alot of time dodging and burning prints in the darkroom just to get it right, there is an art to that, and it is rapidly being replaced by one click fixes. 

 Get it right in the camera first, and  it takes alot of time to understand that, and it also takes experience.


----------

