# Sports C&C



## matt.garnett (Dec 4, 2011)

Here are some of my more recent sports photos, please let me know what you think!


----------



## COLTSFANATIC1 (Dec 4, 2011)

All of thre photos seem very noisey, Are they crops? What Iso did you use? otherwise great shots


----------



## matt.garnett (Dec 4, 2011)

Yes for the most parts they are crops, from my T2i. They're probably all 64000 ISO, with the exception of the 2nd to last one.


----------



## MLeeK (Dec 4, 2011)

They seem REALLY noisy. You are shooting with a camera that shouldn't be too bad even if you max out the ISO. You need to do a little noise removal, but they shouldn't be that bad even SOOC if you are exposing correctly for high ISO's.


----------



## matt.garnett (Dec 4, 2011)

The bad thing is I have run all of the pictures through Topaz Noise remover... And how would you expose correctly for high ISOs? I'm shooting 1/640th, f/2.8, 64,000 ISO and RAW.


----------



## kylehess10 (Dec 4, 2011)

64000 ISO? or 6400?


----------



## matt.garnett (Dec 4, 2011)

My apologizes for the extra zero. 6,400 ISO


----------



## kylehess10 (Dec 5, 2011)

ahhh okay. I was thinking these images don't look as grainy as they should be at 64,000 ISO. Nice job though! Night games in any sport are a challenge; and you did great.  #3 is my favorite


----------



## Overread (Dec 5, 2011)

*Thread moved to Photojournalism and Sports Gallery*

Please remember that Beyond the Basics is not a critique based subsection .


----------



## MLeeK (Dec 5, 2011)

Bump up and shoot at 12800 and then reduce in post processing. Your shutter CAN drop to about 1/400 with football. I have shot as low as 1/250 for football, but not with the greatest results and it's not something I am likely to repeat. I generally try to stick at 1/500 to 1/640 but some high school fields force the drop to 1/400. Especially in the end zones.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Dec 5, 2011)

The action is there, but they look like the were over-sharpened.  I realize that shooting at night is tough, but you should have been able to get away with 3200, or even at 1600, depending on the lens speed. This looks like it was fairly well lit field, just from the shadows and high lights.


----------



## matt.garnett (Dec 5, 2011)

MLeeK- My Canon T2i can't shoot that high, and if it could I would be very afraid to venture down that road. What would you use to reduce the noise in post processing? I've been using Topaz denoiser, and it seems to do a good job up until a point and then the blacks start to turn purpleish. Also, I'm shooting with a fast lens (2.8 70-200mm or 300mm prime) so it's not as if these are being shot with the kit lens or something. I don't like (almost) any motion blur in my sports photographs, so I always stay right around 1/640 mark, but sometimes I'll dip down to the 1/500 and I don't like it. I couldn't imagine shooting at 1/400. When light permits, I'll even go for 1/800. But are these about the best pictures I can get out of this camera? Is there any post processing or on camera tricks to reduce noise? Shooting at a shutter under 1/500 is absolutely out of the question, so that pretty much means I can't take my ISO down any more.


----------



## MLeeK (Dec 5, 2011)

Yes, your camera can shoot to 12800 It's H2 in your expanded ISO. And your sensor can handle it. Try it out. 
When you expose for high ISO's you want to slightly overexpose-to the point JUST BEFORE you'd have something blow out that you can't accept. Then reduce in post processing and raise the blacks level. 
I have shot with a T2i at 12800. It works and if it's done properly it is MUCH less noisy than these are.


----------



## matt.garnett (Dec 5, 2011)

So overexpose, and then in lightroom drag my blacks slider over?


----------



## MLeeK (Dec 5, 2011)

Not just your black slider. You will need to adjust your blacks level AND reduce exposure to the proper exposure. You can't just overexpose to the max or anything like that...


----------



## Tony S (Dec 5, 2011)

I can easily live with some noise in the background, but when you are shooting wide open at f2.8 you really have to make sure your focus is dead on your subject as there is not much room to miss with. A few of these miss the mark where you can see the sharp areas in the image and those slightly oof(#1 player #88 is sharp while the QB is softer, #2 the ball and grass behind foot are sharp, eyes are not). You've got the action shots, but for me the trophy shot is not working as well with no faces really visible.

EXIF shows all but one shot at ISO 3200. I would love to have a field where I could shoot that without using off camera flash. Maybe next season if the one local team here from Washington State make the trip down to Permian I will go with them, the lighting there is supposed to be real good.

Ohh, and those are really large files for posting, took forever for them to open up to see.


----------



## matt.garnett (Dec 5, 2011)

Oh ok, I get it now. I've just been playing with it here in my room. I'm looking forward to testing it out this Friday night...


----------



## matt.garnett (Dec 5, 2011)

Tony- Thanks for the feedback. I'm thinking about stopping down next game to f/4 (on a f/2.8) just so I get a little wider DOF. Does that sound like a good decision? Also, is there any way to export my photos to the highest quality while saving space when I upload them? Thanks.


----------



## MLeeK (Dec 6, 2011)

You are so far from your subjects in football that it doesn't really make all that big a deal. I have stopped down and I have shot wide open. You wont see a whole lot of difference. Now if you are shooting basketball? Its closer and depending where you are positioning it may make a difference. I also find I can't drop mu shutter as much with basketball. Too close, too fast. By all means play with it. Find what works for you! 

File size-are you shooting raw or jpeg? I find most sport shooters are shooting jpeg. I don't. But I also have my raw processing down to a few clicks and the whole batch ia done. I do it that way so that I can over expose and retain the full dynamic range. I shoot in full manual so my exposure is consistent throughout the whole batch. I can then open up one, apply my tone curve, adjust exposure and blacks, noise temoval etc. Save it as a pre set. Apply to whole batch and process thru photoshop to jpegs, resize for web, apply watermark and save for web.


----------



## MLeeK (Dec 6, 2011)

I answered this on my phone earlier, but I wanted to come back and say: use the noise removal in lightroom! It's excellent!
Zoom in to 100% when you are doing it so you can see what it is doing accurately.
When you are sharpening in LR zoom in to 100% and hold down the alt key while you adjust the sliders. It will change the image so that you can see what you are having an effect on better. You will want to mask back (bottom slider) to nearly 90% or so and that will help a lot with the background noise getting amplified.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Dec 6, 2011)

The bottom line for shooting.  Pretend you are not having to rely on a computer to fix everything, get the exposure correct in the camera.  As soon as you start to tell yourself, "I can just photoshop it" throw the camera away.


----------



## MLeeK (Dec 6, 2011)

imagemaker46 said:
			
		

> The bottom line for shooting.  Pretend you are not having to rely on a computer to fix everything, get the exposure correct in the camera.  As soon as you start to tell yourself, "I can just photoshop it" throw the camera away.



Adding... I totally agree and the idea of fix it in PS is not what I am advocating at all... just in case that's the thought. Lol! 
I am talking about very deliberately exposing differently and maintaining control over that exposure 100%. Then reducing by a half to a full stop (if possible) to help eliminate or prevent noise problems.  
Luminous landscape has a great article on ETTR or "expose to the right." I would link you to it but I am on my phone and frankly... my DROID sucks.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Dec 6, 2011)

It was just a general statement, not directed at anyone.  Something else that works pretty well, an old fashion light meter.


----------

