# First game with the 300 2.8...



## tevo (Oct 17, 2013)

Sweet religious deity of your choice. C&C is always appreciated.

#1



Dig by theofficialtevo, on Flickr


#2



Hit by theofficialtevo, on Flickr


#3



Set by theofficialtevo, on Flickr


#4 (Not from the 300 but I liked the shot)



Victory by theofficialtevo, on Flickr

PS: Are these images acceptable noise wise? They were all shot at 10,000 ISO.


----------



## Braineack (Oct 17, 2013)

I'd be pretty ecstatic if my body could produce such good images at such a high iso.  What body is this on?

edit: n/m just noticed your sig.


----------



## sm4him (Oct 17, 2013)

Sweet horsefeathers!!!! 10,000 ISO?!?!
That's incredible. Yeah, there's clearly some noise, but at least for me, I only noticed it AFTER you mentioned the ISO. 

Those are some terrific images. I especially like the first one.
Guess Imma gonna have to start savin' more pennies...well, probably nickels and dimes too. And twenties.


----------



## ghache (Oct 17, 2013)

Have you tried a little noise reduction? 
they look fine on here, you cant see noise but on your flickr, larger, you can see the noise which is fine.
i would give them a go in noiseware professional and remove a little bit of that noise, just to see. just a little bit, in the shadows and highlight. i would not touch the mid tones.
i dont know with what you shoot but these images kept their sharpness, even at 10k iso. :lmao:


----------



## The_Traveler (Oct 17, 2013)

ditto on noiseware.
nice shots.
#1 is my favorite because the ball is really in the shot


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 17, 2013)

300mm 2.8 at 10,000 ISO on a D700 - WOW  :thumbup:


----------



## manny212 (Oct 17, 2013)

astroNikon said:


> 300mm 2.8 at 10,000 ISO on a D700 - WOW  :thumbup:




+1 . Palm ball on #2 ?


----------



## tevo (Oct 17, 2013)

I have to say, its quite the lens. I taught it everything it knows  Thank you all!



ghache said:


> Have you tried a little noise reduction?
> they look fine on here, you cant see noise but on your flickr, larger, you can see the noise which is fine.
> i would give them a go in noiseware professional and remove a little bit of that noise, just to see. just a little bit, in the shadows and highlight. i would not touch the mid tones.
> i dont know with what you shoot but these images kept their sharpness, even at 10k iso. :lmao:



I used the luminance noise reduction in Lr just a touch; I think it was set to 15 or 20. I'm not a fan of the painted face look; I don't really mind image noise tbh.


----------



## Tailgunner (Oct 17, 2013)

Geez, 10,000 ISO, thats wild! 

Anyhow, great shots. There isn't enough noise for me to really complain about but I'm viewing them from my Macbook. My favorites are 1# and 4#.


----------



## weepete (Oct 17, 2013)

Lovely shots, looks like a sweet lens!


----------



## ronlane (Oct 17, 2013)

tevo said:


> PS: Are these images acceptable noise wise? They were all shot at 10,000 ISO.



I would say YES. I can't get this good with mine at 1600 ISO.


----------



## Braineack (Oct 17, 2013)

here's a recent shot I took at 300mm, 1/250, 5.6 at 500 iso:







and i used a flash...  (this is super heavily cropped)


----------



## leeroix (Oct 17, 2013)

Sweet man. did you Rent or Purchase that thing?


----------



## tevo (Oct 17, 2013)

Braineack said:


> here's a recent shot I took at 300mm, 1/250, 5.6 at 500 iso:
> 
> and i used a flash...  (this is super heavily cropped)



Nice shot!


----------



## tevo (Oct 17, 2013)

leeroix said:


> Sweet man. did you Rent or Purchase that thing?



Thanks! I recently purchased it. Very happy with it so far


----------



## tevo (Oct 17, 2013)

sm4him said:


> Sweet horsefeathers!!!! 10,000 ISO?!?!
> That's incredible. Yeah, there's clearly some noise, but at least for me, I only noticed it AFTER you mentioned the ISO.
> 
> Those are some terrific images. I especially like the first one.
> Guess Imma gonna have to start savin' more pennies...well, probably nickels and dimes too. And twenties.



Thats exactly how I funded this haha! Any money I didn't immediately need went into my "300 2.8 envelope"


----------



## leeroix (Oct 17, 2013)

Im Jelly...


----------



## Mach0 (Oct 17, 2013)

Cool man

I love my d700. It works quite well and yet to be limited by its capabilities ( for what I use it for )


----------



## DorkSterr (Oct 17, 2013)

Oh sweet lord that 300 2.8 is a beast!


----------



## tevo (Oct 17, 2013)

DorkSterr said:


> Oh sweet lord that 300 2.8 is a beast!



A beast to carry, that's for sure


----------



## imagemaker46 (Oct 17, 2013)

I find them a little too bright, I like images a little on the darker side. Have to say that you nailed all the action just fine, and the jubo shot is great.


----------



## tevo (Oct 17, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> I find them a little too bright, I like images a little on the darker side. Have to say that you nailed all the action just fine, and the jubo shot is great.



Do you have an example of what you mean? Now that I look at it, they look a tiny bit bright but I'm guessing its because of the white jerseys.


----------



## Tailgunner (Oct 17, 2013)

You guys and gals with your 300mm 2.8 suck, now I want one lol


----------



## vintagesnaps (Oct 17, 2013)

First one's really nice, so is the third one, you seem to do well following the play and getting some good moments. I think #2 and 3 seem a little bright which maybe is due to the noise (I'm noticing the dark background in lower portion of #2). 

I'd think about the framing, the top edge of #2 cuts off just the edges of the fingers and ball. With a shot like #4 it might look better having the edge of another player's leg either in the frame enough to see it so it works in the composition, or out of the frame altogether - and not having a player cut off at an odd place (shoe bottom left). I tend to notice the details which I look at with my own and try to avoid distractions as much as possible.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Oct 18, 2013)

I just find all the faces a little too light


----------



## tevo (Oct 19, 2013)

vintagesnaps said:


> First one's really nice, so is the third one, you seem to do well following the play and getting some good moments. I think #2 and 3 seem a little bright which maybe is due to the noise (I'm noticing the dark background in lower portion of #2).
> 
> I'd think about the framing, the top edge of #2 cuts off just the edges of the fingers and ball. With a shot like #4 it might look better having the edge of another player's leg either in the frame enough to see it so it works in the composition, or out of the frame altogether - and not having a player cut off at an odd place (shoe bottom left). I tend to notice the details which I look at with my own and try to avoid distractions as much as possible.



Will keep that in mind, thanks!



imagemaker46 said:


> I just find all the faces a little too light



I'm starting to agree with you. I'm about to process another batch of volleyball photos, I'll post a few and tell me what you think.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Oct 19, 2013)

They don't need to be darker by very much, it will also bring out a little more detail in the images.


----------



## tevo (Oct 20, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> They don't need to be darker by very much, it will also bring out a little more detail in the images.



How's this?

#1



Return by theofficialtevo, on Flickr

#2



Return by theofficialtevo, on Flickr


----------



## imagemaker46 (Oct 20, 2013)

First one looks really good, the second one, watch the blacks, they look a little washed out, black should be black.  Just play around with images, you'll end up finding that perfect point.


----------

