Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

How do you shoot sports?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 12:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Agree, great set, Orio!

If I was to try shooting sports, the most humane way would be
tranquilizer darts. Laughing


PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 1:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Katastrofo wrote:

If I was to try shooting sports, the most humane way would be
tranquilizer darts. Laughing


Laughing Laughing


PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 10:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
PaulC wrote:
Thanks for the contrast explanation. That makes sense.


Yes, when resizing, the software needs to squeeze, say, 5 pixels into one, and to do so it makes an average. This means that a high microcontrast edge between a bright pixel and a dark pixel, which create a sharp edge in the original size, is averaged into a medium colour pixel that loses all information regarding that edge and gets confused with the other medium tones around it.
Of course, the smaller the original detail the bigger the loss.


I am still a bit puzzle.

Are you saying for a cropped photo to be shown bigger on screen, the software is squeezing more pixels into 1 pixel. But where does this extra pixels come from? Am I making sense here?


PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 10:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tennis and baseball are pretty predictable as the distance to the spot that the action happens. Ever tried shooting football like that?


PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 10:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
my_photography wrote:

I am still a bit puzzle.
Are you saying for a cropped photo to be shown bigger on screen, the software is squeezing more pixels into 1 pixel. But where does this extra pixels come from? Am I making sense here?


Take an image that is 5616 pixels wide like those that a 5DMkII produces.
If you make a 800px resize from it, you will squeeze 7,02 pixels width into one pixel width. That is mathematic.
Where will that one pixel come from? It will be the result of an average mathematical operation that the resizing software will make.
Resizing software use complex algorhythms to optimize the result; however, they still have to squeeze 7,02 pixels width into 1 pixel width, that is ineludible.
What commonly happens is that for each pixel, the software basically makes an average of the values of the surrounding pixels. Then like I said, complex algorhythms are use to make sure that the resizing software makes the most "intelligent" choice based on the colour and contrast values.
Yet, to simplify (but not end much distant from truth), if you have to create a new pixel out of 8 surrounding pixels, of which four are black and four are white (highest possible microcontrast), the resulting pixel from the calculation will likely be an average grey, which does not exist in the original image and which will flatten the contrast, creating that disappearing of forehead rides that we noticed in Paul's image. Of course these incidents happen more when the detail is already small in the original image. Large detail will average down much better.
The creation of this "average value" at the edges of high microcontrast areas is what makes sharpening necessary after image resize. Basically, applying sharpening you raise again the microcontrast in the contour areas back to the original values. Needless to say the result will never be the same because you have lost a lot of resolution after the resize. So what you do is mimicking real sharpness (which is a combination of microcontrast+resolution) by use of only one of the two elements (microcontrast), since resolution is lost.

Last edited by Orio on Fri Jun 12, 2009 10:21 am; edited 4 times in total


PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 10:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
kansalliskala wrote:
Tennis and baseball are pretty predictable as the distance to the spot that the action happens. Ever tried shooting football like that?


Yes football is harder. But not impossible. Photographers managed to do it that way until autofocus became available in the 80s.
Of course you have to practice until you automate your movements, you have to know well your lens to instinctively know how much rotation of ring will move how much focus distance, and you have to know the sport well to predict possible actions develoments.
An advantage of football is that you have 20 running players not only two. So it's easier to capture one Smile (except for when you absolutely have to have the ball in the scene). Rolling Eyes

Don't forget that autofocus is not perfect. Firstly, unless you buy an excellent lens (spending thousand or even thousandS in the case of long teles), chances are your "average joe" autofocus tools will be too slow compared to the football action. The ball can travel up to 100 km per hour or more, covering the short side of the football court in a couple of seconds: are you sure that your entry-level autofocus lens is that fast??
So yes, you guessed it... even with autofocus, prefocusing (or at the least, anticipating action) is still necessary.
Secondly, your camera must have an efficient autofocus tracking system. Cheap cameras (such as the 400D, 450D etc) don't have a very good AF tracking system. And neither the 5Ds have a good one. To have a really good one, you need to spend for a Canon "1" series, or the Nikon equivalent (which I ignore but surely must be there). And we are speaking some thousands there.
And even with the best tools (a Canon series 1 camera plus a long tele L series zoom lens can easily sum upto 10000 Euros), autofocus will miss some shots here and there.
So, we are not speaking of Gold's land with autofocus... you have to spend a lot more, because cheap AF equipment won't get you anywhere much better than manual tools; in change of your LOTS of bucks, with good professional AF equipment you surely have good more chances to take home correct photos, but forget that you can do it without some sweat (and some occasional cursing) on your part.
Rolling Eyes

Last edited by Orio on Fri Jun 12, 2009 10:41 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 10:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Of course, everything was shot manually at one time. But I rather think the style of photography changed with the equipment, with action shots becoming less "goal-mouth", focus becoming narrower and images becoming sharper. It would be interesting to compare issues of sports illustrated at five year intervals to see what the difference really was, but I don't have the resources to do that.

... and, yes, I agree, these guys are using $5,000 lenses. It's a matter of priorities, though: lots of guys are happy to spend $30,000 on a new car; personally, I get no pleasure at all from cars but I do enjoy photo equipment. If I decided to devote my time to bird photography, for example, I wouldn't have any qualms about buying a 600mm lens to load up into my battered old tin can of a car.

In fact I would go so far as to say that if you are making a living from photos and your car cost more than your camera kit, then either you are making a lot of money or you have your priorities wrong.

Last edited by PaulC on Fri Jun 12, 2009 10:48 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 10:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
So it's easier to capture one Smile (except for when you absolutely have to have the ball in the scene). Rolling Eyes


So it is best to keep focus on Zlatan and wait until he gets the ball Smile


PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 10:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
PaulC wrote:
Of course, everything was shot manually at one time. But I rather think the style of photography changed with the equipment, with action shots becoming less "goal-mouth", focus becoming narrower and images becoming sharper. It would be interesting to compare issues of sports illustrated at five year intervals to see what the difference really was, but I don't have the resources to do that.


That can be an interesting comparison to make, but it would be biased. At the time there was only manual focus, digital did not exist. Today, photographers can fire the shutter a 1000 times during a match, and pick the best choices out of a virtually limitless basin of photos. Back in the day, photographers could not use 300 film rolls in a match - not to mention that the winding motors were also slower.
So it's really a merciless comparison because autofocus pictures also take advantage of the other technology improvements in support, editing and continuous shutter speed.

Last edited by Orio on Fri Jun 12, 2009 10:50 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 10:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
kansalliskala wrote:
Orio wrote:
So it's easier to capture one Smile (except for when you absolutely have to have the ball in the scene). Rolling Eyes


So it is best to keep focus on Zlatan and wait until he gets the ball Smile


That's what photographers with manual tools always did and (psst here's a secret) that's what AF photographers still do today Wink


PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 10:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
PaulC wrote:
Of course, everything was shot manually at one time. But I rather think the style of photography changed with the equipment, with action shots becoming less "goal-mouth", focus becoming narrower and images becoming sharper. It would be interesting to compare issues of sports illustrated at five year intervals to see what the difference really was, but I don't have the resources to do that.


That can be an interesting comparison to make, but it would be biased. At the time there was only manual focus, digital did not exist. Today, photographers can fire the shutter a 1000 times during a match, and pick the best choices out of a virtually limitless basin of photos. Back in the day, photographers could not use 30 film rolls in a match - not to mention that the winding motors were also slower.
So it's really a merciless comparison because autofocus pictures also take advantage of the other technology improvements in support, editing and continuous shutter speed.


Of course it is not a "level playing field". But that's the point. How much difference has the equipment made? Has there been a gradual improvement in what is practically possible, or have there been quantum leaps in the results.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 10:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here's a few Johann Cruijff images taken when AF did not exist Wink







PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 10:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
prefocus is nice
for this one, I focus the white stone and after a long wait, I just push the button


PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 11:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
prefocus is nice
for this one, I focus the white stone and after a long wait, I just push the button


Laughing Laughing


PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 11:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
As we said earlier, it is very difficult to tell at this size, but those soccer shots simply don't look sharp, except the first one which actually looks as if it is oversharpened.

I'm afraid Poilu completely missed the focus on those stones, it's badly forward focused Wink


PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 12:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
PaulC wrote:
As we said earlier, it is very difficult to tell at this size, but those soccer shots simply don't look sharp, except the first one which actually looks as if it is oversharpened.


If I look at the last photo, it seems perfect focused to me: look at the shirt.
The other parts of the body are blurred because of motion. Evidently photographer did not have enough light to use a faster time. But that has not to do with focusing.

The first photo might be oversharpened (but don't forget it could be fault of the scanning person), but it's definitely focused well. The contrasty quality obviously depends on the bad media (cheap magazine, probably).


PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 2:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
my_photography wrote:

I am still a bit puzzle.
Are you saying for a cropped photo to be shown bigger on screen, the software is squeezing more pixels into 1 pixel. But where does this extra pixels come from? Am I making sense here?


Take an image that is 5616 pixels wide like those that a 5DMkII produces.
If you make a 800px resize from it, you will squeeze 7,02 pixels width into one pixel width. That is mathematic.
Where will that one pixel come from? It will be the result of an average mathematical operation that the resizing software will make.
Resizing software use complex algorhythms to optimize the result; however, they still have to squeeze 7,02 pixels width into 1 pixel width, that is ineludible.
What commonly happens is that for each pixel, the software basically makes an average of the values of the surrounding pixels. Then like I said, complex algorhythms are use to make sure that the resizing software makes the most "intelligent" choice based on the colour and contrast values.
Yet, to simplify (but not end much distant from truth), if you have to create a new pixel out of 8 surrounding pixels, of which four are black and four are white (highest possible microcontrast), the resulting pixel from the calculation will likely be an average grey, which does not exist in the original image and which will flatten the contrast, creating that disappearing of forehead rides that we noticed in Paul's image. Of course these incidents happen more when the detail is already small in the original image. Large detail will average down much better.
The creation of this "average value" at the edges of high microcontrast areas is what makes sharpening necessary after image resize. Basically, applying sharpening you raise again the microcontrast in the contour areas back to the original values. Needless to say the result will never be the same because you have lost a lot of resolution after the resize. So what you do is mimicking real sharpness (which is a combination of microcontrast+resolution) by use of only one of the two elements (microcontrast), since resolution is lost.


Thanks Orio. Now it make sense. I am a bit slow in this.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 2:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
my_photography wrote:

Thanks Orio.


you're welcome!


PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 2:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Those football photos reminds me of yesterdays. Looks like current age, the style of shooting football has also change. Most probably because of the faster camera and the convenient of shoot and delete and also cropping.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 2:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
This brings me to another question. When shooting sports, is it common to shot wider and crop later? Perhaps one of the reason why my action type photos are usually bad is I always try to shoot tight frame.

Last edited by my_photography on Fri Jun 12, 2009 2:50 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 2:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
my_photography wrote:
Those football photos reminds me of yesterdays. Looks like current age, the style of shooting football has also change. Most probably because of the faster camera and the convenient of shoot and delete and also cropping.


I'm not sure if it's because of the instruments.
I reckon there a common "pattern" of older images being more ambient and wider.
Today, mainly due to television high exposure, football photos are often close-ups, concentrating on facial expressions, strenght, or dramatic acts.
In the photos of the 70s, you can see a more "classical" view, searching for the elegance in the player's gestures rather than the display of force.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 3:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
my_photography wrote:
Those football photos reminds me of yesterdays. Looks like current age, the style of shooting football has also change. Most probably because of the faster camera and the convenient of shoot and delete and also cropping.


I'm not sure if it's because of the instruments.
I reckon there a common "pattern" of older images being more ambient and wider.
Today, mainly due to television high exposure, football photos are often close-ups, concentrating on facial expressions, strenght, or dramatic acts.
In the photos of the 70s, you can see a more "classical" view, searching for the elegance in the player's gestures rather than the display of force.


Wider angle allows greater DoF ... fairly significant when you are shooting with manual focus. A fast 300mm lens today can lock on to a player remarkably well. Also, a lot of sports journalists use 17 - 25 MP cameras, which produce output that can be cropped much more than an old 35mm film neg


PostPosted: Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
What about fast close range motor sport? This is one of my first attempts at using MF and my Olympus E-510. A much underated Soligor f2.8 135mm at around f5 and fast shutter 1250 ish. A bit washed out due to the bright sunlight and polished fairing. I'm have great fun with this super cheap lens due to it's compact size and good (compared to the oly kit zooms) optics.

Subject is American rider Jimmy Moore in practice for this years Isle of Man TT races. At this point he is doing around 130mph on one wheel Wink


Pete
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Techniques
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2