Jump to content

Still Struggling With Action Pics


ruthless
 Share

Recommended Posts

I had a very quick visit to the beach yesterday evening for Chopper and Storm's birthday. I had my 70-300 IS lens, I think the ISO was 400 and the aperture was f8, shooting in AV mode with AI servo. These are the results [edited in LR], I'm a bit disappointed with the clarity of them. I was hoping for nice crisp pics with both dogs in focus [like Vickie's herding ones].

3015426512_81d8f4bf44.jpg

3015426514_b6bb86675c.jpg

I don't mind these two, but I really want to nail the running ones.

3015426520_8fd273d722.jpg

3015426524_2216c0dfb8.jpg

What am I doing wrong? Is it technique or equipment or both? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I had a very quick visit to the beach yesterday evening for Chopper and Storm's birthday. I had my 70-300 IS lens, I think the ISO was 400 and the aperture was f8, shooting in AV mode with AI servo. These are the results [edited in LR], I'm a bit disappointed with the clarity of them. I was hoping for nice crisp pics with both dogs in focus [like Vickie's herding ones].

What am I doing wrong? Is it technique or equipment or both? ;)

Are the first two full frame (not cropped) ?

Are you shooting in RAW or JPG ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're both cropped, they were landscape. How did you know?!!! ;) I'm shooting in jpeg. I'm at work, so I don't have the originals or the exif.

How did I know...magic :p

Nah...they just have that 'loss of resolution' look about them.

The white balance is also off which makes them look a little 'muddy' to me.

It's hard to tell without seeing the originals (feel free to send me one when you get home).

Oh and after downloading one of the images and loading it into PS - I notice it's got a color profile of "IMac Calibrated" - you should always convert to sRGB before posting to the web. In fact, if shooting JPG, set your camera a to sRGB and stick with sRGB throughout your LR workflow.

If I was you, I'd start shooting RAW :rofl:

Finally, do you have a filter on the front of your lens (a cheap UV filter by any chance) ?

oh - one last thing - Vickies post-processing skills are pretty (very!) good.

Edited by Luke W
Link to comment
Share on other sites

more...

The first two images are heavily side-lit (I can tell by the shadows), the shadows are muddy (you tried to brighten them yes?). If you had gotten between the dogs and the water, the sun would have been in a better position.

Also, try shooting at 200mm rather than 300mm.

Edited by Luke W
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did I know...magic :rofl:

Nah...they just have that 'loss of resolution' look about them.

Busted :rofl:

The white balance is also off which makes them look a little 'muddy' to me.

It was on either auto or sunny, can't remember

It's hard to tell without seeing the originals (feel free to send me one when you get home).

I'll email one later, thanks :rofl:

Oh and after downloading one of the images and loading it into PS - I notice it's got a color profile of "IMac Calibrated" - you should always convert to sRGB before posting to the web. In fact, if shooting JPG, set your camera a to sRGB and stick with sRGB throughout your LR workflow.

I did my edits in LR and then took a .png snapshot and converted it to a .jpg in PS.

If I was you, I'd start shooting RAW :rofl:

I'm afraid to ;)

Finally, do you have a filter on the front of your lens (a cheap UV filter by any chance) ?

Busted again :rofl:

oh - one last thing - Vickies post-processing skills are pretty (very!) good.

Damn her and her good-ness :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

more...

The first two images are heavily side-lit (I can tell by the shadows), the shadows are muddy (you tried to brighten them yes?). If you had gotten between the dogs and the water, the sun would have been in a better position.

Also, try shooting at 200mm rather than 300mm.

I would've gotten wet! I was hesitant enough about taking my camera to the beach, standing in the water wasn't an option ;)

I'll compromise and go early morning next time instead of late evening :rofl:

Not sure what the lens was at, don't think I zoomed at all. I'll check this eve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah get that cheap filter off! i did and it after reading that people were having issues with them made a world of difference. The AF was faster and more accurate too. especially in continuous mode ;)

I have a tip on technique. try get the sun behind you as much as possible. and if that isn't possible try centre weighted or even spot metering.

EDIT oops.. yeah what luke said re the sun :rofl:

Edited by Chloes Dad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

more...

The first two images are heavily side-lit (I can tell by the shadows), the shadows are muddy (you tried to brighten them yes?). If you had gotten between the dogs and the water, the sun would have been in a better position.

Also, try shooting at 200mm rather than 300mm.

I would've gotten wet! I was hesitant enough about taking my camera to the beach, standing in the water wasn't an option ;)

I'll compromise and go early morning next time instead of late evening :rofl:

Not sure what the lens was at, don't think I zoomed at all. I'll check this eve.

Lenses have a sweet spot, a focal length and aperture where they perform there best.

The also have 'sour spots' (haha - I just made that term up)...where they don't perform particularly well. Lens often perform worst when they are at their extremes. In your case, the lens might be a struggling a bit at 70mm (and 300mm). Sometimes even just a slight change (from 70mm to 80mm for example) can make a significant difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So do you not use anything to protect your lens?

Expensive filters and sometimes non at all - depending on the conditions.

At the beach I'd use an expensive UV filter. Just because it's easier to clean the salt spray off a filter by running it under water.

My UV filters cost $150 ;)

I'm gradually coming around the the 'don't use them brigade'.

If you use a hood and you're careful, I'm not even sure you need one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you Nikon or Canon CD?

I think my filter is Hoya too. I also have a polarising filter, but I took it off cause I didn't know how to use it and it was ruining my pics. Yes, it was, not me ;)

oops sorry im Nikon i thought you were referring to the 70-300 VR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could be the driver :p

More than likely is! It'd be so nice to be able to blame my equipment though :rofl:

Sorry Ruthless.

You'll keep ;)

Do take note of what Luke is saying about sweet spots

and I have mentioned it previously also about some lenses

being soft at their extreme ends.

I remember you told Kirislin to take her lens out and do tests at various focal lengths. Good advice, I'll give it a go too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...