using your head to stop the ball

[SJH Foto]

I am really pleased to capture this moment. Is there anything that I could have done differently to improve the image? Remember, I only had fractions of a second to compose this. Do you think I should sharpen it,or make the colours more vibrant?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2038/2486353468_237687962a.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/34022817@N00/2486353468/)

The EXIF is 100mm f/2 1/800sec ISO 3200

[zetson]

Pretty cool shoot, but it isn't obvious that she hit the ball with her head until you read the headline. You were probably just 1/100 second to late to frame her with the ball in her face:)

I took myself the freedoom to play around with you image in PS to show you some examples:

<a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/tangstad79/Froskus/photo#5199467774073870194"><img src="http://lh4.ggpht.com/tangstad79/SCg4ZH7Dl3I/AAAAAAAAAQo/t1hs7MQN8NI/s400/volleyball.jpg" /></a>

1. It needed lots of sharpening. Used USM in LAB: 140%, radius 1.1 and threshold 2
2. I'm impressed that you don't get more noice that that on ISO 3200, but I still reduced some of that (didn't remember the setting I used)
3. Corrected the red/blue color cast slightly in curves
4. Finally cropping. You got the ball in the picture, but it way too far out of the frame. I found it more distracting than useful so I decided to remove it. I made a tight crop just to zoom in on both the action and the funny expression.

[jdepould]

I resized your photo. Please look through that thread I PMed you last week. It has step-by-step instructions for posting from Flickr. If you deleted the PM, the thread is a sticky in the assignments forum.

Your white balance looks a little pink and there's way too much headroom.

[dpsteak]

You could probably dial down the ISO to reduce some noise. 1/800th of a second is plenty fast for your focal length. Half that speed would still suffice for a sharp pic, even an action one.

[SJH Foto]

You could probably dial down the ISO to reduce some noise. 1/800th of a second is plenty fast for your focal length. Half that speed would still suffice for a sharp pic, even an action one.

Believe me, I have experimented copiously, and 1/640sec is about the slowest I can go and get good shots consistently. Of course, at some junctures (when a player is slowing lobbing the ball, etc) 1/400sec will work, but around the fingers and other areas, it begins to get blurry. I have some shots at 1/500sec that are unusable because of this.

Hey, has anybody here used the 1D Mark III? With its dual-DIGIC III processors, and it's ISO 6400 setting, I'm sure the ISO 3200 is a lot less noisy. Is that the case?

[HockeyFan]

You're capturing the facial expressions and the action. As far as noise, a lot of sports photography has to deal with this and you did a good job. The ony thing I've seen to combat having to use such a high ISO (which is probably beyond your budget; or at least it's beyond mine) is that a friend of mine has some high powered flash units in the ceiling of our arena. He has it set up with a remote flash on his camera, and so when he fires, he's getting those flash units going off to help him stop the action. Even still, he uses generally the same setting as I do (for hockey games), which is ISO 1600, 1/200th (I shoot at 1/160th) and the lense wide open (4.5).
The post processing that was done by zetson cleaned it up quite a bit, and I believe this is probably the approach to use.

[dpsteak]

A monopod is pretty cheap and helps stabilize the camera. It might be camera shake that is inducing blur and not just the speed of the player.

[SJH Foto]

A monopod is pretty cheap and helps stabilize the camera. It might be camera shake that is inducing blur and not just the speed of the player.

No, it's player speed. I know this because the blur is on the "moving parts" (fingers, arms, the ball), not in the whole image. Believe me, when a player is jumping, or swinging, the action is faster than one might think!

[jdepould]

Not sure why you're having those issues. This wasn't anywhere near 1/500s (closer to 1/250 IIRC, EXIF is stripped) and there might be some slight motion blur on the ball.

http://www.pbase.com/jdepould/image/84840764/medium.jpg (http://www.pbase.com/jdepould/image/84840764)

[lputman]

Hey, has anybody here used the 1D Mark III? With its dual-DIGIC III processors, and it's ISO 6400 setting, I'm sure the ISO 3200 is a lot less noisy. Is that the case?


I'll refer you to some pictures (http://www.content.thememphisphotographer.com/forum/index.php?topic=1463.0)from a professional photographer that uses that camera.

[waffles]

Not sure why you're having those issues.

Me either. I got this one with slower settings all around and there's no blur that I can see, including the long hair flapping around.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/theichibun/2120873122/" title="Ahead of the Pack (by theichibun)"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2324/2120873122_1ca40d4a0b_m.jpg" title="Ahead of the Pack (by theichibun)" alt="Ahead of the Pack (by theichibun)" width="240" height="160" /></a>

[navy.wife_2004]

nice moment to capture, gosh, it looks painful. lol.

[krypticide]

The difference here probably is that this is relatively slow action part of the serve or overhead. Try taking a shot with same settings but right before the player hits the ball...you'll see that the hand and arm will be motion blurred for sure.

I was taking pictures of fellow recreational tennis players, and even at 1/1600 there was still motion blur.

[SJH Foto]

I'll refer you to some pictures (http://www.content.thememphisphotographer.com/forum/index.php?topic=1463.0)from a professional photographer that uses that camera.

I'm not allowed to use ANY light of my own. I don't understand-were those shot at ISO 6400? If so, they are virtually noise-free!

[SJH Foto]

The difference here probably is that this is relatively slow action part of the serve or overhead. Try taking a shot with same settings but right before the player hits the ball...you'll see that the hand and arm will be motion blurred for sure.

I was taking pictures of fellow recreational tennis players, and even at 1/1600 there was still motion blur.

I'm not very good at explaining myself-but yes, that is exactly what I mean! I have a lot of people asking why I get motion blur at 1/500sec, and that is probably the reason.

[lputman]

I'm not allowed to use ANY light of my own. I don't understand-were those shot at ISO 6400? If so, they are virtually noise-free!

Well since you can't use any light, then forget it. Although, you could pose that question on that forum. I'm certain he'll provide the answer regarding the ISO although I doubt it was that high since he did use light that he probably had set up around the gym. Like a said, he's a professional photographer and he used the camera you referenced in your post.

[SJH Foto]

Well since you can't use any light, then forget it. Although, you could pose that question on that forum. I'm certain he'll provide the answer regarding the ISO although I doubt it was that high since he did use light that he probably had set up around the gym. Like a said, he's a professional photographer and he used the camera you referenced in your post.
For those who want to know, I did check and ISO 6400 looks as good as ISO 1600 on the 40d. Now does anyone have $4000 they can give me?