Action Shot

[tufcat]

I took my grandson to the Devil Rays game today, so I took my camera to play around a little. The Devil Rays play in a dome, so I didn't have the bright sunlight to help me freeze the action. I took my 300mm f4 lens and cranked up the ISO to see what kind of results I cound get.

I took this picture using an ISO of 1600 to get a 1/400 shutter speed. As expected, noise became an issue. Still, I was pretty happy with the outcome, all things considered. What do ya'll think?

[a.saliga]

Very nice shot! I'm jealous of your lens to, haha.

If I have to be picky, I'd say that I'd also like to see Crawford in focus.

Very nice though.

[SmokedIronMade]

It is a very nice shot, i recently tried on a bowling tournament and it is not easy to catch player in motion get them freezed and have a good composition all at once, you probably had to do many shots to get a few working.

[xysmas]

Good moment.

Personally, i would have taken the 80-200 and cropped the portion i wanted - the extra speed would help a ton in situations like that.

All things considered, good stuff.

[tufcat]

Very nice shot! I'm jealous of your lens to, haha.

If I have to be picky, I'd say that I'd also like to see Crawford in focus.

Very nice though.

Thanx. The 300 is a pretty good lens, though maybe not the best for indoor sports photography.

It is a very nice shot, i recently tried on a bowling tournament and it is not easy to catch player in motion get them freezed and have a good composition all at once, you probably had to do many shots to get a few working.

Bingo! I took about 300 shots and came away with only 20 or 30 keepers. This was the first time I had tried to photograph a baseball game. It was a good learning experience.

Good moment.

Personally, i would have taken the 80-200 and cropped the portion i wanted - the extra speed would help a ton in situations like that.

All things considered, good stuff.

My thoughts exactly. The 80-200 would have been the better lens for the job. My wife got the game tickets from a local radio station, so we were out in the cheap seats. I took the 300 for the extra range. Better seats and the 80-200 would have yielded much better shots.

[epeyton@tampabay.rr.com]

Wow great catch!!!

[xxpinballxx]

Nice shot on upton but seems a bit odd in the portrait layout. I would try cropping it to landscape and clone out crawford. Nice timing though...i find I never can catch anything in flight.

[jdepould]

ISO and sports pictures are a bit of a conundrum. Cranking up the ISO is necessary even in good lighting (though 400 is certainly more manageable than 1600), but if a shot is good, things like noise tend to be ignored more than they would be in an ordinary shot. There's an inherent drama and action in sports that allows the photographer to let some of the technical stuff slide. Shutter speed and focus become more important than the other stuff.

Case in point: I sold this image to one of my professors last semester (a color version) and he called it "the best sports shot in Columbus this year." I'm not sure I would go so far as to call it the best but I certainly like it too. Technically it isn't even a very good shot though, the noise is atrocious, but the content overcomes that.

That's probably way more text than anyone wants to read. Basically, what I'm saying is not to worry about the ISO and just go for shots that punch with content. The picture you posted exemplifies good sports photography.

[tufcat]

Wow great catch!!!

Thanx, Evelyn.

Nice shot on upton but seems a bit odd in the portrait layout. I would try cropping it to landscape and clone out crawford. Nice timing though.

Pinball, I thought about the crop and clone on this one and I think I could have done a pretty good job on the cloning.

I kind of got hung up on the technical aspects of the photograph. I left "Crawford" in the picture as an attempt to introduce some foreground entry. I left the clay warning track in the top of the picture to try to add some depth.

...i find I never can catch anything in flight.

Don't be too hard on yourself. The guy in this picture couldn't catch anything in flight either.

ISO and sports pictures are a bit of a conundrum. Cranking up the ISO is necessary even in good lighting (though 400 is certainly more manageable than 1600), but if a shot is good, things like noise tend to be ignored more than they would be in an ordinary shot. There's an inherent drama and action in sports that allows the photographer to let some of the technical stuff slide. Shutter speed and focus become more important than the other stuff.

Case in point: I sold this image to one of my professors last semester (a color version) and he called it "the best sports shot in Columbus this year." I'm not sure I would go so far as to call it the best but I certainly like it too. Technically it isn't even a very good shot though, the noise is atrocious, but the content overcomes that.

That's probably way more text than anyone wants to read. Basically, what I'm saying is not to worry about the ISO and just go for shots that punch with content. The picture you posted exemplifies good sports photography.

Good thoughts, I appreciate your comments. It is difficult to be technically correct while trying to catch "the action" on the field of play.

Very nice catch on your basketball shot as well.

[xxpinballxx]

LOL! funny.....but true! Its still a nice catch!