OT: Show off your sports photography...

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • joelsabi
    replied
    Re: OT: Show off your sports photography...

    Originally posted by mskwarek
    Here are a couple of photos from a trip to Cincy last year, and a few from Wrigley.







    Mike-
    I like this technique or effect. Is there a formal name for it?

    Leave a comment:


  • frikativ54
    replied
    Re: OT: Show off your sports photography...














    Leave a comment:


  • allstarsplus
    replied
    Re: OT: Show off your sports photography...

    I also like this technique which is photo painting by a photo artist named James McKinnis as he has written books on this technique.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	ichiro_james_mckinnis.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	29.5 KB
ID:	659588

    And then this technique on a photo

    Click image for larger version

Name:	ken-griffey-jr--400th-home-run-multi-exposure.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	55.5 KB
ID:	659589

    Love the filmstrip too!

    Click image for larger version

Name:	p6634837dt.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	71.6 KB
ID:	659590

    Leave a comment:


  • allstarsplus
    replied
    Re: OT: Show off your sports photography...

    Originally posted by mskwarek
    I have always found it easier to copy the color subject and paste it on top of the B&W copy. Using the selection tool to highlight and erase is a huge help in getting the edges to be clean. I then blow the picture up to 300% to clean up anything that the selection tool missed.

    I just completed a picture for Andrew of Ryan Zimmerman in about 10 minutes this way. The technique is what I'm used to -and- what has worked for me in the past.

    Mike
    That is so cool! Thanks so much Mike! Can't wait to get that printed out!

    Leave a comment:


  • mskwarek
    replied
    Re: OT: Show off your sports photography...

    Originally posted by CampWest
    Not to question your expertise, You are clearly better in Photoshop than I... But just for my education, is it easier to copy and paste with precise alignment than it would be to create a monochrome background layer and overlay it with a full color layer, doing the same eraser tool of the background in the full-color layer. Then one would be working with the same image size and it eliminates the need to copy and paste that cutout?

    Have you had any luck using a wand or lasso to try to let PS identify the subject? or is it easier to free hand the eraser at say 200%? What size do you go to for the edge work on the subject, my attempts have always failed because of bad edges on the subject and a lack of time to really hone the skills.

    Thanks for your time.
    I have always found it easier to copy the color subject and paste it on top of the B&W copy. Using the selection tool to highlight and erase is a huge help in getting the edges to be clean. I then blow the picture up to 300% to clean up anything that the selection tool missed.

    I just completed a picture for Andrew of Ryan Zimmerman in about 10 minutes this way. The technique is what I'm used to -and- what has worked for me in the past.

    Mike

    Leave a comment:


  • allstarsplus
    replied
    Re: OT: Show off your sports photography...

    Originally posted by CampWest
    Thats not a still camera, thats a slow rate video camera.. My first Canon DSLR shot 6 fps and that was nuts... 10 is just ridiculous.
    Only problem is after the 10 shots it then takes 20 seconds before I am ready to shoot again!

    It works great on baseball going through the swing. Not as great following my son's football games as it is best focused on 1 target.

    When I took Batting Practice at Nationals Park this summer, the camera was great to go through the entire swing frame-by-frame.

    CapitalSticks just bought the same camera with a zoom lens. Can't wait to upgrade my lens to shoot from further away.

    The Nationals I think require lens under 6 inches so have to check on that too!

    Leave a comment:


  • kylehess10
    replied
    Re: OT: Show off your sports photography...

    Originally posted by CampWest
    Thats not a still camera, thats a slow rate video camera.. My first Canon DSLR shot 6 fps and that was nuts... 10 is just ridiculous.

    Mine is 4.5 fps. There's not really too much of a necessity for a high fps camera unless you need it for something like a milestone homerun.

    Here's a cool fact....there were photographers at the game where Bonds hit #756...they had 3 cameras hooked up together and sync'd to have 30fps!

    Leave a comment:


  • CampWest
    replied
    Re: OT: Show off your sports photography...

    Originally posted by allstarsplus
    Since I got my Sony w/ 10 shots per second, I have been going crazy with the pictures.

    Great to photomatch with your own photos!!!!!!!
    Thats not a still camera, thats a slow rate video camera.. My first Canon DSLR shot 6 fps and that was nuts... 10 is just ridiculous.

    Leave a comment:


  • allstarsplus
    replied
    Re: OT: Show off your sports photography...

    Since I got my Sony w/ 10 shots per second, I have been going crazy with the pictures.

    Great to photomatch with your own photos!!!!!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • CampWest
    replied
    Re: OT: Show off your sports photography...

    Originally posted by kylehess10
    I can't remember the exact focal length, but I believe it was around 28mm. It's 3 pictures stitched together using Panorama Maker.

    I also used a 70-200mm f/4 lens and it has nice results but having the aperture at 5.6 at 200mm just was killing the quality of the image. That's why I upgraded to a 2.8. Best part is whether you're zoomed in at 70mm or 200mm it's at 2.8 all the way through. I got a Sigma brand to save a thousand dollars. The Nikon version will run you $1500+. Sigma costs $800 new but I got mine in like new condition for $460. Quality looks the same. I highly recommend it if you want professional quality images.
    Yeah my Canon luckily has a fixed f/4 at all focal lengths. I hate variable aperatures, I pretty much don't even consider those at all. My Canon 70-200/4L was about $550, the Sigma 70-200/2.8 runs about the same $800, while the Canon 70-200/2.8L runs about 1250. If I get the 2.8, I'll probably get the Sigma, it really is a great lens... But the 70-200/4 is easily one of the best values in camera lenses.

    Well, I'll try to remember to follow up once I try my stadium panorama, I'm thinking I'll probably stitch 5 shots at 24mm.

    Leave a comment:


  • kylehess10
    replied
    Re: OT: Show off your sports photography...

    Originally posted by CampWest
    Nice as always Kyle... Is this stadium shot a single image or a stitch? What focal length was that at? I'm planning to try a few of those on a 17-40 on a full frame - Maybe during friday night fireworks, if I can get a tripod in somehow. Hopefully wide enough. Also, I use a 70-200/4 I keep debating on upgrading to a 2.8, but its a big price difference for that extra stop.

    Royals don't mind much once you are in the stadium as long as you dont get any complaints for blocking the view of others, luckily the Royals stink so usually there is plenty of space to spread out and not get in anyone's way . The entrance ushers do check equipment, but they've historically enforced inconsistently. If one turns me away I go in another entrance. I think the Royals just try to limit "unlicensed professionals", but dont enforce the size restrictions too strictly. My 70-200/4 is the white Canon L series, and even though there are similar price and length black "consumer" lenses a few accuse me of being a professional, just because the lens is white. I try to keep it in its pouch in my bag and put on my black wide angle lens when entering the stadium to avoid hassles. And luckily they've allowed monopods too!

    Security policy limits "Cameras with 12" or more lenses" -thats plenty big for me... Royals FAQ... "Although still and video cameras are welcome in the stadium, please do not set up tripods or block the view of other guests. Flash photography of the game and videotaping of the game action, however, is strictly prohibited."

    I can't remember the exact focal length, but I believe it was around 28mm. It's 3 pictures stitched together using Panorama Maker.

    I also used a 70-200mm f/4 lens and it has nice results but having the aperture at 5.6 at 200mm just was killing the quality of the image. That's why I upgraded to a 2.8. Best part is whether you're zoomed in at 70mm or 200mm it's at 2.8 all the way through. I got a Sigma brand to save a thousand dollars. The Nikon version will run you $1500+. Sigma costs $800 new but I got mine in like new condition for $460. Quality looks the same. I highly recommend it if you want professional quality images.

    Leave a comment:


  • sylbry
    replied
    Re: OT: Show off your sports photography...

    It isn't a good photo but I was drunk out of my mind when I took it. So I get a kick out of it. Shows Mauer, Morneau, Damon, and whoever is on first.

    Leave a comment:


  • joelsabi
    replied
    Re: OT: Show off your sports photography...

    Originally posted by buckeyegamers
    Thought I'd add a few football shots to the thread. Some photos I took of one of my favorite subjects, my son in college and then back to high school.

    [/IMG]
    Great shots. I bet your son appreciates them a lot.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ollie
    replied
    Re: OT: Show off your sports photography...

    Cont...



    Leave a comment:


  • Ollie
    replied
    Re: OT: Show off your sports photography...

    Wow! I love seeing these great photos! Here's a couple of photos I took on the annual Yankees road trip with Mom last year. Bought myself a new Canon Powershot Camera that worked out great this/last year. (Have resized them to make them small enough for the forums)



















    Leave a comment:

Working...