Bristol Rugby vs. Sale Sharks. Premiership Rugby 10/11/2006

Bristol Pete · 11-11-2006, 1:04 AM

Cold night. Non stop rain. Camera set up in manual. Some in AV mode. Average shutter speed of 200 ish @ 1600 ISO. Used the old shammy leather cloth over the lens/camera trick as not yet got any water proof casing. Despite the rain, the plus side was I got to wear my jacket which I purchased thanks to images in print. Not cheap, but chill factor proof, water proof and black, the most important thing.

Some images not as sharp as I would have liked, largely due to shutter speeds in the light available.

A real ruck and maul game of rugby with Bristol coming out on top largely to new signing Dave Hill, a full New Zealand international.

Enjoy. Comments welcome along with questions.

Biscuit761 · 11-11-2006, 1:35 AM

More good'uns Pete, I like the 5th one down, great expression.

Have been told that some pictures I took at a charity concert last week at The Albert Hall may appear in their national magazine, can not show them as they contain loads of kids, but am quite pleased.

Was there in an official capacity as a video camera operator (something I do on the odd occasion)

Bill

onefivenine · 11-11-2006, 2:22 AM

If I must be honest - these shots are just a lot of noise.
You have posted a lot better. To be honest I think these are the worst I've seen posted by you.
I hope this is not taken the wrong way and feel free to PM me if you would like me to explain myself!

Best wishes intended.

Bristol Pete · 11-11-2006, 8:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onefivenine

If I must be honest - these shots are just a lot of noise.
You have posted a lot better. To be honest I think these are the worst I've seen posted by you.
I hope this is not taken the wrong way and feel free to PM me if you would like me to explain myself!

Best wishes intended.

Fair comment.

However,in my defence, the conditions here were about as bad as it gets.

For the first time here I am going to say that I think with all due respect, even with best wishes intended, calling them a load of noise is a little harsh.

Sure there is noise, but at 1600 you are going to get that. I had no option but to shoot that and even then my shutter speed was struggling. Having looked at what the guys at various agencies uploaded for the nationals last night, there is little difference.

Having looked back at them, some of the noise may be rain of course as it did not stop! I think that there is no more, no less noise than some of my other evening stuff, notably the last Bristol game and the Bonfire Bowl post.

Please feel free to explain why you think this, keep it on the thread for us to learn however - would be interested to read and think about where I can improve.

Thanks,

Pete

PS, all comments rec'd in good will - dont panic, I am not going to smash my monitor ha ha ha - its about time I copped some flack!

Radiohead · 11-11-2006, 8:15 AM

Noisy? We must be looking at different pictures then. Bearing in mind what was clearly awful conditions they're about as good as it gets.

They're well-exposed and, allowing for some motion blur unavoidable at those shutter speeds, technically very good. Can you push the MkII N to 3200 Pete - I'd certainly be thinking about it....

Bristol Pete · 11-11-2006, 8:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radiohead

Noisy? We must be looking at different pictures then. Bearing in mind what was clearly awful conditions they're about as good as it gets.

They're well-exposed and, allowing for some motion blur unavoidable at those shutter speeds, technically very good. Can you push the MkII N to 3200 Pete - I'd certainly be thinking about it....

Yeah but the noise does go up again!

Roll on the 7D or MK II 3 that can do what the 5d does

Thanks.

Bristol Pete · 11-11-2006, 8:25 AM

One thing I would say is something I did take from last night - You see the shot of Dave Hill kicking the ball. Well, before tonight, every conversion I have shot has been crap. Last match a seasoned pro gave me a tip on getting the leg just before the foot hits the ball. I took it on board and there it is, job done

Bristol Pete · 11-11-2006, 8:27 AM

Oh and I am so not gay but Jason Robinson if fit.....LOL!!!!!!

In the athletic sense of the word.....crap at rugby however!

Radiohead · 11-11-2006, 8:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bristol Pete

In the athletic sense of the word.....crap at rugby however!

15 years at the top in both codes = crap?

pixelpixel · 11-11-2006, 8:44 AM

I love the first picture, not for the picture itself but because of the guy in the bottom corner and the look on his face. Just for that 10 oout of 10.

To me Bristol Pete these are very very good I can tell you I would not know where to start regarding pictures at night something I struggle with.

Keep up the very good work.

Bristol Pete · 11-11-2006, 8:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radiohead

15 years at the top in both codes = crap?

I wondered if you would bite

Only kidding!

stevegreen · 11-11-2006, 9:52 AM

You wouldn't want to get on the wrong side of the bloke in Pic #5

More great pics Pete and i'm not seeing the amount of noise that has been mentioned either

maybe it was bleary eyes as the post was at 2.22am

Bristol Pete · 11-11-2006, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevegreen

You wouldn't want to get on the wrong side of the bloke in Pic #5

More great pics Pete and i'm not seeing the amount of noise that has been mentioned either

maybe it was bleary eyes as the post was at 2.22am

Steve, he is a big old unit isnt he. Thats Alfie To'Oala - from the Southern Hemisphere where they build em big

tontoshorse · 11-11-2006, 10:58 AM

I like the way that, apart from a couple, the shots all appear as if you are the only one there. There are no distracting backgrounds.
Lovely shots and very inspirational.

alfienoakes · 11-11-2006, 2:41 PM

I think these shots are cracking. I particlarly like the water bottle shot for some reason.

What lens are you using for these? I would love to be able to take shots like that!

onefivenine · 12-11-2006, 1:40 AM

I think 2,3,4 are my main niggle shots. Probably down to the 1/200 Tv but you did have really bad light. The others are great sharp shots. I think I'm just used to your exceptionally high standard. Perhaps 3200 would be the way to go in dire conditions such as that as has been suggested.
There's just a couple of bad apples in that bunch that bring down the overall quality of the series a bit in my opinion and I would have left them out. But if you did omit them we wouldn't get to see them - so it's a difficult one!
As ever I'm glad to read your posts and I always look forward to them. They are a great contribution here along with your help and critique.

Bristol Pete · 12-11-2006, 9:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alfienoakes

I think these shots are cracking. I particlarly like the water bottle shot for some reason.

What lens are you using for these? I would love to be able to take shots like that!

300mm 2.8 prime

ush flynn · 12-11-2006, 11:06 PM

that kiwi is a scary looking bloke!! Great shots for the conditions. Did they get sold?

Peakoverload · 13-11-2006, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onefivenine

I think 2,3,4 are my main niggle shots. Probably down to the 1/200 Tv but you did have really bad light. The others are great sharp shots. I think I'm just used to your exceptionally high standard. Perhaps 3200 would be the way to go in dire conditions such as that as has been suggested.
There's just a couple of bad apples in that bunch that bring down the overall quality of the series a bit in my opinion and I would have left them out. But if you did omit them we wouldn't get to see them - so it's a difficult one!
As ever I'm glad to read your posts and I always look forward to them. They are a great contribution here along with your help and critique.

I'm sorry, you've lost me.

You start out saying that the shots are too noisy, which they quite clearly are not - (where are you seeing 'too much' noise?) but then say that you main niggle are with shots that exhibit motion blur and don't mention noise. You then go on to suggest that by upping the ISO to 3200 Pete would have reduced the motion blur but of course this would have increased the noise that you first criticised

Don't get me wrong I agree that the motion blur in the shots you mention does detract from the overal image but your criticism doesnt stand up to scrutiny. In order to remove motion blur you need a faster shutter speed which means either a) more light - not possible in this case or b) increasing the ISO. Increasing the ISO WILL increase the amount of noise but it basically boils down to either taking a photo or not taking a photo and when you are working for a paper, believe me, you can't afford to not take a photo

Pete, another set of good shots in conditions that would make most of us run for home. As always your exposure is bang on the money and the skin tones look great. Just a quick question, when shooting sport events like this how much do you compose in camera and how much do you 'rely' on cropping for compensation later in Photoshop? Whenever I shoot I always compose in camera but then I have never shot sporting events and could see that doing this might end up in more misses than hits.

Bristol Pete · 13-11-2006, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peakoverload

I'm sorry, you've lost me.

You start out saying that the shots are too noisy, which they quite clearly are not - (where are you seeing 'too much' noise?) but then say that you main niggle are with shots that exhibit motion blur and don't mention noise. You then go on to suggest that by upping the ISO to 3200 Pete would have reduced the motion blur but of course this would have increased the noise that you first criticised

Don't get me wrong I agree that the motion blur in the shots you mention does detract from the overal image but your criticism doesnt stand up to scrutiny. In order to remove motion blur you need a faster shutter speed which means either a) more light - not possible in this case or b) increasing the ISO. Increasing the ISO WILL increase the amount of noise but it basically boils down to either taking a photo or not taking a photo and when you are working for a paper, believe me, you can't afford to not take a photo

Pete, another set of good shots in conditions that would make most of us run for home. As always your exposure is bang on the money and the skin tones look great. Just a quick question, when shooting sport events like this how much do you compose in camera and how much do you 'rely' on cropping for compensation later in Photoshop? Whenever I shoot I always compose in camera but then I have never shot sporting events and could see that doing this might end up in more misses than hits.

Thanks for the kind words.

Most of these are as shot.

What I love about the essence of prime is that you have to nail the shot in the viewfinder as you only get split seconds, given the rate these guys move at.

Even if I shoot in burst it is amazing how an arm or leg out of the frame can detract from an image. A lot agency guys sub work in wide uncropped and let picture editors take the job on. However, I like to send out the right shot in the first instance where possible.

Of course, at first going prime yeilded more misses than hits but now, seriously, I could never work with long zoom - you end up worring about zooming out, thus negating the sharpness.

That said, cropping is an essential tool to have and it may amaze you that despite pixel count being the holy grail in the ever evolving camera industry, many papers and mags like images no bigger than 2.5mb.

Hope this helps.

Pete