Soccer photos- Brisbane Strikers... now I want a 1D!

Discussion in 'Australia Photography' started by Warren Prasek, Sep 3, 2003.

  1. For anyone interested in sports photography, have a look at my shots from
    the Brisbane Strikers vs. Taringa Rovers soccer match on Sunday:

    Link on main gallery page-

    The game was a pre-season friendly to help the Strikers get into shape.they
    were wooden-spooners (I think?) last year in the NSL competition. Quite a
    fall from their spectacular underdog premiership victory at Lang Park in
    96-97 (saw that game, fantastic).

    Anyway, I used the lowly 75-300 IS, which is renowned for sloooow AF (old
    micro-usm motor, not the newer, much faster ring=USM) and softness at the
    long end (effective 480mm FoV on 10D!). Turned off IS to avoid any spin-up
    delay and incorrect compensation for panning (first generation IS unlike the
    70-200 2.8 etc which have several modes) and used a monopod, Av mode, at
    either f5.6 or f8 (to improve sharpness).

    Got a few decent shots, maybe a 6 to 10 of those 88 online are quite good
    IMO (took about 400 all up). Biggest problem was slow AF, limited to 3fps
    (hard to get the exact moment contact is made between players and the ball),
    and small maximum aperture- 2.8 would provide much shallower DoF and
    minimise intrusion of the busy background.

    Metering was awkward because of the very bright background advertising board
    reflecting the afternoon sunlight but the 10D did a great job considering-
    used JPEG fine, my computer is too slow to go thru lots of RAW files; plus
    wanted to minimise frequency of card swapping and time to empty buffer.

    There was another guy there who was a pro shooter, with a 1D and a MAAASSIVE
    400/2.8L IS prime- *wow*. This thing was HUGE. Weighed about 8kg I'd say
    with an enormous hood. Front element was the size of a dinner plate! Very
    impressive- and it should be for $10,000+. Anyway this guy was cool, had a
    chat, and he let me try out his 1D.

    Now I had decided up to this point to never do this, as everyone says once
    you do, you can never, ever, go back. They were right. goddamn the 1D
    *rocks*. It rocks *very very hard*. AF was virtually instant, and AI servo
    was continuous, quiet, just amazing. Then I tried to take a shot. and took
    about 5 in a split second!!!! Wow, that thing is like a frickin' machine
    gun. You hold down the (feather touch) shutter release and it flies through
    the frames. Simply amazing.

    I want one! PS anyone got the sigma 50-500? Tempted to buy this if I can
    ever save the money up... only $700 USD on ebay! Compared to $2000AUD-odd
    Warren Prasek, Sep 3, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Warren Prasek

    Snaps! Guest

    No exif info in the jpgs!
    Could have been taken with anylens on anycamera.
    The least you could do is let us have a look at the whole picture!
    Snaps!, Sep 3, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Warren Prasek

    Scott Coutts Guest

    What? You really want to check the exif to make sure he happened to
    mention the right camera? What difference does it make?
    Scott Coutts, Sep 3, 2003
  4. Warren Prasek

    Andrew Mc Guest

    Not sure why anyone would waste bandwidth including exif data on their web based
    Andrew Mc, Sep 3, 2003
  5. Warren Prasek

    Snaps! Guest

    It makes a big difference to someone interested in discovering how others
    use their 10Ds, Scott.

    Snaps!, Sep 3, 2003
  6. Warren Prasek

    max morrison Guest

    Could have been taken with anylens on anycamera.

    Just wondering -- does EXIF record what type of lens
    is fitted to digital SLRs? Sounds unlikely.
    max morrison, Sep 3, 2003
  7. Warren Prasek

    Ken Guest

    Here is a sample of the EXIF from the 10D to give you an idea what is
    recorded. The EXIF will tell you the focal range of the lens but not the
    actual lens, in example it is: "16.0 - 35.0 mm". AFAIK the only 16-35mm
    lens is the "EF 16-35mm f2.8 L".

    If the lens was specified as 70-200 then it could be:

    EF 70-200mm f2.8 L
    EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS
    EF 70-200mm f4 L (assuming aperature shot with was > 4)

    So, it doesn't tell you the specific lens, but does give you some info to
    narrow it down.

    File Name
    Camera Model Name
    Canon EOS 10D
    Shooting Date/Time
    16/08/2003 12:50:10 PM
    Shooting Mode
    Aperture-Priority AE
    Tv( Shutter Speed )
    Av( Aperture Value )
    Metering Mode
    Exposure Compensation
    ISO Speed
    16.0 - 35.0 mm
    Focal Length
    16.0 mm
    Image Size
    Image Quality
    Flash Type
    External E-TTL
    Flash Exposure Compensation
    Red-eye Reduction
    Shutter curtain sync
    1st-curtain sync
    White Balance
    AF Mode
    One-Shot AF
    Contrast Normal
    Sharpness +2
    Color saturation +1
    Color tone Normal
    Color Space
    File Size
    Custom Function
    Drive Mode
    Continuous shooting
    Owner's Name
    Camera Body No.
    Ken, Sep 3, 2003
  8. Warren Prasek

    max morrison Guest

    Could also be a non-Canon lens, perhaps?
    max morrison, Sep 3, 2003
  9. Warren Prasek

    Ken Guest

    Yeah, I guess so.

    I presume that the same info is reported back to the camera for all EF
    compatible lenses, though I've only ever owned one non-Canon branded lens.
    My old Tamron 28-300 was identified on my D30 as:
    28.0 - 300.0 mm

    So the lens could be any lens with those specs in the EXIF.


    Ken, Sep 3, 2003
  10. Warren Prasek

    Cameron Guest

    Jonathon, short guy, works for Getty Images???
    Cameron, Sep 3, 2003
  11. Warren Prasek

    Scott Coutts Guest

    Fair enough. The way you phrased it sounded like you didnt believe
    which camera was being used... not so much "anylens on anycamera" so
    much as but 75-300mm on a 10D.
    Scott Coutts, Sep 3, 2003
  12. (a) it's my site, and my gallery of my photos... so i can put up there
    whatever i damn well please!

    (b) i have included the basic EXIF details- focal length, ISO, shutterspeed,
    aperture, etc

    (c) i am a web designer by trade, so I highly optimise all my images for
    rapid download. hence JPEG 50% quality, progressive, only about 40k per
    image- and when i batch export them EXIF is lost. too bad. better than users
    not bothering to wait for 100k+ to download

    (d) my site is 100% hand-coded (just becoming comfortable with PHP now) so
    forgive my inability to extract original EXIF data- i used Breezebrowser to
    do that to a flat text file for all the images in each gallery (one per

    (e) i am under no "obligation" to upload full res versions and waste my
    server space! if you don't believe i took those shots with a 10D and a
    75-300 IS USM that's your problem, yeesh. a few at the start (maybe a half
    dozen) were with the 28-135 IS USM but the rest were with the lowly 75-300.

    (f) i would appreciate more some constructive feedback on the quality of my
    images- composition, timing, exposure, colour balance, and how I could
    improve them rather than debates about what lens i used and how dare i not
    post full-res shots with intact exif.
    Warren Prasek, Sep 3, 2003
  13. nope, actually he was a big guy, name was Chris and he was from
    Warren Prasek, Sep 3, 2003
  14. Warren Prasek

    Snaps! Guest

    You seem to have taken what I said, just as badly as Scott did. My opinion
    (not that it's worth much here) is that if you offer photos for critical
    appraisal by your peers, it will help them understand your photos and
    techniques if the quantity is less and the quality is more.

    Everything you say "defending" your right to provide or not provide exif, is
    quite relevant (to you). To me - wrestling with the transition to both
    electronic and digital cameras after a lifetime with mechanical, medium and
    large format cameras... It helps me understand why (at least some of) your
    pictures seem to look technically better than some of mine do, taken with
    (apparently) the same gear.

    I have no idea why someone would post pictures for comment in a public forum
    and then get their nose out of joint when another person points out that
    data is missing from images claimed to be from a digital camera which
    records that data. Some of the pictures it look to me as if (possibly
    considerable) post processing of the images has taken place.

    There seems to be a school of thought which says: Drag the old fart kicking
    and screaming into the future - it's OK to alter pictures with a computer
    and claim them to be photographs. Another, more conservative school of
    thought says: If the photograph offered up for judgment can be substantiated
    with a tranni or negative, then it's worthy of being judged. I would go
    further and suggest the exif data could substitute for that original film.

    Having said all that, After editing a jpg file in Photoshop, the exif data
    is still saved with the edited image so, you could still
    modify/crop/compress the picture and the exif data be unchanged, it is after
    all only data from the camera ...and yes, I am aware that several programs
    are available free to 'forge' or modify exif data so a scanned image could
    be passed off as a digital one but this is not what the thread is about.

    I am continually amused by the pedantic responses of Photographers who think
    their work is somehow better-different-improved-exclusively unique etc- than
    other Photographers work when at the end of the day, some of us make a
    living from it, some of us do it for their own enjoyment and some of us do
    it to gain public acclaim by entering competitions but all of us do it
    because we choose to. It was your choice to post the pictures Warren, it was
    your choice to solicited comment ...don't get your nose out of joint because
    you don't like some of the comments, that's all part of the process.

    Snaps!, Sep 3, 2003
  15. Warren Prasek

    Cameron Guest


    Doug, have you completely lost it????

    Rarely do pictures on the web have the exif info embedded. Who gives a
    shit.... Warren said what gear he used and that is that.

    Cameron, Sep 3, 2003
  16. thanks cam, i really can't understand what his problem is. it sounds like he
    is almost resentful that some of my photos look better than his (get over
    it, you shoot enough you get a few good frames) and is suspicious that i
    have manipulated them significantly to impress this NG... yeesh. i have
    better things to do (like earn a living) than do shit like that.


    (1) transfer JPEGs to computer

    (2) use breezebrowser to batch-rename, embedding EXIF data in filename for
    future reference- including date/time, exposure (shutter/fstop), ISO, focal

    (3) use ACDsee to automatically batch rotate any portrait shots to correct

    (4) determine which shots are "keepers" and delete the rest (about 4 in 5)

    (5) for each keeper (88 online), adjust curves/levels in photoshop (eg
    brighten if underexposed) and saturation if necessary. this is a GLOBAL
    process- no "spot" retouching is done, and the entire thing takes about 30
    seconds to 1 minute per image, tops.

    (6) batch-create thumbnails and batch-resize all JPEGS using another app
    called Arles Web Image Creator which OPTIMISES JPEGS FOR RAPID WEB DOWNLOAD,

    so sue me if that's not good enough for you. again my #1 priority is a fast
    site. and again, this is why i display the exif data manually on each page,
    from a flat text file. do you really think i take the time to "forge" that
    info on each and every image page???

    this app also adds slight sharpening to compensate for softness from
    downsampling (necessary when going from 3072x2048 to 600x400) adds the (c)
    watermark and logo overlay, plus the white border.
    Warren Prasek, Sep 4, 2003
  17. Warren Prasek

    woodsie Guest

    what does EXIF mean?
    woodsie, Sep 4, 2003
  18. Warren Prasek

    VH-ADG Guest

    sounds to me like your just trolling

    VH-ADG, Sep 4, 2003
  19. Warren Prasek

    Narelle Guest

    Narelle, Sep 4, 2003
  20. Warren Prasek

    max morrison Guest

    max morrison, Sep 4, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.