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

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- http://www.wprasek.com/photos/index.htm

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
locally...

 

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!
Doug

 

What? You really want to check the exif to make sure he happened to
mention the right camera? What difference does it make?

 

Not sure why anyone would waste bandwidth including exif data on their web based
jpegs.

 

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

Doug

 

Could have been taken with anylens on anycamera.

Just wondering -- does EXIF record what type of lens
is fitted to digital SLRs? Sounds unlikely.

 

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
CRW_0491.CRW
Camera Model Name
Canon EOS 10D
Shooting Date/Time
16/08/2003 12:50:10 PM
Shooting Mode
Aperture-Priority AE
Tv( Shutter Speed )
0.6
Av( Aperture Value )
14
Metering Mode
Partial
Exposure Compensation
-1
ISO Speed
100
Lens
16.0 - 35.0 mm
Focal Length
16.0 mm
Image Size
3072x2048
Image Quality
RAW
Flash
On
Flash Type
External E-TTL
Flash Exposure Compensation
0
Red-eye Reduction
Off
Shutter curtain sync
1st-curtain sync
White Balance
Auto
AF Mode
One-Shot AF
Parameters
Contrast Normal
Sharpness +2
Color saturation +1
Color tone Normal
Color Space
sRGB
File Size
6309KB
Custom Function
C.Fn:01-0
C.Fn:02-1
C.Fn:03-0
C.Fn:04-2
C.Fn:05-2
C.Fn:06-1
C.Fn:07-0
C.Fn:08-0
C.Fn:09-0
C.Fn:10-0
C.Fn:11-0
C.Fn:12-1
C.Fn:13-2
C.Fn:14-0
C.Fn:15-0
C.Fn:16-0
C.Fn:17-0
Drive Mode
Continuous shooting
Owner's Name
Camera Body No.
<removed>

 

Could also be a non-Canon lens, perhaps?

 

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:
-----------
Lens
28.0 - 300.0 mm
-----------

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

Regards,

Ken

 

Jonathon, short guy, works for Getty Images???

 

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.

 

(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
line).

(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.

 

nope, actually he was a big guy, name was Chris and he was from
sportography.com.au

 

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.

Doug

 

???

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

 

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.

FOR DOUG'S BENEFIT, HERE IS MY WORKFLOW...

(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
length

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

(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,
IN THE PROCESS STRIPPING EXIF DATA LIKE MANY OTHER GRAPHICS APPS OUT THERE.

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.

 

what does EXIF mean?

 

sounds to me like your just trolling




news:Yox5b.81700$...

 

This will explain:
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/Glossary/Camera_System/EXIF_01.htm

N

 

see http://www.exif.org/