[clackers]

I agree with all of that 100%. (Except that I believe they're girls)
The most distracting thing to me is the white balance, and that's an easy fix.

Yeah, apologies, Rich, for my oversight. I bet at that age she could beat the boys anyway!

And SeveralSnakes has shown what's possible with good PP of your existing shots - levels, WB, contrast.

[K McCall]

I'd love to have a go with the RAW file. Like SeveralSnakes, I use Lightroom (stand-alone version for me), and I think it could clean up fairly nicely.

While I think post-processing can make a big difference, a newer camera is going to result in such better performance. Even jumping from a K100D to a K200D felt like a huge leap, especially when it comes to such challenging lighting conditions as high school gyms.

[aleonx3]

I don't remember if the istD has built-in SR, I know for a fact that K100D which is the first DSLR I owned (and the main reason I got into Pentax instead of joining the Rebels herd). Even with the same iso setting, you could have a bit faster shutter to help with the photos. As others have suggested, the photos are okay if you spend a little time to do some PP. I would also think that an updated version of the current entry level cameras will go a long way in your situation to provide nice photos and memories for the children.

[Rich_S]

The *ist D has no shake reduction.

[clackers]

The *ist D has no shake reduction.

Well, the *ist has obviously spread its cost out over a good number of years, Rich.

An upgrade to a K-50 would be giving you up to three more stops handheld, plus lots of other benefits.

But using The GIMP you should be able to do everything SeveralSnakes did, just that the interface/workflow isn't as nice.

[mee]

Too soft or blurry I'm not sure which. Even the players on the bench are not sharp..

White balance is off.

I cannot tell the focus of the first image. Player throwing the basketball? Player defending with the orange shoes? The bench? The ball itself?

Second image is dreamy due to the blur.. not in a "I love it" sense.. but in a surreal/movement sort of way. I think that would work if that is the look you're after though.

If you're after sharper images without the blur, I'd increase the shutter speed by a lot. 1/125 to 1/250 maybe. As already mentioned by others, the technology you're using is not really sufficient for the task at hand.

If I was taking these photos, I'd set the camera to shutter priority mode, ramp the speed to at least 1/125 (if not much more) and let the aperture and ISO do what they please. I'd rather have a sharp image with noise than a blurry one without noise.

Faster lens is what I'd be after for sports -- f/2.8 minimum. Do you have maybe the 50mm f/1.8? That is equiv to 75mm due to the crop.. fairly ok distance. You'll still have to crop but at least you'd resolve some of the exposure issues. That or one of the 100mm f/2.8 macro lenses might work a little better on the cheap.

Btw the K-5 can pull out a lot of detail out of the dark areas / underexposed images. They're pretty cheap these days too. So you could set the camera to 1/250 f/4 ISO1600 (which is a 2 stop difference) and still expose the image properly if shooting in RAW with the K-5. (they would look dark straight out of the camera).

Actually, this is my technique for shooting images where there is a lot of contrast (such as landscapes with clouds).. I expose for the highlights, purposely underexposing the image to ensure there are no blow outs (bright spots) even if that means other parts are wayy too dark. Then I fix it in Post. There are limits to this (2.5 - 3 stops is where it gets funky imo) but at least it gives some breathing room.

[DeadJohn]

(The quick version: a K-50 or K-5ii is probably the best bang for your buck to allow higher ISO and therefore faster shutter. You'll also get a faster burst speed. Details follow.)

Don't be so hard on yourself. Photo #2 is acceptable. The subject looks just a little blurred from movement, and a steadier hand or slightly faster shutter or lucky burst mode could reduce that. Both photos have bad white balance (everything looks too yellow) and exposure (the white uniforms are too dark), but other posters have already shown that a little processing can fix that.

Blur in #1 is the biggest problem IMO. That's much tougher to change during processing. The wide view plus movement just makes things look soft and unfocused, rather than showing action like in #2. Sports need a fast shutter speed to freeze everything, or a slow shutter and tight panning on your subject to enhance movement in the rest of the scene. Slow shutter panning takes practice and #2 shows you're capable of doing that. Panning at wider angles often doesn't show enough movement even if your technique is good.

K-50 and K-5ii prices are great now and you'll gain several stops of low-noise ISO. The K-3 offers better AF but might be outside your target price. Alternatively, a newer lens like a Sigma/Tamron 70-200 f2.8 gives up to two stops of improvement over your current lens; perhaps you can find a good used price.

Practice how to process raw files in GIMP, or purchase Lightroom which is a lot easier to use. GIMP is ultimately more powerful but Lightroom also gives you tools for cataloging photos.

[Rich_S]

After taking some the advice above to heart (but not buying any new gear), I gave it another go last night.

Here's the one shot I chose to work on. This was with my SMC-M 50 1.7. Still ISO1600, shutter 1/180th. Aperture was somewhere from f4 to f2.8, I adjusted it occasionally and then used the green button to stop down and set the shutter speed. I "think" this was the same camera WB I used the other night, but it looks better in this photo. I looked at some others in UFRaw, but the camera WB still looked best. The camera's exposure came out dark, so I increased it by a stop in PP. Then I cropped away slightly over 1/2 of the width to give this:



There's one MAJOR flaw in this photo; that's not my kid. He conveniently had his back to me whenever he did anything significant last night.

Obviously, I have a lot more to learn about PP than what I accomplished in 15 minutes with UFRaw and GIMP. This was just a quickie experiment, from which I draw two conclusions (feel free to comment upon or refute them):

1. This is about the best I'm going to do from a technical standpoint with my existing gear. Low pixel count, slow body, and slow lens are all working against me in the borderline lighting conditions (not to mention the moving subjects)
2. I can improve the overall picture quality with this gear by getting in there and actively taking better shots: get out of the stands, move in close, zoom with my feet (especially with the 50 1.7 prime), frame the shot well when I push the shutter release, rather than relying on cropping after the fact.

Lesson learned: I really need to concentrate on #2, whether or not my gear is forcing me into it. However, I'm also looking for a used K50 or K5 (suggestions welcome) body. Maybe down the road I can save up for one of those 2.8 zooms.

[clackers]

Good scene, Rich - getting out of the seats really helped!

Your shutter speed still needs to be in the 1/500 to 1/1000 range but you already know that.

BTW, I think you did your 15 minutes of GIMP processing but still didn't adjust the WB or contrast enough.

The pic is still yellow and uniform in tones, and fixing these problems doesn't cost you any money.

[mee]

You're using a manual focus lens to shoot sports.. that's impressive. That is probably why it is a little soft. But the composition is really really nice. Kudos. And the scene, while not completely frozen, is still an improvement over the first go around. Probably about as good as it gets with the old istD short of a fancy lens and some PP skills.

K-5/K-5II using RAW format would probably suite you better. Theoretically you should have more detail in the shadows with the 14-bit raws over the K-30/K-50's 12-bit raws. But the K-30/K-50 is a bit lighter and slightly smaller than the K-5 formfactor. And there are other trade offs.. in anycase.. as you know tons of info floating about this site to help you make your decision. ..or just confuse you. haha

[dms]

I took the liberty of making following 1 minute adjustments w/ photoshop CS2 (which is free now apparently):
-- Unsharp mask filter at 12%,60 pixel, 0
-- SmartSharpening at 150% and 0.7 pixel (this may only be in photoshop)
-- Curve--Modified S shape (increase contrast, plus some minor tweaking

BTW in photoshop the image has more contrast than it shows here. No it's about the same, I sometimes (as in this case) forget to check the tilt on my laptop screen.

Also I did not touch the WB. That really should be done in raw.

[OldGeaser]

I agree that if you are going to shoot sports then the 1st is not the camera for that. At a minimum you need something with Shake Reduction. Next, I find that having more than one program loaded in order to easily do my PP. I have Photoshop Elements, Picassa. an old Jasc Paint Shop Photo-5, Gimp, Irfran. What is easy to do in one may be hard in another. I don't have Lightroom as I don't shoot much in Raw. I need fast processing and the ability to rapidly turn out prints. I addressed the color balance using the above programs and did not spend much time on it. I like your composition and updating your equipment a slight bit and also your software should solve your problems. Don't give up,

[OldGeaser]

By the way, I did the same with your #1 also.

[mee]

That is really really heavy Noise Reduction there.. makes it look like paint smeared with a putty knife. Got rid of the Noise though! hehe

[OldGeaser]

That is really really heavy Noise Reduction there.. makes it look like paint smeared with a putty knife. Got rid of the Noise though! hehe

Yeah, it is! But, make a print of it and give it to the players and they will think it's great. This is sports, not art and the use or over use is justified I think.