[Rich_S]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

If I asked what's wrong with this photo, I think the answer would be "everything". Hence the title of this thread.



The photo above was shot RAW, and rendered in Gimp with no processing. Here's another example, same setup, except shot in JPG.



I've been semi-serious about photography since the '80s, but haven't really gotten into DSLR photography beyond the "everything in auto" stage. Granted, I've trying to get by with budget gear, but I'm discouraged and dissatisfied with virtually everything I shoot. A lot of it is my kids' basketball games, but pretty much everything else looks like this too.

It seems I never have enough light, the camera's always maxed out on ISO, running the lens wide open (with resulting, unforgiving lack of DOF), slow shutter speeds at the ragged edge of hand-hold-ability, which blur the motion. Beyond being blurred and out-of-focus, the pictures just don't look "right"; dark, muted, grainy, dull. Like the gym is full of smoke. I can get better pics than this with my iPhone.

So, where to begin? Blame the photographer? Better body with 21st-century pixel count and IQ? Replace old glass with something modern? Sure, "replace everything" is the simple answer but it's not in the cards, financially. I need an incremental solution, one or two steps that will make the most improvement. Either that, or just chuck the whole kit in the river and buy a point-and-shoot. As it stands, I run the risk of having my kids graduate and not having a single decent picture of them; five years of these crappy pictures is enough.

[sergysergy]

The lighting conditions for those pictures are always tricky.
1/60 (according to the exif data) is a shutter speed that is going to give you extremely blurry pictures when you are capturing people moving unless you are panning (something similar to the second picture). The maximum aperture of your lens is f4 (at 70mm) and for those kinds of pictures (low light) 2.8 is much preferable.

[dms]

They are lacking in proper/optimum exposure, contrast, sharpness, and possibly white balance (on the first photo)--which can be done in pp. That will give them much more "snap." That is where you need to learn most.

The good thing is what you cannot easily learn is what you already have--namnely you have a great eye--the photo's from this point of view are quite good.

Beyond the pp, it is practice to get the focusing skills, and best balance in shutter speed/f/stop/iso. The motion blur is not always a bad thing in sports--it gives the sense of movement and action--generally as long as the important person(s) or part of the person, is in focus.

Oh--and straighten the horizon on the first photo.

[severalsnakes]

Not too shabby, really! I agree that it's a tricky lighting situation. The biggest difference I think would be proper white balance. Get some white balance cards and shoot in RAW. Get the shutter as fast as possible to freeze action, but I wouldn't stress over that. The kids are moving and a little bit of "motion" isn't terrible, especially with your panning effort in shot #2. Boosting contrast (after fixing white balance) will really make the images pop, I think, and give a greater impact...

(Also, watch your "horizon" and straighten those verticals with a rotation/crop.)

[MadMathMind]

Better body with 21st-century pixel count and IQ

Or better ISO performance. There's really not a lot you can do in bad light with the *ist D. It was a quality camera in its day, but it's over 10 years old now. You're just not going to get the same level of performance that you would out of a camera released more recently. If you head out into some good light, though, the *ist can do some really nice things.

You might try looking for a used K-5. It won't break your bank and it will be light years ahead of the *ist in terms of low-light performance. If your lenses are slow, you'll still have some issues, but you can run the K-5 at ISO3200 and still get good images, unlike the *ist series. You might also look for an F 50mm f/1.7 lens. They can be found for around $180 pretty easily. The DA50 f/1.8 is another solid choice; it can be found around $150 (new) or less if you look.


RAW is always going to come out dark and dull if you don't do anything to it. There's zero processing applied to it. This is the point of RAW: you do it all yourself. But another issue you have is that the early Pentax cameras weren't so good on white balance. That's part of the "room is full of yellow smoke" you're seeing. Newer bodies do a lot better with that.

[dms]

About equipment--I wouldn't think you should change anything yet. If you get a faster lens you will have the DOF problem--only maybe the focusing will be more spot on. The look for iso 1600 is quite good--I doubt if you would do more than 1 stop better w/ a K-5. I think pp is where you need to invest time--maybe a course at a local college?

[wibbly]

what would help the most is a body that can has a decent burst mode. if you can capture 3 or 4 fps you'll find that even with a shallow DOF you'll find a few nice ones in there.

the *ist is slow, not because it sucks but because it's older. newer bodies will have a much better framerate which will help immensely for action shooting. shot 1 would be a lot neater if the ball were in focus, this is going to be a near impossibility with single shot, but burst might catch it.

[clackers]

You know, Rich, I don't mind the focus in those two examples.

In the first, the spectators are sharpish, and the blur of the ball gives a bit of motion.

In the second, the boy was quite effectively isolated by your panning.

If you can fix one thing, though, it's the white balance. I think you'll agree everything's got that tungsten cast.

They're underexposed, too, so you can lift the light up at least one stop in PP, and try to jack up the contrast - there are dark vs light uniforms to play off.

Best of luck - indoor stadiums are a tough gig!

[normhead]

A few minutes of PP makes a huge difference.... I did this with the most basic software that came free on my computer.



If you are shooting at f4 getting to f-2.8 will make a large difference, in that it will let you take your shutter speed from 1/60 to /100 of a second. I'd definitely go for a DA 50 1.8. I've shot FF with a 50 before in similar situations, on APS-c it's more like a telephoto. Or if you really want to splurge a DA 70 2.4. The lens that is made for what you do would be the DA*50-135, my guess is the best compromise would be this guy here. A Tamron 28-75 at under 400$. Better if you can find a used one.
Tamron 28 75mm F2 8 XR Di LD Lens F Pentax DSLR | eBay

[DanGleabols]

Your post sounds so negative, but you're shooting sports under fairly poor lighting. That's a big challenge.

I really like the second picture; I think it encapsulates a fast moving game of basketball!

I think, like the above posts mention, experimenting with post processing is the first port of call. I think, working from the raw files increasing the exposure, adjusting the contrast and white balance would improve the pictures. It will probably get a bit grainy as you push the exposure, but with smart use of noise reduction and reducing the size of the picture to the size required may make it more bearable. If not, I always find noisey images look better in black and white!...

You are using old gear, and you would see some improvement upgrading your gear. However, I still think this situation would be a challenge. I think if you were to spend any money, I'd recommend checking out better software for RAW processing. I've never processed RAW with GIMP, but I have used it for other things. Whilst it is a great free program, I found it long winded and complex to run and it's designed more for heavy manipulation of a photo than just basic photo processing.

Assuming you computer can handle it, I think buying something like Adobe Lightroom and learning how to use it would be a better (and cheaper) use of money than spending loads on new gear. It doesn't have to be the latest release either. I find that lightroom is pretty user friendly and powerful for RAW processing; it organises your pictures and you can process many pictures at once. You have quick and easy access to exposure, contrast, sharpening and noise reduction. You can hit images you want to really manipulate in GIMP later. Also, something to calibrate your monitor is always recommended to have aswell...

[Rich_S]

Or better ISO performance. There's really not a lot you can do in bad light with the *ist D. It was a quality camera in its day, but it's over 10 years old now. You're just not going to get the same level of performance that you would out of a camera released more recently. If you head out into some good light, though, the *ist can do some really nice things.

You might try looking for a used K-5...

If I get any new gear, a used K5 is kind of what I was thinking. I first thought K20D, but I the prices are close enough that it's probably better to skip a few generations and avoid getting into this obsolescence situation again in a few years.

Why K5 over K50?

I agree the *ist D is still a pretty decent camera; I guess I can save it for bright days at the beach and subjects that don't move. It also supports TTL and I just grabbed a couple of old Pentax dedicated flashes (AF200T and AF400FTZ) for peanuts.

You might also look for an F 50mm f/1.7 lens. They can be found for around $180 pretty easily. The DA50 f/1.8 is another solid choice; it can be found around $150 (new) or less if you look.

If you are shooting at f4 getting to f-2.8 will make a large difference, in that it will let you take your shutter speed from 1/60 to /100 of a second. I'd definitely go for a DA 50 1.8. I've shot FF with a 50 before in similar situations, on APS-c it's more like a telephoto. Or if you really want to splurge a DA 70 2.4. The lens that is made for what you do would be the DA*50-135, my guess is the best compromise would be this guy here. A Tamron 28-75 at under 400$. Better if you can find a used one.
Tamron 28 75mm F2 8 XR Di LD Lens F Pentax DSLR | eBay

I actually have an M 50 1.7 that I use sometimes. Its slight-telephoto reach works pretty well, as long as I'm sitting in the first row or standing behind the basket. I just have to remember to push the green button occasionally to set the stop-down, since the lens doesn't have the locking A position. I think I'll take the 50 in place of the 70-210 for the next game and see how it does.

RAW is always going to come out dark and dull if you don't do anything to it. There's zero processing applied to it. This is the point of RAW: you do it all yourself. But another issue you have is that the early Pentax cameras weren't so good on white balance. That's part of the "room is full of yellow smoke" you're seeing. Newer bodies do a lot better with that.

"Yellow smoke", I like that. It describes my problem well.

I think that last night (first photo) I had the WB one click off from where I usually set it. I've usually had pretty good results by snapping a few shots before the game at different WB settings, and picking the one that looks best on the camera's rear screen. However, last night I forgot to check it.

About equipment--I wouldn't think you should change anything yet. If you get a faster lens you will have the DOF problem--only maybe the focusing will be more spot on. The look for iso 1600 is quite good--I doubt if you would do more than 1 stop better w/ a K-5. I think pp is where you need to invest time--maybe a course at a local college?

Gah! Learn something!?! I was hoping to buy something. Seriously, point taken - it's time to abandon shooting JPGs and dig into GIMP.

In the second, the boy was quite effectively isolated by your panning.!

That's my daughter Myra. Don't worry, she gets called "he" all the time.

Thank you all for your help and suggestions.

[mrNewt]

The "most wrong" is the blur and then the framing... the other things like WB, contrast, etc., can still be fixed in pp as long as you have the RAW files.

[Miguel]

As it stands, I run the risk of having my kids graduate and not having a single decent picture of them; five years of these crappy pictures is enough.

That's good insight and high concern.


You are behind the eight ball in so many ways that my initial suggestion would be to grab a decent video cam from either your closet or from friends and use it. This would best meet your goals of capturing their indoor sports action. If your iPhone video does the job, then great.


I have shot a lot of sports (youth and adult) over the past 8 years as both a corporate employee and an independent shooter contracting with teams and leagues. There is a significant learning curve to do it right and in general it requires more expensive gear to get beyond blurry snapshots of groups of players or their backs. In addition, shooting indoors is tough for anyone not working a Division 1 or professional arena. Working a typical semi-dingy high school (middle school is even worse) gym is even tougher.


Another reason I'd suggest video is that the AF can be acceptably decent. And the zoom functions with gimmicks to increase the "speed" should enable you to capture the great facial expressions and body language that kids are so unique with. I've rarely seen consistently good indoor sports shots taken with manual lenses during the past 15 years--and this includes my time with the world's largest sports image licensing agency. I'm sure it's possible, but I'd attribute matters to as much luck as pure shooting skill.


Since this is the critique forum, I'll give you some feedback regarding your shots above.
1. Try to shoot from floor level. Shots like these from a few rows up in the bleachers always look "down" on the players and that wears thin over some time.

2. Trying to capture whole swaths of action like the cross-court pass in the first shot are not skill shots. A point-and-shoot (or an iPhone as you aptly note) can do that. You'll get the backs of players, refs, too many ugly backgrounds that spoil sports shots. I'd suggest you take advantage of using a DSLR to isolate your kids with a longer lens. The memorable shots are of the game intensity and success as reflected in their and other players' faces and body language. For example, in your first shot, the only thing that matters is your daughter and the ball. A 100mm-ish shot aimed at her would have given you more to play with. Now to do this right may require spending gobs more on gear, but that's another forum.

3. Does the school allow use of flash? If so, there are techniques for minimizing motion blur by shooting around 1/60 (and not using HSS).

4. As previously noted, understanding how to use post-processing software will fix white balance issues to an extent. Again, most school gyms are dreary, and the flickering lights don't help matters either.


M

[severalsnakes]

Quick edit in Lightroom (I have the month-to-month subscription. It's a dream.)

[Parallax]

You know, Rich, I don't mind the focus in those two examples.

In the first, the spectators are sharpish, and the blur of the ball gives a bit of motion.

In the second, the boy was quite effectively isolated by your panning.

If you can fix one thing, though, it's the white balance. I think you'll agree everything's got that tungsten cast.

They're underexposed, too, so you can lift the light up at least one stop in PP, and try to jack up the contrast - there are dark vs light uniforms to play off.

Best of luck - indoor stadiums are a tough gig!

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.