Abstract Please help me with my volleyball shots!

**Rondec** · 12-12-2017, 05:31 PM

I think you have two-ish options. Shoot with a prime that will be sharper at f2/f2.8 than your current lens and or upgrade to K70/K-P which would give you at least a stop more of high iso to use. f2.8 should be fine with regard to depth of field, but on many 70-200 lenses it will be just a touch soft.

TXPentaxK50 · 12-12-2017, 08:52 PM

Originally posted by dms

No--I would not reduce DOF, and also the shutter speed seems OK. Many of the shots are very good, but many would benefit from small adjustment in framing (e.g., cut off feet in otherwise full body shot). It's fine to do a major crop/zoom in, but if getting most of the body, probably want all of it.

---------- Post added 12-12-17 at 05:31 PM ----------

BTW a very high iso (above 1600 typically) is usually not a benefit. First it brings in noise, and second it reduces dynamic range.

Thank you so much. I feel like to photos are fair-to-good; I am trying to get to the good-to-great level. Wondering if investing $1K for another stop will do the trick. 😜

**clackers** · 12-12-2017, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by TXPentaxK50

Thank you so much. I feel like to photos are fair-to-good; I am trying to get to the good-to-great level. Wondering if investing $1K for another stop will do the trick. ��

I like your photos, TX. f2.8 is par for sports shooting.

You might try using a monopod to help steady the camera, and if you know the players and coaches well enough, get down out of the stands after you've done enough of the standard action shots and bring your 16/17-50 f2.8 or any faster primes along the sidelines if you have them.

There will be more hit-and-miss, but they will be more dramatic. Where you were angling down to avoid the ugliness of the signage and crowd on the other side, you would now be angling up.

The lighting is dim and crappy in volleyball/basketball stadiums, as you've discovered.

**dms** · 12-13-2017, 12:14 AM

Originally posted by TXPentaxK50

Thank you so much. I feel like to photos are fair-to-good; I am trying to get to the good-to-great level. Wondering if investing $1K for another stop will do the trick. 😜

Investing in equipment is seldom very useful--unless it lets you do something you could not do before. In this case it is about technique, not equipment.

---------- Post added 12-13-17 at 12:30 AM ----------

Looking again at your pictures, I also believe a 1/250 sec at f/4 would be better. The gain in DOF is more important than the increase in motion of the women and/or ball--after all they are moving and freezing that motion does not actually look so good (IMO).

slartibartfast01 · 12-13-2017, 12:40 AM

Originally posted by TXPentaxK50

Some of you guys reporting successful shots at ISO 3200 and 6400 makes me drool. It doesn’t seem the K50 is good for much beyond 1600. 2 more stops is HUGE and would allow me to do to 3.2 PLUS more shutter speed.

Is this realistic / over-simplistic? Am I blaming too much on the K50?

If people are achieving good results at ISO 3200 and 6400 with a K30 the same should be possible with a K50. A lot will depend on whether you rely on in camera noise reduction or post processing.

**iheiramo** · 12-13-2017, 01:16 AM

Originally posted by slartibartfast01

If people are achieving good results at ISO 3200 and 6400 with a K30 the same should be possible with a K50. A lot will depend on whether you rely on in camera noise reduction or post processing.

Yep. With high ISO it's important to shoot RAW and do noice reduction in PP. Software does matter. Different programs produce different results. If I needed high ISO regularly, I would test Topaz DeNoice. I've seen some stunning shots done with it here on this forum.

TXPentaxK50 · 12-13-2017, 12:02 PM

I went ahead and purchased the K-P for myself for Xmas.

Someone mentioned shooting RAW for high ISO.

I’m an old film guy so I would like to learn more about RAW, what it is, the benefits, etc.

Can someone do a brief primer or point me in the right direction ?

**iheiramo** · 12-13-2017, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by TXPentaxK50

Someone mentioned shooting RAW for high ISO.

I’m an old film guy so I would like to learn more about RAW, what it is, the benefits, etc.

RAW is uncompressed image format: Raw image format - Wikipedia

From camera menu you set it to record image either in compressed JPG format, which are ready to use, or in uncompressed RAW format, which need to be post processed in computer to usable format. If needed, you can also set camera to record both.

normhead · 12-13-2017, 01:42 PM - **1 Like**

Raw lets you make use of all the information captured by the camera. Jpeg is like taking your film to the 1 hour photo place. Raw is like having a full colour darkroom in your basement.

Here's a raw file straight off the camera.

Here's the same file after a few minutes work.

The RAW has the potential to be the better image. But there's a learning curve. You need to be willing to spend some time learning whatever software you choose. And you have to be willing to do a little bit more work on each image. Although looking at your images, the software I use allows me to work on the first file, and get it the way I want it, then copy the settings I used and apply them to all the other images taken with the same conditions. So, once you get comfortable with the software and start getting some good results, it gets easier and more efficient.

Using raw allowed me to under-expose a full stop to maintain the detail in the sunset, and then pull up the shadows for some detail along the shoreline.

TXPentaxK50 · 12-13-2017, 03:20 PM

Great! What is the most user-friendly software out there? Is there something that is web based where you upload a photo, optimize it, and save it ?

**clackers** · 12-13-2017, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by TXPentaxK50

Great! What is the most user-friendly software out there? Is there something that is web based where you upload a photo, optimize it, and save it ?

Because you've got a demanding environment, you will end up doing better development of JPEGS in software than your camera does.

For starters, you don't want the same level of noise reduction being applied to the players as to the background - it destroys detail.

One of the most popular products is Adobe's Lightroom, and I sometimes use in conjunction with it the free Nik software plugins.

At some stage, you will have to get into postprocessing to take your photography to the next level.

TXPentaxK50 · 12-13-2017, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by clackers

Because you've got a demanding environment, you will end up doing better development of JPEGS in software than your camera does.

For starters, you don't want the same level of noise reduction being applied to the players as to the background - it destroys detail.

One of the most popular products is Adobe's Lightroom, and I sometimes use in conjunction with it the free Nik software plugins.

At some stage, you will have to get into postprocessing to take your photography to the next level.

Ok, so you do recommend raw for my purposes? And tell me a bit about noise reduction - the players versus the background. How is this controlled? By camera settings? Or by the software ?

Sorry for all the dumb questions. I did most of my serious stuff in the film age and am just now gearing back up to shoot my daughter’s volleyball for the next 3 years or so.

audiobomber · 12-13-2017, 04:10 PM - **1 Like**

You have some nice photos. The ones I thought needed improvement were mostly due to 1) white balance and 2) motion blurred faces. Raw is one solution to the white balance issue, or use a grey card to set the light temperature. Motion blur is due to too slow shutter speed, I would try 1/750 or 1/1000. For me, a motion blurred face is a spoiled image and it cannot be rescued. Better to shoot at higher speed and process for noise.

**clackers** · 12-13-2017, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by TXPentaxK50

Ok, so you do recommend raw for my purposes? And tell me a bit about noise reduction - the players versus the background. How is this controlled? By camera settings? Or by the software ?.

When the camera does it to make a JPG, it can do it either too much or not enough, because it has no idea about the subject matter.

It's better that you take charge in software from the RAW file itself, using the mouse to select different noise reduction levels (and types) to different areas on the screen in front of you. You can kill all grain in the background, for example, but be very cautious about faces - you can end up with wax dummies!

Originally posted by TXPentaxK50

Sorry for all the dumb questions. I did most of my serious stuff in the film age and am just now gearing back up to shoot my daughter’s volleyball for the next 3 years or so.

Photography projects with personal meaning are the best, right? The love for your daughter can give you the impetus to rediscover the hobby and push through the ups and downs of learning.

At some (much) later stage, you should attempt some flash photography, even of just warmup/practice if there's an objection to it at game time, because you can get the true colours and contrast that are masked by the dingy stadium lighting and hopefully get some vivid pictures of what's an exciting sport.

**clackers** · 12-13-2017, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by audiobomber

You have some nice photos. The ones I thought needed improvement were mostly due to 1) white balance and 2) motion blurred faces. Raw is one solution to the white balance issue, or use a grey card to set the light temperature. Motion blur is due to too slow shutter speed, I would try 1/750 or 1/1000. For me, a motion blurred face is a spoiled image and it cannot be rescued. Better to shoot at higher speed and process for noise.

Yeah, 1/500 can be fine for the serves and team gatherings if the timing's right on the shutter, but is much too slow for general play.

12-12-2017, 09:55 PM	#18
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by TXPentaxK50 Thank you so much. I feel like to photos are fair-to-good; I am trying to get to the good-to-great level. Wondering if investing $1K for another stop will do the trick. �� I like your photos, TX. f2.8 is par for sports shooting. You might try using a monopod to help steady the camera, and if you know the players and coaches well enough, get down out of the stands after you've done enough of the standard action shots and bring your 16/17-50 f2.8 or any faster primes along the sidelines if you have them. There will be more hit-and-miss, but they will be more dramatic. Where you were angling down to avoid the ugliness of the signage and crowd on the other side, you would now be angling up. The lighting is dim and crappy in volleyball/basketball stadiums, as you've discovered. Last edited by clackers; 12-13-2017 at 12:27 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Sports Volleyball Reportage Photos (part 2) ... without a ball ;)	edri	Post Your Photos!	2	06-08-2017 01:55 AM
Sports Volleyball Reportage Photos	edri	Post Your Photos!	10	05-29-2017 01:20 PM
My first paid assignment: indoor volleyball – any tips?	bwDraco	Photographic Technique	33	12-08-2015 05:14 PM
Please. Please. Please resell me on Pentax	Buschmaster	Pentax DSLR Discussion	31	10-10-2012 08:38 PM
Perfect volleyball shots	JCSullivan	Post Your Photos!	3	11-07-2007 07:59 AM

12-12-2017, 05:31 PM	#16
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,663	I think you have two-ish options. Shoot with a prime that will be sharper at f2/f2.8 than your current lens and or upgrade to K70/K-P which would give you at least a stop more of high iso to use. f2.8 should be fine with regard to depth of field, but on many 70-200 lenses it will be just a touch soft.

12-12-2017, 08:52 PM	#17
TXPentaxK50 Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 45 Original Poster	Originally posted by dms No--I would not reduce DOF, and also the shutter speed seems OK. Many of the shots are very good, but many would benefit from small adjustment in framing (e.g., cut off feet in otherwise full body shot). It's fine to do a major crop/zoom in, but if getting most of the body, probably want all of it. ---------- Post added 12-12-17 at 05:31 PM ---------- BTW a very high iso (above 1600 typically) is usually not a benefit. First it brings in noise, and second it reduces dynamic range. Thank you so much. I feel like to photos are fair-to-good; I am trying to get to the good-to-great level. Wondering if investing $1K for another stop will do the trick. 😜

12-13-2017, 12:14 AM	#19
dms Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: New York, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,192	Originally posted by TXPentaxK50 Thank you so much. I feel like to photos are fair-to-good; I am trying to get to the good-to-great level. Wondering if investing $1K for another stop will do the trick. 😜 Investing in equipment is seldom very useful--unless it lets you do something you could not do before. In this case it is about technique, not equipment. ---------- Post added 12-13-17 at 12:30 AM ---------- Looking again at your pictures, I also believe a 1/250 sec at f/4 would be better. The gain in DOF is more important than the increase in motion of the women and/or ball--after all they are moving and freezing that motion does not actually look so good (IMO).

12-13-2017, 12:40 AM	#20
slartibartfast01 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,931	Originally posted by TXPentaxK50 Some of you guys reporting successful shots at ISO 3200 and 6400 makes me drool. It doesn’t seem the K50 is good for much beyond 1600. 2 more stops is HUGE and would allow me to do to 3.2 PLUS more shutter speed. Is this realistic / over-simplistic? Am I blaming too much on the K50? If people are achieving good results at ISO 3200 and 6400 with a K30 the same should be possible with a K50. A lot will depend on whether you rely on in camera noise reduction or post processing.

12-13-2017, 01:16 AM	#21
iheiramo Unoriginal Poster Join Date: Nov 2016 Location: Espoo Photos: Albums Posts: 3,182	Originally posted by slartibartfast01 If people are achieving good results at ISO 3200 and 6400 with a K30 the same should be possible with a K50. A lot will depend on whether you rely on in camera noise reduction or post processing. Yep. With high ISO it's important to shoot RAW and do noice reduction in PP. Software does matter. Different programs produce different results. If I needed high ISO regularly, I would test Topaz DeNoice. I've seen some stunning shots done with it here on this forum.

12-13-2017, 12:02 PM	#22
TXPentaxK50 Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 45 Original Poster	I went ahead and purchased the K-P for myself for Xmas. Someone mentioned shooting RAW for high ISO. I’m an old film guy so I would like to learn more about RAW, what it is, the benefits, etc. Can someone do a brief primer or point me in the right direction ?

12-13-2017, 01:20 PM	#23
iheiramo Unoriginal Poster Join Date: Nov 2016 Location: Espoo Photos: Albums Posts: 3,182	Originally posted by TXPentaxK50 Someone mentioned shooting RAW for high ISO. I’m an old film guy so I would like to learn more about RAW, what it is, the benefits, etc. RAW is uncompressed image format: Raw image format - Wikipedia From camera menu you set it to record image either in compressed JPG format, which are ready to use, or in uncompressed RAW format, which need to be post processed in computer to usable format. If needed, you can also set camera to record both.

12-13-2017, 01:42 PM - 1 Like	#24
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Raw lets you make use of all the information captured by the camera. Jpeg is like taking your film to the 1 hour photo place. Raw is like having a full colour darkroom in your basement. Here's a raw file straight off the camera. Here's the same file after a few minutes work. The RAW has the potential to be the better image. But there's a learning curve. You need to be willing to spend some time learning whatever software you choose. And you have to be willing to do a little bit more work on each image. Although looking at your images, the software I use allows me to work on the first file, and get it the way I want it, then copy the settings I used and apply them to all the other images taken with the same conditions. So, once you get comfortable with the software and start getting some good results, it gets easier and more efficient. Using raw allowed me to under-expose a full stop to maintain the detail in the sunset, and then pull up the shadows for some detail along the shoreline.

12-13-2017, 03:20 PM	#25
TXPentaxK50 Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 45 Original Poster	Great! What is the most user-friendly software out there? Is there something that is web based where you upload a photo, optimize it, and save it ?

12-13-2017, 03:36 PM	#26
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by TXPentaxK50 Great! What is the most user-friendly software out there? Is there something that is web based where you upload a photo, optimize it, and save it ? Because you've got a demanding environment, you will end up doing better development of JPEGS in software than your camera does. For starters, you don't want the same level of noise reduction being applied to the players as to the background - it destroys detail. One of the most popular products is Adobe's Lightroom, and I sometimes use in conjunction with it the free Nik software plugins. At some stage, you will have to get into postprocessing to take your photography to the next level.

12-13-2017, 03:42 PM	#27
TXPentaxK50 Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 45 Original Poster	Originally posted by clackers Because you've got a demanding environment, you will end up doing better development of JPEGS in software than your camera does. For starters, you don't want the same level of noise reduction being applied to the players as to the background - it destroys detail. One of the most popular products is Adobe's Lightroom, and I sometimes use in conjunction with it the free Nik software plugins. At some stage, you will have to get into postprocessing to take your photography to the next level. Ok, so you do recommend raw for my purposes? And tell me a bit about noise reduction - the players versus the background. How is this controlled? By camera settings? Or by the software ? Sorry for all the dumb questions. I did most of my serious stuff in the film age and am just now gearing back up to shoot my daughter’s volleyball for the next 3 years or so.

12-13-2017, 04:10 PM - 1 Like	#28
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	You have some nice photos. The ones I thought needed improvement were mostly due to 1) white balance and 2) motion blurred faces. Raw is one solution to the white balance issue, or use a grey card to set the light temperature. Motion blur is due to too slow shutter speed, I would try 1/750 or 1/1000. For me, a motion blurred face is a spoiled image and it cannot be rescued. Better to shoot at higher speed and process for noise.

12-13-2017, 04:43 PM	#29
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by TXPentaxK50 Ok, so you do recommend raw for my purposes? And tell me a bit about noise reduction - the players versus the background. How is this controlled? By camera settings? Or by the software ?. When the camera does it to make a JPG, it can do it either too much or not enough, because it has no idea about the subject matter. It's better that you take charge in software from the RAW file itself, using the mouse to select different noise reduction levels (and types) to different areas on the screen in front of you. You can kill all grain in the background, for example, but be very cautious about faces - you can end up with wax dummies! Originally posted by TXPentaxK50 Sorry for all the dumb questions. I did most of my serious stuff in the film age and am just now gearing back up to shoot my daughter’s volleyball for the next 3 years or so. Photography projects with personal meaning are the best, right? The love for your daughter can give you the impetus to rediscover the hobby and push through the ups and downs of learning. At some (much) later stage, you should attempt some flash photography, even of just warmup/practice if there's an objection to it at game time, because you can get the true colours and contrast that are masked by the dingy stadium lighting and hopefully get some vivid pictures of what's an exciting sport.

12-13-2017, 04:44 PM	#30
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by audiobomber You have some nice photos. The ones I thought needed improvement were mostly due to 1) white balance and 2) motion blurred faces. Raw is one solution to the white balance issue, or use a grey card to set the light temperature. Motion blur is due to too slow shutter speed, I would try 1/750 or 1/1000. For me, a motion blurred face is a spoiled image and it cannot be rescued. Better to shoot at higher speed and process for noise. Yeah, 1/500 can be fine for the serves and team gatherings if the timing's right on the shutter, but is much too slow for general play.