Basketball: Panthers demolish Vikings

Here are some shots from a recent game where the crosstown rival high school basketball teams, the Panthers and the Vikings, met in mortal combat. Local Interest in these games is so high that the gym at the local State university is rented to accommodate the huge crowd that attends. This turned out to be a much less exciting contest than usual as the Panthers crushed the Vikings by the lopsided score of 67-33.

Only media types are allowed to work the baseline, so I had to operate from corner locations with my D700 + 85 mm. f/1.8. Exposure was manually set at 1/500, f/2.8, and ISO 6,400.

Comments are welcome.

Bob

Nice action and it looks like the gym was pretty well lighted. What program did you clean up the noise in?

Larry,

Thanks for the feedback.

This gym had a lousy lighting system until they finally got around to upgrading it last year. There's still no need to wear sunglasses here, but it's a big step upward from the old system which employed mixed lighting at low levels.

I used Noise Ninja for dealing with the noise generated at ISO 6,400. Do you still see traces of noise in any of these images?

I''m eternally grateful for the D700 which enables one to have a fighting chance at coping with the vicissitudes of gymnasium lighting systems!

Bob

Pretty good shots there.
The closer the better with that lens, it seems.
I'd like to see the basket rim in #4
And the chopped off foot in #5 is annoying, you got the basket and the play.

Even at f/2.8 though the separation from the background isn't very clear on the wider shots.
It is difficult, they are a bright well-lit crowd.

I see edge sharpening artefacts in #2, 3, and 4. That may well come from your resizing to fit the forum attachment limits. How did you resize the images? What software are you using?

When I was using Thumbs Plus I found that resizing a step at a time, by 10 to 20% gave better results than letting the software do it all at once.
Lightroom is good enough to resize in one step, but it produces images that are a bit soft in the process so it needs just a little sharpening.

I see a bit of noise in #5 in the large purple splodge to the right of POWER OF THE DAY on the wall.
I see it in the purple of the frames of the backboard too.
But not in the blue of the shorts in shadow.

great shots wow
D700 + 85 mm. f/1.8. Exposure was manually set at 1/500, f/2.8, and ISO 6,400.

mine suck at 1600 1/400 2.8 with a canon 40d

is nikon that much better?

dang

Paul,

Thanks for responding.

I'd also like to see the rim in #4 and the foot on the Vikings player in #5! I love those orange rims and intact bodies, but sometime you just have to be satisfied with what you are able to capture at the moment and hope for better luck next time!

I downsized in three steps using Photoshop Elements 6 for Mac. I used Bicubic in the first two steps and Bicubic Sharper in the final step.

After downsizing I employed Adjust Sharpness to perform Luminosity sharpening.

I asked about noise, because I've recently had reports of noise in my processed images which I am unable to detect on my new iMac monitor. I don't see any of the noise that you have identified. I'm a senior citizen and suspect that it might be due to the old eyes not being what they used to be. I quizzed my optometrist, but he's not into photography and couldn't say with certainty that it's a vision problem. Nevertheless I've recently changed my image processing workflow in an attempt to prevent and/or remove what I can't see in the first place! I recently acquired the Fraser/Shewe book titled "Image Sharpening" which I find enlightening on the subjects of sharpening and noise.

I'm curious. Are you in Australia? I have a CD featuring the Wombat Jazz Band which performs in the Melbourne area. The CD was sent to me by the reed man in the band.

Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by burnet44

is nikon that much better?

---

For the same price, at the same date, Nikon and Canon are pretty comparable.
But if you compare an old Canon to a newer Nikon you'll have ISO envy :)
Same as comparing an old Canon (like my 20D) to a new Canon.

It's not necessarily that it's a Nikon, but that it's a $2500 camera. My D5100 would probably produce results similar to what you're getting with your 40D.

Also, remember he's filtered it through a product called Noise ninja, which looks to be an outstanding program.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by burnet44

great shots wow
D700 + 85 mm. f/1.8. Exposure was manually set at 1/500, f/2.8, and ISO 6,400.

mine suck at 1600 1/400 2.8 with a canon 40d

is nikon that much better?

dang

---

burnet44,

It's not that Nikon is better than Canon; it's that FX (full frame) dslrs are capable of operating at higher ISO values with low noise than DX dslrs. You're probably experiencing the same problems I did when I started out with a Nikon D200 where I was skating on very thin ice if I tried to go above ISO 1600. Shooting sports in low light environments like school gyms was a struggle. Moving to the D700 made a huge difference.

Bob

besabconcameraxx,

I have no idea what all of the gobbledygook is that you have posted to this thread. Perhaps you or the moderator can give me a clue as to what the heck is going on here!

Bob

Typical spam post, the Wombat will handle it as soon as he sees it.

Still have your D20. Great camera burnt one out starting.