New Today - have Q, of coures :)

[monkey44]

Just signed in here today, and have a photo I'd like some comment/critique on it ... This one was shot from Center Field in a baseball game ... the ball is stopped, and we can see the stitches, can almost read the label, but when I crop 50% and go to 8x10 on CPU printer, I get clear everything but the face, which is a little fuzzy ...

So, am not sure if resolution, or camera/lens ability, or printer causes this 'face blur, but it happens frequently even when everything else is clear ... any comments appreciated.

Shot fon Tripod at 400 ft w/Canon 30D at s800, f-13, ISO 1000 - then cropped 50% because the distance makes the batter tiny in the frame, obviously.

[SportsPhotography]

All the details are gone due to the cropping.
Cropping 50% of an image and then blowing it up will give this as an result.
What kind of lens did you used for this shot?

[fidgety]

It's more than the faces that are unclear, the entire image is soft. Also, the background is too busy. Why were you shooting at f13 at ISO 1000? The lighting looks like it was bright enough to shoot at an ISO much lower than that.

[monkey44]

Lens is Canon 100-400 IS at full extension (Canon 30D) ... and I agree about the crop and blow-up causing the softening -- but want another opinion too make sure. I'm pretty CPU stupid, in general.

And, I kept changing the ISO because I couldn't get enough light to create image - the entire image came out 'fuzzy' and underexposed (it seemed like that anyway) at less ISO and the lens is a 5.6 already. So, as I increased the speed, it was less exposed overall - the problem I see is the subject is so far away that it becomes almost a part of the background (probably the f-11 increases that DOF issue too) but as I increased the ISO and the speed, I got way less definition so decreased the f-stop ... actually, I set the ISO and the speed, and the camera set the f-stop. Remember too, the subject is a human at over 400 ft distance ... so I'm sure that effects everything ...

So, I also have other shots that sometimes are clear at even 640 ISO, and 1000, and the f-stop closer to 5.6 ... I can't find a rhyme or reason as some settings work once, and in a minute later (same light, same action) come out different ...

What I'm even more curious about is the fact (on my CPU it's better visual than here) that I can see the stitches on the ball clearly, but the face is not - so I'm confused about why that is happening ... I might still be having my own personal demons with the relationship between f-stop and speed at this distance ... regular 'settings' that shoot action closer don't seem to work as well at this distance.

And, I sometimes get afraid that my camera is malfunctioning, and so making these changes are not doing what they should do ... and if it is, then I can shoot all day with different settings and simply frustrate myself.

It almost looks to me like the auto-focus is malfunctioning, but when closer, the subject is sharp.

Probably more than you guys wanted to know, right -- but I want to improve this potential here ... so am looking for any help with this kind of shooting, and am struggling with it.

[fidgety]

Lens is Canon 100-400 IS at full extension (Canon 30D) ... and I agree about the crop and blow-up causing the softening -- but want another opinion too make sure. I'm pretty CPU stupid, in general.

And, I kept changing the ISO because I couldn't get enough light to create image - the entire image came out 'fuzzy' and underexposed (it seemed like that anyway) at less ISO and the lens is a 5.6 already. So, as I increased the speed, it was less exposed overall - the problem I see is the subject is so far away that it becomes almost a part of the background (probably the f-11 increases that DOF issue too) but as I increased the ISO and the speed, I got way less definition so decreased the f-stop ... actually, I set the ISO and the speed, and the camera set the f-stop. Remember too, the subject is a human at over 400 ft distance ... so I'm sure that effects everything ...

So, I also have other shots that sometimes are clear at even 640 ISO, and 1000, and the f-stop closer to 5.6 ... I can't find a rhyme or reason as some settings work once, and in a minute later (same light, same action) come out different ...

What I'm even more curious about is the fact (on my CPU it's better visual than here) that I can see the stitches on the ball clearly, but the face is not - so I'm confused about why that is happening ... I might still be having my own personal demons with the relationship between f-stop and speed at this distance ... regular 'settings' that shoot action closer don't seem to work as well at this distance.

And, I sometimes get afraid that my camera is malfunctioning, and so making these changes are not doing what they should do ... and if it is, then I can shoot all day with different settings and simply frustrate myself.

It almost looks to me like the auto-focus is malfunctioning, but when closer, the subject is sharp.

Probably more than you guys wanted to know, right -- but I want to improve this potential here ... so am looking for any help with this kind of shooting, and am struggling with it.

If you're shooting from center field at 400, any objects behind the subject are going to compress and look like they are very close. Shooting at a higher aperture is going to make the situation look even worse. Shooting at 5.6 will help but with a short distance from the catcher to the fence and people in the background it will still compress the image somewhat. You may want to try shooting from down one of the lines while standing on a stool to shoot over the fence.
Generally with sports photography you want to shoot at a lower aperture like 2.8 or with your lens, 4.0 or 5.6 with the lens extended. You also want a shutter speed of at least 1/640 to stop action and a shutter speed even higher if you want to stop a ball in mid air. You mentioned that you can see the seams on the ball. You can but they aren't sharp. Sharpness is what makes or breaks an image when shooting sports. If an image is soft, and it generally doesn't matter how good the action, a photo editor is going to pitch it.
Learn the functionality of your camera so it becomes second nature as it sounds like you are a tad unsure of the concepts of aperture, shutter speed and ISO.

[monkey44]

You're right about shooting closer - left and right field field do not have the same problems - well, not exactly anyway.

And functionality of camera, yes is not second nature completely - even though I've been shooting for several years, this CF stuff is new ... and it appears to me that these shots come out more like "scenics" than central focused action shots. I still need to figure out what is the best ratio for these -- I understand the close action shots, like sitting at the dugout and shooting a guy stealing second, wide open and fast ... but everyone does that, so it's nothing special -- I want to get these CF shots because no one else does it.

I'm actually a writer (freelance) and do the photos (self-taught) as support for my writing ... because it's easier to sell a package than just the words and an editor then has to find art, and on games like this, it not something you order as an 'after-thought' -- games done, games over, can't go back and shoot it.

I do know for sure that fast enough shutter at 5.6 and this distance does not get enough exposure and also stop action. At least, I'm not able to do it ... if I slow the speed to get exposure, then I lose the 'stop' -- I really believe the distance creates an increase in the movement in relationship to the player and the camera ... that's a guess anyway, so farther away means even faster shutter to stop movement ..

So, I've been trying to figure this out myself, and just don't have the technical knowledge, nor the training ... and am hoping someone here can see it and advise me which way to try ... but the blowing up and cropping has an effect too, but it's not worth it at the full-frame - it's just nothing special to look at then.

And thanks for the input --

[fidgety]

I don't agree about the shot of a guy/gal stealing a base being ordinary and that everyone does it. That's where the action shots come from that editors want. Your shot from center field is of no real value to a photo editor as there is nothing happening. A caption of "so and so delivers a pitch on a three and two count in the third inning" doesn't appeal to a reader and this image will not draw the viewers eye to the article. If you get the snap of the player hitting the walk-off home run then that's a different story.
A great snap of an attempted steal or play at the plate will draw the reader in as these are decisive moments in a game. Yes, the play is fairly common but you get good enough at it you'll start to catch some pretty exceptional snaps that a photo editor will want.

[monkey44]

I have some, guys sliding into home, with the tag, and collisions at second, and things like that -- but I wanted something different ... these are also because I want to challenge myself to get the shot ... and I do have some bunts, and ball coming right off the bat from this distance too.. but this one, the ball hanging right in front of him was interesting -- you can't get this from any other spot on the field ... my commercial shots, and assignment I shoot like 'all the guys' and collect a check ... but while I'm doing it, I want to learn about this too -- I thought I would be simple, and it's not as simple as I thought ... and the funny thing is the fans and parents (college game here) like it alot - what they complained about the most with the papers photos -- like a slide into second from first base dugout -- parents said, almost whining -- "You can't see my son's face. How do I know it's him" and just cracked me up -- dirt flying, guy in head first, feet up, tag swinging down - ump in background ready for the call - and she wants to see her son's face ... SO, this is her son's face -- go figure. Parents and fans want different photos than editors too - they want the face, don't care if he's in the batting circle, standing, doing nothing ..

So, assuming I was going to shoot this batter again, what would you use to get this crisp and sharp - what settings -- assuming the same light - daylight in sun usually. And I'll go try it and see what it does ...