Pic: tell me what ya think bout this pic...

[OmniM]

Ok... just a regular pic, but I would like to know what ya think of it.
Taken during a 6 hour ReBall-training this saturday 18th Dec in a gymnasium with awful bad lighting...

... do all pics need to be sharp I ask you?...

http://www.menace.se/images/kaninen.jpg

[ramennoodles]

I think it is a really intriguing photo. I like it and I think it could make a great layout for a site or background/banner.

[ojhspyro89]

I like it, thats SAWEET!

[Resurection]

very nice work. there appears to be just enough clarity and focus on the eyes/mask that the picture works well. can i get one in a 1280x1024 resolution pls?

[cdacda13]

I really like it.

[quik]

the picture would look 1000 times better in focus.

[Cow hunter]

theres an almost :/ face in the backround hmmm or am i just seeing things again...... photoshop a mag in there......... cool pic anywayz

[11 Bravo]

theres an almost :/ face in the backround hmmm or am i just seeing things again...... photoshop a mag in there......... cool pic anywayz


Looks like Jabba the Huts face in the background.

Cool pic.

[Skoad]

I'd say it would look better if the player was in focus but background was the same OR if the camera had a bit more exposure time and had the player a little more 'streaking' movement following him

neat picture nonetheless

[Troen]

i like your mask, i got one too

[68magOwner]

mmm, im not in love with it, its something different from the typical in-focus pics, but, im not in love with it.
Then again, i have yet to take a single picture that i really liked. (of course, i dont spend too much time behind the camera)

heres one i snagged at this saturdays practice- http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=12/35019132693.jpg&s=x11

[SuiciDal Sn Y p ER]

wow i never knew inverting the colors would product a cool effect with the paint

[68magOwner]

wow i never knew inverting the colors would product a cool effect with the paint
yeah, the colors of the bunkers on that particular field, paint color, some jerseys, ect, ended up wtih some really cool inverted pics. I liked that one because the paint looks almost fake, or photoshopped on, but, its definatly real.

[Carbon]

not enough tone contrast between the background and subject matter.

It looks muddy and not because of the blurr.

[Steelrat]

not enough tone contrast between the background and subject matter.

It looks muddy and not because of the blurr.

The contrast is the biggie, Carbon hit it right on the head.

[drg]

For me, this falls just on the "doesn't work" edge of the "works/doesn't work" line. It's a pity, it would be a nice pic if it were just a tad more in-focus. It's just too close to being in focus, that the details being blurry bother me.

It might be able to be saved by turning it into a photo illustration with a heavy dose of sharpening and posterization or something.

The contrast doesn't bother me, and that can always be worked on in post.

But don't listen to me or anyone else ... if you like it, it's a keeper!

[noodles]

Three words. Fill In Flash

It'll help with the contrast as it will give a bit more to the subject and it wil take out some of the blur which appears to be caused by too slow a shutter speed rather than being out of focus. If you have photoshop play around with an unsharp mask to try and remove the blur and use the curves option to improve your brightness, contrast and colours.

[The Action Figure]

Id like it better in focus

[DaveSM]

I think the picture is just fine that way. It's a bit blurred and it gives an effect of motion. Just like this guy was getting hsi marker up or snap-shoot. Pictures don't need to be clear all the time. In my photography class I took many still pictures but nearly as many blurred ones with parts of the picture out of focus and others in focus. Keep this picture like it, maybe a few will not like it but many will do.

My two canadians cents.

This picture just as this would be great as a background for desktop.

[FSU_Paintball]

In focus would be nice, but what I think is really missing is the front of the barrel. I'd really like to see that.

[Snowball]

that would be sweet as a walpaper or some sort of banner..

[Muzikman]

Perosnally, I think photos should be in focus and object motion should be used with caution. Camera shake should be eliminated totally.

If you want a similar effect but ultimatly a better photo use a flash but still a slower shutter speed. What this will do is when the flash goes off it will capture a frozen image of the subject, but with the longer shutter it will cause a blur as the subject moves. You still have to make sure you prevent camera shake though which is the hard part.

[OmniM]

hey... cool comments everyone! :D

And of course, some like and some arent. :)

This one is taken with a Nikkor 70-200/2,8 VR lens so there arent any blurness due to camshake. It was taken when tha player was popping :)

I aslo wanna have all pics in perfect focus, but this one just grabbed me for some reason. We will use it as a banner/poster for the upcomin Nordic3-series. I will just adjust the colors in it.

/OmniM

[Muzikman]

Seeing as it was 1/15 second sutter speed, I am sure there is some camera shake in there because even with VR (or IS as Canon likes to call it) that is way to slow to hand hold without shake. Looking at it, it would be hard to tell what is shake and what is not as there is no stationary objects in the photo. This is actually a good thing. The use of the DoF is really good, as the best photos are the ones that draw your attention to the subject.

Nice lens btw, I got the Canon version of the same lens.

[Muzikman]

Also, just curious, what ISO were you shooting at. The EXIF data doesn't say.

[VFX_Fenix]

Some people kill hours and hours on photos to get that motion blur effect. I say if you captured it with your good ol' camera, then kudos! Unless you WANTED the photo to be in crisp focus... then... well... you know... :rolleyes:

All in all it's an excelent example of a Depth of Field/Motion Blur photo. Considering the image was taken during a game (I assume) the composition of the picture isn't all that bad either, though it might have been better if the player were facing the center of the shot rather than the right edge, but hey... Can't have everything, can we?

[OmniM]

Also, just curious, what ISO were you shooting at. The EXIF data doesn't say.

Some camshake sure... but not so it would be dramatic, the VR and IS (i think) does its work very very good :)

I think I shot it with ISO 400, forgot to set it higher :p

[Muzikman]

Some people kill hours and hours on photos to get that motion blur effect. I say if you captured it with your good ol' camera, then kudos! Unless you WANTED the photo to be in crisp focus... then... well... you know... :rolleyes:

All in all it's an excelent example of a Depth of Field/Motion Blur photo. Considering the image was taken during a game (I assume) the composition of the picture isn't all that bad either, though it might have been better if the player were facing the center of the shot rather than the right edge, but hey... Can't have everything, can we?


Well, see, this I would disagree with. That is NOT a good example of "Motion Blur" or even DoF. If I was teaching someone the technique of blurring an object in motion that would not be a photo I would show them as an example. The reason is, it does not show the direction of motion. It would be hard to tell if this is blur because of movement or because of camera shake.

The only reason I say it's not a good example of DoF is because the subject is so blurred that it's hard to show someone who doesn't understand DoF what you are trying to accomplish.

[VFX_Fenix]

Well, portions of the subject are in focus, the focal plane is on the hands or just infront of them, however the subject is significantly more in focus than the back ground which suits DoF for me. The difference between camera shake and motion blur is, in my opinion nit picky for this subject. I believe there's enough that's static in the background to illustrate that the camera is indeed stationary and the subject is moving. You'll also notice that the shoulders don't display the streaking motion that the hands, gun, hopper, and mask do with a definate diagonal direction from bottom left to top right.

Admittedly this isn't a text-book dramatic example of MB/DoF that would be used for teaching, however I still feel it's an excelent example of both in an impromptive setting. If I were teaching I'd use a photo which demonstrated either effect independently rather than in the same picture.

[Army]

Personally, I like it enough that despite not being a 'Mag, I made it my background pic!
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a198/Messkit/bbb.jpg

[SpitFire1299]

Personally, despite not being a 'Mag, I made it my background pic!
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a198/Messkit/bbb.jpg
I had that idea.. but i kept my current background. :D

[latches109]

not enough tone contrast between the background and subject matter.

It looks muddy and not because of the blurr.

Excellent comment carbon; also lot of shadow in the mask area. I wouldn't print it in a magazine, but photography is subjective.

Try a fixed lens, the Nikon adjustable just don't give the same clarity, or control. However most photo hobbyists have budget constraints (like me) so the 70-200 are great. Depending on your distance I would try a 105:1.4 (if you can find one to rent), ISO 400, and a reflective flash; i.e. bounce the flash off a white card to fill in some of the shadow, I would also try a cooling photo filter, or just do it in Photoshop.

[Muzikman]

Hmmmm, seeing as the 70-200 is NOT a cheap lense at $1500, I don't think it has anything to do with "being on a budget". Yes Primes are always better, but the higher quality zooms are still very good glass. I looked and you can not even buy a 105mm f1.4, so I would think that one would be out anyway.

The lense is not the problem with this photo.

[VFX_Fenix]

Photoshop is your friend, normalize the photo and it looks better.

http://www.humboldt.edu/~mwo5/a5og/kan01.jpg

note - I didn't ask permission to edit, I suppose I should have before posting...

[latches109]

Hmmmm, seeing as the 70-200 is NOT a cheap lense at $1500, I don't think it has anything to do with "being on a budget". Yes Primes are always better, but the higher quality zooms are still very good glass. I looked and you can not even buy a 105mm f1.4, so I would think that one would be out anyway.

The lense is not the problem with this photo.

your right it's a f=105mm 1:2.5, my 50mm is 1:1.4
The artistic value of the picture is subjective, what I mentioned would be things I would try, and deviations from that. I always found stop action, or blurred, difficult to capture accurately.

Ah yes the lens is expensive, but cheaper than owning all the fixed variations between 70mm and 200mm; as this was my point. Take a look at moshe's work, that's where I learned. moshe katvan (http://www.katvan.com)

[Muzikman]

I agree, prime lenses are better, but the slight sharpness you loose when using a quility zoom lense is so little that the money and inconvinience would not warrant the use of them, especially in action photos.

my macro lens is prime (100mm f2.8) and I would never have a non prime macro lens. My carry lens is a 28-135mm f3.5-4 USM IS, my action lens is a 70-200mm 2.8L USM IS and my landscape lens is 16-35mm 2.8L USM. I also have a 50mm 2.0. All these lenses are Canon. With these lenses I can capture about everything I need, but total cost of them all is about $4500. I also have other lenses, a 28-300mm and 28-105 POS Signa lenses.

[OmniM]

I use to shoot with the 50/1.8 but at this practice I forgot that lens at home :D
and why I dont go for a fixed lens is that you can almost never predict where a certain action will occure, so a 2,8 lens with zoom was my priority when I got the 70-200... and with the sharpness on that lens is just amazing and are mooooore than enough :)
Even if the fixed lenses are better, there is of course no such time to switch at a field, not to mention far more risky to get stuff on the sensor. My main priority is to shoot paintball..

[latches109]

The adjustable lenses are great, I do own one. I use it when I am unsure what I will be shooting or want to travel light, they can't be beat. Guys I am not saying he used the wrong lens; just try a fixed lens. I find you have to constructively think more, and will end up with better shots.

I haven't had the nutz to bring my nice camera equipment out on the field yet, just the coolpix3100.

[OmniM]

The 105/2.0 is interesting, but how much sideline do you guys have at your fields? We just have approx 1m and using a 105 there can be to narrow...

[AGDlover]

Yea I would like it if had the still person with the blured background and such

[Muzikman]

The adjustable lenses are great, I do own one. I use it when I am unsure what I will be shooting or want to travel light, they can't be beat. Guys I am not saying he used the wrong lens; just try a fixed lens. I find you have to constructively think more, and will end up with better shots.

I haven't had the nutz to bring my nice camera equipment out on the field yet, just the coolpix3100.


I understand where you are coming from, but a prime lense would not have made this photo look any different (besides the fact that that it wouldn't have been as close). Primes are used for fine art photos, not so much in the action / sports world unless you are getting into the 600+mm glass. I bet I could take a photo with my 50mm prime lens and the same with my 28-135 (set at 50mm) and if you can tell the difference I would be shocked. Maybe I'll do this.

I have tested a lot of lenses, I have a ton of money in my gear and for certain things I will use primes, paintball photography is not one of them.

[master_alexander]

Personally, I like it enough that despite not being a 'Mag, I made it my background pic!
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a198/Messkit/bbb.jpg

lol.. i did the same thing