Open Photography Forums  
HOME FORUMS NEWS FAQ SEARCH

Go Back   Open Photography Forums > Photography Discussions > Sports

Sports Traditional Sports, as well as Dance, and other organized activites which involve human bodies in motion.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 29th, 2013, 09:59 AM
Robert Watcher Robert Watcher is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Xela, Guatemala / Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,161
Default Surfing Shots with the E-PL3 - YES? NO?

SURFING : Yesterday at the beach, I had my Olympus E-PL3 with me - and when the waves began to thunder in and a few surfers hit the waves - - - I thought I'd give the E-PL3 a try with that type of content, while not really expecting too much success.

From using my 70-300mm (140-600 FF equivalent) lens for the same type of shooting with my full 4/3 camera bodies and still having to crop the images, I knew that the 300mm equivalent on the long end of my 40-150 micro 4/3 lens was not going to get me very close. But that was what I had and so that is what I used.

I have never really used the motor drive on my E-PL3 before and soon found that while it supposedly shoots at around 6fps - it was pretty useless as the buffer quickly filled and the advance slowed down to a crawl after on a few shots. And that was using S-AF. Trying to use C-AF or C-AF with Tracking, gave me a very slow frame advance from the get go.

Speaking of AF - the only mode that worked was S-AF. All the shots came out blurry with the C-AF and/or Tracking modes. But to be truthful, it was very difficult determining where the surfers were by looking into the LCD on the back of the camera. Between the brightness around me and the slow refresh rate of the screen - - - I just guessed at it.

And so I did get several images from my position on the beach. I shot with Auto ISO and Shutter Speed Priority set to 1/1250'th second and plus (+) 0.7 exposure compensation. Some images were actually reasonably focused on the surfers. I saved as JPEG as always, and the extreme contrast was handled not too badly with the water not being as blown out as it does with my 4/3 gear. All processing was done in Photoshop Lightroom 4.

But hey - I was really not intending on much for results and so was in reality "testing" different modes and camera abilities more than anything. I have printed a few 4x6's that look just fine, to take out the surfers next time I am that way.

A few more are on my Google + Community : https://plus.google.com/communities/...a-8cd2e9d63873







Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old January 29th, 2013, 10:19 AM
Jerome Marot Jerome Marot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany.
Posts: 3,746
Default

The pictures are fine as to composition and light, but your experience with the camera is really priceless. In a nutshell: the motor drive is much slower than advertised, the AF does not work and the viewfinder (screen...) is not usable outside in the sun. A tribute to a modern marketing, really.

(In truth, I have an EP-1. It is not a bad camera at all, but the drawbacks you noted are real).

A question: the pictures you posted have a peculiar look, in particular on the water. It is as if too much amount of noise reduction was used. Is that the camera as well or the effect of compression for the web?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old January 29th, 2013, 10:38 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,537
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome Marot View Post
The pictures are fine........

A question: the pictures you posted have a peculiar look, in particular on the water. It is as if too much amount of noise reduction was used. Is that the camera as well or the effect of compression for the web?

Jerome,

You make an interesting point. It could be that these exceptional image will be even more wonderful processed differently.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.

Last edited by Asher Kelman; January 29th, 2013 at 02:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old January 29th, 2013, 10:38 AM
Robert Watcher Robert Watcher is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Xela, Guatemala / Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,161
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome Marot View Post
The pictures are fine as to composition and light, but your experience with the camera is really priceless. In a nutshell: the motor drive is much slower than advertised, the AF does not work and the viewfinder (screen...) is not usable outside in the sun. A tribute to a modern marketing, really.

(In truth, I have an EP-1. It is not a bad camera at all, but the drawbacks you noted are real).

A question: the pictures you posted have a peculiar look, in particular on the water. It is as if too much amount of noise reduction was used. Is that the camera as well or the effect of compression for the web?
Thanks Jerome.

OK - the Auto Focus is pretty fast and very accurate on the E-PL3. Much faster than your EP-1 for sure. I have no problems with that part of the camera. It's just that the Pen cameras do not work well in situations such as sports - - - like attempting surfing shots.

My mention of the AF was more that the continuous auto focus C-AF and when used with Tracking, were of no use and did not provide me with any shots that were in focus. When I say that I got a few shots where quite sharp on the surfer, the difficulty with the AF providing those kind of results I'm sure had as much to do with the long distance that I was away from the subject - how small they were in the frame - the large size of the AF sensor - all kinds of interference in between such as other surfers and levels of waves.

As much as anything, I just didn't find the camera a good match for this style of shooting. Do I love my E-PL3 and E-PL1 setups. Absolutely! and use them every day for great results.

----

The look you mention - - - I have no idea. Probably the way that I dodge, burn, intensify, colorize, and who knows what else - my images in post processing. Oh - I almost always add a bit of "Clarity" to intensify the contrast on the edges - - - it is a taste that I like in my images.

The in-camera Noise Reduction is set on Low, so that may be a part of it. These were shot at 400ISO and 800ISO and so NR would have been applied. The distance I am away with the severe cropping to only a small part of the frame, could have something to do with what you are seeing. As well, the Pacific Ocean down in Central America has a look that I have never seen before - beautiful, fluid, aqua, and see-through.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old January 29th, 2013, 11:08 AM
Robert Watcher Robert Watcher is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Xela, Guatemala / Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,161
Default


Here is the first shot straight from camera without cropping or processing (resized to 950px)

and processed close for comparison


----

Here is the second shot straight from camera without cropping or processing (resized to 950px)

and processed close for comparison


I virtually never show my unprocessed work - straight from the camera. In this case I am making an exception. All images were hand held from a hill on the beach near the edge of the water - - - with the motor drive on, viewing through the rear LCD screen with it tipped out so I could view down into it, Exposure compensation was +0.7 to +1.0 stop. Shot at a 300mm FF equivalent focal length. You can tell how far away I was by the compressions. The surfers were nowhere close to the rocks that look to be directly behind them.


Rob
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old January 29th, 2013, 11:37 AM
Jerome Marot Jerome Marot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany.
Posts: 3,746
Default

I don't know the reason, but the wavelets and the foam do not look quite natural to me. They are better in the unprocessed version.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old January 29th, 2013, 11:48 AM
Robert Watcher Robert Watcher is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Xela, Guatemala / Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,161
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome Marot View Post
I don't know the reason, but the wavelets and the foam do not look quite natural to me. They are better in the unprocessed version.
It could be that what you don't think looks natural, is a result of my pulling back the highlights and opening the shadows in post processing. The unprocessed image looks natural I suppose - like a snapshot would - what people would see if they were taking this same shot at this location and time of day. I would never use it or display it that way though. But that is my subjective choice and decision. I've never really been one for "natural" in my work - I personally am drawn to contrast, saturation and vibrance. It could well be that your computer screen displays differently than what I am seeing, as well. I appreciate your thoughts.

Rob
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old January 29th, 2013, 11:57 AM
Jerome Marot Jerome Marot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany.
Posts: 3,746
Default

To me, the form of the wavelets and the smoothness of water between the wavelets looks unnatural, even in the unprocessed image.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old January 29th, 2013, 12:05 PM
Robert Watcher Robert Watcher is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Xela, Guatemala / Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,161
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome Marot View Post
To me, the form of the wavelets and the smoothness of water between the wavelets looks unnatural, even in the unprocessed image.
Hey - I can get you cheap tickets to Nicaragua so you come and compare the naturalness, with your own eyes - - - it may be that Nicaraguan wavelets are a little more edgy. Just kidding. LOL.


Thanks for commenting Jerome.
----
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old January 29th, 2013, 12:12 PM
Robert Watcher Robert Watcher is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Xela, Guatemala / Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,161
Default

I thought that I'd throw this surfing image that I took a couple of months ago at the same beach. It was taken with my Olympus 4/3 camera and 600mm FF equivalent focal length lens. So I had quite an advantage getting in a bit closer that day.

For me, the Dynamic Range difference is remarkable - where it was impossible to hold detail in the highlights with the 4/3 sensor, while the micro 4/3 sensor of the E-PL3 yesterday did a much better job. Both days were sunny and bright and around the same time in the afternoon as far as I can recall. I used the same +0.7 exposure compensation. I was shooting on a bit of an angle to the sun on this day.

Olympus E-510 w/ 70-300mm lens at 300mm setting (600mm)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
First satisfactory shots from my new MP-E 65mm (ID & Critique Please!) Dan Siman Close-up & Macro 11 June 22nd, 2011 12:05 PM
Simplest Workflow for volume interior architectural shots. Asher Kelman Architectural - Industrial 15 September 20th, 2009 02:03 PM
News: Camera that auto stitches and auto builds from multiple shots! Asher Kelman Breaking News 1 March 3rd, 2009 06:30 AM
Theatre 'posed' shots and thanks! Shane Carter Studio, Portrait, Still Life, Lighting Equipment and Technique 2 March 7th, 2008 09:13 AM
Sports - shooting shots for others Anthony Sports 5 July 31st, 2006 07:48 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:18 AM.


Posting images or text grants license to OPF, yet of such remain with its creator. Still, all assembled discussion 2006-2017 Asher Kelman (all rights reserved) Posts with new theme or unusual image might be moved/copied to a new thread!