- Messages
- 1,457
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Not been posting here for a while, but whit the Xmas holidays I thought to pop-over and post few images from last night's game. Nothing spectacular, just your regular hockey shots.
Last night tried to shoot JPEG for the first time in ages, mixed feelings about it. Sure the buffer can take more shots, so can get more shots of the same situation. Is that good or not?? Having a tight dead line to deliver the shots, I am not sure I want another couple of 100 shots to browse through.
So I do not see the extra JPEG buffering as that big of a bonus for myself..
Colors of course were better right out of the camera, when comparing to shooting RAW. But the quick tweaks to RAW images do not really take that long that this would be an issue either.
One thing of course is that I did not have to run these through noise reduction, they came OK out of the camera. WHere as my RAW files always have to run through Noise Ninja or equivalent (depending on the Arena naturally).
All shots were shot in Manual, with ISO 1000, f3.2 - 3.5 and 1/640 - 1/500.
Will I be switching back from RAW to JPEG... I doubt it. Even it is not always needed to have the big file size and the extra room to save more of a shot, I still think that RAW gives me more flexibility with my images and does not take noticeably longer to edit the images to be sent to the papers.
Anyways, here are the couple of shots.
Goalies never get enough coverage, and as the goalie was the MVP - this shot was one of the ones the paper published.
Just your normal average action shot...
Got some expressions on the faces here, a bit surprised that the 1/640 didn't freeze the puck in this shot. Usually at that speed it does. The background isn't the cleanest possibly in this one.. but I forgive myself that :bonk:
Last night tried to shoot JPEG for the first time in ages, mixed feelings about it. Sure the buffer can take more shots, so can get more shots of the same situation. Is that good or not?? Having a tight dead line to deliver the shots, I am not sure I want another couple of 100 shots to browse through.
So I do not see the extra JPEG buffering as that big of a bonus for myself..
Colors of course were better right out of the camera, when comparing to shooting RAW. But the quick tweaks to RAW images do not really take that long that this would be an issue either.
One thing of course is that I did not have to run these through noise reduction, they came OK out of the camera. WHere as my RAW files always have to run through Noise Ninja or equivalent (depending on the Arena naturally).
All shots were shot in Manual, with ISO 1000, f3.2 - 3.5 and 1/640 - 1/500.
Will I be switching back from RAW to JPEG... I doubt it. Even it is not always needed to have the big file size and the extra room to save more of a shot, I still think that RAW gives me more flexibility with my images and does not take noticeably longer to edit the images to be sent to the papers.
Anyways, here are the couple of shots.
Goalies never get enough coverage, and as the goalie was the MVP - this shot was one of the ones the paper published.
Just your normal average action shot...
Got some expressions on the faces here, a bit surprised that the 1/640 didn't freeze the puck in this shot. Usually at that speed it does. The background isn't the cleanest possibly in this one.. but I forgive myself that :bonk:
