Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
A special treat for you Bauxites this week: a new picture every day at lunchtime.

First up, from Saturday's game at the Rogers Centre, we have the lone Canuck on the 2005 Blue Jays:

Click on the image to see a larger version.

Welcome to Toronto, Corey Koskie.

Thanks to Dave Brooks of the PDML for the equipment loan.

Any requests for tomorrow's picture? I have a lot of shots of David Wells looking sad.

The Kid From Anola | 34 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Pepper Moffatt - Monday, April 11 2005 @ 12:03 PM EDT (#110523) #
The big version is now my new wallpaper on my work computer. Awesome stuff!
Named For Hank - Monday, April 11 2005 @ 12:06 PM EDT (#110525) #
Thanks! Yeah, I made it desktop-sized because I wanted to use it for my desktop. ;)
Jonny German - Monday, April 11 2005 @ 12:06 PM EDT (#110526) #
Finally something to put in the "Pro" column for the outfield scoreboards! Great pic as usual, Aaron.
Kieran - Monday, April 11 2005 @ 12:28 PM EDT (#110530) #
Aaron, can I ask some photography questions about the shot? How far are you from Koskie? What focal length? ISO? Aperture/Shutter, etc.

Basically, all your EXIF data...

Just trying to improve my technique!
Mike Green - Monday, April 11 2005 @ 12:35 PM EDT (#110533) #
Great shot, Aaron. Battersbox, the only baseball website in high definition!
Mick Doherty - Monday, April 11 2005 @ 12:45 PM EDT (#110535) #
I love the optical illusion -- and I can only assume this was intentional -- that makes it looks like "Batter's Box" is plastered all over the left field wall.
Named For Hank - Monday, April 11 2005 @ 12:50 PM EDT (#110536) #
Kieran, I'm in the camera bay by the Jays dugout on the left side and Koskie is near third. 300mm f4 lens, shooting at ISO 1600, 1/500 sec f4. Camera's sensor is around APS size, so the lens was effectively a 450mm. Image is cropped from the original vertical which shows Koskie's feet (though the back foot was trailing out of the image in a way I didn't like, so I cropped the image this way).

Ideally, I would have preferred to shoot film, but on a budget of approximately nothing this allowed me to fire off about 700 images and not worry about it. Also, the camera's auto white balance function, which was supposed to be quite good, was really defeated by the lighting in the Rogers Centre, and unfortunately the camera's built-in LCD screen was overly contrasty and showed me white whites when the resulting images featured white pants that were actually a sickly yellow. So I'm spending more time on post-production than I'd like.

1/500 sec is really about as slow a shutter speed as you'd want to use. Next time I get a chance to go I'm hoping for a sunny day and an open Dome, so I can turn the ISO down on the camera and eliminate some of that noise and also hopefully get the shutter speed up over 1/1000.
Andrew K - Monday, April 11 2005 @ 01:19 PM EDT (#110538) #
Aaron, these are wonderfully crisp images. I'm very jealous of both your and your camera's abilities to take photos like this in low light.
Named For Hank - Monday, April 11 2005 @ 01:21 PM EDT (#110539) #
Andrew, the secret is in the monopod. ;)
Andrew K - Monday, April 11 2005 @ 01:30 PM EDT (#110541) #
A new-fangled monopod, eh? I guess my old-fashioned tripod just doesn't cut it any more. (Actually my tripod is worse than useless because the camera wiggles around on top of it...)
Named For Hank - Monday, April 11 2005 @ 02:04 PM EDT (#110546) #
It's not the newfangledness -- mine is about seven years old -- just solidity. A tripod would actually be more solid, but you'd have a hell of a time tracking players as they moved around. But monopods are a pretty inexpensive upgrade that add a lot.
Useless Tyler - Monday, April 11 2005 @ 02:07 PM EDT (#110548) #
Blah! When are ye gonna get yer self outta the camera bay and back up to 518?

We miss you!

Well... the loudness, at the least.
Named For Hank - Monday, April 11 2005 @ 02:10 PM EDT (#110550) #
Well, seeing as how I've been in the camera bay one time...

But like I said over the winter, my Cheer Club presence will be minimal at best. When I do come out, it'll be with little baby in tow, and while the general loudness doesn't phase him, daddy shouting does. Sorry!
Thomas - Monday, April 11 2005 @ 03:04 PM EDT (#110564) # gave up the Cheer Club for a baby?

Great pic, Aaron.
NickOfTime - Monday, April 11 2005 @ 03:32 PM EDT (#110573) #
Great photo, NFH. I'm just getting into photography a bit myself at the moment. I only have a digital (which might be blashphemy, I don't know), but I like taking photos at shows and I screw up so much in dark, crowded clubs that I need something that can show me the result of my shot immediately after it happens so I know if I need to take another try at it or not.
Mick Doherty - Monday, April 11 2005 @ 03:47 PM EDT (#110577) #
I'm just getting into photography a bit myself at the moment. I only have a digital (which might be blashphemy, I don't know)

FWIW, the other day I was out with a guy from the Dallas Morning News on a shoot and I made a similar comment. His reply was "film? What's that?"

Named For Hank - Monday, April 11 2005 @ 03:59 PM EDT (#110580) #
Mick, deep inside their hearts they cry when they say that.

This digital stuff is fast and convenient and doesn't have the same kind of hard acquisition cost that photographs made on film do, but in the sub-$20,000 range there's nothing that delivers a comparable final image.

Now, when some of those 18+ megapixel medium-format based digital bodies fall in price, then we'll talk, but based on my experience on Saturday with this borrowed rig, I'm not buying at this stage. It was fun, it got the job done, but with the equivalent length lenses and film I'd have a better final product.

Looks great on the web, though.
kpataky - Monday, April 11 2005 @ 04:03 PM EDT (#110581) #
NFH - I am bringing a pair of Nikon D70's and an assortment of lenses to the Dome for 2 night games next week. Any tip's for shooting indoors there? I have a 80-200mm f/2.8D, a 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5, 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6, and a 300mm f/2.8D ED - which is quite large - I only use it for photo shoots where I have press passes and can sit in the pit. The 80-200, 80-400 and 300 are all mountable on my monopod, but I don't know which pieces of equipment they will let me in with. I have a seat in the first row on top of the Jays dugout for one of the games.

Will the 80-400 be of any use considering the best it can muster is f/4.5? I typically only use it on Sunny or bright days. The 80-200 I can handle w/out the monopod, but not sure how close I can get. And I don't even know if they'll let me in with the big f/2.8 300.

Named For Hank - Monday, April 11 2005 @ 04:12 PM EDT (#110583) #
I'd leave the 80-400 in your hotel room. The D70 is about 1.5 crop factor, right? From the camera bay at the Rogers Centre a 300mm with that kind of crop factor makes a hitter fill the frame, top to bottom, so your most useful lens would be that 300mm. The 80-200mm would be good if they won't let you bring the 300 in. They probably won't let you take the monopod into the stands.

Since you're going to be at the hotel in the Dome, why not go an hour before game time and ask them what you can bring in? If they'll let you bring the 300 and the monopod, you'll be in a pretty prime photographic position.

Exposure is constant at the Dome once the lights are on. ISO 1600 f2.8 1/1000 sec. Because I was limited to f4, I was shooting at 1/500 wide open. Beware auto exposure with those new outfield scoreboards!
kpataky - Monday, April 11 2005 @ 04:19 PM EDT (#110585) #
So I shouldnt even bring my 80-400, huh? My 300 mm is like 14" long and weighs a good 6 lbs or so - definitely need to shoot that one with a monopod.
Named For Hank - Monday, April 11 2005 @ 04:27 PM EDT (#110586) #
I can't see it being useful unless it's a day game -- you'll get 1/400 ish at 80 and 1/250 at 400, which is way too slow to hand-hold at that kind of length. Does the D70 have a useable ISO setting above 1600?
winterball - Monday, April 11 2005 @ 04:31 PM EDT (#110588) #
For iso 1600 that turned out well. I have not pushed that camera to the limit yet,as i have with the D2H, but i see you did and i,m happy(btw its my camera and lens he used,vbg>)
I have not tested the AWB in that situation,but maybe a custom WB may have worked.
Oh well you did a good PS job.
Looking forward to the rest of the shots.
Just so NFH does not cry to much, i still shoot my MF gear to with B&W.:-)

Dave Brooks
Named For Hank - Monday, April 11 2005 @ 04:36 PM EDT (#110590) #
I'm sure a custom white balance would have been fine -- problem was that the little screen was so contrasty that I couldn't tell that the auto white balance wasn't fine.

Oh well, I know for next time.
Ken Kosowan - Monday, April 11 2005 @ 04:43 PM EDT (#110594) #
I'd agree with NFH; leave the 400mm at home. It'll be useless to you there.

NFH, how does one get into that camera bay? I wouldn't mind raiding my display cabinet and heading down for a game. I can write that off as training... I might be able to throw a CF card your way if you can get me in there.

You still have my email dude; lemme know.
Named For Hank - Monday, April 11 2005 @ 04:53 PM EDT (#110596) #
We get occasional press passes for Batter's Box to facilitate our continuing coverage of the Jays. I don't think I can share 'em... sorry!
Ken Kosowan - Monday, April 11 2005 @ 05:16 PM EDT (#110601) #
That's understandable Aaron.

I'll just have to settle for shooting at my Markham Commercial Park softball games.

How is your Pentax gear treating you btw? I got my hands on that new Pentax *ist DS by the way; it's pretty nice I must say.
kpataky - Monday, April 11 2005 @ 07:03 PM EDT (#110614) #
No ISO over 1600 w/ the D70.
Kieran - Monday, April 11 2005 @ 08:41 PM EDT (#110639) #
Guys, it seems I've diverted the conversation with my innocent photo question I might as well continue it.

Aaron - are you shooting in JPG or in RAW? If you shoot in RAW, you can fix white balance issues in post-production.

Your photo has very little noise given 1600 ISO.

I assume you are not using any flash correct?
kpataky - Monday, April 11 2005 @ 08:44 PM EDT (#110643) #
Good question - I've been shooting in JPG, and when I shoot digital at 1600 ISO, there is a lot more noise than I'd like. What's the best way to reduce that?
Kieran - Monday, April 11 2005 @ 08:51 PM EDT (#110646) #
Well, I've had a digital rebel for all of a week, so I'm no expert. But based on the extensive reading I've done at DP Review ( the 1600 ISO noise is unavoidable. You would encounter graininess at 1600 ISO film as well.

I haven't show in RAW yet, mainly because I don't think I'm that advanced to know the difference. But the reviews of my particular camera at DP Review showed the results being almost indistinguishable between RAW and JPG.

All I have is a 28-80 (45-128 equivalent) lens so I'd have to have great seats to capture these shots...
Named For Hank - Monday, April 11 2005 @ 08:53 PM EDT (#110647) #
Ken, this was all with a borrowed istD. It was good, but not good enough for me to buy one.

I shot everything in jpg because I didn't have too much storage or too speedy a way to transfer it to a hard drive.

As to noise, I think that the image (all of them, really) has tons of noise, distractingly so. I did do some selective sharpening and filtering -- I didn't sharpen the out of focus areas to lessen the appearance of noise, and I further filtered the out of focus areas to lessen it as much as I could without it looking fake.

I'm not using a flash. Also, this image is significantly cropped from the original, which was vertical and featured most of Koskie's feet and legs, which should increase the amount of visible noise at this size.
Named For Hank - Monday, April 11 2005 @ 08:56 PM EDT (#110649) #
Also, I turned the in-camera sharpening off and did it afterwards, so that I could have that control.
Ken Kosowan - Tuesday, April 12 2005 @ 12:13 AM EDT (#110786) #
Guys; a flash is completely useless at the range that NFH was shooting from....

Kieran; the difference between shooting in RAW and JPEG is in your Post-Production.

Consider a RAW as your digital negative. There's been no alteration of data in there; no WB, nothing..... it's pure unaltered digital imaging data..... the pallete is yours. The power of getting the most of that photo is up to you.

Rememeber, you can still capture great shots with a 28-80 (did you buy body only and take an old kit lens and pop it on the Rebel?). Just remember to crop them well.....

If your 28-80 is a Canon EF lens as opposed to an EF-S lens; remember that there is some teleconversion that will go on....

Sorry to all of those who won't understand what the heck we're talking about. Hoorah for camera geeks.

Kieran, email me at if you want more information on the Rebel...
winterball - Tuesday, April 12 2005 @ 11:40 AM EDT (#110831) #
"Sorry to all of those who won't understand what the heck we're talking about. Hoorah for camera geeks."

I understand.LOL

I mainly use the D2H and or D1 for my equine show photos,but i wanted something small as a walk around digital. Seeing as i have been collecting Pentax gear since 1971,i went for this camera as i can use all of my old glass,including screwmounts.The istD suits me fine for this.

Its not a really good action camera as i find the shutter release just a tad to slow for my likeing and the buffer fills up to fast.
The Kid From Anola | 34 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.