andrew_carlson

IS does work but understanding what IS does or how it works is confusing since marketing people have gotten hold of the technical specs and wrote them to sell it.

 

I'm sure this has said before but I'll say it again, IS is beneficial really only for camera shake when you hand hold. IS isn't going to let you shoot hand held at 1/10 of a second in low light. How this helps us is that we can now hand hold our cameras and it will deal with camera shake while we shoot and if it happens that we're shooting at 1/30 or 1/60 we'll get shots that come out.

 

Image stabilization doesn't really or directly affect exposure so saying that it gives you 2-3 stops is marketing speak. They can say that and be telling the truth but misleading at the same time. IS works by stabilizing one or more of the elements that make up the lens against movement. A good analogy is a gyroscope. If you move a gyroscope left rather abruptly it compensates to remain in the same orientation. IS works much the same way and you can even hear it when you depress the shutter button down part way on the 70-200 version.

 

I'm attaching a photo I shot a couple of years ago on the Cumbres and Toltec Narrow Gauge RR in Antonito CO. I really like this shot but its a good example of where IS could have helped and why they say IS can give you 2-3 stops. It was well after sundown and I was using a DRebel or 300D with the kit lens an 18-55mm f/3.5 I think. I knew it was too late to shoot so I proped myself against a pole, held my breath like I was shooting a rifle. If I'd raised my ISO I could have had a steady shot, or if I had IS it might have come out. I've since learned my mistakes and I think the added glow makes this a cool shot anyway.<div></div>

Give me your girlfriend and she'll stop pilfering your stuff. :o)

 

Ok that was a bit tongue in cheek, sorry. I don't think its silly to get the 70-200 f/4 at all. Its inexpensive and good quality too. Some times when I'm outdoors I'd prefer the f4 over the 2.8/IS that I have, its definately lighter.

Wish I were in Austria - or anywhere more scenic than in holiday traffic. My first thought

would be you should read some of the posts/answers. Not that this question hasn't

already been asked but a lot of the q's in the sports forum deal with exactly this scenario.

 

Photography is about many different things for different people. For me photography is

about exposure. Proper exposure shows when all of the pieces come together right.

Those pieces include ISO, Aperture, and Shutter speed. Some are directly proportional and

others are inversely proportional to each other. When I take pics at a hockey rink I know I

need to do some basic things. I need to get my white balance set just right so that the

colors look like they should. I need to set my ISO high enough so that I can get my shutter

speed fast enough. I also know I need to open my aperture up as much as possible, again

to bring ISO down and avoid noise.

 

In the 35mm and SLR/DSLR world I believe most sports photography shots are done at ISO

800 or higher. If they are done at ISO 400 then they are probably using overhead strobes.

Most digicams or P&S (point and shoot) cannot exceed ISO 400 so you're limited there.

Most action shots are at aperture f/2.8 or so but thats very lens dependant. With a DSLR

or SLR I'd want at least an f/2.8 or lower say an f/1.8. Many photography/exposure books

will explain that aperture is like the spigot in your sink. The more you open it up the more

light comes through. Shutter speed is sort of a gate on that spigot. The faster the shutter

speed, the easier it is to stop the action. However these two are not independant of one

another. The more I open my aperture, sure I get a higher shutter speed, BUT I also get a

smaller or narrower depth of field. That means my focus NEEDS to be right on target. Or

else the wall or the referee or coach will be in focus and the player/ball/puck/whatever

isn't. Shooting sports is tough to get right and I don't believe it can be done "on the

cheap" as many people ask in here. It takes time and understanding of the principles of

exposure and trial and error. Just reading it here or in a book is only 1/2 way. Trying it

and doing it and seeing how aperture, shutter speed, and ISO or film speed affect the shot

is your best learning tool. Its a digital camera, its 'free' to try it out.

 

White balance is a tough one to describe in here and auto might be as good a place to

start as any. While my focus in on a DSLR/SLR environment I believe you can get good

results with yor P&S, not magazine quality results but good enough for the family. If your

camera has a Av or Tv, aperture priority and/or shutter priority then try shooting in one of

those modes. Set your ISO as high as you can, your aperture as low as you can, f/2.8 or

lower, and let the camera choose the shutter speed. Pay attention to what shutter speeds

it selects too. Its good to know for during a game that directly under a light I can get a

shutter speed of 1/500 but in the dark corners I only get a shutterspeed of say 1/200 -

not enough to stop the action in many cases.

Regarding the grey card question, 18% grey card is for white balance.

To shoot ice hockey what I do with my 20D is I take 1 picture of the ice when no one is on it...just the ice, no blue lines or red lines or net. I then set my 20D to custom white balance on the top LCD and using the menus on the back LCD I go to custom white balance and select the picture of just the ice. I can then delete that picture once its set.

 

I do this every time I shoot ice hockey so that I don't have to do much post processing. A little bit of USM (unsharp mask) and maybe some cropping to clean up the shot and I'm done. Post 'em and sell 'em!

Regarding your last question about photoshop or other editing tools. You're pretty much going to need to do that starting out. Eventually you can fine tune or tailor your shots as you take them.

 

Starting out I tried a lot of things, lenses, software tools, shooting in raw vs. jpg, etc. Until you get to know what base settings you'll need to shoot a particular venue having something like photoshop or other tools to compensate can help. Just don't let it become a crutch to fix everything.

 

For now I shoot a custom white balance, Av or Tv mode depending on the situation, and raw+jpg. In many cases I'll just use the jpg, some base processing using photoshop scripts I've tooled together to compensate for the odd lights & unsharp mask really. Without sharpening the photos they aren't bad but could be better. I try not to use in camera sharpening. Then I crop. 8 yr olds need to be cropped even with the 20D & 70-200 lens.

 

Someone mentioned the buffer, the 20D shoots 6fps. If you're shooting just jpg you can shoot somewhere between 15-unlimited frames depending on size/quality. Raw really does limit you to around 5-6 fps. I really only hit 2 or 3 and pause and then another 2 so I never flood the buffer. A couple of shots, a couple of shots, a couple of shots.

 

Anything outdoors you can use f/4 or maybe even f/5.6 but indoors you've got to start with f/2.8 and lower if possible. I haven't tried 85mm yet, it would be good for auto racing but hockey sometimes you want to go lower than that. The 50mm f/1.8 might not be a bad idea. I had an opportunity to catch a shot of the goalie, puck in the net, and the shooter all in the same shot from behind the net but couldn't frame it right with the 70-200.

Not to change the subject - but Corel Painter IX looks interesting on the graphical arts front. I've done some interesting things printing on textured art papers available at the local hobby stores. Its interesting how an inkjet can simulate the depth of paint by running in that texture. Something I've not been successful at reproducing regularly. Sure some images run artistically but each trial is different and some images don't run at all. Something like Painter to artistically 'tweak' an image sounds like fun. But its not photoshop and its also expensive.

 

Oh well.

 

Will, in response to your question - motive behind low ratings. I've found that critques can be harsh but sometimes useful, the point is to learn from others perspectives and maybe emotions. Sometimes we take an image we've produced and we think the world of it and when we uncover it and show the world, well it doesn't get the respect or admiration we thought it deserved. I too am constantly learning about photography and I've been learning that composition can make or break a photograph. I'd love to recommend a book or two on composition and exposure but I have no recommendations. I've read a really good book on exposure but haven't settled on one for composition.

 

Looking at a few of your posted pictures, the amber skies shot I think looks good, great colors, but mostly great composition. I can sort of see the rule of thirds on the bottom and overall the photo is weighted to one side - sometimes good and in that shot it is. Symmetrical balance only works when framing a subject.

 

In contrast the image "Power lines" irks me. I live in Colorado, we have some spectacular scenery and everytime I think WOW I gotta shoot that, its covered or obstructed by power lines. I hate that. I now pay attention to power lines every day, every commute, ever direction. I notice that they almost always cover up what I'd like to shoot. Sometimes I think the people that put up power lines do that intentionally - hey there's scenery over there, lets obstruct it! Woo Hoo! another angry photographer! (just kidding)

 

My point is that while its a good shot, I would rate it lower because of the emotive quality that shot has on me, NOT the photoshop post processing. This is what happens when you send photos in a portfolio for work or publication. The editor or person selecting photos or photographers could be in a rush, could be emotionally impacted and choose or not chose you or your photos. Its a hit/miss situation and I'm sure that people critiquing photos have the same emotional reactions.

 

Its kinda like these forums, its all subjective and its all opinion. I take photos I think are great and I show them to friends and family and they say 'nice' not WOW...I have difficulty with it but it should be a learning tool and build character. IMO.

Personally I hate photoshop. Not because its obvious someone edited or manipulated an image. Not because I don't have it, I do have it. I don't like photoshop from the perspective that it allows you to do more than most people should and it becomes a crutch. I've been using PS since 2.5 also, I still use it today. I don't use it for very much and only when absolutely necessary. As Bob A. said, its a tool and pushing too much turns a work into graphical arts piece rather than a photograph.

 

Personally I don't like photoshop because its too expensive for the average hobbiest to afford. I've been using the full version since 2.5 the half-assed 'elements' just doesn't cut it unless you're new to PS, I felt like I'd had my hands chopped off. At $799 or whatever the the price its far beyond my budget. Buying something just because I want it is a luxury I can't afford. Buying something because of the value it might add - tangible value, not theoretical, is something different. I purchased a canon L lens because I know I can make money with those lenses and I have. Photoshop - no one can prove that you make money with photoshop. Its a tool that might help you to make money but it doesn't directly affect your bottom line. A lens might help me to capture a shot. Photoshop, sure I may save a shot but for what? a 4x6 print? 4x6 prints have no profit margins these days.

 

I hate the ego that some people portray that you can't be a professional unless you use photoshop. Like its a freakin bible to photography. There are many other tools that do similar functions that are not GIMP and cost fractions less. AND can be used by professionals and amature/hobbiests alike.

 

I love the arguments too...well if you buy elements at $99 and then upgrade to PS CS2 you can get it for $399....if I had $500 right now I'd use said money for something valuable not just because. I already have a copy of photoshop and I don't use it much. I chose NOT to use it, not because I don't know how. I've done things that amazed me in photoshop, things that I never knew you could do digitally. PS goes way beyond photography and in my opinion its too much tool for the average hobbiest.

 

My workflow has been developing contrary to PS - using Capture 1 to do almost all aspects of post processing. I'm happy with it and my customers are happy with me. I have no need to drop $800 on software so I can be called a professional by peers. No thanks. Its like studio lights - if you buy cheap you're not a pro...if you drop $2000 per light we might consider it. whatever.

 

I'm not a pro photographer, I just like the lifestyle.

Now I don't go through the posted images and rate them, its not my style...if I do I could care less how or what you did to post process it or what tools you used to do it. Ultimately is it aesthetically pleasing?

 

 

Yes I realize using something and not liking it makes me a hypocrite - get over it. Sorry for the ego - just got myself worked up on this. PS is not IT.

while it is possible to shoot in BW, the camera is doing essentially what you would be doing. When I know I want to make a shot BW I shoot in color, usually raw, and using photoshop I've found different approaches have different results. I never use the Image/Mode/BW but usually start with just one of the channels, the one which gives me the look I want. I'll delete the other 2 channels and then convert the single channel image to BW and then RGB. Another approach is to use photoshop and remove the saturation. Just doing a convert never really made me happy but with DSLR I've always felt its best to get as much information when I'm out shooting and then using post processing to achieve the results I want.

 

I've learned most people that want to shoot BW with a DSLR want to approximate a BW film they are used to and Digital isn't like that. There are tools and filters to approximate certain films but just doing a straight conversion either in camera or using photoshop isn't going to do it alone.

 

When you set a Canon DSLR to BW it simply drops the color information pretty much the same as photoshop Image/mode/BW will do. Playing around with an image IMO is always best to get the emotion you want. Selecting BW in the in-camera filters isn't going to adjust exposure levels or anything just because you want it to be BW. The camera still takes a color picture and the processes it according to the in-camera settings you choose. BW, Sepia, etc. Thats all done after the picture is taken, learning to do it yourself is better I think.

Not sure how to do this on the G6 but the 10D can do this. Take a shot of just the ice. No red lines, blue lines, skaters, nothing but ice. Then set your 10D (or G6, the manual should say how) to custom white balance and select that 1 shot for the white balance. All subsequent shots should be "acceptable" and you shouldn't need a flash at all.

 

Changing positions or ice sheets you should re-adjust your custom white balance each time. I've talked to TV camera guys that do the NHL games and they say they are constantly adjusting their white balance. Now an NHL rink is going to be lit differently than your hometown rink but the same rules can apply.

 

The problem in shooting ice hockey is the camera 'sees' an oversaturation of white and with poor sodium lighting it tries to compensate. Another option would be to get an 18% grey card and shoot that but those cost money and the ice is right there and lit too. A final thought, I know little about the G6 I'm assuming its a Point & Shoot? If so its ISO is limited to 400 and most all hockey photos are at 800 or above with an aperture of f/2.8. Good luck with the P&S.

The meat of your question, how important is IS, I think has been glossed a bit. Those who have it usually love it or because of the weight leave it at home which are both fair opinions. I think it all comes down to what you intend to shoot and how you intend to shoot it.

 

If you're shooting football and softball games of your kids then the f/4 version would be just fine until a nice dark cloud rolled over. The f/2.8 non-IS would be fine with the dark cloud overhead. Now if you want to move indoors for volleyball or hockey then there are other issues. Most auditoriums are poorly lit, won't allow flash and IS can come in very handy if you try to hand-hold and shoot. White balance is also critical in those environments. Portraits, street, or glamour shots all work well with this lens provided you can take 2-3 extra steps BACK. I've read some posts where people gawk at the idea of using this as a street lens. Well I've done it and it worked out very well. Sure some people saw me but the ones I am photo'ing usually don't.

 

If you are shooting in full auto or the "Creative Modes" on the 20D then you're limiting yourself IMO. Shooting Av or Tv or even M should help you to capture more shots. When I shoot hockey I'll set to Av and force my aperture to f/2.8. If there's enough lighting I don't even need IS but its on anyway and I can even shoot with my ISO as low as 400 in some rinks.

 

So to answer your question How important is IS? well it depends really. I tend to stay away from consumer grade lenses ever since I bought my 70-200 IS. I've been impressed with it and use it for almost everything. I have lighter, cheaper lenses but unless I need wide angle I mostly don't use them and the 70-200 lives on my 20D body all the time. If I whine about the weight then I have a monopod to put it on and I don't lose my mobility. My next lens will probably be the 85mm f/1.8L as I've found that MOST of my sports shots are right in the 85mm range. Plus the lower aperture, its a prime, I should get some awesome shots with it. Good luck!

 

A

My 20D did the same thing about 3 times. I didn't know why it was doing that but after the 3rd time it worked and loaded. I don't recall but I think I reset the camera by removing the battery for a bit then perform the upgrade as the instructions outline. Once I did that it loaded just fine and I've had no issues since.

get off of 'sports' mode. The creative modes are limiting. I shoot night time sports with ISO 800-1600 with the 70-200 2.8. I shoot on Av or Tv mode only and force aperture f2.8 to freeze the action better. I find the camera's sensors may choose an aperture higher than 2.8 which slows the shutter speed down. The camera doesn't know football from turkey. Automatic modes are very very limiting.

 

ISO - 800-1600 (3200 is available but not necessary and not avail in creative modes

Aperture - f/2.8 (if you can go lower like someone recommended a faster prime thats good too)

Shutter - needs to be about 1/250 or faster to stop the action

multi-shot & Servo-AF for focus.

 

Finally - a little bit of blur is ok, it suggests that it wasn't a posed shot or a standing still shot. Depending on what you're shooting you may also need to pan the camera a bit while shooting. I find I shoot in 3 frame bursts, the 1st frame is usually the worst and the 2nd and 3rd frames are the clearest.<div></div>

I agree with Bob only you can say if there will be an improvement in quality. That being said I also think too many people put way too much into the numbers. In my experience and opinion my 70-200 IS on my 20D is just that a 70-200. It isn't "like" a 105-320 to me its a 70-200 with not all the info or data I'd have if I had a full frame camera. Its not extending my lens so much as removing or cropping the image. Thats just my opinion and is only based on my usage no technical data.

 

Prior to purchasing the 70-200 all I had were consumer grade lenses, the 75-300 (non IS) and the like. Not much selection. After saving up the money for the IS version of 70-200 I took 1 simple picture of a slow-children playing sign and I was amazed at the clarity, quality, and sharpness with NO post processing. The lens in general blew me away. I have a friend the purchased the 100-400 and I didn't like the push/pull zoom at all. Not because of dust or the vacuum like features but because its contrary to every lens I've ever used.

 

I find that my lens preference is not only based on optical quality and results but also aesthetics. How I use the tool is just as important. Is the 70-200 a good lens? I think its great and it lives on my 20D. I have 2 other lenses right now and I don't use them much a 50mm and a 17-35mm. I love that 70-200.

 

But what you shoot is just as important, I find that knowing what I want to shoot and how I want to shoot it can sway my decision on lens purchase greatly. One trip or vacation isn't enough. I use the 70-200 for sports indoor and outdoor, people, street, and nature photography. I use it for most everything. I can drop down to f/2.8 and up to f/32 if I desire. It is my most flexible tool in photography and my tool of choice.

 

Good luck

I think it depends. Either camera is a good choice. IMO you can learn to take pictures without a flash regardless of camera, it all comes down to how you set it up. For indoor/gym I'd recommend an f/2.8 lens at least. Basketball I'd probably shoot with an 85mm or 50mm and not a zoom but it all depends on where you position yourself. If zoom is a must then 70-200f/2.8L is a great choice. IS or not is a personal decision.

 

Both cameras have servo-AF for tracking a subject when focused which is key, learn to set your white balance correctly and you can setup either camera. Personally I shoot Av or aperture priority and force aperture to 2.8 for the action shots. For non-action shots I'll increase as needed and shoot full manual.

 

I think as far as which camera you need to decide that, go to a store that has both, hold them both shoot some frames with them both. If possible find a store that will rent either camera to you for a day and give it a try. I've found that with electronics especially its best to play around with them. Sometimes the menus, buttons, and layout just doesn't make sense to me and in a crunch I want to perform a step without thinking. I like the 20D because I can set my aperture with the dial on the back of the body and shutter with the index wheel. I can set a custom function so that focus is via the AE lock button instead of the shutter button and track a subject without accidentally shooting. The 350 may have that custom function but it may not I don't know.

for some reason consumers today think the LCD screen is far more important than anything else on the camera. I don't even use mine but once in a while.

 

now if ya find a way to prevent dust from landing on the sensor for $20 I'm in. Not looking for a blower or brush to clean it but a way to keep it from going there in the first place...oh well here's to hoping.

I don't possess PS-CS only a really old version of PS which is fine for me. As an amature I can't justify the $800 cost of PS or even the $500 cost of Phase 1/C1. The poor mans version of Adobe didn't cut it either. I'm used to certain tools that weren't there. What I want(ed) was a tool for workflow that I could do everything in. Phase one comes close. One thing I haven't learned is how to resize an image in Phase one. I'll get there but for all other aspects its really done the trick.

 

I'm happy and for $99 I don't need 9 tools to do one part of post processing each.

iMatch photo tools. A very nice database, basic or simple raw conversion but I use Capture one for converting anyway so I don't worry about that aspect.

I'm not sure I follow this. Yes you could go to great time and effort to setup your 20D to digitally capture a slide but how would that be quicker than scanning them? The effort to setup a light box, purchase additional hardware or lenses, and the time to take a bunch of pictures and then the post processing side of that having to crop them down, if you shoot raw adjusting them, etc.

 

I would suspect the reason you didn't get enough helpful answers is this seems a very difficult way to accomplish something. Can it be done? yes will the results be acceptable? Yes. But if you don't have the time and patience to do this on a scanner, the setup alone with the 20D would be tedious. Achieving focus on each slide could take time and if you try the remote capture functions then you're looking at about 1+ minutes per slide just in capture and another few minutes to capture another one. Slide scanners I thought were able to batch scan a group of slides. That may not be the case on inexpensive ones but I've never worked with one.

 

It sounds to me like this would be a very time consuming method to scan a bunch of slides. Like using a spoon to move an anthill. It can be done but there are better tools that will help with the process not just the quality.

Film is evil, Film is bad. How can you use that archaic stuff? ewww!

 

Ok I got it out of my system. I feel slightly better.

 

As far as I'm concerned if someone wants to shoot film, MF, LF, P&S, Digital - let 'em I don't really care. I know what works for me and I also know that what works for me probably won't work for many other people. So I'm not gonna try to convert you, what works for you works for you.

 

As for future proofing your environment be it film scanned into a computer or digital SLR many people seem highly concerned that they will want to pull an image out from 20years past. Then the typical 5 1/4" floppy drive analogies fly as well as others. Its all kinda funny to watch. Here's the scoop. If you happen to have a 5 1/4" floppy drive or an 8" drive most likely it will still work. Just because the technology is obsolete doesn't mean that the drive broke and stopped working. Computers still use the same cables for 3.5" floppy drives that we used on 5 1/4" floppy drives. Old record players still work when connected to your new stereo and you find an appropriate needle. (ah but thats the trick)

 

If we suddenly popped 20 years into the future sure we'd have problems of compatibility with file types, new technology, etc. However we have 20 years to evolve into whatever new concepts in storage, file types, software, and new photography developments etc. You'll be shooting and scanning or downloading images from your current stuff and then someone like Adobe or an unknown manufacturer will come up with a new twist, like JPG2000. Its here today, its a standard. Why isn't it widely used yet? New tech takes time to filter in and be accepted. Betamax wasn't widely accepted (yer stuck if you still have one too) once that new format or new backup device is commercially available and accepted you'll be eager to start moving all of your digital files to that new format.

 

Don't believe me? The Record industry is panicking because CD sales have slumped so far down from record levels the last 20 years and they blame 80% of it on file swapping. Sure if you step into any college in the US you'll find a significant amount of music file swapping. However the record industry's numbers didn't break out how many people were re-purchasing music they already had to get it on the new format. Once we all had the music we wanted in CD format we stopped buying it. Their numbers slumped. If a new music format came out today (MP3) you can bet that everyone will want to migrate their music to that format. Oh yeah that just happened. But the record industry fought it tooth and nail and lost out on any significant profits they could have made.

 

Don't try to guess what will happen in the next 20 years, you'll only hurt yourself. You'll migrate to the new tech and new formats or you'll stay right where you are and be happy with it. Unfortunately there is no equal to a slide or negative in the digital world. Technically speaking a negative is permenant. Nothing is permenant or even remotely real in digital. Its all a bunch of 1's and 0's. Oops, I hit delete...rats.

So many good answers I'm kinda nervous to comment...I like the picture and Edwards answer was phenominal. Composition really does make the scene. However once it is composed eliminating that washed out look might help. I would try to under expose by 2/3 or a full stop. I almost always underexpose by 1/3 or more its a habit for me now. It may give you some more latitude in post processing too. Check out Capture One also. I've recovered images shot in raw with that that I thought were gone. There is a trial version so you can just check it out and try the Compensation sliders for exposure, contrast, and color compensation.

 

Just my .02

I would strongly suggest moving off of the automatic modes. Though I don't know if I'll convince you. I shoot all sports pretty much the same, indoor/outdoor/day/night. I usually only change my ISO as necessary but try really hard not to exceed ISO800.

 

Camera setup - 20D and 70-200 f/2.8L IS. Av or Tv mode, Servo-AF, and ISO to suit lighting. Essentially I put the camera into Av or aperture priority and force my aperture at f/2.8. While this gives me a very narrow depth of field, usually in sports you want that to isolate the subject from backgrounds etc. Then I adjust my ISO to hit shutter speeds of 1/200 and up. If I can bring my ISO down to 800 or even 400 then I'm a very happy camper. Servo AF allows the 20D to track a moving subject (kind of) and is probably key to your focus issues. You no longer get a beep that the subject is in focus but the camera does track. In Servo-AI the 20D guesses between modes. Finally, White balance and exposure compensation. Depending on what I'm shooting I may need a custom white balance or exposure compensation. Its difficult for me to explain exposure compensation as I don't totally understand it myself. I tend to think of it as being similar to the push or pull capability we had with film and thats not really accurate.

 

I do hope some of this helps or makes sense and good luck!

A couple of things I'd like to add, for most of my sports shots I find the lens is between 85mm and 135mm and occasionally at 200mm. The 70-200 fits those ranges perfectly.

 

Another thing thats important, especially with indoor activities I noticed someone had mentioned ISO 1600 and lucky to achieve 1/125 shutter speed. Even w/o IS I'm able to hit 1/250 or faster indoors and that comes down to how you setup the camera. I shoot ice hockey in aperture priorty (Av) f/2.8 and I set a custom white balance off the ice. Not using a flash I'm able to freeze the action on the ice from 1/200 to 1/500 sometimes depending on available light and if I use exposure compensation as well.

 

Set a custom white balance by taking a single shot of the ice and set white balance to custom. Then in the 20D menus choose custom white balance/shot and chose the pic of the ice. You can do the same with an 18% grey card but the ice is there already and under the lights. Indoor basketball or volleyball I'd use a grey card on the court before the game if I could.

 

Good luck!

A few years ago a friend purchased the 100-400 and I really didn't like the push-pull but I didn't have an opportunity to use the lens. I chose the 70-200 IS over that because I knew I wanted to shoot indoor sports which f/2.8 was almost a requirement. Its a tough choice but I'm happy with my decision.

I agree that post production work shouldn't be laborious or labor intensive. I can understand that if it seems that it is labor intensive that someone might not enjoy doing it. However I have to admit some really cool things can be done that do take time.

 

I've seen threads on here and the film types just can't wait to get their film back, they're bubbling over with anticipation they are so excited. For me when I tried film a dozen years ago I couldn't stand waiting for processing (nor could I afford it) it irritated the hell out of me so I never progressed byeond to a darkroom and left photography behind. Today I can use it as stress management and I enjoy it as a hobby thanks to dSLRs.

 

I try to keep my post production work down to 5 minutes per shot. Usually I just tweak here and there. C1 from phase one is really good at showing me real time sliders. Photoshop, well I'm starting to fight the interface in PS. I just want to cycle through my shots, tweak, crop if I choose to, and process. Capture one has a really nice batch interface for me to do that.

 

So yes to each his own, if someone wants to spend hours on a single shot (and I know people that have done that) let 'em. In my opinion it isn't going to make me more money if I spend 5 minutes or 5 hours 'tweaking' a shot in post production.

Capture one from Phase one does everything I need. I have a home built P4 with 2G of memory so speed isn't much of an issue but it still takes time. I can crop, edit, convert, batch-process and each file in the batch can be processed differently. I like how Capture 1 has sliders that show in real time the raw conversion so I can get what I like. Including sharpening and exposure corrections. I'm not a big fan of Photoshop - its too much for an amature photographer and too expensive. I'd rather drop $800 on a new L lens than photoshop.