The official announcement is HERE, and here is what it says, in case you don’t want to click:

Thank you for using Canon products.We have learned that some users of the Canon EOS 5D Mark II digital SLR camera are experiencing issues with Firmware Update Version 2.0.3.

We are working on a new firmware update to address these phenomena, which will be available soon. If you have not registered your EOS 5D Mark II, please register so we will be able to notify you via e-mail when future firmware updates become available for download.

Canon always strives to provide the highest quality products to our customers. We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience these phenomena may have caused. We appreciate your kind patronage and support.

More after the jump

Users at the Fred Miranda site have mentioned bugs with the audio. No clue as to the validity of this, but I would stay away from this update if possible. If you already updated, and haven’t had issues, then consider yourself lucky. If you have had audio issues, but they’re not deal breakers, you may consider sticking with this firmware.

Some users have also mentioned lock ups and dead cameras, but nothing has been mentioned specifically by Canon. So, ya, I would stay away from the update right now. I’d also be wary of the next update until enough people take that leap of faith.

Canon really needs to start considering a better quality control process. It’s obvious they’re trying to progress as quickly as possible, but they risk losing the faith of long time users, especially after the 1D III debacle. While they may be somewhat behind Nikon in the high ISO war, Canon has had the upper hand with video, having 1080P video, 60fps 720P video, and a slew of cameras that can do video, from the 1D IV to the Rebel T1i. So they should really nurture that advantage by taking care of their customers and thoroughly testing anything they release.

As always, feel free to comment. I’ve already received a few messages regarding 1080p video and other subjects around the 5D II. I’m glad to answer as best I can.

For the first time, Canon didn’t just tweak the settings on a camera with a firmware update, they actually enhanced the camera. But after updating the 5D II to allow manual exposure, they still had a lot to do. And today, finally, it seems they’ve done it.

So what’s the big deal with the new firmware? Hit the jump to get a simple explanation of frame rates and audio samples, as well as the complete list of firmware changes. But if that sounds all too boring, feel free to just click here (scroll down, hit “I Agree”) to get the firmware and be on your merry way!

First, a list of the changes, and while it’s only a list of six, they are huge:

Firmware Version 2.0.3 incorporates five enhancements to the movie function and a fix to the manual sensor cleaning function of the EOS 5D Mark II camera.

1. Adds or changes the following movie frame rates.
   • 1920×1080 : 30 fps (changed – actual 29.97 fps)
   • 1920×1080 : 24 fps (added – actual 23.976 fps)
   • 640×480 : 30 fps (changed – actual 29.97 fps)
   • 1920×1080 : 25 fps (added – actual 25.0 fps)
   • 1920×1080 : 24 fps (added – actual 23.976 fps)
   • 640×480 : 25 fps (added – actual 25.0 fps)

NTSC: PAL:

2. Adds a function for manually adjusting the sound recording level (64 levels).
3. Adds a histogram display (brightness or RGB) for shooting movies in manual exposure.
4. Adds shutter-priority AE mode (Tv) and aperture-priority AE (Av) mode to the exposure modes for shooting movies.
5. Changes the audio sampling frequency from 44.1 KHz to 48 KHz.
6. Fixes a phenomenon where communication between the camera and the attached lens is sometimes interrupted after manual sensor cleaning. (This phenomenon only affects units with Firmware Version 1.2.4.)

Next up, What’s the deal with all those frame rates?

It’s all about standards. NTSC is the standard used for broadcast across most continents (PAL being the other standard). It’s also the standard used for DVD’s and Blu-Ray discs. And the players. And the standards for most editing programs that create those DVD’s and Blu-Ray discs. Basically, to not adhere to NTSC (or PAL) standards, is to ask for a whole lot of work just to get your video to work within those standards. So what are those standards . . .

29.97 fps for video, and 48Khz for audio. Which means every time you used a 5D, you had to resample that video and upsample the audio to match the standards. And that resampling was not perfect. your audio might not match perfectly so it would get slowed down (albeit by .1%, but still). And that audio, 44.1khz on the 5D II, is a great standard . . . for CD’s. But video has required 48khz for over a decade (maybe two. When did DVD’s come out again?)

Sure, the 7D and now 1D IV offer all these features. But neither has the one killer feature that made the 5D II such an attractive camera despite all those issues.

Being a full frame sensor, the 5D could really simulate the “film look” in video, which is a mix of that shallow depth of field (check), and the old film speed of 24fps (d’oh!). Which is funny because we were just talking about the NTSC standard of 29.97, and here I am harking for 24fps. Well, actually, since the beginning of film to tv and dvd conversion, a process called telecine has been used to turn 24fps film into a compatible 29.97fps video. After a while, they decided to make it easier by switching that standard to 23.976 (which is a perfect 4/5 of 29.97 and therefore easier to work with).

So, back to the point: Canon, with this firmware, has made the 5D II compatible with the NTSC standards, 29.97 and 23.976 fps, with 48khz audio.

On top of that, they added a few nice features, like allowing 64 levels of audio recording. Previously this was automatic, which meant you couldn’t really capture consistent sound levels, and without sound, your video is basically pre-talkie.

The histogram feature for video is also nice to have, as it lets you see exactly what the camera is capturing, rather than relying on the back of the screen (which may all well be fine, but isn’t very scientific at all).

All in all, this is a great step forward for Canon. Their support for an older camera shows that they are listening to their current user base, and attracting new users, all without forcing users to buy a new camera, and without having to release another new camera.

Here’s how important this is to me: I’m currently a Nikon user, and formerly a Canon user. I still have the equipment, but haven’t used it much (except for remotes). I own a D3s, and love it. It also does video, and also has a full frame sensor, but it suffers from some of the same issues as the 5D II. Only 24fps, not 23.976 or 29.97. Oh and it’s 720p, rather than full 1080p (so 2004). I even bought a 7D, figuring it had everything I needed (except that full frame sensor). Hated it. Sold it 3 days later (at cost, so no loss to me). Figured after that, I wouldn’t really dabble in Canon for a while, using my remaining equipment as alternate and remote gear.

But now? that 5D II really has me considering a purchase. Nikon, the ball is in your court. Better step up that video game.

BTW, if you need more details on anything I said, I will gladly elaborate on anything asked in comments, via meebo, email, phone, smoke signal, morse code. You send the message, I’ll be there to answer it. I understand some of the standards I mentioned above might be confusing. It’s confusing to me, and I’m a video guy, having worked at a TV station as a broadcast graphic designer. You’d think this stuff would just make sense to me, but it has me shaking my head from time to time. BTW, you think this is bad? Ask me why TV’s were 4:3 standard forever, but DVD’s were 720×480 (a 2:3 ratio), yet fit perfectly. Damn engineers.

Goodnight!

It sounds good. But so did the 1D III, which hasn’t faired so well for Canon.

Continue after the jump, and you’ll get some links to more info and specs, including some videos on the 1D (boring, except for the fact that you might recognize the host if you were at all interesting in throwing a Microsoft Windows 7 party. That’s right. . . a party for an operating system), and more importantly a video made with the 1D.

And of course you can find all this on the net. Most likely you will find them before you find me. But if you found me, you’ll also get my take on both camera systems. Of course, all this is speculative since I don’t own either of the new cameras, just a few of the older 1D III’s and D3′s.

More after the jump (and I mean a lot more. I wrote way too much).

First, the bad. Canon has two videos on the 1D IV image quality and Autofocus, both found on the Canon Digital Learning Center Site. But if you have a second, check out the Windows 7 Party videos. The same guy is the host here. Epic Fail, Canon.

But Canon was smart enough to get Vincent Laforet (of Reverie fame) a few 1D IV’s, and he put out another video to intro the camera: Nocturne. Enjoy. Did you notice (if you clicked) that the Digital Learning Center Site looks a little unfinished? No clue why, but that’s weird. Anyhow, their Canon USA site looks complete. Check it out for more info. And of course, Rob Galbraith breaks the announcement with a few pages, images, specs, and other information. In fact, I don’t buy anything except as a rumor until he announces it as real.

So, looking at the specs and features, you can see that Canon really tried to match or surpass Nikon, offering the same or better feature set with more megapixels, and even a better MSRP (4999 vs 5199). On paper at least, the horse race is very even. But as I said before, the ID III was also impressive when the specs came out (remember, at the time the D3 was months away, and Canon was handily beating them on high ISO image quality), and really put the screws to Nikon. Once it came out however, the technical marvel of the 1D III was overshadowed heavily by reports of less than stellar autofocus. And then Nikon came out with the D3. And slowly but surely, we saw photographers switching from Canon to Nikon.

So in announcing the 1D IV right on the heels of the D3s, Canon is trying to keep up, and perhaps regain some users back. While announcing quickly so as to avoid losing more users was a smart move, their efforts to announce seem hurried. And the biggest problem I have with them? They never admitted problems with the 1D III, so they’re not endorsing their 1D IV as anything other than having “improved AF”. So it’s definitely buyer beware if you want to get a 1D IV.

All that aside, I have an interesting choice to make. I can go either way and get tremendous ISO performance, HD video (24fps 720p with an awesome full frame sensor, or 30fps 1080p video with a sorta awesome 1.3x crop sensor), and a big file, which honestly, after 10 or so mp, was more than enough since I don’t shoot panoramic landscapes or anything. But what about the intricacies of each camera, and their detailed feature set. They do things differently, and so you have to pick a side.

If my main interest was 1080P video, then the 1D IV really makes a statement. It’s not the full frame sensor of the 5D, but the high bitrate and quality of the image is insane. If I need video but it doesn’t have to be anything more than 720P, then the D3s and it’s full frame sensor would give you that awesome cinematic DOF that people loved so much about the 5D II.

That full frame sensor is so hard not to love. The D3s has it, and it’s very much like the old high speed film cameras, which is why so many people loved the D3 when it came out. If you want full frame, you just want it, and the D3s makes sense. Of course, if you need the reach of a crop sensor camera, that 1D IV turns your 300 or 400 mm lenses into 390 and 520mm lenses, which helps on the various large fields of play, or for wildlife shooters.

Nikon certainly had the advantage when it came to flash. Even when Canon was trouncing them in high ISO image quality, Nikons iTTL was remarkably better than Canon’s eTTL (and eTTL II). But with ISO 12,800, is that going to matter as much anymore? Well of course, but it just won’t be as necessary in low light situations. You’ll still want it for creative purposes, and in that case, Nikon still has the edge.

Nikon seems to like making a button for everything. Everything. The D3 has buttons to change the usual shutter speed, aperture, and ISO. But they also have buttons to change the sensor crop, white balance, image quality, autofocus mode, bracketing, image exposure mode, etc. It’s awesome if you want access to the most used features quickly, but it can be overwhelming. Canon makes a cleaner camera, with less buttons, each having multiple screens for features. It’s interesting, but sometimes the most important features are often buried in menus. You can create your own menu, which is great, but it does take time to do that. Honestly, I prefer the buttons, but I wouldn’t sacrifice image quality over it. It’s a push if you ask me.

Optics are very important. Nikon has the advantage of something like 50-80 years of lenses being compatible to some degree with all their cameras. This means you can pick up good glass for cheap, if you’re willing to shoot manual focus and exposure. This is great if you’re setting up remotes. With Canon, their old FD mount lenses won’t work without an adapter that is not sold anymore. Is this a big deal? That’s your call. But I had to mention it.

Current lens lineup? Canon has more primes available. 24 1.4, 35 1.4, 85 1.2. Can you live without those? No? Well you know your answer. But Nikon seems to excel at making zooms. the 14-24 2.8 image quality can’t be explained. You just have to see it for yourself. Their 24-70 and 70-200 are both excellent. Nikon also makes the 200-400 4, a zoom Canon has no answer for. In daylight, attached to a D300, it’s a 300-600mm effective lens, and very sharp. Put it on a D3 and you get a very usable 200-400mm range for most sports. Both have the usual assortment of super telephotos. 200 2, 300 2.8, 400 2.8, 500 4, and 600 4. But Nikons telephotos are much more expensive. However they do have a 5 year warranty, vs Canons 1 year.

VR vs IS. Under normal circumstances, I prefer IS. VR seems jumpier to me, and doesn’t always seem to engage. Both have standard modes where you shoot at a low shutter while not moving. Canon’s second mode only inhibits camera shake across one plane, thereby allowing you to improve panning shots. While I don’t do these a lot, it’s a common technique for sports photographers. Nikon’s second mode is for shooting from a vehicle while trying to maintain a low shutter. If you’re on safari, awesome. Otherwise, when could you use this?Aside from that, like I said, I really do prefer IS to VR. Canon’s been at it longer, so I sorta expect them to be better at it.

Image quality. Nikon is amazing at high ISO, but Canon is no slouch. And Canon can go down to ISO 100 normally, and seems to have amazing quality in detail at those ISO’s compared to Nikons files. It’s not that the D3 files aren’t any good, they’re just not as crisp. If you shoot a lot of daylight work, there’s something to a Canon image. But if you shoot in poorly lit environments, the D3 really had no equal. The ID III was good, but the D3 was just better. This may even out with the newer cameras matching at high ISO, but until I shoot some samples, I can’t say.

AF. As I said before, the 1D III has had consistency issues with it’s AF. If this weren’t true, I probably never would have considered shooting Nikon. Even now, having both, I have to say the Canon AF is faster, but wilder. The Nikon AF is much more deliberate, so it’s slower, but once it pegs its mark, it sticks to it. The 1D III is always thinking, perhaps too much, so it finds initial focus amazingly fast. After that, it’s a crapshoot. The D3 is funny, in that if it can’t find focus, it will sometimes get stuck hunting. I’ve often had to “reset it” by focusing on something very close or very far to quickly start it up again. Hard to explain but if you have a D3 you might know what I mean. Still, it’s been much more consistent and that’s very important. Enough so that I don’t know what to think of the improved 1D IV autofocus. I want it to work. I want it to be excellent. But I just don’t know, and until I use one, I won’t know.

Overall, I have to say that it all depends on the 1D IV autofocus. If it’s as inconsistent as the III, then I can’t imagine people jumping into it, and more people will switch over to Nikon. But if you held out, and waited for the IV, and it comes through, there’s no point in switching (unless you really want full frame and high fps).

And one last note: I can’t wait to see what’s going to happen in the prosumer range. The improvements on both sides will trickle down to the smaller cameras, and soon we’ll have these cameras, like a 60D or a D400 that will be able to shoot ISO 3200 that looks like ISO 800. If you’re shooting in reasonable lighting a lot, it almost makes sense to see this new technology trickle down, and rather than get 1 1D IV or D3s, get 2 or 3 of these other cameras, and have a more complete kit for the same price.

Amazing. I still remember when I had a 1D and thought it was amazing that I could shoot 4mp at 8fps with ISO 1600. I still miss the file from that camera. 4 meg RAW files are so easy to deal with.

So, now that this all came out in 2009 instead of 2010, I can’t wait to see what happens in 2011.

Comments, questions? Feel free to reply or email me.

Generally speaking, after a few games, you get a feel for the style of the team (if they have one) and the tendencies, both good and bad. Understanding the team allows us a better opportunity to catch moments, and make some nice photos.

For example, I’m sure that Diana Taurasi has a chip on her shoulder. Was it from not making the playoffs last year? Does she see that perhaps this team has the talent to go far, and wants to display a level of intensity as a standard for her team? I don’t know what the answer is, but I like it so far. Every game has had her reacting to foul calls and non-calls. Every game, she’s been playing very aggressively (which may explain the fouls). I wouldn’t be surprised if she ends up MVP and leads the league in technicals.

So what else am I noticing two weeks into the season? More after the jump.

Dewanna Bonner. She’s actually ranked as the top rookie pick in the league. While she doesn’t have a polished skill set, she’s a very talented player, and plays hard. You can teach skills, but talent and heart are hard to come by. Photographically, I find it difficult to get a nice shot of her on offense. Rebounds? Defense? No problem. But a sweet jumper or play at the basket? Nothing that looks good. Hoping she cleans up her post game.

Temeka Johnson is a great fit for the Mercury. She’s tiny, but she really pushes the offense, allowing the offense to run at a high tempo (the Mercury are leading the league in points per game, and already set a single game record). She’s fearless and scrappy. I like seeing her slashing against obviously larger players without doubt, and on defense, she’s very scrappy (even if it does look funny when she covers a player a foot taller). I could use a good scrum image of her, maybe a loose ball dive. She’s already dove into the stands a few times. At least the fans won’t need to worry as much as when Shaq is on the rampage.

There’s a lot more I could cover, but I’ll save that for later in the season. Needless to say, it seems like the Mercury have the right mix of longtime players, veterans, and a rookie. As the season goes on, I’ll keep looking for tendencies and try to work with them to come up with the right images.

Lastly, I’ve now switched my image gallery over to Photoshelter’s own gallery feature. I even mentioned it last year in a quick update post, but hadn’t really used it for more than archived images. The gallery is listed below, can be displayed in fullscreen, and works in slideshow format. And all I had to do was upload the images. If anyone is really interested in Photoshelter, I’ll be glad to answer any questions about it, and even have a discount code for anyone really interested.

As always, comments and questions are more than welcome.

WNBA: Minnesota Lynx at Phoenix Mercury – Images by Max Simbron

Despite the shooting woes, Diana contributed in other ways, grabbing five boards and five assists, as well as two steals and two blocks, rounding out her stats.

When one of the bigger names on the team is having an off game, or even the entire team seems to be in a funk, what do you do? I mean, you gotta show something for being there. So what do you do? Just like players can contribute in other manners, we can look for something other than the usual “player driving to basket” shots.

Read on to for more pics, a gallery, and the type of shots I look for besides the usual peak action.

If you can’t already tell, Diana, or the team for that matter, wasn’t too thrilled with the officiating. So I went for shots that represented that frustration. To be honest, it’s fairly easy to catch those shots, if you know to look for them. Let me explain.

I usually try to shoot a player as they drive or take a shot at the basket, then switch over to the paint, looking for rebounds and hustle plays. When I see that a player is frustrated though, I stick with them. They missed, but maybe they felt they were fouled. They feel sleighted, like the officials aren’t calling anything in their favor. So I wait for it. And it happens. For some players, it’s a rare outburst (like Grant Hill), and for others, it’s as common as breathing (Rasheed Wallace). But you can see it build. So wait for it. It will happen. And tonight, it happened a lot. Enough so that I got every combination of frustration (single player, team, coach, ref, and every combination of those). Just check the gallery.

Besides that, I try to get hustle plays, like a loose ball dive, known to many as the scrum. For those, I’ll usually keep on the defender instead of the ballhandler, waiting for them to make their move. Again, it’s a matter of patience. You might miss a great pass or cut for an easy score, but those happen so often (I mean, it’s the point of the game). So you stick on the defender. And wait. Eventually, something happens. And you get it.

Yes, sometimes you get lucky. A great shot happens right where you were, and it’s awesome. But if you want to make it happen again, you need to anticipate. Learn the mannerisms of the players, the style of the team, get a general feel for the vibe of the game. If you do that, you’ll see that every sport has more than just peak action, and getting those different images is what rounds out the body of your work.

Gallery link is below. As always, comments are welcome.

New York Liberty at Phoenix Mercury

Another season of the WNBA season began on Saturday. The Silver Stars came into town, a strong contender after making it into the finals last year (only to be defeated by the Shock). So to kick it off, I tried to get a little bit of everything. I won’t necessarily start backwards, but if you look at the starting image, I’m pretty sure you can tell who won and who lost given Becky Hammon’s expression. Most people like jube shots, I prefer dejection.

So, what else do I try to get when a new season starts? Read on to find out.To start, I try to get a few of the new players on the team, hoping to get them in action, and hoping that they offer some emotion. Temeka Johnson, is the new veteran point guard, coming over from LA. She’s pretty gritty, and I liked the way she played, like she had a chip on her shoulder because she was the shortest player on the court (even for the WNBA, 5’3″ is short). I also tried to get shots of Dewanna Bonner, the Mercury’s drafted rookie.

I like to get good shots of the new players, because this is the first game, and you will only have anything you get from that nights game. With some of the other players (Diana Taurasi, Cappie Pondexter, etc) you can always use a stock photo if necessary. Because of that, it’s important to try to get shots on both offense and defense, though you would lean more towards whatever they tend to do best (blocking shots, rebounding, shooting or slashing).

This year though, the Mercury struck up a deal with Lifelock, to feature their logo on the Mercury jerseys. How European. This means all those stock photos suddenly get dated. So you sorta have to get photos of each new player. But beyond that, it’s always good to look around and see what else has changed.

Sometimes it’s something related to the players or the teams, like the new players or the jerseys, a new team intro, etc. And sometimes it can be something that affects how you shoot, like the lighting being changed (usually for the worse), or something you did to change things, like a new lens or camera. That was the case with me.

This was my first WNBA game shooting Nikon. While I’ve been using Nikon for about 7 months now, I haven’t shot any WNBA games with it. And it was certainly different. A full frame camera really worked well up close during the NBA season, but even with a 70-200, I felt like I needed to shoot at the longer end to get the smaller WNBA players tight in the frame. And for farcourt, the 300 2.8 was pretty good for NBA games, but for the WNBA players, it would be like shooting with a 70-200 on my old Canon gear. So I went with a 200-400, stuck it at 400 most of the way, and felt it tightened up shots much better. And with the D3 being so good at high ISO, I had no problems shooting at ISO 4,000.

With my equipment figured out, an idea of the shots I wanted to get, and generally having checked and double checked everything I needed to, I could relax, and just have fun with the games and get my shots.

Like Diana Taurasi clotheslining someone. Maybe that’s a Phoenix thing (I totally miss Raja Bell. Always had a chip on his shoulder, and willing to chop, knock, or whack someone). I’m still missing some of her other moves. She has this spin move, where instead of using her elbow against your body and spinning off, she goes high and catches people in the neck area. Stuns them while she spins. It’s great.

Oh and and before I forget: I try to get a few shots of each coach. In both teams cases, the coaches were incumbents, but you still want to get a few shots. Shots of Corey weren’t too exciting, but Silver Stars coach Dan Hughes came through for me. Towards the end of the game, he really felt his players weren’t getting too many calls. Ranting, raving, and then a nice showdown with one of the refs.

I like the ranting and raving stuff, but the ref sold me on this one. He looks really thrilled to be having this conversation.

All in all, it was a good game. Even had a few shots of a halftime event where they had dog racing. I gotta admit, shooting dogs at full speed up close: damn near impossible. Which means I need to go find me some dog agility events and get my practice in.

More pictures in the gallery, available at:

San Antonio Silver Stars at Phoenix Mercury

As always, if you have any comments or questions, please feel free to write in or email me.

BTW, it’s good to be back. I’ll try to start blogging regularly again.

Next up, I thought I’d test out a photo gallery. Photoshelter has recently updated their site to offer Flash based photo galleries. I think it’s pretty cool because it’s so easy to set it up. In fact, it’s retroactive, so I can set up a Flash gallery for any galleries I’ve already made. Creating the gallery itself isn’t too hard either, but this has further motivated me. So, I’ll give it a test run after the jump.

Oh, and I’ve been playing with a few D3′s lately. I really like the cameras. I’ve gotten a lot of feedback from users over at the FredMiranda forum on a few posts about the D3 and my opinion on it. Link to that after the thread. It’s been a long couple of weeks. Preseason NBA, NCAA and high school football, even a local kids soccer game, plus other non sports shoots (wedding, and two schools) have kept very busy lately. It’s been great to be so busy, but it’s also been time consuming. And of course, it’s my favorite time of the year, with the NBA season finally starting. More after the jump!

So, while I’ve been a Photoshelter user for years, I really haven’t used all their features. Most of them, like prints, and FTP to clients, really don’t do much for me. But when I saw their customized page, and the fact that it takes a few clicks (literally), I was pretty happy. Then to see the new Flash galleries, and how easy it is to embed, I was hooked. So, aside from uploading to maintain a strict backup of my work, I’ll be able to quickly and easily create galleries. Here’s a quick jpeg of my customized page, and the page you get when you click on the gallery image. No Flash on this one, because I want to use those galleries for the blog, and keep the customzed page simple. Oh and here’s the link to my customized page.

I like it. Oh and here’s their Flash based gallery. I simply go to any of my galleries through my account, and hit embed gallery. I can preview the gallery, and then copy the code to embed. It even works fullscreen. Badass.

BTW, if you look at the gallery, most of those images, at least the frontcourt stuff, is shot with a D3 and 70-200 VR. As I’ve mentioned before, I’ve been trying them out for a while now, and I’m very impressed. I’m no scientist, and certainly there are better photographers out there who shoot Canon or Nikon. But, I do have my own opinion, and for what I shoot and how I shoot, I have to admit, I really like the D3, and Nikon’s zoom lenses. Actually, I really loved the 70-200 VR, but when comparing their other zooms, the 70-200 VR is the worst of the bunch (the vignetting is heavy, VR really seemed lackluster compared to IS). Canon’s 24-70 isn’t even close to Nikons. And the 14-24 is nothing short of amazing. I found it laughable to even try to compare it to the Canon 16-35.

Anyhow, I got into lengthy posts over on Fred Miranda. Feel free to read it. I’m still not sure if I’m going to post about this in the blog. I’m no expert, and I can’t possibly recite stats or pull data to prove anything I’ve said. I just know that I like the D3 and their zooms. So feel free to read it and come to your own conclusions. I’d be glad to try an answer any questions about the two systems.

Preseason NBA with the D3

It’s been a good while since I’ve shot boxing, and the scene in Phoenix, even Arizona, just isn’t as strong as it once was. I remember shooting the “retirement” fight for Julio Cesar Chavez (this was actually a tour, as he retired a few times), and even shooting the stunning upset of Sergei Liakhovich by Shannon Briggs, in the very last second of the very last round. The fights themselves weren’t amazing comparatively speaking when you consider the depth of boxing lore. But for a few fights, Phoenix was the place to be.

Back to the point: I love black and white boxing photos. You’re left with fighters and details when you remove the color. Tonality, the contrast of the image, works to great effect with a nice black and white conversion. A couple more photos, a small gallery, and an oldie but goodie link after the jump.

Because I hadn’t shot in so long, I tried to have fun with my shots. I tried using a fisheye, and like the effect with certain shots. In this one, the boxer on the floor is obviously in a bad way, and I like that you can see the other boxer, even if it’s a glove and some trunks. The distance, the expansive field of the ring, kinda makes the guy on the floor look lost.

I actually tried a few slow shutter shots, and I may post them sometime, but I just never got the boxers close enough and at the right speed to consider any of the images to have been properly executed, even though I consider it a small success. I say that because trying something different from the norm is always a good thing. Whether you got the idea from another picture, got bored and had a fisheye, or just hoped for the best, it’s good to try.

See, right here, I like the frame. I didn’t crop it much, so that I could get the full effect of the fisheye, but the guys look miles away. I actually like it more because of the judge in the back, looking intently. I sometimes wonder if they get surprised by a big punch.

Back to the point, AGAIN: Black and white. I’ve tried a lot of different black and white methods, but for the most part, I still stick with LAB mode black and white. Before I go to that, I’ll mention a few options, and my opinion on them.

First, the easiest method for Photoshop is the Desaturate command. This is the only time I’ll ever mention it. It’s that bad. Here’s why: If you took a bright red fire truck, and it was on top of the brightest, greenest grass you’ve ever seen, while the sky above was so blue you’d actually wonder what exactly you ate that you’re seeing a fire truck on a lawn, and then took all that and hit Desaturate, you know what you’d get? a boring barely above neutral truck, on a muddy looking lawn, with what looks almost like an overcast sky without clouds. It’s that bad.

Channel mixer is a pretty popular option, and with good reason. You can juggle the intensity of each channel, Red Green and Blue, to the overall mixture. That means you can select all, or most of one channel as the foundation for the whole black and white. It’s pretty cool, but I often end up with something that looks insane and unreal, or plain Jane average. Try it though, you may like it for your own work.

Lightroom has a nice Black and White tool. As with all their tools, the Tonal adjustment feature is a godsend. Simply select the image to be black and white, then pick areas of the image and click and hold with the mouse, moving up or down to brighten or darken areas. It’s almost like a cool version of paint by number. Like tone by number. I like it, but often the same ranges of color you want to drastically affect (say a background) ends up affecting something you didn’t want to touch (like a skin tone) and it goes awry. But it’s still cool.

Cool enough that Photoshop got it built into CS3, and it can be an adjustment layer as well (so can channel mixer, FYI). It’s about the same. Again, cool.

But my favorite method is still separating the Luminosity Channel (in LAB mode) and making it a new layer. This involves converting to LAB mode, copying the L channels, pasting it to a new layer, switching back to RGB mode, and so on. Of course, I have an action to do all this (even has a hotkey). From there, I tone the image, using Curves (you can use it as an adjustment layer) to do that.

I like it because it renders out a really nice range of tones. Curves accentuates that, to the point that you can get really inky black backgrounds with good tone on the fighters while the white of sweat/blood/anything shoots off a fighter as they catch a surprise hook/uppercut to the chest/face/groin.

So, here are the links. First up is my B/W tutorial. It mentions the conversion, has my Action Set link, and then also uses Curves.

PShizzy B/W Tutorial

If you don’t understand Curves very well, I also offer a Flash Video presentation on it:

Curves Flash Presentation

It goes through Curves in both Lightroom and Photoshop.

Finally, here’s a small gallery of the boxing images.

Showdown Promotions Boxing Night