|
I'm in the process of learning to shoot sports thanks to my job giving me the opportunity for field access at South Carolina football games. Needless to say, it's very difficult. This is using an old Nikon D40 my folks gave me along with a manual focus 100-300 telephoto lens. It's pretty much the only shot I was actually proud of from last Saturday. A good friend of mine actually brightened the photo a bit with Lightroom since the original shot was mega dark.
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 00:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 12:27 |
|
|
Here are some photos from my first attempt at sports photography with high school football. The visiting team beat the tar out of us, but we gave them some trouble when we could. We're in green.      
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 08:09
|
|
|
Gullous posted:One day I'll get a bazooka lens. I'd like to get a 70-200 and 2x next year. I understand you can get by with that. What actually works is the new Sigma 120-300. All the shots from the cup final are shot with the old one. That one is sharp, the new one is sharper. And it's not very expensive either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 10:57
|
|
|
Valdara posted:Here are some photos from my first attempt at sports photography with high school football. The visiting team beat the tar out of us, but we gave them some trouble when we could. We're in green. Get lower, shoot from a kneeling position. Improves the perspective on the players and the backgrounds.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 11:16
|
|
|
I shot some derby this weekend. JSRG 2013 Championship by benruset, on Flickr  JSRG 2013 Championship by benruset, on Flickr  JSRG 2013 Championship by benruset, on Flickr Edit: Rest of series. These were taken on a Pentax K-5 at ISO 6400. For the most part I used my Tamron SP AF 70-200mm F2.8 Di LD [IF] Macro lens and stayed around f/3.5, shooting with ambient light. Two questions: 1. The girls look pretty soft. These pics are all cropped - is the softness from the lens being so wide open or from it being slightly out of focus? (Or both?) I've heard people say that this lens is still sharp wide open. 2. Obviously there's a fair amount of sensor noise. Should I look into getting some sort of noise reduction software in my workflow? What's a good one to look at?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 23:32
|
|
|
Took some derby pictures last week myself. North Star Roller Girls - Punk Rock 'n' Roller Derby - 2013-11-23 by kdrudy, on Flickr  North Star Roller Girls - Punk Rock 'n' Roller Derby - 2013-11-23 by kdrudy, on Flickr  North Star Roller Girls - Punk Rock 'n' Roller Derby - 2013-11-23 by kdrudy, on Flickr  North Star Roller Girls - Punk Rock 'n' Roller Derby - 2013-11-23 by kdrudy, on Flickr First bout I was able to get to this year, good to get back and take some pictures.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
ZippySLC posted:Two questions: 1: It could partly be the aperture, but you're also shooting at 1/160 to 1/200 and that's on the slow end to capture human motion. It's obviously not that well-lit so unfortunately your best hope is to crank the ISO. I'd leave the aperture wide open too. 2: Noise Ninja is a pretty well-liked plugin. GIMP's noise reduction takes a little work but it's not too bad either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 12:27
|
|
|
DJExile posted:1: It could partly be the aperture, but you're also shooting at 1/160 to 1/200 and that's on the slow end to capture human motion. It's obviously not that well-lit so unfortunately your best hope is to crank the ISO. I'd leave the aperture wide open too. My concerns about shooting wide open is that it seems like the lens gets pretty soft and with such a shallow DOF, my focus must be absolutely spot on. I'm shooting a Pentax with a Tamron lens. That's pretty much impossible with fast moving subjects. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 15:11
|
|
|
Can you use a flash? Or focus on shooting a well lit section of the track?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 15:36
|
|
|
So I just talked to the athletic director at my school about shooting our basketball teams. Any tips on shooting bball? I was thinking 70-200 f/2.8 + 17-35 f2.8 on an APS-H body would be a good range for courtside? Supposedly they just got some new lights installed so I should have decent lighting. No flash allowed. Is it basically just get low and try to get faces? I've only shot soccer and hockey and that was from the stands.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 20:11
|
|
|
Gullous posted:Can you use a flash? Or focus on shooting a well lit section of the track? I can use a flash, but I really don't like how the pictures come out. Plus I'd rather not be blinding the players. I'm not super offended by the sensor noise, but it'd be nice to be able to clean it up a bit. I'm sort of regretting cheaping out for the Tamron 70-200 instead of getting the Sigma 70-200. There is no such thing as a well lit derby track. The venue I shot at the last time was the closest I have gotten to. I used my flash for this bout. This other guy used a flash with a soft box with less than stellar results. This other guy uses on camera and remote flashes, but I am not really a huge fan of how they turn out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 20:26
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Is it basically just get low and try to get faces? Yeah, plus being ready to absorb players crashing into you. Those two lenses should be fine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 14:03
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:So I just talked to the athletic director at my school about shooting our basketball teams. Any tips on shooting bball? I was thinking 70-200 f/2.8 + 17-35 f2.8 on an APS-H body would be a good range for courtside? Supposedly they just got some new lights installed so I should have decent lighting. No flash allowed. Is it basically just get low and try to get faces? I've only shot soccer and hockey and that was from the stands. Two faces and a ball. That's pretty much it. Bread and butter will be layups, contested rebounds, and driving. 200 on APS-H will probably be a bit short for shooting defense on the other side of the court, but you might try it anyway, if only to get a feel of the game from a photographic standpoint a bit more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 17:39
|
|
|
Technowrite posted:I'm in the process of learning to shoot sports thanks to my job giving me the opportunity for field access at South Carolina football games. Needless to say, it's very difficult. This is using an old Nikon D40 my folks gave me along with a manual focus 100-300 telephoto lens. It's pretty much the only shot I was actually proud of from last Saturday. A good friend of mine actually brightened the photo a bit with Lightroom since the original shot was mega dark. That's pretty nice. Hope you got some good shots of all the INTs Clemson threw last week! A few shots from a Southern Illinois game last month:  SIU vs Missouri State by venusian-weasel, on Flickr  SIU vs Missouri State by venusian-weasel, on Flickr  SIU vs Missouri State by venusian-weasel, on Flickr  SIU vs Missouri State by venusian-weasel, on Flickr Sleepy time:  SIU vs Missouri State by venusian-weasel, on Flickr Venusian Weasel fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 23:49
|
|
|
They're pretty good moments but your 3rd one needs a generous crop. Why f/6.3?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 18:26
|
|
|
DJExile posted:They're pretty good moments but your 3rd one needs a generous crop. Why f/6.3? Auto focus was having trouble keeping up, figured an extra little bit of field depth would help.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
At least push it to f4.0? I would assume more light getting in would help your autofocus module pick out those edges. Also give you better subject separation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 21:01
|
|
|
Miko posted:At least push it to f4.0? I would assume more light getting in would help your autofocus module pick out those edges. Also give you better subject separation. Most I can do with that telephoto is f4.6. I started off using that, and was having trouble with the focus, so I changed to f6.3 and it seemed to work a little better. I'd probably spring for a better telephoto if I were doing this as a job, but I don't use it for sports enough to justify it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 21:28
|
|
|
Miko posted:At least push it to f4.0? I would assume more light getting in would help your autofocus module pick out those edges. Also give you better subject separation. Autofocus operates with the lens wide open (F4.6 in this case). It doesn't stop down until you take a picture, where the increased DOF from the smaller aperture just helps hide slightly missed focus.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 23:05
|
|
|
Got off my rear end today and did something besides playing hockey.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 06:58
|
|
|
Finished the rest of the set. figured I'd pick three.  
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 17:21
|
|
|
Run for your Lives November 17, 2013 Dade City, FL     
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 19:34
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:So I just talked to the athletic director at my school about shooting our basketball teams. Any tips on shooting bball? I was thinking 70-200 f/2.8 + 17-35 f2.8 on an APS-H body would be a good range for courtside? Supposedly they just got some new lights installed so I should have decent lighting. No flash allowed. Is it basically just get low and try to get faces? I've only shot soccer and hockey and that was from the stands. I usually just bring my 70-200 f/2.8 and 300mm f/2.8 for basketball. I also bring a wider lens that I swap out with the 300mm every so often. The problem with basketball is you get a million of the same shot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 17:21
|
|
|
 Whistler December 2013 by hookshot88, on Flickr  Whistler December 2013 by hookshot88, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
Finally got around to shooting a basketball game. I was pretty disappointed in what I was actually able to get. 99% of my shots were completely OOF and most of the rest were arms in front of faces. These were about the sharpest useable photos I was able to get out of a double header mens/womens games. One thing I did learn is that 1/320 is in no way a fast enough shutter for basketball. Any criticism would be welcome; I'm still really new to sports shooting. Also, I now utterly despise referees and I have hundreds of frames of their backs as a testament to my hate.    
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 07:58
|
|
|
You're getting some pretty good moments. (Expression on the first guy's face is hilarious too) Some thoughts in no particular order: 1: Your white balance seems off in the first two, but fine in the 2nd. Did you change something? Should be pretty easy to W/B off the portland jerseys, although florescent lights can be very finicky too. 2: What's the arena like? Those huge windows at night behind the action is going to play hell with your camera, and might be part of why you can only get 1/320. 3: What kind of camera, lens(es), and settings are you using? Center meter might help a bit. Seeing the DOF, it looks like you have a fairly fast lens. 4: Don't let the number of missed shots discourage you. Indoor sports like basketball and hockey are brutal to shoot in even the best of situations because you've got a lot of big people in a relatively cramped area, and lighting is rarely good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 14:22
|
|
|
DJExile posted:Some thoughts in no particular order: On the WB - I've been having ongoing issues with how my desktop reproduces color ever since I switched to Win8. I wouldn't be surprised if the color is off although it looks right on my desktop and tablet. I have no idea how to fix it other than "buy a new monitor that Win8 likes". The arena is a large gymnasium with pull out seating on one side and huge floor to ceiling windows on the other. The lighting is actually brand new and pretty good, considering that its a community college. I'm using a Canon 1dmkIV and a Sig 70-200 f/2.8. I was also using a Canon 17-35 2.8 but that lens has some issues and needs servicing so I didn't get anything useful out of it. I was trying to stay at ISO1600 but I think I'd rather deal with noise than motion blur the next time out. Interesting thing I learned was that "2.8" can be wildly variable on different lenses. I got maybe 2/3 of a stop better light out of the wide angle. I wonder if that's because of focal length or manufacturer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:I'm using a Canon 1dmkIV and a Sig 70-200 f/2.8. I was also using a Canon 17-35 2.8 but that lens has some issues and needs servicing so I didn't get anything useful out of it. I was trying to stay at ISO1600 but I think I'd rather deal with noise than motion blur the next time out. That body handles ISO 3200 no problem, that's usually where I keep it even in a pretty bright arena. 6400 gets messy, but still beats motion blur.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
BobTheCow posted:That body handles ISO 3200 no problem, that's usually where I keep it even in a pretty bright arena. 6400 gets messy, but still beats motion blur. I'm coming from wildlife shooting where noise is absolute murder so I was leery of going over 1600. These shots cleaned up pretty good though. I'm shooting another game in a week so I'll try bumping it up a stop and see how it goes. Have any of you used a 50mm 1.4 for basketball? I was finding that 70mm felt too tight under the bucket but 35 seemed too wide. I've heard the AF is slow on Canon's and misses a lot on Sigma's but the internet is full of grumpy perfectionist gearheads with ~*opinions*~ so I was curious if anybody has used one for indoor sports.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
Color run 5k Orlando 2014-01-11 Assigned to do Studio, after I was done with that I roamed around with my bracket and took this shot. Messed around with it in Lightroom.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
LuisX posted:Color run 5k Orlando 2014-01-11 Looks like the horizon is off a touch. Great photo though!
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:Looks like the horizon is off a touch. Great photo though! Ugh, I tried to get the horizon straight on many tries too
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
That's a seriously awesome shot, LuisX.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Finally got around to shooting a basketball game. I was pretty disappointed in what I was actually able to get. 99% of my shots were completely OOF and most of the rest were arms in front of faces... Also, I now utterly despise referees and I have hundreds of frames of their backs as a testament to my hate. Yeah, that happens. You did well, considering the circumstances -- better than I ever did shooting high school hoops for the newspaper. Though, like football, some venues are better-lit than others. And you'll get a lot of referees' backs in any sport. It really helps to have flash for basketball. And I don't mean an on-camera speedlite -- my college photojournalism class hauled the studio lights to the court and used pocketwizards. Shooting basketball is amazing with a big monolight at each corner. Much like daytime college football games, that experience did not really prepare me for the harsh reality of actual photojournalism, where the outdoor games are mostly at night and the indoor games don't allow flash. BobTheCow posted:That body handles ISO 3200 no problem, that's usually where I keep it even in a pretty bright arena. 6400 gets messy, but still beats motion blur. 800peepee51doodoo posted:I'm coming from wildlife shooting where noise is absolute murder so I was leery of going over 1600. These shots cleaned up pretty good though. There's the old adage about buying a cheap body and spending money on glass, but I think these days it may be the other way 'round -- I'd rather have a D4 and '90s f/4.5 film lenses than a D700 and new made-for-digital f/2.8 lenses. Because I am poor, I currently rock a D7000 and '90s midrange glass, but it still gets better results than the D1 and top-end f/2.8 lenses I used ten years ago -- the D7000's highest ISO looks about like the D1's highest, but is four stops faster.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 21:38
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Delivery McGee posted:Sports photography is more about getting the shot than having it be technically perfect. I used to shoot Friday night football with a Nikon D1. Maxed out at 3200 (or was it 1600? I forget), it was poo poo, but good enough for newsprint. This season, my younger coworker's D700 was in the shop and he had to use the old D2H, and was amazed that we were able to shoot football with that for years, because it's noisy as hell at 6400 compared to the D700. The wire editors care more about a great shot than some noise in the shot. On print it doesn't matter at all. In a mag, there is a fairy big investment in time editing the photos. I don't worry about noise much. When I go through a review process every year, it's never about the noise. It's always about quality of photos.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
Yeah it's tough to get into that mentality but in sports it's definitely more about the moment itself than the technical aspects (noise, etc).
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
DJExile posted:That's a seriously awesome shot, LuisX. Thanks man! I was prompted that it was going to happen. Took a bunch of shots and this one was the best of all Regarding the above discussion, its about photos telling a story.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
Thanks for the advice. I shot another double header on Wednesday and just got a chance to go through them today. I got a lot more keepers this time and yeah, 3200 is totally manageable. I even underexposed a touch to get 1/800 and it didn't seem to have a negative effect.      
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Thanks for the advice. I shot another double header on Wednesday and just got a chance to go through them today. I got a lot more keepers this time and yeah, 3200 is totally manageable. I even underexposed a touch to get 1/800 and it didn't seem to have a negative effect. Underexposing then fixing it in post is going to cause more noise than just exposing correctly with a higher ISO. Also, for basketball (nba,ncaa, etc), I usually shoot at like 1/500. The action is a bit slower than most sports. You could even get away with lower probably.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 12:27 |
|
|
What do you guys recommend for icehockey? I've been experimenting with 1/640 and 1/800, but can't seem to get friendly with either of them. Could of course be due to the plexi glass between me and the players as well... Some shots from the match between Vålerenga Hockey and Sparta Warriors:  Vålerenga Hockey - Sparta Warriors 2-4 by azathosk, on Flickr  Vålerenga Hockey - Sparta Warriors 2-4 by azathosk, on Flickr  Vålerenga Hockey - Sparta Warriors 2-4 by azathosk, on Flickr  Vålerenga Hockey - Sparta Warriors 2-4 by azathosk, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 11:12
|
|