Thanks Jason.
All shots with 1dmkIII and sigma 120-300 2.8. All in manual exposure, auto-wb, single focus point (although not center) and ai-servo.
First 3 were without flash at 2.8 somewhere around 1/500-1/640 and ISO 2500-3200.
The rest were shot with 580exII mounted on the monopod below the camera. While the mkIII and the Nikon d300, 700 and d3 all have great high ISO performance you just get better facial details using a flash. I like the action in shot 1 but while you can see his face you don't get many details (unless the head is pointing a bit upwards). Especially close to the endzone where all the light is from behind.
Awesome photos! Number 1 is my favorite by far! I need to get out and try my hand at some football photography. The season is coming to and end quickly up in these parts.
I'm guessing that you are "up" a little from center in order to focus on faces??? How do you manage quickly switching focus points when switching between portrait and landscape orientation?
I'm guessing that you are "up" a little from center in order to focus on faces??? How do you manage quickly switching focus points when switching between portrait and landscape orientation?
Yep. Truth is I rarely shoot landscape - maybe 2% of my shots. when I do switch I commit to it before the play. But, for instance, shots 2 & 7 are a vertical crop from portrait framing. Still plenty of resolution for newspaper and sadly most of my print sales are 4x6 and 5x7 so plenty of resolution for that as well.
With only a 300mm lens there just aren't as many good oportunities for landscape framing - linemen, kicks etc. If I had longer glass I'd go for more upper body only framing.
sadly most of my print sales are 4x6 and 5x7 so plenty of resolution for that as well.
I have found that as well and I don't get it -- what do you do with a 4x6 or 5x7 but stick it away somewhere? Back in the day when I was buying sports shots of my kids instead of taking them, I always bought 8x10 or larger to frame and put on my walls, where they still reside.
With only a 300mm lens there just aren't as many good oportunities for landscape framing - linemen, kicks etc. If I had longer glass I'd go for more upper body only framing.
This is a really interesting comment to me. Into my second season but only about my fifth or so game, I am finding football surprisingly difficult, and was going to try to find the right moment this season to try the flash-on-monopod technique, but I had not envisioned that the right pairing would be with a 300 (thinking there was a mismatch between the minimum effective shooting distance for the 300 vs the maximum effective range of the flash) and figured I'd be best off shooting in close with the 70-200 in that flash configuration. Your shots obviously prove me wrong on that to some extent. I really need to think about this -- glad it's early in the season! Thanks again.
but I had not envisioned that the right pairing would be with a 300 (thinking there was a mismatch between the minimum effective shooting distance for the 300 vs the maximum effective range of the flash) and figured I'd be best off shooting in close with the 70-200 in that flash configuration. Your shots obviously prove me wrong on that to some extent. I really need to think about this -- glad it's early in the season! Thanks again.
Depends on the flash. 580exII has GN = 190ft * 2.9 (if using ISO 800) / f4 = 137.5' = about 46 yards. Plenty of reach given a 300mm lens is only good for about 40 yards of coverage anyway. Shoot at 2.8 and the range gets even better. I just prefer the benefit of stopping down to f4 to get added sharpness. The darkness and light fall-off takes care of my ugly backgrounds.
Depends on the flash. 580exII has GN = 190ft * 2.9 (if using ISO 800) / f4 = 137.5' = about 46 yards. Plenty of reach given a 300mm lens is only good for about 40 yards of coverage anyway. Shoot at 2.8 and the range gets even better. I just prefer the benefit of stopping down to f4 to get added sharpness. The darkness and light fall-off takes care of my ugly backgrounds.
Whoa! As you know, I am an ambitious novice, but nowhere anywhere, including Dgrin, have I seen references to the math in your first sentence. Would you be so kind as to guide me to a reference on that? I don't even know what GN is, and if nothing else, I am a very dedicated student. I DO know that I am not shooting football, or much else in sports, at f/2.8 unless absolutely necessary -- no margin for error whatsoever, and boy do I need margin for error!
[/QUOTE] I just prefer the benefit of stopping down to f4 to get added sharpness. The darkness and light fall-off takes care of my ugly backgrounds.[/QUOTE]
JOHN, Nice of you to post some shots... I have been taking some of your C&C to heart and shooting in Portrait mode almost exclusively. Your comment about stopping down at f4 has me intrigued. Do you mind sharing what your field metered out at, after dark, and what you actually had your camera and flash set up for during these shots?
I am working with a M3 as well with a 300mm/f2.8. I have stayed away from f4.0 just to keep my shutterspeed up however, If i can get an good recycle speed on my flash at f4, I would love to try sticking my 1.4x teleconverter on and seeing if the AF speed would still be fast enough at night.
BTW. although the action in #1 is the best of the bunch, I personally like #5 the best... I like the way the face is lit up by the flash... it would make a great poster shot.
Great shots. I haven't tried Friday Night Football yet because, while I do have a D300, all I have to go with it is an 18-200VR and an SB600. With your extensive experience, do you think it would a waste of time to try this combo "under the lights"
My next purchase will be the 70-200 2.8
Blessed are those who remain flexible, for they shall not get bent out of shape.
Thanks Jason.
All shots with 1dmkIII and sigma 120-300 2.8. All in manual exposure, auto-wb, single focus point (although not center) and ai-servo.
First 3 were without flash at 2.8 somewhere around 1/500-1/640 and ISO 2500-3200.
The rest were shot with 580exII mounted on the monopod below the camera. While the mkIII and the Nikon d300, 700 and d3 all have great high ISO performance you just get better facial details using a flash. I like the action in shot 1 but while you can see his face you don't get many details (unless the head is pointing a bit upwards). Especially close to the endzone where all the light is from behind.
Those are incredible... I wish I could get my XT to those ISO settings, I am working on the flash deal for sure. I have a question that applies to me that may helps others. Does Artificial turf or Field turf as they call it differ much from regular grass or is it all lighting?? This looks like artificial turf..
Whoa! As you know, I am an ambitious novice, but nowhere anywhere, including Dgrin, have I seen references to the math in your first sentence. Would you be so kind as to guide me to a reference on that? I don't even know what GN is, and if nothing else, I am a very dedicated student. I DO know that I am not shooting football, or much else in sports, at f/2.8 unless absolutely necessary -- no margin for error whatsoever, and boy do I need margin for error!
Guide numbers are part of a flash's specs. They almost always assume ISO 100 is used. The higher the ISO used, the less light output is needed by the flash. And, the wider the aperture the more light that gets in. Do a google on "Guide Number" or "Guide Number Calculation" you'll see the formulas and examples.
Great shots. I haven't tried Friday Night Football yet because, while I do have a D300, all I have to go with it is an 18-200VR and an SB600. With your extensive experience, do you think it would a waste of time to try this combo "under the lights"
My next purchase will be the 70-200 2.8
It's certainly not a great combo for football - not being a Nikon shooter I'm not sure how fast the 18-200 would focus with focus assist (without it I'm guessing it would be way too slow). Also you really want to mount the flash on a monopod not the camera. You'll get red eye if mounted on-camera on almost every shot.
David - I can say that the newer artificial turf - the kind that has little rubber pellets in it absorbs the stadium lights quite a bit. One school I shoot had it installed prior to last season. I would have never guessed you get as much reflection off grass as you do - my available light exposure dropped by around a stop of light at that field. Same light rig, just the new turf. So there must have been a lot more reflection off the grass than I would have thought. But, this field was grass.
Comments
great seires, what are some specs how you shot these
Nikon D300s. Nikon D40, Nikon FE, Nikon F
Ansco Ancoset Rangefinder, Rolleiflex TLR Sb800, sb400
Nikon 18-200 VR, nikon 18-55 II, Sigma 10 20 HSM, 50mm f1.8 ai-s, 50mm Non Ai f1.4
All shots with 1dmkIII and sigma 120-300 2.8. All in manual exposure, auto-wb, single focus point (although not center) and ai-servo.
First 3 were without flash at 2.8 somewhere around 1/500-1/640 and ISO 2500-3200.
The rest were shot with 580exII mounted on the monopod below the camera. While the mkIII and the Nikon d300, 700 and d3 all have great high ISO performance you just get better facial details using a flash. I like the action in shot 1 but while you can see his face you don't get many details (unless the head is pointing a bit upwards). Especially close to the endzone where all the light is from behind.
__________________
www.browngreensports.com
http://browngreensports.smugmug.com
Yep. Truth is I rarely shoot landscape - maybe 2% of my shots. when I do switch I commit to it before the play. But, for instance, shots 2 & 7 are a vertical crop from portrait framing. Still plenty of resolution for newspaper and sadly most of my print sales are 4x6 and 5x7 so plenty of resolution for that as well.
With only a 300mm lens there just aren't as many good oportunities for landscape framing - linemen, kicks etc. If I had longer glass I'd go for more upper body only framing.
This is a really interesting comment to me. Into my second season but only about my fifth or so game, I am finding football surprisingly difficult, and was going to try to find the right moment this season to try the flash-on-monopod technique, but I had not envisioned that the right pairing would be with a 300 (thinking there was a mismatch between the minimum effective shooting distance for the 300 vs the maximum effective range of the flash) and figured I'd be best off shooting in close with the 70-200 in that flash configuration. Your shots obviously prove me wrong on that to some extent. I really need to think about this -- glad it's early in the season! Thanks again.
__________________
www.browngreensports.com
http://browngreensports.smugmug.com
__________________
www.browngreensports.com
http://browngreensports.smugmug.com
JOHN, Nice of you to post some shots... I have been taking some of your C&C to heart and shooting in Portrait mode almost exclusively. Your comment about stopping down at f4 has me intrigued. Do you mind sharing what your field metered out at, after dark, and what you actually had your camera and flash set up for during these shots?
I am working with a M3 as well with a 300mm/f2.8. I have stayed away from f4.0 just to keep my shutterspeed up however, If i can get an good recycle speed on my flash at f4, I would love to try sticking my 1.4x teleconverter on and seeing if the AF speed would still be fast enough at night.
BTW. although the action in #1 is the best of the bunch, I personally like #5 the best... I like the way the face is lit up by the flash... it would make a great poster shot.
regards, Kevin
Canon 1DM4, 300mm 2.8, 70-200mm 2.8, 200mm 1.8, 24-70mm 2.8, 85mm 1.8
Great shots. I haven't tried Friday Night Football yet because, while I do have a D300, all I have to go with it is an 18-200VR and an SB600. With your extensive experience, do you think it would a waste of time to try this combo "under the lights"
My next purchase will be the 70-200 2.8
Those are incredible... I wish I could get my XT to those ISO settings, I am working on the flash deal for sure. I have a question that applies to me that may helps others. Does Artificial turf or Field turf as they call it differ much from regular grass or is it all lighting?? This looks like artificial turf..
Thanks for all your insight,
David
www.phabuluousphotos.com
www.phabulousphotos.com
Sportsshooter.com Member
http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=10162
Guide numbers are part of a flash's specs. They almost always assume ISO 100 is used. The higher the ISO used, the less light output is needed by the flash. And, the wider the aperture the more light that gets in. Do a google on "Guide Number" or "Guide Number Calculation" you'll see the formulas and examples.
It's certainly not a great combo for football - not being a Nikon shooter I'm not sure how fast the 18-200 would focus with focus assist (without it I'm guessing it would be way too slow). Also you really want to mount the flash on a monopod not the camera. You'll get red eye if mounted on-camera on almost every shot.
David - I can say that the newer artificial turf - the kind that has little rubber pellets in it absorbs the stadium lights quite a bit. One school I shoot had it installed prior to last season. I would have never guessed you get as much reflection off grass as you do - my available light exposure dropped by around a stop of light at that field. Same light rig, just the new turf. So there must have been a lot more reflection off the grass than I would have thought. But, this field was grass.