Indoor Gym Sports - too much yellow
I am new to this and I need some help. I have read many of the posts on indoor gym photography, esp volleyball and basketball - but I don't see one related to my specific issue - too much yellow. (All the posts were great btw). It would be helpful to get your ideas since you are all very experienced photographers. Thx in advance for any suggestions.
As you can see from this picture, it is yellow. Our gym just got a new floor which is almost a reflective yellow and very bright, with floor to almost ceiling yellowish bleachers, and the lighting is, well, gym lighting. I got the Canon 40D since I already had lenses to match from my film camera and because of its ability to shoot rapid shots, so I could get the ball in the frame. This was taken with a 28-55mm (I also have 50, 85 and 70-200). The pics I have taken in other gyms are fine, just not our home court. Ergo the problem.
I have read your comments about similar issues including flash (not an option), post processing (don't have time/skill yet to tackle all the pics I want to take), filters and settings.
Are there are filters, perhaps even a yellow one, that would address this color saturation issue with ease? Normally, I wouldn't consider, but this is our home court with many years of varsity to go.
As for settings, here is where I have started to read through the 40D camera materials, but need some help. It seems like I cannot alter ISO or WB when shooting on the automatic sports setting. Therefore, I would need to go to one of the manual settings and determine the best settings through trial and error. However, when I tried changing ISO, I lightened or darkened the pics, but they were still inherently yellow. I have never had to adjust WB so I may be doing something wrong there as well. And I still want to be able to take rapid pics and have options to focus on one player and ball. Suggestions? THX!
As you can see from this picture, it is yellow. Our gym just got a new floor which is almost a reflective yellow and very bright, with floor to almost ceiling yellowish bleachers, and the lighting is, well, gym lighting. I got the Canon 40D since I already had lenses to match from my film camera and because of its ability to shoot rapid shots, so I could get the ball in the frame. This was taken with a 28-55mm (I also have 50, 85 and 70-200). The pics I have taken in other gyms are fine, just not our home court. Ergo the problem.
I have read your comments about similar issues including flash (not an option), post processing (don't have time/skill yet to tackle all the pics I want to take), filters and settings.
Are there are filters, perhaps even a yellow one, that would address this color saturation issue with ease? Normally, I wouldn't consider, but this is our home court with many years of varsity to go.
As for settings, here is where I have started to read through the 40D camera materials, but need some help. It seems like I cannot alter ISO or WB when shooting on the automatic sports setting. Therefore, I would need to go to one of the manual settings and determine the best settings through trial and error. However, when I tried changing ISO, I lightened or darkened the pics, but they were still inherently yellow. I have never had to adjust WB so I may be doing something wrong there as well. And I still want to be able to take rapid pics and have options to focus on one player and ball. Suggestions? THX!
0
Comments
My first thoughts are you need to get away from the automatic settings. Try shooting in your aperture priority setting. You will mostly likely be shooting wide open anyway. You can adjust your ISO settings, to get in the desired shutter speed range you want.
This will also enable you to adjust your white balance. The easiest way would be to choose some of the preselected settings your camera has. I have a 30D, so I'm sure they are similiar. Take a few test shots with the various WB settings and see what the results are. You are bound to get something closer than what you are currently. The most accurate way would be to use a "gray card", but I don't shoot indoors that often and have never used one.
Here's how it looks after the adjustments:
Granted, this looks better, but not the way I would want it to. This one was a little more tricky than I thought it would be. It way way more yellow than I've ever dealt with. I also had to adjust the reds, and I had to play the mid-tones in levels as well to lighten it up, and then re-darken it a little. This particular image is pretty bad as far as the yellows go. My adjustment makes it look slightly green on my computer, but that can be adjusted out too.
I hope that helps you a little bit.
Philip
Set your white balance by using a grey card. Gym lights cycle and the WB changes all the time.
Shoot RAW.
For stop action shots, you want a nice fast shutter speed. The most likely way to get a nice fast shutter speed will be to bump your ISO up and your aperture up too.
I've shot a bit of volleyball and a lot of indoor soccer with a 20d and the 85mmf1.8.
For me typical settings would be:
Manual
ISO 1600
f2.0 or 2.2
1/500 or higher shutter speed
AI Servo
Custom Function 4,3 to use the back * button to focus. Allows great tracking of moving players w/ locked focus.
Shoot burst.
My Galleries My Photography BLOG
Ramblings About Me
Thx, the camera setting was great hint. Now, what is gray card and how do I find out what WB is pre-selected for my camera, is that the default that will just come up on my camera once I select the rest. I really am new at this. Thx.
************
I'm going to disagree with Ann's advice though a bit. In my experience about 90% of gyms have enough overlap in the fields of light that the color balance from frame to frame is very negligible. So there's no reason to shoot RAW. The key, in my experience is to take the 'white balance shot' with a shutter speed about 1/60 - you get an average temperature setting. Also, make sure you're taking the shot under the lights where the action is - not where you'll be. So if it's basketball take the shot standing under the basket with your white card. Volleyball - get it out on the court.
Now, there are a VERY small number of gyms whose lighting is bad enough that the color temperature DOES change. After you register your WB simply take a burst shot of 3-5 shots and review them. If they all have a different color cast then it's time to go to RAW. But most times there will be a very slight difference but not one worth worrying about.
Other than that - I agree with Ann about shutter speeds. 1/60 isn't going to get many keepers. 1/400 is about the minimum - 1/640 is nice for vball.
I agree, a grey card (white card, both work) is a really great investment.
If you find that lighting is consistent frame to frame (again, my real experience is with soccer and cycling lights is a major PITA) then hurray! That eliminates one more annoyance.
I still shoot raw - I am now using LR2 and so almost all of my editing takes place when I do my RAW conversion. Bulk changes, any cropping, brilliant speed up of my workflow for sports.
ann
My Galleries My Photography BLOG
Ramblings About Me
In this example, even using a white piece of printer paper would have helped out tremendously. The OP seems to be very new to this, complicating matters with shooting RAW would be more burdensome right now.
I noticed in one of the response a comment about temperature. I noticed on my Canon 20D that this can be canged on the fly, but, if I were to lower the temperature will there be any ill effects on my photos?
www.clemensphotography.us
Canon 7D w/BG-E7 Vertical Grip, Canon 50D w/ BG-E2N Vertical Grip, Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L USM, Canon 18-55mm, Canon 580EX II Flash and other goodies.
Ignorance is no excuss, so lets DGrin!
If you make the proper correction, no. It just depends on the venue. If you adjust properly for one venue inside and then use the same setting for another outside, then yes. Many camera will give you options to store settings so if you get a proper look, it can be stores, which is useful if you shoot the venue often.
Just to elaborate. Setting color temperature is just another way of setting white balance. Ill affects will occur if you set the wrong temperature.
But it brings up an interesting point. As Jon mentioned, some of the newer DSLRs allow you to record a custom WB and keep it. Many DSLRs do NOT. So here's another trick. Go to the gym and take some test shots of a person on the court in RAW. Using RAW conversion software, adjust white balance by adjusting temperature. Assuming the lighting is constant the same color temperature should work every time. Write down the color temperature that works. Then when you go to that gym set the WB to that temperature. In this manner you don't have to bother taking a WB shot EVERY time you go to that gym. You simply know that 4750 (or whatever the value is) is the value to dial in.
Hmmmm, well I don't think 'getting it right in camera' and 'editing from RAW' are mutually exclusive. As well, if I were at the beginning of the learning curve, I think I would want to start with RAW, rather than start with jpg and move to RAW. Why learn everything twice? LR is so powerful if you need it, and so easy to use for batching if you get it right SOOC. Just my .02Cdn$.:D
ann
My Galleries My Photography BLOG
Ramblings About Me
Ann, although it wasn't my post you quoted I would suggest the only tangible benefit to shooting sports in RAW is either WB correction or pushing ISO. I'm not a big fan of pushing ISO in conversion, and if you get WB correct, shooting in jpeg removes a step from the post processing workflow - i.e. conversion.
In fact, if you get exposure and WB correct in-camera, postprocessing of sports images can be as simple as cropping and USM - both of which can be accomplished with almost any editor on the market. If you got the exposure wrong by a little then levels or dodging/burning - again most tools accomplish this.
Secondary benefit is buffer handling and space. While buffer handling on the newest high end DSLRs for raw is pretty darn good - older generations are not as good. And there is still the space issue.
I guess I've never bought into the hype that you must shoot in RAW. It's a tool, like anything else. And while I love it for portrait work and some landscape stuff, I find the drawbacks (especially the extra workflow steps) outweigh the benefits when it comes to my sports work.
Now, it's something everyone should give a try. Each person is different. And especially if a photog has issues getting exposure and WB correct - raw is a nice safety net. But once you have those two nailed I don't see the benefit raw provides the sports shooter who is processing hundreds of images.
Again, everyone is different.
But still not contrary to my point.
I shoot RAW now, all the time. I shoot lots of sports - soccer specifically, usually outdoors. I can dial changes to my setting very quickly, and believe that I do get it right SOOC most of the time.
I used PSP for years.
I also used RSE for RAW conversions.
I had a great workflow where I could batch a bunch of steps.
Then I got a Mac. And CS3. At this point I was already used to tweaking RAW photos. So when I found LR2, I was really pleased because I could:
Import, cull, tweak, etc all at once.
And not need to do anything in CS3.
I do not see RAW conversion as an extra set of steps, that's all I am saying. And when one is just starting out, getting it right SOOC is not always the simplest of things. So having more latitude given with a RAW file might be a good thing.
ann
My Galleries My Photography BLOG
Ramblings About Me
I don't have access to photoshop on the laptop where my pix reside. An older version is on another computer in the house that is not as convenient. I would like to start, for now, doing as much as I can in the camera and just crop and do minor contrast improvements to start.
After I fix the issue for this season, I will have some time to set up some space for photos on that machine and can try out post processing options. I know of RAW but have never used. Is there a link to another posting in the forum that includes a beginners tutorial on RAW.
Sounds like RAW gives more flexibility if you are a post processing pro, and groups of pix can be done in batch, although it takes up more digital storage and if pix have uncommon characteristics, takes more time. Alternatively, if conditions are stable in the gym, WB/ISO in camera can save a step. If different, can delay pix taking till each shot is set. Do I have that right?
Thx!
That is also the rub against RAW. How many people who buy a camera for casual use are going to buy software for that? For pro's it's one thing, for casual users it's another.
You are giving great advice for anyone interested in RAW, but for someone who wants to take a picture of their kid playing volleyball and doesn't want to spend the time, or the learning curve, it is MUCH easier to get the WB correct, download to PC and send to grandparents.
Hi new2vball
Well, welcome to sports shooting, and what for me has been a slippery slope indeed! I started
several (7 or 8) years ago, with a Sony 707, got myself PSP and struggled because I wanted to learn how to take great indoor sports pics. I now am completely addicted, and have spent a great deal of time, energy and dosh so far. But I love it!!!!
So, for the best indoor sports pics SOOC, don't underestimate the value of good fast glass. You will need those big apetures and high ISO to get somewhere near enough light to like the pics SOOC. Set your ISO as high as necessary, your aperture to f2 or there abouts, so that you can get high shutter speeds. Get a white(grey) card and learn to set your white balance.
Then, when you are looking to move to photo editing software, I have worked with both Paint Shop Pro and Lightroom2 (and Photoshop CS3). They are all great programs.
The last version of PSP that I had did not have a great RAW conversion ability so I also used Raw Shooter Essentials (no longer around) and liked it. This may be different now. PSP runs about $100, and can do most of the things PS can do, and more than elements.
Lightroom 2 is a raw conversion program. With it you can do the basic raw editing things like change color temperature, set your black point etc. You can do alot of other things as well, like globally change things like saturation or contrast. In addition LR2 now allows local changes so that you can change small areas of your image. You can crop, do dust bunny removal etc. These are all of the basics that I would think about doing to any image, raw or jpg, and so for many of my images I can work in LR and then do nothing else. With outdoor sports, if you have variable cloudy conditions, you can get scenarios where your exposure changes very rapidly, and I don't always react properly to that. RAW conversion gives me the ability to tweak my exposure, not usually a lot, but enough to fix something that might be slightly under or over exposed.
CS3 of course allows much greater editing of photos. ACR comes as the raw conversion software with CS3, and it is good. However, now that I have LR I find the need to work in CS3 is quite small. It could be that LR would be enough for many photogs.
I have found the Scott Kelby book, The Photoshop CS3 Book for Digital Photographers, really useful. I have just ordered his LR2 book.
I think of the RAW file as a negative, that has all of the native info on it, and can be 'developed' to get the most out of it.
There are free trials available for all of these programs.
After all that, did I come close to answering your question?
ann
My Galleries My Photography BLOG
Ramblings About Me
Yes. RAW is like film negative. The camera exposes the picture and records with out any processing, or very little processing. If you like post processing, it's great. The drawback is more time and RAW format is proprietary to each manufacturer.
JPG is the standard and works for every photo editing software down to the basic one on most PC's. The camera formats the picture into jpg so there is a loss of information, but most people cannot see it.
To be usable, RAW has to be formatted to jpg to be useful too, but some like having the RAW file(negative) to work with.
New2,
The yellow cast from the vapor lamps is extraordinarily problematic for both the amateur, hobbyist, and pro shooter alike. Fortunately, the advice given by Anne and John particularly, is very useful so keep listening to what they have to say, even if they seem to disagree on a couple of points. By way of your developing experience and that of others who advise you, you'll find what best applies to where you are now and where you want to go.
I'm a bit surprised that no one mentioned the ExpoDisc or PhotoVision's Calibration Target. These gizmos help you to achieve a custom white balance. I shoot for ESPN as well as my own youth sports and performance event photography company, so, like John, I don't have a lot of time to "Richard" around. For event photography at VYB tournaments here's what I do: Arrive at event, introduce myself to the event organizers (unless I already know them), set up my strobe lights (while my assistant is setting up our tables in the lobby with our viewing stations and dye sub printers), and set up my camera equipment. If I cannot use strobe lights, I use my Canon 580EX flash bounced off the ceiling (assuming it's white).
Since we need to run the action photos quickly through our server and on to our bank of 30 viewing monitors, the images must be shot in JPEG, otherwise even a handful of RAW images would take far too much time to load. So already you see that the choice of JPEG vs RAW varies depending on how the images are to be used, regardless of your preference for one or the other. The situation becomes the deciding factor. As for white balance, I don't bother putting up white sheets of paper (they tend to be on the blue side anyway so you'll have to boost your temperature a bit) around the gym to wb, nor do I use the ExpoDisk that I own (fellow pro shooters swear by it but I haven't found it to be any more useful than the white paper). And I haven't found gray cards or a calibration target, both of which I have, any more useful than just dialing down my temperature to around 4200-4600. After my table girl loads the first "test" photos (before the event has even started), I can tell what adjustments I need to make which are usually modest if at all. Some will argue that the image on the camera screen is not a true indicator of wb. Who cares? Spectators are looking for good-quality images to put on their refrigerator, not Annie Liebowitz portraits to frame and put on the family photo wall or in their wedding album. And I agree with John that the temperature of these lights at a given gym are fairly consistent. But keep in mind that I only need to wb where I am NOT using my strobe lights since they are color corrected and my settings prevent my camera from seeing the ambient light (high f-stop). As for flash I usually have my 580EX set at maximum flash output and with my Elinchrom 600RX strobes, I typically dial those down to half power which gives me a flash sync of 1/4000 sec (well above NCAA regulations of 1/2000 sec). With a rec or high school gym's low ceiling, bouncing my strobes off the ceiling would give a wide spread burst of light so turning down the output is essential. In this way, I get few complaints from coaches or players or none at all. Interestingly, if they're told "ESPN is here photographing" then I don't get ANY complaints!
I'm using a Canon Mark IIN so whatever flash I'm using, I'm set on manual at 1/250 sec. although shutter speed doesn't matter here. My ISO can range from about 200 to 400 but you'll want to stay out of that noisy range of higher ISO's. And I agree too with John about getting it right in the camera. In my event photography business, time is money. Whether that time is on the field, at the booth, or in post-processing. The idea is to work smarter, not harder so eliminating post-processing, when and wherever possible, is the key. Remember, with event photography where images are being sold onsite, post processing is not feasible so the spectators get pretty much what comes out of the camera, although our software does allow a bit of tweaking right before we send the image to print so we can make modest color corrections or sharpening and, of course, cropping. When I'm not printing onsite, I do my post-processing in Lightroom and use my PS3 Actions so adjustments can be made almost instantly. Although the batch processing in Lightroom can be time-saving, the problem is, few of my photos require exactly the same adjustments. So in many cases, I'm still making adjustments individually. Like John, I confine my use of RAW to my portrait work and everything else that isn't sold onsite. My problem with JPEGS is that any changes, once saved, cause the loss of information. And in many cases, even when using a 300mm 2.8 with 1x extender, a football, soccer or outfield baseball or softball player can comprise only a very small portion of your framed shot. Cropping tightly in these cases means a tremendous loss of information. Let's hope they don't order a 30 x 40 poster or life-size "Fathead." If I'm not allowed to use flash at all at an indoor event, I usually shoot all images in RAW and process later or I don't do the event. For outdoor events I shoot medium to large JPEGS for my events.
RAW definitely is an extra step and usually more, even if you're only converting to JPEGS. So to do anything with RAW requires at least one step - importing. Add loading time, cataloging, etc. into the mix and Lightroom absolutely does take several extra steps even before you've tweaked a single image. Once that's done the images ultimately have to be exported, that folder has to be opened, and the images (now JPEGS) often have to be tweaked a hair or two more in PS, then cropped. So you can see that getting your pictures right in the camera to begin with (as best as possible) is certainly the smarter way to go. At least in event photography where images are being printed out onsite.
Michael
ARIZONA SPORT SHOTS
MICHAEL CAMPBELL PHOTOGRAPHY
What a great answer!
ann
My Galleries My Photography BLOG
Ramblings About Me
I've read both pages of this post. I'm going on my third and final year of photographing my daughters dance team (yes, here its considered a sport). I've got two years of yucky photos because I cannot get the WB set.
As parents we have to sit in the bleachers. I generally photograph the first lines that are dancing to try and get the balance right. My ISO is at 1200 (high as it goes) and aperture is wide open.
So what I get are clear as day shots of the people in the bleachers across the gym floor
In my dreams...I'd like a few great shots of my senior dancer doing a triple (three spins around) and some great shots of her in the high kick line without the blur of the legs kicking.
I guess I could bribe the sports photographer to take a few photos of just her to purchase
Any ideas? I've played with the white balance, set it for florescent lighting. I've bought four Sony books. I have photoshop cs3, but am an beginner. I can post photos if that would help?
Thanks!
Anyway, if you can give us some more information, I'm sure it will help those that are far more professional and (most importantly) more knowledgeable to help!
Camera: Sony dSLR a100
Lens: Did this come with the camera, did you buy one separate?
*For those unfamiliar with the camera, this came with 1 or 2 lenses. The kit lens(es) could be: an 18-70mm f/3.5 lens or a 75-300mm f/3.5-5.6 lens*
Experience Level: No matter how many books you buy, etc, I've learned from the pros here it all comes down to how well you know the camera you're working with. How familiar are you with both the features of your camera, and how those features work in general? (aka, white balance, etc.)
If you're getting blurry shots, it is likely that your shutter speed is not high enough to stop the motion. If you are familiar with aperture and shutter speed, this next part will make sense. If not, skip ahead to my little arrow (==>). Although different lenses may zoom to the same magnification, the difference is how much light is let in at that farthest magnification. For example, Nikon makes 2 lenses that reach a focal length of 200mm. One has an aperture of f/5.6 at that far end, the other has an aperture of f/2.8 at that far end. The lens with the aperture of f/2.8 will let in MUCH more light, allowing you to make your shutter speed faster and freeze the action.
==> If you are using the lens that came with the camera, the camera is probably not getting enough light and therefore, is holding the shutter open longer to let in more light. This causes the blurring you are seeing in your pictures. Sadly, there is not much you can do without upgrading the camera. You have the right idea, with the high ISO, and the monopod!
As for the yellow, this is exactly what the previous posters are talking about, but I feel in this case, it is better to address the blurriness first, and the color later. The setting "white balance" controls what the camera thinks is the color white, and adjusts from there. To fix this, you effectively "trick" the camera. A photographer will take a white card, and photograph it. Then, by using this card, the camera can tell how much the lighting is altering the colors, and will adjust (or be adjusted by the professional) so the card appears to be white. This will bring all the colors much closer to their actual appearance to our eyes!
Phew! Hopefully, I didn't make this too long, I have a tendency to be longwinded sometimes! Between this, and what other photographers have to say, you should be able to get a good understanding of why the pictures are coming out the way they are, and your chances of fixing them.
Good luck, I hope you're able to get your dancers and all their spins!
Sigma 18-50 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8
Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6, 50mm f/1.8
I thought my lens might be a problem, but I thinks its the photographer!
To put the numbers in perspective, that f/6.3 on the 200mm end was about what I got when I shot football outdoors in pure sunlight at about 3pm. Inside, the shutter speed is going to plummet so the light can get in that lens. Even with the f/3.5, you're gonna have trouble.
Anyone doing photography indoors starts shopping for a "fast" lens (aka, one with f/2.2 or lower) after just one event with photos like you describe. Most pros and semi-pros talk about using f/1.8, even f/1.4 lenses when shooting indoors. I'll let the people who use them recommend the good lenses (I haven't really done any indoor shooting yet, so I don't know a ton about them).
I promise, with a faster lens, and a bit of white balance adjustment, you'll be thrilled with your shots!
~Nick
Sigma 18-50 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8
Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6, 50mm f/1.8
No, it's not "the photographer" (at least, not all!) ... and, in this case, Nick's right in that your lens is the "dam" that is holding back good action shots of your dancer.
As an example, let's say that your gym's ambient light meters at ISO 1600; f2.8; 1/250 shutter speed for a "proper" exposure. Now let's look at your settings: ISO 1250; f6.3; (and I don't know that you said what shutter speed you were shooting at) .... But you can do the math from those two sets of figures and see that you're almost 3 stops underexposed just figuring in the ISO and aperture! There's just no way that you can hope to "stop" anything that's moving in a dimly-lit venue with those settings .... It's unfortunate, but that lens is just too slow for those lighting conditions .... I think a very fine lens for that might be a 135mm f2.0 lens .... good reach and plenty fast enough.
Now ... as far as white balance and color are concerned in indoor gyms .... I know there are many people who say that you should set a custom white balance for the gym lighting if you're shooting ambient light - and I understand the logic behind it, too. You're trying to get as much "right" in camera as you shoot to make the best photos and limit time in post-processing ... I totally understand that (and I've even tried it, too!) ....
But I'm going to submit to everyone that getting "accurate" color balance on every shot while shooting in a gym is almost imposssible. These gym lights "cycle" and go through several different "color" iterations every second that you're shooting. And you can test this yourself - go into a gym - any gym - and take a burst of 4 or 5 shots and then review them. You'll see a color shift almost in every frame - it may be subtle, it may be wild. But the "color" will not be consistent throughout. Setting a custom white balance might help with one or two shots, but that's it. And test this yourself, too. Go into a gym and set a custom white balance using your favorite tool for that. Then take a burst of 4 or 5 or 6 shots and review them .... again, you're going to see a color shift between those frames.
The best way that I've found is to shoot in RAW (as has been mentioned) and then correct that color shift in post ... or shoot with strobes and negate that color shifting. Both processes take more time, but the resulting images are much more consitent.
Atlanta, Georgia
Photos at SportsShooter
Okay, can't afford that lens --- heavy sigh!
Canon users: point it at the light source and take a pic...the result is a white cloud. You then set your custom white balance to that exposure and you're done.
Nikon users: yours is one step: set the custom white balance and take the photo with the expodisc as part of the process.
Then you put away the ExpoDisc. Everything you shoot under that lighting will have proper color balance. Simple.
They come in filter sizes - the most cost-effective way to handle this is to buy one for the largest filter size you use...you can then hold it over all your smaller lenses when you take the test photo.
My 77mm was $100 at B&H about a year ago. Well worth the money for the convenience and accuracy.
- Gary.
There's a lot of good advice in this thread. (Maybe we can turn it into a sticky or tutorial?) So I'm going to try using the 1/60 shutter speed for white balance and the burst for the upcoming basketball season.
Profiles: Lightstalkers | Sportsshooter
Gear: Canon 40D | Canon 350D | Tokina 17/3.5 | Sigma 30mm/1.4 | EF 50mm/1.4 | EF 85mm/1.8 | EF 200mm/2.8L II | EF 300mm/4.0L | Canonet QL 17 GIII | Yashica 635 | Elinchrom Skyport Transmitter & Triggers | Canon 430EX | Nikon SB-24 (x2) | Bogen 3208 Tripod
No, that wouldn't be "overkill" at all ....
And, in fact, that's exactly what you should do.
You should take a white balance "reference" image with each body and each lens that you're using ....
I think you're on your way to verifying for yourself what I pointed out in my last post - that getting "accurate" color balance for all of your shots when shooting ambient light in any "regular" gym is just about impossible with the cycling lights (and I say "regular" as opposed to shooting in a pro venue or a very well-lit college arena. Those arenas are usually much better lit, and even then the white balance can get a little "hit and miss").
Atlanta, Georgia
Photos at SportsShooter