Options
Friday Night Football From The Stands
As we go into semifinals for the Sate Championship I seek some discussion/advice. I am new to DSLR this year and am shooting from the stands for publication on a community non-profit website, sort of an on-line newspaper. I do not sell pics and I do not want to be on the sidelines. In fact, I kind of like the view of the action I get from there. The sideline stuff is great, but I get punt blocks, pass receptions, etc, good action stuff, that seems more rare from sidelines. The local paper gets one crazy-good shot per game and I seem to get almost all of the big plays, but not quite the Photo artwork he gets.
So here is the challenge, maximizing my IQ and focus from the stands. I have tried a 70-200 2.8 and a Canon 55-250 IS. The 55-250 gave me the best overall results, mostly because I was always at f/5 or more (limitation of lens) and it made 85% of my shots good, even though I am pre-focusing and following the action to get the shot. I have to shoot at 1600 or higher and use noise reduction later, but the shots are great and I miss very little. With the 70-300 I am slower just due to size and weight and the f/2.8 works against me, either by making me re-focus due to field depth (thereby missing the shot) or I keep clicking and get only about 20% useable shots, the rest out of focus, and I always miss the good moments. What am I doing wrong?
Unless someone can change my approach, here is what I am planning for this Friday. 55-250 IS, 1/500th, largest aperture the lense allows and adjust ISO as high as needed to get useable pics, which depends alot on the stadium lighting, as yet unknown as it is away game. I am assuming that pre-focusing on the center of the action then ignoring focus and just clicking is the only way to react fast enough. Does anyone know what the "depth of field" is at f/5.0 from the stands (about 70 yards)?
There have got to be a bunch of parents out there doing what I am doing. How about some DGrin advice to help us capture memories for our kids?
1) Does f/2.8 make it impossible to "prefocus and shoot" in this situation?
2) What is the depth of field from the stands?
3) Is anyone out there doing this with any degree of success? (Please limit your advice to the parents and casual shooters because I know that the Pros can do this with mega-expensive lenses and tripods, but we are crammed onto an 18" wide piece of bleacher between a spouse and someone's 5 year old whining for a cheeseburger and we have $400 lenses.)
Any help out there? (Feel free to ramble, because I have, and we enjoy hearing all your tips and applying the ones we can.)
So here is the challenge, maximizing my IQ and focus from the stands. I have tried a 70-200 2.8 and a Canon 55-250 IS. The 55-250 gave me the best overall results, mostly because I was always at f/5 or more (limitation of lens) and it made 85% of my shots good, even though I am pre-focusing and following the action to get the shot. I have to shoot at 1600 or higher and use noise reduction later, but the shots are great and I miss very little. With the 70-300 I am slower just due to size and weight and the f/2.8 works against me, either by making me re-focus due to field depth (thereby missing the shot) or I keep clicking and get only about 20% useable shots, the rest out of focus, and I always miss the good moments. What am I doing wrong?
Unless someone can change my approach, here is what I am planning for this Friday. 55-250 IS, 1/500th, largest aperture the lense allows and adjust ISO as high as needed to get useable pics, which depends alot on the stadium lighting, as yet unknown as it is away game. I am assuming that pre-focusing on the center of the action then ignoring focus and just clicking is the only way to react fast enough. Does anyone know what the "depth of field" is at f/5.0 from the stands (about 70 yards)?
There have got to be a bunch of parents out there doing what I am doing. How about some DGrin advice to help us capture memories for our kids?
1) Does f/2.8 make it impossible to "prefocus and shoot" in this situation?
2) What is the depth of field from the stands?
3) Is anyone out there doing this with any degree of success? (Please limit your advice to the parents and casual shooters because I know that the Pros can do this with mega-expensive lenses and tripods, but we are crammed onto an 18" wide piece of bleacher between a spouse and someone's 5 year old whining for a cheeseburger and we have $400 lenses.)
Any help out there? (Feel free to ramble, because I have, and we enjoy hearing all your tips and applying the ones we can.)
Canon 20D, Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, Canon 55-250 IS until I find the zoom that floats my boat.
0
Comments
The sideline photographer will have more than one crazy good shot. It's probably the only one published.
It's hard to beat the Canon 70-200mm, f2.8L USM for sports where it is appropriate. It needs to be used with an appropriate body to be most effective, but I've used it with an XT with moderate success. Sports AF works best with the 1D/1Ds bodies because the AF in those bodies is vastly different and designed for the rigors of active sports (IMO).
There are 2 modes and methods for sports autofocus:
1) "One Shot mode", where you use an instantaneous AF and exposure. The camera will lag just a bit so proper anticipation is important. Pre-focus and constantly tapping the shutter button halfway will reduce the reaction time for the AF system.
2) "AI Servo mode", where the camera will sample AF over a period of time and then estimate where the AF needs to be at the time of exposure. This method needs some additional anticipation over the One Shot mode and works best with regular movement of the subject.
Used properly, the AI Servo mode has the potential for greatly improving your success, especially in "continuous" shooting mode and short bursts, for which I believe it was designed.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
In response to the sidelines being the best place, I do no disagree, but all of us parents and fans can't be THERE for any number of reasons. So given that we are limited to the stands, I open the floor for help.
Thanks.
I do not know the lighting in your stadium but there is no way you will get 500s @f5. I shoot our home games at a GC stadium with good lighting and I'm at 3200, F-2.8, 500s.
As far as IQ goes any cropping done in post will be full of noise. You do not have pics posted or links to your shots so I'm not sure what your expectations are.
Here is a link to a depth of field calc. Just plug in the nos. http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
DMunsonPhoto
MaxPreps Profile
Sports Shooter
Now for the tough part. I now open myself for ridicule by the entire photo community. I am not putting these up as "great photos", only "great timing". These are a few JPEG shots right out of the camera, no processing, from a playoff game 2 weeks ago. Shot with 20D and 55-250 IS (at or close to 250) ISO 3200, f/5.6, 1/400 or 1/500, from the stands high up at midfield. The last sequence (second blocked field goal) happened with one second left on the clock and the opponent attempting a field goal to win, which we blocked and ran 82 yards for a 13-7 win.
http://picasaweb.google.com/neaux1/CHSBrotherMartinKeyPlays#
I welcome your comments and suggestions as to how to improve.
Thanks.
1. Shots are way too loosely framed
2. Can't see faces because too far away, underexposed and shooting down on your subject
3. Even when you capture some nice action it fills up such a small portion as to not be very interesting.
I realize you don't want to be a pro shooter. But the reality is you cannot get good shots from that far away. While "good" is a relative thing, you'll find that the standard of "good" in a sports forum for photographers is different than sharing snapshots with your family.
In the end if you're happy with the quality of your photos that's all that matters. But there are a whole slew of reasons to change your approach.
Here's an example of some shots using proper equipment from the sideline. Notice how much more impact the shots have because the action fills the frame and you can see the faces:
Again - no offense but capturing action in 5% of the camera frame is easy to do. But it doesn't produce a good photo. To produce a good photo you need to be on the sideline and you need to have the right equipment. At a minimum, a 70-200 2.8 lens (sigma sells for $850). I realize it's not what you want to hear. You want to hear it's possible to get great shots from the stands. Unfortunately it's not the case - certainly not for night football.
But it's a choice only you can make. If you're happy with the quality of what you're currently getting then do what you're currently doing. If you want to get better shots, it starts by shooting from the sidelines not the stands. Good luck whatever you decide.
My suggestion would be to contact the Athletic director of your school to see what is involved with getting a sideline pass seeing as you're shooting for a media source. It might be a bit of a challenge for a playoff game though. At least in my state, sideline access for playoff games is controlled by the governing body (OHSAA) and not the individual school. During a regular season game, each school controls there own sideline access and at least here in Ohio there typically are not any 'passes' required. Until playoff time. But you won't know if you don't ask.
Also a note on depth-of-field. Part of what makes a good sports image is focus of the viewer is drawn to the subject. One aspect of that is that the eyes should NOT be drawn to distracting background. That's where the shallow depth of field of the 2.8 lens comes into play (in addition to the fact that without flash you cant get properly exposed shots without 2.8). That shallow depth of field blurs the background so the viewers eyes aren't drawn to fences, players on the sideline, cars etc. Yes, it's tougher to photograph at wider apertures but it produces much better results.
If that is the consensus, so be it. Life is a series of tradeoffs, I just needed to be sure those were the only options.
of course that is not likely what you are looking for in a shot and i have no idea at all about cost of the equipment or difficulty in using it. Likewise it is very late and I am not looking for the links at the moment...
By being close to the action (with a zoom lens) you see the game from a whole new perspective. You hear what is going on, on the sidelines (the attitudes, emotions and reactions of players, coaches and refs). You "feel" the speed and ferocity of the game on the field (I am still amazed by the sound of a varsity player when the run right down the sidelines by me... watching the ferocity of the game, up close, at this level will give you a whole new level of appreciation for what your son goes through on the playing field). And with that big-ass zoom you see facial expressions that you will never experience from the stands. I can't tell you how many times I am hanging out with parents after a game and I find myself explaining to them what happened on a particular play, penalty, etc., because I was there "in the mix" not at a distance in the stands conjecturing.
Then of course there is the added benefit of capturing moments in time that can last a lifetime for not only myself but the parents of the other players on the team. And since you are looking at championship games, capturing the emotions of the players, coaches and fans when they win games like this will be priceless.
Now if you are determined to sit in the stands then I can't offer you much advice... tried it once or twice and just found it too frustrating and rather boring after being on the sidelines. However, to at least respond to one of your questions.... check out the following website to determine what the DOF of your lens will be given your equipment and distance from the field.
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
Regards, Kevin
Canon 1DM4, 300mm 2.8, 70-200mm 2.8, 200mm 1.8, 24-70mm 2.8, 85mm 1.8
if you are happy then enjoy, getting good photos, from the stands is not impossible, just very difficult. if you want to shoot that way go for it, your results will be average at best.
if you want good photos, then you need the right equipment and shoot correctly.
it's funny, a photographer i know, was telling me how a parent friend of there's bought 10 photos, of there son in a football game. i wanted to see the picture, so i went to the web and i was astonished. the photo was
1. oof
2. maybe 5% of the frame
3. 2 dark
4. you could see the players and you could see that one uniform was darker, but everything else was kinda just there.
some kids parent spent 75 dollars on junk.
this is not photography, johng is right, photography is good sharp, clean photos.
please , compromise and do good work, even ifit is just for yourself.
kevin
you got me in a good mood this morning, your feelings are good, being on the sideline allows for good photography.
no interference, clean looks at the playing field. not much time to really enjoy the game. your experience is refreshing.