Thanks for all your help! I shot a soccer game today, followed your advice below, reduced my Active D lighting to low and kept rechecking and adjusting my shutter speed and ap, to underexpose just a little (very bright sunlight/no clouds) and the pictures came out GREAT. Lots less post processing to do--thank you!!!!!
Shooting in manual mode you can't set the over/under expose. It will not work. Those only work if you use the other program modes like Sports mode, Portrait mode, etc..
To underexpose in manual mode just point your camera at whatever you are wanting to take a pic of and push the button halfway down as if to focus. While looking through the viewfinder, you will see a scale at the bottom of the screen in the viewfinder. That is called metering. Your camera will shade in on that scale where your current setting will put your exposure. To under expose a bit, simply reach up and turn the dial to speed up the shutter, or turn the other dial to close in your aperature a stop or two. You will then see the shaded area on the graph move towards the - as opposed to the +. There is no perfect setting because every situations lighting is different and switching lenses will change how the camera views it as well. It's like every other good photographer on here says, the best way that you will get better is to try different things, remember when you did them or do something like take a picture of your hand holding up a 1 when you change a setting and write down what 1 means on a pad, later try another setting and take a pic of your hand holding up 2 fingers and write down on your pad what 2 means. Then when you download the pics, when you see the pic of your hand with different numbers, the pics afterwards will show you how changing that setting effected the exposure. Eventually you'll just memorize what does what and it will come second nature to you and you can change your settings on the fly to match the situation you are in and your pics will continually be close to the same exposure.
Here's an example I like to use because it's about the worst conditions you can shoot in - white uniform and bright sunlight. The only thing worse is African-American skin which is almost impossible to expose correctly in these conditions. Now, the highlights in the pants are completely blown - as a photographer, that drives me nuts (as does the purple fringing that goes along with it). But, the facial tones are good - you can see the eyes, and the eyes, IMO, make the shot more compelling. Most clients don't even notice the blown highlights but they notice those faces. The cameras of today don't have the dynamic range to get both exposed properly. This shot was cropped and sharpened but no levels or other exposure adjustments done. Note, however, my exposure settings if play was moving in the opposite direction would be completely differentt as the sun would have been in the face rather than behind (as you can see by the light on the runner's arm).
I can give you one worse. The newest school here has similar uniform clashes in games AND a large white concrete wall the length of the field on one side of the field. On top of that (behind it) is a large dense evergreen forest, so of course that means a huge field of black (or dark, dark green) above the wall before you get to the sky (which you don't normally do when shooting in that direction for football). So, when I'm shooting towards that wall and it's a sunny day, exposure is a real bear. You have the conflicting uniform colors with a large half bright white and half almost pure black background. I shoot RAW for the flexibility it gives in those circumstances. Manual exposure, unless the sun is in and out. Then it's aperture priority. PP is quick and easy with Lightroom 2. Cull, batch adjust a series if necessary, cull some more, crop and spot adjust (lighten faces) for exceptional shots. Export to JPG.
Hey Fogcity, let's see what some of them look like...
I put my D300s into service this weekend, and this series was amongst the first 20 or so I took with it. Timing not perfect, but the point is that I had the Active-D set on Auto, and I was happy with it. I had the exposure mode set to matrix, which is not what I usually do, but with Active D set on auto, I did not mess with the exposure compensation at all. The below images have only had a simple auto-contrast done to them.
First shot was with the sun basically right behind me on the same axis that I was shooting (a mili late as I was getting used to the shutter release):
Second shot 90 degrees to the sun...
Third shot, backlit by most standards, and I would have had to fix that one, I think, without the Active D. I don't really care about the blown out sky. It is a relatively dark horse:
I use NX2 for corrections currently, as adobe products seem to have issues starting and staying on..
Hey Fogcity, let's see what some of them look like...
Sure! Love your shots--they are so sharp, I'm trying to get to that point, but still not quite there. Love the D300 though!
Here are some examples....these were taken in bright, glaring Noon-time sun, with it barely behind my back for most shots (except the close up, I just think that one is fun). For the most part, only PP was adjusting some of the glaring highlights and noise reduction. I did find for some reason there was more noise and these shots were not as crisp as the PP shots that started out overexposed from the previous weekend, but overall with much less adjustments needed and if they aren't blown up huge you probably can't tell the difference. I do have a problem adjusting enough so the white ball isn't all blown out though (without ruining the rest of the image) and don't have the patience to PP each picture to fix the ball by itself.....
Makes me wonder....Active D Lighting set to high may screw around with the exposure (making the pics overexposed, but adjustable) but you end up with more tack sharp images than with Active D on low. Advice? Am I exposing correctly for their faces?
Also--I was shooting on manual between 1/1250 and 1/2000 ap around 7.1, letting the iso float again (and the iso was floating from 640-800). Maybe I should fix the iso at 200 when the light is so bright to eliminate the noise (but the D300 shouldn't have much noise at that level)?
RAW, although it seems the consensus that most use JPEG, but I'm not confident enough that I'll have to PP so I'm using RAW to be safe
It has nothing to do with confidence...
I usually only shoot in RAW, and for me it's a better choice then JPEG. I know people have their reasons, but I like the flexibility. AND using Lightroom to process the images adds no time (zero) to my pp. The only downside to RAW for me is file size in camera and upload time of a completed shoot.
I went back and read through this post and did not see anyone mention resetting the camera to factory default to make sure everything was back to "normal"... Might not be a bad idea, I love pushing the D300 in new area's and sometimes forget to set something back before my next shoot.
If you shoot in RAW and do not import with Nikon's Capture NX, turn D lighting OFF. There's lot's of data floating around that supports this. here's a quote from Peter iNova's ebook... " When shooting RAW images, the effect of Active D-Lighting shooting is not embedded in the pixel tonality values—it’s an option for later processing with Capture NX. As you open a RAW image, the image will display with the effect in place, but you may alter it, changing its strength, or turn it off entirely as part of the RAW interpretation options.
When you open a RAW image in Photoshop CS3’s Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) interpreter, it won’t understand the D-Lighting tags in the RAW file, so you won’t get the same effect that you saw on the camera monitor."
I shoot a lot of sports and have my own "starting Point" settings that work for me. I shoot a fair amount of manual, but also a lot of Shutter and Aperature Priority. I've also recently experemented with Auto ISO and like the results (Under the right circumstance). I was shooting a Soccer game last week, late afternoon with one end of the field in heavy shadow. I used auto ISO and it worked great. As players came towards me out of the shadows, I just worried about focusing on the action
As the technology has gotten better, I find myself allowing the camera to make some of the basic decisions for me. I know that will get the hackles up of the "maunual only, I want complete control" crowd... but again it works for me and I want the easiest path to a great picture.
Also, you mentioned clarity on a prior post, are you shooting handheld or with a Monopod ? I think it makes a difference and love the stability a monopod gives me.
And... I feel your pain on processing through 200+ images of an event. If you've not tried using Lightroom or Apperature, I'd recommend it strongly. I use LR and the time savings in my workflow make it worth the cost of the software. I can process ONE image, adjust WB, exposure, crop and a hundred other things... and Sync all of the images from that one. I then go through and tweak each, discard as needed and export as JPEG.
I feel your pain on processing through 200+ images of an event. If you've not tried using Lightroom or Apperature, I'd recommend it strongly. I use LR and the time savings in my workflow make it worth the cost of the software. I can process ONE image, adjust WB, exposure, crop and a hundred other things... and Sync all of the images from that one. I then go through and tweak each, discard as needed and export as JPEG
I PP in Aperture and it does cut down considerably on my PP time (but the upload time on Raw is annoying)--I do exactly as you described, first trying to batch the pictures for the type of corrections they need, then process one and stamp the rest with the change. Love it.
If you shoot in RAW and do not import with Nikon's Capture NX, turn D lighting OFF. There's lot's of data floating around that supports this. here's a quote from Peter iNova's ebook... " When shooting RAW images, the effect of Active D-Lighting shooting is not embedded in the pixel tonality values—it’s an option for later processing with Capture NX. As you open a RAW image, the image will display with the effect in place, but you may alter it, changing its strength, or turn it off entirely as part of the RAW interpretation options.
When you open a RAW image in Photoshop CS3’s Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) interpreter, it won’t understand the D-Lighting tags in the RAW file, so you won’t get the same effect that you saw on the camera monitor.
But I'm perplexed by your comment on the Active D lighting--I seemed to get such a nice end result, even with my overexposed images, when I had the Active D on high. They seemed sharper than with it set on low. I'm not using Capture NX (although I have in the past)--I didn't think you needed that to get the advantages of the Active D. Maybe I try to shoot some totally without it, go back to high, see if there is a difference in the same shoot/same lighting?
Also, you mentioned clarity on a prior post, are you shooting handheld or with a Monopod ? I think it makes a difference and love the stability a monopod gives me.
I have a monopod, not using it much. I like being able to move around the field and swing around for the action a lot--I just need to learn how to use it better. I need to see if that might help with the sharpness too.
I wonder if I should adjust to iso 200 or so when in bright light conditions though, I think the float might be causing more noise than necessary when in constant bright light conditions with no clouds. Then I could just adjust the ss and ap to make the correct exposure? I like the idea of the iso floating in a cloudy/shadowing situation though.
I'll consider resetting the camera too, I just got done going through almost every menu setting though to get it how I want it. More experimenting wouldn't hurt though!
Your welcome.
I'd definitely experiment with Active D on and off.
As a general rule, I try and keep the ISO as low as possible. If you can shoot at ISO 200, with a shutter speed faster then say... 1/640 that's a good place to start.
Maybe someone smarter then I can answer this... In a controlled test environment and exposed correctly, if I took a shot of an athlete running at say: ISO 200, Shutter Speed 1/800, aperture 2.8
And a Second shot of the same subject at: ISO 500, shutter speed 1/4000 (or whatever the math work out to and aperture 2.8
Would the higher ISO/ faster shutter image lack any color saturation and "depth" (for lack of a better word) of the slower shutter speed lower ISO image ? I think it does, but am not 100% sure.
Woody, you bring up a lot of good points. I think it all depends on what we are actually shooting..
I myself would consider it a complete joy to only have to process 200 images after one of my horse shows.. But for example, after this past weekend of a horse show of only 100 horses (1/2 to 1/3 the usual size), my staff and I took about 3,900 images. So basically, I shoot jpg at shows, and raw all other times. I keep every original and would go broke buying hard drives if I did otherwise. If I and my staff are using the right settings (and they pretty much do) It all works out more than acceptably for the clientelle.
I'm still a holdout on very old software, much preferring the results the old Nikon Editor, part of the old Nikon View, to anything that has come afterwards. Nikon Editor can't batch process, and anyway can't be loaded on a Vista machine with any stability. The old Nikon Capture has a nice batch feature that includes some presets that are really close to Nikon Editor, so I keep an XP machine on hand to batch all of my shows with that. I use the most neutral setting, which gives me an "Auto-Contrast" (as opposed to an Auto-Levels") on each image. Neither NX, NX2, nor PS-CS3 have the results to match Nikon Capture, so I have stuck with the old. I haven't even explored Lightroom. Yet.. Maybe I should???
Maybe all of this belongs in another area, but it is sports-specific stuff I figure. It's been a long road to figure this work-flow, but I'm always looking to improve on it...
Sure! Love your shots--they are so sharp, I'm trying to get to that point, but still not quite there. Love the D300 though!
Here are some examples....these were taken in bright, glaring Noon-time sun, with it barely behind my back for most shots (except the close up, I just think that one is fun). For the most part, only PP was adjusting some of the glaring highlights and noise reduction. I did find for some reason there was more noise and these shots were not as crisp as the PP shots that started out overexposed from the previous weekend, but overall with much less adjustments needed and if they aren't blown up huge you probably can't tell the difference. I do have a problem adjusting enough so the white ball isn't all blown out though (without ruining the rest of the image) and don't have the patience to PP each picture to fix the ball by itself.....
Makes me wonder....Active D Lighting set to high may screw around with the exposure (making the pics overexposed, but adjustable) but you end up with more tack sharp images than with Active D on low. Advice? Am I exposing correctly for their faces?
Also--I was shooting on manual between 1/1250 and 1/2000 ap around 7.1, letting the iso float again (and the iso was floating from 640-800). Maybe I should fix the iso at 200 when the light is so bright to eliminate the noise (but the D300 shouldn't have much noise at that level)?
They look OK. Not great. Seem a little lacking in color, contrast. Though that may be your PPing preference.
There should be no reason at all to be shooting at F7.1. If you are using a 70-200/2.8. Shoot it wide open and get some background separation or blur. Also watch your horizons, unless the field they are playing on is on the side of a large mound you have a few "tilted" ones there.
While I'm far from a pro I don't think I do too bad when it comes to children's sports. If I were really good I wouldn't have missed the ball in this shot :-( "ancient" Canon MkIIN, 70-200/2.8 with 1.4TC
Your photos should be better.
Also I would skip the auto ISO for now. Keep on keepin on
They look OK. Not great. Seem a little lacking in color, contrast. Though that may be your PPing preference.
There should be no reason at all to be shooting at F7.1. If you are using a 70-200/2.8. Shoot it wide open and get some background separation or blur. Also watch your horizons, unless the field they are playing on is on the side of a large mound you have a few "tilted" ones there.
While I'm far from a pro I don't think I do too bad when it comes to children's sports. If I were really good I wouldn't have missed the ball in this shot :-( "ancient" Canon MkIIN, 70-200/2.8 with 1.4TC
Your photos should be better.
Also I would skip the auto ISO for now. Keep on keepin on
Gene
Thanks for that critique!!!! Your example shot is exactly what I'm going for--love it!
I'm using my 70-300 4.5 for the reach, but I do have an 80-200 2.8 if you think the lower ap is important in bright sun, I can give it a shot but I thought the 4.5 with the extra reach was the better choice? "wish" I had a 300 2.8 but don't see that in my near future The only reason my ap was up to 7.1 was so I could underexpose the shots a little to try and fix the overexposure problem I was having, as suggested earlier in this thread, but you're right, more blur in the background would be much better, along with sharper more contrasty images. So maybe shoot at 4.5, lower the ss and fix the iso at 200? Or go with the 2.8 and just shoot the kids when they are right in front of me? I have a 1.4tc but the pics don't seem to come out that great....(do you think you were at about a 4.8 ap with the tc on?)
And, you totally made me laugh--the field IS like a mound! We have the WORST field this year--they lost the permit on the other field and seriously, when I am standing on one side I cannot see the ball on the far side of the field. It is not THAT bad, but there is a slant. I was seated when I took the first shot (bad, lazy photographer!), so it looks worse than it is.
Again, really appreciate your opinions! Every little bit helps!
Thanks for that critique!!!! Your example shot is exactly what I'm going for--love it!
I'm using my 70-300 4.5 for the reach, but I do have an 80-200 2.8 if you think the lower ap is important in bright sun, I can give it a shot but I thought the 4.5 with the extra reach was the better choice? "wish" I had a 300 2.8 but don't see that in my near future The only reason my ap was up to 7.1 was so I could underexpose the shots a little to try and fix the overexposure problem I was having, as suggested earlier in this thread, but you're right, more blur in the background would be much better, along with sharper more contrasty images. So maybe shoot at 4.5, lower the ss and fix the iso at 200? Or go with the 2.8 and just shoot the kids when they are right in front of me? I have a 1.4tc but the pics don't seem to come out that great....(do you think you were at about a 4.8 ap with the tc on?)
And, you totally made me laugh--the field IS like a mound! We have the WORST field this year--they lost the permit on the other field and seriously, when I am standing on one side I cannot see the ball on the far side of the field. It is not THAT bad, but there is a slant. I was seated when I took the first shot (bad, lazy photographer!), so it looks worse than it is.
Again, really appreciate your opinions! Every little bit helps!
Wow! What a really timely thread. I was just hopping into this forum to post this exact question since I've had the same difficulty with my D300 (although I have Active-D off) and have been finding myself having to do a lot of post processing in Lightroom. I'd like to find ways to make that stop as well. I keep comparing to the pros that show up at our soccer games and I can never seem to get the saturation and clarity.
There are some tips that I definitely want to follow up on here. I'm not sure I'd revert to manual mode. I don't trust myself enough to remember to change settings when appropriate.
I really need to play with manual mode metering more as well.
I typically shoot in Aperture priority mode and keep it as wide open as possible. I really want to stop the action. I've found the downside to that, especially in soccer, is that you can occasionally focus on the wrong thing. I typically spend an entire season trying to get a good picture of the goalie in action. Even with single focus on and trying all the tricks, I still seem to miss it.
A couple of follow up questions:
- You said you were shooting at f7.1 to underexpose. I typically leave it at 2.8 and then use the EV settings to go up or down a bit. If I have to go down a lot, then I start changing aperatures. What's more common out there? Changing fstops or changing exposure values?
- Why use auto ISO? If it's a sunny day, then why not stick with ISO200 and a wide aperature? You get great shutter speeds out of that. Is there an advantage to auto ISO?
- When folks are metering off the face, even in Manual mode, are you using spot or center weighted metering? For baseball, I've used spot (to get the face) but that can also result in overexposed images.
- Any good tips on the histogram and how to use that to get better exposures? One of the pros I talked to said he uses that to determine if he needs to adjust but I've yet to find a good resource to explain how to use it and how to adjust with it.
Fogcity: On the larger lens and monopod fronts, you can always rent a larger lens. I do that for tournament weekends. I can usually get an 80-400VR for around $95 with shipping and insurance and I get it for a week. It makes a big difference. The 80-200 f2.8 works great and I can crop it quite a bit and still retain enough to make an 8x10 out of it but the 400 is sweet.
If you have a monopod, I'd suggest using it. I can really help with stabilization. Also, get low. I took an online sports course and that was one tip that I liked. I had been taking shots while standing up and taking them lower (by sitting on a crate and with the camera on the monopod), I removed some of the distracting backgrounds.
My 80-200 f2.8 is about 20 years old. I know it's not the fastest lens out there and I'd love to pick up a VR version (with a mount...I have the version that was made and didn't have a tripod collar), but it's not in the cards yet.
Here are some examples of some shots I liked. Some of these have some level of PP (slight exposure adjustments, cropping).
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
C&C welcome.
"I'm just very selective about the reality I accept" - Calvin
I agree with most of the posts. Shoot manual if the lighting is predictable and consistent. Be sure to FREQUENTLY chimp and NOT trust the preview, but look at the histogram. Be sure nothing is getting clipped(overexposed). If you are worried abut exposure, and must get the shot, shoot RAW.
In this situation, Auto-ISO will work against you in manual mode. The camera will simply the adjust ISO for "correct" exposure according to the F-stop and shutter speed you have selected. Effectively, still auto-exposure.
When I had my 80-200 (on a D700), here's how I shot daylight sports:
Manual, exposing as far right as possible.
1. f/4
2. 1/800 shutter
3. ISO 500-1200 (a little noise can make your shots look sharper, don't be afraid to go higher if needed)
-JPG, L, Normal
-Noise Reduction OFF
-Custom white balance(bring a grey card)
-Neutral Image mode
-Active D-Lighting Low
After the shoot, I would bring everything into Lightroom and adjust a few few photos to my liking. Then just sync the settings to all the images and export to Smugmug.
Good luck! Hope this helps.
***Edit:
Here's a shot I got with my D300/55-200, about a year ago.
Hi Zone99, thanks for jumping in! Love your pics, especially that first one--beautiful clarity and great timing. Getting the right saturation and clarity is my issue too-but you seem to have done a pretty good job on those.
- You said you were shooting at f7.1 to underexpose. I typically leave it at 2.8 and then use the EV settings to go up or down a bit. If I have to go down a lot, then I start changing aperatures. What's more common out there? Changing fstops or changing exposure values?
I would not necessarily do that again, the backgrounds were less than desirable and I only was experimenting setting the ap to 7.1 to get the meter to read a little under exposure to compensate for my over exposure readings. It worked in that the picture was less exposed, but seemed to lose some clarity and gained a lot of noise (which leads to your next question):
- Why use auto ISO? If it's a sunny day, then why not stick with ISO200 and a wide aperature? You get great shutter speeds out of that. Is there an advantage to auto ISO?
I was experimenting with auto iso too, which in my 20/20 hindsight I believe was a huge mistake and lead to my noise issues. I should have locked into iso 100 or 200 for the bright light, I think even at 4.5 on my 70/300 I probably would have gotten a high enough ss--going to try that this weekend and I'll let you know (but I think I did that before and got the overexposures--maybe I'll adjust the ss down instead of adjusting the ap to compensate). However, on a cloudy day or where there is a lot sun and shadows, I think the auto or floating iso would help you get some action shots off and not have to check your exposure as much.
- When folks are metering off the face, even in Manual mode, are you using spot or center weighted metering? For baseball, I've used spot (to get the face) but that can also result in overexposed images.
I'm using center weighted metering, my logic is I am trying to expose for the center subject that is moving fast, so that is my best chance. Love to hear arguments for spot metering though.
- Any good tips on the histogram and how to use that to get better exposures? One of the pros I talked to said he uses that to determine if he needs to adjust but I've yet to find a good resource to explain how to use it and how to adjust with it.
I thought this was a good explanation of histograms: http://www.workshopsforphotographers.com/photo-imaging-tips-techniques/reading-histogram
however, I do think you can't necessarily judge a picture by just the histogram, but am learning to tell after checking my picture if I see it is overexposed, I try to adjust the next picture so the histogram has more of bell curve than all bunched up on the right.
Fogcity: On the larger lens and monopod fronts, you can always rent a larger lens. I do that for tournament weekends. I can usually get an 80-400VR for around $95 with shipping and insurance and I get it for a week. It makes a big difference. The 80-200 f2.8 works great and I can crop it quite a bit and still retain enough to make an 8x10 out of it but the 400 is sweet.
If you have a monopod, I'd suggest using it. I can really help with stabilization. Also, get low. I took an online sports course and that was one tip that I liked. I had been taking shots while standing up and taking them lower (by sitting on a crate and with the camera on the monopod), I removed some of the distracting backgrounds.
I'm going to give the monopod a shot again this weekend--are you shooting with a teleconverter? I just don't see how I'm going to get close enough with my 80-200 and feel like I'll lose a lot of shots. I've tried my 1.4 tc but don't like the quality of the pics. Love to try out that 80-400--where did you rent from?
I agree with most of the posts. Shoot manual if the lighting is predictable and consistent. Be sure to FREQUENTLY chimp and NOT trust the preview, but look at the histogram. Be sure nothing is getting clipped(overexposed). If you are worried abut exposure, and must get the shot, shoot RAW.
In this situation, Auto-ISO will work against you in manual mode. The camera will simply the adjust ISO for "correct" exposure according to the F-stop and shutter speed you have selected. Effectively, still auto-exposure.
When I had my 80-200 (on a D700), here's how I shot daylight sports:
Manual, exposing as far right as possible.
1. f/4
2. 1/800 shutter
3. ISO 500-1200 (a little noise can make your shots look sharper, don't be afraid to go higher if needed)
-JPG, L, Normal
-Noise Reduction OFF
-Custom white balance(bring a grey card)
-Neutral Image mode
-Active D-Lighting Low
After the shoot, I would bring everything into Lightroom and adjust a few few photos to my liking. Then just sync the settings to all the images and export to Smugmug.
Good luck! Hope this helps.
Thanks! Great shot! Appreciate your settings info too--just wondering, would you lower the iso in a very bright direct sun setting? Have you had success with an 80-200 with sports like soccer where reach is an issue? Ever use a tc?
Thanks! Great shot! Appreciate your settings info too--just wondering, would you lower the iso in a very bright direct sun setting? Have you had success with an 80-200 with sports like soccer where reach is an issue? Ever use a tc?
For sure, a lower ISO is fine if it does not mean compromising shutter/f-stop. My mental priority list looks like this: Shutter, Aperture, ISO.
On a full-frame camera the 80-200 can be little short for big field games like soccer, football, etc. I have never used a TC. For extra reach I would rent/buy the 300 f/4 or the 200-400 f/4(sweet lens).
For sure, a lower ISO is fine if it does not mean compromising shutter/f-stop. My mental priority list looks like this: Shutter, Aperture, ISO.
On a full-frame camera the 80-200 can be little short for big field games like soccer, football, etc. I have never used a TC. For extra reach I would rent/buy the 300 f/4 or the 200-400 f/4(sweet lens).
Oh great, there goes the mortgage this month So "maybe" with my D300 the 200 might work for some shots--I'll have to play around, see what a like better.
...On a full-frame camera the 80-200 can be little short for big field games like soccer, football, etc. I have never used a TC. For extra reach I would rent/buy the 300 f/4 or the 200-400 f/4(sweet lens).
Fwiw, I think that even on a DX, like D90 and D300, the 200 is (too) short for a soccer sized field.
Hi Zone99, thanks for jumping in! Love your pics, especially that first one--beautiful clarity and great timing. Getting the right saturation and clarity is my issue too-but you seem to have done a pretty good job on those.
I was very happy with that one. That's actually my son a few weeks after his soccer coach told him that 'since he was a big kid, he should try to be a bit more physical on the field and use his size to his advantage! Apparently, he listened!
I'm going to give the monopod a shot again this weekend--are you shooting with a teleconverter? I just don't see how I'm going to get close enough with my 80-200 and feel like I'll lose a lot of shots. I've tried my 1.4 tc but don't like the quality of the pics. Love to try out that 80-400--where did you rent from?
Thanks again!
I don't use a teleconverter. You're right. On an 11v11 field, it's tough to get close enough. I find myself wandering around the field and choosing a location based on action. For most games, either one side or the other is dominating so I try to place myself to get the shots I want:
- if I want the forwards, I stand near the other teams goal so I can get them coming down the field
- If I want defenders, I stand near their goal so I can get them breaking up the plays.
- Midfielders I can stand either location or even in the middle of the field and get good shots.
Where the problem comes in is when the action is ALL THE WAY on the other side of the field which, thanks to Murphy's Law, is usually the case.
This is where cropping comes in. I find I can get a good picture anywhere up to 3/4 of the way across the width of the field and then use Lightroom to crop in.
I rent from a place called LensProToGo (http://www.lensprotogo.com). I find the owner to be very responsive and quick in turnaround. There are other places that may be more local to you. They do have lenses like the 200-400 f4 VR but it's close to $290 to rent where the 80-400 F4 VR is $100 although not the best sports lens.
It's a good way to try out lenses and see what works.
My problem is that my kids are going to be in sports events for a long time. If I keep renting, I might as well buy....yeah! Right!
"I'm just very selective about the reality I accept" - Calvin
Thanks for that critique!!!! Your example shot is exactly what I'm going for--love it!
I'm using my 70-300 4.5 for the reach, but I do have an 80-200 2.8 if you think the lower ap is important in bright sun, I can give it a shot but I thought the 4.5 with the extra reach was the better choice? "wish" I had a 300 2.8 but don't see that in my near future The only reason my ap was up to 7.1 was so I could underexpose the shots a little to try and fix the overexposure problem I was having, as suggested earlier in this thread, but you're right, more blur in the background would be much better, along with sharper more contrasty images. So maybe shoot at 4.5, lower the ss and fix the iso at 200? Or go with the 2.8 and just shoot the kids when they are right in front of me? I have a 1.4tc but the pics don't seem to come out that great....(do you think you were at about a 4.8 ap with the tc on?)
And, you totally made me laugh--the field IS like a mound! We have the WORST field this year--they lost the permit on the other field and seriously, when I am standing on one side I cannot see the ball on the far side of the field. It is not THAT bad, but there is a slant. I was seated when I took the first shot (bad, lazy photographer!), so it looks worse than it is.
Again, really appreciate your opinions! Every little bit helps!
I'd for sure use the 80-200/2.8. Shoot it wide open or at 3.0-3.2. You'll be surprised at how much you can crop at lower ISOs and still get shots that are printable to 8x10.
If you're having exposure problems (like I did when I had my 40D) go to manual exposure. Meter off the grass, wide open, set the ISO so you've got 1/1000 or more if it's bright enough. If shooting with the sun adjust exposure so that your camera's meter is showing -1/3-2/3. Against the sun you likely need +2/3-1 stop.
So on a nice sunny day. ISO 200 (you camera's base), aperture 2.8, maybe 3.0-3.5 if you want a little more DOF or if the lens is sharper there and whatever SS gives you a decent meter reading and histogram.
I'd for sure use the 80-200/2.8. Shoot it wide open or at 3.0-3.2. You'll be surprised at how much you can crop at lower ISOs and still get shots that are printable to 8x10.
If you're having exposure problems (like I did when I had my 40D) go to manual exposure. Meter off the grass, wide open, set the ISO so you've got 1/1000 or more if it's bright enough. If shooting with the sun adjust exposure so that your camera's meter is showing -1/3-2/3. Against the sun you likely need +2/3-1 stop.
So on a nice sunny day. ISO 200 (you camera's base), aperture 2.8, maybe 3.0-3.5 if you want a little more DOF or if the lens is sharper there and whatever SS gives you a decent meter reading and histogram.
Gene
Thanks! I'm getting excited to shoot some games this weekend. Two soccer (I'm sure it will be bright sun here in So.Cal.), one baseball and one basketball, so I'll have a variety of things to try. I really appreciate your settings advice--going to run that 80-200 through the paces and see what I can get. I can always swap it out 1/2 way through the game and shoot both lens to compare. Should be interesting! And I think I'd better invest in a couple more memory cards! Hmmm, I wonder how long it will take to PP 1200+ pictures....
I suggest for you to use your 200mm and don't try to get every shot.
Wait for the action to come to you and capture the shoots in the range of the 200mm. This in it self will help cut down on how many shots you have to process.
I shot my first Vollyball game last week and there was so much action to capture I took too many shots my self.
I had to stop and think what would make the most interesting 8X10 print.
I shot the Vollyball game with my AF-S 70-300mm f 4.5-5.6 ED lens and relized that I wish I had a 2.8 lens. I had to bump up my ISO more than I wanted to get a fairly good exposure. I had alot of trouble with noise in my shots because of my lens I was using.
I am going to rent a 70-200mm 2.8 in October and compair my shots with my other lens to see how much of a difference it can make.
I have the vollyball photos on my site if you want to check them out.
I suggest for you to use your 200mm and don't try to get every shot.
Wait for the action to come to you and capture the shoots in the range of the 200mm. This in it self will help cut down on how many shots you have to process.
I shot my first Vollyball game last week and there was so much action to capture I took too many shots my self.
I had to stop and think what would make the most interesting 8X10 print.
I shot the Vollyball game with my AF-S 70-300mm f 4.5-5.6 ED lens and relized that I wish I had a 2.8 lens. I had to bump up my ISO more than I wanted to get a fairly good exposure. I had alot of trouble with noise in my shots because of my lens I was using.
I am going to rent a 70-200mm 2.8 in October and compair my shots with my other lens to see how much of a difference it can make.
I have the vollyball photos on my site if you want to check them out.
Take Care & Have FUN!
Charles,
Hi there,
Yup, that's what I'm going to try today, wish me luck! I checked out your volleyball pics--I cannot believe you got those with your 70-300 indoors in a gym! I wouldn't even think to take mine in a gym setting, so that was pretty impressive! Is it a very well lit gym? It doesn't look like you were using a flash, so nice job! Shooting several games today, let the craziness begin!
Have a great weekend!
Great weekend shooting several games! In conclusion, the 80-200 2.8 wide open at 200 iso in bright sun took some terrific pictures for baseball (at least for me! see below). Very little PP besides cropping. Being allowed on the field helped too
Not so great for soccer (with or without the 1.4tc--pics were about the same). Same conditions, mostly same settings (slower ss) just not enough reach and I got flare on almost everything, white on the uniforms, white on the ball and I had to crop down so much in most cases it was just kind of yuck. Plus it seemed to be back focusing a lot at 200 and I just couldn't seem to get the focus right, so I trashed a lot of pics. Either back to the 70-300 or mortgage the house for the 300 f/4 looks like to me. Unfortunately since I take full game pics for both teams, I can't wait for them to come to me all the time.
Finally, the 85 1.8 took some pretty good pics for basketball, after pp and cropping. Pushed it wide open, iso floating from 640-1600 and pushing the ss to 1/640-1/1000. See before and after, lighting is SO bad. But I was able to stop the action for quite a few shots and get acceptable pics.
Overall, I am pretty happy! I have a learning curve, but am loving it. Your comments have helped me get this far--thank you so much! I'll keep re-doing the settings, re-trying and hopefully improving. I appreciate all your comments!
Either back to the 70-300 or mortgage the house for the 300 f/4 looks like to me. Unfortunately since I take full game pics for both teams, I can't wait for them to come to me all the time.
Let me ask - you said you're taking photos for both teams. Is this a business and you're getting paid to take those photos or is it just a hobby? If it's a business then you need to invest money in the right equipment for the job. Right now you can't get both quantity and quality. If it's a hobby then quality doesn't matter as much, if it's a business then yes it does. Because, lots of parents can get OK photos and other pros will bring the big gun primes to bare. So, is it a business or a hobby?
Let me ask - you said you're taking photos for both teams. Is this a business and you're getting paid to take those photos or is it just a hobby? If it's a business then you need to invest money in the right equipment for the job. Right now you can't get both quantity and quality. If it's a hobby then quality doesn't matter as much, if it's a business then yes it does. Because, lots of parents can get OK photos and other pros will bring the big gun primes to bare. So, is it a business or a hobby?
This is a new side business for me, just local youth photography. I'm contracted for the spring baseball and winter baseball rec leagues (and by contracted I mean I have an agreement that they will promote me and I donate 10% back to their leagues and I will take at least one set of action pics for each team). I'm doing the soccer for friends when they request it, but eventually that could be an obligation as well. So there is some expectation there, but they are not paying me separately, it's just the money made from the shots. I'm thinking the 300 f/4 would be a nice step up for soccer (can't afford the 2.8). What would you suggest? Thanks!
This is a new side business for me, just local youth photography.
OK, it's a business. Now you need to think of it like one. You have to decide for yourself how important this business will be. As mentioned, you're going to run into a number of parents with the same gear you currently have. While it's easy to give those shots away, it's more difficult to sell them unless there's a big enough gap in quality. You'll have an edge in knowledge/skill but equipment DOES make a difference.
Now, the problem with the prime route is you're either going to miss shots that are too close or you're going to need a 2nd body to mount a 70-200 2.8 on. That's the best solution from a quality standpoint. But, it's expensive and it's more gear to lug around. You're not going to have time to switch lenses and you don't want to be swapping lenses a lot in the field anyway.
So, zoom lenses are a compromise - allow you to use less equipment and only a single body. We have already established 200mm is too short. For soccer you need at least 300mm, preferably 400 or even 500.
If you're shooting Nikon, the 80-400 is the king of zooms. With a price to match. A second option is the Sigma 100-300 f4. You could elect to use a 1.4x TC on it for soccer to get more reach. Although I don't use one Ii've seen enough photos and read enough from users to realize it's a fantastic lens for what it is. Costs about $1100 I think. There is also the Bigma (sigma 50-500). It's bulkier than the 100-300 and it's f5.6 but it's also 500mm. Quality is good but not as good as the 100-300 or the 80-400. And, at f5.6 you're going to run into issues in poor lighting. It is also around $1100.
Myself, I shoot Canon and use the Sigma 120-300 2.8. It was an easy decision for me a few years ago when I bought the lens - it sold for $1850 back then. It's $3000 now - Sigma realized they could make a lot more money for it than they were charging and upped the price.
But, this is still a business decision. You have to decide how much of your non-business income you want to invest in your gear. If you were relying on your business to pay you back for the lens, how long would it take to pay you back? If you make enough in one month for the $1100 lens then it's a great decision. If your business doesn't make that much profit in 2 years then it's a tougher decision. Then you have to weigh how much more income you think the lens will bring you and weigh the added personal benefit of having the new toy against the poor payback you're currently projecting.
So, I can't really tell you what to do. But I can only warn you that in today's world with every other parent owning a DSLR now it's tougher and tougher to be able to sell photos. And when you get a parent that is also giving away those photos to every other parent on the team and you get 1/3 of the teams with a parent like that you'll find your profits approach zero quickly. So, you have to get out in front of those parents and establish a reputation of your photos being SO much better. You want a parent who has bought your stuff or seen your stuff to turn their nose up at what the team Mom/dad is producing. But if they get used to the free version FIRST and get used to 'good enough', it's going to be very difficult for them to dig into their wallets and pay you for more than a photo. And you need parents buying more than 1 photo to make action shooting worth your while from a business standpoint.
OK, it's a business. Now you need to think of it like one. You have to decide for yourself how important this business will be. As mentioned, you're going to run into a number of parents with the same gear you currently have. While it's easy to give those shots away, it's more difficult to sell them unless there's a big enough gap in quality. You'll have an edge in knowledge/skill but equipment DOES make a difference.
Now, the problem with the prime route is you're either going to miss shots that are too close or you're going to need a 2nd body to mount a 70-200 2.8 on. That's the best solution from a quality standpoint. But, it's expensive and it's more gear to lug around. You're not going to have time to switch lenses and you don't want to be swapping lenses a lot in the field anyway.
So, zoom lenses are a compromise - allow you to use less equipment and only a single body. We have already established 200mm is too short. For soccer you need at least 300mm, preferably 400 or even 500.
If you're shooting Nikon, the 80-400 is the king of zooms. With a price to match. A second option is the Sigma 100-300 f4. You could elect to use a 1.4x TC on it for soccer to get more reach. Although I don't use one Ii've seen enough photos and read enough from users to realize it's a fantastic lens for what it is. Costs about $1100 I think. There is also the Bigma (sigma 50-500). It's bulkier than the 100-300 and it's f5.6 but it's also 500mm. Quality is good but not as good as the 100-300 or the 80-400. And, at f5.6 you're going to run into issues in poor lighting. It is also around $1100.
Myself, I shoot Canon and use the Sigma 120-300 2.8. It was an easy decision for me a few years ago when I bought the lens - it sold for $1850 back then. It's $3000 now - Sigma realized they could make a lot more money for it than they were charging and upped the price.
But, this is still a business decision. You have to decide how much of your non-business income you want to invest in your gear. If you were relying on your business to pay you back for the lens, how long would it take to pay you back? If you make enough in one month for the $1100 lens then it's a great decision. If your business doesn't make that much profit in 2 years then it's a tougher decision. Then you have to weigh how much more income you think the lens will bring you and weigh the added personal benefit of having the new toy against the poor payback you're currently projecting.
So, I can't really tell you what to do. But I can only warn you that in today's world with every other parent owning a DSLR now it's tougher and tougher to be able to sell photos. And when you get a parent that is also giving away those photos to every other parent on the team and you get 1/3 of the teams with a parent like that you'll find your profits approach zero quickly. So, you have to get out in front of those parents and establish a reputation of your photos being SO much better. You want a parent who has bought your stuff or seen your stuff to turn their nose up at what the team Mom/dad is producing. But if they get used to the free version FIRST and get used to 'good enough', it's going to be very difficult for them to dig into their wallets and pay you for more than a photo. And you need parents buying more than 1 photo to make action shooting worth your while from a business standpoint.
Wow, thanks for the great insight! Yes, these thoughts all go through my mind constantly. I have a marketing background, and a photography/graphic arts background so I'm torn between the money making aspect of it and the love of getting a good shot. What I'm actually hoping for, and is part of my business plan, is to shoot some great pictures, get some word of mouth that will lead to some paid gigs that will pay for the gear and eventually make me some money. I don't plan to make a lot of these first couple of seasons shooting for the leagues, but I do want my name to get out there. I have, so far, little to no competition in these markets and lots of good insiders on the boards and people pushing my name.
I actually have more work than I can commit to for basketball season. That's where the real need seems to be, with (good) indoor action shots nearly impossible even for parents with a decent DSLR. Very few will shell out the money for a good prime that works well in a gym and I have many parents that have said they have few or no pictures of their children in action. So there's a lot of buzz out there when I shoot a game.
So I'm thinking the baseball and soccer is more getting my name out there (you're right, a lot of parents with a DSLR can either get an okay shot or don't see the value in a $10 print when they can get something they perceive as almost as good--not seeing the value in beautiful backgrounds, depth, clarity and composition that we do). Every parent with a camera on their phone thinks they are an expert. Outdoors, beautiful lighting is actually my main competitor in that market! However, there are those few that DO see the difference, and they are the ones I hope to get paid gigs from and/or word of mouth.
On the other hand, I feel impressive indoor shots are leading to more photo sales and buzz in general. Eventually I need to come up with a fee schedule to (a) shoot individual games for teams or players and (b) shoot tournaments, etc. where I can charge an upfront fee plus earn the photo sales. That's next on the schedule once I'm more established.
As you can see, I am more emotionally involved than anything right now, but am trying to be practical. I'm thinking of investing in one of the lens you've listed, or something similar, and I do have a second camera body I can use so that will work. I think I can sell of several lens that are not getting any use. But I'm rambling....any advice appreciated! Am I really off track here?
Great weekend shooting several games! In conclusion, the 80-200 2.8 wide open at 200 iso in bright sun took some terrific pictures for baseball (at least for me! see below). Very little PP besides cropping. Being allowed on the field helped too
Not so great for soccer (with or without the 1.4tc--pics were about the same). Same conditions, mostly same settings (slower ss) just not enough reach and I got flare on almost everything, white on the uniforms, white on the ball and I had to crop down so much in most cases it was just kind of yuck. Plus it seemed to be back focusing a lot at 200 and I just couldn't seem to get the focus right, so I trashed a lot of pics. Either back to the 70-300 or mortgage the house for the 300 f/4 looks like to me. Unfortunately since I take full game pics for both teams, I can't wait for them to come to me all the time.
Finally, the 85 1.8 took some pretty good pics for basketball, after pp and cropping. Pushed it wide open, iso floating from 640-1600 and pushing the ss to 1/640-1/1000. See before and after, lighting is SO bad. But I was able to stop the action for quite a few shots and get acceptable pics.
Overall, I am pretty happy! I have a learning curve, but am loving it. Your comments have helped me get this far--thank you so much! I'll keep re-doing the settings, re-trying and hopefully improving. I appreciate all your comments!
The basketball shot- post processed looks great. Nice and sharp. The baseball shots look pretty good. Hard to tell at this size though.
I think you're right on your lens BFing. If it were me, and you're thinking of a 300/4 I would sell the 80-200 or send it in for service and get a Sigma 100-300/4. You can sometimes find used copies for $600 or so. As much as I currently hate Sigma, I've never read anything bad about this particular Sigma lens.
It would make a nice daylight sports lens and will take a 1.4tc if needed.
Comments
I can give you one worse. The newest school here has similar uniform clashes in games AND a large white concrete wall the length of the field on one side of the field. On top of that (behind it) is a large dense evergreen forest, so of course that means a huge field of black (or dark, dark green) above the wall before you get to the sky (which you don't normally do when shooting in that direction for football). So, when I'm shooting towards that wall and it's a sunny day, exposure is a real bear. You have the conflicting uniform colors with a large half bright white and half almost pure black background. I shoot RAW for the flexibility it gives in those circumstances. Manual exposure, unless the sun is in and out. Then it's aperture priority. PP is quick and easy with Lightroom 2. Cull, batch adjust a series if necessary, cull some more, crop and spot adjust (lighten faces) for exceptional shots. Export to JPG.
I put my D300s into service this weekend, and this series was amongst the first 20 or so I took with it. Timing not perfect, but the point is that I had the Active-D set on Auto, and I was happy with it. I had the exposure mode set to matrix, which is not what I usually do, but with Active D set on auto, I did not mess with the exposure compensation at all. The below images have only had a simple auto-contrast done to them.
First shot was with the sun basically right behind me on the same axis that I was shooting (a mili late as I was getting used to the shutter release):
Second shot 90 degrees to the sun...
Third shot, backlit by most standards, and I would have had to fix that one, I think, without the Active D. I don't really care about the blown out sky. It is a relatively dark horse:
I use NX2 for corrections currently, as adobe products seem to have issues starting and staying on..
www.HoofClix.com / Personal Facebook / Facebook Page
and I do believe its true.. that there are roads left in both of our shoes..
Sure! Love your shots--they are so sharp, I'm trying to get to that point, but still not quite there. Love the D300 though!
Here are some examples....these were taken in bright, glaring Noon-time sun, with it barely behind my back for most shots (except the close up, I just think that one is fun). For the most part, only PP was adjusting some of the glaring highlights and noise reduction. I did find for some reason there was more noise and these shots were not as crisp as the PP shots that started out overexposed from the previous weekend, but overall with much less adjustments needed and if they aren't blown up huge you probably can't tell the difference. I do have a problem adjusting enough so the white ball isn't all blown out though (without ruining the rest of the image) and don't have the patience to PP each picture to fix the ball by itself.....
Makes me wonder....Active D Lighting set to high may screw around with the exposure (making the pics overexposed, but adjustable) but you end up with more tack sharp images than with Active D on low. Advice? Am I exposing correctly for their faces?
Also--I was shooting on manual between 1/1250 and 1/2000 ap around 7.1, letting the iso float again (and the iso was floating from 640-800). Maybe I should fix the iso at 200 when the light is so bright to eliminate the noise (but the D300 shouldn't have much noise at that level)?
NH Sports Photography
nhsports.smugmug.com
RAW, although it seems the consensus that most use JPEG, but I'm not confident enough that I'll have to PP so I'm using RAW to be safe
I usually only shoot in RAW, and for me it's a better choice then JPEG. I know people have their reasons, but I like the flexibility. AND using Lightroom to process the images adds no time (zero) to my pp. The only downside to RAW for me is file size in camera and upload time of a completed shoot.
I went back and read through this post and did not see anyone mention resetting the camera to factory default to make sure everything was back to "normal"... Might not be a bad idea, I love pushing the D300 in new area's and sometimes forget to set something back before my next shoot.
If you shoot in RAW and do not import with Nikon's Capture NX, turn D lighting OFF. There's lot's of data floating around that supports this. here's a quote from Peter iNova's ebook... " When shooting RAW images, the effect of Active D-Lighting shooting is not embedded in the pixel tonality values—it’s an option for later processing with Capture NX. As you open a RAW image, the image will display with the effect in place, but you may alter it, changing its strength, or turn it off entirely as part of the RAW interpretation options.
When you open a RAW image in Photoshop CS3’s Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) interpreter, it won’t understand the D-Lighting tags in the RAW file, so you won’t get the same effect that you saw on the camera monitor."
I shoot a lot of sports and have my own "starting Point" settings that work for me. I shoot a fair amount of manual, but also a lot of Shutter and Aperature Priority. I've also recently experemented with Auto ISO and like the results (Under the right circumstance). I was shooting a Soccer game last week, late afternoon with one end of the field in heavy shadow. I used auto ISO and it worked great. As players came towards me out of the shadows, I just worried about focusing on the action
As the technology has gotten better, I find myself allowing the camera to make some of the basic decisions for me. I know that will get the hackles up of the "maunual only, I want complete control" crowd... but again it works for me and I want the easiest path to a great picture.
Also, you mentioned clarity on a prior post, are you shooting handheld or with a Monopod ? I think it makes a difference and love the stability a monopod gives me.
And... I feel your pain on processing through 200+ images of an event. If you've not tried using Lightroom or Apperature, I'd recommend it strongly. I use LR and the time savings in my workflow make it worth the cost of the software. I can process ONE image, adjust WB, exposure, crop and a hundred other things... and Sync all of the images from that one. I then go through and tweak each, discard as needed and export as JPEG.
Good luck
NH Sports Photography
nhsports.smugmug.com
I PP in Aperture and it does cut down considerably on my PP time (but the upload time on Raw is annoying)--I do exactly as you described, first trying to batch the pictures for the type of corrections they need, then process one and stamp the rest with the change. Love it.
But I'm perplexed by your comment on the Active D lighting--I seemed to get such a nice end result, even with my overexposed images, when I had the Active D on high. They seemed sharper than with it set on low. I'm not using Capture NX (although I have in the past)--I didn't think you needed that to get the advantages of the Active D. Maybe I try to shoot some totally without it, go back to high, see if there is a difference in the same shoot/same lighting?
I have a monopod, not using it much. I like being able to move around the field and swing around for the action a lot--I just need to learn how to use it better. I need to see if that might help with the sharpness too.
I wonder if I should adjust to iso 200 or so when in bright light conditions though, I think the float might be causing more noise than necessary when in constant bright light conditions with no clouds. Then I could just adjust the ss and ap to make the correct exposure? I like the idea of the iso floating in a cloudy/shadowing situation though.
I'll consider resetting the camera too, I just got done going through almost every menu setting though to get it how I want it. More experimenting wouldn't hurt though!
Thanks again!
Karen
NH Sports Photography
nhsports.smugmug.com
I myself would consider it a complete joy to only have to process 200 images after one of my horse shows.. But for example, after this past weekend of a horse show of only 100 horses (1/2 to 1/3 the usual size), my staff and I took about 3,900 images. So basically, I shoot jpg at shows, and raw all other times. I keep every original and would go broke buying hard drives if I did otherwise. If I and my staff are using the right settings (and they pretty much do) It all works out more than acceptably for the clientelle.
I'm still a holdout on very old software, much preferring the results the old Nikon Editor, part of the old Nikon View, to anything that has come afterwards. Nikon Editor can't batch process, and anyway can't be loaded on a Vista machine with any stability. The old Nikon Capture has a nice batch feature that includes some presets that are really close to Nikon Editor, so I keep an XP machine on hand to batch all of my shows with that. I use the most neutral setting, which gives me an "Auto-Contrast" (as opposed to an Auto-Levels") on each image. Neither NX, NX2, nor PS-CS3 have the results to match Nikon Capture, so I have stuck with the old. I haven't even explored Lightroom. Yet.. Maybe I should???
Maybe all of this belongs in another area, but it is sports-specific stuff I figure. It's been a long road to figure this work-flow, but I'm always looking to improve on it...
www.HoofClix.com / Personal Facebook / Facebook Page
and I do believe its true.. that there are roads left in both of our shoes..
They look OK. Not great. Seem a little lacking in color, contrast. Though that may be your PPing preference.
There should be no reason at all to be shooting at F7.1. If you are using a 70-200/2.8. Shoot it wide open and get some background separation or blur. Also watch your horizons, unless the field they are playing on is on the side of a large mound you have a few "tilted" ones there.
While I'm far from a pro I don't think I do too bad when it comes to children's sports. If I were really good I wouldn't have missed the ball in this shot :-( "ancient" Canon MkIIN, 70-200/2.8 with 1.4TC
Your photos should be better.
Also I would skip the auto ISO for now. Keep on keepin on
Gene
Thanks for that critique!!!! Your example shot is exactly what I'm going for--love it!
I'm using my 70-300 4.5 for the reach, but I do have an 80-200 2.8 if you think the lower ap is important in bright sun, I can give it a shot but I thought the 4.5 with the extra reach was the better choice? "wish" I had a 300 2.8 but don't see that in my near future
And, you totally made me laugh--the field IS like a mound! We have the WORST field this year--they lost the permit on the other field and seriously, when I am standing on one side I cannot see the ball on the far side of the field. It is not THAT bad, but there is a slant. I was seated when I took the first shot (bad, lazy photographer!), so it looks worse than it is.
Again, really appreciate your opinions! Every little bit helps!
There are some tips that I definitely want to follow up on here. I'm not sure I'd revert to manual mode. I don't trust myself enough to remember to change settings when appropriate.
I really need to play with manual mode metering more as well.
I typically shoot in Aperture priority mode and keep it as wide open as possible. I really want to stop the action. I've found the downside to that, especially in soccer, is that you can occasionally focus on the wrong thing. I typically spend an entire season trying to get a good picture of the goalie in action. Even with single focus on and trying all the tricks, I still seem to miss it.
A couple of follow up questions:
- You said you were shooting at f7.1 to underexpose. I typically leave it at 2.8 and then use the EV settings to go up or down a bit. If I have to go down a lot, then I start changing aperatures. What's more common out there? Changing fstops or changing exposure values?
- Why use auto ISO? If it's a sunny day, then why not stick with ISO200 and a wide aperature? You get great shutter speeds out of that. Is there an advantage to auto ISO?
- When folks are metering off the face, even in Manual mode, are you using spot or center weighted metering? For baseball, I've used spot (to get the face) but that can also result in overexposed images.
- Any good tips on the histogram and how to use that to get better exposures? One of the pros I talked to said he uses that to determine if he needs to adjust but I've yet to find a good resource to explain how to use it and how to adjust with it.
Fogcity: On the larger lens and monopod fronts, you can always rent a larger lens. I do that for tournament weekends. I can usually get an 80-400VR for around $95 with shipping and insurance and I get it for a week. It makes a big difference. The 80-200 f2.8 works great and I can crop it quite a bit and still retain enough to make an 8x10 out of it but the 400 is sweet.
If you have a monopod, I'd suggest using it. I can really help with stabilization. Also, get low. I took an online sports course and that was one tip that I liked. I had been taking shots while standing up and taking them lower (by sitting on a crate and with the camera on the monopod), I removed some of the distracting backgrounds.
My 80-200 f2.8 is about 20 years old. I know it's not the fastest lens out there and I'd love to pick up a VR version (with a mount...I have the version that was made and didn't have a tripod collar), but it's not in the cards yet.
Here are some examples of some shots I liked. Some of these have some level of PP (slight exposure adjustments, cropping).
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
C&C welcome.
http://zone99.smugmug.com
Nikon D300
Nikkor 18-70 DX
Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 ED
Nikon SB-600 Speedlight
Couple o' other lenses I never use!
In this situation, Auto-ISO will work against you in manual mode. The camera will simply the adjust ISO for "correct" exposure according to the F-stop and shutter speed you have selected. Effectively, still auto-exposure.
When I had my 80-200 (on a D700), here's how I shot daylight sports:
Manual, exposing as far right as possible.
1. f/4
2. 1/800 shutter
3. ISO 500-1200 (a little noise can make your shots look sharper, don't be afraid to go higher if needed)
-JPG, L, Normal
-Noise Reduction OFF
-Custom white balance(bring a grey card)
-Neutral Image mode
-Active D-Lighting Low
-Continious focus mode
-One-point focus(not dynamic)
After the shoot, I would bring everything into Lightroom and adjust a few few photos to my liking. Then just sync the settings to all the images and export to Smugmug.
Good luck! Hope this helps.
***Edit:
Here's a shot I got with my D300/55-200, about a year ago.
ISO1400, f/4.2, 1/1250
I would not necessarily do that again, the backgrounds were less than desirable and I only was experimenting setting the ap to 7.1 to get the meter to read a little under exposure to compensate for my over exposure readings. It worked in that the picture was less exposed, but seemed to lose some clarity and gained a lot of noise (which leads to your next question):
I was experimenting with auto iso too, which in my 20/20 hindsight I believe was a huge mistake and lead to my noise issues. I should have locked into iso 100 or 200 for the bright light, I think even at 4.5 on my 70/300 I probably would have gotten a high enough ss--going to try that this weekend and I'll let you know (but I think I did that before and got the overexposures--maybe I'll adjust the ss down instead of adjusting the ap to compensate). However, on a cloudy day or where there is a lot sun and shadows, I think the auto or floating iso would help you get some action shots off and not have to check your exposure as much.
I'm using center weighted metering, my logic is I am trying to expose for the center subject that is moving fast, so that is my best chance. Love to hear arguments for spot metering though.
I thought this was a good explanation of histograms: http://www.workshopsforphotographers.com/photo-imaging-tips-techniques/reading-histogram
however, I do think you can't necessarily judge a picture by just the histogram, but am learning to tell after checking my picture if I see it is overexposed, I try to adjust the next picture so the histogram has more of bell curve than all bunched up on the right.
I'm going to give the monopod a shot again this weekend--are you shooting with a teleconverter? I just don't see how I'm going to get close enough with my 80-200 and feel like I'll lose a lot of shots. I've tried my 1.4 tc but don't like the quality of the pics. Love to try out that 80-400--where did you rent from?
Thanks again!
Thanks! Great shot! Appreciate your settings info too--just wondering, would you lower the iso in a very bright direct sun setting? Have you had success with an 80-200 with sports like soccer where reach is an issue? Ever use a tc?
For sure, a lower ISO is fine if it does not mean compromising shutter/f-stop. My mental priority list looks like this: Shutter, Aperture, ISO.
On a full-frame camera the 80-200 can be little short for big field games like soccer, football, etc. I have never used a TC. For extra reach I would rent/buy the 300 f/4 or the 200-400 f/4(sweet lens).
Oh great, there goes the mortgage this month
Fwiw, I think that even on a DX, like D90 and D300, the 200 is (too) short for a soccer sized field.
I don't use a teleconverter. You're right. On an 11v11 field, it's tough to get close enough. I find myself wandering around the field and choosing a location based on action. For most games, either one side or the other is dominating so I try to place myself to get the shots I want:
- if I want the forwards, I stand near the other teams goal so I can get them coming down the field
- If I want defenders, I stand near their goal so I can get them breaking up the plays.
- Midfielders I can stand either location or even in the middle of the field and get good shots.
Where the problem comes in is when the action is ALL THE WAY on the other side of the field which, thanks to Murphy's Law, is usually the case.
This is where cropping comes in. I find I can get a good picture anywhere up to 3/4 of the way across the width of the field and then use Lightroom to crop in.
I rent from a place called LensProToGo (http://www.lensprotogo.com). I find the owner to be very responsive and quick in turnaround. There are other places that may be more local to you. They do have lenses like the 200-400 f4 VR but it's close to $290 to rent where the 80-400 F4 VR is $100 although not the best sports lens.
It's a good way to try out lenses and see what works.
My problem is that my kids are going to be in sports events for a long time. If I keep renting, I might as well buy....yeah! Right!
http://zone99.smugmug.com
Nikon D300
Nikkor 18-70 DX
Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 ED
Nikon SB-600 Speedlight
Couple o' other lenses I never use!
I'd for sure use the 80-200/2.8. Shoot it wide open or at 3.0-3.2. You'll be surprised at how much you can crop at lower ISOs and still get shots that are printable to 8x10.
If you're having exposure problems (like I did when I had my 40D) go to manual exposure. Meter off the grass, wide open, set the ISO so you've got 1/1000 or more if it's bright enough. If shooting with the sun adjust exposure so that your camera's meter is showing -1/3-2/3. Against the sun you likely need +2/3-1 stop.
So on a nice sunny day. ISO 200 (you camera's base), aperture 2.8, maybe 3.0-3.5 if you want a little more DOF or if the lens is sharper there and whatever SS gives you a decent meter reading and histogram.
Gene
Thanks! I'm getting excited to shoot some games this weekend. Two soccer (I'm sure it will be bright sun here in So.Cal.), one baseball and one basketball, so I'll have a variety of things to try. I really appreciate your settings advice--going to run that 80-200 through the paces and see what I can get. I can always swap it out 1/2 way through the game and shoot both lens to compare. Should be interesting! And I think I'd better invest in a couple more memory cards! Hmmm, I wonder how long it will take to PP 1200+ pictures....
Wait for the action to come to you and capture the shoots in the range of the 200mm. This in it self will help cut down on how many shots you have to process.
I shot my first Vollyball game last week and there was so much action to capture I took too many shots my self.
I had to stop and think what would make the most interesting 8X10 print.
I shot the Vollyball game with my AF-S 70-300mm f 4.5-5.6 ED lens and relized that I wish I had a 2.8 lens. I had to bump up my ISO more than I wanted to get a fairly good exposure. I had alot of trouble with noise in my shots because of my lens I was using.
I am going to rent a 70-200mm 2.8 in October and compair my shots with my other lens to see how much of a difference it can make.
I have the vollyball photos on my site if you want to check them out.
Take Care & Have FUN!
Charles,
Aperture Focus Photography
http://aperturefocus.com
Hi there,
Yup, that's what I'm going to try today, wish me luck! I checked out your volleyball pics--I cannot believe you got those with your 70-300 indoors in a gym! I wouldn't even think to take mine in a gym setting, so that was pretty impressive! Is it a very well lit gym? It doesn't look like you were using a flash, so nice job! Shooting several games today, let the craziness begin!
Have a great weekend!
Not so great for soccer (with or without the 1.4tc--pics were about the same). Same conditions, mostly same settings (slower ss) just not enough reach and I got flare on almost everything, white on the uniforms, white on the ball and I had to crop down so much in most cases it was just kind of yuck. Plus it seemed to be back focusing a lot at 200 and I just couldn't seem to get the focus right, so I trashed a lot of pics. Either back to the 70-300 or mortgage the house for the 300 f/4 looks like to me. Unfortunately since I take full game pics for both teams, I can't wait for them to come to me all the time.
Finally, the 85 1.8 took some pretty good pics for basketball, after pp and cropping. Pushed it wide open, iso floating from 640-1600 and pushing the ss to 1/640-1/1000. See before and after, lighting is SO bad. But I was able to stop the action for quite a few shots and get acceptable pics.
Overall, I am pretty happy! I have a learning curve, but am loving it. Your comments have helped me get this far--thank you so much! I'll keep re-doing the settings, re-trying and hopefully improving. I appreciate all your comments!
Let me ask - you said you're taking photos for both teams. Is this a business and you're getting paid to take those photos or is it just a hobby? If it's a business then you need to invest money in the right equipment for the job. Right now you can't get both quantity and quality. If it's a hobby then quality doesn't matter as much, if it's a business then yes it does. Because, lots of parents can get OK photos and other pros will bring the big gun primes to bare. So, is it a business or a hobby?
This is a new side business for me, just local youth photography. I'm contracted for the spring baseball and winter baseball rec leagues (and by contracted I mean I have an agreement that they will promote me and I donate 10% back to their leagues and I will take at least one set of action pics for each team). I'm doing the soccer for friends when they request it, but eventually that could be an obligation as well. So there is some expectation there, but they are not paying me separately, it's just the money made from the shots. I'm thinking the 300 f/4 would be a nice step up for soccer (can't afford the 2.8). What would you suggest? Thanks!
OK, it's a business. Now you need to think of it like one. You have to decide for yourself how important this business will be. As mentioned, you're going to run into a number of parents with the same gear you currently have. While it's easy to give those shots away, it's more difficult to sell them unless there's a big enough gap in quality. You'll have an edge in knowledge/skill but equipment DOES make a difference.
Now, the problem with the prime route is you're either going to miss shots that are too close or you're going to need a 2nd body to mount a 70-200 2.8 on. That's the best solution from a quality standpoint. But, it's expensive and it's more gear to lug around. You're not going to have time to switch lenses and you don't want to be swapping lenses a lot in the field anyway.
So, zoom lenses are a compromise - allow you to use less equipment and only a single body. We have already established 200mm is too short. For soccer you need at least 300mm, preferably 400 or even 500.
If you're shooting Nikon, the 80-400 is the king of zooms. With a price to match. A second option is the Sigma 100-300 f4. You could elect to use a 1.4x TC on it for soccer to get more reach. Although I don't use one Ii've seen enough photos and read enough from users to realize it's a fantastic lens for what it is. Costs about $1100 I think. There is also the Bigma (sigma 50-500). It's bulkier than the 100-300 and it's f5.6 but it's also 500mm. Quality is good but not as good as the 100-300 or the 80-400. And, at f5.6 you're going to run into issues in poor lighting. It is also around $1100.
Myself, I shoot Canon and use the Sigma 120-300 2.8. It was an easy decision for me a few years ago when I bought the lens - it sold for $1850 back then. It's $3000 now - Sigma realized they could make a lot more money for it than they were charging and upped the price.
But, this is still a business decision. You have to decide how much of your non-business income you want to invest in your gear. If you were relying on your business to pay you back for the lens, how long would it take to pay you back? If you make enough in one month for the $1100 lens then it's a great decision. If your business doesn't make that much profit in 2 years then it's a tougher decision. Then you have to weigh how much more income you think the lens will bring you and weigh the added personal benefit of having the new toy against the poor payback you're currently projecting.
So, I can't really tell you what to do. But I can only warn you that in today's world with every other parent owning a DSLR now it's tougher and tougher to be able to sell photos. And when you get a parent that is also giving away those photos to every other parent on the team and you get 1/3 of the teams with a parent like that you'll find your profits approach zero quickly. So, you have to get out in front of those parents and establish a reputation of your photos being SO much better. You want a parent who has bought your stuff or seen your stuff to turn their nose up at what the team Mom/dad is producing. But if they get used to the free version FIRST and get used to 'good enough', it's going to be very difficult for them to dig into their wallets and pay you for more than a photo. And you need parents buying more than 1 photo to make action shooting worth your while from a business standpoint.
Wow, thanks for the great insight! Yes, these thoughts all go through my mind constantly. I have a marketing background, and a photography/graphic arts background so I'm torn between the money making aspect of it and the love of getting a good shot. What I'm actually hoping for, and is part of my business plan, is to shoot some great pictures, get some word of mouth that will lead to some paid gigs that will pay for the gear and eventually make me some money. I don't plan to make a lot of these first couple of seasons shooting for the leagues, but I do want my name to get out there. I have, so far, little to no competition in these markets and lots of good insiders on the boards and people pushing my name.
I actually have more work than I can commit to for basketball season. That's where the real need seems to be, with (good) indoor action shots nearly impossible even for parents with a decent DSLR. Very few will shell out the money for a good prime that works well in a gym and I have many parents that have said they have few or no pictures of their children in action. So there's a lot of buzz out there when I shoot a game.
So I'm thinking the baseball and soccer is more getting my name out there (you're right, a lot of parents with a DSLR can either get an okay shot or don't see the value in a $10 print when they can get something they perceive as almost as good--not seeing the value in beautiful backgrounds, depth, clarity and composition that we do). Every parent with a camera on their phone thinks they are an expert. Outdoors, beautiful lighting is actually my main competitor in that market! However, there are those few that DO see the difference, and they are the ones I hope to get paid gigs from and/or word of mouth.
On the other hand, I feel impressive indoor shots are leading to more photo sales and buzz in general. Eventually I need to come up with a fee schedule to (a) shoot individual games for teams or players and (b) shoot tournaments, etc. where I can charge an upfront fee plus earn the photo sales. That's next on the schedule once I'm more established.
As you can see, I am more emotionally involved than anything right now, but am trying to be practical. I'm thinking of investing in one of the lens you've listed, or something similar, and I do have a second camera body I can use so that will work. I think I can sell of several lens that are not getting any use. But I'm rambling....any advice appreciated! Am I really off track here?
The basketball shot- post processed looks great. Nice and sharp. The baseball shots look pretty good. Hard to tell at this size though.
I think you're right on your lens BFing. If it were me, and you're thinking of a 300/4 I would sell the 80-200 or send it in for service and get a Sigma 100-300/4. You can sometimes find used copies for $600 or so. As much as I currently hate Sigma, I've never read anything bad about this particular Sigma lens.
It would make a nice daylight sports lens and will take a 1.4tc if needed.
Never give up
Gene