I like the timing of the shot, but the shot itself has a lot of issues. The most important is there is too much motion blur. Additionally not a lot of detail and noise issues. You've stripped the exif data from the photo so I can't see that - even on your smugmug site so it's difficult to give information on how to improve for next season. But I suspect the shot is cropped too much in addition to the slow shutter speed. If you can't get a fast enough shutter speed, an external flash can help to freeze the action in place of shutter:
What kind of flash do you use? I never see anyone use a flash at any of the games I've been for football. Do you recommend shooting in manual or aperture priority? I should have moved the ISO to 6400 to freeze the action better.
Again, since you stripped the exif from your photos it's impossible to say whether using IS 6400 was a solution. It still wouldn't help with the overcropping. Also hard to recommend a flash - without exif I don't know what brand camera you're using. As far as not seeing anyone use flash - it really depends on the light levels and the equipment / skill of the photographer. It's also worth mentioning - just because no one is using flash doesn't mean they're making great photos. But a d3s or 1dIV have very good ISO 6400. Even so, it's difficult - especially with African American players - to get any detail on the faces without flash.
For example:
But, you need to get the flash off the camera. I prefer to mount it on my monopod. if you do some searches on the forum you'll find other posts on using flash for football. I had a photo of my setup to illustrate how I have the flaash positioned but I can't find it right now.
forgot: I always shoot manual for night time football - and about 90% of the time when shooting sports. You don't want backgrounds or sky or uniform colors messing up your exposure. Just keep in mind with night football that the lighting changes at different parts of the field so you have to adjust your exposure as you move. Try this - dial in exposure so faces are correct. Then take a meter reading off the grass. Let's say your meter says you're 2/3 stop over exposed. Now when you move down field you just meter off the grass there and adjust so you're +2/3. Typically I'll use 3 different exposure values without flash. If you're using flash you definitely shoot manual.
As an aside, I referee football. Occasionally, I see photogs from the dailies at night games, and I have no clue how they work without bringing a monopod to the dance. Monopod = $20-$40 image stabilizer.
Now, I haven't shot football in forever to avoid conflict of interest queries on the reffing side, but I have shot field lacrosse under the lights. A suitable high-speed synch flash is always an aid in any high-pressure photography, so I'd agree with johng. YOu'll notice his flash is mounted low, and I believe he's got it mounted down on the monopod so the light from the flash comes up under the lid of the helmet: that's a damned fine innovation, and one worth following.
Newspaper photogs specialize in drive-by shootings.
Forum for Canadian shooters: www.canphoto.net
photodad - what I'm saying is that the exposure you use for human sports needs to be set so FACES are exposed properly - not uniforms. A good football shot is ruined if the player's face is in complete shadow because the photographer is setting exposure for the uniform. Lots of different approaches for determining exposure. In the end, you should be able to see faces clearly on the lcd of the camera after you take some test shots. If faces are dark - your exposure isn't right. Resist the urge to say "Ill fix that in post". As I said earlier, that's really tough to do with African American skin tones in football - either at night or day time in bright light. At night, the flash really helps.
Now, the other poster mentioned High Speed Synch. I'm not a huge fan of that approach. With that approach you are still relying on shutter speed to stop motion and using flash as fill light. The challenge is high speed synch drastically reduces the effective range of the flash - the flash must set off multiple bursts of light instead of one big one. Some photographers prefer that approach. I don't. it's a trade off. I like using the flash to freeze the action. That way I can close down my aperture to say f5.6 and the light fall-off takes care of distracting backgrounds. Try both methods and see which you prefer.
As to Moving Picture's comment about a monopod. I will say it depends. A monopod has pros & cons. If using flash, it's a definite pro. If using a heavy lens like a 400mm 2.8 it's a definite plus. But a monopod does cut down on your flexibility. For example, I would never use one for basketball because you need to pivot too much - so a monopod is more hindrance than help. Same for volleyball. In fact, a number of photogs will shoot baseball/softball from dugout (or on dugout) with 300mm 2.8 and no monopod so they can pivot easier. If they shoot from the traditional position behind the bags there's less need from major pivots and the monopod comes back into play.
Comments
For example:
But, you need to get the flash off the camera. I prefer to mount it on my monopod. if you do some searches on the forum you'll find other posts on using flash for football. I had a photo of my setup to illustrate how I have the flaash positioned but I can't find it right now.
Now, I haven't shot football in forever to avoid conflict of interest queries on the reffing side, but I have shot field lacrosse under the lights. A suitable high-speed synch flash is always an aid in any high-pressure photography, so I'd agree with johng. YOu'll notice his flash is mounted low, and I believe he's got it mounted down on the monopod so the light from the flash comes up under the lid of the helmet: that's a damned fine innovation, and one worth following.
Forum for Canadian shooters: www.canphoto.net
Now, the other poster mentioned High Speed Synch. I'm not a huge fan of that approach. With that approach you are still relying on shutter speed to stop motion and using flash as fill light. The challenge is high speed synch drastically reduces the effective range of the flash - the flash must set off multiple bursts of light instead of one big one. Some photographers prefer that approach. I don't. it's a trade off. I like using the flash to freeze the action. That way I can close down my aperture to say f5.6 and the light fall-off takes care of distracting backgrounds. Try both methods and see which you prefer.
As to Moving Picture's comment about a monopod. I will say it depends. A monopod has pros & cons. If using flash, it's a definite pro. If using a heavy lens like a 400mm 2.8 it's a definite plus. But a monopod does cut down on your flexibility. For example, I would never use one for basketball because you need to pivot too much - so a monopod is more hindrance than help. Same for volleyball. In fact, a number of photogs will shoot baseball/softball from dugout (or on dugout) with 300mm 2.8 and no monopod so they can pivot easier. If they shoot from the traditional position behind the bags there's less need from major pivots and the monopod comes back into play.