Stepped out of my comfort zone, indoor action + questions

The Lazy Destroyer

So all last year I had been doing motorsport/track events and getting the hang of it.
The gear I have is very budget-friendly but certainly good enough for what I have been doing so far.

Last week I stepped out of my comfort zone and did an indoor action shoot for my wife's roller derby team. Their previous photographer moved and I had been "volunteered" to be their photographer since everyone knows this is what I do in my spare time.

I agreed to test it out and went to one of their practices, results were very humbling LOL, ie I wasn't too thrilled once I actually saw them on the computer. Embarrassingly bad but I guess that's normal for a first timer.

I'll share a few shots at the end, this is the "Shots" section after all, but I'd like to cut to the chase as I'd like to share my first impressions about the problems I had. And maybe get some input. I'm pretty sure I'll need to get some more gear for this but not sure which direction I should go in. Cause I'm doing this as a friendly gesture for them, not a paying gig. So any upgrades that would help may have to stick to a tight budget.

First off, my gear:
Canon 7D, 70-200 f4L non-IS. 430EX-II flash.
Also have 17-50 f2.8, and 300 f4L IS (although I think the 70-200mm worked best)
I used the 70-200f4L and 430EX mounted on-camera for these.

The rink was VERY poorly lit, and everyone said theirs is the best lit of many in the area... so I may shoot some places that are worse.
I did some test shots without flash and it needed to be ~1/40sec @ f4 @ ISO 6400
I knew I was in trouble so I expanded ISO to "H" = 12800
Keep in mind I think this is the first time I've used higher than ISO 800 on my 7D...ever.

I hooked up my 430EX which admittedly I have almost never used outside of some random shots here and there. With small diffuser I tried combinations of straight on, bounced off ceiling, and bounced off floor. Ceiling bounce was best but still not great. Subject distances were like 10-50 ft away.

Most of the girls wore black shirts and my AF wasn't having it. In fact I could really only get stable AF on those wearing lighter colors. I spent a lot of time in the viewfinder watching the scene pass by as my AF hunted. Fortunately the camera hid my sad face!

Well... here are a few of the ones I liked:
... and please ignore the horrible processing, I just upgraded to LR6 and getting used to the new Basic sliders.

1:


2:


3:


4:


5:


6:


7:


8:

The Lazy Destroyer

So my mind has been going in various directions on what I can do to really help the photos.

The previous guy who did their photos used a combination of on-camera flash (with a larger diffuser mounted), and a remote flash unit on a stand.
I can see how a remote flash would really help so I am going to look at doing this for sure.
I need to research how to remote-trigger an external flash, I seem to recall the 580EX does this but also pricey.
I know there are cheapo remotes that can control a non-remote enabled flash... maybe these could be good enough for what I need to do. Need to research this for sure.
I'm thinking on-camera flash and remote flash in combination should really help the light problems I'm surely going to run into.

The 70-200 F4L non-IS was kinda struggling. Going to a 70-200 f2.8L IS/non-IS would certainly help but $$$$$. This is certainly a lens I can use in other applications so this helps swallow the price.
I could sell the 70-200F4 to help budget the 2.8 but I love the weight of the F4 non-IS that I don't think I want to part with it. I can carry it all day, and often do.
Having not used the f2.8, I don't know how much a single stop in light would really help in both exposure (in this application) and AF assisting.
There might be other lenses that would do the trick, but the 70-200 range seemed to work fine.

Maybe pick up a cheap older full-frame body? Logic that this might help to have better low-light AF and maybe better ISO grain? I think the 70-200 may still allow enough reach on a full-frame. On my 7D, I spent most of the time at 70-150mm range. I did go to 200mm a few times for tight shots.
But for a older FF body I"m not sure I'll get the features I might be used to on the 7D so maybe this isn't a good option.

I definitely CANNOT use ISO 12800 on the 7D anymore. The few test shots I took at ISO 6400 look ok, but seriously the 1:1 at (extended) ISO 12800 was crazy even with some LR NR, random white pixels and splotchy spots:



Even the smaller photos posted above, which usually hide some noise well, just look awful. The ISO 6400 are a little more grain-like, and smoother, which I am fine with. But "H" ISO was noise overkill.

Of course I definitely need practice and will be going back in a couple days to try it again.

I guess what I would like to ask is... if you were in a similar situation, which direction would you go in (if at all)?
Or any pointers for others that have been-there-done-that?
Any C&C on the shots is welcome but go easy because I know they are not great Only posting to show examples of the best ones I got my first time out.

The Lazy Destroyer

^Might want to ignore that 1:1 crop above, I goofed the settings on these shots I think which made the output a little worse actually.

kdog

The first singular most important improvement you can make is your compositions. This is a roller skating sport and only one of your photos out of eight shows skates in them, and even then they're cut-off. A picture needs to tell a story, and except for the first photo, most people wouldn't even know which sport this is. Shoot wider and encompass the entire bodies of the skaters in their groupings so that we can see the full interactions of the players, their postures and angles, and position on the track. Search for Roller Derby on google images and see how others shoot this sport.

If it's allowed then multiple flashes is probably your best bet for lowering your ISO. If I were on a budget, I'd pick up a Yongnuo flash or two and their wireless triggers and use them remotely. Depending on the model, these are in the $100 to $200 range. The better one has the wireless function built-in and mimics the new Canon 600EX-RT flash.

Looking at your focal lengths, I'm wondering if you even need the 70-200 since you've gotten too close even in the 100mm range in some cases. If you can get up to the rail, then maybe you can shoot with your 15-55 f/2.8 which is a great lens and just shoot wide. An f/2.8 lens will also focus faster and more accurately. I'm assuming you'll pick a small portion of the track and work that. Shoot in servo mode with multiple AF points active so you can be locked onto the action as they round the corner and come at you. That way you can choose when to fire your shots with no focus delay. Then if you need the reach and you've got your heart set on the 70-200 f/2.8, then get that. It really is the weapon of choice for many indoor sports photographers. If you want to go really nuts, the 7DMKII is a solid improvement for sports shooting, especially it's stellar AF system, higher burst rate and anti-flicker mode to help with the funky sodium lights you're bound to encounter at some venues.

Personally, I'd start with an additional flash, master the equipment you already have and take it from there.

The Lazy Destroyer

kdog wrote: »

Personally, I'd start with an additional flash, master the equipment you already have and take it from there.

Thanks, I've been reading a bit since posting and thinking this is solid advice.
I will probably pick up some cheaper flash triggers just to get my feet wet.

I didn't shoot for too long and ended up just grabbing the ones I could get focused.
I'll toy around with different AF point settings to see which ones work better, and give the f2.8 a go from inside the track.

puzzledpaul

Where do you see this departure from what what you're (presumably) more interested in - subject wise - going?
Is it worth the time /effort / $$ etc getting involved - to the extent you'll need to - rather than concentrating on improving / extending your skills /results in areas of interest to you.

pp

The Lazy Destroyer

puzzledpaul wrote: »

Where do you see this departure from what what you're (presumably) more interested in - subject wise - going?
Is it worth the time /effort / $$ etc getting involved - to the extent you'll need to - rather than concentrating on improving / extending your skills /results in areas of interest to you.

pp

I think it's a fun departure so I'm looking forward to trying this out.
This is just a serious hobby for me, not my main job, so I'm not seeing it as getting in the way of what I normally do photo-wise.
My flash knowledge is pretty weak so I am sure this will be a big help understanding lighting while still in an action environment.

I don't mind picking up some flash equipment. I don't think I'd be too thrilled about buying a lens just for this, but the 70-200f2.8 is excluded since I have wanted that already for other stuff... But if I can hold off on that and for now sticking to some cheap flash equipment (and taking the rest of my time just working on the shooting and composition) I'd be fine with that.

I'll also try getting closer and using my Tamron 17-50 2.8, it's wider but haven't used it for anything that moves so we'll see how it does next time out.

But I do agree the biggest gain I need is just my skills improved upon. I'd have been happy if the AF worked better so I will try various AF point setting. I think it moves too much to try manually focusing on a single spot on the track.

Seefutlung

Top o' the morn,

The 7D should be fine, the 70-200 f/4 isn't. But you already know that. Assuming you have preferred seating I suggest you try out the 85mm f/1.8. A couple of stops faster than the 70-200 or the 200mm f2.8 or the 135mm f/2. If you go primes you'll want a second body, then you can have the 200mm on one and the 85mm on the other.

Strobes in the rafters with a remote is another way to go ... But rather hard for away matches. (As a former news photog, we were instructed not to use onboard flash because it potentially may disrupt a play. We were there to record news not create news.)

I would love to shoot Roller Derby. If the team travels to the west coast let me know.

kdog

Seefutlung wrote: »

Top o' the morn,

The 7D should be fine, the 70-200 f/4 isn't. But you already know that. Assuming you have preferred seating I suggest you try out the 85mm f/1.8. A couple of stops faster than the 70-200 or the 200mm f2.8 or the 135mm f/2. If you go primes you'll want a second body, then you can have the 200mm on one and the 85mm on the other.

Seefutlung, do you often shoot fast action like this with apertures wider than f/2.8? I wouldn't think the AF servo on the 7D would track accurately enough for such a shallow depth of field. Plus, you wouldn't get the whole pack in focus. I usually stick to f/2.8 or even f/4 when shooting action for these reasons.

I would love to shoot Roller Derby. If the team travels to the west coast let me know.

Ditto! I got dibs on NorCal.

Seefutlung

@KDOG- Yes, in very bad lighting I may shoot as low as 1/125 wide open and wait for the peak of action (like the top of a jump). It's not that I want to ... or like to ... But often it is what it is. I agree with you that shooting wider than F2.8 is not ideal, but an image with shallow DOF is better than no image at all. Your keeper rate will fall and you'll have to work harder, but you can be successful.

Generally, I don't care about the pack, I'd be after the one in front ... Or the one displaying the most action. Typically for sports I'll shoot as wide as I can, (around f/2.8), for subject isolation. I shot a roller derby story back in the late '70's ... It was fun and interesting.

With Canon, AF actually gets faster and more accurate shooting with f/2.8 and faster lenses. I've never shot with a 7D so I cannot speak directly to that camera. I am quite comfortable shooting sports @ f/2.8 with my 1D's.

kdog

Seefutlung wrote: »

@KDOG- Yes, in very bad lighting I may shoot as low as 1/125 wide open and wait for the peak of action (like the top of a jump). It's not that I want to ... or like to ... But often it is what it is. I agree with you that shooting wider than F2.8 is not ideal, but an image with shallow DOF is better than no image at all. Your keeper rate will fall and you'll have to work harder, but you can be successful.

Generally, I don't care about the pack, I'd be after the one in front ... Or the one displaying the most action. Typically for sports I'll shoot as wide as I can, (around f/2.8), for subject isolation. I shot a roller derby story back in the late '70's ... It was fun and interesting.

With Canon, AF actually gets faster and more accurate shooting with f/2.8 and faster lenses. I've never shot with a 7D so I cannot speak directly to that camera. I am quite comfortable shooting sports @ f/2.8 with my 1D's.

Actually, my question was in regard to apertures wider than f/2.8 which you seemed to be suggesting by recommending the f/1.x and f/2 prime lenses. As I mentioned, I regularly shoot sports at f/2.8, and even then you have to be very careful. However, f/2 is a whole stop faster than f/2.8. At close range, even on a crop body camera, I think you'd really be hard pressed to get any keepers. I'd certainly be interested in seeing some shots if you've done it.

jmphotocraft

I agree with kdog. Try your 17-50/2.8 before you buy anything, and get more full body shots.

Having not used the f2.8, I don't know how much a single stop in light would really help in both exposure (in this application) and AF assisting.

It will help significantly with both. "A single stop" is the difference between ISO 12800 and 6400, and so on. AF happens with the lens wide open, so giving your AF sensor twice the light definitely helps it work better.

Failing all of that, a relatively cheap idea would be an 85/1.8 and shoot it at f/2.0, which is twice again as much light as f/2.8. After that you're looking at off-camera strobe(s). I have an ST-E2 transmitter, which is optical and works somewhat okay, but if I were going to be the official 'tog for this sort of thing I'd go with radio triggers.

kdog

jmphotocraft wrote: »

Failing all of that, a relatively cheap idea would be an 85/1.8 and shoot it at f/2.0, which is twice again as much light as f/2.8.

And half as much depth of field. Like I was alluding to Seefutlung, since he shoots from the center of the track and he's really close to the action, I'm skeptical that he'd have enough of the scene in focus at f/2. But certainly no harm in trying.

The Lazy Destroyer

I went out again last night and used my Tamron 17-50 f2.8
Results were a bit better better. A little AF hunting but nothing like what I saw w/ the 70-200mm f4
It worked fine inside the track (because I'm like 6-12 ft from the action) although I don't think 50mm cuts it outside of the track unless I'm cropping heavy or doing a wide shot of the entire pack.

It is funny to see how my muscle memory of the 70-200 zoom ring kept goofing me up on the Tamron lens (the Tamron zoom ring is reversed).

I was using ISO 1600-3200 too which was nice.
Honestly I think my settings the first time out were just all sorts of wrong.

I'd think the Canon 24-70 f2.8 for inside and the 70-200mm f2.8 for outside would be a sweet setup for this on the 7D. Regarding lenses and range.
I'm gonna see what results I can get w/ the two lenses I have here and just see if I can get the flash setup working better.

I have a lot to learn regarding flash tho. I tried a few things, some worked better than others. Sometimes I got inconsistent results.
I'd move the camera orientation quickly but then forget to re-orient the flash head and goofed up a lot of shots with mistakes like that.
I picked up a second flash and flash trigger, just some cheap $40/ea stuff just to try out and play around with as remote stuff.

The Lazy Destroyer

50mm, 1/160 @ f2.8, ISO 2500
Flash mounted on-camera, I think for this one I had in eTTL and pointed straight up with a diffuser cap installed, I think I set flash compensation maybe down 1.5 stops, can't remember.

jmphotocraft

Unless you are trying for a streaked panning effect, I'd say the sharpness of a high shutter speed usually outweighs the noise of high ISO. If you were trying to pan, your shutter speed was too fast. Also get lower.

The Lazy Destroyer

jmphotocraft wrote: »

Unless you are trying for a streaked panning effect, I'd say the sharpness of a high shutter speed usually outweighs the noise of high ISO. If you were trying to pan, your shutter speed was too fast. Also get lower.

For my pans I had been using 1/60 and some turned out okay. Of course some not .
I had been keeping it between 1/160 - 1/250, I liked some of the blur of the skates when closer to 1/160 but maybe it's not ideal.

Most of my shots were crouched but some (like this one) I was standing cause my knees needed a break.

The Lazy Destroyer

jmphotocraft wrote: »

Unless you are trying for a streaked panning effect, I'd say the sharpness of a high shutter speed usually outweighs the noise of high ISO. If you were trying to pan, your shutter speed was too fast. Also get lower.

Should I stick with the max 1/250 when using flash?

For pans, maybe I should have tried no flash at all but even slowing it down I'm not sure I could have gotten a good exposure. Or try panning slower than the subject while using rear-curtain sync?

AceCo55

The Lazy Destroyer wrote: »

For my pans I had been using 1/60 and some turned out okay. Of course some not .
I had been keeping it between 1/160 - 1/250, I liked some of the blur of the skates when closer to 1/160 but maybe it's not ideal.

Most of my shots were crouched but some (like this one) I was standing cause my knees needed a break.

Just as an aside ... I have this "knee" problem also. I solved it by getting a drummer's stool.
This can swivel about and the sitting position raised and lowered.
I have been using it for netball (Australian sport), tennis and triathlon runners.

jmphotocraft

The Lazy Destroyer wrote: »

For my pans I had been using 1/60 and some turned out okay. Of course some not .

Well that is the challenge of panning. The keeper rate is far lower than normal shots, but the winners really stand out.

I had been keeping it between 1/160 - 1/250, I liked some of the blur of the skates when closer to 1/160 but maybe it's not ideal.

IMO the blur at 1/160 is neither here nor there.

Most of my shots were crouched but some (like this one) I was standing cause my knees needed a break.

Oh I feel your pain.

The Lazy Destroyer wrote: »

Should I stick with the max 1/250 when using flash?

Try it. Also try high speed sync and 1/500 or 1/1000. Why not?

For pans, maybe I should have tried no flash at all but even slowing it down I'm not sure I could have gotten a good exposure. Or try panning slower than the subject while using rear-curtain sync?

I don't think one should ever pan at any speed different than the subject, but rear-curtain flash is the way to go.

The Lazy Destroyer

AceCo55 wrote: »

Just as an aside ... I have this "knee" problem also. I solved it by getting a drummer's stool.
This can swivel about and the sitting position raised and lowered.
I have been using it for netball (Australian sport), tennis and triathlon runners.

That's a pretty good idea. It actually would work pretty well here since I'm positioned at the center of the turn so I'm basically just rotating the whole time. It would still fit in my 2'x2' space I'm allowed

Standing made it a lot easier to avoid all the refs between me and the action but agree the vantage point isn't as good as the lower shots.

jmphotocraft wrote: »

Try it. Also try high speed sync and 1/500 or 1/1000. Why not?

I don't think one should ever pan at any speed different than the subject, but rear-curtain flash is the way to go.

I guess I should have tried high speed sync . I was under the impression 1/250 was the max I could go but I am seeing that isn't true in HSS. Oops

I did try some panning with rear-curtain flash but results looked a bit blurry (more so like a blurred subject over the sharp subject) and realized maybe I should have not panned with rear curtain flash so to give the subject the streak behind them to show movement. I'll try a few different things next go around, i think they are doing more scrimmages this week so I might get another shot at it this week.

jmphotocraft

Cool. HSS gives a weaker flash though, but it's worth a try.

The Lazy Destroyer

Went to another practice. They did not do any scrimmages so I did not get a chance to shoot inside again.
I actually just toyed around and mounted my 300mm f4 just for the fun of it.
I had two remote strobes this time, my 430-EXII and a cheap manual flash. Triggered by a cheap set of remotes, trigger only.
AF on the 300mm worked pretty well, aside from it not being practical inside a rink but I found a corner I could shoot from
Mostly played around with moving the flashes and +/-'ing the flash exposure, adjusting angles and diffusers and such.







Last one was with the 70-200mm f4, even with a larger AF area it just had a hard time with the lighting on anything other than a still subject.
So when shooting outside I'll try to just get a little closer with the 17-50mm and just crop more. I liked the 70-200 because I could stay a little further back but it just didn't really handle it well.
If the 70-200mm f2.8 focuses as well as the 17-50 f2.8 and 300 f4 do then I may eventually end up with one... especially since I can use it elsewhere.
The 85mm f1.8 would be a nice focal length for outside the track but I'm not sure how often I would use it elsewhere compared to a 70-200.

EDIT: These are all just practices so until I can actually attend a formal bout I don't know how far away I'll be when outside. I see a lot of derby photogs using the 70-200 2.8 but not sure what bodies they're using (crop or FF). I'll probably stalk some EXIF data when I get the time.

The Lazy Destroyer

Having the remote flashes were actually pretty nice and I did learn quite a bit just toying around with the various angles and such. I definitely have a lot to learn about diffusing and distances and angles.
I had gotten a cheapy remote just to toy around with it, although I think I may soon try to find something that would allow changing the flash on the transmitter, depending on how expensive something like that would be. And maybe HSS. The triggers I used were just a $30 set (remote and x2 receivers) I picked up to try out.

The top two were done with a flash at ground level maybe 45° to the left and kinda close (16'?), with a second flash at 90° off to the right a bit brighter but further away (~30 feet) and a small diffuser mounted. I wanted to move the flash on the right side a little closer to me but didn't get the chance.

Last one was actually a dud as a flash didn't fire (dead battery) but thought the moment was worth keeping.

jmphotocraft

I think these are a tremendous improvement. They should be begging you to shoot more now!