Basketball Question

HFP

Hey there everyone,

Well this is my first post, lurked for awhile but I'm going to try to make an effort to post more and comment other peoples work but I had a question for the people here on the sports forum. Basketball season is around the corner for the high schools in my area and I'm going to try to photograph some of them. I was wondering if you could tell me if I'll have any success with my current equipment and any tips you could give me.

Currently I have a 30D, 50mm 1.8, 70-200 F4L, and a 430ex.

Thanks everyone,

~Jon

wxwax

Welcome to dgrin, Jon.

The 50 is fast enough. I wonder if its autofocus will be able to keep up.

Will they let you use flash?

banbro

Jon,

As a general rule HS gyms don't have the greatest lighting to work with so that is your first obstacle that can be overcome with the 1.8 50mm. The next issue will be if you can get close enough to have the 50 be beneficial or if you will be stuck making aerial shots from the stands. Your other lens has the reach but f4 may not be fast enough to compensate for the low light and action speed. If you can use your flash that will help a great deal but be sure to verify its usage before game time.

Regardless I think you should take both lenses and try a few shots from different positions and see how they work with the lighting you have. I would shoot in RAW so that you can have a little extra wiggle room in PP.

Good luck and post your pics after the game!

aktse

I always like to point people to this dgrin basketball tutorial by Steve Cavigliano.

jonh68

Your 50 1.8 should be all you need. You can take the other lens, but I don't think you will get as many shots. If the gym allows flash, try bouncing the light off the ceiling. With a 1.8, it picks ups just enough light to make a difference.


You may also consider getting a 85mm 1.8 for a longer reach. That's what I used for volleyball.

GP Images

I use the 50 1.8. I shoot mainly under the basket, just off to one side or the other. Lighting in every gym is different and the "cycling" lights will play havoc with your white balance and exposure controls. With my D70s I have finally settled on Automatic White Ballance, I shoot in Aperture Priority usually with it wide open and I move the ISO around. Lowest ISO I can shoot and still keep the shutter speed at 1/250 or higher....1/500 or higher is best. It helps to know how the referees work. There will always be one down low on the baselline to one side of the basket or the other. This will give you one side free of the referee. The refs will switch positions depending on what happens at the other end of the court. Pay attention and if they switch, hot foot it to the opposite side of the basket so when the play resumes to your end of the court, again the ref will be on the opposite side of the basket from you. The baseline of a high school basketball game is not totally void of risks. Last year I was hit several times with players and the ball. I was only asked one time by a ref to move. I had a blast! Good luck and have fun.

JDecker29

Would a 50 1.4 be better??
I too will try and shoot basketball for the first time this year... do you have some pics shot with 50 1.8 you could post?? i teach science and sponsor a photography club at my school and our basketball coach wants me to take some action shots at a game... i've been doing only outdoor sports (softball and soccer)... the basketball post link was very helpful... i shoot with a nikon d70

http://www.ondeck.photoreflect.com

GP Images

Here you go.........http://picasaweb.google.com/Glynnpennington/Jv2VsPerrydaleFeb5th

All were shot with the 50mm f1.8 no flash.

If you are really bored there are about 5000 more shots here, just scroll down to the basketball galleries,
http://picasaweb.google.com/Glynnpennington

Nearly all of the basketball shots are with the 50mm.

johng

Jon,

Is your goal to take pictures for fun or profit?
As has been mentioned, HS basketball is challenging. I've probably shot in 6-7 different gyms in the last few years and NONE of them are really bright enough to get away with even a 70-200 2.8 without using flash. For prints, I don't like to use flash - it's tough to do well and get a lot of keepers. For news print it's OK and allows greater flexibility so you can get away with a 70-200 then.

But for my sports sales I prefer not to. The 50mm 1.8 is a cheap way to get your feet wet but it's difficult to get a lot of quality shots with it. It focuses very slow and wasn't designed to focus past about 10-15 feet. Once you get past that distance the results really get soft in a hurry.

So if you're considering doing this for profit you definitely should invest in an 85mm 1.8. You'll get much better results. The 50 is great for under the basket type shots and is a nice inexpensive way to get some shots for hobby - but if you want saleable images you should strongly consider buying the 85.

The one challenge with the 85 though is - like any short prime it isn't designed to focus at long distances. The 85 works to about 20 MAYBE 25 feet - but 20 is about right. What this means is that on your camera it will be VERY tight on many shots. That's the downside of a smaller sensor here. It doesn't allow you to focus from farther away (so contrary to some misconceptions you DONT get more reach) and in this case it hurts quite a bit by making things very tight. In the end though, I think the shots from the 85 are of a significantly better quality.

Hugo

I have shot some basketball pictures, and indeed the lighting is horrific in high schools...

Your 50mm f/1.8 is sure to get you good results, but the problem is the auto-focus... It might be too slow for action shots.

The 70-200 f/4L is a very good lens, nice reach, but you'll have to sacrifice some speed.

I shot some last year, I with f/4, I was able to keep it at 1/250. It does not freeze the action, but you'll get good results.

The only way to know the best settings to use is to try and re-try.

KED

johng wrote:

Jon,

As has been mentioned, HS basketball is challenging. I've probably shot in 6-7 different gyms in the last few years and NONE of them are really bright enough to get away with even a 70-200 2.8 without using flash.

70-200 2.8 doesn't work well without flash even pushing ISO to 1600 or 3200?

Hugo

KED wrote:

70-200 2.8 doesn't work well without flash even pushing ISO to 1600 or 3200?

I've used f/4 with ISO 1600 and it worked well. I could get around 1/250 seconds without any flash.

johng

KED wrote:

70-200 2.8 doesn't work well without flash even pushing ISO to 1600 or 3200?

It will at 3200 but 3200 should really be a LAST result on anything below the mkIII. I have to use 3200 all the time for football but you don't have peoples faces so prominantly displayed.

And again, one of my premises is that at high ISO you want proper exposures IN CAMERA. And proper exposures for FACES not uniforms. The reason this is critical is correcting exposure problems in PP brings out noise. You can clean up that noise but it destroys detail as well. Getting the exposure right in camera keeps noise to an absolute minimum - which means your photos have as much detail as they can. Very important if you're selling prints.

My typical settings are: ISO 1600, f2.0, 1/400 with about 1/3 stop difference plus or minus in a given gym. Anything below 1/400 shows way too much motion blur for my tastes.

johng

Some examples from the different gyms:
iso 1600, f2.0, 1/400:


1600 f1.8 1/400:


1600 f2.2 1/400:


No other gyms currently on my site right now (last year's galleries have been cleaned up)

GP Images

johng,
Great shots!

johng

GP Images wrote:

johng,
Great shots!

Thanks,

I have to say I'm looking forward to the improvement with using the Mk III. Flesh tones are MUCH better, high ISO is MUCH better and I can save a custom WB setting which is nice - so only bring the white card the FIRST time.

For example here's what an ISO 2000 (f2.0 1/500) photo looks like in the same gym as the boys (in green/white) basketball shot. I also switched from using an 18% grey card to a real white card for setting custom WB for this year's volleyball. Overall result = much happier with flesh tones.

GP Images

johng,
last year I played around a little with setting white balance with a white card in the gym. I had terrible luck! I shoot with a D70s and like I've said before with mostly the 50mm 1.8. But my white balance always seemed to change with the cycling gym lights. I finally gave up and just shot with white balance on auto. Is there a secret to the white balance that I am missing? I sure would like to figure it out before the first basketball game!

johng

GP Images wrote:

johng,
Is there a secret to the white balance that I am missing? I sure would like to figure it out before the first basketball game!

Not if the lights cycle like that. I've only shot in two gyms that had that problem - the majority of gyms I shoot in do NOT have the problem thankfully. If you're stuck in a gym with those horrible lights the best solution is to shoot RAW so you can correct white balance easier.

But if you simply set a bad white balance you'll get a poor color cast but it would be a CONSISTANT color cast. Typically I'll test for this by setting WB and then taking a 5 shot burst and review in LCD. If the lights are cycling I'll see several different color casts and know I can't use custom. In which case I shoot RAW with auto WB.

GP Images

you hit the nail on the head.....the color is not consistant...it jumps all over the place...thanks for the help

KED

johng wrote:

It will at 3200 but 3200 should really be a LAST result on anything below the mkIII.

Just scored a Mk IIII, happily (although I have had a nightmare with that AF issue, have been through three bodies in a week, hopefully good to go now). That was my last investment in gear for the foreseeable future, so I'm maxed out at 2.8.

johng

KED wrote:

That was my last investment in gear for the foreseeable future, .

That's right - you just keep telling yourself that Give it a month and another piece of gear will start to look good

KED

johng wrote:

That's right - you just keep telling yourself that Give it a month and another piece of gear will start to look good

How did you know?!? I've spent half the day looking at lens reviews! What would you think about an 85 f/1.2 or 1.4 for hoops? Is that too long for shooting right under the basket?

johng

KED wrote:

How did you know?!? I've spent half the day looking at lens reviews! What would you think about an 85 f/1.2 or 1.4 for hoops? Is that too long for shooting right under the basket?

Well in Canon, there is no 85mm 1.4.
The 85mm 1.2 is too slow to focus (from reports I've seen the vII is faster than the older version but still slower). The 85mm 1.8 is a GREAT lens. Perfect for use from the baseline - maybe still a little tight on a 1.3 crop body for shots directly under the basket (but in my area you're technically not allowed to shoot there anyway). The 85mm 1.8 is a great performer for basketball and volleyball. On the mkIII the focus is blazing fast - faster than a 70-200 2.8. So even though the high ISO performance of the mkIII allows a 2.8 lens I still prefer to use the prime because the focus speed is faster (and I'd still rather shoot at 1600/2000 vs 3200 or 6400).

But that's just my opinion. You certainly have more limited flexibility with the 85. I've found the workable limit to be about 20 feet give or take. So you're limited to action around the key from the baseline so you don't get as many front on transition shots - those I have to shoot from the side.

KED

johng wrote:

On the mkIII the focus is blazing fast - faster than a 70-200 2.8.

That assumes that it auto-focuses at all -- that's a crapshoot at the moment!

HFP

johng wrote:

Jon,

Is your goal to take pictures for fun or profit?
As has been mentioned, HS basketball is challenging. I've probably shot in 6-7 different gyms in the last few years and NONE of them are really bright enough to get away with even a 70-200 2.8 without using flash. For prints, I don't like to use flash - it's tough to do well and get a lot of keepers. For news print it's OK and allows greater flexibility so you can get away with a 70-200 then.

But for my sports sales I prefer not to. The 50mm 1.8 is a cheap way to get your feet wet but it's difficult to get a lot of quality shots with it. It focuses very slow and wasn't designed to focus past about 10-15 feet. Once you get past that distance the results really get soft in a hurry.

So if you're considering doing this for profit you definitely should invest in an 85mm 1.8. You'll get much better results. The 50 is great for under the basket type shots and is a nice inexpensive way to get some shots for hobby - but if you want saleable images you should strongly consider buying the 85.

The one challenge with the 85 though is - like any short prime it isn't designed to focus at long distances. The 85 works to about 20 MAYBE 25 feet - but 20 is about right. What this means is that on your camera it will be VERY tight on many shots. That's the downside of a smaller sensor here. It doesn't allow you to focus from farther away (so contrary to some misconceptions you DONT get more reach) and in this case it hurts quite a bit by making things very tight. In the end though, I think the shots from the 85 are of a significantly better quality.

Just wanted to say thank you to everyone who has replied so far. Very informative information so far. As for my goal right now it's just for practice and more of a skill builder. Get the hang of things now and maybe think about the profit for later.

As for the 85 1.8 I'm definitely going to consider it.. only looks to be around $300 so I can probably swing that. Plus it seems it comes highly recommended.

Thanks again everyone,

Jon

HFP

wxwax wrote:

Welcome to dgrin, Jon.

The 50 is fast enough. I wonder if its autofocus will be able to keep up.

Will they let you use flash?

Not sure if I'm able to use flash... I'll probably email a couple of the athletic directors for the various high schools close to me, introduce myself, and find out what I can and can't do.

Jon

HFP

johng wrote:

Thanks,

I have to say I'm looking forward to the improvement with using the Mk III. Flesh tones are MUCH better, high ISO is MUCH better and I can save a custom WB setting which is nice - so only bring the white card the FIRST time.

For example here's what an ISO 2000 (f2.0 1/500) photo looks like in the same gym as the boys (in green/white) basketball shot. I also switched from using an 18% grey card to a real white card for setting custom WB for this year's volleyball. Overall result = much happier with flesh tones.

First off that is a great picture. I'm fairly new to the grey and white cards... would it be possible to explain this or point me to a tutorial about them?

Thanks again,

Jon

wmstumme

I fought though my daughter's basketball season last year with a 50mm 1.8f. Focus was real tough. She played in a elementary school gym (if you think high school gyms are badly lit...). The walls of the gym were made out of cinderblock, and the lens frequently wanted to focus on the lines made by the blocks. You can get a couple of keepers per game with it, but even being right on the edge of the court--your not going to be very close to the action unless is right in front of you. And when the focal subject is at a distance, the background doesn't blur out much...

Here's a couple that I did get in really poorly lit gyms--the first was at the elementary shool and the second at a high school (white balance was also a struggle in both...)








My goal is to pick up an 85mm 1.8 this year!

johng

HFP wrote:

First off that is a great picture. I'm fairly new to the grey and white cards... would it be possible to explain this or point me to a tutorial about them?

Jon

Jon - the whole concept of white balance is: given a given lighting situation, how do you get the color white to look white? Light has a temperature value to it. Cooler temperature = cooler (more bluish) colors. Warmer temperature = warmer (yellow, orange) colors.

The pre-set white balance options in a camera are really just pre-set temperatures. The problem with that is different lights don't always play by those exact rules. So, the idea is to set a CUSTOM white balance. The concept is - you take a photo of a white subject and tell your camera: "make this white" - the camera then adjusts the color channels so it comes up with a mix that makes the subject 'mathematically' white to the camera. It then applies that same adjustment to all photos taken (until you turn the custom wb off - don't want to forget to do that after the game ).

Now, the issue with setting the custom WB is there are different shades of white. The best results are going to be with an actual white card - since it's the right 'shade' to set a WB. Some companies charge an arm & leg - rediculous. Which is why people try to use anything else they can. I found a White Card at B&H for $8 - definitely worth the money. I've used a grey card (meant for setting exposure not really WB) and it does pretty good just not AS good. But people use everything from paper to envelopes to coffee filters. One company even sells a device you put on your lens to set a WB (the problem there is you may have lenses with different filter sizes). IMO the $8 white card at B&H is the best solution I've tried.

As discussed though there are some places where the lights cycle to slowly - so as they cycle the color temperature changes (take a burst shot of 5 photos and you end up with 5 different color casts). In that type of situation it's impossible to use a custom WB.

Hope that made sense.

Dbl

johng wrote:

Jon - the whole concept of white balance is: given a given lighting situation, how do you get the color white to look white? Light has a temperature value to it. Cooler temperature = cooler (more bluish) colors. Warmer temperature = warmer (yellow, orange) colors.

The pre-set white balance options in a camera are really just pre-set temperatures. The problem with that is different lights don't always play by those exact rules. So, the idea is to set a CUSTOM white balance. The concept is - you take a photo of a white subject and tell your camera: "make this white" - the camera then adjusts the color channels so it comes up with a mix that makes the subject 'mathematically' white to the camera. It then applies that same adjustment to all photos taken (until you turn the custom wb off - don't want to forget to do that after the game ).

Now, the issue with setting the custom WB is there are different shades of white. The best results are going to be with an actual white card - since it's the right 'shade' to set a WB. Some companies charge an arm & leg - rediculous. Which is why people try to use anything else they can. I found a White Card at B&H for $8 - definitely worth the money. I've used a grey card (meant for setting exposure not really WB) and it does pretty good just not AS good. But people use everything from paper to envelopes to coffee filters. One company even sells a device you put on your lens to set a WB (the problem there is you may have lenses with different filter sizes). IMO the $8 white card at B&H is the best solution I've tried.

As discussed though there are some places where the lights cycle to slowly - so as they cycle the color temperature changes (take a burst shot of 5 photos and you end up with 5 different color casts). In that type of situation it's impossible to use a custom WB.

Hope that made sense.

JohnG is right on but if I may offer a suggestion to help with the cycling lights, make sure you take your custom white balance shot at 1/30 or 1/15s to help you cover a full cycle of the lights. I won't go into a whole dissertation on the phase of the lights, etc. just that a slower shutter speed helps average out the cycling of the lights.

Sometimes even that doesn't work and in a few instances AWB has produced better results. You won't know until you shoot a few shots and check your results. This shot shows an example of the cycling lights, note one is colored green and the other red.