shooting in a gym RECOMMENDATIONS

magicpic

I have a 30d with a 70-20 is 2.8 lens.(flash 580).this weekend I am shooting floor hockey for my special olympic athletes.
what is the recommendation settings to shoot with thanks janis

PineapplePhoto

forget the flash.

Shoot in Manual Mode.
f2.8
1/400 (or close to it)
ISO 3200 (H)
Ai Servo
Back Button Focus (Custom Function 4 set to 3)
Normal Speed Burst Mode
Set Custom White Balance
Shoot in Large Quality
Get a Monopod
Have fun!

magicpic

PineapplePhoto wrote:

forget the flash.

Shoot in Manual Mode.
f2.8
1/400 (or close to it)
ISO 3200 (H)
Ai Servo
Back Button Focus (Custom Function 4 set to 3)
Normal Speed Burst Mode
Set Custom White Balance
Shoot in Large Quality
Get a Monopod
Have fun!

thanks alot, I will shoot in raw but need to ask what is normal speed burst mode..thanks janis

PineapplePhoto

magicpic wrote:

thanks alot, I will shoot in raw but need to ask what is normal speed burst mode..thanks janis

Different Drive Modes:
[ ] one shot
[][][] burst normal
[][][]H burst high speed
self timer 2 sec
self time 10 sec

PineapplePhoto

SloYerRoll wrote:

I'm asking in a PM since I didn't want it to seem like I was blasting you in the forums. So I figured I'd ask in a PM.

Hey, thanks for your discretion.

I am sharing my own personal preference but sure I will tell you why. I mostly shoot indoor sports for schools, for their yearbook. They do not require much post processing and they will not print anything larger than a 8x10.

"I'm not sure I follow you PineapplePhoto

Shooting @ 2.8 is going to have a very narrow DOF which isn't bad but can give soft looking shots if AF locks on the wrong part of the action. Yeah, but it works the best for me when shooting indoor low light, and you can always USM.

ISO 3200?? Is the 30D capable of shooting 3200 w/o creating hideous noise? It is moderately good, and the colors/saturation is not too bad and there is noise ninja

Why wouldn't you shoot RAW over Large JPEG? I guess this is user preference. But why not underexpose the shots a bit for a better result and just push the exposure in post? The schools require me to burn them a CD/DVD with the images RIGHT there, once the event is over. They can not process RAW.

Why do you need a monopod when your shooting @ 1/400 | 70mm. If your getting hand shake off of that. You have bigger issues than a monopod will solve. lol... Very hard to get shake at 1/400 BUT that little Sigma or Canon 70-200 f2.8 can get a little HEAVY after an hour handheld.

I think you should be using your flash. And use the crap out of it! I very randomly use flash, but hey, if what you do works for you then be happy "

Posted here from a PM i got, in case someone wonders...

magicpic

PineapplePhoto wrote:

Posted here from a PM i got, in case someone wonders...

thanks alot janis

PineapplePhoto

magicpic wrote:

thanks alot janis

Best way to get the exposure: Spot metering - on their face, and use that, it should be around 1/400 ~ 1/500. Expose for their face and the rest should be fine.

SloYerRoll

Thanks for taking the PM in the light it was intended
It could have been easily read as rude which I didn't want to happen.

Cheers,
-Jon

johng

I'd like to comment on a couple things if I may:

Shooting @ 2.8 is going to have a very narrow DOF which isn't bad but can give soft looking shots if AF locks on the wrong part of the action. Yeah, but it works the best for me when shooting indoor low light, and you can always USM.

My comment: 2.8 is plenty of DOF at the focal lengths we're talking about. At high ISOs you simply wont have the luxury of shooting any narrower. Heck, being able to shoot as narrow as 2.8 is a luxury. So the answer to OOF images isn't to narrow the aperture it's - improve your techique.

Why wouldn't you shoot RAW over Large JPEG? I guess this is user preference. But why not underexpose the shots a bit for a better result and just push the exposure in post? The schools require me to burn them a CD/DVD with the images RIGHT there, once the event is over. They can not process RAW.

my answer: First I would take issue with the concept "underexpose the shots a bit for a better reult and just push the exposure in post". That is, by and large a faulty assumption. Underexposing at high ISOs will almost never yield better results. The key to quality results is to get the exposure correct in the camera. For this type of shooting that will give you better results every time over pushing the exposure in PP. Beyond that though: Lighting in most gyms is consistent (poor level but still consistently poor). In 90% of the gyms I shoot in, it is absolutely doable to take a manual white balance setting and to set a manual exposure (adjusting the exposure for mid-court shots). If your white balance is correct and exposure is correct (because you're not relying on the camera's exposure system which can get fooled) there is simply no benefit whatsoever to shoot in RAW. It takes up more space and adds time to post processing workflow. The only benefits RAW gives the sports shooter is the ability to correct exopsure and WB mistakes. In most gyms those mistakes are easily avoidable by doing WB and exposure manually. Sounds scary, I know. But once you've done it it litterally takes 5 minutes to do once you're in a new gym. Now, can you manually adjust WB in raw conversion of 200 images in 5 minutes? Why try? Yes, there are those 10% of gyms out there that require it. But the number is fairly small.

SloYerRoll

johng wrote:

That is, by and large a faulty assumption.

I respectfully disagree. I know the tests out there and I've read a ton of them. But real world test out of my camera w/ high ISO vs. pushing the stops in post show that pushing the stops in post wins. This doesn't mean it is the standard for all cameras. But it is a fact in mine.

YMMV.

johng

SloYerRoll wrote:

I respectfully disagree. I know the tests out there and I've read a ton of them. But real world test out of my camera w/ high ISO vs. pushing the stops in post show that pushing the stops in post wins. This doesn't mean it is the standard for all cameras. But it is a fact in mine.

YMMV.

I guess we have different experiences. I don't base my opinion on studies but real world action sports shooting. And none of the Canon cameras I've owned performed better with a pushed exposure than with a proper exposure too begin with.

But hey, the best part is - the OP or anyone else doesn't need to take the word of either of us. They can try both methods and draw their own conclusions

SloYerRoll

Well put

rwells

johng wrote:

I guess we have different experiences. I don't base my opinion on studies but real world action sports shooting. And none of the Canon cameras I've owned performed better with a pushed exposure than with a proper exposure too begin with.

But hey, the best part is - the OP or anyone else doesn't need to take the word of either of us. They can try both methods and draw their own conclusions

with John.

You can read more indepth details here

PineapplePhoto

rwells wrote:

with John.

You can read more indepth details here

that post packs a bunch... but that's what I love about this site

Dbl

I certainly agree with johng and Randy as well. Remember we are talking JPEG here not RAW. If you choose to underexpose a JPEG at high ISO your best indicator of how well it worked may be the lack of sales from your event. I would however encourage all the readers of these threads to go ahead and find out for themselves by shooting their own shots in an indoor venue.

You can see for yourself what happens to the shadow areas of a JPEG photo that has been unexposed by even 1/2 stop. One other tip for JPEG high ISO work that has worked well for me is to reduce your in camera parameters on saturation and sharpening. If you were at 0 or 1 try going to -2 on both. You might be surprised to see the cleaner results. Your computer will handle the PP work much better than your camera.

PineapplePhoto

Dbl wrote:

One other tip for JPEG high ISO work that has worked well for me is to reduce your in camera parameters on saturation and sharpening. If you were at 0 or 1 try going to -2 on both. You might be surprised to see the cleaner results. Your computer will handle the PP work much better than your camera.

I might try that. Anyone else who can give on this?>

sportsshooter06

PineapplePhoto wrote:

I might try that. Anyone else who can give on this?>

If you are shooting hockey on ice.
Do a custom white balance off the ice.
I am a nikon shooter, but canon probably works the same. Point your camera at the ice, fill the frame and take the shot. whatever you do with that shot if your camera accepts it, your wb is set.

put your ISO at the highest level you feel comfortable, whatever that is for the camera you are using.
shoot in continuous servo mode, use the 70-200 at 2.8, don't worry about dof. use the center focus point and put the camera in whatever mode it allows you to take multiple shots, you want as much speed as possible.

no monopod, handhold. you should have a minimum shutter speed of 1/400, if not you will have motion blur.
maybe +.3 ev, maybe. use matrix or centerweight meter. no spot for action. anticipate what is happening and have a good time.
hockey is very tough. it's fast and the puck is small.
it's fun to shoot.

magicpic

SloYerRoll wrote:

I respectfully disagree. I know the tests out there and I've read a ton of them. But real world test out of my camera w/ high ISO vs. pushing the stops in post show that pushing the stops in post wins. This doesn't mean it is the standard for all cameras. But it is a fact in mine.

YMMV.

Sad to say that the georgia state special olympics got cancelled today because of the weather. the kids were very disappointed and I was really looking forward to shooting with these setting...I will post the photos that I took at the opening ceremony. I had the camera on a monipod and it really helped out the weight the only thing I do not like is that I can not take port shots and I do not have the flexability....Janis I will post tomorrow

sportsshooter06

SloYerRoll wrote:

Thanks for taking the PM in the light it was intended
It could have been easily read as rude which I didn't want to happen.

Cheers,
-Jon

hey jon, I am a hockey shooter.
Your lessons were mostly inaccurate, your advice was partially good and bad.

I shoot hockey, f2.8 is very good, the further you are from your subject, the dof is different.
Never underexpose at high ISO, you must expose properly to avoid even more noise.
You must shoot tight, to avoid noise, you need lessons.
I am sorry, not being rude.

sportsshooter06

SloYerRoll wrote:

Well put

You are shooting a Nikon d50, I am a nikon shooter.
You must never underexpose at high ISO, Exposing correctly, maybe even a bit of +ev, will always yield a cleaner photo.
You are shooting digital, digital is not film, film had the ability to be pushed, when you push digital, that is already being pushed at high ISo, you get junk.

Jon, sorry, but you need lessons on technique.

SloYerRoll

Thanks for that tip.
Keep em coming
Where did I say underexpose at high ISO? I mentioned underexposing then pushing the stops in post. WHich is a wildly unpopular process. But as I said in a PP. It works best for me and my setup.

YMMV.

SirGeorge

poor results with a push
My sixpence worth...

I recently completed (EOS40D) my first shoot where I pushed the exposure to -1 at ISO1600 and f/2 and have to be honest and state the the image quality was pretty poor. I did what I could in PP using Neatimage but I consider the results marginal and some still poor - maybe, I'm too picky.

I haven't yet used ISO3200 which will be my next project and I guess, as was written earlier, we should experiment!

George.

SloYerRoll wrote:

Thanks for that tip.
Keep em coming
Where did I say underexpose at high ISO? I mentioned underexposing then pushing the stops in post. WHich is a wildly unpopular process. But as I said in a PP. It works best for me and my setup.

YMMV.

beetle8

I agree
Underexposing for safety has been disproven plenty of times
Underexposure at especially at high ISO generates noise in the dark areas which are all dark now that you have under exposed then exposure comp in PP generates more noise throughout, then you over process with whichever NR you want and you get soft lack of detail images.
!!Get it right in camera!! that is the key.
I have gone head to head My Sony a700 against a Nikon d300
me at 6400 properly exposed the Nikon at 800 underexposed and processed I won
I'll bet a properly exposed image at high ISO beats a poorly exposed image with PP every time.
I'll go find a shot at 6400 and put it up here for a look

beetle8

Iso6400
Sigma 70-200 @ 120 f/2.8 ss320 ISO 6400
I know it's crooked, zero PP on this

SitterS

Keith you have just convinced me to take the 40d to 3200 the next time in the gym photographing gymnastics. I do my sons school yearbook and just processed some taken at 1600. The exposure was good SOOC and I could not believe how good they looked. Hope they turn out as good as the one you posted.

Shane