Frustated: 1st Night LAX game... need help, samples posted

Paul Lowe · Feb 28, 2014

Arg. I posted last week re: my challenges shooting womens lacrosse here locally. The gear is canon 7D, 70-200/2.8 and a 300/4.

The field we were on had just atrocious field lights.... one half the field was about 40% lit as well as the other end... So dark/inconsistent lighting... Oh, and both teams colors were black/white, black/gold - talk about total lack of color!

I would have loved the speed of my 2.8, but I really needed every mm of the 300 for the distance :-(. It was clearly pushing the f/4 to its limits Im afraid.

Most taken at f/4, 1/500 and isos between 5000-6400.

unfortunately, these are some of the better shots.

69chevy · Feb 28, 2014

Believe it or not, your lighting was exceptionally good for outdoor night-time sports.

You were at a lower ISO and stopped down further than I can manage in most football games.

Unless you pulled these images a few stops, you had good light.

You have already made the correct observation yourself.

Your shots are in focus, your ss is reasonable, your ISO is beyond your control if you want 1/500th, so there are only two options left.

New gear, or get closer and use your 2.8.

I would try to get closer. I teach a sports photography class twice a year and always tell the "advanced amatueur" attendees to get on the baseline, in the dugout, on the sidelines during games.

Response #1 is "we aren't allowed". I respond "have you asked?" The answer is always "no".

Response #2 is "I don’t want everyone looking at me." My response is, "then you will need a lens that costs $7K and still be stuck with a bad composition." This usually convinces them.

If you truly are not allowed to get closer, be happy with what you have, or get new gear.

Since the 7d is ok (decent) at these ISOs, The logical choice (if you want new gear) would be a 300mm 2.8 IS (not MKII).

It's sharp at 2.8, would chop your ISO in half, and if wisely purchased used, can be sold for exactly what you pay for it when the season ends.

My best football pics come from my 300mm 2.8 and my 135mm f2. The full stop of the 135 is worth lining up behind the press line and on the line of scrimmage.

There is always a 50/50 chance, the play is coming my way.

Paul Lowe · Feb 28, 2014

Thanks for the detailed reply!

I've asked and the athletic director has firmly refused ANY access on sidelines except for press "for insurance reasons".... been fighting this battle for 2 years (Im not shy).

Regarding glass:

Any thoughts on a Sigma 120-300/2.8?

I know its not in the same class as the Canon, but it might be within reach from a budget standpoint...

Also, Ive seen some well-used 300/2.8 non-IS lenses in the $2500 range- but not sure if thats a better buy than the Sigma?

sssesq · Feb 28, 2014

Maybe you have a bit too much NR. It is tempting when at hi ISO to apply NR to get the same level as iso 200, say. If you have a lot of NR you tend to lose sharpness. I had a go at the screenshot. How is this?

Paul Lowe · Feb 28, 2014

Looks pretty good.

Mind if I ask what your typical workflow is for noisy pictures?

Paul Lowe · Feb 28, 2014

Here's a few more from tonight. I tried bumping UP the ISO they were exposed a bit more. The last set was probably a half-stop under to keep up with the SS + 6400 iso limit.

This field was lit a bit better... sigh- I may have gone a bit too far... lol. frustration. They looked good in-camera but fullscreen, a bit bright.

These are raw jpg's no PP NR done yet -though they will certainly need it at 12800

Ferguson · Mar 1, 2014

Paul Lowe said:
I've asked and the athletic director has firmly refused ANY access on sidelines except for press "for insurance reasons".... been fighting this battle for 2 years (Im not shy).

If you are shooting professionally, I assume you have liability coverage? If not, you need to correct that regardless.

If you are not, depending on what homeowners you have, look into an umbrella policy for $1M. They are cheap (relatively) if you already have good auto insurance (that connection is due to the general liability nature). They are also cheap enough anyone with real assets (equity in a home, bank account with any money) should consider one anyway, in today's litigious climate.

In either case, with insurance proof in hand, politely tell him how you understood his concerns, and have invested in policies that take care of it.

Might not work, but getting in close let's you use much cheaper glass for the same aperture. Sadly night sports is a big-glass, big-money niche of photography, it's always a compromise.

sssesq · Mar 1, 2014

Paul...For starters I can tell that you are very concerned with getting high quality pics, you wouldn't be posting here if it didn't matter much. If this is so, there will be a price - time- that you have to pay to get shots at the edge of your equipment performance envelope. SHOOT RAW for very difficult conditions. Consider shooting 14 bit rather than 12. You must maximize the settings that you can to get the most under less than desirable conditions. This last point is valid under only the most challenging lighting (as other have pointed out in various forums), but here is a quick explanation of what you get and when using 14 bit. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml

I run my low light shots thru LR using the sliders for NR and Sharpening. For your shot I tried to bring back some of the sharpness using Focus Magic, with the 'blur' setting. I am new to Focus Magic and I wanted to see if it could restore sharpness lost to NR, and to some degree it looks like it did...YMMV.

sssesq · Mar 1, 2014

I don't seen much to complain about with any of these shots. They are tight, I can't speak with authority on the color - I have a prob. there) I can see faces, I can see the ball,etc.

Here is my try at processing one of your shots (screen capture). ps. was there any rain in the air??

chuckji · Mar 1, 2014

I'm curious, why are you shooting these with -0.33 exposure comp?

Robby521 · Mar 1, 2014

Sigma 120-300/2.8 is a sweet lens on my D3s.got a used one last week.not the new sport one.it gives me what i been looking for and wanting and didn't break the bank!

Paul Lowe · Mar 1, 2014

Robby521 said:
Sigma 120-300/2.8 is a sweet lens on my D3s.got a used one last week.not the new sport one.it gives me what i been looking for and wanting and didn't break the bank!

Thanks.

Ive actually been looking at one of these pretty closely.

Im torn between a used 300/2,8 (non is) and a sigma 120-200/2.8 OS (non S version tho).

MMuddler · Mar 2, 2014

Ferguson said:
Paul Lowe said:

I've asked and the athletic director has firmly refused ANY access on sidelines except for press "for insurance reasons".... been fighting this battle for 2 years (Im not shy).

Click to expand...

If you are shooting professionally, I assume you have liability coverage? If not, you need to correct that regardless.

If you are not, depending on what homeowners you have, look into an umbrella policy for $1M. They are cheap (relatively) if you already have good auto insurance (that connection is due to the general liability nature). They are also cheap enough anyone with real assets (equity in a home, bank account with any money) should consider one anyway, in today's litigious climate.

In either case, with insurance proof in hand, politely tell him how you understood his concerns, and have invested in policies that take care of it.

Might not work, but getting in close let's you use much cheaper glass for the same aperture. Sadly night sports is a big-glass, big-money niche of photography, it's always a compromise.

69chevy · Mar 4, 2014

Paul Lowe said:
Robby521 said:

Sigma 120-300/2.8 is a sweet lens on my D3s.got a used one last week.not the new sport one.it gives me what i been looking for and wanting and didn't break the bank!

Click to expand...

Thanks.

Ive actually been looking at one of these pretty closely.

Im torn between a used 300/2,8 (non is) and a sigma 120-200/2.8 OS (non S version tho).

I would steer clear of the non-IS 300 2.8 from Canon.

They don't even offer repairs for that lens anymore.

The mark 1 IS version is superb.

Paul Lowe · Mar 4, 2014

69chevy said:
Paul Lowe said:

Robby521 said:

Sigma 120-300/2.8 is a sweet lens on my D3s.got a used one last week.not the new sport one.it gives me what i been looking for and wanting and didn't break the bank!

Click to expand...

Thanks.

Ive actually been looking at one of these pretty closely.

Im torn between a used 300/2,8 (non is) and a sigma 120-200/2.8 OS (non S version tho).

Click to expand...

I would steer clear of the non-IS 300 2.8 from Canon.

They don't even offer repairs for that lens anymore.

The mark 1 IS version is superb.

Thanks. I/n going to try a factory refurb'd 120-300 direct from Sigma.

I know it wont be as fast as a canon prime, but the added benefit of the zoom has huge utility to me - especially shooting with just one body.

sssesq · Mar 4, 2014

Paul, While not a super solution, it is prob. your best bet given the constraints imposed by the AD. Just so that you don;t get too down about being aways away from the action I have a series of 3 shots taken with a 300 at night that should give you some hope. First full frame then two crops, a medium and a tight one. I shot these at night wide open. from 110 yards away. You should ave acceptable results in the daylight at f8 or so...

Paul Lowe · Mar 4, 2014

sssesq said:
You should ave acceptable results in the daylight at f8 or so...

You trying to make me cry now?

daylight at f8?

Womens Lacrosse games START at 6:30PM (15min after sunset here).

69chevy · Mar 5, 2014

Paul Lowe said:
sssesq said:

You should ave acceptable results in the daylight at f8 or so...

Click to expand...

You trying to make me cry now?

daylight at f8?

Womens Lacrosse games START at 6:30PM (15min after sunset here).

His comment was a touch sarcastic, but mostly truth.

You need to gain a stop if you want to improve your pictures.

You will not see much improvement over what you are getting now with the Sigma.

You were at 300mm on every shot you posted, so the 300 2.8 makes the most sense if you are going to spend money.

Cutting ISO in half and using a razor sharp lens is worth not being able to zoom.

If I "have" to shoot shoot a shorter FL at a field sport, I carry my 135 and switch to it as necessary.

Also, I forgot to mention this... In almost every situation, the 300mm FL will give you better results while in "portrait" orientation.

Players are taller than wide, and framing more than two players creates a cluttered shot.

Paul Lowe · Mar 5, 2014

69chevy said:
Paul Lowe said:

sssesq said:

You should ave acceptable results in the daylight at f8 or so...

Click to expand...

You trying to make me cry now?

daylight at f8?

Womens Lacrosse games START at 6:30PM (15min after sunset here).

Click to expand...

His comment was a touch sarcastic, but mostly truth.

You need to gain a stop if you want to improve your pictures.

Damn- missed that- I and do so appreciate sarcasm! Guess I was still too frazzled to read between the lines!

I'm definitely going to try a f/2.8 lens. I think it will help significantly right-now and,

After daylight savings, and later in the season, I'll gain a LITTLE light for these games. That might even give me the option to use my 1.4TC - gain a bunch of reach and still have an acceptable f/4.

I still may pull the 580EX out of the bag and try a few test shots, but Im relegated to fact that bigger faster glass is the only answer (damn logic!!!).

wasserball · Mar 11, 2014

OK, I have not read any of the posts, but there is really no compromise shooting in dark stadiums. I shoot in those haunted dark HS stadiums all the time. There is no way around f2.8 and ISO 6400 to get good photos. But, what you have are OK for the equipment you have. A little more contrasts would be nice.

Frustated: 1st Night LAX game... need help, samples posted

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Attachments

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts