Friday Night(mare) lighting football

[Jeff Mims]

New to this forum, but thought I'd post a couple of my favs from this season. My first shooting football. All shot in JEPG, but next season, I hope to have a complete Raw workflow in place. The lighting is just too bad, and I either shot at 1600 or 3200 every game.
All w/30D, 3200 ISO, 200 f/2.8 lens...except last one, that was with a 70-200 f/2.8

 

[Asher Kelman]

Great shots. amazing at ISO 3200! Noise ninja?

The last shot puzzles me. Is # 24 short, #7 a giant or just is this forshortening?

I'd have expected the first guy to be larger, not smaller, so he now looks v. small!

Asher

 

[Jeff Mims]

Very little post processing.. some slight sharpening and redeye removal, no noise ninja. I was using a 580Ex flash, set to Hsync for fill, but it didn't fire on this particular sequence.
Can't answer the question of relative size. I just shot in JEPG, and that's the way it came out. I do believe one player is taller, but both were tall guys.

I was shooting in JEPG to try to get it submitted to local paper. As it turned out, none of my images were used. Next season, I plan to have a Raw workflow system in place.

 

[Jim Kenny]

Jeff - #1 and #2 seem like you used a flash ... getting the whites of the eyes like you did really makes the pic !

but #3 .... I understand peak action ... but no faces ... and this shot does not seem like a flash was used.

#1 is my favorite

Jim

 

[Nill Toulme]

Jeff welcome! #1 is a superb shot, really nice. The flash balance is perfect, i.e., very unobtrusive.

I finally broke down in the latter part of this season and started shooting flash. I'm fairly new to football, and never having used flash for soccer, came to football with a strong predisposition against flash. The problem is that between the dark endzones and the helmet shadows on the faces, flash pretty much becomes a necessity on the fields where I shoot.

And I've been experimenting quite a bit to see what works. I started out shooting my usual ISO 3200 1/400 f/2.8 with the flash on HS sync. More recently though I've gone with a more flash-heavy approach, ISO 800 1/250 f/2.8 with the flash on ettl. I think I like the latter better, but I haven't entirely made up my mind.

I've also experimented with the flash above and below the lens (see the monopod thread) and have come back to placing it above, with a fair amount of separation to cut down on redeye and demoneye.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

 

[Jeff Mims]

Nill,
I did use flash...but left the monopod at home. I recently acquired a 300, so next season..the monopod will be used every game. I'd considered mounting flash below, on the monopod..but you are having better results with the flash mounted above?
Guess it pays to experiment.
It's hard to get everything right at nightime football. Catching action, right exposure, right WB, ..etc.
I'm learning all I can, and hope to do better next year. This was my first year shooting sports on a regular basis.

 

[Nill Toulme]

​

Shooting sports is the next best thing to fishing. ;-)

Yes I've decided I like the flash over the lens better. I don't think it matters quite so much for the on the field stuff — although it can occasionally — but especially for sideline stuff you can get some really weird shadows thrown on the background with an under-mounted flash.

Here's an example of the undermounted flash shadow:

Of course, it cuts both ways. Here's a top-mounted flash shadow:

In any event, it's important to keep it either directly above or below the lens, because side shadows are just awful. This means you have to use a flash bracket if you're going to shoot vertical. But that's good, because it also helps enormously to get the flash as far away from the lens as possible to avoid redeye and demoneye.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

 

[Joel Slack]

Great shots. amazing at ISO 3200! Noise ninja?

The last shot puzzles me. Is # 24 short, #7 a giant or just is this forshortening?

I'd have expected the first guy to be larger, not smaller, so he now looks v. small!

Asher

I just did a quick and highly scientific measurement (using my fingers) and they are both approximately the same height, though #7 is probably a bit taller (as receivers usually are). Perhaps because the receiver is up in the air and stretched out, while the tackler is on the ground and leaning forward, the perspective makes it look like one is much taller than the other. Not to be a buttinsky.