Question to the Sports Minded Togs

[Roosta]

I have been letting the grey matter get the better of me.

How is it that we all try to find the sweat spot on our various lenses? say F5 - F8 but if your glass is of the F2.8 quality or better, and we're chasing a nice blurred background or not, we/I set to F2.8 AV, Servo Ai mode, ISO @ 400 - 500 and happly snap away in burst mode and pray my or your AF has turned up to play today for that one real keeper shot?

In my low light work, my Sigma 18-50MM F2.8 loves F5 and will work happily for very long exposure times, and then seems to re-act well for landscape work at the typical F8 - 11ish Stops on first/fading light.

This goes against the grain of the sweat spot.

Has ISO got that much to do with it?

Is it all about the speed? Ladies maybe can answer that one.LOL

So do we/I target the main object in the frame and use a smaller F-Stop closer to the sweat spot, to gain the all important sharpness?

Or do we use the open F-Stop and shot a wider image, crop and pp/sharpe/adjust/highlight/brush and combe it till it's desirable?

Love to hear your thoughts and reason behind experiences - or instances you may choose each or either.

I'm using my experiences with Rugby Union, so I would be refering to our faster moving sports,

I guess Lawn Bowls may be out of the theme of this one. LOL

Thanks you all in advance.

[William]

Gotcha Roosta, I think, Giving this question some thought , Not quite sure what you are talking about, But remember for Landscapes you would be using ISO100 or less, And to get your shutter speed for night Sport , Even with the 2.8 you'll need a higher ISO for sure , I always if I can shoot at f8- f10 for landscapes, For sport bumping the ISO to 160 I shoot at f7.1 in daylight , Probably does'nt answer your question , Will see what others say - Bill :)

[kiwi]

Firstly I only shoot sport wide open, 2.8 under the following circumstances :

1/ the light requires it to maintain an acceptable shutter speed at an acceptable Iso

2/ the backgrounds are crappy And I Want to blur as much as possible

3/ to differentiate my shots from the mum with 70-300 next to me

4/ to show off

(in order)

I usually shoot at f/3.5 if the lights ok. Gives a bit more scope for error and more importantly a bit more dof to get two players in focus in a tackle

The sweet spot of my lenses may well be f/8 on a test chart, but they are also bloody sharp at 2.8 so that side of it doesn't worry me, it used to when I had 3rd party glass that wasn't sharp wide open and I had to step down to f/4 to start getting the sort of sharpness I wanted - but then I found it harder to achieve points 1-4 above

Also, 2.8 or close shot right makes the subject pop out of the bokeh with great colour and contrast

[William]

Thanks from me as well Darren, 4 good points :D

[Roosta]

Firstly I only shoot sport wide open, 2.8 under the following circumstances :

1/ the light requires it to maintain an acceptable shutter speed at an acceptable Iso


Darren, do you mean shooting in AV, to let the camera predict the shutter op?


2/ the backgrounds are crappy And I Want to blur as much as possible


This I understand, but cant always help given the league and areas its played.


3/ to differentiate my shots from the mum with 70-300 next to me


understand completly here.


4/ to show off


(Best reason so far.LOL)The gear you have, has far more capabilites then Mum with the 300, although, for me, sometimes Mum seems to pull of the lucky shot, we toil away with the better gear, but its more the tech stuff I was after.

(in order)

I usually shoot at f/3.5 if the lights ok. Gives a bit more scope for error and more importantly a bit more dof to get two players in focus in a tackle

The sweet spot of my lenses may well be f/8 on a test chart, but they are also bloody sharp at 2.8 so that side of it doesn't worry me, it used to when I had 3rd party glass that wasn't sharp wide open and I had to step down to f/4 to start getting the sort of sharpness I wanted - but then I found it harder to achieve points 1-4 above

Also, 2.8 or close shot right makes the subject pop out of the bokeh with great colour and contrast

I find my Canon 70-200 MM L F2.8 fine, but the user isn't the sharpest, so I posed the question, I'll try it at F3.5 or F4 + to see what results I get, The touch season is starting up here soon, played under lights with our late setting sun, so it will be interesting, I'll post some shots for the usual CC, always looking to get better, and always thankful for your response mate.

Cheers

[William W]

Re Sport: I have F/2.8 telephoto and zoom lenses - PRIMARILY to allow me to make the minimum acceptable to freeze the action.

Substantially - that is the first priority of MOSTLY ALL Sports Images – to freeze the action, and the second is: to fill the frame.

So, when shooting sport, I am NOT thinking about "the sweet spot of any lens" - I am mainly thinking about “freezing” and “filling” and then "timing" the shot at "the moment".

Apropos DoF – that is a function of “The Shot” (Cine terminology) or “The Framing” (Stills terminology).

An “Half Shot” is going to have the same DoF at the same aperture no matter what (within any one camera format) – and on a 135 format camera (or “Full Frame”) – F/6.3 will give you about 2ft DoF for an Half Shot - and that’s usually fine for most sports.

Getting to Full Length shots – then that’s a different kettle of kippers – isolating one bod’ in the maul – at a full length shot then F/3.5 is about what is necessary to do that – but if the Full Length Shot is the Winger flying down the sideline, then F/5.6 will provide a more than acceptable OoF, if the B/G is the crowd across the other side of the field or the opposition, in the middle of the field, 30ft away.

EG: A Half Shot of a Sportswoman in action

Thinking:
Shutter Speed: “to freeze”
Focal Length: “to fill”
Shutter Release: “to time”

The DoF is quite suitable, IMO – I used F/6.3 – there no particular need to open to F/2.8 for a Sports Shot at this Framing.

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/14164252-lg.jpg

WW

[Roosta]

Thanks William W, great info, sorry haven't replied sooner. WIll take all onboard and give it a go.

P.S. Nice capture, where you lying pool deck, or in the water?

[William W]

where you lying pool deck, or in the water?

Laying prone on the pool deck and at the edge of it; the camera was as low as I could get it and still manoeuvre.
Thank you for the kind comment.

WW

[Roosta]

As long as you didn't take out the swimmer in lane 1 or 8, a long black or white lens may not have been to visable mate. LOL

Cheers,,

[William W]

haha,

cheers

[sunny6teen]

only sport I shoot is soccer ...as said before...
f/2.8 at night. you need all the light you can get to attain fast shutterspeeds. aim for 1/1000s as a bare minimum when player is on the ball. bump the ISO if you have to. when using film , I use to underexpose to help increase shutterspeeds - then push process it afterwards. looking at your kit though - speed isn't an issue.
f/3.5 by day. player sits nicely in depth of field. everything else it out of focus.
I favour centre weighted metering (especially at night). prevents the camera trying to meter the dark background. spot metering is a little too accurate - you only need to spot meter the shine on a shirt from the floodlights and the exposure is up the spout.
also...use AI servo because everyone is moving around :)

but most of all (and I say this because it rarely seems to happen)....compose the shot. essentially, it's an environmental portrait.

[kiwi]

I'd use manual at night, once it's dark it's not as though the lighting changes much

1/640s is ok for soccer, 1/800s better, 1/1000 if you can get away with it but not at the expense of Iso

I wouldn't underexposed much at night, if tall, if you push exposure in post you'll introduce lots of noise

[William W]

I will usually use manual camera mode for all sports, especially if the light is mostly constant, so therefore metering mode whilst shooting becomes irrelevant - minimizing un-necessary distractions is important.

Underexposing and push processing is not a facility we have with digital: I suggest NEVER to underexpose a sports image captured with digital media.

Minimum Shutter speeds suitable to perceptively freeze the action are not a blanket, one shutter speed fits all, for any particular sport.

The minimum Shutter Speed required is related to the Sport but also dependent upon:


the degree of competence of the competitors (obvious)
the age of the competitors (obvious)
the type of action within the sport (e.g. the dive for a breaststroke start requires a faster shutter than the stroke itself)
the relationship of the action / movement to the camera (e.g. transverse vs. head-on)



WW

[Roosta]

I'd use manual at night, once it's dark it's not as though the lighting changes much

1/640s is ok for soccer, 1/800s better, 1/1000 if you can get away with it but not at the expense of Iso

I wouldn't underexposed much at night, if tall, if you push exposure in post you'll introduce lots of noise

I have found I tend to change between M and AV a bit, as you sa Darren if the light isn't changing alot, it's alot easier to shoot in, but with the setting sun in the west, it tends to get shadowy in places on the field, so I tend to hover around ISO 400 and SS of 1/800 upwards at F2.8. Must admit, I haven't used the exp comp dial whilst shooting sport. Landscapes yes.

only sport I shoot is soccer ...as said before...
f/2.8 at night. you need all the light you can get to attain fast shutterspeeds. aim for 1/1000s as a bare minimum when player is on the ball. bump the ISO if you have to. when using film , I use to underexpose to help increase shutterspeeds - then push process it afterwards. looking at your kit though - speed isn't an issue.
f/3.5 by day. player sits nicely in depth of field. everything else it out of focus.
I favour centre weighted metering (especially at night). prevents the camera trying to meter the dark background. spot metering is a little too accurate - you only need to spot meter the shine on a shirt from the floodlights and the exposure is up the spout.
also...use AI servo because everyone is moving around :)

but most of all (and I say this because it rarely seems to happen)....compose the shot. essentially, it's an environmental portrait.

Get what your saying, I was playing around with my 1D body over the weekend and used center weight metering, seemed to react better to faster shutter speeds, I used to be a stickler for spot only, my thought process has changed now. Have to get the 2.8 out of my head I think and maybe more patient with play and get field position, I guess I'm trying to get rid of poor backgrounds.

[Roosta]

I will usually use manual camera mode for all sports, especially if the light is mostly constant, so therefore metering mode whilst shooting becomes irrelevant - minimizing un-necessary distractions is important.

Underexposing and push processing is not a facility we have with digital: I suggest NEVER to underexpose a sports image captured with digital media.

Minimum Shutter speeds suitable to perceptively freeze the action are not a blanket, one shutter speed fits all, for any particular sport.

The minimum Shutter Speed required is related to the Sport but also dependent upon:


the degree of competence of the competitors (obvious)
the age of the competitors (obvious)
the type of action within the sport (e.g. the dive for a breaststroke start requires a faster shutter than the stroke itself)
the relationship of the action / movement to the camera (e.g. transverse vs. head-on)



WW

Thanks William, also a big one is the togs abitily to read and position themself for the faster moving games, and the bodies AF is up to it, will see how my 1D goes against the trusty old 50D for AF tracking, both in AI Servor mode.

Our club has several grounds and the touch season is just starting up here, so I'll be shooting in fading sunlight to my back and ground flood lighting in play aswell.

[William W]

also a big one is the togs abitily to read and position themself for the faster moving games, and the bodies AF is up to it, will see how my 1D goes against the trusty old 50D for AF tracking, both in AI Servor mode. Our club has several grounds and the touch season is just starting up here, so I'll be shooting in fading sunlight to my back and ground flood lighting in play aswell.

Understood. I agree with the general sentiment.

BUT - when shooting for “Our Club” (I shoot a reasonable amount of Field Hockey, over a season) - there can be a more long term shooting strategy, if you are not necessarily shooting for the “whole game coverage” , you can nab a few highlights as they come and then with few in the bag adjust the shooting position for a broader coverage of “Our Club” over the season - choosing the guts spot to concentrate on one or two players, each game.

WW

[atky]

"I suggest NEVER to underexpose a sports image captured with digital media."
Interesting statement you dont get out much in the midday sun do you, or you dont mind blown highlights. I would say most of the shooters I see in sunny conditions would be underexposing by up to 1 stop if not more. Just my observation and what I do.

[sunny6teen]

quite right about underexposing. I did it with film (only because I had to) which is much more forgiving when pushed...before digital days etc.
1/640 is alright for fat players who are slower ha ha. I agree that it's a bit relative to what you're shooting and of course how good the light is (usually pretty ordinary). I find that most of the time the best shots are happening behind play or in dead ball situations (so speed isn't a big deal anyway). someone clogging a ball at goal may look exciting but can be a bit stagnant on an emotional level if you get my meaning.

as for ISO vs shutter speed. the shutter just need to be fast enough to get sharp results. if that means bumping up the ISO - so be it. what choice do you have?

I'd use manual at night, once it's dark it's not as though the lighting changes much

1/640s is ok for soccer, 1/800s better, 1/1000 if you can get away with it but not at the expense of Iso

I wouldn't underexposed much at night, if tall, if you push exposure in post you'll introduce lots of noise

[William W]

"I suggest NEVER to underexpose a sports image captured with digital media."
Interesting statement you dont get out much in the midday sun do you, or you dont mind blown highlights. I would say most of the shooters I see in sunny conditions would be underexposing by up to 1 stop if not more. Just my observation and what I do.
The main subject should not be underexposed - midday sun or not.
For a sports capture: fill the frame with pain and gain.
If some highlights in the back ground are blown then to hell with it.
Fill the frame with a correctly exposed main subject.
That's what I do and it sells photos for me - pls see above.

WW

[William W]

I get out plenty in the midday sun . . .

"Midday Sun" (11:38am actually) - main subject in overhead sun and eyes are in shadow -
No underexposure and there no need to do so:

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/14567473-lg.jpg
"Right Inner Takes the Shot"

Maybe you could show some "midday sun" sports shots you have made and also perhaps explain more fully, your rationale behind stating the need always underexpose them . . .

WW

[atky]

EV -2/3 shot in AP because of changing conditions, Why strong rich colours detail in splash and any detail lost in shadow is more recoverable than having no detail in the highlights.
81310

[William W]

Thank you for your response.

Your example photo AND your written response are NOT discussing what I wrote.

I wrote: “I suggest NEVER to underexpose a sports image captured with digital media”

You have shown an example of using exposure correction of -⅔ stop whilst the camera is in Av Priority mode.
Specifically - you are using the camera’s TTL meter to manage the shutter speed automatically, as you shoot – however through your experience, theory or skill or a combination of all three, you know that, with the metering mode you used, you will need to OVERRIDE the camera’s brain and CORRECT it by trimming the exposure by -⅔ stop, for that particular shooting scenario - in another shooting scenarios, when in Av Priority, you will correct the camera's automatic choice by more or less accordingly - this is common practice.

That is NOT underexposing, that is using a manual override of the camera’s metering system to get (what you have decided) is the CORRECT exposure.

Similarly the two shots I have posted were both shot in Manual Mode (M) – but NEITHER had the camera TTL meter set “dead centre” in the viewfinder, as I corrected my shooting specs for the CORRECT exposure as I see appropriate to suit the circumstances.

This is not being pedantic, this is about using the correct terminology.

And this is being just as forthright as you, as remember that it was you who first implied that I did not know what I was talking about, and stated that I did not I get out and shoot sport in midday sun and that I did not care about blowing highlights . . .

So if we are to continue to converse sensibly, especially on any technical matters, then we must use the correct technical terminology, such that we are very clear and accurate in what we each say and what we mean - and I meant exactly and precisely, what I wrote.

Nice photo – and it appears to me to be correctly exposed and certainly NOT greatly underexposed and very few if any blown highlights - the same technically, as my two examples, just we each got to them, by different methodolgies.

WW

[kiwi]

I use a Nikon, it exposes perfectly in any mode

Thanks

My only objective in any sport shot with only a few exceptions is to EFTF

I don't care about blown highlights on shirts etc, it's not a bloody wedding

[Roosta]

Thanks for all the input, I seem to have got some healthy ideas for different strokes so to speak.

I understand the under and or a need to push/over expose at times, but using mainly AV I find I can adjust FG, main subject and or BG with the exposure slide and blacks slide in ACR.

My main concern as both Kiwi and William have mentioned is to keep the picture, main subject as sharp as possible.

William, If you've seen any of my Rugby images, our grounds here in the west seem to be heavily tree lined and usually to the western side of the ground, so with the setting sun it can really through some dark areas/shadows for the metering to try to work out.

With the juniors, their games are normally in the middle of the morning, so we get the bright midday sun, as in your hockey pic above.

So its all relivant I guess, but I guess it's all a matter of situation on the day, do you want the blurred bg and have the image as sharp as possible, or is there some trade off as atky has mentioned.

I'll post some images the first chance I get to take some touch footy shots.

Cheers

[William W]

My main concern as both Kiwi and . . . have mentioned is to keep the picture, main subject as sharp as possible.
I guess that is a DoF Issue or a Focus Issue or both.
DoF, as I mentioned, is a function of “The Shot”.
I haven’t used the lenses you mention I cannot comment on their AF capacity.
I can comment that Canon AF works of CONTRAST differences, so if you are following using AI Servo – ensure there is a line of sharp contrast of the AF point.



If you've seen any of my Rugby images, our grounds here in the west seem to be heavily tree lined and usually to the western side of the ground, so with the setting sun it can really through some dark areas/shadows for the metering to try to work out.

I just looked.

One main comment for your consideration;

This image WK-11 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/roostagraphics/5584365106/in/set-72157626416297324/) - was shot at 2.30pm and you pulled: F3.5 @ 1/640s @ ISO200

This image WK-13 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/roostagraphics/5583839383/in/set-72157626416297324/) - was shot at 2.33pm (three minutes later) and you pulled: F/3.2 @ 1/5000s @ ISO200

Please note that the aspect of the sun to the players is almost the SAME in both images, this can be seen by the shadows’ angles on the ground.

Also, it occurs to me that the EV at the scene of the Main Subjects (the intensity of illumination on the players) is identical – as demonstrated by the intensity/density of the players' shadows; and also the fact that it is very unlikely that even light clouds came and covered the ground, in only three minutes.

So the ONLY difference which could affect the TTL metering in the two shots is the BACKGROUND. - which you have mentioned is a problem for you: noted both mentioned images were pulled in Av Mode.

The first image’s background is bright sunlit light green grass and the second has dense shadowed trees.

BUT in BOTH shots the PLAYERS are being illuminated by the same sun at the same angle and at the same intensity.
BUT the shooting specs reveal that there is an exposure difference of about three stops.

If we agree that the players are being illuminated by the same sun, at about the same angle – then we must agree that one of the exposures used is INCORRECT for the Main Subjects – i.e. “The Players”.


So I would ask this question:

Why are you allowing the Cameras TTL meter, via Av Camera Mode, to dictate the exposures to you when The main Subjects are being lit by the exactly same lighting?

I have not looked closely, but I did seen other examples and I bet there are many more examples where you are situated in about the same place on the field relative to the play and the sun remains fairly constant on the players . . . and only the background changes.

Why are you choosing an automatic camera mode, for a "consistent light" shooting scenario?


WW

[camerasnoop]

Use of the Spot meter perhaps?

EDIT:

Sorry, I didn't mean to be obtuse. Roosta has used Spot Metering of his subject. in the first image you've mentioned, he's obviously picked out a darker (perhaps shadowed) part of the image. That is why he has a slower shutter speed and a blown-out background. In the second, he looks to have metered on a brighter spot and hence the faster shutter speed and darker background.

I don't think the background has played any part in the exposure settings, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

Spot metering is something I try to avoid if I can when covering sporting events as it gives different exposures for the same subject, and I don't like having to correct them all afterwards. For one-off shots? No problem.

[kiwi]

Spot metering is not the way to go I'd agree the majority of the time

Av works for me with appropriate EV depending on the sun direction and I will if light is consistent, day or night, to manually meter

[camerasnoop]

Spot metering is not the way to go I'd agree the majority of the time

Yep, and a classic example is shooting a triathlon event and using spot metering on the runners' chests as they come towards you. The darker the singlet, the brighter the exposure and when all put up on the web side-by-side the punters want to know why their photo is dark and others are light. Better to shoot a manual exposure or even centre-weighted average, anything but spot.

[Roosta]

Gents, thanks for all the replys.

William W, the two examples you've picked are also shot at different ends of the ground, so whilst under the same light source, they're also at different angles to the camera, so the sun isn't as dirrectly aimed into the lens in the second shot. This is why I'd say the difference in EV spec that the camera had decieded upon.

Snoopy, I learn't a little to late to stop using spot metering, and the way you've explained the darks to lights makes it very easy to understand. I was reading through the owners manual for my new body and it describes it quite well, also being a pro body, has more features to evaluate the light/dark source and select accordingly.

Kiwi, Thanks, need to work on getting my EV settings correct, I still feel for my level of experience that AV + AI servo are my best tools and will use centre weight metering a try. This was also recommended to me over the weekend at a Canon event I attended.

So thank you all

[kiwi]

Yes, I use cw metering mostly too where there is variable light and shadows or it's changing quickly

+.7 EV if backlit and -.3 EV if frontlit are my starting points but i use the blinkies on the LCD to try to avoid the main part of the face blowing out if shooting people

Wide open less one stop

[Roosta]

My New (second hand body) has the blinkies, so that will help I dare say.

Was reading up on it today. With the use of the back focus AF lock - to allow metering rather than using the shutter, should also help me.

We shall see.

Once again, Thanks Darren.

[William W]

Use of the Spot meter perhaps?
EDIT:
Sorry, I didn't mean to be obtuse. Roosta has used Spot Metering of his subject. in the first image you've mentioned, he's obviously picked out a darker (perhaps shadowed) part of the image. That is why he has a slower shutter speed and a blown-out background. In the second, he looks to have metered on a brighter spot and hence the faster shutter speed and darker background.
I don't think the background has played any part in the exposure settings, but please correct me if I'm wrong.
Spot metering is something I try to avoid if I can when covering sporting events as it gives different exposures for the same subject, and I don't like having to correct them all afterwards. For one-off shots? No problem.

I did not find your unedited statement obtuse.

Before I made my comments to address the question Rosta had about tree-lined vs. non tree-lined backgrounds, I too noted that Spot Metering was used: and I chose specifically to not mention or discuss any Metering Mode.

I asked the question about WHY was the AV CAMERA MODE chosen to be used; as, it is correct technical procedure, to first choose the Camera Mode to suit the shooting scenario(s) and then choose the best metering mode to suit that Camera Mode and the scene(s).

And, as I do not wish to make this a debate about what is best technical practice: the question about WHY was a particular Camera Mode is chosen to be used, is of relevance, anyway.

That question is still unanswered, and seems also, has been little discussed so far, except for one other comment.

***

However, to answer your direct question posed to me:

in the first image you've mentioned, he's obviously picked out a darker (perhaps shadowed) part of the image. That is why he has a slower shutter speed and a blown-out background. In the second, he looks to have metered on a brighter spot and hence the faster shutter speed and darker background. I don't think the background has played any part in the exposure settings, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

Firstly I agree that the Spot metering has picked up on darker and lighter parts of each of the two images – that was my point in raising the question, as it is the TTL Meter which driving the automatic Av Camera Mode.
As to whether or not the Background played a part, it is most likely it did, rather than it didn’t: but I believe not in the way you think I meant it. Let me explain.

In the first shot I (think) the spot meter background picked up on a player's dark jersey or shorts in shadow and on the second I (think) the spot meter picked up on the SUNLIT area of the green tree lined background.

On both shots, a very large significant area which the Spot meter could have read, was the background: and I noting that sunlight green foliage is almost a perfect grey card for shooting with the light, up to and including side lit sun: I expect that if the raw files were analysed the second image would have almost, if not perfect exposure, for the skin tones in side sunlight.

So yes, I see your point quite clearly and agree with it: and perhaps it would have been better for me to write that the background played a part in the metering error, in that by fluke most likely making the second exposure, correct.

It is irrelevant to consider comparing the spots where the diagonals of each frame crosses, as both sample images have been cropped from their native 3:2 aspect ratio:
WK-11 is 1024x956 and
WK-13 is 1024x573

So that is why I concluded that most likely the Spot Meter has picked up some background (in one shot) and that’s also why I wrote the BACKGROUND is the main "differential" in two the shots, sorry that my meaning was not completely clear.


However – the main point of me making my comment was to address the OP’s concern about shooing with the tree lined areas in the background, and as I noted: there are several other examples in the portfolio, where the players are lit in a constant lighting situation and exposures vary between shots.


***


Just reiterating about these two samples - the angle of the shadows on the ground relative to the players and also relative the base horizontal frame of the image are both very similar: and whilst each shot is taken at different places on the field, the lighting scenario ON THE PLAYERS, is almost identical, in both.


WW