High School Football

[Walkabout]

Attachment 1385

Attachment 1384

Attachment 1383

Attachment 1382

Friday Night Lights...

[highwayman]

I have to ask how were you able to get a clear picture (#1) is such a low light condition without everyone being blurred. I have a sony a200 and so far all my night sporting events have been terrible. It is a 10 megapixel camera that is in the $500 range. I know talent is a big part (seen many of your images and you are good), I just wondering if the technical part was beyond what my camera is capable of.

[Walkabout]

Without knowing anything about your camera other than what you mentioned, hard to say...but I'd venture it's an equipment issue, perhaps. I use a Nikon D300 (just ordered a D700, has an even better low light capability) and Nikkor lenses, in this case a 300 2.8 with an internal focusing motor, at times coupled with a Nikon 2x converter, making it a 600mm at 5.6. This of course, on a full frame Film slr, or full frame sensor DSLR, which the 300 is not. So the 300mm on a D300 is effectively a 450mm. I try to never let my shutter speed fall below 1/250th or better with any kind of action photography, perhaps 1/125th. I use an ISO of 1250 on the D300 and get little noise, even with large prints. I've heard many times "It's not the camera, it's the photographer..." and I would agree with it, if it were true! To a degree of course, it is, but pro gear makes better images in demanding circumstances. And don't be fooled by the megapixel ratings, although 10 is respectable, the sensore plays a huge part, especially in demanding situations such as low light action.

[highwayman]

Thanks for the information. I am a supernovice and still have a long way to go, so all advice and info is greatly appreciated.

[SNAPaPHOTO]

How much retouching have you done? Do you add a soft filter to the pictures or do you do it all with aperture? Second do you get away with a flash?

[Walkabout]

I am using a 300mm 2.8, sometimes along with a 2x converter, so flash is not only useless, but distracting. I use a 2.8 aperture with the straight 300, it has in internal focusing motor so it's lightning fast. With the 2x teleconverter, it becomes a 5.6 (You lose 2 stops with the converter), so then, I use 5.6 aperture. I set my ISO to 1250, and I shoot no less than 1/250th of a second, no matter what my meter says. I Shoot in raw + jpeg, which gives me both a raw image of each shutter release, along with a jpeg. I don't add a soft filter, but I use different filters in photoshop (NIK) filters, such as "midnight" which has an adjustable 'blur' effect that tends to surround the elements.

When I do, I duplicate the layer, apply the filter to the top layer, and then use the eraser tool at an opacity of about 17% to slowly erase through to the original image below. I like this technique because it focuses the drama, or point of interest I want to express, without as much clutter in the background. It also gives it a somewhat surreal quality. I use this if I'm going for a more artistic image. If I am hired, and shooting more as a journalist, I tend to not use effects or too many tweaks, as editors in daily's tend to lean towards straight shots.
but to be honest, I make much more money from the art prints than what the dailys pay, so I always do both . Depending on the camera you use, and the sensor in it, noise should not be an issue. I used a D300, and blew some of these images up to 2x3 feet, and they were fine.

[Walkabout]

Attachment 1468
Attachment 1467

I've attached both the full frame original, and the cropped original, both with minimal adjustments, almost strait from camera. You can see the difference. I prefer, in an artistic presentation to use more like the original posted images from above, as a photojournalist, I would opt for one of these here, either the cropped one, or the full frame one with more of a panoramic crop. Many may do it other ways, this is just the way I enjoy it. The darker images from the original post, to me, convey more drama, a sense of focus on more of the spirit of the game, rather than just a depiction of it. As far as that goes, to me...there is no right or wrong...it's what the individual shooting it desires. And, forgive me for repeating this, you have different images for different customers, and they can choose whichever one floats THIER boat.

[SNAPaPHOTO]

Thanks for the reply. I shoot with a d300 with the bigma lens on a monopod with the aperture set at 5.6 and the 18-135 2.8 on a black rapid strap (highly recommend) when I shot football. All my shots go to the coach and the newspaper per my contract so no editing is allowed.
I love your look though, more dramactic than unedited.

And your right, you don't make any more doing it for newspapers. The family wants to go to the games so I figure as long as I am going might as well get in for free, and it pays for thier drinks and food that night (the contract money from the team) and the newspaper is just spending money to go have lunch the next day. Can't get rich doing it- though

[Walkabout]

you ought to rethink that contract...do you work for the paper? Or a stringer? If you are a stringer, thats one of the few perks, retaining the rights to your images, selling the daily's one time usage. If the prints go to the coach and the paper, who do you think gets all the cash for other sales?

[wideopen]

For some reason I can not see the photos, is this the case for anyone else?