OT: Show off your sports photography...

[kylehess10]

Can you give me an example of how it's unnatural? I would really like to know.

Other sports photographers, do you concur with Kyle?

The problem with that is that I get a ton of noise. I am using a Nikon D300S. I also don't have a sports photography lens, so maybe that's part of the problem. My Nikkor 18-105 mm is adequate, but it's not a sports lens.

I've tried once using my flash and it just didn't look right so I deleted them right away. Sports is just a place where you don't expect to see extra lights from a flash. If you ever notice the photographers at the stadiums packed together, you always see that they never even carry a flash.

I used a Nikon D80 last season, which also had a bad bit of noise at high ISO levels, so I shot primarily at day games. I just don't like dealing with night games. There's no action to capture, and the quality is lost.

The D90 and D3/D3x have the best high ISO in my opinion

[jobathenut]

Kyle-I hate to disagree with you.As you know more than i do when it comes to taking pictures.But you do realize that professional photographers at games like hockey do use a flash.As they have the flashes by the lights of the arena and triggers the flashes when they take pictures.And by the way there is a difference as heres two pictures i took of the same player one using and one not using a flash for the picture.

Using flash in sports is basically making it look un-natural. I only use flash for portait photography. I don't think I've seen a professional photographer in any sport use flash. That's why they just push the ISO settings up to get the correct lighting.

[Manram]

I do not take pictures, but those two pics are way different

[CampWest]

Kyle-I hate to disagree with you.As you know more than i do when it comes to taking pictures.But you do realize that professional photographers at games like hockey do use a flash.As they have the flashes by the lights of the arena and triggers the flashes when they take pictures.And by the way there is a difference as heres two pictures i took of the same player one using and one not using a flash for the picture.

Which one had the flash? left or right?

You miss one key point to your supporting argument, the professionals are enhancing the existing lighting source, not introducing a new direction of lighting source that could theoretically distract and endanger players or annoy paying spectators. Boxing matches will often also have slave flash units added to the existing lighting as well. But the whole point to that is to have all lighting coming from the same primary source direction, not additional lighting coming from everywhere.

Bottom line, most arenas/stadiums have a rule prohibiting the use of flash photography by fans. Obviously enforcement is nearly null.

My biggest problem with using flash at the normal spectator distances is that most flash units will diffuse before hitting a subject that is 2% of the field of view at 100+ feet away. They just dont have enough power to effectively expose a subject that far away. Many on-board flash units are wholly ineffective on a subject over 15 feet away. And if you are closer than that to a player and flashing a bright light in their face, you are putting them at risk. Using an ineffective flash will generally result in significantly underexposed images.

Your best bet is to honor the stadium rules and put away the flash, crank up your ISO to 800, shoot in Aperture Priority mode at your lens's largest aperture, and take a properly exposed picture with the available light. They are playing a dangerous fast moving sport, there should be enough light in the venue to allow for properly exposed images without annoying your neighbors or endangering the players.

[cohibasmoker]

I kind of like the Sports Illustrated photos.

Of course the "Political Correct" folks don't like it but as the article states, their bodies are the by-product of hard work and sacrifice.

http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/van...urn=oly,219554

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.ac...81474978031340

Just my opinion - hope I didn't offend anyone.

Jim

[frikativ54]

Your best bet is to honor the stadium rules and put away the flash, crank up your ISO to 800, shoot in Aperture Priority mode at your lens's largest aperture, and take a properly exposed picture with the available light. They are playing a dangerous fast moving sport, there should be enough light in the venue to allow for properly exposed images without annoying your neighbors or endangering the players.

Why do you recommend aperture priority mode over shutter priority mode? I usually use shutter priority on 1/250 with my ISO at 1600 for court-side photography. I understand your point about the flash, but my lens simply doesn't let in enough light to do non-flash pictures.

Perhaps I should buy another lens, but I do not have enough money to afford that kind of upgrade. Especially when I'm buying a new nature photography lens, which is my true passion. So - I am trying to make due with what I have, my Nikkor 18-105 mm lens.

Please explain how you work aperture priority mode and what are the advantages over shutter priority mode?

-Frik

[jobathenut]

Obviously the much brighter picture is the one with a flash.I don't know as much as you experts do on here about photography.And i understand all the things you mentioned.But its still a flash,isn't it.Like i said i don't have the knowledge you guys have but it seems to me no matter where it comes from,from the camera or from the light's, it's still a flash of light and would still be consider a flash.But i don't want to disgree or start a argument over this.I just thought i would post pictures showing the difference in pictures.

Which one had the flash? left or right?

You miss one key point to your supporting argument, the professionals are enhancing the existing lighting source, not introducing a new direction of lighting source that could theoretically distract and endanger players or annoy paying spectators. Boxing matches will often also have slave flash units added to the existing lighting as well. But the whole point to that is to have all lighting coming from the same primary source direction, not additional lighting coming from everywhere.

Bottom line, most arenas/stadiums have a rule prohibiting the use of flash photography by fans. Obviously enforcement is nearly null.

My biggest problem with using flash at the normal spectator distances is that most flash units will diffuse before hitting a subject that is 2% of the field of view at 100+ feet away. They just dont have enough power to effectively expose a subject that far away. Many on-board flash units are wholly ineffective on a subject over 15 feet away. And if you are closer than that to a player and flashing a bright light in their face, you are putting them at risk. Using an ineffective flash will generally result in significantly underexposed images.

Your best bet is to honor the stadium rules and put away the flash, crank up your ISO to 800, shoot in Aperture Priority mode at your lens's largest aperture, and take a properly exposed picture with the available light. They are playing a dangerous fast moving sport, there should be enough light in the venue to allow for properly exposed images without annoying your neighbors or endangering the players.

[tknorm]

Kyle and CampWest,

How close to the field are you when you took these pictures?

Thanks,
Tommy

[CampWest]

Obviously the much brighter picture is the one with a flash.

Its really not obvious at all. Exposure has several factors, brightness of the subject, aperture (amount of light passing through lens), shutter speed (amount of time light is exposing the film/sensor), ISO (the film/sensor's sensitivity to light). So too many unknowns to state for certain which picture had the flash.

Anyhow, I personally think the second/darker image has the better exposure. The lighter image is overexposed, there is a loss of detail in the painted lines in the ice and the player's jersey shows less detail.

I pulled down your two photos... The brighter image has a 1/40th second exposure at f3.5 and the darker has a faster 1/60th second exposure at the same f3.5 (aka aperture). So that tells me the first/over-exposed image has too slow of a shutter speed - too much light hitting the sensor. The second image was close to properly exposed. My software, interestingly is telling me that the flash was turned off in both images. Which makes sense since the differences can easily be attributed to the difference in the amount of time the shutter was open. I think the difference you are seeing is not attributable to the flash and merely to differences in shutter speed.

Anyhow, my reasoning for not using a flash was and is, that all but the best professional-caliber flashes are ineffective at spectator distances, causing the camera to incorrectly expose an image in a lot of cases. And generally flash photography is prohibited.

[CampWest]

Kyle and CampWest,

How close to the field are you when you took these pictures?

Thanks,
Tommy

Some I was in the first row right behind the 3rd base on deck circle, others were in the 1st base dugout suite... So, anywhere from 100' to 25' from home plate.