# Boxing/sports photography.......Low light.....Canon 1DX.....FUBAR !



## FCP (Dec 8, 2013)

I recently borrowed the Canon 1DX to test it. I specifically wanted to  test it for and upcoming boxing event I was shooting. I've done a bit of  research and most of my reading lead me to believe this was the go to  camera for low light fast action sports photography.

I knew the event was an amateur event and that the venue had very poor  light. I took several light readings with my meter from the middle of the ring. With boxing you need to shoot between  500 and 1000 speed or your wasting your time. 1000 is ideal. But, can I get there with  this lighting situation was the question. I took several readings. ISO 3200, at  1000 was my first. My FStop reading on my meter was 1.0...Oh no, This no good.  I'm shooting with  24-70 2.8. SEVERAL OTHER READINGS and I could not get  above 250 unless I pushed the ISO to 10,000! 

Everything I read also said that this camera performed remarkably well as high as 15,000 ISO. I ended up shooting the entire event (10 fights) at over 10,000 ISO just to  get to 400 at 2.8. (NOT FAST ENOUGH!!) Historgram didn't mean  much due to the fact that the  ring matt was black, shorts were black, head gear were black, most of  the fans wore black and the back walls were lite with xmas lights, house lighting were LED's. Some female fighters wore all black tops, shorts, and head gear. Mix this with a black matt and your practically shooting in the dark. In addition all the  images looked fine in the cameras. I know this isn't a good measurement  but the difference between camera monitor and computer are huge! I can't believe it. 

End result. Crappy,noisy,underexposed images.... I don't know how to  salvage the images or what to tell the client. I am disappointed with  the hype of this camera and it's ISO capabilities. 
I understand it has a lot to do with the venue and a lot out of it was out of my control but clients expect you know how to handle the situation. Lastly, I know most of the fighters, promoters and trainers and go to the same gym. They have expectations. I see these people daily. They may know the fight game but they don't understand some of the tech challenges of shooting. I am sure they got some good cell phone photos! I don' know how to handle it. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. p.s....I did not get paid for the shoot. I did it as a favor.


----------



## D-B-J (Dec 8, 2013)

You couldn't have used a faster lens? 1.2, 1.4?  Can we see some of the images?


Jake


----------



## FCP (Dec 8, 2013)

1.2, 1.4? I don't know of any zoom lens that shoots that wide open. You can't shoot with a fixed prime lens. Not boxing and kickboxing. It's dealing with the people who will be coming to me and dealing with the images that are mostly my concern right now. Trying to salvage some images in lightroom but it's not that great. I only need two or three good decent images from each fight.


----------



## Mach0 (Dec 8, 2013)

FCP said:


> 1.2, 1.4? I don't know of any zoom lens that shoots that wide open. You can't shoot with a fixed prime lens. Not boxing and kickboxing. It's dealing with the people who will be coming to me and dealing with the images that are mostly my concern right now. Trying to salvage some images in lightroom but it's not that great. I only need two or three good decent images from each fight.



Convert to black and white and embrace the noise.


----------



## D-B-J (Dec 8, 2013)

Mach0 said:


> FCP said:
> 
> 
> > 1.2, 1.4? I don't know of any zoom lens that shoots that wide open. You can't shoot with a fixed prime lens. Not boxing and kickboxing. It's dealing with the people who will be coming to me and dealing with the images that are mostly my concern right now. Trying to salvage some images in lightroom but it's not that great. I only need two or three good decent images from each fight.
> ...



Such a simple, and yet sometimes super effective, remedy.

Jake


----------



## Derrel (Dec 8, 2013)

You "can't shoot" with a prime lens, but you can shoot with a 24-70mm pokey f/2.8 zoom? You need a serious re-think. Between 24mm and 70mm are a few prime lengths....28mm...35mm...50mm. Pick ONE lens of high speed and shoot with it. CROP the images that are going to be used. F/2.8 is a "slow lens"...very,very slow, compared to a 35/1.4 or 50/1.4.

You only needed two or three good images from each fight. You could have made those with a 50.


----------



## Mach0 (Dec 8, 2013)

Derrel said:


> You "can't shoot" with a prime lens, but you can shoot with a 24-70mm pokey f/2.8 zoom? You need a serious re-think. Between 24mm and 70mm are a few prime lengths....28mm...35mm...50mm. Pick ONE lens of high speed and shoot with it. CROP the images that are going to be used. F/2.8 is a "slow lens"...very,very slow, compared to a 35/1.4 or 50/1.4.  You only needed two or three good images from each fight. You could have made those with a 50.



I agree.


----------



## table1349 (Dec 8, 2013)

FCP said:


> 1.2, 1.4? I don't know of any zoom lens that shoots that wide open. You can't shoot with a fixed prime lens. Not boxing and kickboxing. It's dealing with the people who will be coming to me and dealing with the images that are mostly my concern right now. Trying to salvage some images in lightroom but it's not that great. I only need two or three good decent images from each fight.


Gosh, I have only been shooting sports for around 35 years now and typically 85% of all my shots are with prime lenses. An even larger proportion of the action shots are with primes.  Perhaps that is why my collection of lenses only has 4 zooms total and over twice that are prime lenses.  I have nothing slower than F2.8 and those for the most part are my 4 zooms, as well as my 300mm and 400mm.  Everything else it faster glass.  

As for the 1Dx.  I use one as my primary body with a 1D MkIV as my secondary  body.  Both are more than up to the challange.


----------



## FCP (Dec 8, 2013)

Derrel said:


> You "can't shoot" with a prime lens, but you can shoot with a 24-70mm pokey f/2.8 zoom? You need a serious re-think. Between 24mm and 70mm are a few prime lengths....28mm...35mm...50mm. Pick ONE lens of high speed and shoot with it. CROP the images that are going to be used. F/2.8 is a "slow lens"...very,very slow, compared to a 35/1.4 or 50/1.4.
> 
> You only needed two or three good images from each fight. You could have made those with a 50.



ok... what is 'pokey' 'serious rethink' ?  Perhaps a 28 would have done the job but I don't have one. In addition you need to be able to shoot close and far in a seconds notice. A fight can go from a foot away to 10ft away in two seconds. Using a 50 or an 85 is like waiting for the perfect storm to happen. Your dealing with not just distance but refs in your way and fighters with there back to you. There are many things that need to take place in order for that perfect on or two shots with a 50 or 85. Plus, keep in mind that you can't move around. Your in one spot the whole fight. Try getting getting a face or glove in focus with a 1.4 when your dealing with head movement, body movement, gloves flying, leg kicks....not easy.

I understand that there are probably several things I could have done different. You come away with every shoot that way. The issue here is dealing with what I have and the people that have expectations. I tried to stress to difficult situation I was in.


----------



## jaomul (Dec 8, 2013)

+1 on the primes. Boxing matches were photographed with much lesser iso abilities than the 1dx. Get a few and use the most appropriate for your position.


----------



## pixmedic (Dec 8, 2013)

I don't shoot canon, BUT, I imagine if you had gone with a 50mm f/1.4 for the low light, the 1DX probably has good enough resolution to handle whatever cropping needed to be done. From everything I have heard, the 1DX is an amazing camera.


----------



## FCP (Dec 8, 2013)

gryphonslair99 said:


> FCP said:
> 
> 
> > 1.2, 1.4? I don't know of any zoom lens that shoots that wide open. You can't shoot with a fixed prime lens. Not boxing and kickboxing. It's dealing with the people who will be coming to me and dealing with the images that are mostly my concern right now. Trying to salvage some images in lightroom but it's not that great. I only need two or three good decent images from each fight.
> ...



I don't know what your trying to say or if it helps me. Your not responding to my original. I don't know what sports you shoot and those 300 and 400 aren't zooms. They are telephoto. If I'm shooting football or basketball or tennis from across the court or field those are great and I have time to switch camera if the action comes my way. Have you shot boxing before? Maybe you can give me tips for the next fight. My post is about dealing with what I have. I couldn't shoot the entire ten fights with my 85 1.8. One side of the ring was darker then the other. My original light reading (with a meter) inside the ring (the brightest part) was 3200 ISO at 1000 speed and I got 1.0. What lens can you shoot with at 1.0 to get a decent exposure?


----------



## robbins.photo (Dec 8, 2013)

FCP said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > FCP said:
> ...



Ok, step back for a second.  First you went to an event with equipment you had not properly tested before hand to see if it would be able to keep up with the lighting conditions.  Granted in the real world sometimes these things happen and you don't always get the chance to find out in advance if you have the equipment you need, however snapping at us is not going to fix the photos you took.  

You stated a fairly ill-informed opinion about prime lenses - you don't really need a zoom (and a very limited zoom at that) when you can move around and then crop as needed after the fact.  A faster prime would have been of much more benefit to you in this situation, something you might have discovered pre-shoot had you say come in and asked.

Now, as to fixing the images you did take, you do have some options.  They are a little limited and it's doubtful that you are going to get amazing results, but you might be able to get to "livable" by using lightroom or something similar and some noise reduction and then using it to try and help fix the exposure issues.  It won't be perfect but at least it's something.


----------



## FCP (Dec 8, 2013)

I don't want to offend anyone here or get into arguments. I know there are faster lenses, I know there are wider lens's. I am not what one might consider an amateur. I don't typically do NOT shoot sports but I have a lot of knowledge. 

I had very poor lighting and a lot of dark elements. I was in a fixed position with very fast moving action. Lighting was tiny LED spots. I already mentioned I took a light readings several times with my meter before the event started and couldn't even get to 1.5 or 1.8 and get a good enough shutter speed. Yes, I could have shot with a wider faster fixed lens and got a better exposure but I don't have a 28mm.

I am looking for responses regarding how I can deal with the clients and the images I have. NOT what I could have done better or different. I appreciate all the responses but I don't want there to be confusion.


----------



## SCraig (Dec 8, 2013)

FCP said:


> ... End result. Crappy,noisy,underexposed images.... I don't know how to  salvage the images or what to tell the client. I am disappointed with  the hype of this camera and it's ISO capabilities.
> 
> I understand it has a lot to do with the venue and a lot out of it was out of my control but clients expect you know how to handle the situation. Lastly, I know most of the fighters, promoters and trainers and go to the same gym. They have expectations. I see these people daily. They may know the fight game but they don't understand some of the tech challenges of shooting. I am sure they got some good cell phone photos! I don' know how to handle it. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. p.s....I did not get paid for the shoot. I did it as a favor.


Well, it seems to me that at this point you have exactly three options:
1.  Choose the best of the bad, bring up the exposure in post processing, add a bunch of noise reduction, and apologize for the quality.

2.  As mentioned, convert to black and white and let the noise emphasize the grittiness of the environment.

3.  Tell them you got nothing because you underestimated the needs of the environment.  Do NOT try and blame the venue or claim that things were out of your control.  Had you been paid for this you would have been expected to control the environment and do what was necessary to ENSURE that the photographs were high-quality images.  Clients pay for results, not excuses.

Also use this as the learning experience that it was.  Next time you take a job GO TO THE SITE BEFOREHAND.  LOOK at what the conditions are going to be like, don't assume anything.  KNOW before you get there what you're going to be facing as far as situational challenges go and know how to handle them.  If flash photography is allowed, use one.  Find that out beforehand as well.

People shot fights for decades with nothing but ASA 400 film and managed to get good shots (although in situations like that the film would normally be pushed to ASA 800 or 1200).   Shooting at ISO 10,000 gives you nearly 5 stops of light over that.  They dealt with it so there ARE ways of doing so.  Figure out what YOU need to do and make it happen.  If you take the job it' your responsibility.


----------



## DanielLewis76 (Dec 8, 2013)

To be fair he did say he couldn't move about. I shoot quite a few martial arts comps (not quite boxing but fairly similar in distance from action and speed) and whilst I am a very amateur photographer I tend to get good light results from my 35mm 1.8 (max up to ISO 1600) and even if they are far away and they are in only 20% of the frame I just crop it closer which I feel give better results than taking correctly in camera closer but at a higher iso.

EDIT: Sorry just saw your clarification post posted just before I posted....


----------



## Derrel (Dec 8, 2013)

Shoot near and far inside of a 16x16 to 20x20 foot USA boxing ring? PUT ON your 24mm f/1.4-L and CROP the longer range shots. Or, continue to limp along and turn out shots that are totally FUBAR'd.


----------



## FCP (Dec 8, 2013)

robbins.photo said:


> FCP said:
> 
> 
> > gryphonslair99 said:
> ...


----------



## Mach0 (Dec 8, 2013)

FCP said:


> I don't want to offend anyone here or get into arguments. I know there are faster lenses, I know there are wider lens's. I am not what one might consider an amateur. I don't typically do NOT shoot sports but I have a lot of knowledge.  I had very poor lighting and a lot of dark elements. I was in a fixed position with very fast moving action. Lighting was tiny LED spots. I already mentioned I took a light readings several times with my meter before the event started and couldn't even get to 1.5 or 1.8 and get a good enough shutter speed. Yes, I could have shot with a wider faster fixed lens and got a better exposure but I don't have a 28mm.  I am looking for responses regarding how I can deal with the clients and the images I have. NOT what I could have done better or different. I appreciate all the responses but I don't want there to be confusion.




Advice on how to deal with them is tough. No matter what happened, you were expected to deliver.  If you open the images in photoshop you can edit the noise in certain channels and more flexibility and from there I would work on possibly work on conversions. Also, what are they doing with them? If it's for web viewing, you might be able to salvage it by down sizing. The better the shot you have, the better the edit.

Not trying to be funny, but it's not the cameras fault. Its user error. Pick and choose: if the venue was that dark, you should have used different lenses. Higher ISO only allows you to use a faster shutter speed. You should have checked your histogram instead of the LCD.  I know you wanted 1/1000 of a second but if you needed 3 good photos each match, I'm sure you could have dropped the shutter speed for better exposure. Heck, I know they aren't people, but I can get decent shots of my dogs at 1/500 of a second. There are plenty of folks who use lesser gear and get great shots.


----------



## FCP (Dec 8, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Shoot near and far inside of a 16x16 to 20x20 foot USA boxing ring? PUT ON your 24mm f/1.4-L and CROP the longer range shots. Or, continue to limp along and turn out shots that are totally FUBAR'd.



I am not looking for what I could have done. Everything you all say is helping me a great deal for any future sporting events like this. I really, really appreciate that. Maybe I gave too much information. I thought I should describe my environment and the challenges that I was dealing with considering my experience with this type of sporting event. However, I mainly am looking for how to deal with my next challenge and that is dealing with the people who will have certain expectations from me.


----------



## table1349 (Dec 8, 2013)

FCP said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > FCP said:
> ...



The concept that you can't shoot boxing or kickboxing with primes is absurd.  I do it all the time, as well as basketball, volleyball and a host of other sports. There is little in the way of sports I haven't shoot.  (If you need a nap shoot cricket)  

It is a simple concept in sports shooting.  Shoot fast (fast glass. Indoor under the lights f2.8 is not fast glass) and shoot wide.  For ring sports shoot from the ring apron, not the seats.  That way you can crop to get the shot you want.   If you are shooting in a real dungeon then you get what you get.  

You want a good ring side/baseline lens pick yourself up a nice 35mm f1.4L.  Frankly, in the situation you described you took a knife to a gun fight and aren't happy with the results.


----------



## FCP (Dec 8, 2013)

SCraig said:


> FCP said:
> 
> 
> > ... End result. Crappy,noisy,underexposed images.... I don't know how to  salvage the images or what to tell the client. I am disappointed with  the hype of this camera and it's ISO capabilities.
> ...



The responsibility is on me. I understand and I am not blaming to venue. I blame myself and it is a learning lesson. I have to say very confidently that I am shocked as to how dark and these images are considering
everything I did.


----------



## 18.percent.gary (Dec 8, 2013)

Consider using speedlights (a few off camera if you can swing it) to freeze motion. You could use a Rebel with a kit lens set at ISO200 1/60 and freeze motion quite effectively with strobe lighting. Just something to think about.


----------



## robbins.photo (Dec 8, 2013)

FCP said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > FCP said:
> ...


----------



## Derrel (Dec 8, 2013)

Well, maybe the shots can be lightened up some and some 'creative' post-processing applied? Maybe a sort of low-color, gritty, grungy look like the "Ultimate Fighter" look, as seen in the Lightroom preset that Matt K offers, by the same name, Ultimate Fighter. As mentioned earlier, eliminating bad color by going to B&W, can help. Same with some of the grungy, low-color looks, which have a bit of color, but the color is minimalist, low in saturation, and the shots have a new, 21st century kind of look to them.

[http://www.mattk.com/2013/03/04/free-lightroom-presets-the-ultimate-fighter-look/]

I dunno, without seeing the typical results, but having an idea, I'm thinking that embracing the ugly might be the way to go; it sounds like there's NO hope to get "normal" shots, so I'd think that going the exact,total opposite direction might be the way to go...go *wayyy-out there* instead.


----------



## TCampbell (Dec 8, 2013)

The 1D X does have phenomenal performance... both ISO and continuous shooting speed.  BUT... you're wanting to shoot a boxing match at the bottom of coal mine with everyone dressed in black and illuminated by candle-light and use a 1/1000th sec shutter speed (ok, not really, but this is essentially what you've described.)   There's a limit and that's just not reasonable.  It is not the camera's fault.  If the venue owners want more promotional shots, they might want to consider improving the lighting on the ring.

It helps to stop thinking in terms of zoom focal lengths and more in terms of angle of view.   If the angle of view needed to capture your subjects is changing too radically, then perhaps you're actually too close.

Suppose you are 15' away from a subject who might move as much as 10' closer (5' away) or 10' farther 25' feet away).  To frame their body, this is pretty radical change in the necessary angle of view (5' to 25' subject distances).

Consider instead, a longer lens.  Canon makes an EF 200mm f/2L IS USM (not cheap, btw).  But it provides an angle of view of roughly 10º wide by about 7º tall (with a horizontal framing).  To "frame" subjects of about 6' tall, you might want a vertical dimension of about 9' in the frame.  You'd need to be about 75' away to get that framing with that lens.  BUT... if the subject comes 10' closer or 10' farther... it's really not going to change your framing much.  In other words... there would be no need to zoom.

You could do this with the EF 135mm f/2L USM (no IS) -- at a vastly lower price tag.  It provides an angle of view of about 15º x 10º.  You would get comparable framing to the 200mm lens at 75' by using the 135mm lens at 50' (not exactly... but pretty close.)

I bought my 135mm f/2 specifically for indoor low-light events (I'm shooting concerts instead of sports).


----------



## EIngerson (Dec 8, 2013)

If you want advice on what you already have&#8230;&#8230;post a couple of them already. We're only going talk about the gear you used until you do. I also think it's weird that you could borrow a 1Dx but couldn't borrow a prime lens.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Dec 8, 2013)

I've done hockey and some Bball in low light in local rinks and gyms; it took time and a lot of practice to figure out how to work with the existing conditions (low light/bad glass). I've usually used a 1/125 - 1/250 shutter speed which is slow for sports but I had to learn how to make it work (because I couldn't get any decent photos w/faster speeds). If I'm in a well lit arena I can get the shutter speed up to what's typically used for sports but not in some local dark dingy rinks. 

For me it's timing, such as when the action pauses for a split second before it turns to go the other way; it's a matter of knowing the sport. In gyms I'd try to notice where the light looks better (even though it can seem brighter than the camera will read it) and try to get a shot when the players are in that part of the court not in a dark corner. I go early and try different vantage points; I also get focused and set and wait til the action comes into my viewfinder. There are a lot of techniques that are probably specific to sports and different photographers probably use/develop their own.

The only things I can think to suggest at this point since I do very little editing is to pick which are the most usable of each fight and if you can't edit them well enough maybe try to find someone who can edit at least a few of each fight for you. 

If this is the first time you ever shot boxing it probably wasn't realistic to take on a client for this; if you're not being paid I don't know if you had a contract but it seems like you made a commitment and you want to try to meet expectations. I wonder if you're going to need to let them know you need time for editing due to the low light etc. which caused difficulties in shooting the event.


----------



## jaomul (Dec 8, 2013)

18.percent.gary said:


> Consider using speedlights (a few off camera if you can swing it) to freeze motion. You could use a Rebel with a kit lens set at ISO200 1/60 and freeze motion quite effectively with strobe lighting. Just something to think about.



Good for freezing day to day stuff. You can't use flash at a boxing event during the fight unless you want to get knocked out


----------



## weepete (Dec 8, 2013)

To the OP: Your first post (and some subsiquent ones) read as if you are blaming the equipment, you cant blame a group of other photographers for calling you out on that one when you are using some gear that does perform really well.

Anyway back to your original question, which was how do you get the best out of the photo's you have and how do you deal with your clients.

I'll make a few suggestions for your photos first which will echo Derrel's post. Sounds to me like you've severley underexposed the fighters and have introduced some extra noise to your pics while trying to bring them back up in post. I'd suggest that it's inevitable that you will have noise in your final edits and there is nothing you can do about that now as no one can go back in time. I'd suggest trying to use photoshop and doing your noise reduction first, that way you can minimise the noise without sharpening it and use a mask to only apply the sharpening to the edges. Go light on the detail slider and use a large radius when sharpening and it should create a little smoothing effect. I'd be sorely tempted to try an after effect too like derrel suggested or, a psudo HDR or the like by creating 3 exposures and blending them together manually to try and get a couple of light points (say a fist and the faces) and leave most other things dark to create a mood. If your background was significantly lighter you could try and do some sillouettes which my be cool for some shots that haven't quite worked. You might be suprised by how people who dont know about photography like these kind of shots. Again as Derrel suggested, gritty and grainy may be your only option.

With dealing with your clients the guys are right, they don't want excuses. So the salesman in me says sell the idea of your presentation, process them with a theme and go with the idea that they are the best way to present those fighters as it ads a gritty hard realism to the fights. You could allways offer to do some individual portraits with the fighters if they are not happy with the work but I think that's probbably the best you can do.


----------



## gconnoyer (Dec 14, 2013)

I'd like to see the images!
People get so wrapped up having noise in their pictures, that an amazing picture with a little bit of noise may get deleted because its "bad"
If its an amazing image, and there is a little noise who cares. You captured an awesome moment. ( I cant imagine that a 1DX is TERRIBLE. My D700 handles 6400 like its nothing, and thats OLD tech)

Its better to have an awesome, slightly noisy, picture than having a "noisy" picture in your recycle bin.

Who cares if there is some noise I guess is my point. We all know that sometimes you have to do what you have to do to get the shot.


----------



## gsgary (Dec 14, 2013)

FCP said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > FCP said:
> ...



Leica 50mmF0.95, wrong lens choice i have shot my 1Dmk2's at iso3200 with not too much noise 1DX in the right hands would have had no problem


----------



## imagemaker46 (Dec 14, 2013)

It's always easy to pick out all the useful information from people that have not shot sports before and especially never shot boxing, including the op. I find it very strange that the ring mat was black but know that they use them. The overhead light must have been 40 watt bulbs if you had to shoot at anything over 3200iso. I can't say much about the situation you found yourself in but it sounds like it was difficult to work in. I use a 5Dmklll right now, same guts as the Dx and know that anything over 3200 starts to look like mush, I don't care what anyone says, you can come away with good images, but they don't look as sharp as people have been lead to believe.

Now to the boxing, it is a very tough sport to shoot and get great images, anyone that says all you need is a few from each fight has no clue how tough it is to get a "few"  if they are wearing the new style head gear you hardly see a face, it isn't professional no head gear fights.

To the op, if you walked into shooting boxing without previous experience and hoped that a Dx was going to help, you walked into a shoot destined to fail, even if the light was good, there is so much timing involved with shoot boxing, maybe you were hoping a higher fps would help, it doesn't.

I've shot more than a 1000 fights, amateur, Olympic and Professional, it's not easy from ringside, easier with a 300-400mm shooting higher over the ropes.  With all this said I come can come away from a fight with maybe 10 good images, depends on the weight class, so are easier than others.  It's not like shooting weddings or flowers.  If you shoot ringside never wear a white shirt.


----------



## Smokeyr67 (Dec 14, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> If you shoot ringside never wear a white shirt.



If you shoot jelly wrestling they give you a plastic coat, or so I hear


----------



## imagemaker46 (Dec 15, 2013)

Smokeyr67 said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > If you shoot ringside never wear a white shirt.
> ...



Jelly wouldn't be so bad, but being sprayed by blood and snot is just part of the glamour attached to being a sports photographer.  It's one of those things that people just don't understand, all they see is the "fun" side of shooting sports.  I haven't shot boxing in a 3 years and really prefer to shoot with a longer lens over the top rope. I get a laugh out of watching the first timers all excited at ringside until a huge nose clearing blast of blood and phlegm hits them.


----------



## table1349 (Dec 16, 2013)

This isn't you at this boxing match is it there Maker46?:mrgreen:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_FALdZqN6DRU/TBdtmZziflI/AAAAAAAANYE/9TfnRlZWM2A/s1600/upskirt01.jpg


----------



## Steve5D (Dec 16, 2013)

FCP said:


> I don't want to offend anyone here or get into arguments. I know there are faster lenses, I know there are wider lens's. I am not what one might consider an amateur. I don't typically do NOT shoot sports but I have a lot of knowledge.



You don't typically do not shoot sports?

Does that mean you do?



> I had very poor lighting and a lot of dark elements. I was in a fixed position with very fast moving action. Lighting was tiny LED spots. I already mentioned I took a light readings several times with my meter before the event started and couldn't even get to 1.5 or 1.8 and get a good enough shutter speed. Yes, I could have shot with a wider faster fixed lens and got a better exposure but I don't have a 28mm.



There are plenty of places to rent lenses...



> I am looking for responses regarding how I can deal with the clients and the images I have. NOT what I could have done better or different. I appreciate all the responses but I don't want there to be confusion.



Define "client".

Were you paid to shoot these images? If so, be prepared to refund the money. If not, don't sweat it. A simple "Sorry, man, it didn't work as I thought it would" will suffice. 

Now, with all of that said, this is sort of an exercise in futility if you're not interested in learning what you might be able to do differently in the future.

Good luck with that...


----------



## Tony S (Dec 17, 2013)

How to deal with the clients now that you have already shot it?   That's easy... tell them you F'd up and they aren't what you would have liked to have gotten.  **** happens, fess up and deal with it instead of trying to pass it off. Then when you show them what you do have the expectation won't be so high. Who knows? They might be happy with anything you got.

  If you didn't shoot them in RAW and only went jpeg, give opening the jpeg files up in the RAW converter a try. It's not all the control you would have over a true RAW file, but it's still a lot more adjustable and more tools are available to pull out of the toolbox.
   Then try to find a good noise management program to help reduce the noise. Notice I said reduce, not remove. Sometimes when you try to remove it completely it really gets ugly, so bring it down to a level you can work with.

  Good luck.  For any more ideas you will most likely have to post up at least one or two examples in a separate post (so they don't get lost in all this mess).


----------



## Aakajx (Dec 26, 2013)

gryphonslair99 said:


> This isn't you at this boxing match is it there Maker46?:mrgreen:
> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_FALdZqN6DRU/TBdtmZziflI/AAAAAAAANYE/9TfnRlZWM2A/s1600/upskirt01.jpg



haha that's funny as


----------



## Aakajx (Dec 26, 2013)

Also where's these pics? Don't be scared to post them.


----------



## trojancast (Dec 31, 2013)

Sorry I came to this post late.  So you shot a boxing match in low light conditions with a 1Dx and a 24 - 70/2.8L but were unable to come up with any usable shots?  Is this correct?  It is a very good thing that you were not paid for this work.

Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner


----------



## LShooter (Dec 31, 2013)

You could have shot it with a 50 1.4 or an 85 1.4


----------

