# Sports photography in low light



## TanyaAReeves (Jul 3, 2014)

Hi, just joined the forum after finding it in a Google search. I read a previous thread where the OP asked about tips/equipment for shooting sports action in low light situations. I found some good information, but wanted to ask a few questions that fit my situation.

I am a self-taught photographer and far from a pro. I shoot sports for a string of weekly newspapers. I get a lot of compliments and have actually won a couple of press association awards, but I'll be honest - I spend a lot of time doctoring photos to get results and have much (most) of my success with daytime shots and good light. I shoot mainly high school sports and do a fair amount at smaller schools/communities with pretty poor lighting.

A few questions -

1) I currently have a Canon 50D and a Tamron 7-200 1:2.8 (IF) lens. I shoot in various modes, sometimes using P or Av, other times completely Manual. I generally shoot in Autofocus. Does this equipment sound like something I can get reasonable results with?

2) I have been shooting low light football and baseball and indoor volleyball and basketball at ISO 3200 (and even sometimes going to H1) and then running photos through NeatImage. I usually have to manipulate the photos some - I am not thoroughly versed in Photoshop, although I use it at the office. I have been using Photoscape quite a bit. Any ideas on what I could do differently for better results?

3) I read in the other thread suggestions for using an 85 1.2 lens? Is this compatible with the 50D and would that work for the situations I described above?

I guess, in summary, I'm looking for any tips/ideas anyone would have, both for the equipment I'm currently using, software that might help, and also ideas on other equipment (without getting into exorbitant price ranges).

Thanks!


----------



## Derrel (Jul 3, 2014)

Get a faster lens. Canon 50mm f/1.4 for indoor court sports, or Canon 85/1.8. I'e owned both those and they focus fast. My impression is that the 85mm f/1.2-L is a slooooow focuser, geared much more toward high-precision focusing than speedy focusing.

I shot sports for small weekly papers in 2005 and 2006 using a Nikon D1h and Nikon D2x and modest gear. Results were good. I never worried about noise--the dot gain on newsprint sublimates noise pretty effectively. Those two cameras were adequate; the 50D is newer I think than either one. I shot indoor basketball mostly with balcony-mounted speedlight flashes, which gave me f/5.6 at ISO 400. Compared to an f/2 prime 35mm, or a 28mm 1.8, an f/2.8 zoom is "slow". Compared to a 50mm f/1.4,or an 85mm f/1.8 tele, f/2.8 is "slow".

If you can get a good SHARP, motion-blur-free image with a 15 megapixel camera, you can crop it way down and throw away a LOT of the image, and it will look FINE on newsprint!! The halftone screen allowed me to print big frames with a 2.7 megapixel Nikon D1h, and even 5.7 MP D2x high-speed crop frames were FINE on newsprint. Sharpen very aggressively, and set the black point at 15 or so. You ought to consider that newsprint's screen is so coarse that it does not matter what the megapixel count is, but you want to be able to start with a well-focused, NOT-speed-blurred image. You can get those by shooting looser with a FASTER, and shorter lens, like a 35/2 or 50/1.4 or 85/1.8, then crop in when making your files for the separations, which will be sized at like 10 inches on the long axis and 200 ppi and sharpened HARD, like 1.5 to 1.8 pixel radios and 200 percent, so they look really "Crunchy" on the computer screen. But will halftone great!


----------



## JoeW (Jul 3, 2014)

First, sounds like you've got the right mix of humility and competence.  There are thousands of shooters who wish that they had your track record--keep at it!

Second, for the type of work you're doing, I question the value of lens that are going to go to f1.4 or even f1.8.  The DoF with f1.8 is going to be so narrow that I think it will rarely be usable for most of the "work" you're doing (OTOH, you may have some personal sports projects where this fits your needs...your call on that).  If you shoot at f1.4, an athlete's eyebrows will be in focus but his eyes will start to blur.  You're talking about a matter of a few inches with that kind of DoF.

Third, I hate to sound like I'm encouraging lower standards but....if you're shooting for local/regional papers than you're shooting for websites and newsprint.  Print quality expectations go down a lot.  This also means that you can jack up the ISO.  So a shot that appears to be exceptionally noisy or grainy on your monitor will likely work very well for a website or newsprint picture.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jul 3, 2014)

Can you post some of your sports images?


----------



## IzzieK (Jul 3, 2014)

And after all the comments above, I would like to welcome you to this forum.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 3, 2014)

JoeW said:


> First, sounds like you've got the right mix of humility and competence.  There are thousands of shooters who wish that they had your track record--keep at it!
> 
> Second, for the type of work you're doing, I question the value of lens that are going to go to f1.4 or even f1.8.  The DoF with f1.8 is going to be so narrow that I think it will rarely be usable for most of the "work" you're doing (OTOH, you may have some personal sports projects where this fits your needs...your call on that).  If you shoot at f1.4, an athlete's eyebrows will be in focus but his eyes will start to blur.  You're talking about a matter of a few inches with that kind of DoF.
> 
> Third, I hate to sound like I'm encouraging lower standards but....if you're shooting for local/regional papers than you're shooting for websites and newsprint.  Print quality expectations go down a lot.  This also means that you can jack up the ISO.  So a shot that appears to be exceptionally noisy or grainy on your monitor will likely work very well for a website or newsprint picture.



Shooting baseline basketball with and 85mm f1.8 with the action 30 feet away the DOF with the OP's camera is 2.5 feet deep.  Bumped to f2 and the DOF is 3 feet.  The difference between a good sports action photo and a sports snapshot is the proper use of DOF.  Nobody wants to be able to recognize the players on the bench or the people in the crowd behind the action.  To make the action pop you use that narrow but workable DOF so that the action and only the action is in focus.  This is one of the reasons that Sports photography is so demanding.  It takes time and practice to get the techniques down.  This is made easier with top quality gear, but no amount of gear will make up for not having developed the skills to shoot fast action.


----------



## Didereaux (Jul 16, 2014)

TanyaAReeves said:


> Hi, just joined the forum after finding it in a Google search. I read a previous thread where the OP asked about tips/equipment for shooting sports action in low light situations. I found some good information, but wanted to ask a few questions that fit my situation.
> 
> I am a self-taught photographer and far from a pro. I shoot sports for a string of weekly newspapers. I get a lot of compliments and have actually won a couple of press association awards, but I'll be honest - I spend a lot of time doctoring photos to get results and have much (most) of my success with daytime shots and good light. I shoot mainly high school sports and do a fair amount at smaller schools/communities with pretty poor lighting.




First thing is to get a camera body with GOOD low light capabilities.  For the money the Canon 6D wins hands down.  Superb, maybe unmatched low light performance.  It has the same sensor as the 5D MKIIIm at about HALF the price.  the difference will buy you a 100-400mm F4/5.6 IS USM L lens...you will get pro quality sports shots!  With the great low light capabilities you do NOT need the big heavy fast (expensive) lens.  No  if ands, or buts.  I own that set up for the past 3 months and am constantly being amazed its qualities.


----------

