# Basketball tournament action



## Bob32 (Dec 27, 2011)

These six shots were taken during a game played the first day of a recent high school basketball tournament. The local Panthers (white jerseys) were clearly one of the best teams in the tournament and won this contest 71-65. 


I was stationed behind the baseline with a Nikon D700 + 24-85 f2.8-4 for all of these shots. Exposure was manually set at 1/500, f/4, and ISO 6,400. Noise Ninja was used for noise reduction.


Comments are welcome.


Bob


----------



## thierry (Dec 27, 2011)

It might just be my screen, but I still see a ton of noise. other than that, great shots.


----------



## Bob32 (Dec 27, 2011)

Thierry,


Thanks for responding. 

I don't see any noise on my monitor. In fact, the images look very clean. I've been using the D700 for almost three years and  have posted many similar images on other forums. Yours is the only comment I have ever received about supposedly noisy images. Maybe it is your screen!


Bob


----------



## Destin (Dec 27, 2011)

It looks like bad compression. Where did you link them from? Facebook?


----------



## Kerbouchard (Dec 27, 2011)

Destin said:


> It looks like bad compression. Where did you link them from? Facebook?



He linked them from this forum's gallery.

To me, I can see some JPEG compression artifacts and I can also see noise in the blacks.

I also shoot with a D700 and I rarely go above 3200, but then again, I'm usually using faster glass.  Personally, I probably would have dropped the shutter speed to 1/250th and shot at ISO 3200 for at least some of these.

In any case, I like the shots.  Timing looks good, position was good and a lot of them were at peak action.  I think a lot of people don't realize just how dark some of these gyms are.  Nice job.  I'm glad you managed to figure out how to get them posted.

Regards,
George


----------



## Tony S (Dec 27, 2011)

YOu got some good timing shots on the action. Your exposures handled the light available to catch it too. From the size of the photos posted I don't really see any noise that detracts from the images, if I were pixel peeping it might bother me but not for sports/action shots in a gym. 

 I didn't see any from this grouping, but did you try shooting at 24mm from a really low position up at the action.  It makes the players seem larger than life and seems to be a popular shot with players and parents. It also gives you a decent background with the ceiling instead of all the busy walls.


----------



## Bob32 (Dec 27, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > It looks like bad compression. Where did you link them from? Facebook?
> ...




George,


Thanks much for your feedback.


I agree that many school gyms have horrible lighting. I've been in quite a few of those. They aren't called dungeons for nothing! This gym had terrible lighting until the school upgraded the lighting system two years ago and installed a new floor at the same time. Now it's the brightest gym in the area. You almost need sunglasses in this place! Obtaining good exposure here is no longer a problem.


Even though I employed Noise Ninja the amount of noise in these images at ISO 6,400 was very modest before I applied NN. In the other gyms in this area I am usually shooting at higher ISOs in the range of 8000 to as high as 12,800 if necessary. Nailing the exposure is important to minimize noise.


For the record these images originally were Large Fine Optimal Quality JPEGs. After initial editing they were all downsized to a vertical height of 650 pixels except 556 pixels for photo #4.


Shooting at 1/250 wouldn't cut it for basketball. I don't shoot any slower than 1/500.


Maybe I have been living in a sheltered environment, but this is the first time I have experienced this sort of examination at the pixel level. I have been hanging out at the Sports forum at the Nikonians.org website and have never gotten any negative feedback about noise, artifacts, compression, etc. I'm wondering how you guys are able to see this stuff without resorting to magnifying glasses or microscopes, because it's not apparent to me. Has part of my digital photography education been neglected? Please advise if further enlightenment is deemed important.


Bob


----------



## Destin (Dec 27, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > It looks like bad compression. Where did you link them from? Facebook?
> ...



The composition, focus, and timing are there. But the one thing that is missing is lighting. Even in gyms that are well lit like this one, the lights are too steep and overhead, and too weak to give good, even lighting. Go open sports illustrated and look at their basketball shots. Wanna know the secret to their perfect looking, evenly lit, noise-free basketball photos? OFF CAMERA FLASH. 

They're using thousands of dollars of strobes hung in the rafters, but it's not necessary to do spend that much or hang lights from the ceiling. I shoot basketball with a flash setup that costs less than $100... 2 yongnuo yn-460 II's, and a set of yongnuo triggers. This setup has gotten me results like this, shooting anywhere from iso400-1600, normally around 800. Generally I'm at f/3.5ish, and 1/200th of a second (flash sync speed). If I were to add a little more power on the lights I could totally eliminate ambient and use the flash to freeze motion, but for now I deal with slight motion blur from the ambient leaking into my exposure. 

Here's an example of what this setup can do:





and another:





Another upside to this setup is that the background falls darker than the subjects. Notice in your photos how the wall in the background is just about blown out in order to get a proper exposure on the players.


----------



## Bob32 (Dec 27, 2011)

Tony S said:


> YOu got some good timing shots on the action. Your exposures handled the light available to catch it too. From the size of the photos posted I don't really see any noise that detracts from the images, if I were pixel peeping it might bother me but not for sports/action shots in a gym.
> 
> I didn't see any from this grouping, but did you try shooting at 24mm from a really low position up at the action.  It makes the players seem larger than life and seems to be a popular shot with players and parents. It also gives you a decent background with the ceiling instead of all the busy walls.





Thanks, Tony.


I'm glad to know that you're not distracted by any noise.


I've only recently started shooting wide angle shots at basketball games, usually in the range of 24 to 32 mm. Photo #4 was shot at 32 mm. If I were a young buck instead of a senior citizen I would be inclined to get down to floor level and try some of the shots you suggest. However, I think it prudent that I will play it safe and remain standing.


I am normally operating from behind the baseline near the basket where standing is an advantage in moving out of the way quickly if one of the players comes careening in your direction at high speed. So far I have successfully dodged all would-be assaults on the old bod! May my good fortune continue.


Bob


----------



## Bob32 (Dec 27, 2011)

Destin,


I have to confess that I have no interest in flash and much prefer to shoot everything by available light. I have seen some good results in shooting sports events with flash, but unfortunately most of what I have seen is very poor with hot spots, overly dark backgrounds and horrible shadows dominating the scene and making the results look very unrealistic.


The two photos you show look much better than most flash shots I've seen. However, on my calibrated monitor they appear to be a bit under-exposed and look like they could have benefitted from more light on the subject.


I notice that the local newspaper photographers here who used to set up strobe units in the gyms prior to a game are no longer doing so. Instead they are now shooting with dslrs with high ISO capabilities.


Thanks for your comments, but I love my great D700 and what it can do without flash, so I think that I will stick with my current modus operandi.


Bob


----------



## Destin (Dec 27, 2011)

Bob32 said:
			
		

> Destin,
> 
> I have to confess that I have no interest in flash and much prefer to shoot everything by available light. I have seen some good results in shooting sports events with flash, but unfortunately most of what I have seen is very poor with hot spots, overly dark backgrounds and horrible shadows dominating the scene and making the results look very unrealistic.
> 
> ...



To each his own. My monitor hasn't been calibrated recently, so its likely that she shots are underexposed as a result of that. 

All I'm saying, is go watch any professional basketball or hockey game, and there will be strobes going off in the ceiling. You won't see a natural light basketball shot published in sports illustrated, ever because flash gives more professional results when done right. Ceiling lights simply have too steep of a lighting angle and, even when properly exposed, will give harsh, nasty shadows on the face. 

Like i Said, To each their own, but I'm just laying facts out.


----------



## Bob32 (Dec 27, 2011)

Destin,


We're in agreement on to each his own. I admire your fortitude in shooting basketball with flash. It isn't easy to duplicate the results the pros get with their overhead strobe lighting. I've read many forum posts by those struggling to obtain satisfactory results with flash. However, I notice that their mention of flash usually fades away once they acquire cameras with high ISO capabilities. 


I know of one guy who used to struggle to shoot basketball games with a D90 plus flash. Then two fortuitous events occurred. He bought a D7000, and the school upgraded the lighting system. He's now turning out great results without flash. In fact, I'm impressed with the quality of the images he produces with his D7000. If I were in the market for a DX camera I would have to give the D7000 serious consideration.


This is the first I have heard of a case being made that gym ceiling lights produce harsh, nasty shadows on the face. In my experience this has not been a significant issue. 


I'm in complete agreement with the statement at the end of your posts that "Photography is not a hobby for the faint of wallet," especially if you like to shoot sports events!


Bob


----------



## Kerbouchard (Dec 27, 2011)

Well, Bob, we shoot much different styles.  I mostly shoot weddings so different standards and different goals.

In any case, when I responded earlier, I was at work and it did look noisy and there was a lot of jpeg compression.  Now that I'm home, I don't see the noise nearly as much, but I can still see the JPEG compression artificats which basically look like halos above each of their heads.  Basically, anywhere it is transitioning to a monotone color to one of lots of detail.

I know you had some trouble with the upload process, and personally, I've never used the gallery for uploading, so I'll have to give you the benefit of the doubt.

What a lot of us do is upload our files to fickr(can be done all at one time and the account is free), and then use the 'share' button in flickr instead of going the gallery route.  I think you can get a bit better quality than whatever it is that happened to you with these images.

FWIW, I agree with you on the exposure part being more important than the ISO 6400 part when it comes to the noise produced.  Still, I rarely shoot at ISO 3200, and when I do, I'm usually already at f/2.8 and 1/15th of a second shooting from a tripod...Like I said, our definitions of dark are much different.

When you say you can't possibly shoot at 1/250th, I am a bit surprised.  Obviously, I would love to shoot at faster shutter speeds, but sometimes, 1/30th and timing peak action is the best I am going to get...Personally, if I were you, I wouldn't be so quick to jump to ISO 6400.

In any case, I'm glad you got your post up and running and I hope you stick around.  Looks like you bring a lot to the forum and will have a lot to contribute.

Regards,
George


----------



## Bob32 (Dec 28, 2011)

George,

I'm still mystified by this mention of artifacts in the form of halos above each of the heads. I'm looking at the very same images posted on this forum that you are, and I'll be darned if I can see any halos at all. I don't know what the answer is to this mystery. Perhaps it's the fact that my computer is an iMac with 20" monitor, but I really can't say for sure. 

I'm surprised that you're surprised that I shoot basketball games at no less than 1/500! This is pretty well standard shutter speed for this sport. A lot of guys shoot basketball at even higher shutter speeds. You might be able to do all right capturing some peak action shots at a slower shutter speed, but you best be at 1/500 if you want to avoid blurred images.

I've been operating at ISO 6,400 for so long that now it's like home to me! For a long time I hesitated to  go above 6,400, but by experimenting I found that I could go up to 12,800 and still get good results. I prefer to stick to 6,400 if I can, but I don't hesitate to go higher if the situation calls for it. I haven't yet tried to shoot at 25,600. I figure that I would really be pushing my luck to do so. I'll save that for emergency situations!

I've never uploaded files to Flikr. I'll have to check into that and see what's involved. Almost anything is better than going the tedious gallery route.

Bob


----------



## Kerbouchard (Dec 28, 2011)

I am not necessarily surprised that you are shooting at 1/500th. I'm surprised that you have determined that it is always required.  While it may be the standard, and one could argue that a faster shutter speed was actually the standard, that's sort of besides the point if you can't get there. To me, if you're going to shoot at 1/500th of a second in a gym, you need to be at f/2.8 or even f/1.8 for f/1.4.

You sort of confirmed my point...that ISO 6400 seems to be sort of default for you at this point. I like my D700's high ISO performance, but not nearly enough to default to 6400. Also, FWIW, it takes a much slower shutter speed to capture something moving towards you or away from you than it does to capture something moving across your field of vision. With you being behind the goal, I would think you don't need to necessarily decide by default that you can't go slower than 1/500th.

There are a lot of variables, but it seems like you have basically chosen some preset settings and don't think much about why they work and when other settings might be better.

Just my .02


Bob32 said:


> George,
> 
> I'm still mystified by this mention of artifacts in the form of halos above each of the heads. I'm looking at the very same images posted on this forum that you are, and I'll be darned if I can see any halos at all. I don't know what the answer is to this mystery. Perhaps it's the fact that my computer is an iMac with 20" monitor, but I really can't say for sure.
> 
> ...


----------



## Destin (Dec 28, 2011)

Kerb, 1/500th is ABSOLUTELY required if you want frozen action and are shooting straight ambient light. Heck, even 1/500th results in blur sometimes. 

Sure when they are running straight at you you could freeze their torso with 1/200th. But their swinging arms and legs will still be blurred. 

Also shooing from under the basket you get ALOT of lateral motion. Most drives to the basket in hight school actually come from the outside corners, rather than from mid court.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Dec 28, 2011)

Destin said:


> Kerb, 1/500th is ABSOLUTELY required if you want frozen action and are shooting straight ambient light. Heck, even 1/500th results in blur sometimes.
> 
> Sure when they are running straight at you you could freeze their torso with 1/200th. But their swinging arms and legs will still be blurred.
> 
> Also shooing from under the basket you get ALOT of lateral motion. Most drives to the basket in hight school actually come from the outside corners, rather than from mid court.



There is no such thing as 'Absolutely Required'.  Again, I shoot minimal sports but a lot of weddings.  You could say that I can't be using an efl of 420mm at 1/10th of a second and get a sharp shot.  Except I can and have done it many times.  

I'm not saying he should use slower shutter speeds.  I'm saying that if he was using glass a prime lens or 2.8 glass, he wouldn't be forced to default to ISO 6400.

In any case, the OP doesn't seem to think the photos have noise or compression artifacts, so it's kind of a moot point anyway.


----------



## Destin (Dec 28, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:
			
		

> There is no such thing as 'Absolutely Required'.  Again, I shoot minimal sports but a lot of weddings.  You could say that I can't be using an efl of 420mm at 1/10th of a second and get a sharp shot.  Except I can and have done it many times.
> 
> I'm not saying he should use slower shutter speeds.  I'm saying that if he was using glass a prime lens or 2.8 glass, he wouldn't be forced to default to ISO 6400.
> 
> In any case, the OP doesn't seem to think the photos have noise or compression artifacts, so it's kind of a moot point anyway.



For sports, to freeze action consistently 1/500th is absolutely required. Anyone who shoots sports knows that this is a rule that isn't really breakable. 

But I agree it doesn't matter because the OP doesn't see the issues in his images that have been pointed out.


----------

