New high school opened up last year and it's got six banks of lights. One of the better lit fields in our area.

Shot with a 300/2.8 on a 1DMK2N in M mode, ss@250, ISO 800, F4, 580 EX with FEC at +1/3 or 2/3, flash on a bracket above the lens. No noise reduction software.

1)

The visible noise looks terrible in the shadows, are you trying to open them up or something?

Why not go to iso 1600, 2.8, and shoot at 1/1000th? Or just bump either and go to 1/500th? And use HS flash, or something.

I'm seeing a little noise..... but they look good to me.

Very natural on the light as well.

Thanks for sharing,

Bryan

Tomagado wrote:
The visible noise looks terrible in the shadows, are you trying to open them up or something?

Why not go to iso 1600, 2.8, and shoot at 1/1000th? Or just bump either and go to 1/500th? And use HS flash, or something.

If you think the noise is terrible at 800, why suggest 1600?

Can you post some examples of your 1/1000" ISO 1600 HSS shots? I tried HSS with high ISO and 1/1000" SS a few weeks ago but my results were not so great.

But then I shot regular flash at 1/250" and the results were 10x better than HSS (and the range was probably 3x better).

I'm intrigued by the OP's use of +1/3 - 2/3 FEC. They look well balanced. Also note the flash shadows behind the subject... a good sign that you're sufficiently overpowering ambient.

clarence3 wrote:
Tomagado wrote:
The visible noise looks terrible in the shadows, are you trying to open them up or something?

Why not go to iso 1600, 2.8, and shoot at 1/1000th? Or just bump either and go to 1/500th? And use HS flash, or something.

If you think the noise is terrible at 800, why suggest 1600?

Can you post some examples of your 1/1000" ISO 1600 HSS shots? I tried HSS with high ISO and 1/1000" SS a few weeks ago but my results were not so great.

But then I shot regular flash at 1/250" and the results were 10x better than HSS (and the range was probably 3x better).

I'm intrigued by the OP's use of +1/3 - 2/3 FEC. They look well balanced. Also note the flash shadows behind the subject... a good sign that you're sufficiently overpowering ambient.

Because the noise that is visible looks like it is only there because they've been opened up shadows. The places that were properly exposed look great, clean, wonderful, what I would expect. But the background noise in the shadows look as if they were much darker and then brought up, making them look gross.

No examples of high speed SS shots. I haven't used flash for sports in a long time, mostly because they don't let me, and also because I don't like it. Of course, I've been indoors for the past few years :/

I think his shots are fine as they are, great even, but the shadow noise could be improved on.

OK, I understand now if your goal is to have less noise in the background shadows, then a properly exposed 1600 would have less noise than a lifted 800.

But your suggestion for 1600 threw me for a loop because if anything, I was thinking I'd bump DOWN to 400... both to reduce the noise (which I didn't really even notice until I read your comment, then it was obvious at second glance) and ISO 400 would also provide a little more foreground separation (darkening the background by another stop).

After all, do we really need to see the line for the port-a-potties in picture #3?

A little ghosting in photo #8 (the arm of jersey #63), but since Fish On said it was a better-lit stadium, it can be hard to get the flash 3 stops over ambient (another reason I'd try ISO 400 instead of bumping from 800 to 1600).

I think these are good examples of flash done right. Shooting HS football night is difficult at best, and I've struggled trying to find the right flash settings. I appreciate posts like this, that show me it can be done, and produce good results.
I'm not saying I can duplicate those results, but at least I know it's possible to get good flash pics.

So far this season I've been using the D3, and most of my better pics are in first half, 3rd quarter. Now it's getting darker sooner, and looks like I'll be going to flash by 2nd quarter. I'm already using 6400 ISO as it is.

And endzones, even the D3 has its limits there. (w/o flash)

I'm certainly going to try. In any event, I like these pics.

Jeff

Nice work using flash for night time hs football football is not easy and I can tell by your images you are starting to get them dialed in. My only sugestion would be to try and get the flash a little further off camera and just a tad less ambient light.

Thanks for the comments and Clarence was right on with the ghosting and a little motion blur because of the ambient light. Since this was a better lit stadium, I should have used ISO 500 or 640 as I had before in this stadium after looking at my notes. I just got dialed in to ISO 800 since that is what I use in most of the hs stadiums.

Jerry, Jerry , Jerry...... I've warned you about red-eye haven't I (see #8) Bad Jerry, bad!

Only kidding, inside MP joke! Good stuff as always!

Ralph

These are nice Jerry, you are getting it down with the flash I am still working on this as well. MP likes thier stuff flashed and I just strarted this season using it for football myself.

Jeff

fish on,
i think these look real good. i would not even be looking for ways to get these better at all.

These are great shots. Even though I'm having success at 6400 with the MkIII, I like that the flash eliminates the helmet shadows that conceal the player's eyes. I may have a go at attempting some flash shots - especially in the endzone where there's much less light. Thanks for posting.

Gary

Just a quick question Jerry... What would you say your "keeper" rate is when using the flash for Friday night lights?

Can I ask why you think this would be better than shooting at 1/1000 at ISO1600 at F2.8? It might be a matter of personal preference but the photos have that "overflashed" unnatural look to me. I'd much rather you shoot everything on manual at the above settings, and set your flash to like 1/32 power on manual just to light up under their helmets if you really need to. But in my experience, if you can shoot at ISO1600 in a stadium under ambient lighting you are going to be much better off than using ON CAMERA FLASH at all.

Shoot more frames under ambient, get more peak action. An on-camera flash in cases like this just don't look as good, and a MarkII at ISO1600 (with a little noise reduction) and properly exposed yields great looking 20x30 prints.

I have to agree with Bryanlc...Your exposures seem right on and your images show small signs of noise, but nothing that would worry me. I usually flash the same setup at about the same #'s except for I might play with the camera's exp. comp. to just wash the images with the flash not light it soley with the flash.

Once again, some good images.

cB