Archive 2014 · Filters for Sports photography
p.1 #1Filters for Sports photography
Just curious what filters, if any, people might use for sports photography. I had never used filters until recently I bought a Neutral Density filter for ski photography to cut down on overexposure and I love it. However, I mainly shoot Ultimate Frisbee (daytime, outside, varying weather conditions) and was wondering if I should be using a filter.
May 07, 2014 at 03:56 PM
p.1 #2Filters for Sports photography
I don't think you need an ND filter for ski photography, typically you dial the exposure compensation down when shooting in snow/white scenes..
May 07, 2014 at 04:13 PM
p.1 #3Filters for Sports photography
I was having the issue where if I dropped the exposure compensation, my camera would not be able to shoot at a high enough shutter speed to expose the photo properly. Shooting ISO100 and my shutter speed 1/4000 (max), the highest f stop I could get was f/8-9 and that wasn't enough to get good blur in the background. I always had more than enough light so the ND filter let me increase my aperture
May 07, 2014 at 04:40 PM
p.1 #4Filters for Sports photography
Not picking a fight or anything... Just wanted to say I found it amusing that someone from the UK is giving advice on ski photography...
I have no idea, he may be the best ever, but it made me chuckle.
Cheers,
Paul
I have no idea, he may be the best ever, but it made me chuckle.
Cheers,
Paul
May 07, 2014 at 07:25 PM
p.1 #5Filters for Sports photography
kirkrsnyder wrote:
I was having the issue where if I dropped the exposure compensation, my camera would not be able to shoot at a high enough shutter speed to expose the photo properly. Shooting ISO100 and my shutter speed 1/4000 (max), the highest f stop I could get was f/8-9 and that wasn't enough to get good blur in the background. I always had more than enough light so the ND filter let me increase my aperture
Filters are going to cut your light by some amount (same as dropping EC). A CPL for example can reduce it from approx 1-2 stops. Only you can judge if adding one will still allow for sufficient shutter speed to stop to action. In your example a 1 stop reduction in light would allow you to compensate by opening up the ap by a stop say from 8 to 5.6 while shooting at 1/4000. If your body's max ss is 1/4000 then filtering becomes more relevant.
Matt
Edited on May 08, 2014 at 09:41 PM · View previous versions
I was having the issue where if I dropped the exposure compensation, my camera would not be able to shoot at a high enough shutter speed to expose the photo properly. Shooting ISO100 and my shutter speed 1/4000 (max), the highest f stop I could get was f/8-9 and that wasn't enough to get good blur in the background. I always had more than enough light so the ND filter let me increase my aperture
Filters are going to cut your light by some amount (same as dropping EC). A CPL for example can reduce it from approx 1-2 stops. Only you can judge if adding one will still allow for sufficient shutter speed to stop to action. In your example a 1 stop reduction in light would allow you to compensate by opening up the ap by a stop say from 8 to 5.6 while shooting at 1/4000. If your body's max ss is 1/4000 then filtering becomes more relevant.
Matt
Edited on May 08, 2014 at 09:41 PM · View previous versions
May 08, 2014 at 06:17 AM
p.1 #6Filters for Sports photography
Not picking a fight either ... if the op is shooting 1/4000 @ f8 (assuming that is the correct exposure), dropping the ss to 1/2000 means you have to bump the f-stop to f11, right? Opening to f5.6 would overexpose the photo by 2-stop, right?
In a way, I understand why the op needs a filter, if there are abundant lights. With a 2-stop filter, he can shoot at 1/4000s @ f4. Shallower DOF if that is what the op is looking for.
Hope I did not screw up my calculation
In a way, I understand why the op needs a filter, if there are abundant lights. With a 2-stop filter, he can shoot at 1/4000s @ f4. Shallower DOF if that is what the op is looking for.
Hope I did not screw up my calculation
May 08, 2014 at 06:32 AM
p.1 #7Filters for Sports photography
kirkrsnyder wrote:
Just curious what filters, if any, people might use for sports photography. I had never used filters until recently I bought a Neutral Density filter for ski photography to cut down on overexposure and I love it. However, I mainly shoot Ultimate Frisbee (daytime, outside, varying weather conditions) and was wondering if I should be using a filter.
pretty much only a clear one to keep the field crap off the front end and the rain along with the occasional snow early or late in the season
some really good venues coming up: www.usaultimate.com
2 wks ago in CT (cool and rain):
Edited on May 08, 2014 at 07:46 AM · View previous versions
Just curious what filters, if any, people might use for sports photography. I had never used filters until recently I bought a Neutral Density filter for ski photography to cut down on overexposure and I love it. However, I mainly shoot Ultimate Frisbee (daytime, outside, varying weather conditions) and was wondering if I should be using a filter.
pretty much only a clear one to keep the field crap off the front end and the rain along with the occasional snow early or late in the season
some really good venues coming up: www.usaultimate.com
2 wks ago in CT (cool and rain):
© sjms 2014
© sjms 2014
Edited on May 08, 2014 at 07:46 AM · View previous versions
May 08, 2014 at 07:04 AM
p.1 #8Filters for Sports photography
I use a 2 stop ND when I'm workin' daylight rodeo. Allows me the liberty to shoot
@f2 or f2.8 to destroy often shitty BG's....even then, a 1/4000th limit wouldn't cut it.
@f2 or f2.8 to destroy often shitty BG's....even then, a 1/4000th limit wouldn't cut it.
May 08, 2014 at 07:06 AM
p.1 #9Filters for Sports photography
The OP's settings of ISO 100, f/8, and 1/4000 sec correspond to a 1 EV overexposure for ambinent light of 17 EV, which corresponds to bright sun at high altitude. This makes good sense to me.
I would usually overexpose a stop or more when shooting in snow, in order to make the snow look white. I would do this because the camera's light meter assumes the average image content 'brightness' corresponds to middle grey, and so a relatively small subject on a mostly-snowy background will have grey snow with the camera set to 0 EV adjustment. Setting it to +1EV decreases shutter speed by 1 stop, and gives brighter brights.
Note that this is the opposite to what Alan Yuen recommends. I typically dial EC down (i.e. -EV) to increase shutter speed when the image is mostly dark, in order to get the "average exposure" darker than middle grey. This difference is probably based on a difference of inierpretation in what "dial EC down" means.
At lower altitudes, where you'll probably find most Ultimate Frisbee games are being played, a sunny day corresponds to EV 14 or 15, and so you'll have a two- or three-stop 'advantage' compared to high altitude with a snowy background. So, for example, at ISO 100 and 1/4000 sec, you can get "0 EV adjusted" images at apertures of f/2 or f/2.8, which is plenty wide for most action applications. In practice, you'll probably stop down to f/4 or so. In low light, you'll increase ISO and eventually wish you had a 200mm f/1.8 lens.
IOW, no, you shouldn't need any ND filters for 'normal' outdoor sports and activities.
P.S. the 'monkey lives in New Mexico, where the sun is a lot closer to the ground than most other "moderate altitude" places in the world, except maybe the Saraha.
I would usually overexpose a stop or more when shooting in snow, in order to make the snow look white. I would do this because the camera's light meter assumes the average image content 'brightness' corresponds to middle grey, and so a relatively small subject on a mostly-snowy background will have grey snow with the camera set to 0 EV adjustment. Setting it to +1EV decreases shutter speed by 1 stop, and gives brighter brights.
Note that this is the opposite to what Alan Yuen recommends. I typically dial EC down (i.e. -EV) to increase shutter speed when the image is mostly dark, in order to get the "average exposure" darker than middle grey. This difference is probably based on a difference of inierpretation in what "dial EC down" means.
At lower altitudes, where you'll probably find most Ultimate Frisbee games are being played, a sunny day corresponds to EV 14 or 15, and so you'll have a two- or three-stop 'advantage' compared to high altitude with a snowy background. So, for example, at ISO 100 and 1/4000 sec, you can get "0 EV adjusted" images at apertures of f/2 or f/2.8, which is plenty wide for most action applications. In practice, you'll probably stop down to f/4 or so. In low light, you'll increase ISO and eventually wish you had a 200mm f/1.8 lens.
IOW, no, you shouldn't need any ND filters for 'normal' outdoor sports and activities.
P.S. the 'monkey lives in New Mexico, where the sun is a lot closer to the ground than most other "moderate altitude" places in the world, except maybe the Saraha.
May 08, 2014 at 07:29 AM
p.1 #10Filters for Sports photography
jcolwell wrote:
The OP's settings of ISO 100, f/8, and 1/4000 sec correspond to a 1 EV overexposure for ambinent light of 17 EV, which corresponds to bright sun at high altitude. This makes good sense to me.
I would usually overexpose a stop or more when shooting in snow, in order to make the snow look white. I would do this because the camera's light meter assumes the average image content 'brightness' corresponds to middle grey, and so a relatively small subject on a mostly-snowy background will have grey snow with the camera set to 0 EV adjustment. Setting it to...Show more →
I concur....got my EC the wrong way round for metering white scenes
The OP's settings of ISO 100, f/8, and 1/4000 sec correspond to a 1 EV overexposure for ambinent light of 17 EV, which corresponds to bright sun at high altitude. This makes good sense to me.
I would usually overexpose a stop or more when shooting in snow, in order to make the snow look white. I would do this because the camera's light meter assumes the average image content 'brightness' corresponds to middle grey, and so a relatively small subject on a mostly-snowy background will have grey snow with the camera set to 0 EV adjustment. Setting it to...Show more →
I concur....got my EC the wrong way round for metering white scenes
May 08, 2014 at 07:42 AM
p.1 #11Filters for Sports photography
No worries. It's always easier to get it right when the camera is in your hands.
May 08, 2014 at 07:50 AM
p.1 #12Filters for Sports photography
h317 wrote:
Not picking a fight either ... if the op is shooting 1/4000 @ f8 (assuming that is the correct exposure), dropping the ss to 1/2000 means you have to bump the f-stop to f11, right? Opening to f5.6 would overexpose the photo by 2-stop, right?
In a way, I understand why the op needs a filter, if there are abundant lights. With a 2-stop filter, he can shoot at 1/4000s @ f4. Shallower DOF if that is what the op is looking for.
Hope I did not screw up my calculation
Yup you got it right, I must have been drinking some really weak coffee this morning and reversed f stop logic which invalidates my point. I've edited my response. Sorry for the confusion.
Not picking a fight either ... if the op is shooting 1/4000 @ f8 (assuming that is the correct exposure), dropping the ss to 1/2000 means you have to bump the f-stop to f11, right? Opening to f5.6 would overexpose the photo by 2-stop, right?
In a way, I understand why the op needs a filter, if there are abundant lights. With a 2-stop filter, he can shoot at 1/4000s @ f4. Shallower DOF if that is what the op is looking for.
Hope I did not screw up my calculation
Yup you got it right, I must have been drinking some really weak coffee this morning and reversed f stop logic which invalidates my point. I've edited my response. Sorry for the confusion.
May 08, 2014 at 09:24 PM