That game was shot for MaxPreps as was the girls game. I have 64 vivitar shots in the girls game, and 61 in the boys game. So over 4 hours 125 shots from 2 games that were strobed with 30 year old Vivitar 283 flashes. The next night I used my 550ex and 430ex for the freshman game and came home with around 100 shots total that I am selling, and the set up and break down is much easier and quicker.
Do you by chance have an entire 60-70 shot gallery from that game with the 2 vivitar setup?
Check Juliann's galleries that Carl linked to. Also, I don't follow your logic. Are you implying that you would expect to see more good images in a 70 image gallery shot in ambient light than one shot properly with flash? Why does the number of images in a gallery make a difference? Does something bad happen to the flash the more you use it in a game? Ya lost me here, John.
Those are nice images. My contention however is that at gallery levels (say 70 shots) I see more issues than get solved by many people using flashes - a lot of flash burn, harsh shadows etc. So yes, 10-15 shots you can get some great stuff.
I couldn't disagree with you more. Having shot countless basketball games with and without flashes/strobes, I can unequivocally state that the number of keepers I get when using artificial light is a far higher % than when I shoot ambient. White balance, light color cycling, better color saturation, and even higher "shutter" speed equivalent all add up to better shots. The 20 minutes or so I spend in set-up and tear-down is more than paid back in time saved in post processing.
Of course, like anything, you need to know what you are doing, but the same thing could be said for any type of photography. Bad flash is no more prevalent than bad ambient photography (not a quantitative statement, BTW). However, if done right, shooting indoor sports with artificial light will produce IMO better results than anything done ambient - even in a pro or college arena. There's a reason why SI et. al. employ strobes when shooting...
And again I admit I form my opinion based upon viewing the results of the few people that actually post links to entire galleries of shots.
Don't forget that a lot of folks posting here are just learning how to do things and are posting their images for comment and critique. And, folks usually don't post links to huge galleries since most people don't have the time to wade through large galleries. As Carl showed (and others on here who regularly produce stellar flash/strobe images) flash can and will produce excellent results. Yes, you can shoot ambient and still produce good results. I (and obviously MaxPreps and others) prefer adding artificial light.
dmwierz wrote:
Check Juliann's galleries that Carl linked to. Also, I don't follow your logic. Are you implying that you would expect to see more good images in a 70 image gallery shot in ambient light than one shot properly with flash? Why does the number of images in a gallery make a difference? Does something bad happen to the flash the more you use it in a game? Ya lost me here, John.
I just checked out Juliann's Maxpreps galleries, and frankly I don't care for the pitch black/nighttime look of the court. To each his own, though.
I think John had a valid point that it's one thing to show a few good examples of (any type of) pictures; it's another to show consistent quality over the longer haul. There's more to a picture than the style of lighting: if the focus is poor, or there's no face, or interesting subject/action, etc., it's still not a good photo.
But really the point that bugs me, I guess, about a policy like Maxpreps' is that the result doesn't matter, just the "process". Why do they care how you get there, as long as your stuff is good? (And no, I have no vested interested in Maxpreps; it's just the principle that bugs me.) I've already seen some excellent galleries from the Nikon D3, for example, shot at higher ISO and unstrobed, that I would much prefer to the majority of (high school level) strobed shots. (It's not really fair to compare to an NBA strobe setup...)
I tried strobes at our home school only once. The results weren't bad, but contrary to what I expected from reading the forum, they really distracted and bothered several people (not players). So I prefer to stay more low-key, and it's nice to know I can even shoot free throws (yes, easy 'sellers' for parents!) without being noticed.
I guess I'll put my pictures where my mouth is...here's a full game of approx. 100 photos, shot with a 1D2 and 5D at ISO1600, with only on-camera, bounced flash--would these make the cut for Maxpreps?
Not sure why you would be arguing against a company's requirements. Want to shoot for any decent stock agency? Well, guess what? They are going to have image requirements that you will need to adhere to, period. Just because I may not think that cigarettes cause lung cancer doesn't mean I think I can light up in a restaurant with a no smoking policy and expect not to be asked to put it out or leave. If I want to smoke I'm not going to go somewhere that doesn't allow it I'm going to CHOOSE to go somewhere that does. By the way, I don't smoke
It all comes down to personal choice. You may think that you can get comparable images with a D3 at high ISO's but if Maxpreps doesn't make exceptions for D3's or Mark III's then you can choose to use strobes/hot shoe flashes or not shoot for Maxpreps. Just because you believe it can be done doesn't mean they have to accept it. You choose to shoot or not shoot for Maxpreps, they choose to accept or reject your images based on their guidelines. Pretty simple.
In answer to your question, I'm not sure your images would see the light of day if you chose to shoot at 1600. Someone told me that Maxpreps uses a utility that actually looks at an images EXIF data and anything that is over 800 ISO gets automatically rejected. Probably saves them a lot of time in reviewing images. If this isn't right, I stand corrected. It's the same as Monster.com. Filters are configured based on employer requirements that scan each submission. If the specific requirements aren't met, the employer never even sees the resume.
I know I had some images (8) rejected because they were 1600 ISO. They slipped in on me as I decided to shoot some ambient towards the end of the game. I think I processed around 100 images that night lol
imperial wrote:
I just checked out Juliann's Maxpreps galleries, and frankly I don't care for the pitch black/nighttime look of the court. To each his own, though.
I think John had a valid point that it's one thing to show a few good examples of (any type of) pictures; it's another to show consistent quality over the longer haul. There's more to a picture than the style of lighting: if the focus is poor, or there's no face, or interesting subject/action, etc., it's still not a good photo.
But really the point that bugs me, I guess, about a policy like Maxpreps' is that the result doesn't matter, just the "process". Why do they care how you get there, as long as your stuff is good? (And no, I have no vested interested in Maxpreps; it's just the principle that bugs me.) I've already seen some excellent galleries from the Nikon D3, for example, shot at higher ISO and unstrobed, that I would much prefer to the majority of (high school level) strobed shots. (It's not really fair to compare to an NBA strobe setup...)
I tried strobes at our home school only once. The results weren't bad, but contrary to what I expected from reading the forum, they really distracted and bothered several people (not players). So I prefer to stay more low-key, and it's nice to know I can even shoot free throws (yes, easy 'sellers' for parents!) without being noticed.
I guess I'll put my pictures where my mouth is...here's a full game of approx. 100 photos, shot with a 1D2 and 5D at ISO1600, with only on-camera, bounced flash--would these make the cut for Maxpreps?
So using strobes was more noticeable then on camera flash right there on the court? wow to be honest I notice those type of shots more then my strobes. I hate when someone has an on camera flash and uses it in the stands.
msauk wrote:
So using strobes was more noticeable then on camera flash right there on the court? wow to be honest I notice those type of shots more then my strobes. I hate when someone has an on camera flash and uses it in the stands.
Yes, by a long shot. Instead of trying to shoot ISO 200 f/4, like a typical strobe setup, I was shooting at ISO 1600, f/2. Let's see, that's 5 stops difference, so I'm only having to add 1/32 as much light. In reality, it's even less than that, since most of my light is now ambient, and I'm only adding a bit of fill and pop to the faces.
msauk wrote:
I know I had some images (8) rejected because they were 1600 ISO. They slipped in on me as I decided to shoot some ambient towards the end of the game. I think I processed around 100 images that night lol
Your galleries look nice, BTW. The bounce looks much better to my eye, as opposed to shots--as in some other Maxpreps galleries I've seen--where the players are brightly lit, and the far court looks black. Your bounce also alleviates the harsh shadows of defenders' arms which invariably seem to fall right across the shooters' face....
Steve Ickes wrote:
Not sure why you would be arguing against a company's requirements. Want to shoot for any decent stock agency? Well, guess what? They are going to have image requirements that you will need to adhere to, period. Just because I may not think that cigarettes cause lung cancer doesn't mean I think I can light up in a restaurant with a no smoking policy and expect not to be asked to put it out or leave. If I want to smoke I'm not going to go somewhere that doesn't allow it I'm going to CHOOSE to go somewhere that does. By the way, I don't smoke
It all comes down to personal choice. You may think that you can get comparable images with a D3 at high ISO's but if Maxpreps doesn't make exceptions for D3's or Mark III's then you can choose to use strobes/hot shoe flashes or not shoot for Maxpreps. Just because you believe it can be done doesn't mean they have to accept it. You choose to shoot or not shoot for Maxpreps, they choose to accept or reject your images based on their guidelines. Pretty simple.
In answer to your question, I'm not sure your images would see the light of day if you chose to shoot at 1600. Someone told me that Maxpreps uses a utility that actually looks at an images EXIF data and anything that is over 800 ISO gets automatically rejected. Probably saves them a lot of time in reviewing images. If this isn't right, I stand corrected. It's the same as Monster.com. Filters are configured based on employer requirements that scan each submission. If the specific requirements aren't met, the employer never even sees the resume....Show more →
Actually Steve - what I WROTE was I didn't like their restriction. So given that I would have to shoot with a method I didn't prefer, what was maxpreps going to bring to the table for me - that's all.
But, here's my point - it should be the quality of shot that counts - period. I still contend the majority of galleries I see that were shot with NON BOUNCED strobes is less than what I'm getting ambient - taking asside everything out there. I happen to agree with the other poster that the extreme light falloff in the maxprep galleries is very unattractive.
Here's an ISO 2000 shot. I happen to think the result is much more pleasing than the majority of direct flash direct strobe stuff I see.
http://www.jagsportsphotos.com/photos/242671719_Vz5oS-X3.jpg Either the shot is good or it isn't - an arbitrary ISO cutoff is silly. I would stack the image quality of this or any of the other shots in my gallery against ISO 800 from a mkIIN.
As for your other confusion about the number of shots - well, you're not going to sell much work if you only come up with 10 - 15 shots. So a reasonable size gallery is 60-70 shots. Whenever any of us post we usually cheery pick results. To get a true guage of how a solution performs I prefer to see entire galleries - that we I can see if the results are consistant. Does that make sense?
dmwierz wrote:
Check Juliann's galleries that Carl linked to. Also, I don't follow your logic. Are you implying that you would expect to see more good images in a 70 image gallery shot in ambient light than one shot properly with flash? Why does the number of images in a gallery make a difference? Does something bad happen to the flash the more you use it in a game? Ya lost me here, John.
I couldn't disagree with you more. Having shot countless basketball games with and without flashes/strobes, I can unequivocally state that the number of keepers I get when using artificial light is a far higher % than when I shoot ambient. White balance, light color cycling, better color saturation, and even higher "shutter" speed equivalent all add up to better shots. The 20 minutes or so I spend in set-up and tear-down is more than paid back in time saved in post processing.
Of course, like anything, you need to know what you are doing, but the same thing could be said for any type of photography. Bad flash is no more prevalent than bad ambient photography (not a quantitative statement, BTW). However, if done right, shooting indoor sports with artificial light will produce IMO better results than anything done ambient - even in a pro or college arena. There's a reason why SI et. al. employ strobes when shooting...
Don't forget that a lot of folks posting here are just learning how to do things and are posting their images for comment and critique. And, folks usually don't post links to huge galleries since most people don't have the time to wade through large galleries. As Carl showed (and others on here who regularly produce stellar flash/strobe images) flash can and will produce excellent results. Yes, you can shoot ambient and still produce good results. I (and obviously MaxPreps and others) prefer adding artificial light....Show more →
I don't disagree - especially with a nice strobe setup. The problem any time you introduce artificial light it's using it correctly. And all I'm saying is I wanted to see a gallery of images taken using the proposed solution - two flashes non-bounced. That's it. A simple request. I'm not doubting that it can be done. I'm just saying that I have not seen an entire gallery of shots done that way that I would consider better. I've seen galleries with bounced strobes that are better but not direct flashes.
Believe me, I'd like to be convinced that going out and buying a couple vivitars will get me consistent quality results since at this point I dont want to have to deal with large, expensive, heavy strobes that ADs get nervous about.
The other benefit is - when I find someone who has that gallery (or preferably more than one) I can talk to them about their setup.
So, my point isn't that all artificial light is bad - that's obviously not true. I'm just looking for examples of the proposed solution.
And the one maxpreps gallery I looked at was not at all pleasant to me - tought to really judge because the images are small but the whites looked stark and too much black - like the game was in the dark with a spotlight on the player. That might have been the intent but to me it just didn't look good.
But, here's my point - it should be the quality of shot that counts - period. I still contend the majority of galleries I see that were shot with NON BOUNCED strobes is less than what I'm getting ambient - taking asside everything out there. I happen to agree with the other poster that the extreme light falloff in the maxprep galleries is very unattractive.
Here's an ISO 2000 shot. I happen to think the result is much more pleasing than the majority of direct flash direct strobe stuff I see.
Either the shot is good or it isn't - an arbitrary ISO cutoff is silly. I would stack the image quality of this or any of the other shots in my gallery against ISO 800 from a mkIIN. ...Show more →
Well it's an okay shot but doesn't even compare to Carl's strobed shots on previous page. His images are sharp, no noise, and well lit. Flash/strobes affords you the luxury of stoppping action at lower shutter speeds and lower ISO. Do you really think that all cameras take the same quality image at 800 vs 1600 vs 3200 ISO? And you have apparently deemed Maxpreps guidelines as arbitrary however, they haven't. Again, don't like it, don't shoot. Simple.
john_a_g wrote:
As for your other confusion about the number of shots - well, you're not going to sell much work if you only come up with 10 - 15 shots. So a reasonable size gallery is 60-70 shots. Whenever any of us post we usually cheery pick results. To get a true guage of how a solution performs I prefer to see entire galleries - that we I can see if the results are consistant. Does that make sense?
Uhmm . . . not my confusion. Sorry. You must have me confused with someone else.
Do you really think that all cameras take the same quality image at 800 vs 1600 vs 3200 ISO?
Nope - just that the mkIII takes ISO 2000 shots as clean as the mkII-Ns 800 shots. That's it pure and simple. Thus the ISO rule isn't a good rule.
And I agree Carl's shots are better. But again, that's why I want to see an entire gallery not a couple cherry picked shots. Not sure why you're finding that concept difficult to understand. I am by no means suggesting Carl isn't better than me - I know he's a better photog. I just want an entire gallery. Why is that so difficult?
John- when more shooters are shooting with MKIII or D3's, maybe the ISO rule with MP will change. The rule is to assist in streamlining the gallery review process. There are two editors that process all the submitted galleries (up until recently, only one FT and one PT). That is a lot of images to review. The fact of the matter is, most shooters are not shooting with the MKIII or the D3 but they are still good shooters that can provide excellent printable images and taking the time to sort between those that use that equipment and those that don't is not really feasible IMO.
If you think you can produce quality images shooting ambient at high ISO, call them and talk to them about it. Submit your samples (or a gallery of samples) for them to provide feedback on. Talk to them first. The MKIII and the D3 are new and it will take a while for the rules to catch up to the technology.
As someone else stated, it's their image standards. They are very clear in their expectations. If you don't want to work within those standards because you don't like them or don't agree with them, fine, don't shoot for them. Just like any other company.
frozenrope wrote:
As someone else stated, it's their image standards. They are very clear in their expectations. If you don't want to work within those standards because you don't like them or don't agree with them, fine, don't shoot for them. Just like any other company.
I agree completely. What I'm trying to do is decide if a flash-based vs. strobe based solution is workable and produces results I like.
By the way - I've already traded emails with maxpreps. The ISO 800 thing is NOT a hard and fast rule according to them. I still have to have a conversation with them to get other questions answered. But in the mean time I'm trying to decide if flashed-base can get good consistent gallery quanity results. If I have to go full strobes, it probaly isn't worth it to me right now. So, I'm trying to work down both paths (talking to maxpreps about their marketing and other issues and determining if flashed-based gym work is something I want to do. And that's easier to judge by looking at galleries rather than a couple images).
The ISO guidelines were in place well before the release of the Mark III or D3 and the number of photographers using those bodies is still in the minority.
And no I don't find it hard to comprehend you wanting to see a full gallery of images. However, I doubt you were shown "cherry picked" images. In Carl's case, he's posted enough here in the past that there really is no question as to his mad skillz behind the lens In the hands of a skilled photographer, strobes/flash make a huge difference.
By the way, I think we are now officially off-topic. I think that the original question has been answered in regards to who Maxpreps is and what it's like shooting for them. I would suggest starting a new thread in order to try and get input regarding the use of hotshoe flashes. There are plenty of people doing it plus obviously Dave Black is a great resource on this topic along with Strobist blog. However, getting answers to questions only goes so far. Ultimately you'll have to buy a couple of Vivitars (or whatever) and try it for yourself. Only through experimentation are you ever going to get the hang of balancing ambient with flash.
John, I gotta ask something: If you are still trying to "decide if flashed-base can get good consistent gallery quanity results", then what are you comparing it to? Shooting ambient? You mean to honestly say you think you get more consistent results shooting ambient to what you would get by properly using artificial light?
Now, you may not LIKE the flash look (there are several different flash "looks", BTW - they're not all the same) but that's not what I read you saying.
I guess I just don't see the point of all these posts. Go out and shoot some and see for yourself. FWIW, I haven't heard of a single Photo Editor or pro shooter who, given the option, would choose to shoot ambient strictly based on image quality. They might choose it because they don't own the equipment; because it's an easier set-up and tear-down; they might choose it because it enables them to shoot multiple images in a burst; they might choose it because they don't know how to flash or strobe an event; but I can't imagine anyone shooting ambient who has the option (and the skills, equipment and time) to strobe based strictly, as your are implying, on image quality.
Or is it you just don't like direct strobes? AFAIK, MaxPreps doesn't require direct strobe, do they?
I still prefer the look of bounced light, but that's just me. Many folks do great work with direct and the stark light fall-off is preferred by some clients and even some parents. After all, you're photographing the players, not the fans (unless your are shooting the fans, which is a different case entirely).
This whole thread has taken a baffling turn...I'm gonna go get a beer.
1. I like the look from fully strobed shoots.
2. From galleries I've seen I don't like the results from using flashes (not strobes) directly and not bounced.
3. Carl suggested a 2 flash setup.
4. I've asked for a full gallery of images from a 2-flash direct (non bounced) setup.
No the answer is go get a couple of cheap flashes (Vivitar, Nikon, etc.) and TRY it yourself. Yes you ask questions, you see examples, you get opinions but ultimately you try it for yourself.
Steve Ickes wrote:
No the answer is go get a couple of cheap flashes (Vivitar, Nikon, etc.) and TRY it yourself. Yes you ask questions, you see examples, you get opinions but ultimately you try it for yourself.
Steve - I only partially agree. Look as sports shooters we take thousands of images. If someone is looking for how well a lens I use works it really isn't an issue for me to show a gallery of the results. As sports shooters we typically shoot galleries not 1 or 2 images.
I'm not interested in going out and buying pocket wizards and flashes to experiment. Just like I wouldn't go and buy a $700 lens just to see how it does.
I follow the same advice I give other sports shooters looking for equipment solutions - and that is: sportsshooters take galleries of shots. If someone is recommending a piece of equipment you're unfamiliar with they should have a whole gallery available for you to look at.
Now, I respect the fact that Carl doesn't know me and might not want to take the time. Perhaps Steve you've got some galleries I could look at with the multiple flash setup?
It aint rocket science. If someone wants to see how a 300mm 2.8 lens performs the answer isn't: go buy one and try it out. This is no different.
I've seen good results with strobes. I've seen bad results with flashes at gallery levels (in other words an inability to get consistently good shots throughout the game - i.e. very low keeper rates). If I was seeing consistently good results with flashes I'd go buy and start experimenting. But just going out and spending $500-700 on a solution that may not be good enough (and by that I mean I know strobes would be good enough if I learned to use them properly and the gyms I needed to use them in would allow me to - but still have my doubts about un-bounced flashes)isn't worth it to me.
And that's OK too.
So Steve, you're a big propopent that the solution works. Could you possibly share gallery of flash shots with me?
without being noticed.