Well, I shot Senior Night for the home team (players & cheerleaders) and when I was going to my car to get the 300, I felt a lady bump my right hand which was carrying my camera that was on my custom bracket. Didn't think anything of it....until I hooked up everything to shoot the game which I was going to use my flash, I went to plug in my new Quantum Turbo and it wouldn't go in (the plug receptacle broke away and recessed) . I'm assuming the impact was more than I thought. P_ _ _ _ _d me off to no end especially since I just sent Canon $127.10 to repair it because the strobe shorted out. I'm about to dig a hole and bury this thing already. Didn't bring my 550 so I shot without flash. Only the 2nd night game I shot all season so I really didn't feel comfortable all game...especially since the home team got shut out 14-0 and lost the bid for the sub regional playoffs. Anyway that's the story and here's some of the game shots that I feel are sub standard. Would like to hear some feedback because I'm just not pleased with them. It's just that "dark....dungeony" look I see in these that I'm having trouble with. Any "sports shooter shrinks out there"?
Frank,
I like the framing and action captured. Looks like you had to push the iso. The side view of the coach is the clearest. It's to bad about the damaged equipment. To you mount the custom bracket to the monopod or just handhold. The markII still holds its own.
Rick thanks for the feedback. I did push the ISO and I was at 1600 + or - trying to maintain a SS of at least 1/400. Probably should have gone to manual and played around with that. Regarding the Custom Bracket, it's the QRS-35-H and I just used it to shoot the senior players & cheerleaders with their parents. Then I took it off and just used the mono. If I had used the flash it would have been mounted on the pod below the camera with a super clamp. I'm still going to hold on the the MK2n to see some reviews on the Mark IV and see if the Mark IVn develops. I'm probably between 150K and 200K clicks and I'm just keeping my fingers crossed for now.
Frank: Looks to me like you, unlike the home team, did a pretty good job of grasping victory from the jaws of defeat. I'm sure you feel you could have done better with the flash, but aside from the first shot, which isn't bad but seems the darkest of the bunch, these look fine to me. I'd like to see feet in one or two but the action, colors and exposure aren't a problem and I don't see any serious noise to speak of. In #5 you've got great light on his face, and same with 4 and 3. I feel your pain because I know the kind of thinking and planning that goes into these shoots, so to have it all wiped out with a bump in the night really sucks. Kudos to you for sticking with it and making the best of a frustrating situation.
Good timing, Frank--some motion blur, as to be expected with ss of 1/400. #4 is the most dramatic for me--and the QB's face comes through pretty nicely. Could you have pushed the shutter speed up one notch and used the shadow/highlight function of PS?
Thanks Guys for the looks and comments. Guess I gotta shoot more non flash and get accustomed to it. As I keep looking at these over and over, I can see some things I do like but the plus to this was this field has one of the better lighting systems in the conference. I doubt I would get as good results at some of the other fields. We'll see what the playoffs bring.
A ss of 400 and an ISO of 1600 sounds great to me! I'm usually pushing the envelope at 3200 to 4000 and getting a SS of 350 if I"m in the better fields in Whittier.
Battery problem aside, you looked like you had a great game. Everything looks really sharp, great color, and the noise level is well above s acceptable. For the way things went, I think you brought back some good images.
Paul and Steph...thanks for the feedback. I guess some of my biggest hangups are the increased noise on some of the shots (and I did som mild NR on these) plus the darker areas like the faces inside the helmets. I've always used flash and then to go to non flash shots was a pretty major adjustment for me. My main concern was I just wanted to see if the majority felt the images were acceptable. The flash thing is something I just got real comfortable with so I never really got out of that comfort zone but now that I received this positive feedback, it may be something I will most likely do more of (night football w/o flash) just to have that experience with it even though it may not be my most preferred method to shoot.....I that makes any sense.
i am confused you said you shot these without flash ? if there was no flash used, how did you get such bright sharp images ... i shoot at iso 3200 , and 1/400 and even in the best of fields can no way get images this sharp and bright without flash ? what is the secret ?
ZW....These were definitely shot without flash. One thing to realize about me is I am my worst critic. If I don't think something is good, I probably won't believe it unless the Big Guy sends me an e-mail or text telling me to wise up. Anyway this was my first game....shooting the entire game without flash and that was an adjustment for me. Either you like flash or you don't....I did and it just became second nature for me. The darker stadiums weren't an issue because I had Mr. Flash. So when it broke last week and I didn't bring my backup, it was like the old security blanket was taken away. The most difficult thing for me is the faces inside the helmet....that's what bothered me the most. I wasn't worried about the player body shots because I knew there was enough light for that. I hoped for a little faster SS but I could live with some motion blur... One other glitch is without flash I thought my keeper rate was less than with. As for the sharpness...my gear was the 1dmk2n which I think is a "kick ass" machine (but I do have to send it in for a tune up soon) and I'm over 150K shots on it and the 300 2.8 which is probably my most favorite combo. Last night I shot a playoff game at this field and I was talking to another photog and we were discussing the stadium lights and we both felt the school district replaced them with a different type because they did appear brighter this year than past years. That's the story....
susi...thank you for the comments. I believe the lights were upgraded this year. My sons played there and they were not always like that.
Mike - Thanks....initially I was most likely PO'd and distraught after someone broke my flash to see what everyone has been telling me on these shots. After a few weeks of re-evaluating these and Canon repairing my flash for free, I'm seeing these in a different light (no pun intended). Seen some shots where the notorious (dungeon lighting) was just that and our lights are no where near some I have seen on line and in person. So after re-looking at these..I guess I'm OK with them and not as bad as I initially thought.
