Brazilian Jiu Jitsu C+C

[Ballistics]

Not the greatest exposure, but here I got a bit of a decisive moment. I went for pattern,shape, and line here
and I feel I was pretty successful.

Maxum1 by The Photo Major, on Flickr

Here I just did ROT and shape.

Maxum3 by The Photo Major, on Flickr

 

[mistertee]

Most gyms use florescent lighing which makes it difficult to achieve a constant color balance. At my school, for fast action MMA striking shots, I have to shoot at max frame rate and up to 12500 iso with a 2.8 aperture and 500 minimum shutter. Maybe one in ten pictures will have the correct color because of the florescent lights cycling.

For BJJ, you can use slower shutter speed since the movments are slower and it's easier to anticipate "peak of action". With our lights, consistant color can be achieved when I stay under 160 shutter speed.

 

[Ballistics]

Most gyms use florescent lighing which makes it difficult to achieve a constant color balance. At my school, for fast action MMA striking shots, I have to shoot at max frame rate and up to 12500 iso with a 2.8 aperture and 500 minimum shutter. Maybe one in ten pictures will have the correct color because of the florescent lights cycling.

For BJJ, you can use slower shutter speed since the movments are slower and it's easier to anticipate "peak of action". With our lights, consistant color can be achieved when I stay under 160 shutter speed.

I wish I could get usable shots at 12,500

 

[imagemaker46]

Most gyms use florescent lighing which makes it difficult to achieve a constant color balance. At my school, for fast action MMA striking shots, I have to shoot at max frame rate and up to 12500 iso with a 2.8 aperture and 500 minimum shutter. Maybe one in ten pictures will have the correct color because of the florescent lights cycling.

For BJJ, you can use slower shutter speed since the movments are slower and it's easier to anticipate "peak of action". With our lights, consistant color can be achieved when I stay under 160 shutter speed.

I wish I could get usable shots at 12,500

Nikon D3s or D4

 

[imagemaker46]

I like the first frame, the way the guys have lined up makes for a good background. I wouldn't be too overly concerned about the exposures, they really aren't that bad.

 

[spacefuzz]

Id say shoot in RAW, spot meter, and try a narrow DOF if you can to de clutter the background. You will most likely have high ISO or a really pricey lens. You could try renting a f/2.8 or 1.8 lens and see if that helps.

You didn't look at the Exif data in the OP huh?

dude, you asked for pointers. No offense but the shots werent worth digging into exif for while I am at work. But if you insist, you need to change how you shoot.

JPEG (NOT RAW!)

Compression

1600 (you can push your D7000 way beyond this)

ISO Speed

 

[spacefuzz]

Not the greatest exposure, but here I got a bit of a decisive moment. I went for pattern,shape, and line here
and I feel I was pretty successful.

Maxum1 by The Photo Major, on Flickr

This is nice.

 

[Ballistics]

Id say shoot in RAW, spot meter, and try a narrow DOF if you can to de clutter the background. You will most likely have high ISO or a really pricey lens. You could try renting a f/2.8 or 1.8 lens and see if that helps.

You didn't look at the Exif data in the OP huh?

dude, you asked for pointers. No offense but the shots werent worth digging into exif for while I am at work. But if you insist, you need to change how you shoot.

JPEG (NOT RAW!)

1600 (you can push your D7000 way beyond this)

It's in the OP underneath the pictures. I literally wrote out the Exif so you didn't have to dig lol. These were all also shot in RAW.
In these conditions, Anything above 1600 was wayyy too noisy.

As far as giving me pointers, you told me to use a high ISO and a 1.8 or 2.8 lens and shoot in RAW.... I did all of this. All of this information (minus the fact that these were shot in RAW) is written out, hence my post.

Edit: re-reading your post, are you recommending that I shot in Jpeg and not raw? Or that these pictures are JPEG and not RAW?
If the former, why do you recommend JPEG over RAW?

 

[spacefuzz]

I guess I missed the info under the shots.

However, I shot a lot of low light with the D7000 and you should be able to get usable images at ISO 3200 in these conditions if you post process them right.
For lens rental, If you have room to move in the gym I would recommend a 70-200 2.8 so you can get better bokeh at 200mm than at 50mm.
I went to your flickr site and looked at the file exif, seemed like it was shot with jpeg not RAW.

 

[Ballistics]

I guess I missed the info under the shots.

However, I shot a lot of low light with the D7000 and you should be able to get usable images at ISO 3200 in these conditions if you post process them right.
For lens rental, If you have room to move in the gym I would recommend a 70-200 2.8 so you can get better bokeh at 200mm than at 50mm.
I went to your flickr site and looked at the file exif, seemed like it was shot with jpeg not RAW.

I only shoot in RAW. I converted them all to Jpeg in photoshop to post online. @ ISO 3200 the noise is really horrible. I did just order a 70-200mm and it will be coming in a week or 2. These were all brought up as well. Some of these images are underexposed by almost a full stop and I had to go heavy in the noise reduction.

 

[imagemaker46]

I wouldn't sweat any of this, the images you posted are all acceptable. The biggest problem with so many people is that they out think themselves, they believe that every image has to be perfect, no noise, no movement, in low light this doesn't happen all the time. You do what you can, with what you have, from where you are. I shoot sports, they aren't all perfect poster pictures, but sometimes having a good solid image that isn't perfect is all that you need to get the job done.

It's easy for people that aren't shooting under the same conditions to tell you how they would do it, but unless you are there using the same light, sitting in the same room, it's tough to dump on someone for the images posted. I know that I do it at times, but I've also shot sports in a lot of different places around the world, most likely more than anyone else on this forum, so it has given me the advantage of experience. No two places are the same.

 

[Ballistics]

I wouldn't sweat any of this, the images you posted are all acceptable. The biggest problem with so many people is that they out think themselves, they believe that every image has to be perfect, no noise, no movement, in low light this doesn't happen all the time. You do what you can, with what you have, from where you are. I shoot sports, they aren't all perfect poster pictures, but sometimes having a good solid image that isn't perfect is all that you need to get the job done.

It's easy for people that aren't shooting under the same conditions to tell you how they would do it, but unless you are there using the same light, sitting in the same room, it's tough to dump on someone for the images posted. I know that I do it at times, but I've also shot sports in a lot of different places around the world, most likely more than anyone else on this forum, so it has given me the advantage of experience. No two places are the same.

Hey you know what, thanks man. I appreciate that. These pictures literally were torn apart and I was beginning to scratch my head why they were so poorly received.

 

[mistertee]

I agree 100% with what imagemaker46 said.

You could use flash if the students and instructor don't find it distracting.

 

[imagemaker46]

Flash is an option but to be honest I hate any sports that are shot with it. What I find is that it changes the feeling of the sport, almost makes it all look artificial. I've shot a lot of hocky over the years and when I had the opportunity of using strobes to shoot pro hockey, I jumped at it, and then I jumped away from it after seeing the results. I really don't like the shadows it creates. Something about having just a little bit of grain or noise in the images that I really like.

 

[Ballistics]

Flash is an option but to be honest I hate any sports that are shot with it. What I find is that it changes the feeling of the sport, almost makes it all look artificial. I've shot a lot of hocky over the years and when I had the opportunity of using strobes to shoot pro hockey, I jumped at it, and then I jumped away from it after seeing the results. I really don't like the shadows it creates. Something about having just a little bit of grain or noise in the images that I really like.

I was able to bounce flash, but in a tournament setting flash is not allowed, I am therefore practicing for tournament photography.
I posted these in a third forum to get more opinions. The poor reception came from a BJJ forum from photography "experts". Not that I don't respect anyone's opinions here or there, I just would like to get as much input as possible. I honestly thought that, for what they were, they weren't bad. Even with my lack of equipment and knowledge, they came out pretty good. Not press worthy, but definitely not mindless snap shots.