HS football.

[ac12]

Dang,
Adjusting EC and ISO are both shutter finger + thumb actions.
So I can't do either on the fly as I am shooting.

All I can think of is, shoot in M, then with my thumb drop the ss to 1/250 (from 1/500). That brings me 1 stop better, and the corner is only -1 stop rather than -2 stops.

Using auto ISO there is no using your thumb to adjust. Using exposure comp, you can set that before the play and go from there.
1/250 and 1/500 are to slow of shutter speeds for football.

hmmm, I have to try auto-ISO in manual model, never did that option.

My normal manual exposure is 1/500 @ f/4 (wide open) at ISO=6400. So I am pushing it, without going up to ISO 12800.
My results seems to be that 1/500 is OK. Maybe my guys are slower than yours.
But I agree 1/250 would be too slow, and I would probably get motion blur.

 

[ronlane]

@ac12, The f/4 is causing you the issues, you really need f/2.8 glass. What body are you shooting with?

I have a friend that shoots a D3 with a 300mm f/4 for highschool sports but even with the D3, he struggles with it. Honestly, for night time football, I'd rather shoot with a 70-200mm f/2.8 than anything with a higher aperture.

As for the kids being faster? Not sure, I shoot Top class in Oklahoma and college football.

 

[ac12]

Yes I know I should be using a f/2.8 lens, and would love to, but being an old man, I had to draw the line on the weight. While I could use a f/2.8 on a monopod during the game, I still have to carry the kit from my car to the field, and go up/down the sideline, so mobility won.

I'm shooting with a Nikon D7200.

I think your kids ARE faster than mine.

 

[ronlane]

Yes I know I should be using a f/2.8 lens, and would love to, but being an old man, I had to draw the line on the weight. While I could use a f/2.8 on a monopod during the game, I still have to carry the kit from my car to the field, and go up/down the sideline, so mobility won.

I'm shooting with a Nikon D7200.

I think your kids ARE faster than mine.

Honestly I find that with a 300mm f/2.8, I don't travel up and down the sideline like I do when shooting with a 70-200mm f/2.8. I know it sounds funny being only 100mm difference but something about it, I just don't move as much. If there were enough light in HS stadiums, I'd love to use the 300mm f/2.8 and a 1.4x TC and shoot from the endzones and not move.

 

[Scoody]

I would like to get your advice on exposure.
My HS field has uneven lighting. Only 2 light poles on each side of the field. So the 10-15 yards from the goal line is about -1 EV from the center of the field, and the corners are -2 EV from the center.
The problem situation is, the TD runs are many times down the sideline into the -2 EV corners. And I am shooting across width of the field.

My problem is that the games start before dusk at the beginning of the season and the light is constantly changing and I have to adjust my aperture and ISO as I go. Some of the photographers that have only f/4 glass only shoot until halftime. Luckily my 2.8 Tamron lets me shoot the whole game.

 

[ronlane]

I would like to get your advice on exposure.
My HS field has uneven lighting. Only 2 light poles on each side of the field. So the 10-15 yards from the goal line is about -1 EV from the center of the field, and the corners are -2 EV from the center.
The problem situation is, the TD runs are many times down the sideline into the -2 EV corners. And I am shooting across width of the field.

My problem is that the games start before dusk at the beginning of the season and the light is constantly changing and I have to adjust my aperture and ISO as I go. Some of the photographers that have only f/4 glass only shoot until halftime. Luckily my 2.8 Tamron lets me shoot the whole game.

That is a big reason that I like to use Auto ISO with exposure compensation. Then I can set the shutter to 1/1000 and the f-stop to f/2.8 and start shooting before during and after golden hour and blue hour.

This is not a technique that I have come up with myself. It comes from spending a ton of time reading and watching videos from other sports photographers.

It's also goes with a LOT of practice shooting. I have shot 23 high school and college football games this year and may get to 25 before the year is over.

 

[ac12]

Yes I know I should be using a f/2.8 lens, and would love to, but being an old man, I had to draw the line on the weight. While I could use a f/2.8 on a monopod during the game, I still have to carry the kit from my car to the field, and go up/down the sideline, so mobility won.

I'm shooting with a Nikon D7200.

I think your kids ARE faster than mine.

Honestly I find that with a 300mm f/2.8, I don't travel up and down the sideline like I do when shooting with a 70-200mm f/2.8. I know it sounds funny being only 100mm difference but something about it, I just don't move as much. If there were enough light in HS stadiums, I'd love to use the 300mm f/2.8 and a 1.4x TC and shoot from the endzones and not move.

hmm
Some ideas to record and try next year.

Well because of the extra reach of the 300 you don't have to get as close. But also the extra reach lets you do a different perspective that would be difficult with a shorter lens.
I used to shoot with an 18-140 about 15 yards in front of the line of scrimmage. Now with the 70-200, I am 40-50 yards in front. Very different perspective than what I used to do. And I like it.

We have a 70-300 that I can try during the JV game, while the sun is still out.
Or I can go crazy with my 75-300 on my micro 4/3 camera, similar to a 600mm on a FF camera.

Interestingly, last year I started shooting soccer from behind the end zone. I liked the head on attack view.
That is, as long as the refs are OK with me back there.

 

[ronlane]

@ac12 - I shoot about 20-30 yards in front of the offense and about 15 yards behind the offense (for some defense shots) with a 70-200mm on friday nights since I have bought a 300 f/2.8 yet. (Next on my list).

The nice thing about a 300 from 50+ yards is the perspective you get if you kneel or even are sitting down.

Here is a college shot from the end zone with a 300mm f/2.8 and a 1D mk IV from over 50 yards away and then cropped. I get that these are in day time lighting but the perspective is what I'm pointing at with these.

I'm sitting in the opposite end zone and they are close to the 30 yard line.

I believe he is at about the 50 yard line.

 

[ac12]

I would like to get your advice on exposure.
My HS field has uneven lighting. Only 2 light poles on each side of the field. So the 10-15 yards from the goal line is about -1 EV from the center of the field, and the corners are -2 EV from the center.
The problem situation is, the TD runs are many times down the sideline into the -2 EV corners. And I am shooting across width of the field.

My problem is that the games start before dusk at the beginning of the season and the light is constantly changing and I have to adjust my aperture and ISO as I go. Some of the photographers that have only f/4 glass only shoot until halftime. Luckily my 2.8 Tamron lets me shoot the whole game.

@Scoody
All depends on the lighting.
I shoot a f/4 lens into the night. ISO=6400, 1/500 sec, f/4.

My players are not as fast as Ron's, so I can get away with 1/500 sec.
What I would give to shoot day games, where I have plenty of light.​

I shoot either CW meter or manual.

CW allows the camera to adjust for changing afternoon to dusk lighting.
But I have to trick the camera, as I don't want the camera to meter the dark background and overexpose the players.

I set the AF to single point +1 above center, metering to CW. This way the camera is metering the ground below/in front of the player, rather than the dark/black background. Except for the corners of the field, where I have my problem, it generally works.
The problem is, the flatter the shot, the camera sees less ground in front of the player. Instead it sees the brighter ground mid-field. So my cross-field shots, especially into the corners are under exposed.​

 

[ac12]

ooooo, nice shot Ron.
QB + ball + receiver

 

[Scoody]

Here is a college shot from the end zone with a 300mm f/2.8 and a 1D mk IV from over 50 yards away and then cropped. I get that these are in day time lighting but the perspective is what I'm pointing at with these.

I do not shoot as wide. I shoot for clients who want action shots of their kids so I have to shoot more of a close up.

 

[ac12]

Here is a college shot from the end zone with a 300mm f/2.8 and a 1D mk IV from over 50 yards away and then cropped. I get that these are in day time lighting but the perspective is what I'm pointing at with these.

View attachment 165912
I do not shoot as wide. I shoot for clients who want action shots of their kids so I have to shoot more of a close up.

@Scoody , I was shooting volleyball in the gym and was wondering WHY a couple parents were using a 70-200 in the gym, when I was using a 35mm prime on a DX body. And they were on the front row of the bleachers, even closer than I was
I finally figured out that they wanted tight pictures of THEIR kid, not the action of the game or the other kids.

In the gym or on the field, I found that if I zoom in tight with the lens, I have trouble tracking the fast moving action. I need space around the subject to track and to maintain situational awareness. So I shoot wide and crop.
On the field, I found that I could crop into a shot with the Nikon 70-200 more than my other lens, and even see their eyes clearly. So GOOD glass definitely helps.

 

[ronlane]

@Scoody, I shoot tight as well when the play allows for it. But I don't just shoot tight all the time. I think you have to tell more of the store, which includes some tight, some medium and some wide shots. I have parents that buy all three types of shots and the bonus is I have some that buy them just because their kid was in the shot and not the one I was focused on (mostly linemen that were blocking for the RB I was shooting).

 

[Scoody]

I have parents that buy all three types of shots and the bonus is I have some that buy them just because their kid was in the shot and not the one I was focused on (mostly linemen that were blocking for the RB I was shooting).

The linemen are the hardest for me to shoot. Alot of the time, the kid I am trying to get a shot of disappears in the pile.

 

[ac12]

I have parents that buy all three types of shots and the bonus is I have some that buy them just because their kid was in the shot and not the one I was focused on (mostly linemen that were blocking for the RB I was shooting).

The linemen are the hardest for me to shoot. Alot of the time, the kid I am trying to get a shot of disappears in the pile.

Before the snap, except for the center, most of the center of the line is pretty well blocked from view. Though you can pick them between the opposing team.
Once the snap happens, you are right, it can be tough to pick out linemen.
If the play happens right, a hole gets knocked open in the line and you can get the center linemen.

One of my better shot was on a defensive play. Head-on shot with no one blocking my view. The defensive tackle intercepted the pass, and got to carry the ball. I tell the yearbook kids, that is the kind of picture/story you want to put out. A kid/lineman who is NOT expected to carry the ball, has the ball and is headed for the goal line. He did not make the TD, but he must have felt good to have intercepted and carried the ball. I sent the intercept picture to the coach.

After looking at some of Ron's pix, I got the idea to go further downfield from the scrimmage line. I used be to about 15 yards in front, now I am 40-50 yards in front. This gives me a more of head-on view of the line, and a better shot at the linemen. But at that distance, you need a longer lens or better glass. In my case it was better glass, so that I could crop in without loosing IQ.

 

[kathyt]

Hi Ron!!!!!! I still see your work on Flickr and FB. Hope your doing well!