I Intentionally Underexpose When Shooting Sports...Is This A Bad Habit?

[Hof8231]

Just wondering what people's thoughts are on this. I shoot for an indoor football team, and the lighting is decent, but I find that if I underexpose on purpose, it seems to work better.

My settings (Canon 5D Mark III):
Shutter Priority - Shutter ~1/1000 average
Auto aperture/ISO (aperture usually ends up at f/2.8-3.2, ISO anywhere from 1600-4000. Lighting is inconsistent.)
Center weighted metering
Shooting RAW
-1 stop exposure compensation

I just find that with the varying colors of skin tone, uniforms, advertisements, turf, etc. it works for me, but I don't want to get into bad habits. I find that with underexposing, it can be easily fixed in post, but blown out highlights are a lot trickier. I CAN (and sometimes do) shoot in Manual mode, but I just prefer this. I know a lot of people are very adamant about getting the shot you want in-camera, and I usually do, just not with sports. Do you think this is a bad habit that I should stop, or should I stick with it as long as it works and the results are good?

 

[keyseddie]

I shoot 1/3 stop under, always raw for almost everything except when I shoot manual, which is not too often. It seems to be working for you so do it.

 

[DeadEye]

Just short of blowing a highlight is correct.

 

[The_Traveler]

It would be interesting to take the same shot with different meterings and see where you would be 'right on.'

 

[tirediron]

Just short of blowing a highlight is correct.

Sometimes... other times it's incorrect. Whatever setting(s) give you the desired result(s) are the right ones. "Always" is a dangerous word when applied to artistic technique.

 

[vintagesnaps]

If you don't get it in camera and have to depend on post processing it could be limiting depending on how you might use the images or what you may do in the future. Photos are often on a team's website before a game is even over (or as soon as it's over), what are you going to do if the team wants a photo - NOW!

I've done local minor pro hockey although am not doing that these days; the photos I took were for marketing so they weren't needed immediately. Even though publications may edit, from what I've read a major publication like SI has their photographers turn in their media cards as-is, their editors want to see what they're getting in camera. I did a webinar w/the SI photo editor and at that level they don't mess around, they expect results not excuses. Of course I've been happy where I am and have no intentions of working at that level! that would be some pressure.

In my experience minor pro and other local sports aren't nearly that intense, but what if something unusual happens at a game and you get a picture of it and they want it on their site that night - are they going to wait around for you to post process it?? or go with a photo from someone else?

 

[dennybeall]

Sounds like you're just doing the right thing for the situation at the time. You know what you're doing, why you're doing it and it's working for you. I don't see any reason to change.
As for hurry-up post processing it's not like it's a glamour shoot and you're going to spend 2 hours with expensive plug-ins to fix flesh tones and remove skin bulges. Stick the card in the laptop - pop the shot into PS CC(2014) - take 15 seconds to pump some light in and crop it where they need it and go...............

denny

 

[cynicaster]

Just wondering what people's thoughts are on this. I shoot for an indoor football team, and the lighting is decent, but I find that if I underexpose on purpose, it seems to work better.

My settings (Canon 5D Mark III):
Shutter Priority - Shutter ~1/1000 average
Auto aperture/ISO (aperture usually ends up at f/2.8-3.2, ISO anywhere from 1600-4000. Lighting is inconsistent.)
Center weighted metering
Shooting RAW
-1 stop exposure compensation

I just find that with the varying colors of skin tone, uniforms, advertisements, turf, etc. it works for me, but I don't want to get into bad habits. I find that with underexposing, it can be easily fixed in post, but blown out highlights are a lot trickier. I CAN (and sometimes do) shoot in Manual mode, but I just prefer this. I know a lot of people are very adamant about getting the shot you want in-camera, and I usually do, just not with sports. Do you think this is a bad habit that I should stop, or should I stick with it as long as it works and the results are good?

You seem to be comparing "underexposing" with "blown highlights", as if you have to choose either one or the other. Probably not what you meant, but that's the way it sort of reads.

Yes, blown highlights suck, but depending on the scene it's entirely possible to get a "properly exposed" or even slightly "overexposed" image without blowing highlights.

If we broaden the possibilities to include these scenarios, then I'd say that underexposing on purpose is probably not the best way to go. Assuming you've not lost precious detail in blown highlights, it's always better (at least, from a prevention-of-ugly-artifacts standpoint) to bring exposure DOWN in post rather than UP.

The only time I could ever see myself underexposing on purpose would be if it were deemed an acceptable tradeoff for a very fast shutter speed, but that's just me.

 

[sscarmack]

I like to underexpose also.

I find I get better results from going dark to lighter, rather light to darker. imo

 

[gsgary]

It might be ok with newer cameras but you would have never got away with when i was shooting sport with a Canon 1Dmk1 years ago, i wouldn't do it

 

[imagemaker46]

Do what you have to do to get what you want. If it works for you, then that's all that really matters. A lot of what I shoot, the exposures are all over the place, I don't spend much time thinking about it. As long as I'm happy with everything.

 

[Hof8231]

If you don't get it in camera and have to depend on post processing it could be limiting depending on how you might use the images or what you may do in the future. Photos are often on a team's website before a game is even over (or as soon as it's over), what are you going to do if the team wants a photo - NOW!

I've done local minor pro hockey although am not doing that these days; the photos I took were for marketing so they weren't needed immediately. Even though publications may edit, from what I've read a major publication like SI has their photographers turn in their media cards as-is, their editors want to see what they're getting in camera. I did a webinar w/the SI photo editor and at that level they don't mess around, they expect results not excuses. Of course I've been happy where I am and have no intentions of working at that level! that would be some pressure.

In my experience minor pro and other local sports aren't nearly that intense, but what if something unusual happens at a game and you get a picture of it and they want it on their site that night - are they going to wait around for you to post process it?? or go with a photo from someone else?

First off, thank you everyone for the responses! I appreciate all the input!

As far as what you're saying, vintagesnaps, I understand that a lot of higher level photographers are under a lot more pressure and getting things fast is far more important to them than it is to me, but I do have a bit of a deadline I work with. I have to get 15 of my best shots to our Media/Communications Director as quick as possible after the game. Say a game starts at 7. Indoor football moves faster, so it'll be over around 9:30-9:45. After that, I spend ~15 minutes on the field taking pictures of hand-shaking, interviews, etc. After that, let's say it's around 10PM. I transfer all my images to laptop, which I bring with me, find my favorite 15, edit them, and send them. I've never gotten them to him later than 11:30 PM that night. I then pack up, go home, and edit the rest, not sleeping until I get the rest edited.

It seems to work in this specific scenario, and I feel I am perfectly capable of getting shots in camera the way I want them the majority of the time, but the lighting at the arena makes it difficult. Again, excuses, I know.

I'm not arguing with you here or anything, just pointing out that in the current scenario I'm in, it works.

But I also don't want to get into bad habits, so I suppose I should try harder to get the results I want in-camera. Again, I appreciate all the responses!

 

[Derrel]

A LOT of times, a meter reading can be "too bright", and render the scene looking artificially bright. If the final images look good, then you're okay. For example, a t night time, or evening time, I think centerweighted average metering from Nikon just looks..."too bright", so I'll start at Minus 1.0, sometimes end up at Minus 1.3 EV.

I used to use the D2x for sports, with a custom tone curve I had entered into the camera's memory. Custom 1 called for me to set the exposure to Minus 1.7 EV, so that in effect did what I called "building shutter speed" by one and two-thirds stops!!!! Woo-hoo!

With new, modern-sensor d-slrs, you can EASILY quote-unquote underexpose, then lift the shadows up in post, and still have a useable file. This is no longer the D1 days.

In some ways, this is like the question, "How hot is hot?" Welllllll...it depends. All the ETTR, aka Expose To The Right stuff makes a lot of sense, and it made more sense 10 years ago when sensors sucked hard, but eventually, you end up COMPRESSING THE $hi+ out of the scene's overall tonal range; you can capture more than you can print on newsprint, or on photo paper, or on inkjet, and on the web, who cares? It's no longer 2001: you can deliberately or accidentally go Minus 1, and at most ISO values, "lift" the shadows up and still make a good image. The newer, better sensors allow a loooooot more leeway in recovery/adjustment/tweaking of the exposure in today's fancy software.

 

[TheNevadanStig]

Your shots always look great Hoff, I wouldn't worry about a thing. Getting it 100% right in camera the first time may work a lot more for portraits and landscapes, but would be mind boggling for sports. Better to have that one handed touchdown reception slightly underexposed, than to miss it entirely because you were fooling with the wheel and watching your meter. Or better yet tell the teams to call a time out so you can set up some reflectors and strobes
There are just too many variables when doing action sports to expect perfection in camera. Even in those indoor arenas, someone could be standing in one spot, move a yard, and the exposure could be completely different due to a different angle of the artificial lights. Dont worry about how you get it, just worry about actually getting it. If the end result is good, nothing else really matters.

 

[SpikeyJohnson]

I generally shoot lower exposure in sports. It can allow me to get better shutter speeds and most the time I can bring the lower end of the histogram better than the bright end. Black, I think is a little more naturally occurring than perfect white as well.