[dougdeep]

Wow, that's awesome garage lighting.

[Deiberson]

well, you were right......i went in there, assessed the situation and said these guys are nuts. its as bright as can be in here.

but......it turns out i didn't have enough light for my lens at the right shutter speed. @ 1/200 i had to bump the iso up to 6400 to even get close. i couldn't believe it. i got so frusrated, i didn't even make it to the varsity game with my camera out. i'll post some TERRIBLE shots when i get a chance this morning. i'd like to know if this was a simple case of not enough lens for sharpness or pilot error.

some pro actually sat near me with a tele photo lens that was pulled from Hubble and mounted a flash that looked like came from the ghostbuster movie. i'm sure his came out fine. i should've asked him some questions but he was about 80 years old and didn't look like he was in the mood for questions and answers.

[wasser]

well, you were right......i went in there, assessed the situation and said these guys are nuts. its as bright as can be in here.

but......it turns out i didn't have enough light for my lens at the right shutter speed. @ 1/200 i had to bump the iso up to 6400 to even get close. i couldn't believe it. i got so frusrated, i didn't even make it to the varsity game with my camera out. i'll post some TERRIBLE shots when i get a chance this morning. i'd like to know if this was a simple case of not enough lens for sharpness or pilot error.

some pro actually sat near me with a tele photo lens that was pulled from Hubble and mounted a flash that looked like came from the ghostbuster movie. i'm sure his came out fine. i should've asked him some questions but he was about 80 years old and didn't look like he was in the mood for questions and answers.

You've got good lenses. You just have to learn how best to use them, and that's what this is all about.

Be sure you post images with intact exif.

[Deiberson]

here are some of the shots. ANY help would be appreciated.

just for the record....i'm not looking for a compositional award here, just looking for propper exposure and how to get it.
i ended up just using tungsten auto for the w-b. because my manual selection wasterrible.

the first photo from what i like to refer to as my yellow period. this was my manual wb first and last attempt.
1/100 f5.6 iso3200


1/40 f4.5 iso 3200....needed more shutter speed but the light looks better..probably over-exposed?

same thing again here....wanted small aperture but had to go to 4.5 b/c of light so i had to compensate with slow shutter speed (1/40) not sure what i was thinking.

so to bump the shutter spped up into the 1/200 range i had to up the iso to 6400. 1/200 f5.6. it still sucks, but better than the first one i posted i guess. i'm wondering if the 6400 is too noisy.

same numbers on this next one except at iso3200. i was really trying for the leg over the face shot. it came out just as i hoped.


thanks in advance. again, total newb stepping into slr. trying to figure this out one step at a time. i just felt like the whole night i wanted to be in the 1/200 range but didn't have enough lens. funny how little light was actually there. i never would have believed it.

here aer two shots from the paper. not sure what his exif info is. the guy had a better seat (on the mat)...i guess that helps. if i had that seat i could've used my 1.4. any idea on what he was doing?

---

Last edited by Deiberson; 01-22-2010 at 09:23 AM.

[PrimeObjectif]

Wow. Even at ISO 3200, the K-x looks looks great. Your shots certainly look the sharpest at around 1/200. 1/40 is too slow to freeze motion, so even if you get the proper exposure, you won't get a good looking shot. If you use a flash (you'll only be able to shoot at a max. shutter speed of 1/160) next time, your photos will come out much, much better. You'll probably be able to lower your ISO to 400 also.

I think you should try to get more shots with the wrestlers' faces in them. Sports photos look much more dramatic when we can see the players' expressions and exertions.

[Deiberson]

I think you should try to get more shots with the wrestlers' faces in them. Sports photos look much more dramatic when we can see the players' expressions and exertions.

i have a lot of shots from last night....i only posted those to give an idea of the color/exposures i was getting with the various settings. i wasn't looking at the picture itself. even when taking th pics, i didn't really have the patience to wait for the dream shot. esp since it was the junior high warm up.

so bacially, in this situation....i'm probably going to need a flash hugh?

[PrimeObjectif]

so bacially, in this situation....i'm probably going to need a flash hugh?

It doesn't need to be huge. You're not so far away from the action. The Pentax 360 may even be adequate. The guy from the paper probably has a zoom that opens to f/2.8. That's a full two stops of extra light that he has hitting his sensor than you get when you shoot at f/5.6. Add that to the extra light coming from his flash, and you've got a much brighter exposure.

If you lighten up some of your sharper shots in post production and fix the white balance, you'll probably get results closer to what the other photographer got, too (especially if you shoot raw files). If you don't want to do much post production work, a 2.8 zoom (i.e., DA 50-135) and a flash are going to help out big time.

[wasser]

Although the WB was off, something easily corrected, I think the first shot you had was the best exposure wise. The others are over or underexposed. With corrected WB I think your first image's exposure is superior to the two from the newspaper. This is from a combination of over exposure and flash washing out the detail (look at the great muscle detail on your shot).

Also, the first exposure, by the numbers given, show you could have used 1/150, f/4.5 and an ISO of 3200.

Personally, I think this talk about the need for greater shutter speed is not necessary. I shoot my girls playing basketball and in dance recitals at anywhere between 1/15 to 1/100 and at ISO's of between 400 to 1600 (if I had a Kx I'd dip into 3200). I have many sharp shots at the slower end. The trick is to find a time of reduced motion. Look at the last shot from the newspaper. That shot, at least for a moment, had very little motion. You could easily have done that 1/60 or slower.

[PrimeObjectif]

I agree with much of what wasser wrote, especially about the first photo Deiberson posted. For someone not used to shooting sports (especially indoor sports), it may be tricky to keep changing shutter speeds during the event, but with the proper technique, one can get good shots even at slower shutter speeds.

I borrowed my friend's DA* 50-135 last night, and got some pretty nice results, all taken with a K20D and an AF-540fgz.

1/160, ISO 100, f/2.8, 75mm


1/160, ISO 200, f/2.8, 97mm


1/160, ISO 400, f/3.5, 75mm


1/160, ISO 200, f/2.8, 90mm


I could have sworn I was shooting at higher ISOs most of the time, but the image properties say otherwise.

[Deiberson]

The trick is to find a time of reduced motion. Look at the last shot from the newspaper. That shot, at least for a moment, had very little motion. You could easily have done that 1/60 or slower.

i see what you're saying...instead of forcing the shot and depending on the camera and it's lens, i should accept the camera's limitations and wait for a shot that compliments it's settings. good point. i expected the camera to "do it all under any circumstance" when i maybe i should've waited for a good shot.

[Deiberson]

PO,
i'll have to look into a flash. what i like about trying to capture the light without a flash is that the photo's look like they are taken during the "daytime" and captures event the way i saw it. it just seems when you involve the flash, it puts everything in the "after dark" arena.
on the flip side...i didn't realize hoe difficult it was to get that shot.
with that being said....your pics are definitely better than mine.
thanks for the help. i'll have to go to another one and try again.

[wasser]

i see what you're saying...instead of forcing the shot and depending on the camera and it's lens, i should accept the camera's limitations and wait for a shot that compliments it's settings. good point. i expected the camera to "do it all under any circumstance" when i maybe i should've waited for a good shot.

Nicely put.

PO,
i'll have to look into a flash. what i like about trying to capture the light without a flash is that the photo's look like they are taken during the "daytime" and captures event the way i saw it. it just seems when you involve the flash, it puts everything in the "after dark" arena.
on the flip side...i didn't realize hoe difficult it was to get that shot.
with that being said....your pics are definitely better than mine.
thanks for the help. i'll have to go to another one and try again.

You don't have to settle for the appearance of lighting the world with your flash. Check out slow-sync-flash. You can use a longer exposure to bring up the exposure in the surroundings while still using the flash to light the subject. For sports you'd ideally use "rear-curtain-flash". That's when the flash fires at the end of the exposure. Unfortunately, the onboard flash is only capable of "front-curtain", where it fires at the beginning of the exposure.

On the other hand, you could just continue to practice with available light. You'll be challenged to freeze rapid motion, but you could, as you put it, "wait for a shot that compliments it's settings."

[Marc Sabatella]

the first photo from what i like to refer to as my yellow period. this was my manual wb first and last attempt.

I'd suggest trying again before giving up. Manual WB requires you actually get a netural colored arget in the same light as your subject - you must have failed on one of those to counts (either your target wasn't neutral, or it wasn't in the same light). Had you you done this successfully, the color would have been perfect.

Whether that would be enough better than simply setting WB to tungsten to be worth the bother is another matter, but you shouldn't come away from with this the idea that manual WB doesn't work, because it most certainly does.