Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

How do you shoot sports?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 1:20 am    Post subject: How do you shoot sports? Reply with quote
What is your technique used to take sports photos?

I asked about how to prefocus in sports photography and hope to continue the discussion here.

Last edited by my_photography on Thu Jun 11, 2009 3:46 am; edited 3 times in total


PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 1:24 am    Post subject: Re: How do you shoot sports? Reply with quote
PaulC wrote:
my_photography wrote:
How do you prefocus the players. Don't think they are so predictable on court.

I was shooting F1 speed boat once and that time I was still on film. Almost all my photos were out of focus (now I know why) and my lens reach was too short (I was using 70-200L).


Is that 70-200 f4 or 70-200 f2.8? The extra stop allows faster autofocus (am I allowed to use that word here?). Switch the camera to AI servo focus and use a single focus point, keep that on the player's head and shoot in rhythm with the ball coming from the other end, you soon work out how long it takes between the thunk of racquet on ball and the ball arriving in the frame (exposure, ISO, white balance are all pre-set for the court lighting). The toughest shots are those with the player coming straight towards you.

There are points on the court you can pre-focus on. Just for fun I shot Gael Monfils on a Pentacon Six with a 180 Sonnar earlier this year, here is a tight crop from the centre of the frame, which shows you can get really sharp pre-focus shots, but you have to wait for the player to arrive (baseline, finish line, goal line, batsman's crease, corner on a motor track ... they are all good places)

[Pentacon Six at 1/500, Fomapan 400, Sonnar 180 ... not sure of the aperture, it was dictated by the film speed and the light]

One point where pre-focus really trumps autofocus is that the autofocus forces you to keep a particular (focus) point in the frame over the player's face, whatever may be in the rest of the picture, pre-focus allows you to compose according to the elements that are in the frame.


Last edited by my_photography on Thu Jun 11, 2009 1:58 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 1:55 am    Post subject: Re: How do you shoot sports? Reply with quote
PaulC wrote:
my_photography wrote:
How do you prefocus the players. Don't think they are so predictable on court.

I was shooting F1 speed boat once and that time I was still on film. Almost all my photos were out of focus (now I know why) and my lens reach was too short (I was using 70-200L).


Is that 70-200 f4 or 70-200 f2.8? The extra stop allows faster autofocus (am I allowed to use that word here?).....

One point where pre-focus really trumps autofocus is that the autofocus forces you to keep a particular (focus) point in the frame over the player's face, whatever may be in the rest of the picture, pre-focus allows you to compose according to the elements that are in the frame.


I was using 70-200 f2.8 and AI Servo focus. Unfortunately there is not really a visible track for the speed boats though in the race they have to circle through many laps.

Now on the subject of prefocus in MF, let say we set to maximum aperture, and already prefocus some area, but when the player come in our frame, he/she might not be in the middle, i.e. not in focus for the correct area. THis mean maybe the hand is very sharp but not the face. Any tricks?

Last edited by my_photography on Thu Jun 11, 2009 3:47 am; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 2:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't shoot sports but, I do like this pic Smile


PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 5:08 am    Post subject: Re: How do you shoot sports? Reply with quote
my_photography wrote:
PaulC wrote:
my_photography wrote:
How do you prefocus the players. Don't think they are so predictable on court.

I was shooting F1 speed boat once and that time I was still on film. Almost all my photos were out of focus (now I know why) and my lens reach was too short (I was using 70-200L).


Is that 70-200 f4 or 70-200 f2.8? The extra stop allows faster autofocus (am I allowed to use that word here?).....

One point where pre-focus really trumps autofocus is that the autofocus forces you to keep a particular (focus) point in the frame over the player's face, whatever may be in the rest of the picture, pre-focus allows you to compose according to the elements that are in the frame.


I was using 70-200 f2.8 and AI Servo focus. Unfortunately there is not really a visible track for the speed boats though in the race they have to circle through many laps.

Now on the subject of prefocus in MF, let say we set to maximum aperture, and already prefocus some area, but when the player come in our frame, he/she might not be in the middle, i.e. not in focus for the correct area. THis mean maybe the hand is very sharp but not the face. Any tricks?


Well, if you know your lens you may have time to nudge the focus a bit to pull it in. But with pre-focusing you simply can't get the same number of shots as you can chasing the action with AF. Back in the film days I don't suppose people took 1000 frames in an afternoon at a sports match.

Here's the full frame of that Monfils picture. Prefocusing allowed me to nail the location by including the sign in the top of the picture (maybe it's not a great compositional idea but with a fixed focus lens the field of view was going to be big anyway.




I've shot speedboat racing and I don't think the 70-200 has the magnification you need for it. You are into the territory where you need a fast 300, 400 or better still 600mm prime. Those things are meant to grab the focus much, much better than ordinary gear.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 7:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't do sports. But I had to try it once when we passed a baseball game and I had the S-M-C Takumar 300mm mounted on camera.

I used prefocus and tried to quickly adjust when I got the subject in the viewfinder.






PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 7:31 am    Post subject: Re: How do you shoot sports? Reply with quote
PaulC wrote:

I've shot speedboat racing and I don't think the 70-200 has the magnification you need for it. You are into the territory where you need a fast 300, 400 or better still 600mm prime. Those things are meant to grab the focus much, much better than ordinary gear.


I know the 70-200 does not have enough reach. That was my first and only speed boat racing so far. Perhaps will try it another time in the future if I ever get a fast 300/400 and above MF lens. AF is simply out of my reach.

Last edited by my_photography on Thu Jun 11, 2009 9:41 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 7:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Some sharp baseball shots you have there Zewrak. Any PP cropping or sharpening?


PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 8:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I prefocus.
This still remains the best way in my opinion. I don't use AF lenses for sports (well I don't use them for anything) Laughing









(in the last photo I intentionally focused on the photographer)


PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 9:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
I prefocus.
This still remains the best way in my opinion. I don't use AF lenses for sports (well I don't use them for anything) Laughing


Very nice shots Orio, but I'm afraid the Press corps would vote solidly against pre-focus. You've been able to get a good depth of field with it being daylight, and a fast enough shutter speed (about 1/640?) to almost freeze the ball.

Great baseball pics, zewrak. The one with the ball just arriving at the glove shows marvellous timing.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 9:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wow, Orio, your photos so sharp.

Do you remember what lens and did you use maximum aperture?


PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 10:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here's an example of why pro sports shooters use AF. I think there would be very little chance of getting this with an MF lens. The multiple shadows on the court show that the floodlights were already on, though it wasn't completely dark.

It is shot at 1/800, f2.8. ISO800 with a 70-200 f2.8L (this lens is a real star wide open):



Is cropped out of this 5D full frame:



For our Italians, here is the unfortunate Federico Luzzo, from Arezzo, who died from leukaemia last year aged just 28.



PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 10:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
my_photography wrote:
Wow, Orio, your photos so sharp.
Do you remember what lens and did you use maximum aperture?


Thanks. Lens of pictures #1 #2 #4 was Leica Elmarit-R 180 (last version)
Lens of picture #3 was Contax Sonnar 2.8/135

As for aperture, wide open and sports - especially tennis - don't go well together, as far as I am concerned. I don't like it when a part of the player is focused and another is blurred. I would regard this as a wrong photo and send it to the trash bin. It is very difficult to have all the player in focus, but I request that at least one part is focused and the other part is slightly off but still with a good structure. For this reason, I rarely shoot faster than f/5.6. I use f/8 whenever I can. I prefer to raise the ISO and have a stopped down aperture than to shoot at ISO 100 wide open.

As for shooting time, I like 1/500 or sometimes also 1/250. These times don't always stop the parts that move fast, but it's an effect that I like, as in picture #2 I like the have the raquet with motion blur, it gives dynamism to the photograph and communicates the feeling of the action, while the player is frozen enough to make of it a good subject.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have a different view, that shallow DoF blurs often very distracting backgrounds and makes the player "pop".

Sports photos are often portraits of the players - action portraits instead of motionless portraits. We don't mind if not all of a portrait is in focus - in fact we aim to concentrate attention on the eyes. That often applies to sports as well as studio portraits.

Obviously, if one wants to shoot a group of players, perhaps in a rugby scrum) a larger DoF may be appropriate (though even there, you might want the guy breaking out with the ball to "pop" and his fellow players to be less distinct. And if the background isn't distracting then it can be treated differently.

I do agree that magnificent sports shots can be had by using smaller apertures as Ezra Shaw's amazing portfolio shows ... http://www.ezrashaw.com ... but look at his backgrounds, he finds angles where there are no distractions, everything is clean and clear and the background often becomes a contrasting colour element. When he can't avoid a confused background he has no qualms about using dof to lift the action out of the crowd
http://www.ezrashaw.com/portfolio_one/index.html#id=portfolio_one&num=11

So, as with everything, you have to decide on the basis of what is there in front of you, with the nature of the background, the speed of the action (do you want motion blur or not), the available light, the usable ISO speeds available to you, etc. all playing their part in the way you shoot.

For pro tennis with a big crowd opposite you, I definitely vote for reducing them to a blur even if much of the player starts to dissolve, too.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 12:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
PaulC wrote:
I have a different view, that shallow DoF blurs often very distracting backgrounds and makes the player "pop".


My experience is different, I have never been able to make a subject pop using a wide open aperture.
In my tentatives, wide open aperture always produced the opposite effect, that is, it compressed the different planes, flattening the perspective. An effect that increases together with the focal lenght.

With a medium to long tele lens (135mm and above), which are the focal lenghts that I commonly use when shooting a sport event, a f/5.6 aperture does not really give enough DOF to have a clear background, but it covers enough of the player. Here's why it's my favourite aperture. With the additional benefit that at f/5.6 the microcontrast is at it's relative best, increasing the dimensionality of the subject.

Of course if the aesthetical choice is to make a portrait of the face of the player, the thing is different. But my goal usually is to render the action, not the face, and in the action, details like the shoes or the raquet are very nice (in my humble opinion) when they are in good focus.

Last edited by Orio on Thu Jun 11, 2009 12:03 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 12:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
PaulC, even after cropping, the tennis player face/ eye is still so sharp. That is the advantage of a fullframe like 5D.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 12:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Is it my eyes, or do the full frame versions of shallow DoF shots look completely unsharp when shrunk to fit, while the crops actually look sharp? It seems curious as I would expect the opposite.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 12:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Again we have different style in taking sports photo. More and more this shows photography as an art and all of us as artists. Each of us have our favourite brush (lens) and we stroke differently (with different aperture and speed). Perhaps in a way, using and rediscovering MF in this modern age is similar to modern artist rediscovering the genius of the Renaisance period artist.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 12:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
my_photography wrote:
Again we have different style in taking sports photo. More and more this shows photography as an art and all of us as artists. Each of us have our favourite brush (lens) and we stroke differently (with different aperture and speed). Perhaps in a way, using and rediscovering MF in this modern age is similar to modern artist rediscovering the genius of the Renaisance period artist.


I think Alessandro would be proud of you Smile

What you say is true, and there is a lot to be gained in understanding from looking at different people's visions of the world, whether in art or photography.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 12:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
PaulC wrote:
Is it my eyes, or do the full frame versions of shallow DoF shots look completely unsharp when shrunk to fit, while the crops actually look sharp? It seems curious as I would expect the opposite.


Yes, it also looks like that from my monitor. I wonder why?


PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 12:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
my_photography wrote:
PaulC wrote:
Is it my eyes, or do the full frame versions of shallow DoF shots look completely unsharp when shrunk to fit, while the crops actually look sharp? It seems curious as I would expect the opposite.


Yes, it also looks like that from my monitor. I wonder why?


Because of the small size. The smaller the size, the more you appreciate the macro contrast and lose the micro contrast. This is why resized pictures need resharpening: because what used to be macro contrast in the full size image, become micro contrast, and what used to be micro contrast in the full size, gets lost.
Look at the forehead of the player, all the micro contrast that defines the rides is lost in the "translation". In the small size, the forehead is flat: no rides.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 1:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
my_photography wrote:
Again we have different style in taking sports photo. More and more this shows photography as an art and all of us as artists. Each of us have our favourite brush (lens) and we stroke differently (with different aperture and speed). Perhaps in a way, using and rediscovering MF in this modern age is similar to modern artist rediscovering the genius of the Renaisance period artist.


Photography is the art of choices Smile
If you think about it, it begins with simply deciding how to take a photograph. You can take the same photograph in dozens of different combinations of apertures, times, ISOs. I am not a mathematician but I believe that you can count the possiblities by multiplying the number of possible apertures with the number of possible times and the number of possible ISOs. So probably we are talking of hundreds really, not just dozens.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 2:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for the contrast explanation. That makes sense.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 2:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
PaulC wrote:
Thanks for the contrast explanation. That makes sense.


Yes, when resizing, the software needs to squeeze, say, 5 pixels into one, and to do so it makes an average. This means that a high microcontrast edge between a bright pixel and a dark pixel, which create a sharp edge in the original size, is averaged into a medium colour pixel that loses all information regarding that edge and gets confused with the other medium tones around it.
Of course, the smaller the original detail the bigger the loss.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
I prefocus.
This still remains the best way in my opinion. I don't use AF lenses for sports (well I don't use them for anything) Laughing









(in the last photo I intentionally focused on the photographer)



Shocked Shocked

wow!

Why do we have to talk about focus, then?? Smile

It's clearly visible that the pre-focus may lead to results they are promised to be perfect!!

tf
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Techniques
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2