Volleyball Team Photo

[Big K]

Since you all have seen so much of this group I thought I would post a team photo we did tonight for some things they are doing getting ready for the state tourney.

5D Mk II with 24-70 f/2.8 1/160 f/6.3 ISO 100. Four Elinchrom 600RX's. Two on either side of the camera with umbrellas, two on 13 ft stands fully extended with grid spots positioned back left and right about 5 feet from the ends of the net and 2 580 EXII's with gobos about 1 ft in front of the net shooting down it to help (unsuccessfully) light the net. Black nets just don't light very well.

http://www.ks-images.com/POTN/009/IMG_2016 Pano sm.jpg

[slikscott]

I think this is a great pic!!!

Nice work

[MT Stringer]

Gee Kevin, they are all looking at you and not mom or dad or whoever is either behind you or off to the side.
Nice pic, by the way. That's a lot of flash power.

[lespaulowner]

Great shot!

[Apollo.11]

great pic. how long did it take to setup a shot with that much hardware?

[mattograph]

Hey Kevin

I think you did a great job with the net. The lighting on the group is uneven though. I see two challenges -- you have some girls stuck in shadows, and there is lot of hard light edges bleeding through onto the back row. Hard light is okay, but it needs to be consistent when you are edging your subjects. There is a great deal of dead space between alot of the girls, and when you pose a group like this, if you don't tighten them up, then you almost need to work them into individual poses with dynamic diagonals, etc. Number 30, for instance, doesn't fit the energy profile of the picture.

Just thought I would throw a few ideas your way.

[Big K]

Thanks for the nice comments.

Gee Kevin, they are all looking at you and not mom or dad or whoever is either behind you or off to the side.
Nice pic, by the way. That's a lot of flash power.

Fortunately, they only others in the gym were the coaches and they were off doing something else so they could avoid having to be in the photo. The toughest part was they wanted to look tough but a couple of them have a hard time not smiling any time they are in front of a camera. :-)

great pic. how long did it take to setup a shot with that much hardware?

It took about an hour but normally takes about 30 minutes. I have set up four light setups so many times I'm getting pretty fast at it.

I had to switch to a plan B which meant redoing everything. I wanted to shoot them with the wall of bleachers as a background but it has a glossy paint that made for serious hot spots then wasted about 10 minutes trying to decide if I wanted to use the 580's and if so where to place them. Obviously that turned out to be a wasted 10 minutes.

[Big K]

Hey Kevin

I think you did a great job with the net. The lighting on the group is uneven though. I see two challenges -- you have some girls stuck in shadows, and there is lot of hard light edges bleeding through onto the back row. Hard light is okay, but it needs to be consistent when you are edging your subjects. There is a great deal of dead space between alot of the girls, and when you pose a group like this, if you don't tighten them up, then you almost need to work them into individual poses with dynamic diagonals, etc. Number 30, for instance, doesn't fit the energy profile of the picture.

Just thought I would throw a few ideas your way.

Great points and excellent info for everyone when looking at this photo.

I find it hard to get good even backlighting on large groups and is why I originally wanted to shoot them with the bleachers as the background and use the backlights to more evenly light the background. When I realized that was not going to work as hoped I was scrambling to adjust and really just guessed at where to position the backlights without much opportunity to test and adjust. I only had about 10 minutes to get this done before their practice was to start and had to get two other shots of a couple of individuals for another project so it was very run and gun to say the least.

I actually tried to get them more organized but was paying more attention to the time than the group which was an error on my part. #30 and the girl to her left were supposed to have been holding their balls with both hands like they were trying to crush them which is why the extra space was there to start with. I honestly had not noticed that they didn't stick with that pose until you pointed it out. I also repositioned #31 three times to deal with the hot spot on her face and every time she would turn straight back at the camera.

Thanks again for pointing out the details that could have made this better. A much better learning experience for everyone, me included.

[namasste]

Kevin, I'll start by saying that this is a very nice shot all in all. I do have a few comments along the lines that Matt pointed out. This may seem nitpicky but I agree that the spacing needs to be tighter. The girl in the back row (second from right) needs to have that elbow down since the shadow she creates really detracts from her teammate. I also think that #15 needs to emulate the pose of #20 to balance the image. Her pose makes things less symmetrical but also creates dead space on the left.

Just some things to think about and like I said, I am nitpicking here.

[Big K]

Kevin, I'll start by saying that this is a very nice shot all in all. I do have a few comments along the lines that Matt pointed out. This may seem nitpicky but I agree that the spacing needs to be tighter. The girl in the back row (second from right) needs to have that elbow down since the shadow she creates really detracts from her teammate. I also think that #15 needs to emulate the pose of #20 to balance the image. Her pose makes things less symmetrical but also creates dead space on the left.

Just some things to think about and like I said, I am nitpicking here.

Thanks for the feedback Scott. Nitpicking is very much appreciated. The little details are what really make for improvements.

I was the one who had the girl left up her elbow. She was set on holding the ball like that and it was an easy way to fix the hot spot on the side or her face similar to #31. In hindsight, I agree with your observation and should have fixed it a different way.

Pesonally, I wish I would have had #20 emulate #15 and adjusted that side of the group to get the symmetrical look you mention. Hindsight sure would be more handy if it was foresight. :-)

#30 is the girl I mentioned in the PM that is the top shelf basketball player. Man, I'm ready for hoops.

Thanks again.

[namasste]

Hindsight sure would be more handy if it was foresight. :-)

#30 is the girl I mentioned in the PM that is the top shelf basketball player. Man, I'm ready for hoops.

Thanks again.and if my aunt had...well, you know. :lol::lol:

That explains why #30 looks bad azz, cuz she is!

[CliffordPhotography]

Worked out nice.

[disneydork06]

haha, when I saw your talk about #30 I went to look at the photo again and just realized she also has a ball in her hands. didn't realize they all had one :-P anyways, overall the photo worked out nice. nice work

[mattograph]

Great points and excellent info for everyone when looking at this photo.

I find it hard to get good even backlighting on large groups and is why I originally wanted to shoot them with the bleachers as the background and use the backlights to more evenly light the background. When I realized that was not going to work as hoped I was scrambling to adjust and really just guessed at where to position the backlights without much opportunity to test and adjust. I only had about 10 minutes to get this done before their practice was to start and had to get two other shots of a couple of individuals for another project so it was very run and gun to say the least.

I actually tried to get them more organized but was paying more attention to the time than the group which was an error on my part. #30 and the girl to her left were supposed to have been holding their balls with both hands like they were trying to crush them which is why the extra space was there to start with. I honestly had not noticed that they didn't stick with that pose until you pointed it out. I also repositioned #31 three times to deal with the hot spot on her face and every time she would turn straight back at the camera.

Thanks again for pointing out the details that could have made this better. A much better learning experience for everyone, me included.

Thanks for taking this in the manner in which it was meant. Its a great photo.

Its so hard working for groups like this. The girls get bored so easily. I have a buddy who shoots high school basketball who, when things get slow, tells the girls "OK, this next shot is for the NCAA database." No one ever asks what the heck that might be, but the girls sure get serious for some reason! :)

[Dan-o]

I think you did well over all also Kevin and won't re-hash what has been said. I know how difficult these are and the million things that you have to look for before snapping the photos. Not to mention these type of shots are hell on the kids that just want to get the hell out of there and play some VB.

[Harleypugs]

Cool shot.

Took some of your advice and applied it to my shooting last weekend. I think it was my best effort so far.

Jon

[Big K]

Thanks for taking this in the manner in which it was meant. Its a great photo.

I appreciate someone taking time to point out the negatives. While it is always nice getting positive comments, the "what needs improved" comments are far more helpful. Hopefully the overall dialog is also helpful to others. Having lots of gear is helpful but lots of things that make a really good photo like positioning and balance have nothing to do with gear and IMO is the hardest part of it.

I will definitely use the "NCAA database" comment. That is excellent.

I think you did well over all also Kevin and won't re-hash what has been said. I know how difficult these are and the million things that you have to look for before snapping the photos. Not to mention these type of shots are hell on the kids that just want to get the hell out of there and play some VB.

Thanks Danny. Yeah, this group has a couple that you almost have to drag out to the floor for photos.

Cool shot.

Took some of your advice and applied it to my shooting last weekend. I think it was my best effort so far.

Jon

Thanks Jon. I must have missed your posts. I am going to go search for them now.

[Television]

looks amazing! :D

[chris2683]

Wow! Wish I had a team photo like that from high school. Great work!

[mattograph]

Wow! Wish I had a team photo like that from high school. Great work!


Great point. These girls will really appreciate the effort in this photo later, if not already today.

[JustinL]

Amazing shot K - WOW

[Big K]

looks amazing! :D

Wow! Wish I had a team photo like that from high school. Great work!

Amazing shot K - WOW

Thanks everyone.

Great point. These girls will really appreciate the effort in this photo later, if not already today.

They all loved it. I cropped it tight at the top and bottom and made a pano print for the coach. Those 5D MkII files make awesome big prints. I think almost all of the girls are ordering prints as well.

[arvindm29]

I think this is a great shot

[liam5100]

I like the shot Kevin,.. and I really like all the feedback and education. Threads like this are the ones that will make us all better photographers.

[AdamLewis]

6 lights?
Geez.

If you want to show something black (like a net) youre not going to do it by lighting it. You can only normally see the net because of an ABSENCE of light. Its true when youre using your naked eye and its true with youre using off-camera light. If you threw a ton of light on the net (especially parallel), it will never matter because the background behind the net is dark.

If you think about it, it makes sense.

Additionally, you should remember that black doesnt reflect light. It absorbs it. When you 'see' black, youre not actually 'seeing' light. Youre actually 'seeing' the ABSENCE of the light. This being the case, the only way for you to make the net visible is to have it block light from a relatively illuminated source. However, in this case, to do that would mean lighting the back wall and I think would detract from the picture more than add to the picture.

Additionally, if the bleachers were pretty uniform, you could have tried using a CPL to kill the glare.

[Big K]

6 lights?
Geez.

If you want to show something black (like a net) youre not going to do it by lighting it. You can only normally see the net because of an ABSENCE of light. Its true when youre using your naked eye and its true with youre using off-camera light. If you threw a ton of light on the net (especially parallel), it will never matter because the background behind the net is dark.

If you think about it, it makes sense.

Additionally, you should remember that black doesnt reflect light. It absorbs it. When you 'see' black, youre not actually 'seeing' light. Youre actually 'seeing' the ABSENCE of the light. This being the case, the only way for you to make the net visible is to have it block light from a relatively illuminated source. However, in this case, to do that would mean lighting the back wall and I think would detract from the picture more than add to the picture.

Additionally, if the bleachers were pretty uniform, you could have tried using a CPL to kill the glare.

That all makes sense if I wanted to make the net look black, which I didn't. I wanted it to be anything but black so it would stand out like the white bands.

The net, while black, also has a very shiny surface because it is made of nylon. My attempt was to create a specular highlight off the shiny material the net is made of, like you will notice on the left side of the net in the photo. Since I was trying to create a specular highlight, your point about more light not mattering because of the dark background is completely backwards. The only way this would have worked is with more light to really accentuate the specular highlight or to just totally overexpose the black net against a background that was as close to total black as possible. Basically, the same principle that will make even black velvet look white if you shoot it 4 stops overexposed.

As I mentioned earlier this did not work like I hoped and like I also mentioned earlier, did not have a lot of time to mess with making a ton of adjustments and add a bunch of gobos to make it work. Since most of the net ended up blocked by the kids, I really didn't care. Since I didn't care about the net any longer, in hindsight, I should have just turned off the speedlights because their spill is what made my background brighter than I wanted anyway.

I am not sure what a CPL is but am curious as I would love to have a solution for those nasty bleachers for future needs. The bleachers are like what is shown in the background of this image, only fully collapsed instead of only seven rows collapsed like shown and are painted with about as glossy a paint as I think they could find.

[Big K]

I like the shot Kevin,.. and I really like all the feedback and education. Threads like this are the ones that will make us all better photographers.

Thanks Bill.

[mattograph]

CPL == Circular Polarizing Filter. It eliminates glare coming into the lens from certain angles, sorta like polarizing sunglasses. It rotates, so you can dial in the effect to some degree. Used by landscape photographers to eliminate glare in water and from vegetation and such. In some instances, add an insane amount of punch. Could work in this application, but will also eat a stop to a stop and a half of light.

On another note, black absorbs light, but since true black does not normally exist in our day to day world, black is indeed reflective, to a degree. Anyone who has ever take a picture of their nice black canon camera knows this. iPhones are black, yet the are probably photographed as much as the Kardasian sisters. With regards to your shot, the PV coating used on most volleyball nets is indeed quite reflective. It won't necessarily show up as a uniform black, but it can be lit. (Sorry, BK, I wrote this BEFORE I read your response -- but glad to see we were on the same page. I got where you were going!)

[bobbyz]

Nice shot.

I have no experience in doing something like this but some things that I think can help:

1. Shoot from little higher position.
2. Longer lens if you have the space
3. Get them positioned little tighter like mentioned
4. Need back ground light
5. Keep lighting simple, two 60" umbrellas higher up just left right of camera position should have been enough. I mean real close to camera, not at 45 deg angle. Keep them pointed straight so light on subject faces is feathered.

[SnapLocally.com]

For some reason I read the title as "dream" instead of "team" and thought it was going to be about butts.

[mattograph]

For some reason I read the title as "dream" instead of "team" and thought it was going to be about butts.

Since I have a daughter who plays, I was going to respond with how offensive I thought this comment was.

But then I looked at your website, and realized you have a lot of friends that could hurt me REAL BAD.

So I'll play it safe.


LOL!!!:)

[SnapLocally.com]

Not to worry, I usually don't even look at volleyball threads. I saw how long the thread was, and figured it had somehow degenerated into fighting. So, as you can see, I was looking for conflict, not girls in spandex, not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Big K]

CPL == Circular Polarizing Filter. It eliminates glare coming into the lens from certain angles, sorta like polarizing sunglasses. It rotates, so you can dial in the effect to some degree. Used by landscape photographers to eliminate glare in water and from vegetation and such. In some instances, add an insane amount of punch. Could work in this application, but will also eat a stop to a stop and a half of light.

Thanks for the explanation. I was thinking it was some sort of layer and a photoshop thing. The reflection problem I was having was from the two main lights and was the type of reflection similar to if you were shooting into a mirror because of the glossy finish. Do you think it would still work?

Not to worry, I usually don't even look at volleyball threads. I saw how long the thread was, and figured it had somehow degenerated into fighting. So, as you can see, I was looking for conflict, not girls in spandex, not that there's anything wrong with that.

No fighting yet but give it some time, anything is possible on POTN. Hope business is going well in the combat sports world.

[SnapLocally.com]

Thanks. Nice pic, btw.

[mattograph]

Not to worry, I usually don't even look at volleyball threads. I saw how long the thread was, and figured it had somehow degenerated into fighting. So, as you can see, I was looking for conflict, not girls in spandex, not that there's anything wrong with that.

No worries on my end..... My comment was in total humor...... and thus in total safety! :)

[mattograph]

Thanks for the explanation. I was thinking it was some sort of layer and a photoshop thing. The reflection problem I was having was from the two main lights and was the type of reflection similar to if you were shooting into a mirror because of the glossy finish. Do you think it would still work?


In my experience, its gonna help some, but perhaps not uniformly. It manages reflections at certain angles, and these angles won't remain constant to the position of the camera. For instance, I have used it shooting interiors to knock down reflections in wood flooring. But I can only recall one occasion where it eliminated all of the glare -- mostly it makes it less severe, easier to photoshop, smaller.

So it might knock down the reflection in a certain part of net, but probably not across the entire length.

[firedogg]

Nice work on the photo and the critiques. It'll help with an upcoming project I'm working on.

[AdamLewis]

In my experience, its gonna help some, but perhaps not uniformly. It manages reflections at certain angles, and these angles won't remain constant to the position of the camera. For instance, I have used it shooting interiors to knock down reflections in wood flooring. But I can only recall one occasion where it eliminated all of the glare -- mostly it makes it less severe, easier to photoshop, smaller.

So it might knock down the reflection in a certain part of net, but probably not across the entire length.


His reflection problem was off the bleachers. Not the net..

That being the case, so long as its uniformly reflected, a CPL will take care of it. Reflected light is polarized in the same direction. A CPL will either block or allow the passage of polarized light through it. However, that doesnt mean it blocks all reflections. You have to turn the CPL 90° to the polarity of the reflected light.* The practical way of doing this is simply turning the CPL until your reflections vanish. To do this with strobes, it may be trial and error or you may try using some strong modeling lights.

*: Think of it as a rope going through a fence. If you shake a rope up and down through the slats of a picket fence, the motion will have no problem going through. However, if you tried shaking it side to side (or if you could rotate the fence 90°), the slats would then block the motion of the rope from going through to the other side.

[mattograph]

His reflection problem was off the bleachers. Not the net..

That being the case, so long as its uniformly reflected, a CPL will take care of it. Reflected light is polarized in the same direction. A CPL will either block or allow the passage of polarized light through it. However, that doesnt mean it blocks all reflections. You have to turn the CPL 90° to the polarity of the reflected light.* The practical way of doing this is simply turning the CPL until your reflections vanish. To do this with strobes, it may be trial and error or you may try using some strong modeling lights.

*: Think of it as a rope going through a fence. If you shake a rope up and down through the slats of a picket fence, the motion will have no problem going through. However, if you tried shaking it side to side (or if you could rotate the fence 90°), the slats would then block the motion of the rope from going through to the other side.

Pardon the confusion with regards to the bleachers.

In practical application, the angle of polarity is relative to the lens. If you are using a long focal length, the polarizer will be more effective from margin to margin, as there is relatively little change in angle from margin to margin in the frame. A wide focal length, on the other hand, with its larger field of view, will have more difficulty eliminating the polarized reflection from margin to margin, as the the reflections angle relative to the frame margin changes as you move across the field of view.

Its just math.

[Big K]

Adam and Ty,

Thanks for the excellent info. I actually have a CPL and am going to give this a try next time I am at that gym for photos. Would have never thought to give it a try in an application like this.

Thanks again and have a good week.

[Big K]

Thanks. Nice pic, btw.

Thanks.

[AdamLewis]

Pardon the confusion with regards to the bleachers.

In practical application, the angle of polarity is relative to the lens. If you are using a long focal length, the polarizer will be more effective from margin to margin, as there is relatively little change in angle from margin to margin in the frame. A wide focal length, on the other hand, with its larger field of view, will have more difficulty eliminating the polarized reflection from margin to margin, as the the reflections angle relative to the frame margin changes as you move across the field of view.

Its just math.

Negative sir. Polarization will vary with the change in incident angle between the light source and the reflective surface. In other words, angle of polarity is relative to angle of incidence. Wide angle lenses only exacerbate this problem because they are, by nature, taking in a wider view, and thus are taking in a wider range of incident angles.

While you are right about observed effects when using WA-UWA lenses with a CPL, youre reasoning behind it is faulty. I realize it may be trivial but I never enjoy muddying up the intellectual waters and I try to do my best to provide clarity when possible.

Its just physics.

:cool:

[mattograph]

Negative sir. Polarization will vary with the change in incident angle between the light source and the reflective surface. In other words, angle of polarity is relative to angle of incidence. Wide angle lenses only exacerbate this problem because they are, by nature, taking in a wider view, and thus are taking in a wider range of incident angles.

While you are right about observed effects when using WA-UWA lenses with a CPL, youre reasoning behind it is faulty. I realize it may be trivial but I never enjoy muddying up the intellectual waters and I try to do my best to provide clarity when possible.

Its just physics.

:cool:

Won't muddy it, then. You're wrong.

[AdamLewis]

Won't muddy it, then. You're wrong.

:lol: Ok. Whatever makes you feel better ;)

[mattograph]

:lol: Ok. Whatever makes you feel better ;)

Guess now its too late to ask you to sponsor me at sportshooter.....;)

[AdamLewis]

Guess now its too late to ask you to sponsor me at sportshooter.....;)

Naw. Do you really want in? Do you have a link to your stuff? I applied without a sponsor and got in the first time. Im not sure how much one is really needed anymore.

[mattograph]

Naw. Do you really want in? Do you have a link to your stuff? I applied without a sponsor and got in the first time. Im not sure how much one is really needed anymore.


My port isn't there yet. The only sports I shoot are little kids. Haven;t made the effort yet. But hope to soon!

They say, if you click on the "I wanna join" button, that sponsorship is a new requirement.

Thanks for the offer though!

[AdamLewis]

My port isn't there yet. The only sports I shoot are little kids. Haven;t made the effort yet. But hope to soon!

They say, if you click on the "I wanna join" button, that sponsorship is a new requirement.

Thanks for the offer though!

Ah ok. Well shoot me a PM when you want to try.