HELP with shooting football at night and on fields with shadows

[ChrisK10]

Yesterday I was not very happy with my pics of an evening JV football game. Early in the game there were harsh shadows on the field which made some photos dark and it only got worse as the sun went down. The lighting on the field was miserable which of course did not work well with my lens (55-250mm / f/4-5.6). At night I shot at 1600 ISO (higest available) and slowed the SS. I also limited my zoom so the f stop would not be higher than 4.5. Of couse the pics turned out dark. Any advice to help would be appreciated. (I am already looking at the 70-200mm / f/2.8 L IS)

Here are a few photos I worked with in an attempt to lighten them. Some turned out OK while many were grainy.

#1 Taken under lights
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2592/4060733760_bdd04b7050_b.jpg

#2
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2478/4059947573_9b0a786f7d_b.jpg

#3 Taken in the shadows
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2704/4059911761_73107d02e8_b.jpg

#4 Taken in the shadows
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2682/4060508058_d0c10cbcaf_b.jpg

#5
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3521/4059885821_3ffd28c423_b.jpg

#6 Under lights. Cropped but otherwise untouched.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2701/4062764783_db97537a70_b.jpg

[kayintveen]

Sorry if i am to harsh but your photos are grainy, not thack sharp, and to dark. Try to shoot a lot lighter, your iso noise will be a less obvious. Also try to post process them and give a little more contrast + saturation or vibrancy!

cheers

[Peter Camyre]

I agree that these shots need more contrast & saturation. I'm not sure if you'll get the results you're looking for with that lens? It was suggested to me, by a trusted member of this site, to try a 135 f2.0L lens and it worked great. Even better than the 70-200 2.8. You can rent one and try it? It was a big improvement for night games. You can check out some pics on my Flickr Photostream. Happy shooting, Peter
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2717/4063161505_e11b857188.jpg

[honestwords]

night shooting can be harsh especially when the light is so poor, heres what i do use highest iso which you did and to get an extra shutter speed under expose by a stop, but you will need to use neat image or something to take away the grain( noise) ..... but if you are not right on the exposure from the start you are going to be way under exposed ( use manual and see what it looks good on the screen not a perfect judge but better than nothing) i think thats what has happened to you, also be real - if the light is rubbish and you cant get a fast enough shutter speed pack away the camera and watch the game their will be more games to shoot and always better light....

[Mossman6]

The ISO in the first shot can be minimized with Noise Ninja. I ran it through there, did a minor levels adjustment, and added a little bit of saturation.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2630/4067064896_8a73f5020f_o.jpg

While getting a better lens/body would be ideal, Noise reduction software is significantly less if cost is an issue and something to consider. You get less noise in exchange for less detail.

[jsdtx]

Noise Ninja did a great job on the picture.

[SwiftFootTim]

Welcome to the world of shooting high school football where the lighting is never a guarantee and situations will be less than ideal. While I hesitate to say that anyone is hampered by their kit and certain situations are tough to deal with with certain lenses, football is one such sport that I make an exception for.

I usually shoot high school around here at 1/250-1/400, f/2.8, and ISO 1600 just to get pictures that are passable. Noise will always be an issue and the harsh shadows are just a part of the game. I find that in football the harsh shadows don't matter as much because I shoot more of a photojournalist style rather than trying to get that perfect capture.

Most parents are just happy to get pictures that don't have major subject blur and that are taken from a closer position relative to their position.

However, some clarity and vibrance(lightroom) or saturation adjustments along with some contrast would help loads to these pictures. The noise removal is something you'll have to play with as you'll have to decide just how much detail you're willing to sacrifice in order to remove the noise.

[canonnoob]

The ISO in the first shot can be minimized with Noise Ninja. I ran it through there, did a minor levels adjustment, and added a little bit of saturation.


While getting a better lens/body would be ideal, Noise reduction software is significantly less if cost is an issue and something to consider. You get less noise in exchange for less detail.

honestly this photo looks worse than the original. Yes there is alot of noise in the first but you killed ever single detail in the shot... There is good to using NR but not if it comes to this...

[wyofizz]

Yep, sometimes you just gotta have the right gear.:)

[willshoot4food]

...

[packpe89]

Yes, need faster glass. Best budget way would be a 200/2.8 or Sigma/Tamron 70-200/2.8. Careful though, speed is addictive and expensive.

[SwiftFootTim]

In all honesty you could probably get by with a 200 f/2.8 as it's much cheaper, but you will miss it in other sports where a 70-200 will fit the bill nicely, but I agree with cannonoob that the noise reduction kills the picture. It looks like claymation to me.

[Mossman6]

honestly this photo looks worse than the original. Yes there is alot of noise in the first but you killed ever single detail in the shot... There is good to using NR but not if it comes to this...

Yes, noise reduction software directly effects sharpness. The higher the settings, the more detail gets lost and becomes more smooth. I used a more agressive setting to show that noise can be reduced significantly.

Dont get me wong, better glass/body is the clear path; however, if your strapped for money, it's a reasonable and inexpensive go between.

[ChrisK10]

Thanks for all of the advice. This is my first year shooting football and I never thought I would like it as much as I do. Looking at pictures on this forum just makes me want to get better.

I have rented a 70-200mm f2.8 IS for this weeks game and I am going to try Peter's suggestion of a 135mm f2 next week. We'll see how they turn out.

I went out to practice the other night to learn how to shoot with the 70-200. It is definately better than what I currently have.

Here are a few

1.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3240/4077765534_7cfb20fa6e.jpg

2.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3151/4077762236_c123ab3400.jpg

3. A little motion blur. Was shot at 1600 ISO w/ 1/500 SS at 200mm
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2677/4077737442_a4820280f2_b.jpg

4.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2603/4076989869_9d52e9ba2c.jpg

Again thanks for the assist.