Shooting indoor sports and portraits

[scottvd]

This is my first post on DSLRU - so hello to everyone.

I'm fairly new to using a DSLR, just got a D80 and I'm having a blast. Curious about shooting indoor sports and portraits, what lens is best fit for the job. For instance, shooing basketball in a gymnasium - two challenges: poor lighting and the need to stop motion. Indoor portraits also suffer from poor lighting.

I think I'm on the right track, but I'm looking for some thumbs up first - I'm guessing a fast fixed lens, such as a 55mm f/1.2 would be a good start?

If a photo was underexposed a f/1.2, 1/60 ISO800, what would be the next step? Take that photo underexposed and enhance post processing, or increase the ISO higher? Or is there another option I'm not considering? (Assuming 1/60 or better is required).

Thanks in advance,
`S

[Yi-P]

Hi and welcome!!

I think I'm on the right track, but I'm looking for some thumbs up first - I'm guessing a fast fixed lens, such as a 55mm f/1.2 would be a good start?

This is not a real good option for the D80, the f/1.2 lenses are dated back in AI and AIS designs, which means that the D80 cannot meter with them. They are all manual focus too, too hard to use for sports, OK for portraits, but still requires a lot of practice.

Also, they are quite expensive even tho they are over 30yrs old.

Things that are good for indoor sports and portrait is the legendary Nikkor AF 85mm f/1.4D lens. It is superb in every aspect, except the price tag at $1100AU+

A step lower on the AF 85mm f/1.8 or AF 50mm f/1.4, both great things for indoor, low light conditions. They're not as expensive as the 85/1.4, you can buy them both for price of one 85/1.4 I think.

If a photo was underexposed a f/1.2, 1/60 ISO800, what would be the next step? Take that photo underexposed and enhance post processing, or increase the ISO higher? Or is there another option I'm not considering? (Assuming 1/60 or better is required).

Take the ISO even higher

[losfp]

Yeah, you'd want something fast and preferably AF... the 85/1.4 as mentioned is a great option.

IMO the 70-200VR does a passable job at indoor work but you might have to pump up the ISO to get a fast enough shutter speed.

For portraits, the requirements aren't as high because you can use flash, and the subjects wouldn't be moving as fast But again, the 85/1.4, 50/1.4 and the f/2.8 zooms will serve pretty well.

[Marvin]

Hi and welcome to the forum.
I have taken quite a few basketball shots with the D200 and the Nikon 80-200 2.8 and have been happy with the results. I have had to bump up the ISO to about 1600 at times and if I have found them underexposed just played with them in Photoshop Camera Raw. IMHO, for the price, the 50mm 1.8 is great for portraits and reasonably versatile.
Lee

[gstark]

Hi, and welcome.

Curious about shooting indoor sports and portraits, what lens is best fit for the job.

Two jobs, actually. Very different tasks, with very different needs.

Indoor portraits also suffer from poor lighting.

Maybe.

But you can always move your subject close to a window, add reflectors or studio lighting ... basically in portraiture you can always assume control of the light and conditions, and of a largely static subject.

For shooting sporting events you usually have little if any control over the lighting, and even less control of the subjects, who are usually anything but static!

I think I'm on the right track, but I'm looking for some thumbs up first - I'm guessing a fast fixed lens, such as a 55mm f/1.2 would be a good start?

Yes, but for portraiture I'd probably be looking at either (or both of) the 85 f/1.4 (there's simply nothing better than this lens) and/or the 50 f/1.4. I have both of these, and the 85 rarely vacates my D200. The f/1.8 versions of these lenses are also very good, and suitably fast for most occasions, and significantly less expensive as well.

That's portraiture.

For sporting events, you need to assess not simply the lighting conditions - which, as you've observed will be less than optimal in a gym, but also camera to subject distances and the fields of view that those distances will impose upon you.

I like to shoot cars. Fast cars. Very fast cars.

The nature of F1 racing is that it's a very dangerous sport - any form of motor racing is dangerous - and you often need to be some way from the action, thus requiring the use of long glass.

But often, for outdoor sports, lighting is good. That's not usually the case in a gym.

Basketball in a gym will be somewhat more intimate, meaning that your need for reach may not be as great, but some element of flexibility is still desirable. Consider lenses that are fast, but provide a reasonable range of fields of view. 24-70, 28-80, 24-120 (not as fast, but very economical), and where reach is required, 70-200VR.

If a photo was underexposed a f/1.2, 1/60 ISO800, what would be the next step? Take that photo underexposed and enhance post processing, or increase the ISO higher? Or is there another option I'm not considering? (Assuming 1/60 or better is required).

I'm unsure of the intent of this question?

if the photo has already been made, and there's no chance of a reshoot, then your only option is to use PP to bring about an acceptable image. Did you shoot in raw? If so, you can play with the exposure settings to increase the effective speed at which the image was shot, but you'll probably lose some quality.

You can play with curves and other settings too, but probably lose some quality.

The best answer is to get the exposure (get the image) right in the camera. Which brings us back to a reshoot. On the D80, bumping the ISO may help, but your underlying problem might lie elsewhere.

Can you add fill flash to the image? If the subject is close you might be able to use the on board flash, or perhaps add a SB800 to your kit.

[Pehpsi]

Hey, and welcome..

It's always best to get the exposure right in the first place I guess. But having said that, I usually underexpose on purpose when shooting bands in tough conditions. This is because I don't like going past ISO 1000 on my D70 as it can get ugly 1600. If I don't like what I see, then I use NoiseNinja to selectively remove background noise and smooth things out.

Not sure if it's the best way to do things, but that's how I work anyway.

Once I get my grubby little hands on a D300, things should be a little different

[scottvd]

Thank you everyone for your warm welcome and friendly advice - I appreciate the opinions of folks more experienced than I.. (:

A step lower on the AF 85mm f/1.8 or AF 50mm f/1.4, both great things for indoor, low light conditions. They're not as expensive as the 85/1.4, you can buy them both for price of one 85/1.4 I think.

Since this is more experimental than anything else at this point, I think these lenses are more within my budget - I really appreciate the tips about older lenses. I'm comfortable with MF but the metering is something else. I'm sure it's old news to most folks on this forum, but I found a nice site for the Nikkor alphabet soup: http://tinyurl.com/ek3k2

I have taken quite a few basketball shots with the D200 and the Nikon 80-200 2.8 and have been happy with the results. I have had to bump up the ISO to about 1600 at times and if I have found them underexposed just played with them in Photoshop Camera Raw. IMHO, for the price, the 50mm 1.8 is great for portraits and reasonably versatile.

Do you find shooting in RAW allows greater flexibility in PP without introducing as much noise? Or does shooting in RAW reduce noise at the camera level - I though the Fine JPEG compression was very little quality loss - if I'm getting too far off topic just say so! (:

I'm unsure of the intent of this question?

if the photo has already been made, and there's no chance of a reshoot, then your only option is to use PP to bring about an acceptable image.

Sorry, I should have been more descriptive - essentially what I was asking is if your f-stop and shutter are at their thresholds and you're still metering underexposed - what are your options? I see only increasing the ISO speed or PP - is there a third or more options? Which is more desirable? ISO until X speed then PP, or will correct metering at the camera level always (usually) provide better results?

This is because I don't like going past ISO 1000 on my D70 as it can get ugly 1600. If I don't like what I see, then I use NoiseNinja to selectively remove background noise and smooth things out.

Does your D70 have different levels of NR like my D80? If so, which setting do you use at high ISO shots? I saw a post from a Canon D40 (I think) shot at 3200ISO - noise, but much better than my D80 shooting at H1ISO would do. Does the Canon have less noise than Nikon? Is there a measurement that of noise introduction that is quantifiable and brand-independent? Or do all DSLRs produce the same noise at the same ISO equivalents? Also, for noise, have you seen/tried Neat Image?

Thanks again everyone!
`S

[Pehpsi]

The D70 has one level of NR, which is on/off. Some people leave it off at all times for reasons I can't recall. I'm not too sure how much it helps to have it on.

From what i've read, in general Canon has better high ISO performance compared to Nikon (excluding D3/300 it seems).

I used to use Neat Image, but now use NoiseNinja (CS3 plugin), and it's awesome! It's highly customizable, and has a mask option so you can apply it only where you want..

[dawesy]

As far as the indoor sports option is concerned, flash is worth looking at, though I have no experience whatsoever. I don't know what the space you're shooting in is like as far as options for setting up flashes, or if you have the gear for off camera flash, but have a look at this stobist post for some ideas for lighting a gym. (This one may be useful as well.) While he sets up in the stands with clamps, if you have the space plain old light stabds, or gaffer tape to a post or a wall somewhere could do the trick. Even on camera flash to assist the natural light should allow you to at least hold ISO800.

Cheers and good luck.

[Pehpsi]

That Strobist site is awesome, just what i'm looking for to learn about flash/lighting.

Glad you posted it

[gstark]

I usually underexpose on purpose when shooting bands in tough conditions. This is because I don't like going past ISO 1000 on my D70 as it can get ugly 1600.

That's actually not such a good idea. One of the main reasons behind excessive noise in an image is under-exposure, and what you're doing is actually going to exacerbate the problem, rather than help solve it.

The D70 has one level of NR, which is on/off. Some people leave it off at all times for reasons I can't recall.

Probably because it's not very good, and not very practical.

Do you find shooting in RAW allows greater flexibility in PP without introducing as much noise? Or does shooting in RAW reduce noise at the camera level

None of the above.

Your choices are, at the most basic level, raw, or jpg. jpg is what's called a lossy format, which means, as the name implies, that some of the data from your shot is lost. How much is lost depends to some extent upon the type of jpg mode you choose, but the point is that you're (a) losing data, and (b) you're shooting in a format that's already been subject to some level of in-camera PP, to provide you with a (hopefully) printer- or client- ready (for instance) product.

By way of contrast, raw saves (basically) a somewhat more native rendering of what the sensor captured, with any PP selections being saved more as notations of things that should be done when displaying the image, rather than as a fait accomplis.

Consequently, using the right tools, you can go back and change some of the parameters under which the image was shot, should you find them to be ... incorrect. Your image remains unaltered; it's the notations, and their application during rendering, that gets changed.

That's very useful for those of us who, for instance, forget to adjust the in-camera wb before starting a shoot.

The bottom line is that raw mode gives you much greater flexibility in how you can process the image, and with no loss of data, provided that you continue to save in raw.

When you're ready to move the image into a production mode, you can then easily convert to jpg, at that point.


Starting your PP with a JPG image, you're basically starting with a crippled image. If your image is great, then that's not going to be a major issue.

I'm not that good. Are you?

[Marvin]

As I would expect, some of my RAW pictures have noise, particularly when not exposed properly but I run them through Neat Image. This does make them softer but I don't mind the results. Here is a shot I took at ISO 1600, D200 with 80-200 @135mm and f3.2, and then ran through Neat Image. I had to change the white balance too (a great reason to shoot in RAW) as the lighting was so different around the gym. I always take in RAW, just in case!

[scottvd]

Thanks everyone for the informative replies about RAW format, lighting, and lenses - glad I found this forum. I think I'll try the 85mm f/1.8 D AF for starters, and move up to some better "glass" from there.

Yeah, I feel cool for using my new "glass" lingo.. (:

`S