When shooting fast action sports photos....

Is it a golden rule for all pro sports photographers to do things the extra hard way by photographing in manual focus

and in manual mode or as I like to call it "manual on manual"? Also are photographers who use other camera

settings such as program, AV, TV, A-dep not considered worthy to be called a pro from the brotherhood of pro

photographers? (by the way, this does NOT include full automated settings like the sports or portrait setting like on

Canon digital rebels, sine those settings are completely inaccurate as far as natural color and no pro would use

them) Also, is it considered a sin by most or all pro sports photographers to use auto focus? Basically what I'm

getting at is, are sports or fast action photos just like homemade ice cream where "they both taste better when they

are hand cranked"? Or is considered professional to use all the capabilities of a digital SLR camera when deemed

necessary or when a certain situation calls for them, or when the photographer can achieve things much faster and

even better if he or she uses these capabilities such as auto focus or the AV, P, or TV settings? Anyway, thank you

all for your time and answers ahead of time, I'll get back to reading "How to live like the Amish 101". Take care.

 

 

Ronald Dean

I don't know many sports photographers that use manual focus.

The less the camera has to do the faster it responds to a shutter press, capturing that peak of the action moment - something that depends acutely on good timing, not high frame rates (at least until you are dealing with the 1,000+ fps video that is used in sports like cricket - just about sufficient to pin the position of a ball down to 1 inch - where a 10fps camera would give you over 8ft ball movement between shots). That is one good reason for using manual settings. Another is that autoexposure is easily fooled when you have players with white strips on one team and dark strips on the other team. In constant lighting it makes more sense to set the correct exposure for the lighting and be done with it, so avoiding the need to continually adjust exposure compensation to take account of the changing scene. Equally, there are plenty of situations where pre-focussing on a spot where you know there is going to be action is better than hoping that the AF system manages to track the player accurately and isn't distracted by other players crossing in front, etc. Of course, there are also occasions when automation of exposure, focus and/or fast frame rate helps to get the shot. A good sports photographer understands the sports he is shooting and how to get the best out of his equipment regardless of whether a particular situation is better handled with automatic or manual settings. One who doesn't know when to use manual settings will miss many key shots. If cameras were truly intelligent enough to understand the intent of the photographer, they would also make use of preset "manual" settings automatically in many situations. Maybe you would do better to read about sports photography technique.

Sorry this got long, but I was trying to make sure I got to everything. I was sure someone would try to nail me on

something. This can usually be a touchy subject and attracts "trolls". I didnt want to get into an argument over

something that is neither wrong or right. Just a preference. The question was just for 'Sports" though.

 

There is not a hand full of people using Manual Focus these days in common sports like baseball or football. I

believe the ones who do, do it because they like the challenge. Just to see how good they are. Or how hard it is. Or

a specific reason.

 

But in reality, no. Autofocus is it. Why did I pay 4700 for my 1D Mark III? Because that S.O.B has a blazing fast AF.

Faster than any human trying to track a full sprinted baseball player with manual focus. They may get lucky every

now and again. I've looked at alot of the old sports photos from back in the days of "only" manual focus. I've never

seen any as sharp as what you see today from Pro AF cameras.

 

As for Exposure. Mark's right. If you are in constant light where it doesnt change. Set the correct exposure and be

done with it. Your exposures will be much more consitant throught the event. Maybe night sports where the field is

consistantly lit, meter the grass, set the exposure in manual and role.

 

But in anything else, why monkey around with it. If you are outside in the daytime shooting a football game or

baseball game and the sun is continually ducking behind clouds, then you're gonna have alot of work monkying with

the shutter wheel or aperture wheel and watching the exposure in the viewfinder instead of where you need to be

watching. Like composing the shot. Waiting for peak action.

 

I do alot of sports. I am a professional. That doesnt mean I am a perfect, legend, master photographer. I still have

alot to learn. It means, I sell my photos for profit.

 

That said, 9 times out of 10, I shoot Av. I set my aperture according to the DOF, background blur, usable light(fast

enough shutter) that I need. I use the universal ISO of 400. Is perfectly clean and usually provides the light needed to

maintain SS. Call me an Amature if you like, but I want to be the photographer, not the computer in the camera. Too

much to deal with in Sports. I want my camera to get out of my way. The photographer should recognize when the

lighting requires some Ex. Comp based on experience. Or when the meter will be fooled by conditions. Its your role

as the photographer to see it.

 

Manual exposure/focus has its benifits and its place and can be alot of fun/challenge to use in some conditions.

Doesnt make good sense in continuously changing light in sports action.

But to say someone is an amature because they use a program mode is crazy.

 

A 1D series Canon wouldnt have them if it wasnt needed or used. It is as "Pro" as a camera can get. These are

there because real pro's ask for them and use them.

 

On the other hand, using the "Auto" modes like Portrait, Sports, Night can be a sign that you dont understand

camera functions and how they work in relation to one another. Hint, "Pro" cameras dont have these.

Thank you all for your responses. I do feel much better that I don't have to do everyting manually to be called a pro photographer. But don't get me wrong,every now and then I'm up to the challenge to photograph all in manual. Later, when I get around to it, I may ask a couple of questions just to do with manual shooting. Manual shooting isn't bad by no means, but I just feel like it would be close to impossible to accomplish with good results under some situations that sports photographers find themselves under (such as when they are photographing very fast action, when teams are celebrating very excitedly, or when there's people running around in all directions) But again, I thank you all for your time and well thought out responses.

Ronald,

 

In my case, my answer would be...it depends. Mostly, I try and use manual exposure, but as David says, if the

lighting conditions are constantly changing, it's better to set it on auto. I do generally use auto-focus since my eyes

aren't as good as they used to be. Also, the focusing screens in the new cameras are not very good for manual

focus, no split image. However, occassionally, I do use manual focus. A couple of weeks ago, I was shooting a

horse competition, and since I mostly use spot auto-focus, I couldn't keep the riders in focus as they were all over

the frame. So, I switched to manual focus. Due to my eyesight, I still missed some photos, but it was better then

trying to keep the rider centered in the frame for every shot.

 

BTW, I once edited some film from a photographer at the Los Angeles Times who had gone to a Raiders game with a

stool, an F3 Nikon and a 600 f4 lens. He just sat at one end of the field and shot the whole game from there,

including

the close goal. In other words, from about 10 yards to 120 yards. I don't think there were more than 6 or 8 out-of-

focus frames in all 8 rolls he brought back. I couldn't believe it!

 

Jerry

Ronald the answer you seek differs with every photographer and the systems in place. There is no set answer for this. What I can

say I let needs of the shoot dictate the needs settings. I do not have a master set of rules that dictate my style. To give you an idea

if I shoot in the Save Mart arena PBR, or Basketball I will set my exposure manually. Why because the main light sources do not

change intensity while shooting. If I am shooting an Oakland Raiders Game or Grizzlies Baseball game, I might shoot with aperture

priority or with a vari-program. Because the the light source is not consistent. Oakland is famous for a shadow that cuts across the

field around 4pm. It is nicknamed the shadow of death. Baseball at night the infield can be a full f/stop different.

 

I have shot the Canon Mark II for a paper was different than the way I would shoot with my Nikon D2X or D3. Simply because the

camera layouts and capabilities are very different. Last year when shooting a local High School football at night with the Mark II or

D2X I had to use flash with the Nikon D3 I don't.

 

To give another simple difference I shoot RAW when shooting sports. Most of the newspaper photographers around me shoot JPEG.

Why? Some of it is because they want more images on a card or buffering issues or their laptops are to slow to process RAW. But

for me I shoot RAW, I have fast computers so for me it is faster to process RAW over JPEG. I have not ran into many buffer issues.

 

There has never been an editor who has question my camera modes. The only thing they care about is how the image looks.<div></div>

Here is a shot from Saturday 7/12/08, American Le Mans Series race at Lime Rock Park CT. Canon 40D, Canon 70-200 F4L, shutter priority 1/640 sec, F5.6, ISO 400, AF on servo mode.<div></div>

I think there's enough to do without making polo harder than it is, I use AF.

 

<a href=" title="Flying by Peter Meade, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3282/2671936632_53b386f204_o.jpg" width="533" height="800" alt="Flying" /></a>

I use AF with cricket too

 

<a href=" title="Daniel Vettori by Peter Meade, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3125/2619944105_b753f97d49_o.jpg" width="800" height="533" alt="Daniel Vettori" /></a>

 

<a href=" title="Billy Godleman by Peter Meade, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3035/2596369814_3ba335271a_o.jpg" width="533" height="800" alt="Billy Godleman" /></a>

I've been shooting auto races for years, and the day I could afford my first auto-focus camera and lens was one of the happiest in my life. I can and still occasionally do shoot to a pre-focused spot on manual setting, but autofocus is generally so much better than my aging eyesight it's worth it. With most sports, you're never 100% sure exactly where something is going to happen, so let Otto worry about it. Most of my work is done at night with a large Lumedyne flash, so the exposure is generally a constant. During daylight, bless digital, I shoot a few test exposures to see what's working for an F-stop, and frequently still use a little fill flash for "pop."<div></div>

I think being considered a pro photographer is more simple that they functions you use on your camera. I sit on the sidelines with

pros all the time. I dont think I ever checked out what they were doing, unless it was coveting a new piece of equipment or seeing

something new and funky.

 

I know that I consider someone a pro when I see them more than one season in a row; when I see them in print; and whether or

not they are making a living at what they do. I have seen a lot of newbies with great equipment that take lousy pictures. Some of

the best shooters use equipment that is practically ancient (at least in the film days.)

 

I would stop worrying (my word, not yours) about what everyone else is doing. Do you get paid for your pictures? (And you

should) Do you get hired a second, third, or fourth time? If yes, congrats--you are a pro. If not, you are not.

Greetings Richard,

The reason the "best shooters use equipment that is practically ancient" is that they know what their equipment can or cannot do. eg I make a living shooting soccer / football in South Africa at the age of 62 years. I know that my camera is a stuff up. When I sit on the opposite side of the field and shoot goalmouth action I have to autofocus and then change to manual to get the players sharp, because I know that if I don't do this my camera will go to the background and the pictures will be unsharp. Pro's will know which camera I am using, so don't bother to ask. So my message to all photographers is learn your camera's abilities.