Nikon D300s Backlighting and High Contrast Football Shoot

[ariel_s1]

<p>Ron, if you are shooting in RAW, then even if you have Active Dlighting turned on, it isn't doing anything in-camera that would slow the camera down. Active D-lighting brightens the shadows in jpeg, which takes processing power and cuts down on the fps. In RAW, it will just mark the file, so that Capture NX will know to apply it to the photo upon import, but it doesn't actually affect the RAW image in any way when shooting. If you shoot in JPEG, you will see the framerate go down.</p>

<p>I do agree with you that the OP should use Photomechanic, or some other program. I haven't used that, only heard of it (supposedly, it's pretty much what all the media outlets use, from newspapers to Sports Illustrated), but I use Lightroom, and I don't think that using RAW slows down the workflow in any way.</p>

<p>Kevin, if other people are using a full range of cameras, from full pro cameras to point and shoots, and their pictures all look better than yours, then you have some setting messed up on your D300, or you're using the camera incorrectly. It's as simple as that. If you gave me Lance Armstrong's all-out race bike, I wouldn't be any faster on a course. If you gave me an F1 car, I would be slower around a racetrack than if you gave me a Ford Focus. If you give someone that doesn't understand photography inside and out a D300, their pictures suffer compared to a camera that takes care of the settings for them. Rent a D90 or D7000, and set it to sports mode. See if that fixes your problem. As mentioned already, the D700 and D3 have the best dynamic range of any camera that you've likely ever come across in your life, so if the images you take look messed up because of high-contrast scenes, yet people are getting the shot with point and shoots, sorry buddy, but it's you, not the camera.<br>

I also agree that 1,500 shots sounds like you're a "spray and pray" shooter, especially if you're only keeping 300 of them. Even with fast action, my keeper rate was never 20% when I worked for a newspaper. It sounds like you're rather relying on the camera to do the work for you. My roommate did freelance, and then moved to Michigan to work for a paper. He had a D300, and his scenes looked nothing short of spectacular. I have friends with D3's, and their photos look even better. I really think that you have a camera with too many settings and not enough automation; it's getting in your way.<br>

Thomas, flash isn't usually allowed at sports events.</p>

[scottelly]

<p>Kevin, I suggest shooting all manual and playing with your settings. Take the contrast all the way down. Maybe reduce saturation a little too. You can add contrast later, but you probably won't want to, since bright sun-light causes scenes to be very high-contrast. Don't forget to bump up the contrast on cloudy days.<br>

-<br>

I also suggest staying away from the extremes of the camera (or lens). Taking things to extremes usually makes your images suffer (because of blur or some other issue).<br>

-<br>

I myself to not subscribe to the idea that 1,500 photos in 2 hours is too many. That is only 12 photos per minute. You can do more than that. I would be shooting more than 1,000 photos per hour at an action-filled game. How else could you cover it properly? I would also be shooting RAW with 16 GB 600x Lexar Pro cards.<br>

-<br>

Good luck!</p>

[scottelly]

<p>BTW, I've been accused of spray and pray myself, but I still don't subscribe to that sort of attitude. Those same photographers often miss shots that I get. There have been shoots I've done with models, where I shot 2,000 photos in 2 hours. Shooting sports I would be shooting much faster. A half-dozen 16 GB CF cards should hold enough photos. You will be able to shoot RAW if you use fast cards. Yes, they are expensive, but you can buy two at a time and they cost less:<br>

-<br>

http://www.adorama.com/ILXPCF60016G.html<br>

http://www.adorama.com/ILXCF40016G2.html<br>

-<br>

Processing more photos takes your computer more time, but it won't take YOU much more time. Copying the cards onto an external hard drive doesn't take much longer (especially not with fast cards). You import all the photos at once, so you can go have dinner, while that is happening. What difference does it really make whether it takes 15 minutes or 45 minutes? You're doing something else anyway. Looking through an extra 1,000 photos takes about a half-hour of time. Big deal, so it takes you 1 more hour total of your own time to do what you need to do. Yes, your hard drives will fill up faster, but with 3 TB drives costing about $150 now, you don't need to worry about that. Yes, your computer will work an extra two or three hours each time you process images from a game. Isn't selling two more prints for a profit of $20 each worth that? An extra hour or two of your own time for $40 isn't bad either. I think people who don't want to shoot a lot are just lazy.<br>

-<br>

Remember . . . 12 photos per minute is only two series of six frames each. It would be easy to shoot three or four series like that in one minute, when the action is happening. I've seen high-end pro photographers do that, and I've seen photographers shoot one or two shots here and there. I'd continue to take the fast shooting approach, if I were you.<br>

-<br>

People, Canon didn't just make the new 1Dx for amateurs. They make that thing for high-end pro shooters . . . and it shoots 12 frames per second (up to 14). They did that for good reason.</p>

[kpataky]

<p>Ariel you are very arrogant, and obviously don't know anything about shooting a football game. Spray and pray - that's funny. I have seen those people and I am not one of them. I follow the ball when its moving, and when its not I take candid or formation shots. I pay attention, and know the game so I move to where I need to be based on the down and distance and I get the action shots that tell the story of the game. I am very good at what I do. I have two D3S cameras, a D300, a D300s. I use the D300s during the day to keep the clicks off my D3S cameras that I use for sports primarily at dusk, indoors, when its heavily cloudy or at night with field lighting. I know how to use these cameras so your comments like <em>"you have a camera with too many settings and not enough automation; it's getting in your way" </em>and <em>"sounds like you're rather relying on the camera to do the work for you"</em> make you sound like an idiot. How about not commenting further in this thread until you have something useful to contribute? The ASS-umptions you make as the "know it all" about my skills or ability or knowledge are laughable.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I also agree that 1,500 shots sounds like you're a "spray and pray" shooter, especially if you're only keeping 300 of them. Even with fast action, my keeper rate was never 20% </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then you are much better than the Sports Illustrated photographers. They average about 1/2% keepers. Maybe you need to go work for them.</p>

[kpataky]

<p>Jeff maybe someday. Never say never. There are many different types of Sports Photography. There is editorial, there is for art and then there is for resale. I agree, when shooting editorially for newspapers or periodicals, I'll shoot a whole game and come up with 8-10 keepers. When shooting for resale, however, I try to have my galleries tell the story of the game from my perspective. I try to include as many players, coaches, referees, fans, cheerleaders, etc. as there were all there too.</p>

[CvhKaar]

<blockquote>

<p>Also, when shooting action sports with these cameras and the subject is back lit, I can't seem to get as sharp of an image.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just one question to this, do you have any filters on your lens(es) ? This is an often ovelooked hinderance in backlit situations...</p>

[pauldmurphy]

<p>Kevin, I breezed over many of the posts when I saw they were slipping off topic so this may have been covered. <br>

I've messed a bit with the picture control setting in all my cameras that support it, that includes D90, D7000 & D700. <br>

I find that I can manage some of what you're encountering ie; the contrast and such. I haven't messed with brightness to recover shadows so I can't offer anything there. I think it's well worth the time to mess with it a bit and see if you can make the picture control work for you. Start form an existing picture control and with D Lighting off in the camera, you can adjust contrast, brightness as well as sharpness. <br>

I have the maximum number of picture controls installed in my camera that the system allows. On the memory card installed in the camera, I have a folder with others I can add when I want that kind of affect. It's simply deleting one and adding another. <br>

Here's a PN post that talks about picture controls and how to get them on the camera. It deals primarily with obtaining particular film affects but really helps with the basics of setting up and managing PC's.<br>

<a href="00SyOI?start=0">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00SyOI?start=0</a><br>

As someone mentioned earlier, messing with the curves adjustment can bring out some of what you want. If you copy the PC's mentioned in the thred and move them to your computer, you can open the PC's in View NX picture control utility and see what the curve looks like.<br>

Also, if you shoot a few of your sports images in raw, then open them in View NX, you'll be able to open them in the PC utility, make your own curves adjustments and save those adjustments as your own PC which you'll be able to load up to your camera (s).<br>

If this is all a blurrrr or I missed something, shoot me an email via PN and I'll share anything I know.</p>

<p>P</p>

[kpataky]

No filters.

[sem_svizec]

<p>You should realize JPG is OK in good light but does not work well for harsh light. The dynamic range of JPG is limited to about the viewing range of displays, around 8 stops. All the DR of the cameras reported by DxOMark is not available to you if you shoot JPG. The shadows are recorded poorly in JPG so if you lift them in post the result is not good. There is a lot more dynamic range captured by the sensor in these cameras that is stored in NEF. So lifting shadows from NEF works much better. I guess the batch raw conversion approach suggested above should be useful for you. If you don't like ADL and don't like shooting NEF... just give this up for now, your only option is to wait for new faster cameras that will handle harsh light better.<br>

You must also realize that if the scene has say 10 stops of DR but the display has 8 stops (or print even less) there is no way the result can look "natural" eventhough the whole DR is captured in the NEF. You'd need a 10 stop display for this. Until they show up, you can either use the default processing that either sinks the shadows or blows the highlights, or use the "HDR" approach which compresses the DR by lifting the shadows and squeezing the rest.<br>

ADL is one form of mild HDR processing. You can try the fill-light of ADR/LR3, or "Lightning" in DxO OP (there is more to this than just the "curve"). You can also try raw conversion of Picasa - it is not generally good with raw but its raw converter automatically normalizes the exposure and lifts shadows a bit in case of harsh light, then you can quickly apply more fill-light to what it produces. I will not suggest proper HDR programs because they are obviously not what you'd like to use. Processing harsh light in fact always pretty heavy-handed processing so expect to spend some time before you find the look you like the most. ADL has only one slider; proper HDR programs give you much more control and a choice of different algorithms. </p>

[anejo]

<p>I personally feel there was a lot of good direction in this post. I shoot football in the North East with fewer really tough days as say in the south. I almost always shoot -.3-.7 stop or more in general with a d300s. I know I'll take some heat for the next comment... I used the D7000 for a few weeks and found it nearly useless in the type of environement you are shooting. Many shots were blown out even with what would appear to be proper settings. I don't use matrix, and prefer spot for football. Post editing is much faster/easier for me with a slight underexposure with these sensors. I generally shoot 500 shots in a game and retain about 125. D lighting does not seem to work well for me. Post / pregame gets some fill light by preferance on slower/closer stuff. I've used a d90, d700, d7000 and both d300 & 300s. I'd never use the d7000 again and would prefer the 300s and 700 to a d90 any day. It can't hold a candle to either of these. Hope some of this might help. Good luck.</p>