What's so tough about shooting basketball?

[gparr]

Actually, quite a bit is tough about shooting basketball. If they'd just stand still for a second. . .

I decided recently that it was time to expand my skills beyond flowers/wildlife/macro. So I wrote to the local high school principal and AD and obtained permission to shoot for fun, provided I didn't sell anything. Then ventured out for a first stab at basketball photography by tackling a girls Thanksgiving tournament. Here are some of my better results. The tournament progresses through the week so I'll be doing more. Then I'm going to try boys, which I assume operates at a gear or two faster. All shots with the 20D and an 85mm f/1.8. Shutter speeds usually 1/800 or 1/1000. Aperture at f/2. ISO 1600. Would appreciate any help/comments/critiques. I don't shoot people as a rule, so make no promises about white balance as it pertains to skin color. Help there is also appreciated.
Gary

#1


#2


#3


#4


#5

[dbevis]

Well it's hard to say, 'get tighter', given the 85's limited reach, but #4 and #5 have more going for them because two players are isolated - especially #4. But getting tighter is the number one thing I'd suggest. Otherwise, white balance and shutter speed look good. I'm surprised the background isn't more OOF at f/1.8. Again, a longer lens would help that.

[gparr]

Originally Posted by dbevis

Well it's hard to say, 'get tighter', given the 85's limited reach, but #4 and #5 have more going for them because two players are isolated - especially #4. But getting tighter is the number one thing I'd suggest. Otherwise, white balance and shutter speed look good. I'm surprised the background isn't more OOF at f/1.8. Again, a longer lens would help that.

Thanks for the feedback. Tighter will come with practice, I'm sure. I also was disappointed that I didn't get more background blur at 1.8 or 2.0
Gary

[mzdial]

You will have a miserable time shooting basketball with a 20D, even with fast lenses. I've beaten myself up using a 1D with a 70-200/2.8 and a 20D with a 300/2.8 combo, never doing well with the 20D because it's so much slower to AF. I've gotten to the point with sports that I just MF with the 20D because it's too slow in a basketball situation, with too much for the AF to sway on.

I shot Thursday night's Pacers vs. Bobcats game (my first of the season) with that combo and got annoyed. Also, the 20D with a 300mm on it is too tight for my liking for far court action.







-- Matt

[swartzphotography]

i would be estatic with either one of the results listed here garry i think number 4 is the best shot though. great facial expressions

[gparr]

Originally Posted by mzdial

You will have a miserable time shooting basketball with a 20D, even with fast lenses. I've beaten myself up using a 1D with a 70-200/2.8 and a 20D with a 300/2.8 combo, never doing well with the 20D because it's so much slower to AF. I've gotten to the point with sports that I just MF with the 20D because it's too slow in a basketball situation, with too much for the AF to sway on.

I shot Thursday night's Pacers vs. Bobcats game (my first of the season) with that combo and got annoyed. Also, the 20D with a 300mm on it is too tight for my liking for far court action.

-- Matt

Interesting that you would have that opinion of the 20D. I have found that any focusing problems I've had were my fault. By using the AI Servo setting and paying attention to where my focus point is on the ball carrier, the 85mm lens stayed in focus no matter what I was tracking (At least I think the images I posted are in focus?) Maybe I'll find that it's too slow when I shoot boys basketball, but the reality is that it's the equipment I have and I'll have to learn how to get the most out of it.
Gary

[rjgleason]

Originally Posted by gparr

Interesting that you would have that opinion of the 20D. I have found that any focusing problems I've had were my fault. By using the AI Servo setting and paying attention to where my focus point is on the ball carrier, the 85mm lens stayed in focus no matter what I was tracking (At least I think the images I posted are in focus?) Maybe I'll find that it's too slow when I shoot boys basketball, but the reality is that it's the equipment I have and I'll have to learn how to get the most out of it.
Gary

Gary, we have talked extensively about bball and your shots presented here are very good. But Matt brings up a point that we didn't really discuss. The AF of the 20D will not compare to the 1D and if you go up to Matt's photos and compare, there is a difference.

[gparr]

Matt's shots struck me as having too much contrast, but assumed that was because they were processed for newspaper use. Maybe it is because they are sharper. I think I need to be more aggressive in my post processing and realize that these are not flowers. I also need to practice a lot more. These results are from three hours of serious BB shooting. Buying a 1d body can't be the solution to everything. Give me some time. I'll figure it out.
Gary

Reprocessed


Original

[FredG]

Matt's shots had a somewhat neutral, dark background. That helped isolate the subjects. You had to contend with much more background clutter that was very diverse and colorul. It resulted in competition for attention. Additional background blur would only reduce that a little. Tighter framing would likely help.

[dbevis]

Originally Posted by FredG

Matt's shots had a somewhat neutral, dark background. That helped isolate the subjects. You had to contend with much more background clutter that was very diverse and colorul. It resulted in competition for attention. Additional background blur would only reduce that a little. Tighter framing would likely help.

That's a good point - school gyms are (almost) always lit for full illumination of the space, while pro arenas put most of the light on the court. That magnifies any shortcomings inherent to your particular AF system.

[rjgleason]

Originally Posted by FredG

Matt's shots had a somewhat neutral, dark background. That helped isolate the subjects. You had to contend with much more background clutter that was very diverse and colorul. It resulted in competition for attention. Additional background blur would only reduce that a little. Tighter framing would likely help.

A great and helpful observation Fred....

[swartzphotography]

wow this line of discussion changed what i thought about cameras (i think). I always thought that the lens was the part of the camera responsible for focus and speed of focus and accuracy of focus. but from these posts it sounds as if its the camera itself is.

[mzdial]

Part of the problem that I caused -- and didn't realize when I posted.. Is that these were profiled Adobe RGB, so they were a bit off color-wise when I saved out for the web. My apologies..

You are going to have more contrast in an arena like that with available light -- at least it seems like to me. There is enough latitude to adjust with though in the shots. In the fieldhouse here in Indianapolis, you are shooting 1/500, 2.8, at 800 ISO. Normally I've shot with a custom WB of 3900k in the past when I've shot games there, but I left things on AWB this time around, mostly because I forgot (had two stories I was working on that night -- the other was video.)

I've just found that I've tried to shoot professional level basketball with a 10D, 20D, and 1D bodies and it's just a signifigant difference in AF speed.

Another thing that bothers me in a 20D/1D comparision in a shooting enviroment as such -- is that the focal multiplier bugs me. On close action, I shoot with both eyes open and at 70mm, it's annoying on a 20D and not very noticeable on the 1D the difference in distance from eye to eye.. It's kind of hard to explain. It's always a good idea to have eyes open so you know what's going on.. :-) I had Brevin Knight of the Bobcats, crash between me and another photographer on Friday night. I learned last year in a similar crash.. :-)

Anyways.. I've beat myself up in the past trying to accomodate for the AF on those bodies and hating my results.. I also admit that I don't shoot basketball often enough to consider myself good, but I certainly can nail enough shots in a game for publication.

-- Matt

[cox]

Originally Posted by swartzphotography

...I always thought that the lens was the part of the camera responsible for focus and speed of focus and accuracy of focus. but from these posts it sounds as if its the camera itself is.

Hi Mark, It's actually both the camera and the lens (that confusing enough?). The camera body has sensors and a little computer that look for contrast in the user selected focus point area (the little boxes or dots on your focusing screen), and uses the lens to make the transition from bright to dark as small as possible. That generally puts the image in focus.

Sometimes you can confuse the camera with very dark subjects, or very light subjects, where there is not enough contrast to let the AF do it's job. That said, a slow-focusing lens will make it impossible to shoot action like bball no matter which camera you have. I have found that the Sigma and Tamron lenses are inherently worse than Canon lenses in focus speed, even if the optical clarity is there. My opinion.

Gary, great shots! I agree that the latter ones are best, but they are all pretty cool

[Steve Mitchell]

Nice job Gary, especially for your first try. You will get more background blur by shooting tighter. Even though you you shot at wide apertures, your distance from the subjects and focal length effected the blur.

Originally Posted by gparr

Thanks for the feedback. Tighter will come with practice, I'm sure. I also was disappointed that I didn't get more background blur at 1.8 or 2.0
Gary