Urgent help - What ISO?

P

percyp

Suspended / Banned
Messages
233
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi
I've just been asked to shoot some pictures of a (field) hockey match tonight (8pm). Obviously it will be floodlit, but I need a high shutter-speed to catch the action - realistically, what ISO can I expect to use without too much noise? I've never gone above ISO 800 before ( a hangup from 35mm days?).
I know there's no definitive answer - but any tips would be welcome. I've shot plenty of hockey matches before - but they've all been during the day.

ETA - using a 70-300mm lens (won't be using the 300mm end if I can help it!)
Cheers
 
Last edited:
I would try and stick with 800 too, 1600 at a push.
 
What focal length / aperture do you have available ?

I'd be more inclined to think about what shutter speeds you need to get the shots you require - that will determine what ISO you need.

I guess a lot depends on whether they have to be fast action shots and how much noise you're prepared to put up with.
 
A bit late now, but lot depends on the quality of the lights, assuming it is the water based at Moulton (I play for Khalsa, so know Saints pretty well) then, I would class the lights as pretty good and you may get away with 800. To be honest, the lights at any pitch should ensure you get some good shots, plenty of shadows to play with.
 
this is going to depend on the quality of the lighting.

The lens is going to be at F5.6 at the long end and will probably be needed, best will still be F4.5 (?) at short end. Assuming you're needing no less than 1/400 I can easily see you hitting ISO 3200 or higher.
 
Milkfloat said:
A bit late now, but lot depends on the quality of the lights, assuming it is the water based at Moulton (I play for Khalsa, so know Saints pretty well) then, I would class the lights as pretty good and you may get away with 800. To be honest, the lights at any pitch should ensure you get some good shots, plenty of shadows to play with.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately at the water based pitch - the lighting is pretty good there. The match was at the sand-based pitch. And it rained... And my photos are poor! I opted for 1600 shooting mostly at 5.6 and around 70-100mm.
I'm trying to get some usable images using CS Camera Raw and I may dabble with Photoshop but I haven't really used it properly as I prefer Lightroom for most stuff. I'll be asking for help soon...:D

Are you playing on Saturday for Khalsa against our Men's 1's?
 
If the camera isn't great at higher ISO I would shoot under exposed, used to do it with my old D200 - it was terrible beyond 400. Keep your shutter speeds up [at least to the point where you are freezing action, as low in that regard as you can get away with] even though they will appear dark on the LCD, brighten them later in LR. This can sometimes be a better option, you won't get as much noise and RAW files are easier up the exposure with than kill bad noise.
 
Cagey75 said:
If the camera isn't great at higher ISO I would shoot under exposed, used to do it with my old D200 - it was terrible beyond 400. Keep your shutter speeds up [at least to the point where you are freezing action, as low in that regard as you can get away with] even though they will appear dark on the LCD, brighten them later in LR. This can sometimes be a better option, you won't get as much noise and RAW files are easier up the exposure with than kill bad noise.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I have to say I think this really bad advice. There's no reason why you should underexpose simply so you can fudge it in the edit. You may indeed have less noise out the camera, but you'll only have to manage with more noise when you're trying to pull detail back from those underexposed shadows. You're only making your images worse in the long run.

Get the exposure correct in the camera and not only will you have more detail, you'll have less work too.

Yes, older cameras may have struggled with higher ISO's but its really no reason to be getting your exposures wrong.

I can't stress this enough!
 
dafphotographer said:
Sorry but I have to say I think this really bad advice. There's no reason why you should underexpose simply so you can fudge it in the edit. You may indeed have less noise out the camera, but you'll only have to manage with more noise when you're trying to pull detail back from those underexposed shadows. You're only making your images worse in the long run.

Get the exposure correct in the camera and not only will you have more detail, you'll have less work too.

Yes, older cameras may have struggled with higher ISO's but its really no reason to be getting your exposures wrong.

I can't stress this enough!
Click to expand...
:agree: bad advice to underexpose, if anything exposing to the right a little will help reduce noise but theres nothing like a correct exposure.
 
I was always told if you underexpose you will end up with a lot of noise.:shrug:
 
dafphotographer said:
Sorry but I have to say I think this really bad advice. There's no reason why you should underexpose simply so you can fudge it in the edit. /SNIP/...
Click to expand...

There is a thread somewhere on TP about underexposing and then PPing to get the equivalent of a much higher ISO at the 'correct' exposure. Some interesting findings, although I feel the route of underexposing and then adjusting afterwards demands an intimate knowledge of just how underexposure you can give to the sensor, how good you are at reading a histogram and how good the NR function of your software is.
 
specialman said:
There is a thread somewhere on TP about underexposing and then PPing to get the equivalent of a much higher ISO at the 'correct' exposure. Some interesting findings, although I feel the route of underexposing and then adjusting afterwards demands an intimate knowledge of just how underexposure you can give to the sensor, how good you are at reading a histogram and how good the NR function of your software is.
Click to expand...

Well certainly it can be done and many people do it, but personally I wouldn't recommend it and certainly not for the case given by the OP. When working at night under artificial light you're going to be handling very deep and contrasty shadows, and by underexposing you are increasing said shadows. It is these progressively darker tones that have correspondingly higher image noise. So you're creating noise just to remove noise for the sake of an extra half stop or stop of ISO - this doesn't make sense. Even very good NR software will lose you detail with this method.

And of course, since we all want to be better more skilful photographers, surely we ought to be looking to achieve most of what we can in camera?!
 
dafphotographer said:
Well certainly it can be done and many people do it, but personally I wouldn't recommend it and certainly not for the case given by the OP. When working at night under artificial light you're going to be handling very deep and contrasty shadows, and by underexposing you are increasing said shadows. It is these progressively darker tones that have correspondingly higher image noise. So you're creating noise just to remove noise for the sake of an extra half stop or stop of ISO - this doesn't make sense. Even very good NR software will lose you detail with this method.

And of course, since we all want to be better more skilful photographers, surely we ought to be looking to achieve most of what we can in camera?!
Click to expand...
Correct, only time ive ever purposely under exposed is when my camera maxed out at ISO 1600 and my shutter speed was woeful, i think about 1/125th sec, that situation told me 2 things, underexposing and trying to pull back in PP is no good and that it was time for a new camera which could handle the situations i was shooting under.
 
Here is an example of one of the photos from Tuesday night. Can anyone give me some pointers as to how to clean it up?
I have Lightroom and CS6 available, although as I mentioned earlier - I'm new to a lot of this software.
Most of the pics are jpegs although I did get a few in RAW before I started running low on memory.
Thanks in advance.
_DSC4211.JPG
 
I would increase the highlights and try and rescue what you can in the shadows. Trouble is the image is really under exposed. In this situation I would use a gridded flash gun, the players will really pop and the flash will freeze the action keeping the ambient in the background. Of course you cannot do that from across the field so you would have to pick your moment. Good luck
 
dafphotographer said:
Well certainly it can be done and many people do it, but personally I wouldn't recommend it and certainly not for the case given by the OP. When working at night under artificial light you're going to be handling very deep and contrasty shadows, and by underexposing you are increasing said shadows. It is these progressively darker tones that have correspondingly higher image noise. So you're creating noise just to remove noise for the sake of an extra half stop or stop of ISO - this doesn't make sense. Even very good NR software will lose you detail with this method.

And of course, since we all want to be better more skilful photographers, surely we ought to be looking to achieve most of what we can in camera?!
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Of course, there are time when you're maybe a bit (i.e half a stop or so) and you can tweak it back to 'normal' but it's a risky game trying recover a shot that's several stops underexposed, especially if the shot has some value...
 
DB Photography said:
I would increase the highlights and try and rescue what you can in the shadows. Trouble is the image is really under exposed. In this situation I would use a gridded flash gun, the players will really pop and the flash will freeze the action keeping the ambient in the background. Of course you cannot do that from across the field so you would have to pick your moment. Good luck
Click to expand...

Seriously bad advice. Don't use flash for field sports.
 
ic4dit.jpg

Levels + Brightness + Remove Colour Cast + Bit of extra Saturation plus a crop and straighten. Not prefect (seen worse used in the media), but off a 800px original :)
 
Last edited:
applebob said:
ic4dit.jpg

Levels + Brightness + Remove Colour Cast + Bit of Contrast plus a crop and straighten. Not prefect (seen worse used in the media), but off a 800px original :)
Click to expand...

Arent they playing on artificial turf, if so you just turned it into a beach
 
DB Photography said:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CvOGqIOfhrE/UEznXA53VgI/AAAAAAAAEEk/toJrAAHNxv8/s1600/05%2BDCH_6355.jpg

Each to their own, this was an example from David Hobby aka the strobist. Flash after sunset produced this great image. Flash is not ideal....but its an option that doesnt need to be ruled out indefinetely. If you are allowed to use it of course.
Click to expand...

Please don't make me get angry.

I don't care what the yanks do or don't do.

If you try that sort of crud in this country, you're likely to have a hockey stick inserted in your 'exit only' passage.
 
A few of my edited photos. I'll have a longer play at the weekend.
Yes - it's artificial, but very sandy (a new pitch is in the pipeline)
I also agree about the use of a flash - I'd have looked like 'Jake the Peg' if I'd used a flash:eek:

Thanks for all the help and advice:thumbs:
1
_DSC4211.JPG

2
_DSC4156.JPG

3
_DSC4130.JPG
 
Posting other people's photographs is also something that isn't done on this forum.

If you hand out poor advice, expect to be pulled up for it.
 
DemiLion said:
Posting other people's photographs is also something that isn't done on this forum.

If you hand out poor advice, expect to be pulled up for it.
Click to expand...
Thats one of the reasons theres a few of us who dont bother like we used to do, too many offering garbage advice, talking out of their jacksies yet refuse to be told their wrong. :bang:

Dont mean you Daniel, you may just have not understood flash is frowned upon for field sports.
 
Last edited:
Gary Coyle said:
Thats one of the reasons theres a few of us who dont bother like we used to do, too many offering garbage advice, talking out of their jacksies yet refuse to be told their wrong. :bang:

Dont mean you Daniel, you may just have not understood flash is frowned upon for field sports.
Click to expand...

:plusone:
To both statements. Far too much crap advise from those who then admit they dont know about the subject. I dont shoot landscapes so I dont advise, I also dont shoot still life or macro so again I dont advise.
 
When I started I started by watching the pro's at football and under lights, no flashguns in sight. Once I got started I was the same, never used one and some games I would suffer but its a no no. you see others with there DSLR and flash firing at games, especially ones with poorer floodlights.

Its off putting for players and looks silly IMHO. NEVER use a flash for sports when in action, new managers, stuff before and after game yeah but soon as the whilst goes reagrdless of sport, do without it there really is no need.
 
whitey said:
....NEVER use a flash for sports when in action, new managers, stuff before and after game yeah but soon as the whilst goes reagrdless of sport, do without it there really is no need.
Click to expand...

Bit of a generalising, sweeping statement, no?

I can understand when you're in close proximity to the participants and the flash could actually affect the result (i.e. putting the participants off, tennis for example) but there are always circumstances where the use of flash can be creative, safe and often essential - snowboarding, rally driving for example.

As for looking silly, that's just a ridiculous statement.
 
Last edited:
Gary Coyle said:
Thats one of the reasons theres a few of us who dont bother like we used to do, too many offering garbage advice, talking out of their jacksies yet refuse to be told their wrong. :bang:

Dont mean you Daniel, you may just have not understood flash is frowned upon for field sports.
Click to expand...

That's a real shame.

I've learnt so much from the pro's like yourself and I have so much more to learn. Without the like's of yourself posting Gary, learning becomes harder.
 
specialman said:
Bit of a generalising, sweeping statement, no?

I can understand when you're in close proximity to the participants and the flash could actually affect the result (i.e. putting the participants off, tennis for example) but there are always circumstances where the use of flash can be creative, safe and often essential - snowboarding, rally driving for example.

As for looking silly, that's just a ridiculous statement.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I missed out "under floodlights"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top