how to shoot on a bright sunny day?

[gocarolina95]

i have the nikon d90 and i'm learning to take better pictures. Today i went to a spring training baseball game and it was a bright sunny day. After reviewing the pictures, some of them are dark. i shoot alot of pictures in high speed shutter to get some nice action. was my shutter speed to fast? any suggestions?

i was at the redsox/orioles game at fort lauderdale, fl.

thank you for your help.

[jorgemonkey]

Do you have any images you could post that were too dark? Also, which mode were you shooting in?

[gocarolina95]

tried loading a picture, but the pictures are to big. i will try and make the file size smaller.

[gocarolina95]

here's a resized picture, and holy cow it got cropped some where

[Anbesol]

Judging byt he exif information - it was shot shutter priority at 1/3200th of a second, 105mm, at f5.6 - it is most likely that the max aperture of the lens *was* 5.6, but the 1/3200th shutter priority required a faster f-stop; thus, the metering defaulted to the lowest possible aperture, but would have been accurately exposed at an 4 or 3.5 f-stop.. No need to shoot shutter priority at 1/3200th, thats awfully fast for a slow lens (max ap being 5.6), 1/640, 1/800 and 1/1600 can freeze plenty of action.

But, better yet, rather than using shutter priority, I'd reccomend going Aperture priority and shooting for an f8+ f-stop, possibly lower if light isn't as abundant.

Also judging by the picture - their may not be any crushed shadow in the exposure, meaning, a tonal levels or curves adjustment in photoshop could fix this particular shot.

[gryphonslair99]

I would agree with Anbesol about shooting in Aperture Priority Mode. I would however disagree on shooting a small aperture as mentioned. The difference between a nice action shot and an attention grabbing shot often is in the background or rather lack of clear background. You want to concentrate on the action and have it in focus while the background and foreground are out of focus, (nice bokeh) to make the action pop.

To do this, set your lens wide open and your ISO to 100 and you mode to AV and you focus mode in continues focus. If the D90 will let you set you auto focus to another button than the shutter release then do so. Canon allows for autofocus to be set to a button on the back of the body right under your thumb.

Check your shutter speed. It needs to be at least 1/320. 1/500 would be ideal. Sports like baseball, football don't need shutter speeds faster than 1/500 to freeze the action. If you are at 1/320 shoot away. If it is below 1/320 then crank you ISO up to 200 and check again. Keep cranking the ISO up to get the minimum shutter speed you need.

Once you feel comfortable doing this then it is time to consider switching to full manual. In full manual you will constantly be checking the meter to make sure your setting are right but it is worth it. This takes more concentration but the total control is nice in difficult shooting situations.

[Anbesol]

Various apertures will have various applications, often times, f8 is ideal - even in outdoor sports (plenty of bright sun light to achieve a 1/500th shutter even at f8). The aperture you want to use will depend on the angle and range of the shot - distance of subject, distance between subject and background, etc etc. F8 has plenty of uses, one such use is to squeeze light through the lens sweet spot, eliminating many lens problems that present themselves shooting wide open. Sometimes an f2.8-f5.6 aperture is ideal, sometimes f8, for more close-up telephoto photography in bright light sports, f8 quite often is more appropriate. The popping action of the softer bokeh won't make a difference if its only the baseball players shins that are in focus as he slides home.

[gryphonslair99]

[QUOTE=Anbesol]Various apertures will have various applications, often times, f8 is ideal - even in outdoor sports (plenty of bright sun light to achieve a 1/500th shutter even at f8). The aperture you want to use will depend on the angle and range of the shot - distance of subject, distance between subject and background, etc etc. F8 has plenty of uses, one such use is to squeeze light through the lens sweet spot, eliminating many lens problems that present themselves shooting wide open. Sometimes an f2.8-f5.6 aperture is ideal, sometimes f8, for more close-up telephoto photography in bright light sports, f8 quite often is more appropriate. The popping action of the softer bokeh won't make a difference if its only the baseball players shins that are in focus as he slides home.[/QUOTE]

If you are close enough to the action that only the shins are in focus, you are too close to get the shot. I rarely can get much closer than 100 feet from the action at a baseball diamond.

With my 70-200mm lens 200mm at f2.8 my DOF is just a touch over 8 feet. At f8 it's 23 feet. If you can't get an entire baseball player in an 8 foot DOF then you have a problem. Having everyone and everything in focus for 23 feet will not make much for much of an action shot.

With my 300mm f2.8 I still have over 3.5 feet of DOF at 100 feet. If I'm using my 400 f2.8 I am further back that 100 feet or shooting closeups of players/coaches.

Whether I am shooting BBall at Allen Field House or on the side lines at an OU or OSU football I am generally shooting wide. Same thing at Eck Stadium with baseball. The action is critical in a sports shot and the photo must draw your eye to the action to have it better than the average run of the mill snapshot.

[Anbesol]

With my 70-200mm lens 200mm at f2.8 my DOF is just a touch over 8 feet. At f8 it's 23 feet. If you can't get an entire baseball player in an 8 foot DOF then you have a problem. Having everyone and everything in focus for 23 feet will not make much for much of an action shot.

Firstly, here is an immediate distinction - you are shooting with a zoom lens that maxes at f2.8, the person I made the suggestion to had his max out at 5.6 at 105mm. Secondly, depth of field is variable, its not an equation as if f2.8=8 feet dof. It depends on how close the focus subject is. At f2.8 100mm on my macro, when shooting at 1:1 mag depth of field is about one millimeter, at the infinite focus disdance (~33ft+), dof is, yup, as infinite as the sensor allows at this point. It also varies *quite* a bit if its 70, or if its 200. Your dof will change between your zoom range, I assure you.

If you want dramatic bokeh, keep the sports subject within a much closer working distance, so the dof effect is more dramatic and pronounced. At much closer working distances, f4-8 is more important. Now, if youre just some in-the-bleachers shooter, and you are more than 60 feet from the action already, then yeah - it really makes no difference, go ahead and shoot wide open.

Now, I dont entirely disagree with you though - I merely mentioned f8 because its one stop down on his particular *kit* lens. If he had a pro lens at f2.8, f2.8-f4 shooting is a big deal of difference, even then, on pro lens that max at f2.8, there is still an important function with f4-5.6 shooting, stopping down the lens always improves the optics performance.

I'd also suggest that ISO 100 sports shooting is for the 90's, in this digital age where speed is crucial, take 200/400 a lot more, the insignificantly increased noise (especially on the D90) is definitely a good sacrifice for the extra stop advantage.

[Anbesol]

Here, 160mm, f4, ISO 320 1/2000th.

160mm f4? By your calculations, I should have about 12-16 feet of depth of field, looks more like a few inches, doesn't it?

Also, notice the more dramatic bokeh? Thats granted thanks to close focus distance. Focus distance on this, of course, being a few feet., magnification at ~1:6

[Dougjgreen]

At a long distance, you might have 12 feet of DOF. At a close distance (such as the bee on the branch) it would be more like a few inches. At a given focal length and aperture, the DOF would be a reasonably constant percentage of the focusing point. So, at a focus distance of 60 feet, you might have +/- 6 feet of DOF. At a focus distance of 3 feet, it might be more like +/- 3 inches. BTW, this is also an oversimplification, because it ignores the change in effective focal length at closer focus distances with the same lens.

[Anbesol]

Thats what I was saying, he proposed an equation suggesting a constant DOF at a specific aperture, I was pointing out the absurdity of the assertion.

By the way you'd have to be pretty damned far away to have 8 feet DOF at 200mm f2.8...

[jetrim]

Thats what I was saying, he proposed an equation suggesting a constant DOF at a specific aperture, I was pointing out the absurdity of the assertion.

By the way you'd have to be pretty damned far away to have 8 feet DOF at 200mm f2.8...

200mm f/2.8 will give you 8.07' DoF at a distance of 97 feet from the subject

[Wild Wassa]

Go totally manual when shooting sport.

When you line up all of the green lines with digi ... things will be some-what correct.

By the way, get rid of that camera shake. Faster shutter speeds help. There isn't a digi camera known that can focus on a critical point as quickly as a well practiced sports photographer.

Cut out the lazyman's photography, this will help greatly ... good sports photography is a well practised and honed skill that very few pretenders have.

Warren.

[Photo-John]

There isn't a digi camera known that can focus on a critical point as quickly as a well practiced sports photographer.

If you're talking about manual focus vs auto focus, I totally disagree, I've been shooting sports for years and I don't know any pros who don't use auto focus most of the time. My success rate went way up when I switched from a manual focus camera to an auto focus camera, back in the mid-nineties. Not using auto focus would be an error with the equipment that's currently available. I think the trick is, knowing your camera's auto focus system and knowing when to pre-focus and when to use continuous focus. Each one has its place.

[gryphonslair99]

If you're talking about manual focus vs auto focus, I totally disagree, I've been shooting sports for years and I don't know any pros who don't use auto focus most of the time. My success rate went way up when I switched from a manual focus camera to an auto focus camera, back in the mid-nineties. Not using auto focus would be an error with the equipment that's currently available. I think the trick is, knowing your camera's auto focus system and knowing when to pre-focus and when to use continuous focus. Each one has its place.

:thumbsup:

[gryphonslair99]

Here, 160mm, f4, ISO 320 1/2000th.

160mm f4? By your calculations, I should have about 12-16 feet of depth of field, looks more like a few inches, doesn't it?

Also, notice the more dramatic bokeh? Thats granted thanks to close focus distance. Focus distance on this, of course, being a few feet., magnification at ~1:6

How it should have read:

If you are close enough to the action that only the shins are in focus, you are too close to get the shot. I rarely can get much closer than 100 feet from the action at a baseball diamond.

At 100 feet with my 70-200mm lens 200mm at f2.8 my DOF is just a touch over 8 feet. At f8 it's 23 feet. If you can't get an entire baseball player in an 8 foot DOF then you have a problem. Having everyone and everything in focus for 23 feet will not make much for much of an action shot.

With my 300mm f2.8 I still have over 3.5 feet of DOF at 100 feet. If I'm using my 400 f2.8 I am further back that 100 feet or shooting closeups of players/coaches.

Whether I am shooting BBall at Allen Field House or on the side lines at an OU or OSU football I am generally shooting wide. Same thing at Eck Stadium with baseball. The action is critical in a sports shot and the photo must draw your eye to the action to have it better than the average run of the mill snapshot.

I used 100 feet as that is a pretty reasonable distance when shooting baseball. Actually with your settings at 100 feet the DOF would be closer to 18 feet. But then shoot sports and shooting bugs at 5 feet are two different forms of photography.

[jorgemonkey]

I think the trick is, knowing your camera's auto focus system and knowing when to pre-focus and when to use continuous focus. Each one has its place.

I third that :thumbsup:

Depending on who I'm shooting for I use either my Nikon setup (D2h, 70-200VR), or a Canon MkII, 300 F2.8. Since I use the Nikon all the time, I know the AF system well & can move my AF point around without taking my eye off the camera. I'm still learning the Canon AF system & have much less keepers when I use it. Not saying that Canon's is bad (its not), just that you need to know how to use it.

[Anbesol]

How it should have read:

If you are close enough to the action that only the shins are in focus, you are too close to get the shot. I rarely can get much closer than 100 feet from the action at a baseball diamond.

At 100 feet with my 70-200mm lens 200mm at f2.8 my DOF is just a touch over 8 feet. At f8 it's 23 feet. If you can't get an entire baseball player in an 8 foot DOF then you have a problem. Having everyone and everything in focus for 23 feet will not make much for much of an action shot.

With my 300mm f2.8 I still have over 3.5 feet of DOF at 100 feet. If I'm using my 400 f2.8 I am further back that 100 feet or shooting closeups of players/coaches.

Whether I am shooting BBall at Allen Field House or on the side lines at an OU or OSU football I am generally shooting wide. Same thing at Eck Stadium with baseball. The action is critical in a sports shot and the photo must draw your eye to the action to have it better than the average run of the mill snapshot.

I used 100 feet as that is a pretty reasonable distance when shooting baseball. Actually with your settings at 100 feet the DOF would be closer to 18 feet. But then shoot sports and shooting bugs at 5 feet are two different forms of photography.

Well then there is the immediate self-contradiction of professing a need for bokeh to isolate the subject, at 100 feet dof is well into infinite focal distance. Kind of hard to get that isolating bokeh if your focus ring is set to infinity. Tell me though, at the infinite focus distance, is it a better idea to shoot wide open? Or, 1-2 stops down? Yes, trick question.

Also depends on the baseball diamond. In the nose bleeds at a major league game, sure.. But, in the front rows, or at minor league, little league, and business leagues, being within 40 feet is also pretty reasonable.

[gryphonslair99]

=Anbesol]Well then there is the immediate self-contradiction of professing a need for bokeh to isolate the subject, at 100 feet dof is well into infinite focal distance. Kind of hard to get that isolating bokeh if your focus ring is set to infinity. Tell me though, at the infinite focus distance, is it a better idea to shoot wide open? Or, 1-2 stops down? Yes, trick question.

No there is no contradiction and the question is irrelevant for what the OP asked as they were particularly referencing bright day shooting at sportiing events. In this case baseball.

The dof at 100 feet from the subject at f2.8 on a 200mm lens the focus ring is not set to infinity. The dof is slightly over 8 feet.

Maybe these links will help you.
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...h-of-field.htm
If you are feeling geeky: http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF6.html
http://luxars.com/index.php?http%3A/...eld/index.html
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...mls/depth.html
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
http://www.dofmaster.com/charts.html
http://www.dofmaster.com/doftable.html

Also depends on the baseball diamond. In the nose bleeds at a major league game, sure.. But, in the front rows, or at minor league, little league, and business leagues, being within 40 feet is also pretty reasonable.

Ok, let's take your 40 feet distance. 200mm is a bit close for a 40 foot shot unless you are say wanting to catch the players face. At 40 feet with a 200mm at f2.8 you still have approximately 1 1/3 feet for your dof. Plenty enough to get an entire head in. Back that down to say 100mm you dof is 5 feet and at 70mm it is at around 10 feet. All useable dof's although 10 feet my be starting to grab things I really don't want in my shot.

Now lets use your "ideal" f8. At your same 40 foot distance at 200mm you dof is 4 feet. Useable if you want a head shot. Back it down to 100mm and your dof is now 15 feet. Lot of extra ground being covered that really isn't needed and at 70mm you now have a dof of 35 feet. On a major league, highschool or college diamond that is 1/3 the distance between bases. In Little league that is half the distance between bases. A lot of boreing ground being brought into foucs.

Keep in mind that at the major league, college and highschool level the field dimensions are supposed to have a 60 foot fence limit around the field from the rear poing of home plate to the backstop and along the base lines the grass area behind first and third base, so getting within 40 feet is tough, even when shooting from the dugout. 50 feet is more like it if you can get into the dugout area.

Little league the fence limit is supposed to be no less than 32 feet and the protective fence infront of the dugout area is supposed to be at least 25 feet from the base path. So yes being inside 40 feet is possible here. But again DOF is a mathamatical equation that is based on

If however you are inside the above mentioned dimmensions then you are in the field of play and should not be there with out the consent of the home plate umpire, the facility and the league or governing body.

Buy the way, I forgot to mention. Nice bee shot.

[Anbesol]

No there is no contradiction and the question is irrelevant for what the OP asked as they were particularly referencing bright day shooting at sportiing events. In this case baseball.

The dof at 100 feet from the subject at f2.8 on a 200mm lens the focus ring is not set to infinity. The dof is slightly over 8 feet.

The original poster has a lens that maxes at f5.6. His focus rings in infinity.

Anyway - I think we are just looking a little too hard for things to argue about at this point, the argument was about using f8, for the original poster. Of course, my suggestion was tailored to the unique poster - as his lens maxes out at f5.6, f8 is a good f-stop to hang *around*. I stand by that, if he had a pro f2.8 lens then it would certainly be different. Your suggestion was based on the assumption that he had the same exact gear that you have. He doesn't. All this talk about f2.8 is irrelevant because its two stops faster than the OP could even shoot. His focus range is also, as such, much more narrow - 100+ feet and hes in infinity, 100+ feet and wide open at f5.6, he can forget about bokeh...

By the way you didn't actually expect me to look at your 7 links, did you? :skep:

40 foot was a late-night estimate, I'm sure you're right there, 40 feet probably is closer than possible.

[gryphonslair99]

The original poster has a lens that maxes at f5.6. His focus rings in infinity.

A focus ring at infinity does not mean everything in front of a lens is in focus.

Anyway - I think we are just looking a little too hard for things to argue about at this point, the argument was about using f8, for the original poster. Of course, my suggestion was tailored to the unique poster - as his lens maxes out at f5.6, f8 is a good f-stop to hang *around*. I stand by that, if he had a pro f2.8 lens then it would certainly be different. Your suggestion was based on the assumption that he had the same exact gear that you have. He doesn't. All this talk about f2.8 is irrelevant because its two stops faster than the OP could even shoot. His focus range is also, as such, much more narrow - 100+ feet and hes in infinity, 100+ feet and wide open at f5.6, he can forget about bokeh...

We may be, but the difference in bokeh of the posters lens at 100 feet is still the difference of a dof of 16 feet or 23 feet. A 30% difference in dof.

By the way you didn't actually expect me to look at your 7 links, did you? :skep:

That's up to you. It all depends on your understanding of issue. Other than the second one a lot of photographers might find a use for some of them. If you love math an physics then the second link can be fun as well.

40 foot was a late-night estimate, I'm sure you're right there, 40 feet probably is closer than possible.

It is unless you want to take a ball to the head, or to the lens, or get run down by some player chasing a foul ball. Never good for all involved.

Especially with this kind of gear. And this was from behind the wall.

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/8195/97411158jn1.jpg

400 f2.8 that took a foul ball right into the end of the lens. :cryin:

[SmartWombat]

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/8195/97411158jn1.jpg
400 f2.8 that took a foul ball right into the end of the lens

That is one to disprove the "filters protect the lens" argument
It's why you have insurance on your gear ... don't you ?

[gryphonslair99]

That is one to disprove the "filters protect the lens" argument
It's why you have insurance on your gear ... don't you ?

The photographer that experienced this was using company issued gear and went to the hospital to be checked out on the companies insurance. You can't see it from the photo, but he had his face to the camera at the time and took a wicked blow from the 1D body from the impact. He was fine but sore.

Until they make "protective filters" from titanium the only realistic solution is insurance.

[Photo-John]

What about this filter?