Game of Volleyball

[GB1]

I shot these at the University of San Diego several days ago in a match between USD and Loyola Marymont.

I was mildly surprised how hard it is to get good shots of an event like this (!!!) Part of the problem is the lack of light - I was shooting with an f 4.0 70-210mm (manual focus) lens at 800 ASA, but at that narrow an aperture, you have to perfectly predict where the action will be -- which I can't do yet. WHen you zoom in, you also catch a lot of blur. Adjusting to f 5.6 helped with the DOF, but introduced too much motion blur. I finally had to adjust my ASA to 1600 and eventually had to set the exposure compensation dial to -1 just to squeak out some more speed, figuring I could correct the lighting in PP.

At 1600 ASA the Nikon D200's images come out like sand paintings btw. The -1 f-stop setting probably didn't help.

Another issue was figuring out where the action would be. Volleyball is very unpredictable.

Must have shot about 300 images. Here's a few that might be worth holding onto I sort of zeroed in on the tall blond player, she was pretty photogenic.

This was definitely a learning experience!

Comments?

GB

[Mule]

I've posted before that I really struggled with my first volleyball shoot. Part of this comes from my lack of knowledge of the sport. I tried to find the time when the motion was minimized - the moment when the ball was being picked up on a dig. I also tried to get a set while capturing the second player approaching. My favorite of your posting is #2. I used a 50 mm 1.4 lens and that may have helped somewhat with speed. For what it's worth...

[GB1]

Mule - Yeah, I guess when the ball is at the apex is the best time to shoot, for the velocity will be nearly zero. 50mm?? Seems short. But with digital that's about a 75, so maybe that works. Still, f 1.8 .. you have to be a wiz to get that to work

G

[cyberlord]

It's tough to get good indoor low light photos of action. So you've got the 1.8 glass but what you gain in speed you lose in DoF (as in the first photo).

A couple of your shots were under exposed and the noise is too much after you try to post process the image. The lighting never changes under these conditions. Find the correct exposure and lock the camera to manual. You'll get the same exposure frame after frame.

[GB1]

Thks cyberlord, still learning the rules of indoor sports. A friend shot the match at the same time and he didn't zoom in as far hence was able to use a slower ISO/ASA. The shots were clearer but too far away, imo. Just the only way is to use a wide aperture lens and be right on

G

[Greg McCary]

GB, I think a flash would have helped, but considering the lighting and action I think you did well. It's better than some I have seen in our local paper.

[GB1]

Greg - Thks. Flash unfortunately was out of the question for a number of reasons: too far away, too distracting, etc. Funny you say that about the paper... I found some shots on the internet and yeah they really don't look any better. Limitation of indoor shooting maybe.

Outdoor, beach VB is sooooooo much easier. See the attached pix I took awhile back...

[MB1]

I think that in too many of your images you chopped their legs off.

I do like the second image-you got a nice action feel here and the background and net are not distracting (although the ball is in an unfortunate spot).

A lot of your other images fall into the "almost" category. Either the net blocks the best part, the background distracts or there is too much digital noise or movement.

Toss the 'almosts' and go back and shoot some more (lots more)!

[GB1]

MB - Looks like you're feeling the same way I am: it's a numbers game until you get real good! I've haven't felt that frustrated in years, but it's good every now and then....

GB

[MB1]

MB - Looks like you're feeling the same way I am: it's a numbers game until you get real good! I've haven't felt that frustrated in years, but it's good every now and then....

GB

The sports/action photographer sets up in a good spot, shoots lots and hopes to get one or 2 sellable images. Your yield from this session was one very good image and several usable ones.

You did good. Plus you had the bonus of shooting some very attractive athletes.

[gahspidy]

It looks like you were really trying to get those close up "in-your-face shots which are good but with the equipment you were using was very difficult to pull off. Using a monopod might be a good idea to help with the telephoto lens and blur. I like #1 and 2 and some of the others had potential but are either too noisy or a bit too tightly cropped.
I would not feel too frustrated if I were you. You were trying to hunt elephants with a bb gun, so to speak.
I think you did ok with what you had.

[freygr]

MB - Looks like you're feeling the same way I am: it's a numbers game until you get real good! I've haven't felt that frustrated in years, but it's good every now and then....

GB

Indoor sports unless you can use a large flash I don't care how good you are you can't cheat the laws of physics. Using a F1.4 will only get one more stop and even lest DOF. It can be very frustrating.

[GB1]

Gary - Not sure if better equipment would work here...... An equal part of the problem was limited DOF. My lens has a max of 4.0 but I found that you had to be 'right on' for that, so I went with 5.6 for most of the shots, slowing down the SS by half. To compensate I need to max out my ISO speed (1600 on the D200...) Like GRF said, law of physics.

If you're GOOD enough to shoot with something like 2.8 though, the shots would not have the motion blur or grain. But I ain't that good yet

I had a friend there shooting with me and he backed out and therefore didn't have to deal with the issues I did. I think that his shots show the game, whereas mine show the players. Two different approaches.

GRF, thanks for commenting - Guess nothing can replace experience and skill at this point of technology.

GB