How to improve? - pics added

[fishinchicks]

I haven't been taking many photos lately, but think it's time to change that! My youngest daughter will be dancing tomorrow at the conference danceline competition, which we will be hosting. I am hoping to improve my indoor sports shooting.

This photo was taken in December. We ended up sitting on the back side of the competition, due to gym size. Any comments on how to improve would be very welcome!

I have available: Canon Rebel XT, Canon 55-250 1:4-5.6 IS, Canon 35-80 1:4-5.6, Canon Speedlite 430EX.

[Dbl]

First thing I noticed is that you did a beautiful job with the white balance! You have defeated the number one killer of nice indoor shooting, so kudos to you!

You, I am guessing will be shooting ambient lighting. Is flash allowed at dance competitions? I am guessing...no. These are tough to shoot because you have such large groups, making it tough even if you could use a single flash. If it is allowed you could use it as fill and hope for the best but based on the good results on the shot you posted I may not even bother with that.

Couple of vantage points as far as shooting, up high so the floor is used as a background. And the second down on the floor, in the center and along the ends for some interesting angles. You can shoot some tight isolation on individual dancers (your daughter) and some wider shots to include the group.

Is there more specific information you are looking for? I think you will do just fine based on this shot. Have fun and do make sure you share some results.

[fishinchicks]

Thanks for the response, Dbl.

The thing that bothers me the most from my first attempt, is the blur of the legs during kicks. In some cases, it may add a good motion effect, but there are times when it detracts from the shot. I also have problems with blur of bodies while they are moving.

Any advice on being able to stop motion with the lens/body combo that I have? I will probably try standing in the aisles of the bleachers to get more overhead type shots, but they discourage parents from walking around to take pictures - which I totally understand.

Instead of getting a new lens for Christmas, I was able to get a bigger computer - more editing power! Maybe a faster lens would be a good thing eventually?

[Steve Foss]

There are two ways you can try to freeze motion, fishinchicks. Faster shutter speed and perfect timing.

If you are isolated on one dancer, you can hope to time it right so the shutter trips at just the instant the legs are paused. Lots of throwaways to get those frozen images though, and if it's multiple dancers this won't work because they won't all be at a pause in their leg kicks at the same time. Same principle with freezing bodies. If you know the routine really well, you'll know when to try to time the shots.

Or you can up your shutter speed by increasing iso. You've stripped exif data for this image so I can't what your shutter speed/iso were. The tighter you are shooting your subject, the more shutter speed you'll need to freeze motion. Wider angle shots like the one you posted can handle some subject movement and still look sharp to the eye at slower shutter speeds because the subjects are small in the frame. Start shooting tight and your need for shutter speed increases. The XT is a good performer at high iso, and if in your bigger computer you've got Photoshop and can buy and download a noise reduction program like noise ninja, you can really tame a lot of noise. One version operates as a Photoshop plug-in. The other version is a standalone version, which as the name implies will work on its own if you don't use Photoshop.

Can you post your iso, shutter speed, lens focal length and aperture for the image above?

[fishinchicks]

Didn't realize it had been stripped of the exif data.

f/4.5, 1/30sec, ISO 800, 55mm focal length, pattern metering mode

I installed Photoshop elements 7.0, so I should be able to put Noise Ninja on it. I have a couple of cross country photos I would like to use that on as well.

[Dbl]

Things are going to be a bit tough to freeze with the equipment you have at your disposal. It kind of is what it is, you likely will need ISO 3200 and a minimum f2.8 lens to stop those fast moving legs, I've watched a few of these competitions and they really move! You have ISO 1600 and a slow indoor lens to deal with. You likely will need in the neighborhood of 1/320 to 1/400s to freeze much of the motion.

I would make the best of what you have, accept you will have some motion blur and try and take advantage of it. There honestly is no miracle fix for lousy indoor lighting except money (lenses, cameras) and more light(strobes). So hopefully you can take what you have and get a bit creative and come up with some results that will put a smile on your face. Motion blur can add some really cool effects to this type of shot. Are you able to use flash?

[fishinchicks]

Thanks Dan and Steve.

I'll see what I can do to practice on a few teams before my daughter is on. I will try to focus more on her where I can, and anticipate her moves.

I'm not sure about the flash option - I'll have to check with her coach on that. Most of the competitions we have been at this year have allowed flash, and I don't anticipate this being any different.

I am pretty torn on which lens to look for next, but I know I want a faster one (who doesn't). I've got about three more years of danceline to go.

[Steve Foss]

Chicks, take a look at the Canon 85mm f1.8. Not overly expensive ($350 new), quite sharp and fast focusing. Not to mention a much faster aperture than what you've got, and it's a good focal length for indoor sporting type activities. You don't get zoom flexibility, but if you want zoom flexibility and a fast aperture, you're into the REAL money of the 70-200 f2.8 series. The 85mm is also an excellent portrait lens.

[MARINERMAGNUM]

I noticed you were at 55mm on this shot. I'd suggest a Canon 50mm F1.8 lens,and use your feet to zoom if possible. For about $75-$90 new,that lens could help alot. It's also very sharp and light. Most camera stores keep that lens right on the shelf.

[Steve Foss]

MM, you're right for sure. However, the Nifty Fifty is very slow focusing, and that makes it tough for action photos.

[Dbl]

Actually I've used the 50/1.8 a fair amount with both basketball and volleyball with good success. I find the focus relatively quick but VERY noisy and it hunts around a bit. It is quick but it is constantly trying to focus.

I know of a number of sports shooters that use that lens on a regular basis with very nice results. For the price I don't think you can go wrong and as MM stated it is carried in most stores. Just my experience, yours may be different.

[finnbay]

I've used the "plastic fantastic" a few times for sports, but only when I can get courtside, and it does, as Dan says, hunt a bit. One thing that really helps me get the shot I want is to anticipate. If you know spots in your daughter's routine where she might be momentarily holding a pose, you could get some great shots at 1/60th or so.

[Steve Foss]

My experiences with the Nifty Fifty have been the same as Dan's and Ken's. Different terminology in describing its poor focus performance, same results. Sorry for the lack of precision in my first response.

I only used it twice for indoor sports (basketball and volleyball) and was dissatisfied with its ability to achieve focus both times. I was using 20D/30D bodies, and I expect it performs somewhat better with "1" series bodies. On an XT, I suspect it would hunt a bit more than with the 20D/30D bodies. People like Dan and others who use it more frequently I'm sure have better results than my occasional use.

As Ken says, however, if you can hit focus when your daughter strikes a pose (and can get close enough), the results will be excellent. I've used it a couple times for indoor band performances and have found it performs well enough if the band members aren't overly active and if there's adequate light.

[yoppdk]

I'm with DBL on the topic of motion. Sometimes we can try real hard to freeze something in motion, and often we are successful. Although also capturing the motion by letting it blur - even moreso than in the image you captured - can be even more compelling. Particularly when parts of the image are sharp with no apparent motion alongside the parts of the image that have motion blur. I've often worked hard at freezing motion only to go back in with photoshop to add motion blur, and find the image with motion blur more compelling.

On your image, I personally would have tried to isolate the subject(s) a bit more ... assuming you were more interested in the dance line than the audience behind. This can be done either by finding a different position to shoot from and/or using a longer lens and a shallower depth of field. And I would have probably worked to get good shots that stop the motion completely and also do a few at lower shutter speed to let the motion speak for itself. Having the cam on a tripod would help in both instances.

In almost all cases, getting physically closer to your subject helps make a better image.

That's my 3 cents worth ...

[fishinchicks]

I took close to 80 pictures last night, but wasn't super happy with any of them. Some will be able to be improved in photoshop. I forgot to turn off the IS on the lens, and I think it hurt me a little bit. I'll post a couple of examples after I resize them. I won't do any other pp, just the resize.

On a bright note, hubby gave the green light to go ahead with an 85mm 1.8. I am hoping it will be here in time for sections on the 7th.

[Dbl]

You will like the capabilities of that lens. It will be a HUGE improvement over your current set up!

[fishinchicks]

This first one would be alright if not for the DJ's booth directly behind my daughter. She's in the middle to back most of the time, since she is the tallest member of the team.

Laura is an alternate for the jazz, so I focused on more of the team, picking out one of the seniors as my focus. On this shot, I would like to mess with the background so the team that sat in the middle isn't quite so noticeable.

This last photo is the reason I ordered the 85mm 1.8. Steve mentioned that it makes a good portrait lens. I take a lot of pictures similar to this one. My daughter is on the right. Yeah, I'm proud of her.

The first two have identical settings: f5.6, 1/60, ISO 1600, 96mm. The last one was f5.6, 1/50, ISO 1600, 90mm

Next, if anyone has good ideas on how to reduce the background clutter using Photoshop elements, I would love to hear them. I have barely played with that program, so I have a lot to learn!

[Dbl]

Colors and exposure look good. The key to blurring out backgrounds if you notice is found in the last shot. You are much closer to your subject, even at f5.6 you blurred out your background. This same shot taken at f1.8 won't blur your background a whole lot more but will make parts of your face soft because of shallow depth of field.

Subject to camera distance is what will help you with blurring out your backgrounds. If you are sitting in the stands you will not be close enough to your subjects to blur out your background no matter what lens you use unless you are shooting with a 300/2.8 or longer lens. Even a 70-200 won't give you good backgrounds at those distances.

I'm not a huge fan of the 85/1.8 for portraits on a 1.6 crop camera. I just don't find it to be a useful length on those cameras. Many of the portrait shooters I know don't use it on crop cameras at all. On a full frame camera like a 5D I think its a very nice lens. Again personal preferences here and shooting styles will be different for each of us.

It will be interesting to see how it works out for these shots. At f1.8 and that focal length it will be hard to get a group shot and still get close enough to get clean backgrounds and maintain your depth of field. If you open up to f1.8 to get enough shutter speed you will have to stay further away from your subject to maintain depth of field and then backgrounds come back into play.

I think an even better choice IMHO would be a Tamron 28-75/2.8. Very sharp lens with a decent focus speed, not great but I've used it for indoor sports with success. They can be found for around $300. You would probably find it to have a useful focal range for dance. It allows you to get closer and shoot wider and control your backgrounds again. Something else to consider. My 85/1.8 spends an awful lot of time collecting dust in my camera bag. I do pull it out when I am in a real dark venue and have no choice. Again these are my experiences, others will have different takes. As I mentioned above you will love the capabilities of the 85 but you might find it to be a bit difficult to use for this type of shooting. I will be interested to hear how it works out for you.

[fishinchicks]

Thanks for the reply, Dan. I have a few other venues where I think the 85mm will be a good choice - low light, medium distance from the girls, where I can move according to the shot I want.

Once again, you have given me a lot of things to think about!

[CFRay]

Nice pictures. Good Luck with the new lens addition. Is it just me or does it seem that ($$$) is usually a component of the process to improve the photo results? Nice hobby we have!!

[Dbl]

CFRay well yes and no. When you start moving indoors and want to shoot action...well that is when the ($$$) starts. This is a perfect example of equipment limiting a bit of what you want to do. Outdoors our life is much simpler, and cheaper. Until you start looking at those 500's and 600's....wait you might be more correct than I thought!

Keep in mind it still takes the person behind the camera to get those results! You can take some beautiful photos with virtually no equipment.

[CFRay]

Dan,

Fishinchicks acquired the camera she uses from me several months ago. I feel somewhat involved in the photo expenses she's enjoyed since that time.

Indoor action shots are tough, I have a shoebox full of blurred hockey shots of my son. Carolyn is fortunate to have this forum as a resource to capture future memories of her daughter's performances.

Cliff

[Dbl]

Cliff,

Behind every great hobby there is a party that can take the blame for making it a greater expense than they ever thought it would be!

Dan