I tend to do what you have said in this video because i shoot football for a local non-league team and their floodlights are shocking. As well as what you said i also run my picks from Photo mechanic through DXO Deep Prime to get rid of the noise. You can probably get away with some shots as low as 500 sec dependent on your angle to the action, eg running directly towards you. I am lucky to have some wide glass too, I have a 50mm f1.2 which if you get closer to the goal can get those goal mouth shots quicker and just crop in using RAW
Manual. Manual . Manual . Float your iso if needed. Don't let the image underexpose because you preset iso too low. The noise will grow exponentially. Better to bump up iso and properly expose. There will be noise.....but not as much as if you underexpose and need to up the exposure in post.
interesting and very informative, I remember the days of shooting night football ate old div 4 grounds when I would 'push' tri-x 3 stops and still shoot at 125th sec max....it was a good apprenticeship :-) and YES i did get plenty of usable images (for newsprint) but in those days new print was graduated dots anyway
thanks for this Talru! I shoot regularly in poor light at non league pitches, and always try to shoot 1/1000 when possible. The ISO goes up to 12800 and scared as hell to push it more! I also have trouble deciding what WB to use, and whether to use luminence or not. Keep up the good work, look forward to the next vid!
one thing i use to reduce the noise in post is going to Detail part in Lightroom and raise the mask bar up to necessary (you can check it by keep pressing the left ALT button while slinding the bar); also raising luminance up to 15 max, depending on how awful the noisy is. Really, this was game changing to me; i could be able to save photos taken with a Canon T7 + 70-300mm f4-5.6 on awfully illuminated pitches
Enjoyed but, why not show pics, image settings and tips for better improvement of low light shoots. I particularly enjoyed the opening scene of your video as the images were great for ideas for novices. I recognized a hotel ( which looked like one…) I stayed in and captured the same image but no way as bright as yours, on my iPhone. ( the ceiling with wooden surroundings…) If I am mistaken, it is a listed building in London’s Shepherds Bush area…
Thank you for this video, Just came back from my first game doing football photography and it was very cloudy and raining. When i came back home the noise in all my pictures except the few at the start are too much. Now i know i needed to lower my shutter speed way lower and not to put my ISO to high. In post i used a program called Topaz Denoize AI which has saved a lot of my pictures though it does make the player look a little photoshopped
Thanks for watching Kieran. I still get games were lots of noise is pretty much unavoidable. I’ve not used topaz but heard about it, would be interesting to see some results with it. Good luck for future games!
i get what you mean with saying raising iso, by raising iso if you are getting good exposure, meaning you not having to raise it in post, reduces noise in the final product
Camera focuses better when shooting in RAW?? I work for two sports agencies and always shoot and send photos live in JPG. For what the images are used ( low res files for Instagram & other social media), the JPG files ( Canon R6/1Dx MKII) are very good for the purpose and the speed to transmit very fast. Good video.
Yeah, it's a strange one. JPG images were always incredibly sharp and like you I only ever shot in JPG for sports for years. However, I noticed photos were becoming really soft end of last season - tested different lenses, upgraded a lens. I did some portrait stuff in July using RAW and images were incredible, no problem at all. So switched to RAW for sports and it has significantly improved it. I think the camera is probably on its way out!
Sharp photos, of any event, does not rely on RAW or JPG, but rather the triangle settings for best exposure with the optimum shutter speed to freeze fast action. RAW images include image noise, dependent of the ISO setting. Hi noise levels dilute the image quality. Noise reduction by shooting JPG or post-editing also reduces the sharpness when smoothing out the noise, like reducing the treble to reduce scratchy sounds from old audio records. There are NO exact rules to follow, but experimentation is the ultimate instructor. For those shooting with DSLR cameras, microfocus adjustments comes into serious play to correct for front/back focusing. and this cannot be ignored if photos lack sharpness, regardless of action shots or still portraiture. This is a common discussion among photography TouTube creators, so there is nothing new under the sun.
i have subbed i have a poor 480mm 1" bridge camera and i am strugglign to make it capture low light soccer match 1/200 SS wasn't always great, but it got me a few decent photos, but now i am forced to increase to 1/500 or just get away with a few decent images at 1/200 SS, my concern here however is that NOISE is so damn high, and hence i get less detailed images, so coming to think about it again, i may have to shoot at 1/200, because Noise is a BIGGER problem to me and picture detail from blurry images due to slower shutter i got two options now to mitigate or reduce the damn noise 1) I can set shadows to -5 and +5 for highlights 2) I can set noise reduction to +5 (maximum) and sharpness to +5 so can i set those two simultaneously to get lowest noise levels possible or should i stick to only one of them ? and which one ? thank you,
Lightroom's updated Denoise is so helpful with grainy photos. You have to find the right balance with it, though, or you'll end up with some creamy, even AI-looking images.
It is so easy, fast shutterspeed, biggest aperature, iso on auto. If light conditions remain the same set to required iso value. always raw. Using Canon r6 for 2 years now, no problems with iso 10000
Thank you for watching. Yes, that is largely correct, however, if you're in really poor light with an old camera, then this approach can lead to a super high ISO and very noisy images which look awful. I know when I used older bodies on auto ISO in bad light, they look sometimes look awful with the approach you mention. However, contrast that with something even a little newer, such as the 1DX ii, and that approach is fine and produced great results.
@@Talrui have now a nikon d7200 with 55 300 f4.5. I am gonna try to stay at 55mm f4.5 higher iso and raw, i am gonna shot beach volley next to the net at night. Lets see... i also have a 18mm, 3.5f gonna try that too if they let me be too close
I have a Sony a6700 camera with a Sony lens with an aperture of f/4.0. I shot some indoor basketball and encountered a problem where my footage was consistently underexposed, resulting in noise that made it unusable (it looked like it was filmed in 1990). The settings I used were 60 fps, 1/120 shutter speed, f/4.0 aperture, and ISO 800. I had the exposure set to 0.0 in S-Log, which resulted in underexposed footage. The issue arose when I attempted to increase the shutter speed, as it darkened the image further. Thus, the only solution seemed to be raising the ISO, but this introduced graininess. Is it possible that I cannot achieve good footage with my camera, or am I missing something?
As an amateur photographer myself, I won't be able to thoroughly explain how to resolve your issue, but consider the lighting in the gym and your own equipment: a big reason why many images at a high shutter speed and low f-stop (in your case, f/4.0), is due to the poor lighting in the gym. Another reason may be that you need a lens with the capability for a larger aperture (f/2.8 for example), to you to crank up the shutter speed a little bit more while keeping your exposure the same or even better.
So in reality, its better to underexpose in RAW to keep the details? and save the shutter speed? I just started shooting high school sports wnaht a nightmare gymnasiums are.
Shooting A 2.8 gets light, but players only 3' apart, only one is in focus. Players that close together that are both in focus makes for a better photo. I like to go to A 5, and get both players in focus although I'm always starving for light even at a very high iso. I guess it is a trade off.
Used 5d mk3 giving me bad photos every time, I mainly shoot where my subjects are 5-15 meter away some ceiling are high I can get the results, mi pictures are grainy and poor quality or overexposed or under exposed. Really not happy . My raw pictures are awful they are dark , blue tinted and grainy. Canon 5 d mark 3 , 24/70 l f2.8 but I still don’t get good results
Hi there, thanks for replying. It sounds like you've got a real challenge on your hands. Is it worth experimenting perhaps with auto ISO to see what the camera sets it as and what those results look like? Alternatively, perhaps set the shutter priority and let the camera figure everything else? The 5D iii is meant to be pretty good in low light, but I have never used one myself
I upgraded from the 5DIII a few years ago, but I had great luck with sports in low light. The trick I found was to properly expose the image, even if it means a much higher ISO. By getting the exposure right in camera meant I didn’t have to push it in post
Start with your shutter speed. Exactly. So just doing 1/1000th, seriously? If you are zooming in then you loose light Or you make the sacrifice of added blur. There is a calculation to make surer your shutter speed is always tack sharp based on your lens, but you never go over this? So yes, start with your shutter speed and use shutter priority based on your lens and intended zoom. Forget Manual mode. Can we talk about how a little blur can be awesome if your flash can reach them with rear sync?
you spoke from the perspective of football - but this is not only sport - so your review is limited... poor light is indoor and gymnastics sport that under 1/250 is not working - good advices though for the manual and shutter's times
Shooting in Raw in low light/high ISO increases the amount of noise. You should use JPEG as it produces less noise especially when you activate in camera noise reduction which is only available when you shoot JPEG
I'll take a noisy grainy photo over a blurry photo.
Manual, auto iso, low aperture, high shutter speed. Watch for shadowing, white balance changes. Run AI Noise but knock down to about level 32.
I tend to do what you have said in this video because i shoot football for a local non-league team and their floodlights are shocking. As well as what you said i also run my picks from Photo mechanic through DXO Deep Prime to get rid of the noise. You can probably get away with some shots as low as 500 sec dependent on your angle to the action, eg running directly towards you. I am lucky to have some wide glass too, I have a 50mm f1.2 which if you get closer to the goal can get those goal mouth shots quicker and just crop in using RAW
Manual. Manual . Manual . Float your iso if needed. Don't let the image underexpose because you preset iso too low. The noise will grow exponentially. Better to bump up iso and properly expose. There will be noise.....but not as much as if you underexpose and need to up the exposure in post.
Best tip so far
interesting and very informative, I remember the days of shooting night football ate old div 4 grounds when I would 'push' tri-x 3 stops and still shoot at 125th sec max....it was a good apprenticeship :-) and YES i did get plenty of usable images (for newsprint) but in those days new print was graduated dots anyway
thanks for this Talru! I shoot regularly in poor light at non league pitches, and always try to shoot 1/1000 when possible. The ISO goes up to 12800 and scared as hell to push it more! I also have trouble deciding what WB to use, and whether to use luminence or not.
Keep up the good work, look forward to the next vid!
one thing i use to reduce the noise in post is going to Detail part in Lightroom and raise the mask bar up to necessary (you can check it by keep pressing the left ALT button while slinding the bar); also raising luminance up to 15 max, depending on how awful the noisy is. Really, this was game changing to me; i could be able to save photos taken with a Canon T7 + 70-300mm f4-5.6 on awfully illuminated pitches
Thanks so much for the info, I'm definitely going to check that out. I have a night game tonight under awful floodlights, so I will give that a try!
@ tells us later the results, if possible 🥺🙏🏻
Good video, thanks for the tips. I always shoot JPEG for daylight games and RAW under the lights and use gentle AI noise reduction in Camera Raw.
Enjoyed but, why not show pics, image settings and tips for better improvement of low light shoots.
I particularly enjoyed the opening scene of your video as the images were great for ideas for novices. I recognized a hotel ( which looked like one…) I stayed in and captured the same image but no way as bright as yours, on my iPhone. ( the ceiling with wooden surroundings…)
If I am mistaken, it is a listed building in London’s Shepherds Bush area…
Thank you for this video, Just came back from my first game doing football photography and it was very cloudy and raining. When i came back home the noise in all my pictures except the few at the start are too much. Now i know i needed to lower my shutter speed way lower and not to put my ISO to high.
In post i used a program called Topaz Denoize AI which has saved a lot of my pictures though it does make the player look a little photoshopped
Thanks for watching Kieran. I still get games were lots of noise is pretty much unavoidable. I’ve not used topaz but heard about it, would be interesting to see some results with it. Good luck for future games!
i get what you mean with saying raising iso, by raising iso if you are getting good exposure, meaning you not having to raise it in post, reduces noise in the final product
Very good tips Night sports is a real challenge and this helps
Thanks for watching Andy, I'm glad you found it helpful. Good luck with the shooting!
Thanks 🙏 great video
This is the first find i did a sport. Now that i know shutter 1000 aperture 2.8 what should you start your iso at
Very informative thank you
Camera focuses better when shooting in RAW?? I work for two sports agencies and always shoot and send photos live in JPG. For what the images are used ( low res files for Instagram & other social media), the JPG files ( Canon R6/1Dx MKII) are very good for the purpose and the speed to transmit very fast. Good video.
Yeah, it's a strange one. JPG images were always incredibly sharp and like you I only ever shot in JPG for sports for years. However, I noticed photos were becoming really soft end of last season - tested different lenses, upgraded a lens. I did some portrait stuff in July using RAW and images were incredible, no problem at all. So switched to RAW for sports and it has significantly improved it. I think the camera is probably on its way out!
Sharp photos, of any event, does not rely on RAW or JPG, but rather the triangle settings for best exposure with the optimum shutter speed to freeze fast action. RAW images include image noise, dependent of the ISO setting. Hi noise levels dilute the image quality. Noise reduction by shooting JPG or post-editing also reduces the sharpness when smoothing out the noise, like reducing the treble to reduce scratchy sounds from old audio records. There are NO exact rules to follow, but experimentation is the ultimate instructor. For those shooting with DSLR cameras, microfocus adjustments comes into serious play to correct for front/back focusing. and this cannot be ignored if photos lack sharpness, regardless of action shots or still portraiture. This is a common discussion among photography TouTube creators, so there is nothing new under the sun.
Great tips - many thanks
i have subbed
i have a poor 480mm 1" bridge camera and i am strugglign to make it capture low light soccer match
1/200 SS wasn't always great, but it got me a few decent photos,
but now i am forced to increase to 1/500 or just get away with a few decent images at 1/200 SS,
my concern here however is that NOISE is so damn high, and hence i get less detailed images,
so coming to think about it again, i may have to shoot at 1/200, because Noise is a BIGGER problem to me and picture detail from blurry images due to slower shutter
i got two options now to mitigate or reduce the damn noise
1) I can set shadows to -5 and +5 for highlights
2) I can set noise reduction to +5 (maximum) and sharpness to +5
so can i set those two simultaneously to get lowest noise levels possible or should i stick to only one of them ? and which one ?
thank you,
Great tips mate.
Lightroom's updated Denoise is so helpful with grainy photos. You have to find the right balance with it, though, or you'll end up with some creamy, even AI-looking images.
Very good advice 👌
It is so easy, fast shutterspeed, biggest aperature, iso on auto. If light conditions remain the same set to required iso value. always raw. Using Canon r6 for 2 years now, no problems with iso 10000
Thank you for watching. Yes, that is largely correct, however, if you're in really poor light with an old camera, then this approach can lead to a super high ISO and very noisy images which look awful. I know when I used older bodies on auto ISO in bad light, they look sometimes look awful with the approach you mention. However, contrast that with something even a little newer, such as the 1DX ii, and that approach is fine and produced great results.
But if my lens are f4.5
@@Talrui have now a nikon d7200 with 55 300 f4.5. I am gonna try to stay at 55mm f4.5 higher iso and raw, i am gonna shot beach volley next to the net at night. Lets see... i also have a 18mm, 3.5f gonna try that too if they let me be too close
I have a Sony a6700 camera with a Sony lens with an aperture of f/4.0. I shot some indoor basketball and encountered a problem where my footage was consistently underexposed, resulting in noise that made it unusable (it looked like it was filmed in 1990). The settings I used were 60 fps, 1/120 shutter speed, f/4.0 aperture, and ISO 800. I had the exposure set to 0.0 in S-Log, which resulted in underexposed footage. The issue arose when I attempted to increase the shutter speed, as it darkened the image further. Thus, the only solution seemed to be raising the ISO, but this introduced graininess. Is it possible that I cannot achieve good footage with my camera, or am I missing something?
As an amateur photographer myself, I won't be able to thoroughly explain how to resolve your issue, but consider the lighting in the gym and your own equipment: a big reason why many images at a high shutter speed and low f-stop (in your case, f/4.0), is due to the poor lighting in the gym. Another reason may be that you need a lens with the capability for a larger aperture (f/2.8 for example), to you to crank up the shutter speed a little bit more while keeping your exposure the same or even better.
So in reality, its better to underexpose in RAW to keep the details? and save the shutter speed? I just started shooting high school sports wnaht a nightmare gymnasiums are.
Shooting A 2.8 gets light, but players only 3' apart, only one is in focus. Players that close together that are both in focus makes for a better photo. I like to go to A 5, and get both players in focus although I'm always starving for light even at a very high iso. I guess it is a trade off.
It’s not rocket science. Just bump up the shutter speed. You’ll have to take what iso is needed. The end.
I had trouble understanding you, it might help if you can reduce the echo there, maybe try a lapel microphone close to your mouth?
Apologies for the audio, but thanks for watching. I have been experimenting with a lapel mic in some recent videos. Thanks.
Here’s a great tip, get a low mega pixel full frame high fps camera with a large aperture fixed lens of 1.4 high or zoom 2.8 problem solved
Used 5d mk3 giving me bad photos every time, I mainly shoot where my subjects are 5-15 meter away some ceiling are high I can get the results, mi pictures are grainy and poor quality or overexposed or under exposed. Really not happy . My raw pictures are awful they are dark , blue tinted and grainy. Canon 5 d mark 3 , 24/70 l f2.8 but I still don’t get good results
Hi there, thanks for replying. It sounds like you've got a real challenge on your hands. Is it worth experimenting perhaps with auto ISO to see what the camera sets it as and what those results look like? Alternatively, perhaps set the shutter priority and let the camera figure everything else? The 5D iii is meant to be pretty good in low light, but I have never used one myself
I upgraded from the 5DIII a few years ago, but I had great luck with sports in low light. The trick I found was to properly expose the image, even if it means a much higher ISO. By getting the exposure right in camera meant I didn’t have to push it in post
Start with your shutter speed. Exactly. So just doing 1/1000th, seriously? If you are zooming in then you loose light Or you make the sacrifice of added blur. There is a calculation to make surer your shutter speed is always tack sharp based on your lens, but you never go over this? So yes, start with your shutter speed and use shutter priority based on your lens and intended zoom. Forget Manual mode.
Can we talk about how a little blur can be awesome if your flash can reach them with rear sync?
I don’t think you can use flash in a lot of the sport venues because it’s distracting for the players.
Found Roller derby is one of the few sports that allows flash.
you spoke from the perspective of football - but this is not only sport - so your review is limited... poor light is indoor and gymnastics sport that under 1/250 is not working - good advices though for the manual and shutter's times
Shooting in Raw in low light/high ISO increases the amount of noise. You should use JPEG as it produces less noise especially when you activate in camera noise reduction which is only available when you shoot JPEG
You know that you can denoise in post, right?
How wrong you are image quality is unbeatable on Raw
Using a 700d Canon camera with these settings makes my images terrible. Would not recommend this video who has entry-level cameras.
Cannot hear, voice recording is slow