Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
Not true...there are a few indoor sports where flash is strictly prohibited (e.g. gymnastics). For others, you're too far for flash to be of much use. (For compact cameras...maybe 15 feet. For DSLR's with external strobes, maybe 50 ft.). If it was a fan, chances are the flash was on a compact camera and completely useless.
Also, flash often imparts a very flat and harsh look to photos. For subjects in the photo at different distances, it lights them up completely differently...one too bright, the other too dark.
To get a fast enough shutter to freeze the action with available light, it helps to have a modern DSLR that can do high ISO without encountering too much noise and also have a fast (large aperture) lens.
Some examples of what can be done without flash...
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3/example-images.htm
http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcbo..._id=18225&page=
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=26548248 |
Thanks for the lesson.....but, my degree is in Portrait/Commercial Photography. And I'll change my comment just for you.
"Most" sports photos by mortals need flash indoors.
The OP, I'm sure isn't a SI photog with unlimited resources.
The hockey shot, while nice, is done with a $5k camera and a $2K lens in a controlled "studio" setting. Meaning lights, actors, cameras and I'm sure, hundreds of takes. And let's not forget the $9k F2.8 300 mm lenses for the football games.
So are todays cameras capable? Yes. Is the average person (or even an above average) in the stands with a flash at a HS/MS game holding $7k worth of equipment in his/her hands? Doubt it.
When I shoot a game, I want as much pure light as possible. Every gym is different (mercury, sodium vapor, flourescent, etc.) so I "bounce" a white lightning off the ceilings. No harsh light, no flat flash effect, the whole gym is lit, no funny colors that I have to sit and photoshop all night long and the color is rich.....and NO ONE is even aware a flash is going off..