Break all Rules for to Improve your Sports Photograph

[Darren Rowse]

The following was submitted by one of our readers Alejandro Zarate. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on if you agree?

When I got my start in sports photography a few months ago, I had no prior experience shooting sports. Since I had less than a week to learn (and no opportunity to practice), I freaked out and read up as many online tutorials as I could, both in Digital Photography School and elsewhere. As it turns out, that was completely unnecessary - I should have just re-read my photography library, and consciously break every rule.

Seriously. The "rules" of photography are just about the worst way to shoot sports, so you would do well to consciously avoid them. Not convinced? Here's a list of rules & guidelines you should avoid following:

It's all about the equipment

A big pet peeve among photographers is being complimented on our cameras, rather than our abilities. And rightly so, since the biggest factor behind making good photographs is the photographer's skill, not their camera. But it doesn't really work that way in sports.

Sure, you need skill to make a good sports photo - lots of it. But the fact is, without good equipment, you're doomed to failure. You can't even think of shooting most sports without a DSLR. And really, an entry-level DSLR isn't what you're ideally looking for - you need a good continuous shooting (burst) mode, a fast and reliable AF system, good high-ISO performance and a sturdy shutter mechanism which can withstand the wear and tear of several thousands shots a month. A wide lens selection will come in handy if you want to shoot different sports, too.

And while we're talking about lenses... your 18-55 kit lens won't cut it most of the time. If you're shooting indoor sports like basketball or volleyball, you'll need a fast prime with a max aperture of 1.8 or 1.4, ideally. If you're shooting outdoors sports like football, soccer or field hockey, you'll need a long telephoto - ideally a fast one in order to get minimal depth of field. And don't forget a moderate wide angle lens for team shots - in a 1.6 crop body (which is better than full-frame for sports, in my opinion) your 50mm prime will be too narrow for a picture of a complete team. Fast focusing is a great asset for sports lenses. Stabilization, not so much - you'll be shooting at fast shutter speeds which you can easily handhold, so there's no point in paying for a feature that won't be used much, if at all. If you have money to burn, buy a faster lens - like a 70-200 f/2.8 instead of a stabilized 70-200 f/4-

That said, you CAN shoot sports with a beginner DSLR, a nifty-fifty for indoor games and a 75-300 to use outdoors. But if you're anything like me, you'll feel that your creativity is being limited by your gear. And keep in mind that even if you can afford all the expensive equipment listed above, your skill as a photographer isn't irrelevant: you need BOTH gear and technique to achieve good sports pictures.

Technical perfection is overrated

If you're the kind of photographer who obsesses about perfect focus and exposure in every picture, prepare for your expectations to suffer. Sports photography is about doing your best in bad conditions. Sometimes you'll capture great dramatic moments only to see your focus was a bit off. Or your great action shots will turn out to have unexpectedly bad backgrounds. Or maybe you'll see some motion blur just because the dark gym you're shooting in won't allow any shutter speeds faster than 1/320.

Just deal with it. Your shots aren't going to be technically perfect most of the time. Barring a total catastrophe, don't worry if your most compelling pictures aren't perfect. Correct what you can in postproduction, and relax about what you can't. Most sports photos are displayed as low-resolution web JPEGs or printed on newsprint - hardly the best media to appreciate technical minutiae. Unsurprisingly, most professional sports photographers use cropped-sensor cameras with low pixel counts (at least, when compared to other pro cameras) but insanely fast AF and continuous shooting. And news agencies' images aren't often 25 MP RAW or TIFF files, but far smaller JPEGs. Most of the time, composition trumps technical merit.

Quantity does equal quality

Serious photographers believe compulsive overshooting doesn't lead to better photos. But when it comes to sports, you NEED to shoot the same action as many times as possible. Your camera includes a burst mode for a reason (remember untruth #1?). To capture peak action in a play, you need to start shooting before the decisive moment, and end the burst after the action has finished. Sometimes, you may start shooting a burst in advance of an opportunity that never realizes itself. That's just normal. In a typical sports assignment, one or two photos are published out of several hundreds shot. Thankfully, digital memory is cheap enough for this to be of no issue.

That said, there IS such a thing as overshooting. For example, some plays may be happening too far from you to realistically fill the frame - even after cropping. Forget about it - you're just making post-processing a lot more tedious.

Previsualization is for landscapes

Ansel Adams popularized the idea of 'previsualization', the technique behind seeing the finished picture in the mind's eye. Ansel would create his desired image before even setting up his camera. He definitely never shot a basketball game.

In sports photography, your aim is to capture action which is unfolding before your eyes. Don't think like an artist, think like an angler: you choose your equipment and position, and wait for action to move into your frame. Then you react instinctively, not rationally. If you think too much, you'll lose the shot. And you don't get to choose what kind of action you capture - you can merely influence it with your previous choices (like position and focal length), but you still depend on your subject to do something interesting.

Composition: Forget thirds

It's often said that following the rule of thirds makes for a more dynamic composition. I find it to be a great rule - as long as the subject has about as much movement as a bowl of bananas. When dealing with fast action, I find that following the rule of thirds hurts more than it helps. Firstly, because if you're taking the time to think about subject placement, you're not being fast enough. In second place, the most typical sports scenes don't lend themselves well to thirds: a single player placed on a vertical thirds' line on a horizontal frame often looks unbalanced, and two-player conflict takes up most of the available space. In vertical frames, the issue isn't as much thirds lines but moving space, and you can even ignore that if you crop close enough.

In any case, you don't need to create dynamism and tension when shooting sports. They're best conveyed by subject matter, not formal composition.

Fill the frame, but not the viewfinder

The other big rule of composition, filling the frame, is alive and well in sports photography. One of the big draws of sports photography is bringing the viewer close to the action in ways impossible to the naked eye. However, that doesn't mean that the frame has to be the size of your camera's sensor. I find I get the best results when leaving some cropping space.

A big problem with some sports is fast and unpredictable action. Giving your subjects some space in the viewfinder means you won't have the problem of them running out of the frame. A close crop on the viewfinder means you can get a masterpiece - or a horrific mess of cropped-out heads or feet. I find my best shots come with a small margin - 10 to 20% of the image area. Sometimes I'll crop out as much as 50% of the original image in order to get a passable picture out of an otherwise useless shot.

Yes, you will lose some image quality. Don't worry too much about image quality - again, it's not the most important element in sports photography. Most of the time, better composition in exchange for image quality is a good deal. Just don't overdo it.

Forget about shooting RAW

Many hobbyist photographers are in love with RAW. It's understandable: greater bit-depth than JPEGs, no compression artifacts, the possibility of tweaking exposure and white balance in post-production... RAW is great when you're creating art. But when it comes to sports photography, forget about it. The only thing you'll achieve shooting RAW files will be crippling your burst mode while filling up your memory card much faster. Plus, it'll take longer to post process every shot - not such a good idea if your intention is getting those photos published and you have a deadline to meet.

Go with JPEG all the way. You'll get far better photos shooting JPEGs at twice the frame rate you can manage in RAW. If you're worried about not getting your exposure and white balance correct, just fire a couple test shots before the match and check your LCD. And if lighting conditions change unexpectedly, you can still correct exposure and white balance in post-processing using curves and levels. And remember - the media most commonly used to display sports photos is far more forgiving than fine art prints.

Conclusion

This post isn't meant to be taken as dogma - quite the contrary. I firmly believe photography is about results, not processes, so if you find other ways to achieve good sports photographs then by all means use them. I'm just sharing what works for me, but if your preferred method to capture sports images is meditating for half an hour and then exposing a single frame using a disposable film camera in order to later cross-process the negative, I'd love to read about it in the comments.

[Sime™]

I've only photographed "sport" twice, in the form of the Redbull Air Race... It was a complete change based on how I was shooting at the time (I shot the whole thing in RAW) ..and then, more recently, Boxing, which I found really scarily similar to my regular gig - shooting music (Again, RAW...haha!). I have quite enjoyed shooting sport the two times that I have but if I were to consider it seriously, I'd need a different camera I think.

[maxharvard]

I will say that I have a hard time agreeing with many of the points he's made.

I will also say that setting up composition and 'previsualizing' during sports can happen and can be done quite easily.

I shoot RAW during sports events.

What the poster seems to be missing is the important element of anticipation.

~Eric

[jdepould]

I shoot 14-bit raw for almost everything. Only exception is my D300, which can't shoot 8fps at 14-bit.

[FormElement]

Having been Shanghai'd into shooting several small theatre events, which are strikingly similar to sports in the sense that they are:

a) Available light only
b) Fast (dance exhibitions for example)
c) Unpredictable (if you haven't had any prep, as is my reality)
d) Deadline issues (the press release goes out within a few hours)

I tend to agree. The moment almost always trumps the technicalities. Get the glass, Get the moment. Make it usable in photoshop (color, crop, exposure) if you absolutely have to.

EDIT: I will qualify that I do shoot RAW, even for these situations. The ability to save a bad exposure is just too valuable.

P.S. - Great post by the way. Plenty to think about. Agree or disagree, it's still useful to read and consider.

[rpcrowe]

There are two essentials for achieving really good sports photography which are obvious but which were not mentioned.

An in depth knowledge of the sport. Having a decent idea of where the action will be is necessary. Otherwise, any good sports image will be generated from luck.

A sidelines pass. You just cannot achieve great sports photography shooting from the stands.

Here are some YouTube videos with excellent sports photography information:

YouTube - Football Photography - Managing Multiple Bodies

[pampharmd96]

I tend to agree with the breaking the rules concept.
The biggest thing in sports photography is to be prepared for anything.
And, as previous commenter said, knowing the sport is important too.
If you don't, take a crash course ... watch it on tv or talk to a spectator. Ask them what they'd buy pictures of.
And I agree about the quantity of shots. I can pretty much predict stock car racing during practice but during the actual races? You have to be prepared to just shoot to get anything.
Picture trying to shoot a birthday party with 20+ hyper 3-year-old children. Then you'll be ready for most sports photography.

[simoj]

Tend to disagree almost every point. The equipment part is the only thing I partially agree. Sports photography is one of those few fields of photography where good equipment can really make a difference. But of course it's not equipment alone, you also have to know how to use it.

Technical perfection - yes, the conditions often are far from ideal. Still it doesn't mean that one shouldn't aim for perfect shot, also technically. This links to couple of other points too. Forget the burst mode, one well-thought shot is what you need, not thousands of crappy ones. And since you are not shooting that many shots, you can very well shoot raw and still meet the deadline.

Composition - mostly you are shooting movement and nothing kills movement as efficiently as poor composition.

[MikeGauthier]

Alejandro - I have been learning to shoot sports for the past 6 months or so - ice hockey, baseball, and football, and I have gone through the pain of learning just about everything you mention. Because of the lighting issues, hockey has been particularly challenging (very similar conditions to basketball - poor lighting and fast action). My f2.8 70-200 has assisted greatly in the local arenas, but even then, I still need Lightroom to boost the exposure about 2 full stops. And it certainly caused a dent in my wallet - about $2200. Sports photography is not a trivial investment.

Great composition happens by putting yourself in good position to maximize your chances. Backgound and focus are not exactly luck, but they certainly difficult to attain consistently.

Great post!

Mike G

[TerryMC]

If you are using a capable camera and save/rent the right lenses for the job then you will not have that many issues. Have you read any Nikon D3 or Canon 1D series owners complaining? Newbies mistake is using consumer bodies and the fix-it-all f/1.8 lenses.

Try a Nikon D300s/Canon 7D with a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 (beg/borrow/steal/used) and rent a Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 lens for a start.

Do your homework about expected exposure values. Sports is about fast shutter speed and focus lock. Fast fps is for the 'Hail Mary' shots. BTW, RAW does not slow down D3 burst rate.

Of course composition is important. Experienced photographers can visualize the shoot, get a focus lock and shoot at the same time.