 Robert C. Duncan |
Sporting Events My kids play soccer and I take a lot of photographs of their teams. I use my 100-300 lens and 800 ASA film usually. I am a little disappointed that some are grainy and I would like to know should I be using a different lens and slower film? The lens is a Cannon EOS 100-300 4.5-5.6 USM. Thanks
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jon Close |
Bob, the only way to lose the graininess is to switch to ISO 400 or ISO 100 film. Changing to slower speed film will cost you 1 to 3 stops in shutter speed (assuming you're shooting wide open). A tripod or monopod will help limit camera shake at the slower shutter speed. Trading the EF 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 USM for Canon's Image Stabilized EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 USM IS (or EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L USM IS, or EF 300 f/4L USM IS) will allow you to continue to hand-hold at 3 stops slower shutter speed, but the slower shutter speed may not be able to freeze the action on the field. To use slower film AND keep the shutter speed up you'll need a tele or telezoom with a 2 stop gain in aperture to f/2.8. -Jon Close
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ken Pang |
I'm just thinking for a second, Jon... What you said is true, but Bob hasn't actually mentioned anything about lack of light here. According to Fuji's recommendation, with 800 speed film, you can shoot bright daylight at f/16 at 1/1000 of a second, or f/8 at 1/500th if it's an overcast day. That's still pretty fast. I'm thinking that either he's using cheap film (I shot about 2 dozen rolls of NGH II 800 over the last 2 months and only a handful of photos came out grainy) or else his meter is underexposing. Bob, if you have no problems "wasting" a bit of money testing things out, get yourself a pro pack of NGH II and shoot a roll (or part of a roll) at normal exposure, one at 1 stop over exposed and one at 2 stops over exposed. Get it processed at neutral density, and tell me how you go. Generally, if a neg is under exposed, then the prints come out grainy and lacks contrast. Cheers, Ken
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jon Close |
Good point, Ken. I just assumed ... and we all know what happens when you assume ;-). Yes, first verify that the meter isn't giving consistent underexposure. Better film is much cheaper than $500-$1500 USD for a new lens. Besides the Fuji film mentioned by Ken, I really like Kodak Royal Gold 400 and 100 print films.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||