Sports (Film and Filter)

[Daniel Taub Images]

Hi everyone, any one has shot inside Skydome? ... is a sport activity,
the film has to be Transparency (400 ASA, pushed?), Filter(CC30M,CC40M?).
Quality has to be at best, any experienced tip in this situation is more than welcome.

http://www.canphoto.net/iB312_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif daniel

[Daniel Taub Images]

Hi everyone, (better late than never), at the end I used fujichrome 100 asa, I pushed one stop, and I used CC30M filter. It went well, better should be digital, but the client prefered film.

best

Daniel Taub http://www.canphoto.net/iB312_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[seventhframe]

Provia 400F is great and allso pushes great too!

[Daniel Taub Images]

Hello Omer, thank you for the tip, but there was a catch that I didn't mentioned before " Dome Close", "Vapor Light". I used Provia 100 ASA , I used a CC30M, and increase (Push) one stop and a half the film. since I loose two stop by adding the filter, the increment of pushing, only make my loose half stop.
I shot one frame at a time, avoiding very fast action.
I found that 400 ASA film is very grainy.
The real choice will be digital, but the client don't trust digital, and we know that we have to make the client happy.

best

daniel taub:)

[dmc]

Just to complete the information in this post:

The Rogers Centre (formerly SkyDome) is horribly lit when the roof is closed.

For MLB Blue Jays games, the exposure is typically 1/640 f/2.8 @ ISO 1000, and even that is 1/3-stop under in certain areas of the outfield.

If it is a CFL Toronto Argonauts game you're shooting, there's even less light, it seems. Looking up at the banks of stadium lights, it seems as though you're seeing about 85% of the lights on, and so I always find myself around 1/500 f/2.8 @ ISO 1250.

Obviously, you have to keep your shutter speeds in the 1/500 and faster range or you just won't get sharp images, stabilizer or not. Using a 4, I always try to stay in the 1/500-1/640 range and above with a monopod.

The EOS-1D MkII has almost the same amount of "grain" at ISO 800-1000 as ISO 400 color negative film. The high ISO stuff of digital absolutely blows film out of the water, and it is primarily this reason why trading card companies and large publications (e.g., ESPN, SI) have been exclusively digital in this area for several years.

White balance is another issue altogether. They light is around 3700K, but there is also a nasty green cast from the lights which shifts from frame-to-frame. You also occasionally have to contend with a hint of blue from the empty seats.

Thinking of the filters required to correct this to daylight balanced film makes my brain hurt.

Moral of the story, shoot digital. And if you client prefers film, they're idiots.

[andrewr]

Quote[/b] (Daniel Taub Images @ July 28 2005,18:31)]The real choice will be digital, but the client don't trust digital, and we know that we have to make the client happy.
Dave made some great points and obviously speaks from much experience. I certainly don't want to re-start the whole digital vs film debate, but as Dave said this is one area where there is absolutely no contest. If your clients "don't trust digital", then they need to be educated about the benefits, especially when shooting high ISO images in bad mixed lighting. Telling them that a high-quality publication like Sports Illustrated hasn't used film for years is a good place to start.

The best way to make the client happy is to deliver the best qaulity images, and as a professional you should know what tools are best for the job. Presumably that's why they are hiring you. If they think they know more than you about the tools of your trade, then why aren't they out there taking the pictures themselves?

I still struggle with this in my business and somtimes it's easier to say to yourself "just give them what they want", and if they're not happy with the results it's their problem. But like I said they are hiring you because you're a pro and you're not there just to push the shutter button. You're also there to solve problems and that includes deciding what tools will deliver the best results and are most appropriate for the job.

Cheers,

Andrew

[Daniel Taub Images]

Hi everyone, when I asked for sugestions was August 17th, 2004. A year went by and nobody came forward. A year after I have done the assignment, I can say, in my opinion, digital is the choice, but if you look for quality ... digital can not come close. For the last forteen years my work has been related to advertising, and so far there is still a lot of people who prefer trasparencies over digital due to what I explained above. I can't say no one that is stupid, I just think it is a personal professional choice according to the requierment for each line of work.

Thanks so much, and the very best to you all.

daniel:D