BetterPhoto Q&A
Category: New Answers

Taking pictures in an arena

To love this question, log in above
March 12, 2003

C:\moms\unfocused.jpg
This is one of the 2 rolls of film I took on Sunday. Same arena,same camera.
What went wrong?

Thanks Laurie

To love this comment, log in above
March 12, 2003

Arena Lighting:
This is *not* the same as daylight. I'm not surprised about the color cast to your photographs. A greenish tinge sounds suspiciously like fluorescents, but it could also be a metal vapor type lighting in combination with the types of covers on them. The arena lighting can also pick up a color cast from painted metal ceilings and walls, if the color of them is not close to a relatively neutral white. The bleccch "institutional green" color comes to mind.

Insufficient Light:
The "too dark" sounds a lot like insufficient lighting. If you've been trying to use flash, I seriously doubt it has been doing much of anything for you. It requires one with truly *mondo* power to cover long distances in a cavernous space.

How the pros do it:
If flash is allowed and used, they employ very powerful flash units . . . on the order of 170 - 200 GN units (ISO 100 in feet) . . . and powered by battery slabs on their belts . . . internal batteries don't have enough power for them. A flash system (incl. battery slab) with this much power can run $500 to $1200. Many professional sports arenas are wired with multiple monolights in the rafters and the official home team photographer uses a radio or IR slave system to trigger them. Conseco Field House in Indianapolis is wired with these. With or without flash, they're also using very fast and very expensive f/2 and f/2.8 lenses (not focusing speed, but amount of light admitted to the film). The lenses they use easily cost $2,000 to $5,000 new.

Recommendations:

a. Filters:
I do not recommend trying to use filter(s). They can be used to correct ambient man-made lighting to daylight. However, anything other than tungsten (incandescent or halogen) is difficult at best. There are fluorescent filters, but there are so many types of fluorescent lights that they're not that accurate unless you're lucky with specific filter/light combination. Everything else (such as sodium, mercury, etc.) requires multiple "CC" filters and experimentation to find the combination of them that works. Last, and *most* important, using filter(s) eats up light and it is more difficult to see through them.

b. Film:
Assuming you're not willing to spend $$$$ on pro gear to do this, a viable solution comes down to film speed and just as important, the lab that is printing it. You didn't state the type of film being used. I recommend trying some Fuji Press 800 or Fuji Press 1600 without flash. Even though they're daylight film, both have a four-layer emulsion structure that allows easier color correction from man-made lighting when the negatives are printed. I'd also try different labs. They cannot fix the "too dark" issue much. They do affect color balance of the prints as this *is* done for every print made and is dependent on the skill of the print machine operator. I've used Fuji Press 1600 for available light work under man-made lighting, including mixed lighting of several types, and the pro lab I use has no problem producing proof prints with acceptable color balance. Grain with films this fast will be noticeable and it does limit enlargement size, but both of these are fairly fine grained for their speed and better than the bottom end ISO 800 consumer films. I recommend trying the ISO 800 first to see if it's fast enough.

-- John

To love this comment, log in above
March 15, 2003

Thanks, Laurie

ps....How do I just post a picture without just leaving a link? There are other pictures on your site so I'd like to publish mine.
Thanks again...

To love this comment, log in above
March 16, 2003