[HN Gopher] Ref Butts and Slam Dunks: What It's Like Photographi...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Ref Butts and Slam Dunks: What It's Like Photographing an NBA Game
        
       Author : PaulHoule
       Score  : 40 points
       Date   : 2025-04-18 19:53 UTC (3 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (petapixel.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (petapixel.com)
        
       | brudgers wrote:
       | The big thing missing from the article is the strobes.
       | 
       | Flash is how pros get their pictures and there is a network of
       | massive strobes that the photographic pool share. Same is true
       | for most basketball arenas in the US.
        
         | PaulHoule wrote:
         | I shoot basketball college games and never use a flash. DxO
         | noise reduction software lets me crank the ISO up to crazy
         | levels so I can deal with the low light. My weapon of choice is
         | Sony's 135mm/1.8 GM which gets results from players on the
         | close side.
         | 
         | If you try to follow the ball you find that almost everybody is
         | facing away from you or obstructed by someone else. I came to
         | the conclusion that sports photography is really people
         | photography so I started looking for good portraits (open shots
         | on the players are rare) and that sometimes I'd get lucky and
         | get good action.
         | 
         | This viewpoint improved my basketball photography but improved
         | my other photography more because people's motion is more
         | predictable doing almost anything else. I'm getting real work
         | doing running events now, like
         | 
         | https://www.yogile.com/strides-of-march-2025
        
           | dylan604 wrote:
           | > I came to the conclusion that sports photography is really
           | people photography so I started looking for good portraits
           | 
           | That's an interesting realization you made, but what were you
           | doing before that?
           | 
           | I'd also say that the flash comment was very uninformed. In
           | any arena/stadium that the games/matches are broadcast, they
           | will be lit properly in order for the cameras to have a
           | proper exposure. This also means there's plenty of light for
           | the photogs.
        
             | FireBeyond wrote:
             | > I'd also say that the flash comment was very uninformed.
             | In any arena/stadium that the games/matches are broadcast,
             | they will be lit properly in order for the cameras to have
             | a proper exposure. This also means there's plenty of light
             | for the photogs.
             | 
             | That's not (entirely) accurate. Lighting for continuous
             | light (e.g., TV broadcast) is quite different from still
             | photography. NBA arenas, at least, absolutely ARE equipped
             | with strobes in the rafters that are radio-activated from
             | the camera.
             | 
             | Watch as the team comes down the court, and don't watch the
             | players but watch the court, you will see the flashes
             | reflect on the court (and apologies if you can't unsee them
             | after, but they're not overly noticeable). As you say,
             | there is a good amount of light, but if you want a tighter
             | aperture or are shooting a player at high speed, you need
             | more than the arena is lit for.
             | 
             | Further info:
             | 
             | - https://petapixel.com/2017/06/03/bright-flashes-nba-
             | games-ma...
             | 
             | - https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/nta77s/anyone_notic
             | e_a...
             | 
             | - https://imgur.com/a/puri1RN/
        
               | briandear wrote:
               | This is absolutely correct. Can confirm because I did NBA
               | photography for many years.
        
             | brudgers wrote:
             | _the flash comment was very uninformed_
             | 
             | https://youtu.be/1IyD1mLgyeM?si=FLVemqt1Dui4jLVU
             | 
             | If you are videoing for slow-mo you might have a 1/240
             | shutter speed.
             | 
             | If you want to freeze motion in a closeup. You want to be
             | about an order of magnitude faster...and about two orders
             | of magnitude faster than 30p.
             | 
             | In addition, video typically uses smaller sensors to
             | improve depth of field at wide aperture -- you don't want
             | bokka -- and to keep lens size down (even though broadcast
             | lenses are massive and six or seven figures).
             | 
             | And of course video tolerates a lot of motion blur and
             | noise.
             | 
             | In other words, the fire truck doesn't rely on garden
             | hoses.
        
             | briandear wrote:
             | > I'd also say that the flash comment was very uninformed.
             | In any arena/stadium that the games/matches are broadcast,
             | they will be lit properly in order for the cameras to have
             | a proper exposure.
             | 
             | Absolutely incorrect. The lighting at an average NBA game
             | would require a high speed "film" -- take a light meter
             | next time you go and you won't be able to get a fast enough
             | shutter speed at a low enough ISO for a glossy shot. In the
             | olden days, we'd have to push 800 ISO Fuji color film one
             | or two stops unless we had stadium strobes. Maybe digital
             | post processing is the norm these days, but watch an NBA
             | game and at key moments, you'll see strobes firing from the
             | rafters. TV shutter speeds are slower than those used for
             | still photography and additionally, TV lenses are gigantic
             | and let in far more light. The typical sports still camera
             | lens is the 300/2.8 or the 400/2.8 and even shooting at a
             | 2.8 aperture, you still need a lot more light than the
             | broadcast cameras.
        
               | brudgers wrote:
               | In addition, ISO and shutter speed cannot light the
               | subject 2/3 stop above ambient to create emphasis.
               | 
               | There are approximately zero scenes that would not
               | benefit from well executed flash...though there are many
               | were flash is impractical...
               | 
               | ...doing the impractical is also known as magic.
        
           | brudgers wrote:
           | The running pictures are awesome work. For a lot of families
           | your pictures might be the only pictures they have of the
           | runners running.
           | 
           | My comment was about how NBA "press pool" level photographs
           | are made (and big time college hoops). They use flash but the
           | flashes are big, wireless and up in the rafters (i.e.
           | indirect). Basically, the press pool has access to studio
           | lighting and can shoot at low iso and narrow apertures...and
           | of course they have access to great shooting positions.
           | 
           | Luck is always a factor...the photographer in Liefer's iconic
           | photo is just looking at the backside of Ali's big white
           | trunks...
           | 
           | https://neilleifer.com/collections/muhammad-
           | ali?srsltid=AfmB...
           | 
           | But for what it is worth, when I was shooting a lot of high
           | school soccer, better action shots came from "skating to
           | where the puck is going." And turning off spray and pray
           | because there's only one best moment to click the shutter and
           | mechanical sympathy is the best way to get close.
           | 
           | And fewer photos meant less grunt work later...modulo
           | pleasing an editor or the mother of the bride. It was a pure
           | hobby, not a jobby.
           | 
           | When that phase of my life passed, I shifted toward tilt-
           | shifts and movements and doubled down on one shot at a time.
        
             | dylan604 wrote:
             | > when I was shooting a lot of high school soccer, better
             | action shots came from "skating to where the puck is
             | going."
             | 
             | way to mix sports metaphors. /s
             | 
             | to get better action shots, it really helps to understand
             | the nuance of the sport itself. being able to anticipate
             | off the ball movement while being able to anticipate a play
             | developing will all help you improve your luck to be
             | pointing your lens in the right place.
             | 
             | I followed a specific NCAA football team for a season, and
             | got to the point of anticipating plays and recognizing
             | formations even though I'm not really a throwball fan. I'm
             | much more of a proper football fan, and can do much better
             | than skating to a puck metaphor as I know tactics much
             | better and see how off the ball players are moving and why
             | they are doing it. This definitely allowed for better
             | action shots of players with the ball.
             | 
             | As anything, someone with specific knowledge of their
             | subject will improve their luck over someone just there for
             | some shots.
        
               | brudgers wrote:
               | At the time I was refereeing a fair amount and so I was
               | on the field anticipating player behavior and ball
               | movement "in anger." And for a bit of cash.
               | 
               | It informed my photography.
        
             | mysteria wrote:
             | _But for what it is worth, when I was shooting a lot of
             | high school soccer, better action shots came from "skating
             | to where the puck is going." And turning off spray and pray
             | because there's only one best moment to click the shutter
             | and mechanical sympathy is the best way to get close._
             | 
             | I unfortunately don't have a source but I remember hearing
             | about some action photographers trying out 4K60 cameras set
             | to a high shutter speed and basically shooting video clips
             | instead of stills. They would emphasize proper framing,
             | exposure, and focus instead of worrying about timing the
             | shutter.
             | 
             | Later the photographer would review the video clips and
             | choose the best frames for publication. For web and
             | newswire distribution 4K resolution was good enough for
             | them, and they indicated that it was very unlikely that the
             | perfect shot would fall outside of each 1/60 second frame.
        
               | pixelfarmer wrote:
               | Doesn't need video anymore, high end cameras can run wild
               | on taking picture after picture and start doing so before
               | you even fully pressed the shutter, to account for human
               | delays and the ones of the tech itself.
               | 
               | I mean we are talking about a part of photography where
               | even back in the days of film a camera would run through
               | a roll of film in seconds for exactly this sort of thing.
        
               | PaulHoule wrote:
               | It amazes me that I can walk out of a game with 2000
               | images, I just read an article by someone who shot 9000
               | images of a game. With film it would cost at least $10 to
               | buy and develop film for about 30 shots, so I'd be
               | spending upwards of $600 to develop film. It's hard to be
               | nostalgic for film when you see it that way.
               | 
               | (I still shoot images faster than I can process them, but
               | it helps a lot that I got Keysticks working with
               | lightroom so I can sit back and use an XBOX controller to
               | scan through photos.)
               | 
               | I am thinking about shooting short video clips instead
               | because I think those might do even better on social and
               | let you tell stories that photos can't.
        
               | brudgers wrote:
               | _Later the photographer would_
               | 
               | That's why I prefer one-and-done. Making a photograph
               | always creates future work...future chores.
               | 
               | For me, I enjoy the process of making pictures. I don't
               | enjoy the rest nearly as much. I would rather paint.
               | 
               | But I have always made pictures for a hobby. What makes
               | sense when working for money doesn't drive my process.
               | 
               | Meaning and or expression drive what I do. Documentary
               | photography is not so much.
        
             | briandear wrote:
             | The other interesting thing about rafter strobes is the
             | recharge rate: I could sometimes get two shots in a row,
             | but more than that and the flashes could keep up. So the
             | fast motor cameras weren't that useful because you'd only
             | get one or two blasts from the strobes because they had to
             | charge for a few seconds. You really had to be good at
             | timing the shot. Also during the big moments, you'd often
             | get overexposed because all the other big news wires would
             | be shooting the same shot at the same moment, so you'd get
             | four sets of strobes blasting out your shot.
        
               | FireBeyond wrote:
               | > The other interesting thing about rafter strobes is the
               | recharge rate: I could sometimes get two shots in a row,
               | but more than that and the flashes could keep up.
               | 
               | I'm somewhat surprised (although it's certainly a niche)
               | that some of those larger flashes intended for commercial
               | (sports, primarily) photography, don't have "dual
               | capacitors", i.e. keep both charged and essentially
               | recycle asynchronously.
        
           | ISL wrote:
           | Whoa. Didn't expect to see the inside of Barton Hall this
           | morning :).
        
             | PaulHoule wrote:
             | Follow my profiles and you will see the inside of Barton
             | and everything else Cornell
             | 
             | https://bsky.app/profile/up-8.bsky.social
             | 
             | https://mastodon.social/@UP8
        
           | Karrot_Kream wrote:
           | Denoising and fast glass definitely works well and is
           | versatile even in situations where you don't need fast action
           | but you just don't have good lighting available. The only
           | problem is this adds to time spent in post. If I have access
           | to a strobe and a venue where I can use said strobe, I'm
           | using it.
        
           | formerphotoj wrote:
           | As we used to say, "two faces and a ball."
        
       | mrandish wrote:
       | Related interesting fact (which I learned the hard way). Indoor
       | volleyball is one of the hardest sports to photograph well. It
       | shares many of the same technical challenges as indoor basketball
       | but a hitter's swing and subsequent ball speed are much faster.
       | 
       | As a fairly serious amateur photographer possessing the usual
       | higher-end DSLRs and a backpack full of lenses, when our teen
       | daughter showed interest and aptitude in competitive club
       | volleyball, my wife asked "Hey, with all that gear can you get
       | some dramatic shots of her playing?" "Sure!" I naively responded.
       | I started to realize just how wrong I was when I tried to shoot
       | the first game and largely failed to get shots that were A) at
       | the right moment, B) not motion blurred, and C) in focus.
       | 
       | I was shocked. Only once I'd failed did I bother to look up
       | "Shooting Indoor Volleyball" and discover posts from Olympic-
       | level pro sports photographers commiserating about the unique
       | challenges of indoor V-ball. There are two sets of interrelated
       | problems that compound each other: technical and practical. The
       | main technical problem is that a lot of indoor volleyball courts
       | aren't very well lit. Sure, they seem bright enough to the naked
       | eye but freezing high-speed motion needs a lot of light to enable
       | a fast shutter speed. And you need a long lens (ie a lot of zoom)
       | because you can't be right alongside the court due to line judges
       | needing clear sight lines and the ever-present risk of players
       | chasing an errant ball trampling you. Lenses that do all of that
       | at high-quality and auto-focus quickly are big, heavy and _very_
       | expensive. If indoor volleyball was outdoors, even on a cloudy
       | day, there would be double the light and this would all be _much_
       | easier.
       | 
       | The second set of problems are practical. There a 12 players on
       | the court, six on a side in two rows of three. As you try to line
       | up shots where the action is likely to happen you quickly
       | discover that this configuration has players constantly moving in
       | front of the shot zone you were aiming for. And this is where
       | auto-focus becomes a real challenge as it will constantly be
       | refocusing on the players moving into your frame in front of or
       | behind the 'shot zone', which is empty because the hitter is
       | winding up and still flying toward the shot zone where the hit
       | will happen. Of course, you can also take the approach of picking
       | a player and having the auto-focus stick to that player, except
       | the whole goal of the ball setter and potential hitters is to
       | hide which player is actually going to hit the ball for as long
       | as possible. Oh, and there's a grid of sharp black lines called
       | "the net" just 20-inches away from your shot zone desperately
       | trying to get your auto-focus to focus on it instead of the ball
       | or hitter (neither of which are there yet).
       | 
       | I did ultimately manage to get enough good shots. My wife and
       | daughter were pleased. I only managed to do this by shooting
       | literally thousands of shots and spending hours reviewing shots
       | to find the few keepers. Having a camera capable of shooting over
       | 20 50 megapixel shots a second helps. I spent a fair bit of that
       | time wishing my daughter had taken a liking to softball
       | instead... :-)
        
         | FireBeyond wrote:
         | There's definitely a technique to it.
         | 
         | I rented a Canon 400mm/2.8 lens for SeaFair (with numerous
         | military flybys) back in the day.
         | 
         | On the first pass, I was extremely frustrated as I was learning
         | how to shoot with the lens (very fast objects, and a very heavy
         | lens). I mistakenly tried to do it all with the viewfinder
         | rather than keeping both eyes open so I could get good
         | aim/framing.
         | 
         | The second pass I got better, and by the third and later passes
         | I was doing pretty well.
         | 
         | It's still not cheap (I think I paid about $200 for a three-day
         | rental from LensRentals, but that would give you practice
         | time), but it could be worthwhile for the championship,
         | playoffs, etc.
        
           | mrandish wrote:
           | That 400mm f2.8 is a nice lens. I ended up buying a Tamron
           | 70-300mm f2.8 for around $400 to shoot volleyball. It's one
           | step down from top tier premium level but got good reviews
           | and worked well enough. The zoom and constant aperture helped
           | for v-ball. Another upside is that it wasn't as large or
           | heavy as the top premium glass. Another tip for shooting
           | anything like v-ball is to get a good carbon fiber monopod
           | and pair it with an Arca Swiss quick release. Flexible and
           | very fast.
           | 
           | I think to really shoot indoor v-ball well requires a
           | specialized high-end sports camera like the Sony A9-II
           | matched with a 300-600mm f2.8 premium lens. I was shooting
           | with a Sony A1 which is a great all-around top pro camera
           | with fantastic auto-focus ($6k when new) but the A1 was the
           | generation before the flagship cameras came with buffer pre-
           | record which is the killer feature for v-ball. That feature
           | loop records a second or so of full res frames at >20fps so
           | that when you press the shutter button it saves frames up to
           | a second back in time. V-ball evolves so fast it's basically
           | impossible to anticipate the moment of the hit (hitters
           | change up their swing timing on purpose to fake out blockers
           | (and photographers)). Pro sports shooters must develop
           | inhumanely fast twitch reflexes. The new A9-II has that
           | buffer pre-record feature. Having neither pro-level reflexes
           | or the pre-record feature, I was left with "spraying and
           | praying" (and then reviewing for hours).
        
         | m463 wrote:
         | > auto-focus becomes a real challenge
         | 
         | I wonder if the new crop of cameras with eye-focus help. (focus
         | on what you're looking at)
        
       | PaulRobinson wrote:
       | Used to know a guy who became a freelance sports photographer
       | focusing on EPL games in Manchester. Paid better than his
       | previous role as a writer for the local paper, but seemed much
       | more challenging on various technical matters - you get all the
       | issues covered in this article, but also you're having to get to
       | an outdoor game, in Manchester, in the middle of January. I'd
       | meet him warming up in a city centre pub after the games, and it
       | would take him hours to thaw out. Although the beer was decent in
       | there, too...
        
       | briandear wrote:
       | I photographed NBA and Final Four (among other sports for
       | Reuters, and occasionally Sports Illustrated) in the late 1990s
       | and don't recall their ever being 60 photographers on the court,
       | but back in those days, we'd have film runners that would get our
       | film from courtside and run it up to a makeshift processing room
       | then scan the negatives on their suitcase-sized scanners and
       | terminals that communicated over a modem. It could take 20
       | minutes to transmit a single photo. I started at 18 as an
       | assistant to the Reuters staffer, but quickly got promoted to
       | shooting rather than running. Crazy to be 18 and right there for
       | key moments of some of the biggest American sports of that era.
       | 
       | Also, some of us would be allowed to set up photo strobes in the
       | rafters which would provide a flash that would let us shoot on
       | 100 ISO film. The majors would each have four strobes in the
       | rafters and we'd also set up remote triggered cameras behind the
       | backboard and sometimes aiming down from the rafters.
       | Interestingly, despite far better technology, the quality of the
       | "moments" photographers have captured hasn't really improved
       | much. Most of us didn't trust the autofocus and did everything
       | manually. For Reuters, even something that was slightly soft
       | focused would never make the cut. It was either perfect, or it
       | didn't ship.
       | 
       | I remember when the AP started testing these gargantuan Kodak
       | digital cameras that were essentially these modified Nikons. They
       | were novel but the quality wasn't good enough for the magazines.
       | 
       | Fun times.
       | 
       | If anyone is interested my photo of the San Antonio Spurs's Sean
       | Elliot was one of Sports Illustrated's All Time Clutch Shots.
       | Sports photography (at Reuters at least,) was all about the
       | reaction shot rather than peak action, but somehow that Sean
       | Elliot shot still lives on even though photographically it wasn't
       | that interesting. But I was the only photographer to get the shot
       | that night because all the other agencies got blocked.
       | Unfortunately given those were the film days, I have no idea
       | where all of my negatives are anymore.
       | 
       | https://www.si.com/nba/2010/05/28/28all-time-clutch-playoff-...
        
         | FireBeyond wrote:
         | Very cool! I follow Bruce Ely (Trail Blazers photographer) and
         | love some of his BTS work.
         | 
         | > If anyone is interested my photo of the San Antonio Spurs's
         | Sean Elliot was one of Sports Illustrated's All Time Clutch
         | Shots.
         | 
         | Still a good shot - and as noted, it's that context that is
         | everything. And perfectly timed at the moment of release.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-04-21 23:02 UTC)