Q&A Session with Gmen: Sports Photography

[DwightMcCann]

Back from POTN Southern California meeting ... a grand time was had by all. Mark's projects sound fantastic! Whatever comes of the discussion should be of great interest to many of us of occasionally have opportunities for longitudinal projects rather than just one shot shooting.

[gmen]

okay - I am the process of finalizing details of two projects for the next year - one an 8 month project covering the renaicense of a local stock car track that was shuttered 3 years ago. The second opportunity will be the 18 moneth coverage of a local university that is starting it's first baseball team in it's history. I will be covering it from its' birth, hiring of its first manager\coach, recruiting of the team, the 4 million dollar renovation of a historic ball park, the teams first season from its first game through to the the end of it's first season. I have ideas for both, each offer it's own unique opportunities... but I am looking for advice as both of these are one of opportunities that there will be no redue chances. Again, any ideas how you approach each of these projects would be great. It is my chance to contribute to a little bit of history - albeit a very small piece. Cheers.
Well Mark...first of all... these sound like very exciting projects.

How would I approach them? Crikey... that is a tough question.

First of all, I think it sparks off some more questions... as well some general thoughts.

The starting point for each may well be to ask what end result is required? What have the clients asked for.... or is it down to you? Will you be publishing work on an on-going basis or is there simply a final presentation? ...or both?

Obviously if there is a requirement for a specific end product then that may influence the type of shots you need. The end product could be a book, an article in a newspaper, a multimedia presentation, an exhibition... all kinds of things.

Are you going to be (a) DOCUMENTING the projects or (b) TELLING THE STORY of the projects?

(a) could be seen as a passive activity...i.e. you show up when something significant is due to happen and shoot it. It's a diary-led activity... possibly producing a set of images set around a time-line of events.

(b) is a proactive approach... your images will provide the viewer with a greater insight and link together on levels that are not simply chronological.

Are you restricted to providing a photographic account of the projects? Is there potential for a multimedia approach - introducing sound perhaps?

Both projects have an element of 'construction' in them - seems like an opportunity for timelapse work.

Then there are the important elements of people and places. There should be plenty of opportunities for portraits of the key 'players' in your story in their places of work.

Captions, captions and more captions - captions are vital to provide the bones for the flesh of a photo story.

Just a few thoughts to get the juices flowing....

---- Gavin

[Croasdail]

Great thoughts.... and I don't think either party nor myself has really thought it completely through. I sold them both the big picture... and got them all excited... and unfortunately both are trusting me to deliver on this grandious vision I painted. They both just want to record these events - the vehical is up to me so far. Sounds like fodder for more discussions.

I do know the baseball stuff will endup ultimately in the schools photo archieves - but an online multimedia presentation would create some opportunities. A timelapse of the renovation of the stadium would be a must... it is very historical in that it used to be home to the black leagues and greats such as Jackie Robinson played there - significant in that a predominately historical black university would be taking it over. I am also starting to work with the local arts council forcing me to think bigger then the pure sports shot. I could propose an exhibit to them... and perhaps even get some additional funding.

Lots and Lots to think about. I sold both of these places on the concept... now I have to deliver... yikes. I think the hard thing to do is to have continuity through the longer project... I myself am still very much still developing and maturing in my skills. And a lot of this stuff is going to really stretch my skill set and force me out of my little safe shooting habits.

[huskie]

Thank you gmen for your time on this post, I have enjoyed reading it and have learned a lot. I have a question from your picture of equipment. It shows you have both the 1.4x and 2x extenders. I had considered getting the 2x when I scraped up enough $$ to purchase the 70-200mm, but I was told by a NFL photographer that he didn't use the 2x extender, because he had problems with it being as sharp as he wanted. Is that his personal opinion or do other pros feel the same way?

[DwightMcCann]

huskie, I have found on both the 70-200mm f/2.8 and the 300mm f/2.8 that images with the 2X TC tend to be a tiny tad softer and lose a tiny tad of contrast, to wit, others can detect the differences in the images. When shooting with "the big boys" only perfection is allowed.

[gmen]

Thank you gmen for your time on this post, I have enjoyed reading it and have learned a lot. I have a question from your picture of equipment. It shows you have both the 1.4x and 2x extenders. I had considered getting the 2x when I scraped up enough $$ to purchase the 70-200mm, but I was told by a NFL photographer that he didn't use the 2x extender, because he had problems with it being as sharp as he wanted. Is that his personal opinion or do other pros feel the same way?I'd agree with Dwight's post on this...

I'm not a big fan of the 2x extender on the 70-200mm - but, then again, I'm not a big fan of the 70-200mm per se.

The 2x extender is OK on the 300mm or the 400mm, but I'm not really happy working wide open under those circumstances. I generally stop down to f/7.1 - at this point the image quality improves just enough.

The 1.4x extender works very nicely with primes and is more than acceptable used wide open. It is OK on the 70-200mm but nevertheless benefits from being stopped down slightly.

My experience is with the Mk I version of the extenders. However, I've seen no tangible evidence that the situation should be significantly different with the Mk II versions.

I have quite a lot of experience of using the 2x extender with the 300mm f/2.8L as that has been my standard weapon for cricket for the last few summers.

---- Gavin

[DwightMcCann]

Didn't mean to step on your toes, Gavin ... just happens I was in this same position when someone helped me to look at my own images and notice this. Since I generally have to shoot wide open the differences actually were pretty obvious ... just a tiny tad, but detectable!

[gmen]

Didn't mean to step on your toes, Gavin ... just happens I was in this same position when someone helped me to look at my own images and notice this. Since I generally have to shoot wide open the differences actually were pretty obvious ... just a tiny tad, but detectable!
No problem Dwight ;) been a busy week so I appreciate all the help I can get!

---- Gavin

[huskie]

I'm not a big fan of the 2x extender on the 70-200mm - but, then again, I'm not a big fan of the 70-200mm per se.


Just curious why you don't like the 70-200mm? I was wanting to use it with an extender for soccer (:) sorry, it's hard for me to call it football:) ) and then by itself for basketball and volleyball.

Without spending several thousand on a 300mm or 400mm 2.8, what would be a better option for me?

[gmen]

Just curious why you don't like the 70-200mm? It's not really an optical issue... it's just that I don't like having the option to zoom out :lol: it's all too easy to end up with a shot that's a bit too loose... and that's just not my style ;)

Yep, it's a handy all-round lens in its unadulterated form - but there is a decrease in overall performance when used with the 2x extender (and to a lesser degree with the 1.4x).

Other options? Probably not unless you compromise with the EF 300mm f/4 or EF 400mm f/5.6... if you really need a zoom, maybe look at the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8? Alternatively, hire some faster, longer, prime glass for the really important shoots.

---- Gavin

[huskie]

Thank you for your information. I'll check into the other options.

[crispypie]

Hi Gavin,

I have thoroughly enjoyed reading through this thread, like many others, thanks for taking the time.

How do you deal with timing the shots? every shot being so tight and well timed must mean predicting where to point the glass, I realise this must come mostly with experience but do you use your "other" eye to track the ball or follow the ball with the camera. Do you get to work out who the crosses are most likely to fall to and follow the player?

(Sorry if this has been asked before, please just point me in the right location if I have missed it)

Thanks again

Chris

[superdiver]

WOW, that 120-300 sigma is 1000 bucks more then the 70-200!

[gmen]

Hi Gavin,

I have thoroughly enjoyed reading through this thread, like many others, thanks for taking the time.

How do you deal with timing the shots? every shot being so tight and well timed must mean predicting where to point the glass, I realise this must come mostly with experience but do you use your "other" eye to track the ball or follow the ball with the camera. Do you get to work out who the crosses are most likely to fall to and follow the player?

(Sorry if this has been asked before, please just point me in the right location if I have missed it)

Thanks again

ChrisHi Chris...

Thanks very much for your question... and glad the thread has made interesting reading!

I'll make specific reference to football shooting in my reply - but the general principles apply for other sports.

Timing is certainly everything when you're aiming to capture the peak of the action. If the ball is a bit too far away from the players or, worse still, has left the frame completely, it can consign the image to the recycle bin :lol:

You're 100% right to say that keeping both eyes open maximises the chances of timing your shutter press correctly.

Ideally the first image in a burst should be the peak moment, particularly where headers are concerned... otherwise you are trusting to luck. If you're shooting at 1/1000th of a second at 8 frames per second - then you've missed 992/1000ths of a second and a lot can happen in that time!

Shooting tight is part of the way to improve your timing. The more the action fills the frame, the more accurate your timing needs to be... but, as an inevitable result of shooting tight, the ball will always be in close proximity to the players.

Being able to anticipate the moment comes through practice. It's no different to shooting, say, panning shots... the more you work on your technique, the higher your hit-rate. Continuous practice helps as well - I find that my football 'reflex' is usually a bit rusty after a few weeks off over the summer and it can take a game or two to get back into the groove.

It's virtually impossible to follow the ball with the camera... so I generally try to read the game and have the lens in position just before the ball arrives. That helps in composing the image as you can settle for a fraction of a second before hitting the button. If you're in too much of a rush, you'll end up cropping parts of the players that you don't want to.

As for where to point the camera... sometimes it's pretty obvious. For example, from a goal kick, there will generally be action around the half-way line... it's a case of judging the direction of the ball, reading the faces of the players likely to be involved and swinging the lens into position a moment or two before the ball arrives. Time to settle before you 'click'...

Most set plays provide an element of predictability. However, when shooting tight, you will sometimes have to make a decision whether to 'go with the 'keeper' rather than an outfield player... this is particularly true with free-kicks. It can be a gamble at times which doesn't always pay off.

In open play, keeping both eyes open and 'trying' to read the pattern of the game can help. If the ball is going to be crossed, there's usually little point in focusing on the player actually crossing the ball - you're better served by looking to identify the 'cherry picker' in the box.

None of this is easy. You could practice 24 hours a day and still miss the important shot. Things can conspire against you - the ref's backside coming between you and the action for example!! All you can do is put yourself in the best position and maximise your chances of nailing the shot by practicing the timing and massaging that photographic reflex.

As I said earlier, don't rely on 5 or 8 frames a second to get the shot for you. Oh yes, there ARE times when you will shoot a prolonged burst - I go into 'machine gun' mode from time to time shooting celebrations, goals and even midfield tussles for the ball... but I'd say that 75% of the time, the first frame in a burst is usually the frame you need.

Anticipate... compose... settle... fire... that's about the size of it. And remember, if you see it happen (through the viewfinder), you've missed it (ain't that right IndyJeff?)

Hope that helps!

---- Gavin

[gmen]

WOW, that 120-300 sigma is 1000 bucks more then the 70-200!If only fast glass was cheap... :lol: The Sigma is a good deal cheaper than a long, fixed, fast prime though... and a very good deal if you pick up the older version second hand.

EDIT: In fact... looking at new UK prices (on www.warehouseexpress.com), the latest version of the Sigma 120-300 is the same price as the Canon 70-200 IS lens.

---- Gavin

[DwightMcCann]

You cannot imagine how disappointed I was to discover that 8.5 frames per second isn't nearly fast enough to ensure that you capture the "peak instant!" I think 30 fps would approach it, sigh, but now I know that you simply must anticipate properly. I, too, use extended burst mode when shooting boxing when one falters and the other takes advantage by pummelling him but only attention and focus will get the jaw warping right cross or upper cut ... the next frame won't look like much at all at 8 fps. Sports are just too fast.

[PhotosGuy]

I do know the baseball stuff will endup ultimately in the schools photo archieves - but an online multimedia presentation would create some opportunities. Keep in mind that technology advances fast &, 10 years down the line, some multimedia formats may no longer be readable with current computers. So be sure to provide prints (& HQ jpegs which should always stay in popular use).

[Croasdail]

As I said earlier, don't rely on 5 or 8 frames a second to get the shot for you. Oh yes, there ARE times when you will shoot a prolonged burst - I go into 'machine gun' mode from time to time shooting celebrations, goals and even midfield tussles for the ball... but I'd say that 75% of the time, the first frame in a burst is usually the frame you need.

Anticipate... compose... settle... fire... that's about the size of it. And remember, if you see it happen (through the viewfinder), you've missed it (ain't that right IndyJeff?)

crispypie, let me emphatically second what Gavin is saying here. When I was just picking the camera back up again about a year ago and started playing around, I used the motordrive feature way too much. Then Gavin gave me the ....

Ideally the first image in a burst should be the peak moment, particularly where headers are concerned... otherwise you are trusting to luck. If you're shooting at 1/1000th of a second at 8 frames per second - then you've missed 992/1000ths of a second and a lot can happen in that time!


and I turned my camera down to single shot mode... and after a few events my keeper rate went way up, yet the number of frames I shot went way down. I used to shoot a ton of shots at a match... now I am down to about 200 of which a high number are usable. I have since gone back and use burst mode on occasion - but each time I do I have to repremend myself because ulitmately I end up missing the shot.

The nice advantade we have now is that we can now review or work in real time. As I have been picking up baseball the last week or so, being able to see how my timing is doing in realtime, I have been able to make adjustments on the fly. Doing it this way and adjusting as i go along.... I get a much - let me put that stronger - Much! - higher yeild on shots taken. Follow Gavins advice here.... it will save you a lot of work post shooting and make you a much better shooter.

The best thing about the 1 series bodies is their better AF, the worst thing about the 1d (and the 20d) is they can reinforce some real bad shooting habits - laying on the hammer and relying on luck to get you the shot. Cheers.

[Croasdail]

You cannot imagine how disappointed I was to discover that 8.5 frames per second isn't nearly fast enough to ensure that you capture the "peak instant!" I think 30 fps would approach it, sigh, but now I know that you simply must anticipate properly. I, too, use extended burst mode when shooting boxing when one falters and the other takes advantage by pummelling him but only attention and focus will get the jaw warping right cross or upper cut ... the next frame won't look like much at all at 8 fps. Sports are just too fast.

Dwight - down at the school they just got a new HD video camera that shoots 30 fps at what works out to be 4+ mps per frame.... The camera is fantasically expensive - but gives a vision of where things are going. The stills are simply amazing to look at.

[DwightMcCann]

Well, Mark, as a professional I need TWO!

[PhotosGuy]

I agree. I've never had much luck with burst mode 'cause...
1. When I squeeeeeeze off one shot, I get three &...
2. I want to see the shot happening & pick each frame that will "work".
Except for the guys with 250 exposure backs, we only had a max of 36 at a time & we learned anticipate as Gavin has said. ;)

[gmen]

Except for the guys with 250 exposure backs, we only had a max of 36 at a time & we learned anticipate as Gavin has said. ;)Film, eh? I've heard of that stuff Frank :) I'm pretty sure that's where all this 'anticipation' stuff stems from.

I was sat in close proximity to a tog on Saturday at the football match I was covering (a new face on the local scene). He was shooting with a 20D and what looked like a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 lens - so some pretty nice kit.

He must have had some seriously large memory cards as well. :rolleyes:

He shot almost continuously no matter where the play was on the pitch. Backs, fronts, sides, ball, no ball... he might as well have been using a video camera.

Even with a 1.6x crop, if the players are the best part of 100 yards away, they ain't gonna come close to filling the frame at 400mm let alone 200mm... and who'd want to sift through that many potentially 'duff' images to find a good one...

Maybe I was missing something... but somehow I don't think so.

Rant over. Fortunately I don't rant very often :lol:

Oh... and while I'm here... just posted some boxing stuff over in the Sports Forum: http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=141989

...and some thoughts on light: http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=142078

---- Gavin

[PhotosGuy]

Things seem to have slowed down a bit so I'm going to <bump> with a couple of general questions. (This thread has gone on on for so long that I don't remember if they've been answered by you already, so just point me toward the post if they have.)

1/ There have been several threads about focusing problems with the 20D. Some point to user error & some insist that the 20D has a software problem. What's your take on it? Do you still occasionally use the 20D?
Have you seen this problem?
Got a fix for a high(er) percentage of sharp shots? (Besides using a MkII & a f/1.4 prime) ;)

2/ I've been thinking about the 100-400 IS L. Why? 'Cause it makes more sense to me than a 70-200 with a TC, the price is reasonable ($1,300US at B&H), & it fits the 200-400mm focal length that I don't have covered.
I expect that you're using primes for the obvious reasons, but have you used that zoom recently, & if so, what are your thoughts on it?

[gmen]

Things seem to have slowed down a bit so I'm going to <bump> with a couple of general questions. (This thread has gone on on for so long that I don't remember if they've been answered by you already, so just point me toward the post if they have.)

1/ There have been several threads about focusing problems with the 20D. Some point to user error & some insist that the 20D has a software problem. What's your take on it? Do you still occasionally use the 20D?
Have you seen this problem?
Got a fix for a high(er) percentage of sharp shots? (Besides using a MkII & a f/1.4 prime) ;)?Hi Frank!

Firstly, thanks for the question... it has been a bit quiet round here recently :)

Secondly, apologies for (very) late reply... been a (very) busy weekend... so I have an excuse (just) ;)

Thirdly... to answer your question... I've never actually used the 20D. I did, however, have a 10D for quite a while... and I'd be lying if I said that my hit-rate for sharp shots didn't increase significantly when I started to use the MkII.

I suppose I worked around the limitations of the 10D to some extent - in that I shot fewer frames in bursts and had a 'feeling' for when the camera was really struggling to keep up. As a result, I probably still had a reasonable % of 'keepers'... but still got less images as there were situations when I simply didn't hit the button :lol:

I'd imagine that the 20D would do better than the 10D and it would be more tempting to shoot a burst simply because of the faster frame rate and the bigger buffer. I'd still be surprised if the results of, say, a 5-frame burst tracking a fast moving subject with the 20D were as good as the results of a similar burst with the MkII.

However, I have obviously seen many excellent results with the 20D - this makes me think that there probably isn't a software problem with the camera.

The AF on the 20D looks to be pretty capable. So user error may well come into play... perhaps not selecting the correct focus point... perhaps expecting a little too much from the camera... perhaps from not picking an area of reasonable contrast for the AF to lock on to... perhaps not using a fast enough lens in low light conditions? There are many factors to consider before looking at an inherent problem with the camera itself.

Of course, I could be wrong ;)

2/ I've been thinking about the 100-400 IS L. Why? 'Cause it makes more sense to me than a 70-200 with a TC, the price is reasonable ($1,300US at B&H), & it fits the 200-400mm focal length that I don't have covered.
I expect that you're using primes for the obvious reasons, but have you used that zoom recently, & if so, what are your thoughts on it?The 100-400 isn't a lens I've used myself. I do have a 'colleague' who uses one for motorsport and swears by it. I have seen some of his results and they look good.

It's one of those lenses that I've often thought about adding to the kit bag... but haven't been able to justify (yet) ;) It looks like a good all-round performer... it would also make a nice PJ lens for candids and even some portraiture.

The big limitation is going to be the aperture. Obviously it's a lens that thrives on pretty good lighting (for moving subject work). For me it would be an outdoor lens for the summer... but that might not be a bad thing.

As you know, the primes come into their own in low light and for top notch IQ... but the 100-400 certainly has its place. I also like the push-pull action... my first AF lens was the old Canon EF 70-210mm f/4 push-pull and I still prefer that style of lens to my current twisty 70-200mm.

I don't think you'd go far wrong with the 100-400 for general use... If you get one, you may well inspire me to get one too ;)

---- Gavin

[bigrob]

Hi Gavin
I know you weren't actually there, so can't really see the conditions yourself. Can I ask how you would have prepared to shoot in these conditions?

It was in a sports hall with high up flourescent lighting. The mats that they were fighting on were red.

I shot in RAW at 2.8, 3200ISO using a 24-70 lens without a custom white balance. The focal length was 70mm. No exp comp. Shutter speed 400. Metering mode was Pattern.

Also do you think it works better in B&W. I like the B&W, but also like the colour because of the green gumshield. I appreciate others could get a much better final image as I have a total lack of post processing skills.

Thanks

[bigrob]

B&W

[PhotosGuy]

Thanks, Gavin. I thought you were probably working over the weekend. An outdoor lens for the summer is just what I had in mind. We're hoping for 7 Spits & a few Hurricanes if we're lucky. ;)

[gmen]

Hi Gavin
I know you weren't actually there, so can't really see the conditions yourself. Can I ask how you would have prepared to shoot in these conditions?

It was in a sports hall with high up flourescent lighting. The mats that they were fighting on were red.

I shot in RAW at 2.8, 3200ISO using a 24-70 lens without a custom white balance. The focal length was 70mm. No exp comp. Shutter speed 400. Metering mode was Pattern.

Also do you think it works better in B&W. I like the B&W, but also like the colour because of the green gumshield. I appreciate others could get a much better final image as I have a total lack of post processing skills.

ThanksHi Rob!

I think it's a great image - particularly when you consider the conditions that you were working under. I very much doubt that I would have approached the shot any differently - you had to work at high ISO due to the lighting, you managed the best shutter speed you could under the circumstances and you shot in RAW to allow you to make some corrections to the WB in post-production. The red reflection from the mat is going to be impossible to avoid when working with the ambient lighting.

How to improve the image?

Using a faster lens would have allowed you to work at a slightly lower ISO but at the cost of reduced DoF - so that would be a compromise.

The alternative would have been to add some additional lighting - i.e. flash. This would probably have not been allowed anyway. If it was allowed then an on-camera gun would have given you the chance to stop the action at a lower ISO but at the cost of background detail and harsh shadows. Ideally you would need to use a minimum of two guns off-camera to get a better result - so a more complex (and costly) set up.

The B&W conversion is great as well - it suits the subject matter very well. I might be tempted to crop the image a little bit more from the left and top just to tighten up the composition, but that's just personal preference.

---- Gavin

[bigrob]

Many thanks for your comments Gavin. It is much appreciated. n.b. photobox had a great offer on ending last night 10, 10x8 photos for £1.00. With P&P that works out at 25p per image. Granny will be happy with some nice photos.

For those of you in the UK, go to www.photobox.co.uk Sign up for their newsletter as they have offers on every month. (n.b. I have no connection with Photobox other than as a customer).

[Simon Harrison]

1/ There have been several threads about focusing problems with the 20D. Some point to user error & some insist that the 20D has a software problem. What's your take on it? Do you still occasionally use the 20D?
Have you seen this problem?
Got a fix for a high(er) percentage of sharp shots? (Besides using a MkII & a f/1.4 prime) ;)



Gavin,

Hope you don’t mind me chipping in here, but as I use both the 10D and the 20D to shoot motorsports, I might have something useful to add.

Firstly, I found the AF on the 20D to be a vast improvement to that on the 10D. My number of ‘keepers’ went up pretty much overnight when I got the 20D.

Secondly, I have had no issues with the AF performance on my 20D that couldn’t be put down to either user error, or simply trying to exceed the capabilities of the camera. People need to understand that while the 20D AF performance really is very good, it is NOT a 1 series camera body.

It’s probably worth making the point that by and large the racing cars that I shoot tend to move predictably. This really helps the AF system (on any camera), and gives me distinct advantages over those who shoot other sports. I’m sure that if I was to try and shoot football with the 20D, or any other sport with very erratic and unpredictable movement, then my hit rate would reduce. I’ve also found that the AF performance is better when your target is moving diagonally across the frame as it comes towards you rather than heading straight at you.

I can’t stress the importance of starting to track your target using AI Servo early, and at least a second or two before releasing the shutter, and then follow through while continuing to focus track. Don’t forget, that for the first shot on the 20D, the camera is in shutter release priority i.e. it will fire whether focus lock has been achieved or not. Thereafter, it changes to focus priority and will only release the shutter when it believes it has a focus lock. I only ever use one focus point at anytime, although not necessarily the centre one depending on the composition I want to achieve. I also very rarely use burst mode on my 20D. It’s always selected just in case, but for 99.99% of the time I’ll just take a single shot.

I also shoot pretty much all of the time with manual exposure settings. While I can’t rationalise this fully in my own mind, and I am still very sceptical about the statement I’m going to make, shooting in manual seems to have improved the AF performance of the camera. Whether this is true or not I don’t know, but perhaps more of the processor power can be directed towards the AF calculations? I’ll let you draw your own conclusions.

In summary, I am very, very happy with the performance of the 20D’s AF. My personnel experience would not lead me to believe that there was anything inherently wrong with the 20D’s AF performance. Is it perfect? Certainly not, but then neither is a 1 series camera. Could I get a better hit rate with a 1 series camera? I have no doubt that I could.

Apologies for the long post. Hopefully it may help someone.

Cheers,

Simon.

[PhotosGuy]

Thanks for a "real life" answer, Simon. That's just what I was hoping to promote when I asked the questions. Your speculation that, "but perhaps more of the processor power can be directed towards the AF calculations?" makes a lot of sense to me, & might explain the varying "experiences" out there. ;)

[superdiver]

All you guys post such great pictures on the web.

My question is how do you get the great pictures from your card to the net without loosing all the quality?

What is your post proceessing sequence? Or is there a simple repeatable one?

[gmen]

All you guys post such great pictures on the web.

My question is how do you get the great pictures from your card to the net without loosing all the quality?

What is your post proceessing sequence? Or is there a simple repeatable one?
Hi superdiver... and thanks for the question...

A simple answer really. The workflow is as follows:

(i) Get the exposure as close to optimum 'in camera'
(ii) Minor tweaks to levels if required
(iii) Resize image to correct dimensions for web use
(iv) Apply burst of USM

---- Gavin

[LMP]

Ok... so here's one configuration for football. On the left is the Peli 1510 case and on the right is the Lowepro 650AW...

http://www.tgsphoto.co.uk/forum_images/bag001.jpg

1 - 300mm f/2.8L (with 1.4x extender attached just in case I need it)
2 - EOS 1D MkII
3 - CP-E2
4 - Short zoom, in this case a 17-40mm f/4L
5 - EOS 1D
6 - 580EX
7 - 2 x NP-E3 batteries and memory cards in wallet
8 - Monopod, in this case a Manfrotto 479-4B
9 - Laptop goes in here vertically
10 - 400mm f/2.8L IS
11 - Raincover, gloves, lens cloth, waterproofs under lens
12 - Spare AA batteries, lightmeter, pens, notebook, other widgets etc. in front pockets

Also...

13 - Lowepro accessory pouches (60AW) for 650AW

If I need to carry the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS as well, I can add an accessory pouch to each end of the 650AW and use them to carry the camera bodies. Alternatively I may reconfigure the 1510 to allow the 70-200 to be connected to one of the bodies.

So why does this work for me?

Well...

I can happily sit on the 1510 so I don't need to carry a stool
Everything is easily accessible - nothing is hidden under another item...
...so it's quick and easy to get kit in and out, minimising delay
When I'm sitting on the 1510, I'll transfer the other body with lens attached into the 650AW for easy access to a second camera. This might be the 1D + 300mm (or 70-200mm) for example. If the weather is good, I'll sit the body and lens on top of the 650AW on my right hand side ready to pick up when required.
It's not too much of a pain to get from car to ground. The 650AW goes over my shoulder and I carry (or roll) the 1510... so there are only two things to worry about.
It's not the ideal set-up to use on public transport or for hiking :lol: but it works for sports...

EDIT: Talking of bags, I've been pondering getting on of these for a while: http://www.thinktankphoto.com/pdfs/ThinkTank-AirportAddicted.pdf - if anyone in the US has experience of this bag, I'd be interested in hearing about it!

---- Gavin


Hi Gavin, I see above you have the laptop stashed in the LP650. What dimensions is that laptop you have ?

[gmen]

Hi Gavin, I see above you have the laptop stashed in the LP650. What dimensions is that laptop you have ?Hi Marc...

The laptop dimensions are: 310mm x 230mm x 25-30mm approx

Cheers!

---- Gavin

[DwightMcCann]

Ah, Gavin, we meet again! How do you get your IPTC data into your images? I copy the images from my CF cards to my Epson 2000 and then Windows Explorer to copy them to a disk file. I'd like to find a program that will losslessly put IPTC data into the image, preferably with defaults set across invocations (such as Copyright) and support batch processing ... this is what is currently holding up my upload to PS, sigh.

[gmen]

Ah, Gavin, we meet again! How do you get your IPTC data into your images? I copy the images from my CF cards to my Epson 2000 and then Windows Explorer to copy them to a disk file. I'd like to find a program that will losslessly put IPTC data into the image, preferably with defaults set across invocations (such as Copyright) and support batch processing ... this is what is currently holding up my upload to PS, sigh.
Hi Dwight...

Photo Mechanic is the baby... www.camerabits.com.... it can even add the basic IPTC data as it ingests the piccies...

;)

---- Gavin

[DwightMcCann]

Excellent ... I will give it a try!

[JX]

Hi Gavin,

Last spring you posted some track pictures that were excellent. I think they were of the high jump. Could go over your technique for shoting track.

Thanks

Jim

[gmen]

Hi Gavin,

Last spring you posted some track pictures that were excellent. I think they were of the high jump. Could go over your technique for shoting track.

Thanks

JimHi Jim!

Thanks very much for your question... I haven't shot a great deal of athletics, so I won't claim to be an expert... however, here are a few examples and thoughts on the subject.

My remit is generally to provide images for editorial use and, in particular, images of individual athletes in peak action and maximum exertion - ideally where they are recognisable.

Athletics venues are, by their very nature, cluttered places with all manner of background distractions. Therefore my basic approach is to look for good angles and backgrounds... and to shoot with the longest glass available. This also suits my personal 'style' (if you can call it that ;) ) as I like to shoot tight, tight, tight whenever possible.

Here are a few piccies:

http://www.tgsphoto.co.uk/forum_images/athletoids001.jpg

http://www.tgsphoto.co.uk/forum_images/athletoids002.jpg

http://www.tgsphoto.co.uk/forum_images/athletoids003.jpg

http://www.tgsphoto.co.uk/forum_images/athletoids004.jpg

http://www.tgsphoto.co.uk/forum_images/athletoids005.jpg

I was shooting with a 300mm f/2.8L lens (sometimes with the 1.4x) converter. This maximised my chances of isolating the competitors from the backgrounds.

I was working 'head-on' for many of the events so I would ensure that the athlete's faces would be visible. For the high jump, I observed the techniques of the jumpers and positioned myself accordingly.

There are a whole range of possibilities at athletics meetings utilising different focal lengths and remote cameras... I'll certainly be looking forward to the next event I shoot and I'll be sure to update this reply with some more thoughts and images.

---- Gavin

[Col_M]

How would the experts among you advise someone interested in having a go at football photography? Mainly where to go and what level to start at, would sunday teams be a good place to start?

Ideally i'd like to pop 5 mins from my house to Home Park but Argyle being a championship team i believe photographers need some sort of licence and i don't think they'd be too happy if i had my camera in the crowd. Another problem is that it's coming towards the end of the season now so there isn't really much time left, what with my final exams coming up i probably won't have time either :( So i'll be looking at the autumn before i can start properly

[gmen]

How would the experts among you advise someone interested in having a go at football photography? Mainly where to go and what level to start at, would sunday teams be a good place to start?

Ideally i'd like to pop 5 mins from my house to Home Park but Argyle being a championship team i believe photographers need some sort of licence and i don't think they'd be too happy if i had my camera in the crowd. Another problem is that it's coming towards the end of the season now so there isn't really much time left, what with my final exams coming up i probably won't have time either :( So i'll be looking at the autumn before i can start properlyHi Col_M!

Cheers for the question. I'd certainly say you'll need to start off by shooting a local team - even a Sunday morning one. This will give you time to build up your confidence and hone your technique before you even consider stepping up to bigger games/working to tight deadlines/applying for licences, etc.

Access to 'bigger' matches will obviously only come with the correct media accreditation and you will have to build up your folio/contacts first. This is all part of the fun... if you can get great images from games in the 'lower' leagues, you'll be in a strong position to market yourself to agencies/papers etc...

Another consideration is going to be equipment. Excellent results are possible with pretty much any camera/lens combination in the right hands - particularly under good lighting conditions.

However, football presents a whole set of challenges if you start to shoot under floodlights - long, fast glass is then often the only way to make useable images. The English weather also comes into play as well... so your gear will need to be robust if you're going to take on the challenges of working in driving rain for example ;) and if you start to shoot regularly.

I posted a reply to a similar question in another thread: http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=144558 - my first comments are in post #3. Hope that's useful!

---- Gavin

[LMP]

Hi Col_M, I'm not sure if I can jump in and answer here but I'll have a go anyway. If only to echo Gavins words really.

My experience started with taking a wander down to a park and started shooting some Sunday league with a borrowed 70-200 f/4. After doing this for a few weeks I got brave and sent my towns FC an email asking if they would mind if I came along to home games to get some practice in.

I've been doing this all season when my full time job allows and along the way have upgraded almost all my equpiment also. I managed to get some (paid for) shots in a few local rags. All this is great for confidence and contact building.

I did my 1st agency job yesterday and it was quiet an eye opener, obviously a VERY differnt kettle of fish to what I'm used too.

[Col_M]

Thanks for the advice Gavin :)
Initially I just want to have a go at it, see if i like it and it could be another string for my bow, so buying equipment and getting a folio could be getting ahead of ourselves a bit :D who knows though, it's good to keep an open mind :)
Kit wise i'd presume my 70-200 (equiv of 112-320 on my cam) will do for a while, maybe add a 1.4x tele converter (would give me 157-448 f/4) sometime, i think i'm right in thinking that for getting started that should be fine.
Do many sports photographers have "normal" 9-5 jobs? just wondering because most sports games, matches and etc are in the evenings or weekends. I appreciate that serious pros their main job will be photography, i'm just wondering if there are people who do it for a bit extra income.

Thanks marcatkins :) I could end up in a similar situation as yourself depending how things pan out so i value your input :)

Colin

[gmen]

Do many sports photographers have "normal" 9-5 jobs? just wondering because most sports games, matches and etc are in the evenings or weekends. I appreciate that serious pros their main job will be photography, i'm just wondering if there are people who do it for a bit extra income.Hi Colin,

I think you'll find that it's a mixed bag. You're right to say that a lot of sport happens at the weekend - however, there is plenty going on during the week as well: midweek football matches, cricket, horse racing, press conferences, training, boxing, school/college sports, etc...

There are not a huge number of full-time specialist sports photographers... many will combine their sports photography with other news/PR/studio work etc... some will be freelance, some will be newspaper/agency staffers...

Of course, there are a number of 'weekend sports togs' (aka bandits). This is absolutely fine as long as they don't affect the market by offering their work to publications for free. This has a dramatic impact on the quality of work that appears in the press and the income/livelihood of both staff and freelance togs.

It is a very competitive market and to some extent photographers need to work together in order to maintain a 'going rate' for their work. It is far better to network with other snappers than to be branded as a 'bandit' from day one ;) Communication is very much the key... don't be tempted to undercut the going rate and step on too many toes.

So, to answer your question, there are certainly togs who work for additional income at weekends - the key word being 'income' ;)

---- Gavin

[Croasdail]

Okay Gavin, so this begs the question, in order to get standard rates, you need to be an established and well connected shooter. I know you didn't take the traditional route to where you were - and some of your earlier work was pro-bono if I recall correctly. How does one build up a body of work so that they are taken seriously without becoming a bandit along the way. For me it came to the point of having to be all or nothing to really break back in, and I am choosing the nothing route for now until I find another avenue. ( I have a couple of projects that will keep me busy). There are tons of great shooters out there just looking for an avenue to get their stuff seen. This doesn't need an immediate answer.... just something to kinda of chew on.

[gmen]

Okay Gavin, so this begs the question, in order to get standard rates, you need to be an established and well connected shooter. I know you didn't take the traditional route to where you were - and some of your earlier work was pro-bono if I recall correctly. How does one build up a body of work so that they are taken seriously without becoming a bandit along the way. For me it came to the point of having to be all or nothing to really break back in, and I am choosing the nothing route for now until I find another avenue. ( I have a couple of projects that will keep me busy). There are tons of great shooters out there just looking for an avenue to get their stuff seen. This doesn't need an immediate answer.... just something to kinda of chew on.Hi Mark... it's a good question...

I guess there are two things going on here...

(i) Getting started... When I started I worked for a local club providing images for the programme - in exchange, I received perks (including an advert in the programme, free beer, and so on). So, in effect, I was trading my work for something tangible.

This is exactly why working for a small club/organisation is a great way to start. It enables you to get access to events, you can build up your experience/folio and you can start to think along the lines of 'remuneration' even if it comes in the form of a trade for something else of 'value'.

This then led to paid newspaper work. At the time the newspaper work wasn't planned.. but looking back on it, this could be perceived as good business practice from day one. I was aware that what I was doing incurred costs (film/equipment/time) and I simply didn't want to work for nothing other than the 'exposure' (excuse the pun) ;) At that time I already wanted my gear to be self-financing and I could see the potential to make better images with better gear (faster glass, etc.)

So, when the paper approached me, my first thought was 'How much would they pay for an image?' rather than 'Would I get a byline?'. Looking back on it, I regret not knowing the 'market rate' at the time as they may have paid me more :lol: With what I know now, I'd have been better prepared - hence this response/advice in an open forum.

It is definitely possible to approach an agency with a folio of work taken at 'lesser' events and get work at a higher level. I've done it and I can think of at least two sports shooters who are members of this forum who have done the same thing.

(ii) Working for the media/other clients... There is a reluctance for any business to pay for anything ;) and newspapers in particular are notorious for seeking their imagery for free (the rise of the 'citizen journalist' proves this point).

However, there is a 'framework' of market rates. This framework is very fragile. I have been undercut by enthusiastic 'bandits' providing pics to some of my (occasional) newspaper clients for nothing. My services have therefore no longer been required.

Hmmm. My services will no longer be required until said 'bandit' lets them down, i.e. has no back-up camera and can't work, fails to complete an assignment due to other commitments, covers an assignment for multiple clients and doesn't provide images of the key moments for client A, simply provides a load of rubbish. Then the client is on the phone to me to see if I can save the day. Depending on my relationship with them, I may help them out - it'll very much depend on how they dumped me in the first place :lol: Much of the time I'll decline to help.

OK, not every bandit will let them down - but, sadly, I can provide numerous examples of when they have.

Then there are those who undercut them market rate and drive the rates down, but that's another story!

That's why I said that communication is a very important area... and networking. The opportunities in this game often come through 'who you know'... it's naive to think that the quality of your work alone will carry you through. Yep, it'll help, but it's not going to be the only factor. Being reliable, consistent and knowing the right people will be as/more important.

The true 'bandit' will struggle to network if he/she fails to communicate with his fellow togs. Part of this communication may well include a 'discussion' of 'going rates'. This will help everyone maintain the rates and help avoid 'treading on too many toes'.

This may not be the typical economic model of 'market forces' in action. However, very few companies/individuals would offer their services free of charge - would you do your day job for free? Photography seems unique in this respect ;) ...and that's why a discussion of the subject is healthy for everyone interested in entering the business.

If a client drops me because another tog provides a better service for the same/similar rate (and explains this to me explicitly), I'll hold my hands up and work hard to get them back. I'm certainly not advocating some form of protectionism. I'm simply trying to promote the idea that photography (for 'clients') should be practiced as a business not simply as a hobby.

It's a huge subject and there are a number of other factors involved (blagging access, licences, etc.) - it's a very interesting debate ;)

...and this is just my opinion... could be a load of old ******** ;)

---- Gavin

[Croasdail]

thanks Gavin..... my biggest juggling act right now as a part-timer is keeping real job with "love" job balanced. Being in the middle of the action is addictive to me - love the challenge of coming away with that one "gotcha" shot. I am at that awkward point where some customers would like to trust me with a lot more - but I can not make the commitment that I can be at everything, so I choose to do a lot of "b" level events - which of course have "b" level interest and pay. And right now I am doing nothing... making sure I that my love of shooting is not getting in the way of sound business judgement.

As always - thanks for your advice.

[gmen]

thanks Gavin..... my biggest juggling act right now as a part-timer is keeping real job with "love" job balanced. Being in the middle of the action is addictive to me - love the challenge of coming away with that one "gotcha" shot. I am at that awkward point where some customers would like to trust me with a lot more - but I can not make the commitment that I can be at everything, so I choose to do a lot of "b" level events - which of course have "b" level interest and pay. And right now I am doing nothing... making sure I that my love of shooting is not getting in the way of sound business judgement.

As always - thanks for your advice.No problem Mark... it's only one man's opinion.

I do know what you mean about 'B' grade events and, with the greatest of respect to the teams I cover, they aren't the top sides in the country ;). However, all my jobs are 'booked' so that means (as long as I get some sort of result) I get paid. I rarely, if ever, do 'on spec' jobs and never take on 'work for hire' assignments. If I'm going to move up the 'scale' then I'll be doing it on my terms.

---- Gavin

[PhotosGuy]

Hmmm. My services will no longer be required until said 'bandit' lets them down, i.e. has no back-up camera and can't work, fails to complete an assignment due to other commitments, covers an assignment for multiple clients and doesn't provide images of the key moments for client A, simply provides a load of rubbish. Then the client is on the phone to me to see if I can save the day. Depending on my relationship with them, I may help them out - it'll very much depend on how they dumped me in the first place Much of the time I'll decline to help.
Another way to look at it might be, "Yes, I have some excellent shots of that event, but unfortunately I've since raised my rates since you dumped me, so I'm not sure that you can afford the shot you want." :D

[Croasdail]

Okay Gavin - here to pick your brain again. For the last year that I have been watching your post and trying to absorb as much knowledge as I can, there have been some very common themes. One of these themes has been to shoot very tight.... and generally I agree with that philosophy. No one could ever make any claims that your work is not top notch - even world class at what you do. But one of my things I do weekly is to cruise the top sports publications here in the state like ESPN and SI, particularly the latter, to see what images the magazines are buying. I am not sure how much play SI gets overseas, or if there are localized versions of it, but the marque shots are always in the first 10 or 15 pages. One thing I have noticed with these is they are shot a lot looser then what is common here and on other photography forums - even sportsshooter. These include both the full page and double pages shots. The inset shots are much tighter, but also take up a lot less space.

So finally getting to my question.... is the shooting very tight a photographers preference, a web thing or a media based preference, something that is more common outside of north america, or is it just not common because as I have found, it is very hard to come up with a compelling loosely shot image -- and what makes them stand out and hence why they get such prominate posting in the North America magazines. As I show my friends and family my personal portfolio of work, it is one of my loosely shot football shots that I get the most comments on. Maybe it is just evolving taste. As you may have noticed at the end of the basketball season, I started venturing and exploring more and more with the wides shooting the sport - but never nailed the right formula for the wide shot. But the recommendations I constantly see here to people is to shoot tighter, crop tighter. Am I just an odd duck (we already know the answer to that one), and what are your thoughts on shooting loosely - is it worth the time invested to perfect.

Here (http://www.buzzershot.com/images/sm_FloridaState003-1.jpg) is the shot that gets the most comments... it isn't peak action, it isn't tightly cropped... just sort of ordinary but for what ever reason, one of the most popular. It could also be that the rest are just so bad....
:rolleyes:

EDIT - of course I just went to SI.Com and there 9 of 10 shots is tight. Perhaps I just answered my own question. The image above is printed 13x19... makes a difference.

[gmen]

Okay Gavin - here to pick your brain again. For the last year that I have been watching your post and trying to absorb as much knowledge as I can, there have been some very common themes. One of these themes has been to shoot very tight.... and generally I agree with that philosophy. No one could ever make any claims that your work is not top notch - even world class at what you do. Thanks for the question Mark... it's an extremely valid one... and, as for my work being world class, well... hmmmm... aaaaaaahhhh... I think I've got a way to go yet ;) ...and perhaps your question is at the root of that.

...but the marque shots are always in the first 10 or 15 pages. One thing I have noticed with these is they are shot a lot looser then what is common here and on other photography forums - even sportsshooter. These include both the full page and double pages shots. The inset shots are much tighter, but also take up a lot less space. I think that your EDIT at the end of your post is 70% of the answer. There is a significant demand for the wider view - whether for the purposes of scene setting, abstraction, a documentary approach (incorporating other important elements into the image) or purely for special effect (e.g. fisheye shots). The difficulty is often in the presentation and the context within which the image is viewed. A double page spread in SI will do justice to a wider shot where a 4" x 3" space in a newpaper may not. I have been known to submit a few wider shots to the papers but (with very few exceptions) they do not make it into print. Ditto with shots for the web... a pic 400px wide generally needs to have impact to work.

My 'shooting tight' style has developed partly because it is what 'I do' and partly because it fits the end user's needs - i.e. it produces positive feedback and/or gets into print.

OK... these are broad generalisations but I believe there is an element of truth in them.

It does, however, take some confidence and a certain 'eye' to capture strong, story-telling, 'wide' images. In the same way it takes confidence and finely tuned basic technique to shoot 'tight'... neither are for the faint-hearted:

In one scenario (wide) you are trying to bring together disparate elements of a scene into a harmonious whole... in the other (tight) you are dealing with split-second decisions as the action tries to burst out of the confines of your viewfinder. Is shooting wide 'harder' than shooting 'tight'? I guess that's down to the individual, their style, their clients and their 'vision'...

What's the other 30% of the answer? Well... that'll be the mystery that is photography and the fickle preferences of picture editors ;)

So finally getting to my question.... is the shooting very tight a photographers preference, a web thing or a media based preference, something that is more common outside of north america, or is it just not common because as I have found, it is very hard to come up with a compelling loosely shot image -- and what makes them stand out and hence why they get such prominate posting in the North America magazines. As I show my friends and family my personal portfolio of work, it is one of my loosely shot football shots that I get the most comments on. Maybe it is just evolving taste. As you may have noticed at the end of the basketball season, I started venturing and exploring more and more with the wides shooting the sport - but never nailed the right formula for the wide shot. But the recommendations I constantly see here to people is to shoot tighter, crop tighter. Am I just an odd duck (we already know the answer to that one), and what are your thoughts on shooting loosely - is it worth the time invested to perfect.
EDIT - of course I just went to SI.Com and there 9 of 10 shots is tight. Perhaps I just answered my own question. The image above is printed 13x19... makes a difference.Wide shots appear in UK mags as well... there are a number of publications that will mix tight action with shots of stadia, fans etc. However, UK newspapers (on the whole) prefer a tightly cropped view... but there are one or two that will showcase other images.

Perhaps the forum recommendations to crop tighter stem from the original image not offering anything from point of view of a 'wider' image. By way of example, you may remember that I received some positive vibes for a boxing shot taken with a fisheye (below)... no-one recommended that I crop it tighter. Perhaps if the ropes hadn't been there and the composition was different, they would have done?

http://www.tgsphoto.co.uk/forum_images/boxo_002.jpg

Your basketball images with the wide angle view were certainly heading in the right direction and are well worth plugging away with. What are they missing? Not a lot really... maybe it's that elusive interaction between participants and environment... it'll come... you'll find the angle and then 'luvly jubbly'!!!! It's something else we can all learn together ;)

---- Gavin

[Otta]

Hi Gavin ,
Could you please give me any advice on using the 580ex as I am getting mixed inconsistent results and see your use of this combination , I thought you could throw some tips my way. I am using a 1dmk11 and the 580ex .

It would be much appreaciated .

By the way I sent my camera and 70 - 200 back and it came back spot on ...I know it's been a while but thanks for your help.

Thanks Roy

[gmen]

Hi Gavin ,
Could you please give me any advice on using the 580ex as I am getting mixed inconsistent results and see your use of this combination , I thought you could throw some tips my way. I am using a 1dmk11 and the 580ex .

It would be much appreaciated .

By the way I sent my camera and 70 - 200 back and it came back spot on ...I know it's been a while but thanks for your help.

Thanks RoyHi Roy...

The MkII and 580EX make an excellent combo. It's really a case of mentally separating out the flash exposure from the ambient exposure.

Outdoors for fill, I'll often pop the camera into Av mode to control the DOF I need and the gun on ETTL... I'll also dial in an ISO that should give me enough shutter speed to freeze movement (if there's likely to be movement - e.g. fans/players celebrating) and then use the gun in HSS mode. I'll sometimes dial the output from the 580 up or down slightly depending on the subject matter - e.g. if I'm shooting a team wearing light shirts, I'll add a little bit of output. Sometimes if I want to emphasise the subject matter more, I'll also dial the ambient exposure on the camera down slightly to darken the background slightly. Remember that in HSS mode, the flash will have a reduced range.

In unchanging outdoor light/low light/indoors, I'll generally plump for manual settings on the camera but leave the gun on ETTL. I'll set the ISO, shutter speed and the aperture that I need for the desired result.

Indoors or in low light, I'll be thinking about whether I want the flash to be the primary source of illumination (i.e. to freeze movement) and I'll dial the ambient down if need be so that I avoid 'ghosting'. Again, I'll be thinking about whether I'll need a little bit more or less output from the gun depending on the reflective properties of the subject matter.

If I'm shooting hoops with two guns off-camera, I'll have everything set manually - both camera and guns for entirely predictable results (just like a studio situation).

Look out for highly reflective objects in the scene as they will fool the ETTL metering. One example are the reflectors on Hi-Vis vests at motorport meetings. If they take up even a small part of the frame, they'll cause the flash portion of the exposure to be well under. In these circumstances the best bet is to change position to eliminate them from the field of view ;)

Like I said, the key is to keep the flash exposure and ambient exposure separate from each other - if you keep that in mind you're well on the way there.

---- Gavin

[Otta]

Thanks Gavin ,

I was up your way on Sunday helping a friend with sponsored ride (horses) at Roxwell nr Chelsford.

Thanks Again

Roy

[gmen]

Thanks Gavin ,

I was up your way on Sunday helping a friend with sponsored ride (horses) at Roxwell nr Chelsford.

Thanks Again

RoyJust down the road from where I used to live in Chelmsford! Literally only a couple of miles. Hope you had a good time... and pleased to hear that the camera and lens are working as they should be now.

---- Gavin

[Croasdail]

Ok.... I do have a question for you. This is a little on the side of career advice. Over the last year as I get back into this I have been trying to shoot just about everything and anything. It was good experience, and a lot of fun, but..... you can be a master at all things and keep life in balance - at least I can't. Pretty soon I need to start making my commitments for fall sports, and I am really thinking of just coming down and specializing in a few. You seem to spend 80% of your time with 2 or 3 sports (at least that you post - football, cricket, speedway with some basketball in for good measure)... with some other stuff here and there. I am trying to shoot enough so I still am learning and having fun, but have time left over for family and my real bill paying job. So I am looking at doing - if you need 1 of these 4 sports shot.. I'm your man. It sure would make keeping a kit up easier. Do you think long term this would be career limiting... being branded in a particular way... Just your thoughts.... cheers.

[gmen]

Ok.... I do have a question for you. This is a little on the side of career advice. Over the last year as I get back into this I have been trying to shoot just about everything and anything. It was good experience, and a lot of fun, but..... you can be a master at all things and keep life in balance - at least I can't. Pretty soon I need to start making my commitments for fall sports, and I am really thinking of just coming down and specializing in a few. You seem to spend 80% of your time with 2 or 3 sports (at least that you post - football, cricket, speedway with some basketball in for good measure)... with some other stuff here and there. I am trying to shoot enough so I still am learning and having fun, but have time left over for family and my real bill paying job. So I am looking at doing - if you need 1 of these 4 sports shot.. I'm your man. It sure would make keeping a kit up easier. Do you think long term this would be career limiting... being branded in a particular way... Just your thoughts.... cheers.Mark...

I shoot a whole lot more than I post :lol: I photograph a fair amount of (field) hockey, rugby, etc... and I do a lot of work for one of the London Boroughs that involves shooting a whole bunch of kids sports..

I enjoy the variety... BUT I also often wonder what I could/would/should specialise in as well. I don't think it would be career limiting. There are many photographers that have made their way focusing on one sport. My choice would be cricket... more challenging than football in some ways...

There's another BUT though... part of the reason I enjoy the variety is that you can pick up new techniques by dabbling in other sports. My use of flash has improved simply through shooting hoops... my panning skills have improved through shooting speedway PLUS I've started to enjoy the use of stepladders... and so on...

Having said all this... if you're looking for the photo work/day job balance, then sticking to one (or two) sport(s) will make life easier. The downside of variety is that it inevitably takes up more time...

---- Gavin

[JennB]

Hi, Gavin! A quick question: which parameter setting do you use for sports? I know you shoot JPEG and don't like to do a lot of post processing, so I was wondering. I hope this doesn't sound like a stupid question!:o

Thanks!

[gmen]

Hi, Gavin! A quick question: which parameter setting do you use for sports? I know you shoot JPEG and don't like to do a lot of post processing, so I was wondering. I hope this doesn't sound like a stupid question!:o

Thanks!Hi Jenn... thanks for the question!

I generally leave the parameters all set to 0 - although I will dial the in-camera contrast down to -1 on sunny days just to give a little more headroom (i.e. to keep the highlights in check slightly).

I try to get the exposure right in camera so my PP usually consists of cropping, resizing (depending on the client/end result required), levels adjustment (sometimes to boost the contrast slightly under flat/back-lighting) and sharpening (using USM depending on the client/end result required). If I have to spend more than 30 seconds or so on an individual image, I'll be pretty disappointed :lol:

Contrary to popular belief, I do shoot RAW from time to time - usually under very low light conditions and/or challenging WB conditions. This way the RAW converter can make a batch adjustment to the exposure and/or WB for me - then I'll apply my own PP as above. There are some football grounds that I shoot at where I have to underexpose by one stop even at ISO3200 just to get a shutter speed of 1/320s, so this is where RAW comes in handy to retrieve a bit more detail from the image.

Hope that's helpful!

---- Gavin

[JennB]

Hi Jenn... thanks for the question!

I generally leave the parameters all set to 0 - although I will dial the in-camera contrast down to -1 on sunny days just to give a little more headroom (i.e. to keep the highlights in check slightly).

I try to get the exposure right in camera so my PP usually consists of cropping, resizing (depending on the client/end result required), levels adjustment (sometimes to boost the contrast slightly under flat/back-lighting) and sharpening (using USM depending on the client/end result required). If I have to spend more than 30 seconds or so on an individual image, I'll be pretty disappointed :lol:

Contrary to popular belief, I do shoot RAW from time to time - usually under very low light conditions and/or challenging WB conditions. This way the RAW converter can make a batch adjustment to the exposure and/or WB for me - then I'll apply my own PP as above. There are some football grounds that I shoot at where I have to underexpose by one stop even at ISO3200 just to get a shutter speed of 1/320s, so this is where RAW comes in handy to retrieve a bit more detail from the image.

Hope that's helpful!

---- Gavin

Thanks so much, Gavin!:) And also, which software do you use to do your pp? Would you recommend Photoshop or a different one? Would it make sense to just buy one program to do all pp? I see others mention that they have Photoshop to do levels, cropping, etc., but they also have Noise Ninja for reducing noise. What do you think?

Sorry for all the questions...I'm just trying to get an idea of what software I need to purchase for pp. I currently have Photoshop Elements 3, which is the shrunken version of Photoshop.:(

[Croasdail]

Hey Jenn... not to cut into Gavin's thread here, but while your waiting on the right response I will tell you this - nothing in Gavins workflow above requires more then what you have in elements 3. It will work with raw, crop, resize, level adjust, and do USM the same as if you had the bigger product. There are some very good tools in the full version of photoshop, and one of the nicest is the ability to create an action where you can apply the same steps to a bunch of images. So, my word of advice - and I may be wrong here - but make sure what you need isn't in Elements first. Once you hit the wall... then look at the full package. Plug-ins like Noise Ninja will also work in Elements as well. Just trying to save you some money. Cheers.

Sorry Gavin... now you give her the right answer....
;)

[LMP]

Funny you should say that Mark as I was having this conversation a couple of weeks back re PS CS2, one of the pros was saying most of it can be done in elements with the exception of one or two things he finds handy...like correcting a pi**ed horizon ;)

[gmen]

Hey Jenn... not to cut into Gavin's thread here, but while your waiting on the right response I will tell you this - nothing in Gavins workflow above requires more then what you have in elements 3. It will work with raw, crop, resize, level adjust, and do USM the same as if you had the bigger product. There are some very good tools in the full version of photoshop, and one of the nicest is the ability to create an action where you can apply the same steps to a bunch of images. So, my word of advice - and I may be wrong here - but make sure what you need isn't in Elements first. Once you hit the wall... then look at the full package. Plug-ins like Noise Ninja will also work in Elements as well. Just trying to save you some money. Cheers.

Sorry Gavin... now you give her the right answer....
;):lol: This is exactly the right answer in my opinion...

In the field, I use Breezebrowser to select the images, then I use Elements 2 to do any post-processing because it runs really fast (compared to the full version) and allows me do what I need: crop, resize, level and sharpen.

When working from home, I still select the pics using BB... I may then use an 'action' within the full version of PS to PP depending on the end use.

In the field, I just use the relevant keyboard shortcuts in Elements to do the business.

If I'm converting from RAW, I'll use BreezeBrowser - others will swear by various RAW conversion applications but there's plenty of reading matter about that in the relevant POTN forum.

---- Gavin

[gmen]

Funny you should say that Mark as I was having this conversation a couple of weeks back re PS CS2, one of the pros was saying most of it can be done in elements with the exception of one or two things he finds handy...like correcting a pi**ed horizon ;)You can rotate a wonky horizon in Elements 2 when cropping.

---- Gavin

[JennB]

Hey Jenn... not to cut into Gavin's thread here, but while your waiting on the right response I will tell you this - nothing in Gavins workflow above requires more then what you have in elements 3. It will work with raw, crop, resize, level adjust, and do USM the same as if you had the bigger product. There are some very good tools in the full version of photoshop, and one of the nicest is the ability to create an action where you can apply the same steps to a bunch of images. So, my word of advice - and I may be wrong here - but make sure what you need isn't in Elements first. Once you hit the wall... then look at the full package. Plug-ins like Noise Ninja will also work in Elements as well. Just trying to save you some money. Cheers.

Sorry Gavin... now you give her the right answer....
;)

Thanks so much, Mark! I thought I may have to give out my other arm and leg just for pp software.:eek: I believe that everything I need is in Elements.

Thanks again!

[JennB]

:lol: This is exactly the right answer in my opinion...

In the field, I use Breezebrowser to select the images, then I use Elements 2 to do any post-processing because it runs really fast (compared to the full version) and allows me do what I need: crop, resize, level and sharpen.

When working from home, I still select the pics using BB... I may then use an 'action' within the full version of PS to PP depending on the end use.

In the field, I just use the relevant keyboard shortcuts in Elements to do the business.

If I'm converting from RAW, I'll use BreezeBrowser - others will swear by various RAW conversion applications but there's plenty of reading matter about that in the relevant POTN forum.

---- Gavin

Thanks, Gavin! Do you find BreezeBrowser better than the Organizer in PSE? BTW, do you use a tablet? If so, do you find that it makes your workflow easier and faster?

[gmen]

Thanks, Gavin! Do you find BreezeBrowser better than the Organizer in PSE? BTW, do you use a tablet? If so, do you find that it makes your workflow easier and faster?Hi Jenn... I like BreezeBrowser because it is the fastest browser I've found to display/sort/tag a set of thumbnails from a shoot... it also allows me to rename the files as required and add IPTC data VERY quickly. All these things are possible in PS... but the PS interface is more clunky (for me at least) and resource hungry, particularly when speed is of the essence on my laptop.

It's horses for courses of course... others will prefer PhotoMechanic, FotoStation etc... and there are those that will like to use PS for browsing and PP just to keep all the processes within one piece of software.

As for a tablet, nope... I haven't used one. However, it's one of those things I've considered for home office use so I'm sure I'll add one eventually.

---- Gavin

[DwightMcCann]

I like BreezeBrowser because it is the fastest browser I've found to display/sort/tag a set of thumbnails from a shoot... it also allows me to rename the files as required and add IPTC data VERY quickly.

I thought you used PhotoMechanic? Both? Different purpose?

[JennB]

Hi Jenn... I like BreezeBrowser because it is the fastest browser I've found to display/sort/tag a set of thumbnails from a shoot... it also allows me to rename the files as required and add IPTC data VERY quickly. All these things are possible in PS... but the PS interface is more clunky (for me at least) and resource hungry, particularly when speed is of the essence on my laptop.

It's horses for courses of course... others will prefer PhotoMechanic, FotoStation etc... and there are those that will like to use PS for browsing and PP just to keep all the processes within one piece of software.

As for a tablet, nope... I haven't used one. However, it's one of those things I've considered for home office use so I'm sure I'll add one eventually.

---- Gavin

Thanks again, Gavin!:) I definitely know what you mean about PS interface...and I only have PSE so I can just imagine how much juice PS takes! I would recommend the tablet. My aunt has one and I had the chance to use it. (She's a portrait photographer.) It's so much easier cropping and using the brush tools with the pen and tablet. It's actually next on my acquisition list!:lol:

[gmen]

I thought you used PhotoMechanic? Both? Different purpose?Hi Dwight... I have PhotoMechanic installed on the laptop... but I keep firing up BB so that must be telling me something ;)

---- Gavin

[DwightMcCann]

Hi Dwight... I have PhotoMechanic installed on the laptop... but I keep firing up BB so that must be telling me something ;)

---- Gavin

Well, good, as I haven't had the money to purchase one yet although I have invoices out for a fair bit of coin. I'm also interested in Breeze's Remote Shooting program. I still haven't gotten the PhotoShelter images loaded because I want to use one of these packages to add IPTC before hand. Thanks again.

[gmen]

Well, good, as I haven't had the money to purchase one yet although I have invoices out for a fair bit of coin. I'm also interested in Breeze's Remote Shooting program. I still haven't gotten the PhotoShelter images loaded because I want to use one of these packages to add IPTC before hand. Thanks again.Just read that the guys at PhotoShelter are now providing seamless integration with PhotoMechanic:

QUOTE: "This is an incredible time-saver for me," said Darren Carroll, a Texas-based freelance sports photographer. "I can edit and caption my images, then immediately upload them to my PhotoShelter account with two mouse clicks, while simultaneously making them publicly searchable. This takes several steps out of my workflow process."

...so I may well be revisiting PM in the near future.... :lol:

---- Gavin

[gmen]

I would recommend the tablet. My aunt has one and I had the chance to use it. (She's a portrait photographer.) It's so much easier cropping and using the brush tools with the pen and tablet. It's actually next on my acquisition list!:lol:Sounds like I'm gonna have to start taking the tablet(s) ;)

---- Gavin

[DwightMcCann]

Just read that the guys at PhotoShelter are now providing seamless integration with PhotoMechanic:

QUOTE: "This is an incredible time-saver for me," said Darren Carroll, a Texas-based freelance sports photographer. "I can edit and caption my images, then immediately upload them to my PhotoShelter account with two mouse clicks, while simultaneously making them publicly searchable. This takes several steps out of my workflow process."

...so I may well be revisiting PM in the near future.... :lol:

---- Gavin

Well, I'm still waiting payment so I'm not yet committed, but since I don't yet have that kind of time dependency I can be flexible. But I do need to work in that direction. Let me know what you decide ... or do you own both?

[gmen]

Well, I'm still waiting payment so I'm not yet committed, but since I don't yet have that kind of time dependency I can be flexible. But I do need to work in that direction. Let me know what you decide ... or do you own both?I'll have a play with it after the weekend... sounds like an interesting concept... anything that saves time at the PC is FANTASTIC news... whether I'm in a hurry or not ;)

---- Gavin

[4jallday]

gmen, this is a great thread and I would appreciate your help. Here is a link to my question. http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=165643and a link to some of the photos.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=165034
Thank you for your input and help.

[superdiver]

Hey all, I posted some re-edited pictures of swimming that I had some advice on and went back and cleaned them up. They are at the bottom of this page "http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=163863&highlight=anchorage".

Would you mind looking at them and letting me know what to do differently either in the actual taking of them or in the post processing...

thanks...

[gmen]

gmen, this is a great thread and I would appreciate your help. Here is a link to my question. http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=165643and a link to some of the photos.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=165034
Thank you for your input and help.
Thanks for your questions 4jallday... just posted replies to both of your threads.

---- Gavin

[Hydro]

Just a simple question, Gavin. Do you use a hood for the 85 1.8 when shooting basketball?

Thanks so much for sharing your knowledge with us. This site----particularly your posts--have been both inspirational and informative.

RICK

[gmen]

Hey all, I posted some re-edited pictures of swimming that I had some advice on and went back and cleaned them up. They are at the bottom of this page "http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=163863&highlight=anchorage".

Would you mind looking at them and letting me know what to do differently either in the actual taking of them or in the post processing...

thanks...Hi superdiver! Just went to look at your pics of swimming... but sadly they seem to have been removed... if you'd like to post a few up for me here, I'll be more than happy to add my thoughts.

---- Gavin

[gmen]

Just a simple question, Gavin. Do you use a hood for the 85 1.8 when shooting basketball?

Thanks so much for sharing your knowledge with us. This site----particularly your posts--have been both inspirational and informative.

RICKHi Rick... thanks very much for your question and your kind words - I appreciate them!

I use lens hoods on all my lenses... both to minimise flare and to provide protection as well... so, yep, the 85mm always wears a hood.

I also find that lens hoods (of the non-petal variety) are useful when temporarily swapping lenses... you can stand a lens on its hood temporarily instead of juggling too much kit.

---- Gavin

[LMP]

Hi all,

I thought I'd post a heads up that Digital Photographer magazine here in the UK has a feature article this month covering Sports Photography. I only had a quick scan through it, seems to cover a few topics reasonably well such as the infamous 'How do I get a Press Pass' question asked here on these forums so often, tips for approaching newspapers and agencies as well as interviews with a couple of pro's.

Good little ad there ...I should get commision ;)

Back to you Gavin!

[gmen]

Hi all,

I thought I'd post a heads up that Digital Photographer magazine here in the UK has a feature article this month covering Sports Photography. I only had a quick scan through it, seems to cover a few topics reasonably well such as the infamous 'How do I get a Press Pass' question asked here on these forums so often, tips for approaching newspapers and agencies as well as interviews with a couple of pro's.

Good little ad there ...I should get commision ;)

Back to you Gavin!
Cheers Marc... I seem to remember the same publication had a feature on sports photography last year - including an interview with Richard Pelham from the Sun (amongst others). That was pretty informative, so I'm sure the info in the current edition would make good reading for UK folk.

---- Gavin

[MonteCeco]

Gavin, just like to say how much i'm enjoying this Q & A and appreciate the time you put in for everyone.
Just a couple of questions for now if i may?

You said you use Photbox for some of your printing, i have used them also, i just wondered how you came to choose them above others, was it price, turnover time or have you tried others and not been satisfied- just curious!

Wanted to ask if you have covered Golf before, not heard you mention it. The reason i ask is that ive been given the ok by the European Tour to attend the British Masters at the Belfry next week, only the Pro Am but its the first time ive applied for a pass and was surprised to be granted one. They call it a Media Pass, any idea what i should expect with regards access etc.

Havnt got the kit to compare with you but i'll post some results up later in the week.

Thanks again, Graham.

[gmen]

Gavin, just like to say how much i'm enjoying this Q & A and appreciate the time you put in for everyone.
Just a couple of questions for now if i may?

You said you use Photbox for some of your printing, i have used them also, i just wondered how you came to choose them above others, was it price, turnover time or have you tried others and not been satisfied- just curiousHi Graham... thanks for the kind words about the thread. It's appreciated!

I've been using PhotoBox for print fulfillment for about 18 months now - it was the first company that I tried... and I've always been impressed with the quality and turnaround times... couple that with reasonable pricing and I'd heartily recommend them!

Wanted to ask if you have covered Golf before, not heard you mention it. The reason i ask is that ive been given the ok by the European Tour to attend the British Masters at the Belfry next week, only the Pro Am but its the first time ive applied for a pass and was surprised to be granted one. They call it a Media Pass, any idea what i should expect with regards access etc.

Havnt got the kit to compare with you but i'll post some results up later in the week.

Thanks again, Graham.It's been a long while since I shot golf (the days of 'film'), so I won't pretend to be an expert!

This thread is recommended reading though: http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/826

Beyond course etiquette, your main decisions will be based on whether you'll be focusing on 'sportraits' of individual competitors (long focal length shooting) or if you'll be looking to incorporate the competitors into the environment (taking a wider view)...

There will be plenty of opportunities for all kinds of shots... watch out for reaction pics when the players make important putts... and for candids, e.g. players interacting with their caddies etc...

Look forward to seeing your results!

---- Gavin

[gmen]

I've had a few enquiries regarding my workspace/office... so here's a quick pic by way of illustration. My set-up is a relatively humble one... but I've tried to streamline my workflow to keep things ticking along ;)

http://www.tgsphoto.co.uk/forum_images/deskoid.jpg

Any questions... don't hesitate to post 'em. I'm by no means a computer whizz but more than happy to share my experiences.

---- Gavin

[MonteCeco]

Gavin, thanks for the advice you gave regarding Golf.
I found it much harder than i thought, cant put my finger on it. Maybe need a longer lens and a monopod was my initial thoughts.
Anyway heres some of my pics as promised

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=168821

Thanks again, Graham

[superdiver]

OK, sorry it took so long, but I think my kids life is hitting a lull for a day or to...LOL...I am sure I am not the only one on here juggling three sport kids....

Here are a few sport images for CC to help me improve....

http://superdiver.smugmug.com/photos/67387734-M.jpg

http://superdiver.smugmug.com/photos/67387651-M.jpg

http://superdiver.smugmug.com/photos/67387686-M.jpg

http://superdiver.smugmug.com/photos/69403981-M.jpg

http://superdiver.smugmug.com/photos/69404082-M.jpg

http://superdiver.smugmug.com/photos/69404408-M.jpg

[gmen]

OK, sorry it took so long, but I think my kids life is hitting a lull for a day or to...LOL...I am sure I am not the only one on here juggling three sport kids....

Here are a few sport images for CC to help me improve....

http://superdiver.smugmug.com/photos/67387734-M.jpg

http://superdiver.smugmug.com/photos/67387651-M.jpg

http://superdiver.smugmug.com/photos/67387686-M.jpg

http://superdiver.smugmug.com/photos/69403981-M.jpg

http://superdiver.smugmug.com/photos/69404082-M.jpg

http://superdiver.smugmug.com/photos/69404408-M.jpg:lol: I'm juggling two youngsters (not quite old enough to be fully-fledged sports kids) and photographing anything that moves, so I kinda know where you're coming from!

Quick blow-by-blow analysis...

Swimming #1, #2 and #3 -

Swimming is tough to shoot, light levels are often VERY low, flash is a bit of a pain and certainly not allowed at the start of races... therefore these are good images.

The WB looks slightly off on my (uncalibrated) laptop screen... so it might be worth trying a custom WB next time (assuming that you're not working under those nasty vapour/flourescent lamps)...

I like the fact that you've timed the images so that you can see the faces of the swimmers... that's a huge plus in my book. You've obviously analysed the different strokes and picked your angles accordingly. Strokes like breaststroke and butterfly can provide more dynamic images... but you'd have to be working from a lower angle to do them justice.

A faster shutter speed might be preferable... I couldn't find any EXIF so I'm not sure whether it was possible to work at a slightly higher ISO? Looks like you've maybe run the pics through some noise reduction... but you've managed to avoid the 'plastic-person' effect.

Overall... I'd say it's a fine start to swimming photography in what were obviously poor lighting conditions.

Baseball #4, #5 and #6 -

Main problem for me is the backgrounds... again couldn't find any EXIF... but my gut reaction is that longer glass used wide open could be a better bet. It might mean that you can no longer show the full length of the player, but I'd sacrifice the full body shot for better backgrounds.

Your big difficulty is because the background is quite close to the subject and it's likely that you're shooting through a fence... so it's doubly tough.

However, I think there's a significant improvement to be made to the pitcher shots in particular as the background is that bit further away... also a slightly different angle may have shown more of the pitcher's face... i.e. a more head-on approach perhaps? That's often what I try to do with cricket shots... position myself so that the bowler is coming straight at me...

http://www.tgsphoto.co.uk/forum_images/MordrickJ_Upminster_WoodfordWells_130506_006.jpg

As for the actual content of the images, they're the kind of shots that parents will undoubtedly like... with youngsters you're not going to find the 'peak action' material that you would when shooting adults.

So, again, they're pretty good stuff... just keep refining your positioning... and try to use a longer focal length if at all possible. Another possible thought is to try to shoot from a high position ) stepladders (?) to get the actual playing area as the background... hmmmm...

---- Gavin

[superdiver]

Thanks so much for the advice. I have been told on here by others as well to shoot from behind the batter (as you said) and shoot the pitcher straight on. I will try this.

Also I will use my 70-200 2.8 to decrease that DOF to bet a better background and aslo try shooting higher...I haed been over at the park shooting birds so I still had my170-500 on.

As far as the swimming shots go, I had my ISO all the way up to 1600 and this was a state championship and they wouldnt let me on the pool deck so I had to shoot it from a mezanine (SP?)...But I wish I had faster and longer glass for it. If I can get on the pool deck then I think for the most part the 70-200 2.8 is fine.

Again, thanks for the advice!

[gmen]

Just thought I'd link up to a few recent threads over in the sports forum:

Cricket...

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=167032
http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=161684

Boxing...

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=169331

(Field) Hockey...

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=162315

Some portrait advice...

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=158650

...and, of course, some football..

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=165264
http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=161416
http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=161934
http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=151452

---- Gavin

[pacman]

We are playing in the all Ireland final on Saturday so I would like to get some good action shots of the day
I have taken some action shots but have a few questions on how I should be operating,
The following is my plan and questions
Game kick off @7.30pm finishes on the night – floodlit game
Cameras
Canon 10d
Canon d30
Lens
Sigma 70-200f2.s
Canon 28-80 f3.5-5.6
Canon 50mm f1.8
Tamron 17-35mm
Canon speedlite 550ex.
monopod
My plan is to sit behind the goal we are attacking into ½ way between the goal and corner flag. I have seen this on your thread and have seen the benefit of it.
I will have the 70-200 lens on one camera and either the 50mm or the 28-80 on the other?? Is this the actual practice in sports photography in the real world.
Is this a good plan. I find with the 70-200 the action is too near me some times. Is this the correct approach for sports photography. use the long lend to capture the action further out the field and fill the frame with this. Use the shorter lens to capture action closer in. this of course would depend on how close to the action you can get.
Should I use the 50mm and move back or closer to the action to fill the frame with goal mouth action.
I was going to use the 70-200 with the d30 (lower resolution but may get away with lower iso. Then use the 10d with the shorter range lens as I can crop more if necessary.
I hope to be able to move around the pitch to capture other outfield players.
thanks

[gmen]

Hi pacman...

Firstly, welcome to POTN and thanks very much for your question.

Given that your game starts at 7.30pm, you should have reasonable light for the first 45 minutes or so... even more so if the floodlights are switched on from the start. So, that's good news for starters.

As far as I'm aware pitches for hurling and gaelic football are larger than association football pitches. As a result, I would imagine that you'll be shooting with the 70-200mm lens much of the time. I can't see the 50mm or 28-80mm lens being used very often (if at all) for action - although you might find those lenses handy for a wide view of the stadium... and maybe presentations/celebrations at the end (but don't bank on being able to get too close to the presentation if there are a lot of togs there - you're likely to be working from behind a rope to ensure that all the media get the same view).

I think your tactic of sitting behind the goal that your team is attacking is a good one. I'd put the 70-200 on the 10D and not worry too much about the second body... perhaps have the 28-80 attached to the D30 just in case the players happen to celebrate right on top of you :lol:

I would imagine that you'll have the lens cranked out to 200mm much of the time to fill the frame with action.... the crop factor of the 10D will give you a nice 'effective' maximum focal length of 320mm. The key is often to be patient and let the action come to you rather than snapping away all the time. This will give you less images to sort through after the event... and frame-filling shots are going to provide a better quality end result.

As you say, a lot of this will depend on how close to the action you can get. If you are right on the sidelines (unlikely at a large event), you may find that the 28-80 will be useful... but I'd still say that 80% of your action pictures will be taken on the 70-200 lens. That's why I'd recommend having the longer glass on the 10D - as a result, the majority of your actions shots will be at the highest resolution.

Hopefully your team will win and you'll be able to get some great presentation shots at the end. Have a chat with the press/media representatives before the game to find out what the logisitics will be for the post-match stuff, this will help you determine which camera/lens combination you'll need to mount your flash on.

Hope it goes well... and please post some pics!

---- Gavin

We are playing in the all Ireland final on Saturday so I would like to get some good action shots of the day
I have taken some action shots but have a few questions on how I should be operating,
The following is my plan and questions
Game kick off @7.30pm finishes on the night – floodlit game
Cameras
Canon 10d
Canon d30
Lens
Sigma 70-200f2.s
Canon 28-80 f3.5-5.6
Canon 50mm f1.8
Tamron 17-35mm
Canon speedlite 550ex.
monopod
My plan is to sit behind the goal we are attacking into ½ way between the goal and corner flag. I have seen this on your thread and have seen the benefit of it.
I will have the 70-200 lens on one camera and either the 50mm or the 28-80 on the other?? Is this the actual practice in sports photography in the real world.
Is this a good plan. I find with the 70-200 the action is too near me some times. Is this the correct approach for sports photography. use the long lend to capture the action further out the field and fill the frame with this. Use the shorter lens to capture action closer in. this of course would depend on how close to the action you can get.
Should I use the 50mm and move back or closer to the action to fill the frame with goal mouth action.
I was going to use the 70-200 with the d30 (lower resolution but may get away with lower iso. Then use the 10d with the shorter range lens as I can crop more if necessary.
I hope to be able to move around the pitch to capture other outfield players.
thanks

[superdiver]

Hi again guys, I posted some new and (hopefully) improved baseball shots on the following link here on POTN. would you mind taking a look and giving more pointers on how to improve?

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=169698&highlight=superdiver

Thanks so much...

[gsgary]

Hi Gavin
I read earlier that you mostly shoot manual, last weekend i shot manual for the first time and got some great results due to a pro telling me to meter off the grass, because of this i want to shoot manual as much as possible so would it be money well spent to get a handheld meter if so what do i need to look for
Cheers Gary

[gmen]

Hi again guys, I posted some new and (hopefully) improved baseball shots on the following link here on POTN. would you mind taking a look and giving more pointers on how to improve?

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=169698&highlight=superdiver

Thanks so much...
Will pay a visit shortly ;)

---- Gavin

[gmen]

Hi Gavin
I read earlier that you mostly shoot manual, last weekend i shot manual for the first time and got some great results due to a pro telling me to meter off the grass, because of this i want to shoot manual as much as possible so would it be money well spent to get a handheld meter if so what do i need to look for
Cheers GaryHi Gary...

I try hard to stay in manual mode as much as possible. The grass is an excellent substitute for a grey card... in fact, you get used to the grass at different venues and can adapt your readings appropriately.

However, I find that the handheld meter is invaluable for shooting into the sun and very handy indoors. I also use it for metering my flash exposures when shooting hoops with two guns.

I use an older Gossen Variosix F meter (which you can pick up second hand on e-bay)... if I was going to buy a new meter, I'd probably go for the Sekonic L358 or L308. The 358 model has a few more bells and whistles (e.g. it works with Pocket Wizards) but the 308 is a capable meter as well.

Hope that helps.

---- Gavin

[gsgary]

Thank's Gavin will have a look on e-bay
If you get chance here's one of the shots i mentioned

http://gsgary.smugmug.com/photos/69551734-M.jpg

[gsgary]

Hi Gary...

I try hard to stay in manual mode as much as possible. The grass is an excellent substitute for a grey card... in fact, you get used to the grass at different venues and can adapt your readings appropriately.

However, I find that the handheld meter is invaluable for shooting into the sun and very handy indoors. I also use it for metering my flash exposures when shooting hoops with two guns.

I use an older Gossen Variosix F meter (which you can pick up second hand on e-bay)... if I was going to buy a new meter, I'd probably go for the Sekonic L358 or L308. The 358 model has a few more bells and whistles (e.g. it works with Pocket Wizards) but the 308 is a capable meter as well.

Hope that helps.

---- Gavin

I have found a Gossen bisix 2 on ebay very cheap is it worth a bid to learn with then when i know what i am doing get a better meter

[Croasdail]

Hey.... this isn't really a question, but if you recall I had a thread sometime ago asking if pro PJs still carry p/s cameras. My grandfather always had his rangefinder with him. Well I was doing my weekly Dave Black reading... some how trying to absorb talent through reading, and I came across one section where he recommended carrying a P/S. The example he gave was that he often shoots golf with one because of it's silent shutter. I take that as pretty good validation. Just thought I would pass that back to you.... cheers.

[gmen]

I have found a Gossen bisix 2 on ebay very cheap is it worth a bid to learn with then when i know what i am doing get a better meterHi Gary... as far as I recall, the BiSix 2 is an analogue meter... it would certainly be a good way to learn though, particularly if it's going cheap (say, less than £15-20).

One of the benefits of a digital meter is that it's very easy to transpose the reading straight to the camera and that the readings are more accurate... but I started with an analogue meter (in the old days of film) and it's a great way to get your head around the metering mullarkey in general.

Another 'cheaper' option in the digital range is the Polaris meter - not too many bells and whistles but a perfectly capable piece of kit that sells for a lot less than the Gossen/Sekonic products.

---- Gavin

[gmen]

Hey.... this isn't really a question, but if you recall I had a thread sometime ago asking if pro PJs still carry p/s cameras. My grandfather always had his rangefinder with him. Well I was doing my weekly Dave Black reading... some how trying to absorb talent through reading, and I came across one section where he recommended carrying a P/S. The example he gave was that he often shoots golf with one because of it's silent shutter. I take that as pretty good validation. Just thought I would pass that back to you.... cheers.Thanks Mark... I remember reading the Dave Black article... a very interesting idea using a silent camera to capture the golfer in his back-swing. I wonder if anyone's ever used one of those sound-proof 'Blimps' to do the same thing with an SLR?

For other visitors, here's the link to Dave Black's P&S golf photography:

http://www.daveblackphotography.com/on-the-road/0705.htm - scroll down to image #5 for a shot of Tiger Woods in his back-swing!

---- Gavin

[gmen]

Just added some speedway images over in the Motorsport forum:

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=176248

---- Gavin

[Rich_claypole]

Gavin, great thread which I have found a great read.

I have been covering football in the UK for about 5 years, started covering non-league with Bracknell Town for their programme, then started to supply local papers. A couple of years ago I got the chance to work with Reading FC with whom I have now been working with since, this now means I get to realise my dream of covering Premiership football next season as I have just agreed a deal with Reading to work with them next season.

This sports lark is not always easy and takes a long time to build up the equipment and get the little breaks you need to progress, but if you want to do it anything is possible.

I was shooting the Sigma 300 F2.8, but that will be going very shortly as I have just ordered a 400 F2.8 to go with my 1DMKIIn and 70-200 with 1D, should be the ideal combination for football.

The one thing I have always struggled with, probably because I have not covered many night games is the exposure and WB under floodlights. The floodlights at the Madejski stadium really give uneven lighting over the pitch, often 2/3 to 1.5 stops difference between areas......I tend to find the AWB is not always that great, what with the green of the grass and the blue of the shirts (and supporters) the white balance isn't always that great.

The other big issue shooting in larger stadia is on sunny days when half the pitch is in shadow and the other half in bright sunlight.

I have always opted for shooting Av mode, but have shot manual under floodlights in the past. I think I need to go fully manual under all conditions to have full control of the images.

As I have said, this is a great read and I have picked up a few things I will be using the next time I shoot a game, roll on pre-season!!!

One question, whats the main difference between shooting a 300 F2.8 and a 400 F2.8, physical aspects to one side, is there a major change in technque required, will it take a severl games to adjust to using the 400 F2.8 etc, any advice in this area so I can be a little more prepared would be appreciated.

Cheers

R

[gmen]

Hi Rich...

Thanks for your question... and a warm welcome to POTN!

Apologies for delay in replying... but it's been one of those Sundays with a cycling shoot that went on for much of the day. I'll edit this post later on with some thoughts on floodlights, sunshine/shade and 400mm lenses... just need to caption and send a couple more batches of images, eat and crack open a beer ;)

---- Gavin

Gavin, great thread which I have found a great read.

I have been covering football in the UK for about 5 years, started covering non-league with Bracknell Town for their programme, then started to supply local papers. A couple of years ago I got the chance to work with Reading FC with whom I have now been working with since, this now means I get to realise my dream of covering Premiership football next season as I have just agreed a deal with Reading to work with them next season.

This sports lark is not always easy and takes a long time to build up the equipment and get the little breaks you need to progress, but if you want to do it anything is possible.

I was shooting the Sigma 300 F2.8, but that will be going very shortly as I have just ordered a 400 F2.8 to go with my 1DMKIIn and 70-200 with 1D, should be the ideal combination for football.

The one thing I have always struggled with, probably because I have not covered many night games is the exposure and WB under floodlights. The floodlights at the Madejski stadium really give uneven lighting over the pitch, often 2/3 to 1.5 stops difference between areas......I tend to find the AWB is not always that great, what with the green of the grass and the blue of the shirts (and supporters) the white balance isn't always that great.

The other big issue shooting in larger stadia is on sunny days when half the pitch is in shadow and the other half in bright sunlight.

I have always opted for shooting Av mode, but have shot manual under floodlights in the past. I think I need to go fully manual under all conditions to have full control of the images.

As I have said, this is a great read and I have picked up a few things I will be using the next time I shoot a game, roll on pre-season!!!

One question, whats the main difference between shooting a 300 F2.8 and a 400 F2.8, physical aspects to one side, is there a major change in technque required, will it take a severl games to adjust to using the 400 F2.8 etc, any advice in this area so I can be a little more prepared would be appreciated.

Cheers

R

[Rich_claypole]

Look forward to it.

Why is uprading to a 400 F2.8 so expensive, just checked my existing monopod and it has a max weight capacity of 5KG....need a new monopod now....the cost just increases, but should be worth it though!!

:lol:

Must admint the best results I have had from night shots is when I have shot manual, the Mad stad tends to dictate ISO 1600, F2.8 and 1/500...well that is what I have shot in the past....could probably do with dropping the shutter to 1/400 though as the images tend to be a bit under exposed. I have always been concerned about dropping below 1/500 when shooting action, but from what I have read it seems 1/400 should be Ok, maybe I am over cautious? Mabye my techniqure also needs a little work as the shutter speeds drop, guess it is easy to become a little lapse if you shoot 1/1000 or faster on sunny days, when you end up shooting in more testing conditions you are left wanting a little. This is something I really do need to work on next season.

Just the images I have seen from some of the other peeps on here, the quality / exposure of the images looks so much better, I hope some of this is down some easy technique fixes!

Not been 100% happy with the Sigma, don't think the AF is accurate enough when used on the 1DMKIIn compared to the 1D, maybe the MKII is too quick for the HSM of the Sigma, it is also a little soft when wide open at 2.8 which takes the edge of the images, another reason for upgrading!!

R

[gmen]

Looking forward to seeing some Reading pics... although you probably can't post 'em due to the Licencing restrictions. You'll have to post some Bracknell ones instead ;)

If you're investing in a 400, you must be making a good few pennies out of it ;) Good on ya!

---- Gavin

[gmen]

Just added some cycling images in the sports forum... a bit of a photo story... and a few wide angle pans...

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=177408

---- Gavin

[Rich_claypole]

Gavin, I will get some Reading pics for you to have a look at!!

The 400 2.8 has arrived and I am really frustrated that there is no football to cover at the moment, so have tried my hand at a bit of polo and cricket over the weekend....Monster lens, great results when I hit the focus.....I think the MKIIn is not focusing as it should do, have strapped the 1D (original) on to the 400 and other lenses and the results are fare more accurate. Time to send the MKIIn in to get the focus sorted out, this would explain the down turn in quality images since switching to the 1DMKIIn, when it gets it right it is great, but the number of keepers have dropped since getting the MKIIn in January, put some of it down to shooting a lot of games in bad light wide open and the lens being a little soft, but spending some time re-examinging the images they do seem to be a little front focused!! Did some cricket shots and focused on the batsman who had his back to me, standing a good 4-5 feet in front of the stumps yet the stumps were really sharp and the batsman a little fuzzy, even shooting F4, F5.6 and F8.

Anyway on to the next question I was going to ask. When shooting football, if players are stationary do you leave the camera in AI Servo, or switch to One Shot focus? So for example you are getting a close up of a player while the action has stopped etc. I tend to leave in AI servo as the results are acceptable, that is until I switched to the 1DMKIIn!!!!!

Is it also widely accpeted that you should send kit in to Canon to have it calibrated? I have heard a lot about this and was wondering if it something that has always been the case, or something which seems to be gaining more popularity?

I love shooting tight and trying to fill the frame as much as possible, another reason for the upgrade. At first the 400 seemed a monster but after using it for serveral hours this weekend I am getting used to the size of it, how to hold it etc. First impressions are it will be a joy to work with over the coming seasons.

[gmen]

When shooting football, if players are stationary do you leave the camera in AI Servo, or switch to One Shot focus? So for example you are getting a close up of a player while the action has stopped etc. I tend to leave in AI servo as the results are acceptable, that is until I switched to the 1DMKIIn!!!!!When shooting football action, I generally keep the camera in AI-Servo mode.

Some togs will set CF 4-1 or CF 4-3 which will allow back (*) button focusing. This is akin to having AI-Servo and One-Shot focus available to you at all times... you simply release the * button to switch from AI-Servo to One-Shot.

Personally I don't feel comfortable using the * button to focus for long periods. Therefore I use CF 4-2 which allows me to lock the focus temporarily by holding down the * button. Horse for courses.

I also register an off-centre focus point that I can switch to on the fly. I find this handy for close-ish vertical portraits when using a long lens. The DOF at close working distances is minimal unless 300mm or 400m lenses are stopped down fairly heavily. The off-centre point allows me to focus on the correct area - i.e. the subjects face rather than their chest ;)

Is it also widely accpeted that you should send kit in to Canon to have it calibrated? I have heard a lot about this and was wondering if it something that has always been the case, or something which seems to be gaining more popularity?
I do know of some togs that have sent in their kit for calibration. Bear i mind, it's important to send in ALL your bodies and lenses, so that they can all be calibrated simultaneously. I'd assume you're a CPS member so it should be something you can arrange with them if you're having problems.

---- Gavin

[Rich_claypole]

The MKIIn is going in to be looked at this week, so will be interesting to see if there is an issue with the AF front focusing or whether it is an incompetent user!!!

I have always used the * button for focus, and tend to shoot AI Servo all the time. Just recently the shots of stationary players have been OOF when using AI servo, hence why the camera is going in to be looked at.

Never really used the registered focus point, this is something I will look at over the next week or so to get familiar with it. I can see the benefits of being able to switch to a pre-registered AF point at the press of a button, tried the off center focus point while covering cricket yesterday with players running towards me, filling the frame.

Unfortunately I don't qualify for CPS, so making sure I get all the kit checked out before the warranty expires!

There are some great tips on here which I hope to try and use once pre-season starts!

[WyzMan]

Gavin,
I don't have a light meter so the following comments are based on what I have read both here. in books and on other websites. How on earth do you meter with an incident meter for something like cricket when you are 60 yards or so away from the subject of the photograph. I understand the 18% grey thing which makes me keen to explore incident metering but I am not clear on where I would point the half ping-poing ball sensor when on the boundary in a blue sky or scant cloud type situation. The same question arises outside of sports shoots - if shooting from under a bridge for example - in shadow, is incident metering possible? (Apologies if this is in the wrong forum),
Alan

[gmen]

Gavin,
I don't have a light meter so the following comments are based on what I have read both here. in books and on other websites. How on earth do you meter with an incident meter for something like cricket when you are 60 yards or so away from the subject of the photograph. I understand the 18% grey thing which makes me keen to explore incident metering but I am not clear on where I would point the half ping-poing ball sensor when on the boundary in a blue sky or scant cloud type situation. The same question arises outside of sports shoots - if shooting from under a bridge for example - in shadow, is incident metering possible? (Apologies if this is in the wrong forum),
AlanHi Alan,

Using the cricket example, if I'm stood on the boundary (and I'm not in the shade of a stand), the chances are that I'll be illuminated in the same way that the players will be out in the middle.

I point the invercone back towards the direction that the camera will be pointing and take the reading. All things being equal this will be the same reading I would get if I was taking it out in the middle of the square. If I want to get a feeling for the reading in a shadow area under a helmet (i.e. what kind of contrast range I'm dealing with), I'll simply shade the invercone with my hand.

I will also take a range of incident readings from different directions, so that I can allow for sidelighting/backlighting etc. This gives me an idea of the range of exposures I can expect when I'm shuffling my shutter speed/ISO in manual mode when shooting in different areas of the venue.

I'll still take a test exposure and chimp the histogram - but the incident reading will get me very close to where I want to be and tweaking should be minimal.

If I am in shadow and the players are illuminated by full sun (or a different light source), I will first try to change positions to take the reading. If I am unable to to move to a location where I am illuminated in the same way that they are, then I will use the camera's meter to get my base reading from something approaching 18% grey in the scene, e.g. a patch of grass.

I think you'll find that everyone has their own techniques for obtaining the camera settings they require. This is just the way I like to work and hopefully the results demonstrate that this approach has some value.

The handheld approach really comes into its own under harsh lighting or backlighting, and for indoor sports.

Having said all this, I will, in certain situations, use the grass as my first reference - to the extent that I can relate the grass at certain football grounds to the reading I need, i.e. I'll know if I need to make an adjustment of, say, 1/3 or 2/3 stops from the camera's meter reading. Not all grass is the same ;)

If the lighting is not harsh and there are no nasty white elements in the scene, I will sometimes utilise the expose-to-the-right technique -i.e. overexpose relative to the meter reading to squeeze the histogram up to the right - which is very much a histogram chimping exercise.

In a nutshell, different lighting situations call for a different approaches. It's just that my handheld meter is a vital part of my armoury.

Hope that helps.

---- Gavin

[WyzMan]

Gavin - Top answer and thanks for taking the time to type it all out. Makes a lot of sense.
Thank you,
Alan

[isdoo]

Gavin,

Which lightmeter do you use? Can you recommend a decent one for football/cricket?

(remind me to have a look at your thinktank bag next time I see you :) )

BTW - just got my new 400mm F2.8 - did some cricket yesterday (Essex Second XI v Afghanistan) and was rather dissapointed - was using it with a 1.4, but the images are not 100% in focus - even when I am fairly tight on one player. I am sure they are fine for many - but for me they are not good enough... :(

Thanks.

[gmen]

Hi Ian,

I use a Gossen Variosix F, an older model which crops up on e-bay from time to time. Of the current meters, the Sekonic L358 would look to be a good choice.

Sounds like something's not right with the 400mm... it should work very well indeed with the 1.4x extender. Does the 1.4x work well with your 300mm?

Image quality certainly suffers with the 2x extender and I usually step down to f/8 - anything wider and the pics can suffer. However, the 1.4x should give a more than acceptable result a f/4 and an excellent result if stopped down a little bit.

Hope you can get it sorted. I may well be at the 2nd XI game next Monday at Bishop's Stortford. If I'm there, I'll have the ThinkTank Bag with me... and, if you'd like to make a comparison of image quality with my 400mm, that'd be no problem.

---- Gavin

[DwightMcCann]

BTW - just got my new 400mm F2.8 - did some cricket yesterday (Essex Second XI v Afghanistan) and was rather dissapointed - was using it with a 1.4, but the images are not 100% in focus - even when I am fairly tight on one player. I am sure they are fine for many - but for me they are not good enough... :(

Thanks.

Please keep us apprised ... I have that lens on my equipment list for later this summer (or sooner if I am hired to shoot cricket) and if there is an issue I would surely like to know about.

[isdoo]

I think the lens has been pre-owned. There was some dust/dirt on the glass and I would expect it to be clean. I have spoken to the companie who supplied it and if I felt my test shots were wrong they would replace.

I have attached a shot, which I would expect to be fairly sharp - or am I being over critical?

[gmen]

I think the lens has been pre-owned. There was some dust/dirt on the glass and I would expect it to be clean. I have spoken to the companie who supplied it and if I felt my test shots were wrong they would replace.

I have attached a shot, which I would expect to be fairly sharp - or am I being over critical?Hi Ian...

A bit difficult to tell from a web sized image in all honesty. Although, if you added some unsharp mask to the image you've posted (say 300/0.2/0), it'd probably come up quite nicely.

What focus points/AF set-up were you using? Also, if you could post a link to a full sized image, it might be helpful.

Another thing that springs to mind with the 400mm f/2.8L is that long lens technique plays a big part. A bit of general advice to anyone using large heavy glass: Even at a shutter speed of 1/1000s, it's important to hold the lens with your free hand rather than the monopod - i.e. cradling the lens or even resting the hand on top of it. This adds a little bit more stability to the set-up and can produce marginally sharper images.

---- Gavin

[gmen]

Also... just added some speedway pics over in the Motorsports forum showing a range of different angles:

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=184166

---- Gavin

[isdoo]

Hi Ian...

A bit difficult to tell from a web sized image in all honesty. Although, if you added some unsharp mask to the image you've posted (say 300/0.2/0), it'd probably come up quite nicely.


---- Gavin

I had already added it ;) Not that it tends to alter the images very much - must be my eyes LOL

[DwightMcCann]

Having now shot cricket (once) I am going to chime in with my experience even though I doubt it is applicable. I shot almost everything in my one cricket match with my 300mm f/2.8 and 2.0 TC mounted on Gitzo 1325 with leveling head and full Wimberley using a wired remote shutter release. I sat on the ground and kind of wrapped myself around the setup to get the right focus on the pitch and then sat or stood up and watched with both eyes (and glasses) to know when to fire. I had an amazing number of keepers with the ball in frame and interesting action. I shot lined up with the pitch at both ends and square leg (I think that's the term) ... 0, 90, 180 and 270 degrees around the field. I was most impressed with razor sharpness of the images. Can't wait to try this with a 400mm f/2.8!

[superdiver]

I was thinking of doing this with my 170-500 for baseball. that way you could increase the chance that your timing was better since you could actually see what else was going on the field...

[Digitalwave]

I have not had time to read this thread so I don't know if this topic was covered or not. If it was, please forgive me and I will go back and comb through the thread.

What metering mode would you recommend using for sports shooting, namely motorsports (Ferrari 360 Challenge series). I am going to be shooting in manual mode but don't know which metering mode to chose (my XT has eval, partial, and center).

Thanks in advance.

[gmen]

I have not had time to read this thread so I don't know if this topic was covered or not. If it was, please forgive me and I will go back and comb through the thread.

What metering mode would you recommend using for sports shooting, namely motorsports (Ferrari 360 Challenge series). I am going to be shooting in manual mode but don't know which metering mode to chose (my XT has eval, partial, and center).

Thanks in advance.Hi Digitalwave...

This question did crop up earlier on the thread: http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=969161&postcount=44

In a nutshell:

If I'm shooting manually, I'll use my handheld meter for an incident reading...

OR...

...I'll fill the frame with a neutral reference area in the scene. Frequently this is a patch of grass (grass often serves as my 'grey card' equivalent) and I'll base my final settings on the reading from that area (in conjunction with a quick chimp of the histogram).

Therefore, it doesn't really matter what metering pattern is selected on the camera.

If I'm using a semi-auto mode (i.e. Av or Tv), I will pay more attention to the camera's metering pattern depending on the subject matter/backgrounds, etc. to try to stop the camera's meter making 'foolish' decisions on my behalf ;)

Hope that helps.

---- Gavin

[gmen]

Having now shot cricket (once) I am going to chime in with my experience even though I doubt it is applicable. I shot almost everything in my one cricket match with my 300mm f/2.8 and 2.0 TC mounted on Gitzo 1325 with leveling head and full Wimberley using a wired remote shutter release. I sat on the ground and kind of wrapped myself around the setup to get the right focus on the pitch and then sat or stood up and watched with both eyes (and glasses) to know when to fire. I had an amazing number of keepers with the ball in frame and interesting action. I shot lined up with the pitch at both ends and square leg (I think that's the term) ... 0, 90, 180 and 270 degrees around the field. I was most impressed with razor sharpness of the images. Can't wait to try this with a 400mm f/2.8!It's a very interesting technique Dwight... did you say that you shot tethered as well, so you could see the scene on the laptop screen?

I suppose you've effectively set up a pseudo-remote camera. With some Pocket Wizards, you could pop off to the pavilion and enjoy a glass or two of cold beer and fire the camera entirely remotely. Cricket, to some extent, lends itself to this.

The only downside is how you would react to an incident in another part of the pitch/playing area, e.g. a run-out or a catch etc. Using a tripod and shooting with a remote release would make it hard to react quickly enough to capture that type of action.

Getting the ball in the frame is considerably more easy when you're shooting down the length of the pitch than it is when you're shooting square of the stumps. The ball is in the frame for a significantly shorter period of time when you're shooting in the latter fashion.

I'm still a bit old-fashioned in that I shoot with a monopod and just keep both eyes open all the time to help timing the shots.

However, there is huge potential for remote work at cricket... although, it seems to me, that height is the key. If you can get the camera up high, then a 300mm lens would give an excellent wide view of the length of the pitch. Also, the height would reduce DOF issues - it 'flattens' out the scene... a bit like this view of an lbw decision:

http://www.tgsphoto.co.uk/forum_images/eagles003.jpg

Also, at this angle and distance, you can happily sacrifice some shutter speed to stop down a bit... this frame was at 1/500s f/10 ... and focus was fixed part way down the pitch to try to maximise front to back sharpness.

It's all very interesting... I just need to get a third body so I can start to explore the use of remotes far more.

Would be very interested to see your tripod/Wimberley head/tethered set-up Dwight ;)

---- Gavin

[isdoo]

Gavin - if you ever wish to experiment at the county ground one day - we can always pool equipment :)

[gmen]

Gavin - if you ever wish to experiment at the county ground one day - we can always pool equipment :)Cheers Ian... I was thinking of investigating the possibility of rigging a remote from the 'media centre' (errr... press box)... my only concern was whether the sound of the motordrive might 'annoy' the scribes ;) :lol: ...

We'll certainly have to get our heads together at some point as I reckon there's huge potential to improve/maximise the overall coverage.

EDIT: I've got a couple of PW receivers... so that opens up a few options.

---- Gavin

[vistaphotos]

Hi Gavin,
I've been reading through this thread and saving interesting bits offline for reference, there are some great tips here, thanks for taking the time. Over the past few months I've been doing some work for the local newspaper at evenings and weekends, mostly people shots at various events but some sport as well (e.g. gaelic football, hurling & soccer). I use a 20D and have shot the matches with a Canon 75-300 f4.5-5.6 and Sigma 50-500 F4-6.3 (borrowed).

I'm not 100% happy with my results for sport and want to improve, I know I need to work on my technique and hope that will improve with practice. However, I'd also welcome feedback regarding lenses... as I'd like to invest some of what I've earned so far in a decent lens with the idea that it'll help in getting better results.

From what I can make out there are a few things to consider:

1) Focal length - the longer the better based on your earlier posts :)

2) Focus speed - I guess USM/HSM works better with AI Servo

3) Aperture - wider the better

Of course finally budget has to come into play. I'm sure the 300mm & 400mm f2.8 lenses you use are outstanding but they're way out of reach at the moment budget-wise.

My own conclusions are that anything shorter than 300mm is too short & something approaching 400mm is better. I really don't see a huge difference between Canon USM & Sigma HSM, but AI Servo is relatively new to me so I'm open to feedback. I've been stuck with f5.6 mostly and found it's not a problem in the middle of the day at this time of year but it was a little restrictive at an evening match last week when it was cloudy and dark.

The following is what I'm considering:

Sigma/Canon 70-200 f2.8: Plus - other uses apart from sport, good aperture. Minus- A little short, action needs to be close. Could use a TC but that adds cost and you loose stops, makes me wonder if you'd be better spending the money on a 300 f4 in the first place!

Sigma 50-500 f4-6.3: Plus - good focal range, good price. Minus - heavy, f6.3@500mm or f5.6@400 is a little dark, heavy zoom mechanism. Not convinced about image quality or focus speed. Having used this found 400mm great compared to 300mm I'd used previously. With proper technique I wonder is this a good compromise.

Canon 300 f4: Plus - f4, Minus - I wonder is fixed focal length restrictive, but I think it might force an improvement in technique. Really only considering this as I type today, so don't know too much about it.

Canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6: Plus - Zoom is attractive to me just at the moment. Minus - f5.6! I've held one of these and have been comparing with 50-500, not sure if focus is better. Push pull zoom is a little strange, usable but has a bad reputation for failing.

Sigma 300 2.8: Don't know an awful lot about this. f2.8 is what caught my eye and the price. It really would be pushing the boat out budget wise. Don't think I could afford TC to take advantage of f2.8 but at least the possibility is there for the future.

Obviously getting the shot is the most important thing, but having the right tool for the job helps, so your thoughts would be very much appreciate.
Thanks,
Kieran.

[DwightMcCann]

It's a very interesting technique Dwight... did you say that you shot tethered as well, so you could see the scene on the laptop screen?

I noticed that I misspoke about tethered ... I only meant using a remote wired shutter release. It was so bright that tethering to a laptop would have been of little help. However, having just learned from an ex-professional cricketeer who is the father of one of my daughter's friends that the bowler has to release the ball in virtually the same place each ball, the idea of remote firing as you discuss has some appeal. I'll certainly have to think about it for the future. I could experiment with my 20D with 100-400mm and 1.4TC perhaps.

As for shooting off a Wimberley mounted camera, one of the beauties of it is that you can swing the camera around pretty freely while mounted ... panning is quite easy. If you have not felt one in action you should try someone's. And I have two Mark II bodies as you do (one is an "N") so that shooting the odd moment isn't too hard. Back to the Wimberley ... when Ati got hit in the head with the ball I sat down behind the camera on the Wimberley, shot him kneeling and then simply followed him in off the pitch "panning" and shooting which is how I wound up with the images that are head shots with the blood running down his cheek.

[gmen]

Hi Gavin,
I've been reading through this thread and saving interesting bits offline for reference, there are some great tips here, thanks for taking the time. Over the past few months I've been doing some work for the local newspaper at evenings and weekends, mostly people shots at various events but some sport as well (e.g. gaelic football, hurling & soccer). I use a 20D and have shot the matches with a Canon 75-300 f4.5-5.6 and Sigma 50-500 F4-6.3 (borrowed).

I'm not 100% happy with my results for sport and want to improve, I know I need to work on my technique and hope that will improve with practice. However, I'd also welcome feedback regarding lenses... as I'd like to invest some of what I've earned so far in a decent lens with the idea that it'll help in getting better results.

From what I can make out there are a few things to consider:

1) Focal length - the longer the better based on your earlier posts :)

2) Focus speed - I guess USM/HSM works better with AI Servo

3) Aperture - wider the better

Of course finally budget has to come into play. I'm sure the 300mm & 400mm f2.8 lenses you use are outstanding but they're way out of reach at the moment budget-wise.

My own conclusions are that anything shorter than 300mm is too short & something approaching 400mm is better. I really don't see a huge difference between Canon USM & Sigma HSM, but AI Servo is relatively new to me so I'm open to feedback. I've been stuck with f5.6 mostly and found it's not a problem in the middle of the day at this time of year but it was a little restrictive at an evening match last week when it was cloudy and dark.

The following is what I'm considering:

Sigma/Canon 70-200 f2.8: Plus - other uses apart from sport, good aperture. Minus- A little short, action needs to be close. Could use a TC but that adds cost and you loose stops, makes me wonder if you'd be better spending the money on a 300 f4 in the first place!

Sigma 50-500 f4-6.3: Plus - good focal range, good price. Minus - heavy, f6.3@500mm or f5.6@400 is a little dark, heavy zoom mechanism. Not convinced about image quality or focus speed. Having used this found 400mm great compared to 300mm I'd used previously. With proper technique I wonder is this a good compromise.

Canon 300 f4: Plus - f4, Minus - I wonder is fixed focal length restrictive, but I think it might force an improvement in technique. Really only considering this as I type today, so don't know too much about it.

Canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6: Plus - Zoom is attractive to me just at the moment. Minus - f5.6! I've held one of these and have been comparing with 50-500, not sure if focus is better. Push pull zoom is a little strange, usable but has a bad reputation for failing.

Sigma 300 2.8: Don't know an awful lot about this. f2.8 is what caught my eye and the price. It really would be pushing the boat out budget wise. Don't think I could afford TC to take advantage of f2.8 but at least the possibility is there for the future.

Obviously getting the shot is the most important thing, but having the right tool for the job helps, so your thoughts would be very much appreciate.
Thanks,
Kieran.Hi there Kieran... welcome to POTN and thanks for the kind words about the thread!

It's a tough one to answer. However, if you're shooting paid gigs for a paper, the key thing is to be able to get a result no matter what job you're asked to do.

This would tend to push me towards the 70-200mm f/2.8 as the first purchase. If you're asked to do a job under floodlights, then an f/4 lens will frequently be of no use whatsover (even at ISO3200)... so the wider aperture of the f/2.8 lens is incredibly useful. Bear in mind that this will apply to winter afternoon matches as well as regular evening games.

Yep, you'll sacrifice some reach... but it's much better to be able to shoot at 1/400s than 1/200s!

Add a 1.4x converter/extender and you've got a 280mm option at f/4 with the 70-200mm. It won't be quite as sharp as using a fixed focal length but more than acceptable, particularly if you stop down very slighty, even to f/4.5. This would give you some more reach when the light is better.

At a later date, you can add a long, fast prime like the 300mm f/2.8 or 400mm f/2.8. The 1.4x converter/extender will still work with those lenses... and you'll already have a 70-200mm f/2.8 which you may end up using on a second body.

So, in a nutshell, my gut feeling would be to go for the faster, shorter glass initially. It's suprising how often f/4 just isn't fast enough for sports shooting... and, like I said, if you're shooting professionally or semi-professionally, a bunch of blurry shots are probably not going to go down to well with your editor.

The reach of a nice big prime is great... but I started out shooting with a 135mm f/2.8 lens in the manual days... and moved onto a 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom before going with the expensive primes. Also, if the light is good, hopefully you can still borrow that 50-500mm from time to time.

Hope that helps.

---- Gavin

[isdoo]

I can only echo what Gavin has said - go for a 2.8 lens - an alternative might be a Sigma 120-300 F2.8 lens - I started with this and it was a fine lens. (which reminds me - I must sell it) - you can always increase the range of the lens by adding a converter - but with anything less than 2.8 you will never be able increase the focal length back to 2.8 - which is almost essential for sport (espcially under floodlights).

[gmen]

I can only echo what Gavin has said - go for a 2.8 lens - an alternative might be a Sigma 120-300 F2.8 lens - I started with this and it was a fine lens. (which reminds me - I must sell it) - you can always increase the range of the lens by adding a converter - but with anything less than 2.8 you will never be able increase the focal length back to 2.8 - which is almost essential for sport (espcially under floodlights).Indeed the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 is a very nice lens with a bit more reach. There are a few regulars here that shoot with it and it's a similar-ish price to the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS.

Obviously the most economical f/2.8 zoom option is going to be the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8, a well reviewed lens...

...or another alternative for sports (and cheaper still) is the Canon 200mm f/2.8L prime. Slightly less flexible than a zoom, but exceptionally sharp.

---- Gavin

[gmen]

I noticed that I misspoke about tethered ... I only meant using a remote wired shutter release. It was so bright that tethering to a laptop would have been of little help. However, having just learned from an ex-professional cricketeer who is the father of one of my daughter's friends that the bowler has to release the ball in virtually the same place each ball, the idea of remote firing as you discuss has some appeal. I'll certainly have to think about it for the future. I could experiment with my 20D with 100-400mm and 1.4TC perhaps.

As for shooting off a Wimberley mounted camera, one of the beauties of it is that you can swing the camera around pretty freely while mounted ... panning is quite easy. If you have not felt one in action you should try someone's. And I have two Mark II bodies as you do (one is an "N") so that shooting the odd moment isn't too hard. Back to the Wimberley ... when Ati got hit in the head with the ball I sat down behind the camera on the Wimberley, shot him kneeling and then simply followed him in off the pitch "panning" and shooting which is how I wound up with the images that are head shots with the blood running down his cheek.
Hi Dwight...

I've never had the pleasure of experiencing the full Wimberley rig... it's clearly something I need to try out at some point :lol: You're tempting me to spend more money!

Talking of which, I took delivery of a Gitzo 1588 monopod today. A beautiful piece of kit. I wanted a 'pod which would have a more rigid 'feel' when fully extended than my Manfrotto 680B and 679-4B, but I still wanted something light and reasonably short when closed up... and this fits the bill perfectly. Well worth looking at. By far the best monopod I've ever come across and a great companion for the 400mm. I've never been a big fan of the Gitzo twist lock leg mechanisms, but these work a treat, locking and unlocking without having to exert undue torsion. Jubbly.

PS: Don't forget to post a pic of your Wimberley rig if you get a chance ;)

---- Gavin

[gmen]

Recently posted a couple of speedway crashes over in the Motorsport forum:

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=185980

---- Gavin

[gmen]

Talking of which, I took delivery of a Gitzo 1588 monopod today. A beautiful piece of kit. I wanted a 'pod which would have a more rigid 'feel' when fully extended than my Manfrotto 680B and 679-4B, but I still wanted something light and reasonably short when closed up... and this fits the bill perfectly. Well worth looking at. By far the best monopod I've ever come across and a great companion for the 400mm. I've never been a big fan of the Gitzo twist lock leg mechanisms, but these work a treat, locking and unlocking without having to exert undue torsion. Further to this, a couple of pics:

Firstly, a view of the Gitzo side by side with the Manfrotto 680B.

http://www.tgsphoto.co.uk/forum_images/pod1.jpg

The Gitzo 1588 is slightly longer and thicker, but it's the same weight (just 2lbs)... The Gitzo extends from 22" to 65", the Manfrotto from 20.5" to 60.5"... The Gitzo supports 26.5lbs, the Manfrotto supports 22lbs. The differences in specification are relatively small, but seem to make a huge difference in practice.

Here's a detail shot of the 'pod attached to the 400mm. Note the double-width, twisting leg locks that seem far easier to deal with than the usual single-width variety...

http://www.tgsphoto.co.uk/forum_images/pod0.jpg

The extra girth seems to give greater stability when the 'pod is extended. In particular, the bottom section of the Gitzo is much thicker than the corresponding section on the Manfrotto.

The foot on the Gitzo also looks much harder wearing - I've had to replace the rubber foot on the Manfrotto several times since I've been using the 400mm regularly - but, of course, only time will tell on that point.

Also the Gitzo's handgrip is longer and camera platform has a greater diameter.

Hope that's a useful review.

---- Gavin

[DwightMcCann]

I think that's the same Gitzo monopod as I have in my case but never use. But I am in love with the Gitzo 1325 carbon fiber legs, leveling head and Full Wimberley. I'll try to get pictures this weekend. It a bit more of a carry but I love it. I often set it up at the casino near the stage to start and if allowed to shoot the whole concert I lug it back to the lightboard, pop on a TC and shoot from there.

[LMP]

Certainly looks like a sturdy bit of kit Gavin, any chance you can disclose where you got it from and the cost by PM ?

[gmen]

Certainly looks like a sturdy bit of kit Gavin, any chance you can disclose where you got it from and the cost by PM ?PM sent Marc.

---- Gavin

[gmen]

I think that's the same Gitzo monopod as I have in my case but never use. But I am in love with the Gitzo 1325 carbon fiber legs, leveling head and Full Wimberley. I'll try to get pictures this weekend. It a bit more of a carry but I love it. I often set it up at the casino near the stage to start and if allowed to shoot the whole concert I lug it back to the lightboard, pop on a TC and shoot from there.I shall look forward to seeing it... it's certainly something to consider for cricket - although I'm going to have to find some other applications before shelling out the dosh! :lol:

Certainly looks like a sturdy bit of kit Gavin, any chance you can disclose where you got it from and the cost by PM ?If that Gitzo monopod is gathering dust Dwight, maybe Marc would be interested in taking it off your hands? :lol:

---- Gavin

[gmen]

If you can get the camera up high, then a 300mm lens would give an excellent wide view of the length of the pitch. Also, the height would reduce DOF issues - it 'flattens' out the scene... a bit like this view of an lbw decision:

http://www.tgsphoto.co.uk/forum_images/eagles003.jpg

Also, at this angle and distance, you can happily sacrifice some shutter speed to stop down a bit... this frame was at 1/500s f/10 ... and focus was fixed part way down the pitch to try to maximise front to back sharpness.Further to this, I thought I'd add a recent cricketing image to show how it is possible to fill the frame with the full length of the pitch from a slowly lower position and a different angle...

http://www.tgsphoto.co.uk/forum_images/dangles005.jpg

The long focal length (in this case 400mm) also compresses the perspective and 'incorporates' the spectators in the background into the scene. If this hadn't been a public park, it would have been a spiffing location for a remote.

Also, here's a quick speedway one from last night. A remote shot of sorts, taken with the camera on the end of a monopod held above my head, triggered via PWs. Focal length was about 20mm. The intention was to capture the start of the race and the TV crew filming it:

http://www.tgsphoto.co.uk/forum_images/oi001.jpg

Hmmm...

---- Gavin

[DwightMcCann]

Oh, my, so much to experiment with! I see the arrow in the last image point to YOU. :-)

[gmen]

Oh, my, so much to experiment with! I see the arrow in the last image point to YOU. :-):lol: Looks like they found me at last!

---- Gavin

[DwightMcCann]

:lol: Looks like they found me at last!

---- Gavin

And I have finally posted a few images of the Wimberley with the 300mm f/2.8 setup over at http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=1687885#post1687885 for you. I think it would take the 400mm f/2.8 just perfectly, too, so if you want to loan me yours for a few months I'll run some tests. :D BTW, my monopod is only a G1568.

[gmen]

And I have finally posted a few images of the Wimberley with the 300mm f/2.8 setup over at http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=1687885#post1687885 for you. I think it would take the 400mm f/2.8 just perfectly, too, so if you want to loan me yours for a few months I'll run some tests. :D BTW, my monopod is only a G1568.Well... Dwight... you've made me fell somewhat light-headed... I feel cash draining from my account yet again :lol: Thanks very much for posting the pics, it's the first time I've really been able to get a feel for the Wimberley thingmy... and it looks mighty fine and fit for purpose...

---- Gavin

[DwightMcCann]

Well... Dwight... you've made me fell somewhat light-headed... I feel cash draining from my account yet again :lol: Thanks very much for posting the pics, it's the first time I've really been able to get a feel for the Wimberley thingmy... and it looks mighty fine and fit for purpose...

---- Gavin

I love it! And only about $1500USD for the whole kit! :rolleyes: I had heard about these heads for several years from birders but didn't appreciate what they were about until one of my UCSB co-workers who is a birder got one and brought it in for me to see. The idea of a tripod mounted camera that you could swing any which way and it would just stay knocked my socks off. And it has proven to be optimal for my concert shooting to boot.

[isdoo]

Gavin - looks like you are about to spend £500 :) Looks an interesting piece of kit - I assume it will react quickly to changes in direction?

Incidently Gavin - if you are buying a Wimberley Quick Release Plates for Collared Lenses - you might want to check which one you need - W/E says the P40 for a 400mm f2.8, but the included info pop-up says you need the P50.

Thanks for posting the pictures Dwight.

[isdoo]

BTW - one method I found worked quite well was using my manfroto monopod with the small included legs out stretched. Then this held a 400mm F2.8 on its own - I was able to pan from left to right by not having the collar totally tight - of course I could not pan up or down - but for cricket this isn't often required as the cricketers seem to wish to keep their feet on the grass more than footballers :)

[DwightMcCann]

... the cricketers seem to wish to keep their feet on the grass ...
You could have fooled me ... all of the bowlers seem to like to fly into the bowl and the batsmen like to fly into the ball! http://www.dwightmccann.com/Images/Cricket/SantaBarbaraCricketClub061706/large/0007.jpg

http://www.dwightmccann.com/Images/Cricket/SantaBarbaraCricketClub061706/large/0039.jpg