PDA

View Full Version : Sports Illustrated Photographer John Biever


stugotzo
7th of November 2007 (Wed), 08:27
His favorite shots (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/0711/gallery.canon.biever/content.1.html) - sorry if this has been posted before.

It's nice that he shares his shot settings. :cool:

n1as
7th of November 2007 (Wed), 10:08
Very interesting that most of the 70-200 f/2.8 shots were shot at f/4 or f/5.6. At that point, what's the advantage of the f/2.8?

Hmmm.

- Keith -

Curtis N
7th of November 2007 (Wed), 10:13
Very interesting that most of the 70-200 f/2.8 shots were shot at f/4 or f/5.6. At that point, what's the advantage of the f/2.8?Lenses with fat apertures focus faster and more accurately, especially in low light.

They're also bigger, which means they make you look like a pro so you can charge more.

JVolz
7th of November 2007 (Wed), 10:13
Very interesting that most of the 70-200 f/2.8 shots were shot at f/4 or f/5.6. At that point, what's the advantage of the f/2.8?

Hmmm.

- Keith -

It looks like in most of those cases it was bright sunshine, so he had plenty of light to work with. If you can get high enough SS and still grab some extra DOF, take it!

snapzz
7th of November 2007 (Wed), 10:16
Very interesting that most of the 70-200 f/2.8 shots were shot at f/4 or f/5.6. At that point, what's the advantage of the f/2.8?

Hmmm.

- Keith -

The advantage of f2.8 is its there when you need it!

mtonsbeek
7th of November 2007 (Wed), 10:32
Thanks for posting that link stugotzo. I have been looking through the rest of the site as well. Some brilliant photography there!
Great shots of the New York marathon and some rather fit looking cheer leaders!

stugotzo
7th of November 2007 (Wed), 10:52
Thanks for posting that link stugotzo. I have been looking through the rest of the site as well. Some brilliant photography there!
Great shots of the New York marathon and some rather fit looking cheerleaders!
How do you think I found the link I posted?

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

dmwierz
7th of November 2007 (Wed), 11:03
One frequently will shoot stopped down to 1) increase the accuracy of the AF and 2) increase the DOF. If you're shooting indoors with strobes, this makes it easy to stop down.

For example, many arena strobes are focused on the court/rink, so if you're worried about increasing your depth of field and how it might "busy up" your background, most of the off-court or off-rink stuff will be a couple stops down from a light standpoint anyway.

In addition, most lenses, even L glass, are sharper stopped down a little compared to being wide open.

You'll notice the 70-200 f/4.0L lenses courtside (shot by guys using the strobes) at NBA and NCAA games along with the 70-200 f/2.8L being used by ambient light photogs.

Increased DOF can also be important 'cuz the players are bigger (some times MUCH bigger) at the pro level plus the action tends to be a little more spread out, or at least more interesting things are happening farther from the ball/puck.

3 point shots come from farther out, slapshots are fired at a longer distance, etc..

As was said above, when you have f/2.8 it's there when you need it, which can make the difference between getting a shot and not getting it. When you need the light gathering capability or want the more narrow DOF of f/2.8 , then you've got it. F/2.8 lenses are also mostly "pro" grade glass which is higher quality and tends to focus quicker in general. Not a lot of consumer-grade f/2.8 lenses out there.

FWIW, in no way would I say I "know" John Biever, but I've met him a few times at Miller Park (his home field for MLB) and he is one of the more helpful Big Time shooters I've run across.

stugotzo
7th of November 2007 (Wed), 11:20
Pro's frequently will shoot stopped down to 1) increase the accuracy of the AF and 2) increase the DOF. If you're shooting indoors with strobes, this makes it easy to stop down.

For example, many arena strobes are focused on the court/rink, so if you're worried about increasing your depth of field and how it might "busy up" your background, most of the off-court or off-rink stuff will be a couple stops down from a light standpoint.

In addition, most lenses, even L glass, is sharper stopped down a little compared to being wide open.

You'll notice the 70-200 f/4.0L lenses courtside (shot by guys using the strobes) at NBA and NCAA games along with the 70-200 f/2.8L being used by ambient light photogs.

Increased DOF can also be important 'cuz the players are bigger (some times MUCH bigger) at the pro level plus the action tends to be a little more spread out, or at least more interesting things are happening farther from the ball/puck.

3 point shots come from farther out, slapshots are fired at a longer distance, etc..

As was said above, when you have f/2.8 it's there when you need it, which can make the difference between getting a shot and not getting it. When you need the light gathering capability or want the more narrow DOF of f/2.8 , then you've got it.
Very well said. It's funny - before I posted this thread, I did a search for "Biever", and came across a post of yours a few months back, where you mentioned shooting side-by-side with Mr. Biever (and other pros), and some of your pics ended up in SI. Great stuff!

david888lee
7th of November 2007 (Wed), 11:39
thanks a lot for the link and info! i never thought about using a smaller aperture ie f/4-5.6 to make more things in focus depending on the situation, i just always assumed you use f/2.8 for sports. many thanks!

dmwierz
7th of November 2007 (Wed), 11:41
Hey, "Stu", you wouldn't happen to speak Italian, would you?

dmwierz
7th of November 2007 (Wed), 11:49
Here's an example I've posted elsewhere on this board, but it illustrates the point.

The shooter, Robert Lang (20) is scoring a goal (note the puck entering the net behind the Predator goalie, Mason).

http://www.pbase.com/dmwierz45/image/88487594.jpg

Exposure Time 1/1000 sec
Aperture f/3.2
ISO Equivalent 1000

Now, when I first looked at this image, Lang was pretty out of focus 'cuz I had my AF pip on Mason, and not the shooter, since in the middle of a 5 on 3 powerplay it's sometimes hard to know where or from whom the puck is going to come, but it almost always ends up somewhere around the goaltender. Anyway, in hindsight I wish I would have stopped down to maybe f/5.6. I'd have traded a little shutter speed for an increase in DOF, and might have even bumped my ISO to 1250. (in fact, this is actually what I ended up doing after looking at this shot between periods).

I was able to somewhat save the shot with intensive PhotoShop work, and it's OK for online and newspaper quality (thankfully, this is the intended destination) but enlarge it too much and Lang would lose sharpness.

stugotzo
7th of November 2007 (Wed), 12:32
Hey, "Stu", you wouldn't happen to speak Italian, would you?
A "little". Oops! Don't read into that too much! :eek: :lol:

I grew up in Rochester, NY, in a very large Italian community. I'm well aware of that word's many different definitions. ;)

Cheers!

Stu.

Curtis N
7th of November 2007 (Wed), 13:04
Take a look at the narrative on this one:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/0711/gallery.canon.biever/content.15.html

Shot with a 1D. Four megapixels, right? And it was good enough for the SI cover.

How stupid can the megapixel wars get?

dmwierz
7th of November 2007 (Wed), 13:44
Take a look at the narrative on this one:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/0711/gallery.canon.biever/content.15.html

Shot with a 1D. Four megapixels, right? And it was good enough for the SI cover.

How stupid can the megapixel wars get?

Curtis - You are correct sir! I know many people who make their living with their cameras who still use a 1D or two, especially when syncing with a flash since its sync speed is 1/500s being a CCD-sensor camera.

stugotzo
7th of November 2007 (Wed), 14:20
Take a look at the narrative on this one:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/0711/gallery.canon.biever/content.15.html

Shot with a 1D. Four megapixels, right? And it was good enough for the SI cover.

How stupid can the megapixel wars get?
Another interesting comment to add - he was shooting at 1/500 on that pic with a 600mm lens (breaking the rule of thumb to shoot with a shutter speed faster than 1/focal-length). Of course, he had IS if he needed it, but it doesn't indicate if it was in use at the time.

TheChemist
7th of November 2007 (Wed), 14:29
Another interesting comment to add - he was shooting at 1/500 on that pic with a 600mm lens (breaking the rule of thumb to shoot with a shutter speed faster than 1/focal-length). Of course, he had IS if he needed it, but it doesn't indicate if it was in use at the time.
That rule is for handholding - I'd bet he was using a monopod on the 600. ;)

mtonsbeek
7th of November 2007 (Wed), 15:26
How do you think I found the link I posted?

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

And I thought you were a serious photographer! :lol::lol::lol::lol:

stugotzo
7th of November 2007 (Wed), 15:27
That rule is for handholding - I'd bet he was using a monopod on the 600. ;)
He can't hold a 600mm handheld? He calls himself a pro? What a wimp!

;) :lol:

stugotzo
7th of November 2007 (Wed), 15:28
And I thought you were a serious photographer! :lol::lol::lol::lol:
Are the two mutually exclusive? :lol: :eek:

Croasdail
7th of November 2007 (Wed), 22:17
Why else would you become a photographer? Just kidding of course... or am I?

khall
8th of November 2007 (Thu), 00:52
stugotzo.
Thanks for posting the link its well worth a look, in fact have filed it for further viewing

PhotosGuy
8th of November 2007 (Thu), 08:24
He can't hold a 600mm handheld? He calls himself a pro? What a wimp! Try holding it for 2 hours! Maybe I should buy another one. My Doc keeps saying I should get more exercise! Maybe it would be deductible? :D

stugotzo
8th of November 2007 (Thu), 10:55
Try holding it for 2 hours! Maybe I should buy another one. My Doc keeps saying I should get more exercise! Maybe it would be deductible? :D
As a CPA, I'd have to advise you that it wouldn't meet the deductibility tests under medical purposes.

You'd better buy it and donate it to me instead. :lol:

PhotosGuy
8th of November 2007 (Thu), 11:32
You'd better buy it and donate it to me instead. You first!

John
9th of November 2007 (Fri), 14:38
Hmm, just saw this on CNNsi and found the discussion here.

I can't figure out this photo:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/0711/gallery.canon.biever/content.12.html

50mm f/1.4L USM? You guys think this is just a typo and it should be 50mm f/1.2L USM?

Curtis N
9th of November 2007 (Fri), 15:24
The 50mm f/1.4 is a USM lens and it was the best 50mm in Canon's lineup until a year ago. Heluva sharp lens, too. He probably just painted a red ring on it. ;)