First Spring Sport 2010 - Softball

[eigga]

Tournaments everywhere for baseball and softball. Warm weather will soon be HOT but for now we will enjoy the spring in TX


#1
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff66/mcgomez13/SGPvR-11346.jpg
#2
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff66/mcgomez13/SGPvR-11372.jpg
#3
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff66/mcgomez13/SGPvR-11241.jpg
#4
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff66/mcgomez13/SGPvR-11510.jpg
#5
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff66/mcgomez13/SGPvR-11405.jpg
#6
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff66/mcgomez13/SGPvR-11308.jpg

[djkevin314]

Great Photo's! what lens did you used? What is EXIF data?

[AP64]

Those are some nice shots. Great captures.

[canonnoob]

did you soften the background? seems like good light and all but something is bothering me about the background.

[eigga]

Nope...most of them are close to full frame and the ISO was 200 all the way to 1600 as the sun set.

Nothing done other than standard editing and USM.

All shot with 400 2.8 ann Mark III

[canonnoob]

Nope...most of them are close to full frame and the ISO was 200 all the way to 1600 as the sun set.

Nothing done other than standard editing and USM.

All shot with 400 2.8 ann Mark III


alrighty then... wasnt sure they just looked so... smooth lol

[eigga]

Yes, when you fill the frame with the 400 its nice for sure. This was at a horrible city field and due to that I mainly tried for full frame shots to eliminate the background.

[snyderman]

Very nice. Looks like a 400mm prime of sorts? WB, focus spot on. Great work.

dave

[AZAlphaDog]

Nice pictures and all, but I would expect as much from someone sporting a five thousand dollar body and an eight thousand dollar lens.

Almost a minimum requirement for shooting an NFL or MLB game and great gear for someone making a living from photography but a bit unrealistic for your average "hobbyist" photographer to own that kind of gear.

Don't get me wrong, anyone can take bad pictures with very expensive gear, it's just that most "hobby" photographers don't spend that kind of money on gear, even used you are looking at about 5-6 thousand dollars for both.

Nice shots, any hitters or "ball-on-bat" stuff?

[eigga]

Nice pictures and all, but I would expect as much from someone sporting a five thousand dollar body and an eight thousand dollar lens.

Nice comment and all ... but I would expect as much from some people I guess. Sorry my expensive gear bothers you enough to mention it.

Hope these make me more worthy... and for the record bat on ball is not a big deal to me. A clean shot of the face with good action is much more important

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff66/mcgomez13/SGPvR-11487.jpg

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff66/mcgomez13/SGPvR-11297-1.jpg

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff66/mcgomez13/SGPvR-11270.jpg

[AdamLewis]

Nice comment and all ... but I would expect as much from some people I guess. Sorry my expensive gear bothers you enough to mention it.

:lol:

You know after reading what he said, I think I know how I sound (trying to change that to sounded) on here. Just dont let it to get to you. Dont even legitimize it with a response.

And sorry for all the posts that Ive made in a similar fashion. Pretty awful of me.

[Dan-o]

Nice pictures and all, but I would expect as much from someone sporting a five thousand dollar body and an eight thousand dollar lens.

Almost a minimum requirement for shooting an NFL or MLB game and great gear for someone making a living from photography but a bit unrealistic for your average "hobbyist" photographer to own that kind of gear.

Don't get me wrong, anyone can take bad pictures with very expensive gear, it's just that most "hobby" photographers don't spend that kind of money on gear, even used you are looking at about 5-6 thousand dollars for both.

Nice shots, any hitters or "ball-on-bat" stuff?

Wow.

Oh Matt your camera takes great photos.

[AZAlphaDog]

Nice comment and all ... but I would expect as much from some people I guess. Sorry my expensive gear bothers you enough to mention it.

You took my comment all wrong, or at least I didn't get my point across.

(my main point) Your pictures look great.

(on a side note) Of course they look great, it is assumed that you have invested in top-quality gear that you are a pro and not some weekend warrior who just grabs a few snaps with an XTi at the odd weekend softball game.

(secondary side note) Your expensive gear doesn't bother me, I wish I could, and or would have the need to own such gear.

(on a third side note) So now that you have effectively raised the "bar" or standard to this level when either myself or someone else posts our "weekend warrior" level shots everyone that looks at our posts thinks our pictures suck compared to yours.

So, what I meant was "Thank you for making sure that if I ever post a softball picture on these boards it will always suck, compared to yours."

[tmalone893]

Very nice series Matt.

[ChrisK10]

Nice shots. I have only shot football and basketball, but now that softball is starting I think I am going to try and shoot my friend's high school team. Not sure how things will turn out because I am not much of a baseball/softball fan but it will be fun trying.

Again nice shots.

[eigga]

You took my comment all wrong, or at least I didn't get my point across

I wish you would have said it that way then but I think you took my post wrong. I didnt put these here to have people stroke my ego. I want to get better EVERY day until I reach my goals. And usually I can count on some real good comments that help with that. 3 short years ago I was a GWC with an original XT and 70-300. I worked my ass off to get the equipment I have so I hope you undestand why I was bitter.

My only thought is to stop considering the gear as "THE" factor for results...look at angles, lighting, settings etc.

[Peter Camyre]

2, 3 , and 4, are my favorites, nice series of softball shots. :)

[AZAlphaDog]

I wish you would have said it that way then but I think you took my post wrong. I didnt put these here to have people stroke my ego. I want to get better EVERY day until I reach my goals. And usually I can count on some real good comments that help with that. 3 short years ago I was a GWC with an original XT and 70-300. I worked my ass off to get the equipment I have so I hope you undestand why I was bitter.

My only thought is to stop considering the gear as "THE" factor for results...look at angles, lighting, settings etc.

I don't consider the gear someone has as the only "factor" in the images, as in "wow, those pictures are really nice, you must have a really nice camera," but rather a secondary factor.

In that I mean you must be a very good photographer to see enough value to spend that kind of money on gear. So, no it's not really about the gear, it's about the person behind the gear.

But . . .

An there is always a "but."

If a guy with an XTi and a consumer-based lens wants to get in tight, with razor sharp images and fantastic blur to the backgrounds (basically try to match the level of quality you have posted here) it just isn't going to happen. I don't care how good a photographer is, in the sunset light with an f5.6 lens and an APS-C body it just can't be done. A great photographer might get some equally great images, but they won't look like the ones you posted due to lighting conditions and (sad, but true) THE GEAR.

Nothing works like long fast glass and a pro-level body with a good focusing system and good high-ISO performance.

So, as much as you want it to be about YOU the photographer (and mostly it is) there is SOME of the gear in there.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you don't deserve to have top-of-the-line gear, or that the gear is the ONLY reason you got the images, but it really is a factor in the "look" of your images. That is just reality.

How about YOU shoot the next softball game at sunset with an XT and a 70-300mm f5.6 lens and try to match the quality of your own images you have posted here?

Do you think you can come close?

[eigga]

Yes, I think I can come close. The gear I have allows for more consistent results and makes it easier for me to produce results. But as far as posting 6 stand out images with an XT and 70-300 I feel strongly I can (given the same conditions as the game I posted above). I would just have to be MUCH more aware of the limitations of my gear.

So, as much as you want it to be about YOU the photographer (and mostly it is) there is SOME of the gear in there.

I already said that... however when I see a post I like from the MANY people here that post amazing pictures the LAST thing that goes through my mind is their gear. Same when I spend hours on ESPN and SI, I look at the angle, lighting, focal length and composition so I can learn how to make images that stand out.

[MT Stringer]

How about YOU shoot the next softball game at sunset with an XT and a 70-300mm f5.6 lens and try to match the quality of your own images you have posted here?

That won't happen. I have had folks with that same kind of gear ask me over and over how to set their camera so they can get good shots because theirs' is blurry. When the sun sets, only the serious photographers will be left standing. I have seen it time and again. You have to have the gear if you want to have a chance at some decent shots.

I also long for a 400 but it is out of my reach. For now, the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 will continue to be my workhorse for softball and baseball, which starts next weekend for me.

[eigga]

After sunset and "at" sunset are different things. I agree there are MANY situations the gear is the limiting factor. In my post above the light was fine for any camera capable of 800 ISO

[AZAlphaDog]

After sunset and "at" sunset are different things. I agree there are MANY situations the gear is the limiting factor. In my post above the light was fine for any camera capable of 800 ISO

Even using the "expose right" principal my 30D at 800 ISO looks ALOT different than your 1D mk III, and that is pure fact.

You can fight it all you want but try this experiment.

put a f5.6 lens on a crop body and use your 1D mk III with the 400 f2.8

take the same shot from the same place at the same time of day . . .

post the results.

[ca7696]

GReat shots!!!! love the 2nd one the way the ball is frozen on the bat!!

[whiteflyer]

Great shots, lovely action and colour. The focal length and f2.8 has done a fantastic good on the backgrounds making the players really stand out.

Now after seeing these, I have looked up about going to a softball tournament here in the UK,something I have never seen before. My problem maybe that my longest lens would be a 70-200 f2.8 with a 1.4 extender on a 30D, and wondered would this combo be long enough for softball seeing that your shots are all 400mm, as I have no idea about the field set-up at softball games.

[MT Stringer]

Mark, I shot a college game with a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and 1.4x TC and it turned out pretty good. Obviously this is a much larger place than a regular softball field with the concrete stands. I was lucky enough to get there early and get a seat in the first row in the corner behind the first base dugout. I was only about ten feet from the local newspaper guy that had field access (I didn't).

I can't recall if I used the 1.4 the entire game or not, but it did help. For outfield shots, I could have used more reach.

Here's the link (http://mtstringer.smugmug.com/Sports/Softball/NCAA-Womens-Softball-Super/5042187_BFXVJ#302996708_4hnPg) to the game pics between University of Houston and Louisanna Lafayette in the Super regional in 2008.
Mike

[eigga]

Yes, you will be fine covering the game with the 70-200... it doesnt quite offer the extreme close up images but you can cover the infield and batter just fine. And for lower level kids (14U and younger) I often stand behind the batter with my 70-200 to cover the infield. Just make sure to stay directly behind the batter and switch sides depending on lefty/righty.

[eigga]

Here are some of my first images covering softball and first time with 70-200 2.8 and my first job.
I had a lot to learn I see :)

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff66/mcgomez13/Heat-40.jpg

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff66/mcgomez13/Babes-218.jpg

[Going Baroque]

Here are some of my first images covering softball and first time with 70-200 2.8 and my first job.
I had a lot to learn I see :)

The timing was there already. :)

FWIW, I think I get AZ in post #9 because sometimes I have a weird way of complimenting people too.

[eigga]

take the same shot from the same place at the same time of day . . .

Well now that we changed to rules to duplicating the exact shot then you win, however the original question was could I produce the similar quality images and I will continue to say I could. I might be only to create a handful and I would really have to position myself for particular images but I can do it. Send me over a 30D and 300 5.6 and I will post some results.

However, my point wasn't that equipment is not a factor... it obviously is. But when I was learning I focused on the factors I could change and didnt worry about the ones I couldnt. No hard feelings...we are both right

[whiteflyer]

Thanks Guys

Looks like the 70-200, will be enough. Now just to wait for the event at the end of May.