#1 High School Quarterback in the US

For those of us whom shoot MaxPreps flashed night football is required. I still ride the fence to flash or not to flash, so one body is set-up for flash the other high ISO.
Since I have been shooting the same teams for the past few years I ask. Clearing my flash with the refs and players from both teams. I refuse to shoot a pass play due to the level of concentration. I have been told from the players..."I don't notice it".
As it is many of them have a tendency to run towards me. That usually happens when they are winning.
Bottom line, to each their own. I like the pop but not the shadow. However, I also like a natural SI shot.
C.

Well again, I've seen "medium" ISO flash where ambient is only one to two stops below the flash and it looks much better since the dropoff is not as severe. But that is my taste.

C.david wrote in post #15110564
For those of us whom shoot MaxPreps flashed night football is required. I still ride the fence to flash or not to flash, so one body is set-up for flash the other high ISO.
Since I have been shooting the same teams for the past few years I ask. Clearing my flash with the refs and players from both teams. I refuse to shoot a pass play due to the level of concentration. I have been told from the players..."I don't notice it".
As it is many of them have a tendency to run towards me. That usually happens when they are winning.
Bottom line, to each their own. I like the pop but not the shadow. However, I also like a natural SI shot.
C.

I'd never shoot for Maxpreps then. I don't understand why they would require it. What if your equipment is good enough to get the shot without it?

ajaffe wrote in post #15110814
Well again, I've seen "medium" ISO flash where ambient is only one to two stops below the flash and it looks much better since the dropoff is not as severe. But that is my taste.

I've seen very few flash shots that look good, but I agree, the less dropoff the better. Some of them look like old horror films.

Conner Manning - rivals

Nice Quarterback but not the #1 quarterback in the US.

Guess I should have said in passing yards ... although now he seems to be number 2 but the only guy who is ahead of him has played 9 games and Conner at the time had only played 7. Still #1 in passing yards in my book!

Conner Manning - MaxPreps

teams throw so much it really dont matter
kid in Texas threw for 10 td's last night
what a class act by his coach NOT

I saw the elite eleven on ESPN
all they do is throw

Im not a big stat guy if you can tell lol
Im sure they are all good in some way

When I see them on Sundays let me know

He's committed to Utah, so you'll probably see him on Saturdays, not Sundays for 4 years.

what camera did you shoot those photos with IODebbie? BEAUTIFULLY CRISP.

I am a mom who loves to take pics at my sons football games. I currently only have the equipment that came out of the Costco Canon T3i Box. Looking into what starter stuff I ought to have. I have no plans to charge people if I get a pic of their kids while I am taking mine, I put em on facebook for people to download if they want them.... with that said, I'd like for the images to be good enough quality if I want to blow them up and hang them on the wall. I hate limiting the possibilities of a perfectly good photo of a running back cartwheeling over the line to score. That is one the mother would surely want to keep and show off! So its sad that my out-of-the-box camera wastes that image IF there isnt enough light. I have NO flash other than the one on the camera... no idea how to even use or purchase an external one.

I'd LOVE to get enough detail in to see the eyelashes of a player who is 60 yards away... but thats gonna be ookoo bookoo bucks and since I dont earn money with photography, its not practical to spend a ton. I am looking into the Tamron 70-200 (I know, other photographers will laugh at me for not having the Canon but hey, I am not PRO lol).
Its $800 at best, so its my last resort only if I cant find something else acceptable to take the photo with. any thoughts?

if the 70-200 is a 2.8 get it
Im kinda thinking its not
7D is a good choice
Ive seen some real good stuff with a 50D also
which isnt that expensive

IODebbie wrote in post #15118716
He's committed to Utah, so you'll probably see him on Saturdays, not Sundays for 4 years.

if he is that good he will play on sundays
its not about stats
I could throw for 3000 yds with bubble and hitch screens and 315 curls and stop routes

and Im 56 years old

LifeCliques wrote in post #15118958
I am looking into the Tamron 70-200 (I know, other photographers will laugh at me for not having the Canon but hey, I am not PRO lol).
Its $800 at best, so its my last resort only if I cant find something else acceptable to take the photo with. any thoughts?

The Canon 200/2.8L prime sells for ~$500... much better quality and performance than the Tamron.

Shooting with a prime takes a while to get used to, but once you accept that "you get what you get" from the composition, it will teach you real quick to shoot tighter than you would if you had the option to zoom out to 70mm.

agreed

https://photography-on-the.net …?p=15100825&pos​tcount=283

This is a great example of flash done well. High ISO to prevent massive dropoff, but plenty of punch.

The flash really cheapens the look of the photos. Makes them look like they've been taken with a point and shoot on auto :/

Yeah, I wouldn't wall hang those in ajaffe's link if they were my kid.