Weightlifting

This past weekend I attended a weightlifting meet and brought along my 1D MkIII and 100-400 zoom to see what results I could get. The lighting wasn't ideal, as to be expected in a high school gym, and since I mostly do outdoor bird photography, the lens isn't the best for indoors. I'm on a weightlifting team myself, but wasn't lifting in this meet. So here's a snatch sequence of one of my teammates. She's snatching 70kg which is over 150lb.

The light is actually behind the lifters, and I cranked the ISO up to compensate and then bumped up the exposure in DPP (I was also thankful for batch cropping in DPP.) I think in spite of the lighting conditions, the photos turned out reasonably well. Next time I'd love to use a 70-200/2.8, I think that would be the perfect lens for this sport.

There are more than 8 shots in the sequence, but I'm only posting 8 per forum rules. The entire lift only takes 1-2 seconds.

The mouth is open to keep the neck relaxed.

Get closer or zoom in, with a 100-400 why shoot at 120mm? turn the camera to a portrait orientation, the lifter didn't move so eliminate the boxes of stuff and woman looking at the bulletin board.
Present peak action like #1 and #5. The rest are deletable. Your 100 2.8 and stepping a few feet closer would save your wallet $2,000.

Thanks for the suggestions, I'll try cropping in more closely and portrait orientation. Couple of reasons for not zooming in more - I loose aperture the further out I zoom, so I was trying to keep it at f/4.5. Also didn't want more shake at a higher focal length, being that I was already at ISO 3200 with the bad lighting. But perhaps I should have gone for it anyway. I will definitely keep those ideas in mind should I have another opportunity.

As for which photos are of interest and which are deletable, that all depends on the viewer's perspective. From a general photography viewpoint, then yes, the "peak action" would be probably be of more interest. But from a weightlifter's perpective, I'd say #2, #3, #5 and #7 are of greatest interest. So one can't generalize about which are worthwhile without knowing who the target audience is.

I'm not quite sure what your comment about saving $2k is - I already have the 100-400 which I use quite a bit for my main interest of bird photography. How does buying another lens save me $2k?

Again, thanks for the feedback!

2.8 f stop

You are aware that the 100-400 is f/4.5 at the widest? Of course I would have been at 2.8 if I could have been!

nice set, maybe move up closer

Thanks - I'm going to try cropping tighter and post a few to see what y'all think.

One reason I was so far away was that I was concerned about the shutter noise possibly affecting the lifter. Of course to me, shooting at a 10 FPS burst sounds quite loud, but I have no idea how that sound may or may not travel. I do know that birds will notice it (I mostly shoot outside with the 100-400 or 500 f/4), sometimes it spooks them and sometimes it doesn't. Not being used to shooting indoors, I don't know if my subject would notice. Anyone have any experience with that, in individual sports like weightlifting, gymnastics, etc?

Liz. Nice pics. A closer zoom or crop would help.

5DMII should be better inho

gymell wrote in post #15098683
One reason I was so far away was that I was concerned about the shutter noise possibly affecting the lifter.

You could ask your teammate if she heard the burst(s)?

I'm going to echo what's already been mentioned - get tighter, that's an impressive looking lift but it has lost quite a bit of impact with the distracting background.

burnet44 wrote in post #15100492
5DMII should be better inho

Ok, not asking for a critique of equipment ... or what your point is.

joeblack2022 wrote in post #15103365
You could ask your teammate if she heard the burst(s)?

I'm going to echo what's already been mentioned - get tighter, that's an impressive looking lift but it has lost quite a bit of impact with the distracting background.

Thanks - yes I know that from the vantage point I was at, the sound wasn't a problem. I was just worried if I got closer, it might be. Anyway, I'll try a tighter crop!

gymell wrote in post #15104158
Ok, not asking for a critique of equipment ... or what your point is.

ok sorry dude

Next time try for a tighter crop, or a different vantage point. The off stage clutter distracts from the subject.

I think these pictures are not captured by using of screenshot because these pictures clarity is very high.