How to approach media outlet

Ok so I understand that no amateur photographer is getting on field access for any NFL game or anything like that. The next move I often here is get in contact with a local paper. I want to know how you would ask: Would you specifically say you want to shoot this game/team/sport/any sport/anything for the paper? I was also wondering the same about concerts.

Also: I want to shoot the Philadelphia Union, a 1st year expansion MLS team. Not to totally ignore the first sentence of this post, but Is it remotely possible that a young budding franchise would take up a student from a local high school to shoot for them?

TeenPhotog wrote in post #10350961
Ok so I understand that no amateur photographer is getting on field access for any NFL game or anything like that. The next move I often here is get in contact with a local paper. I want to know how you would ask: Would you specifically say you want to shoot this game/team/sport/any sport/anything for the paper? I was also wondering the same about concerts.

Also: I want to shoot the Philadelphia Union, a 1st year expansion MLS team. Not to totally ignore the first sentence of this post, but Is it remotely possible that a young budding franchise would take up a student from a local high school to shoot for them?

Highly doubt it. If you're a minor, which I assume you are, you won't be able to enter into any contracts w/ the organization and I seriously doubt they'll go through your parents. However, if you were the best striker in the country, they might sign you as a player. No offense, but I doubt that any pro outlet will take a high school kid seriously.

In order for them to let you on the field, it would mean that they would expect you to produce pictures that they can use. And no offense, unless you're renting a 1D and a 400mm lens every game, your gear is not going to cut it. Shoot at your high school! Work on your portfolio. If you stick at it you'll get there one day.

Your current gear is probably too limiting for you to effectively cover field sports for a publication. However, I don't think the others took the time to check out your website because if they did, they would know your concert work is extremely solid and you obviously have a much better grasp on exposure and composition than many who post on here.

I would suggest pulling together 15-20 of your best concert photos, print them as 8x10 or 9x12 and put together a package to present to the newspaper. You could do it as a web gallery as well, but personally think that several of your shots would look great as prints and think that will have more impact.

You will want to put together a cover letter and find out the name of either the editor of the entertainment section or photo editor (depending on the size of the paper) and contact them to see if you can set up an appointment to review your stuff and inquire about freelancing events for them.

DO NOT let them talk you into providing free images for a credit. That does you no good and will make it so you will have a very hard time ever getting paying work from them. The more professional you present yourself the better off you will be.

I would also suggest removing the text from your site that says you are still in high school. Too many people will discount you strictly because of your age. Let your work speak for your qualifications.

If they like your work and give you a chance, it will be a foot in the door to later expand into other things like sports.

Keep up the good work. You have a good eye and a lot of potential. Best of luck.

Once u get you're foot in the door it may close
as alot of newspapers are slowly folding.

Good luck.
and Big K is right, don't provide too many " courtesy photos "
they will get used to it, trust me.

Thanks guys, Big K especially. Very informative stuff. I think I will take your suggestions almost word for word once I get back from Israel and all the college application craziness is done. So it could be a while..


Also, I do and I don't get the whole 'not the right gear' issue. The only lens worth shooting sports with is the 55-250 and while I know the focus isn't particularly fast, and f5.6 is slow as well, whats wrong with shooting at a higher iso? In full sunlight I think I would be able to swing SS's between 1/250 & 1/500 @ f5.6 ISO 800.

I fully understand that life is easier with something like a 300 2.8L, but is there an absolute need to shoot with such fast (expensive) glass? Could I theoretically squeak by? If no, whats your budget squeaking by lens? One of the 70-200's?

Again, thanks for all the help. I love this board and I've learned more through it than any of the classes I've taken.

TeenPhotog wrote in post #10362654
Also, I do and I don't get the whole 'not the right gear' issue. The only lens worth shooting sports with is the 55-250 and while I know the focus isn't particularly fast, and f5.6 is slow as well, whats wrong with shooting at a higher iso? In full sunlight I think I would be able to swing SS's between 1/250 & 1/500 @ f5.6 ISO 800.

I fully understand that life is easier with something like a 300 2.8L, but is there an absolute need to shoot with such fast (expensive) glass? Could I theoretically squeak by? If no, whats your budget squeaking by lens? One of the 70-200's?

For me, it is more about the 55-250 just being a marginally effective sports lens. You already hit on the AF and aperture limitations and these are pretty significant limitations.

The problem with that lens for field sports is that it's just not really that long a lens. Yes, you can wait for the action to come to you and yes for things like softball it is enough to get by. However, you also are going to miss out on a lot of opportunities because of it. For soccer, football and baseball it is just way too limiting.

The other problem is that it is almost useless for indoor sports because of the aperture limitations.

Could you squeak by with it, of course you could. For daytime events you will have plenty of light and if you take enough shots indoors you are bound to get a few keepers even at really slow shutter speeds.

The main reason I think it is a limitation for you trying to break into sports for publications is because you are forced to rely too much on getting A shot instead of THE shot.

Getting a sharp photo that is well composed is only part of the equation to being successful covering sports for a publication and is more of an expectation than anything. What really sets apart the great shooters from the good shooters is being able to do it consistently and to consistently come back with a shot of the big run, or basket or touchdown that defined the game. This is where having the higher end gear really comes into play. It gives you the tools to maximize your skill and increase your opportunities for THE shot.

I personally think the 70-200 for sports is a good second lens but generally is not what I would use as a primary lens. For field sports I want long glass, 300, 400, etc. For indoor sports without strobes I want fast glass f/2, f/1.8, etc. The 70-200 does not fit into either category.

IMO the best bang for the buck lenses if money is a serious limitation would be 100-400 for outdoor sports and 85 f/1.8 for indoor sports. Personally, I am not a fan of the 100-400 but I am also spoiled with pretty nice gear and am a sharpness freak, which for me I found it to lack. However, I tend to expect more than necessary and have seen lots of people produce some really nice results with it. The 85 f/1.8 on the other hand I love and for the money, it is impossible to beat.

Hope that helps better explain my earlier post. Have a safe trip and best of luck with the college application circus.

I'm 16 and I'm shooting for Miami FC pro soccer on the feild. But to be honest you need to have contacts. My brother is in sports Journalism at FIU, so I can get on feild passes to college sports no problem. I don't do sports tho, I make my money in automotive photography which is easy to get into because people who own fast cars still have a little bit of kid in them so they take you much more seriously.

Here's a pic that I took a few weeks ago at a soccer game, I suck, but the media people in the team love. I'm shooting with a D300 and 70-200 2.8D and its still not enough for soccer. I need a D3 to be good at night.

Well said Big K, compelling argument. I totally get your point. Not being limited by gear absolutely makes sense, but now what? Feels like it is a pay to play industry. Then again I guess that's the case with photography in general.

JD, good to hear from another high school student. Nice shot. Do you feel limited with the 70-200 like Big K was saying?

TeenPhotog wrote in post #10367219
Well said Big K, compelling argument. I totally get your point. Not being limited by gear absolutely makes sense, but now what? Feels like it is a pay to play industry. Then again I guess that's the case with photography in general.

JD, good to hear from another high school student. Nice shot. Do you feel limited with the 70-200 like Big K was saying?

You will definitely be (not just feel) limited w/ just a 70-200 on a pro field. That's why you see 400, and to a lesser extent, a 300. The 300 is too short for U11 soccer and they don't play on a full-sized pitch. My advice would be to rent a few lenses to get accustom to them and you can see what you'll need. However, my advice would be to get the additional insurance, if you don't have insurance, just in case something happens. $6000 is a lot of dough to pay if you break the lens. That's why I have insurance to cover any rental I get.

JD: Nice shot.

I shoot HS Sports and even on their fields the 70-200 has it's limits. In bright sun I add a 1.4EX
But for HS sports, I cannot justify the cost of a 300 or 400mm.
Regarding your quest.. Go for it!

70-200 is way too limiting, and yes you have to "pay to play" - if you can't spend it on the gear you won't make it back shooting in the freelance world. Someone calls me for a shoot I have the gear to pretty much do anything, don't use it all the time, but nice to have. In the past I've lost jobs not having the right gear and gotten jobs because of having the right gear. That's why most have a library of gear that they built up over time, by shooting within their limits and expanding when they can expand the gear. Sorry to say but the sports guys with 70-200's around here are fading away FAST because now every parent has a 75-300 kit lens and gladly sharing everything for free. You have to REALLY separate yourself from the parents now shooting.

Newspapers are usually not asking anyone to shoot freelance unless they can enter a contract, and unless you're 18 you can not. You go to these games and concerts you're often signing contracts for the paper or the paper is on your behalf. Considering most papers are cutting back expenses it's pretty much certain if they have staff photographers they are not hiring any freelancers unless it's stuff they REALLY need and the staff people are all off (doubtful). Papers are broke, some still pay, but most are looking at cutting back unfortunately. I only shoot for one, and it's not a local...the local pays very low and does not use much freelance stuff unless assigned.

Personally, I'd just work on your portfolio - you're in high school and have a lot of opportunities to do so. Paying jobs come along great, people want to pay great, but build a portfolio of what you want to shoot in high school (sports, concerts, etc).

MJPhotos24 wrote in post #10418512
70-200 is way too limiting, ........

I agree. It is too limiting for both indoor (2.8 often not being fast enough), or outdoor (limited reach).
So, I don't understand why it is the most recommended sports lens around here.

Because it is always a compromise with lenses. While it will not do everything it is a must have lens.

It could also be the cost could be considered on the low side for the speed and reach. Not everyone needs or can afford a 300 2.8. I agree the 70-200 is limited but I like both of mine just fine.