|
Shooting through plexiglass is always going to be tough, but those don't look too bad. Any chance you can get to one of the benches?
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 12:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 20:22 |
|
|
Thanks. It is alot of hit and miss, but I've found a place where the plexiglass isn't that spotty. I'm having a seat next to the benches in the next game I'm attending.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 13:16
|
|
|
azathosk posted:Thanks. It is alot of hit and miss, but I've found a place where the plexiglass isn't that spotty. I'm having a seat next to the benches in the next game I'm attending. That will help a lot. Plexiglass is basically one enormous filter and it's brutal to deal with. Anything you can do to get around or above it is going to improve matters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 14:22
|
|
|
azathosk posted:Thanks. It is alot of hit and miss, but I've found a place where the plexiglass isn't that spotty. I'm having a seat next to the benches in the next game I'm attending. are you shooting on assignment? You should get assigned a hole.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:are you shooting on assignment? You should get assigned a hole. When one of the tv companies that broadcasts from the arena complained about the lighting, they had to fix it themselves. Neither the club nor the city had any money to do it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 13:01
|
|
|
azathosk posted:A hole? The only thing I can think of being close to that at Jordal Amfi is the photo-pit between the teams. We don't have a very large or modern arena. The last big upgrade was for the 1989 world cup, and before that it was for the 1952 olympics. Yeah, that call that pit the crash box. There is likely holes cut in the plexiglass on the corners. At least in the NHL. The team photographer will assign the wires to a specific hole typically.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:Yeah, that call that pit the crash box. There is likely holes cut in the plexiglass on the corners. At least in the NHL. The team photographer will assign the wires to a specific hole typically. The NHL and some minor-league rinks have them, but they're pretty rare otherwise. In rinks that have wide use, they're a big liability concern because you're just begging for some kid to take the cover off and stick his arm through it during a game or something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
DJExile posted:some kid to take the cover off and stick his arm through it during a game or something. jesus loving christ. I never thought about that. That would be gruesome.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:Yeah, that call that pit the crash box. There is likely holes cut in the plexiglass on the corners. At least in the NHL. The team photographer will assign the wires to a specific hole typically. I don't think we have any of those in Norwegian arenas at all. Sometimes I am the team photographer... We're a large club in Norway, but a very small one compared to NHL-clubs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
A few shots from last weekend's races, Mud Mingle (Orlando) and Color run (Clearwater):       More at my IG account @luisx_com
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
LuisX posted:A few shots from last weekend's races, Mud Mingle (Orlando) and Color run (Clearwater): Small world my fiancé did the mud run. I'll hafta check your account to see if you got her.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
mattfl posted:Small world my fiancé did the mud run. I'll hafta check your account to see if you got her. Oh cool! If she saw a guy in black carrying around a huge lightstand, that was me 
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
LuisX posted:Oh cool! If she saw a guy in black carrying around a huge lightstand, that was me Ya she said she did. She had a gopro strapped to her head lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
LuisX posted:A few shots from last weekend's races, Mud Mingle (Orlando) and Color run (Clearwater): Some good stuff there, but it's mostly portrait work not sports.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
The Canadian Ski Jumping team is at Whistler this week doing their final practice runs: Ski Jumping WOP 2014 by hookshot88, on Flickr  Ski Jumping WOP 2014 by hookshot88, on Flickr  Ski Jumping WOP 2014 by hookshot88, on Flickr  Ski Jumping WOP 2014 by hookshot88, on Flickr  Ski Jumping WOP 2014 by hookshot88, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
 I just wanted to try shooting some sports and now I've been pressganged into covering the games for the school's (web only, heh) newspaper. I am now a "published" sports photographer. I do have a question for the actual pros though: what does one do to get press credentials for games anyway? Do they ever give them out for student use? I was thinking of putting a feeler out to the Portland Timbers or the Winterhawks but I have a feeling the answer will be "lol no".
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 06:03
|
|
|
Anyone wanting some inspiration from days gone by owes it to themselves to follow Ben Cosgrove's "Picture This" posts on The Stacks. He's the editor of LIFE.com and he digs up some fantastic galleries of published and unpublished stuff from the 40s through the 70s. One of the best is this from John Dominis of Mickey Mantle in the twilight of his career: Ben Cosgrove posted:The picture above — made by LIFE's John Dominis in 1965 — captures him near the beginning of the long, torturous end; it is the best photograph ever made of a great athlete in decline. There are some amazing shots of Ali & Frasier leading up to their first fight, old football players, and some nice old color film shots as well. DJExile fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Feb 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
Went to a hockey game tonight (AHL) and saw a dude lugging around a 400mm prime. What the heck use is that? Photographing zits on the goalie's nose at the other end of the rink? Unless he was shooting from somewhere not on ice level maybe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 06:55
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:I do have a question for the actual pros though: what does one do to get press credentials for games anyway? Do they ever give them out for student use? I was thinking of putting a feeler out to the Portland Timbers or the Winterhawks but I have a feeling the answer will be "lol no". "I'm a photography student" will get you out of being arrested, I'm sure you can get on the field/court/dugout/whatever. Call up their media office and tell them you're a student building a portfolio in sports photography, they'll probably give you a pass. The worst they can do is say no; try it and see. If they tell you to gently caress off, get your school paper adviser to make you a press card, and use it to bluff your way in at the gate. I have a couple of sideline passes handed out as a formality; even without the official pass from the team's media guy, I can walk onto the field of anything short of the major leagues just by flashing my press ID. They don't even look at the card, they see the big Nikon on my shoulder and wave me through. xzzy posted:Went to a hockey game tonight (AHL) and saw a dude lugging around a 400mm prime. What the heck use is that? Photographing zits on the goalie's nose at the other end of the rink? Perfect sports lens would be a 50-300mm f/2.8 on a crop sensor. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 10:21 on Feb 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 10:09
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Delivery McGee posted:He must be shooting faces from the far end of the rink, or action from the box seats above the glass. My paper has a single shared 300 prime, and it's a bit long for American football unless you're an artist with the reflexes of a mongoose -- most of us do fine with a 70-200. 400 2.8s are pretty standard for American football. I did most with a 300 on a crop, so 450 equivalent. 70-200s are really only useful when the action's coming close -- i.e. a catch in the endzone or a sideline play when you're close. Other than that you're really hard-pressed to get good close action with only a 70-200.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
Yeah the longest glass my paper has is a 300, and I usually keep a 1.4 extender on it for football and soccer and still wish I had more. It's tough to shoot too tight for sports action.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
Went and shot a kendo tournament for the school paper. Took about 200 photos, kept about 30. Here are a couple I'm most partial to/most in focus:    This one I'm kind of unsure about, because one of them is blurry as heck:  I wish I had more different angles, but they told me to stay in one spot  Any critique is much appreciated!
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
I shot Arenacross this weekend. I asked about shooting and was told "stands only", which was decent but I wish I could have gotten closer. I was told another photog has sponsored the club and gained exclusive rights, but she wasn't even there. This leaves me in a weird position about trying to sell prints... It was my first time using the canon 70-200 mk2, which I rented. It really is a great lens, and renting is convenient too.      More GI Joe jobs fucked around with this message at 09:07 on Feb 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 08:55
|
|
|
Geektox posted:This one I'm kind of unsure about, because one of them is blurry as heck: I actually think this is your best shot, because it shows action. It's not perfect because it would probably better if the person facing you was the one not blurry, but I still like it the best of the ones you posted. The other shots are sharp, but it looks like a couple dudes posing with bamboo sticks. Seems like a sport that needs a slower shutter to get a sense of speed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
xzzy posted:I actually think this is your best shot, because it shows action. It's not perfect because it would probably better if the person facing you was the one not blurry, but I still like it the best of the ones you posted. The other shots are sharp, but it looks like a couple dudes posing with bamboo sticks. It's really hard with sports like these sometimes and the big flowing outfits with all the pads don't help matters. I shot a big fencing meet a couple years ago and it helps having them in those tighter outfits because you can better see the flow of the body and action. Sports like these are tough because it can be 90% waiting followed by that one quick rush of action. Keep at it, Geektox. solid black outfits don't do much to help you, and you might want to check your W/B since it seems just a little off, but maybe it's just that bright yellow wall throwing me off. Crop in a little tighter and that'll help keep the background from being too distracting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
xzzy posted:I actually think this is your best shot, because it shows action. It's not perfect because it would probably better if the person facing you was the one not blurry, but I still like it the best of the ones you posted. The other shots are sharp, but it looks like a couple dudes posing with bamboo sticks. DJExile posted:It's really hard with sports like these sometimes and the big flowing outfits with all the pads don't help matters. I shot a big fencing meet a couple years ago and it helps having them in those tighter outfits because you can better see the flow of the body and action. Thanks guys, this is very encouraging. I'll admit that I didn't even think to use a slower shutter speed - I was really worried about none of my pictures in focus, but I'll give it a shot next time. Yeah, I learned there's a lot of waiting around for this one. Which made missing the really rad moments all the more infuriating.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
dakana posted:400 2.8s are pretty standard for American football. I did most with a 300 on a crop, so 450 equivalent. 70-200s are really only useful when the action's coming close -- i.e. a catch in the endzone or a sideline play when you're close. Other than that you're really hard-pressed to get good close action with only a 70-200. Touche. 20mm is good out to the near-side hashmarks; sometimes I wish for a bit more at the wide end, even. We do have an 80-400mm, and it's great for the handegg, but it's only f/4-5.6 so really only useful for daytime college games. I wish I'd thought to take it to the better-lit stadiums this last season, my D7000 has enough ISO to make it work on the brighter fields.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
I went for a visit to my sister's Crossfit gym. While arguably not as sport-like as some of the events that you all are shooting, it's the closest I can get, and my first real effort trying to capture quick motion. It's indoors, I had an f/3.5-5.6 lens, and I was quickly wishing I had more light. Anything under 1/200 ended up being a bit blurry, and I often was shooting ISO 2000-6400, and was lucky to get something at 1600. Standard fare for indoor sporting things, yes? I tried my best to keep the subject's face visible and in focus, to keep the pictures interesting. (The guy on the rings being an exception. I just think that's a neat one.) I think there's only so many angles you can get on somebody who's working out, and I went whole hog on the "get way down with a wide angle and shoot up to make people look godly" (18mm at the widest for me.) Anyway, here are three pictures from the set. Crossfit (45 of 53) by RottenCookies, on Flickr I like how there are three people in this shot, everybody is doing something, and everyone has an effort-face on. I wanted the focus to be on the guy up in front, obviously. I regret not getting the rest of the barbell in frame.  Crossfit (16 of 53) by RottenCookies, on Flickr It's hard for me to say what I like about this one, I just think it's cool. Maybe it's because I can feel that he's about to swing himself forward.  Crossfit (27 of 53) by RottenCookies, on Flickr The effort on this guy's face and his sweaty forehead make me like this picture. The disembodied head to the right is a bit... distracting and out of place, but I don't think there's anything I can do about it. (This was also my first time really using Lightroom, and I don't think I was exactly light-handed with it. ) Of course, I'd love to hear your criticisms so I can take better photos in the future. Thanks for looking and for posting all your neat sports pictures. Rotten Cookies fucked around with this message at 00:10 on Feb 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
Those are all pretty solid, but going by the first, I'm assuming that stripe on the wall is a solid white. If that's the case, the white balance on the 2nd and 3rd seems a bit off. You are implying good motion on the 2nd but I'd much rather see this from the front. It's very rare that sports photos work without faces. I would also crop a bit from the top and bottom. You're right that indoor sports with spotty lighting are brutal to shoot and often need high ISO speeds. Hockey, basketball and gymnastics are brutal, though it does depend on lighting. Doing it with a kit lens is drat near impossible, but considering that's what you had, I'd say you did pretty well. Indoor sports demand f/2.8 or faster, especially if you're trying to capture motion. Overall I think you did well here, and you're clearly getting an eye for things. In other news, Gizmodo has a really neat breakdown on the logistics and systems used by Getty and the AP in getting their photos from event to wire.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
DJExile posted:It's very rare that sports photos work without faces. The golden rule of sports photography. Anytime I dispatch my photo to the wire without a face, I get yelled at and it's rejected. Unless there is an editorial reason to send it, it's typically not a keeper.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
DJExile posted:Those are all pretty solid, but going by the first, I'm assuming that stripe on the wall is a solid white. If that's the case, the white balance on the 2nd and 3rd seems a bit off. Thanks for the kind words. Can you elaborate on the off white balance? Maybe it's because I'm inexperienced, but I don't see it? I'm trying to fight with high ISO, low angles into direct lights and such, so I'm just loving around until the pictures are vaguely acceptable. For me, that means making the subject look human. I honestly wasn't paying attention to that white stripe. I mean, I guess I'm trying to polish turds in Lightroom, but I would like to stop any bad habits from forming. As for the second picture, something like this? [Edit: The alignment/framing  ] Crossfit (18 of 53) by RottenCookies, on Flickr The all foot, no face one is cool as a snapshot I guess, but not very sporting. It's not something I would picture in a newspaper or sports site. I'm left lusting after that Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 that everyone adores. Rotten Cookies fucked around with this message at 01:59 on Feb 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
Rotten Cookies posted:Thanks for the kind words. Can you elaborate on the off white balance? Maybe it's because I'm inexperienced, but I don't see it? I'm trying to fight with high ISO, low angles into direct lights and such, so I'm just loving around until the pictures are vaguely acceptable. For me, that means making the subject look human. I honestly wasn't paying attention to that white stripe. I mean, I guess I'm trying to polish turds in Lightroom, but I would like to stop any bad habits from forming. White Balance is basically making sure you have color correct. You should have an option on your camera for "custom/set white balance", where it then tells you to point at a white sheet of paper (or anything white, really), and it will set itself to accept that as a "pure" white, with colors from the ambient light adjusted accordingly. It's also likely to have pre-set W/B settings like Sunlight, Cloudy, Florescent, Incandescent, etc. Right now, your images seem to be just a bit too blue (granted, the walls of that place aren't helping), and in that 3rd picture of the guy in the red shirt, the stripe on the wall appears more gray than white. I haven't used Lightroom in a while but I believe it has an auto-adjust white balance option, and you should be able to select that white area and tell it to adjust the image, assuming that stripe is pure white. If not, you can still futz with things manually until it gets there. If you're shooting RAW, this should be pretty easy. If you're in some form of .jpg already, it should still adjust well enough but it's a little tougher to get accurate. And yeah, that 2nd picture looks much better! Crop out the woman on the left and maybe trim from the top a bit but it's a good moment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
DJExile posted:White Balance is basically making sure you have color correct. You should have an option on your camera for "custom/set white balance", where it then tells you to point at a white sheet of paper (or anything white, really), and it will set itself to accept that as a "pure" white, with colors from the ambient light adjusted accordingly. It's also likely to have pre-set W/B settings like Sunlight, Cloudy, Florescent, Incandescent, etc. I shot in RAW, and attempted to use the Kelvin setting on the camera. I took a couple test shots and kept moving stuff around until it looked normal. But anyway, in Lightroom, if I AutoWB, peoples' skin comes out looking orange and gross-looking. If I try it manually, there's a Blue-Amber slider and a Green-Magenta. I used the Blue-Amber one and left the other alone. I guess I took it a bit too far. Again, I was really only concentrating on making the people look good. As a side-effect I think I got those bright gently caress-off blue walls. Actually, I didn't even notice that these were off-white until I saw them against the background of SA. Again, thanks for the help. I'll try the selectable auto-WB thing in Lightoom.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
Worse comes to worst, GIMP is free to download and has a surprisingly accurate auto W/B adjust.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
Unfortunately GIMP's handling of raw files is about as convenient as brushing your teeth via your rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Unfortunately GIMP's handling of raw files is about as convenient as brushing your teeth via your rear end in a top hat. Yeah true, you might do as best you can with the RAW in lightroom, then make it a JPG and see what GIMP can do. It's a pretty round-about way of doing things, but it might help. V  VE:vvv Fair point. I was kinda thinking out loud there. DJExile fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Feb 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
DJExile posted:Yeah true, you might do as best you can with the RAW in lightroom, then make it a JPG and see what GIMP can do. It's a pretty round-about way of doing things, but it might help. V If you can't get the white balance right with Raw in Lightroom, not sure Gimp and a jpg is going to help. Sounds like it might be a mixed light source issue? Hard to balance when you have multiple sources of light at different temperatures. Did they have windows mixed with those fluorescents?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
Cru Jones posted:If you can't get the white balance right with Raw in Lightroom, not sure Gimp and a jpg is going to help. Sounds like it might be a mixed light source issue? Hard to balance when you have multiple sources of light at different temperatures. Did they have windows mixed with those fluorescents? There was some natural light coming from the front of the place, but it didn't seem like that much. Most of the light was coming from the tubes. It honestly is probably just my unfamiliarity/ineptitude with the program and/or just not paying attention to the white balance hard enough.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
Im looking at maybe moving into the sports journalism/photography/videography field when I get done with the military. Di my first ever sports shoot a few days ago at Fiorentina vs Inter (Italian Football) and got some decent shots considering my set up. Canon t4i with 70-300 5.6. Less than ideal, but it was amazing. Ill post the pictures here as soon as I get back to y house with wifi.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 20:22 |
|
|
OK! Finally got back and edited the pictures and got to upload them. Also decided to create an account to make a portfolio, or at least start one. Of the 1k pictures I took that night, only about 40 or so made it. And some of those I still wouldn't have considered putting in, but a friend wanted to see Inter Players in distress, so I added some. Also, 2 pictures were out of focus, but I kept them as reminders that I need to upgrade my loving lens. Camera was a Canon T4i with 75-300. I wish I had a better tele, but I don't have the money to spend on a good one. Lots of glass = lots of noise You can see the whole album here http://neotericdesigns.imgur.com/                 Critique is welcome if someone wants to. This was the first time I shot something on a DSLR for sports (I've done it for video, just not a DSLR, or for stills). Only did basic edits really. Color correction and cropping because I have no idea how to use photoshop. Soulex fucked around with this message at 06:45 on Feb 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 06:37
|
|