Girl's Lacrosse (middle school playoffs)

Mongrel

Hi guys, I haven't put pics up in a while so I thought I'd share some recent lacrosse shots. I haven't seen my 12 yr. old daughter play *any* games this season because they were all scheduled during the week and I work 2nd shift. But when her team made the playoffs, it was time to burn a few vacation days

Anyway, these were all taken with a Canon 1D with a Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 aboard. I shot some with a Sigma 1.4 TC mounted as well, I'll make a note of it on the pic.

As always, comments *or* criticism is appreciated. Please keep in mind that when I shoot sports it is from a 'parents' perspective. In other words-I want the shot to be pleasing to mom and dad not necessarily Sports Illustrated. Believe it or not-what *we* may think makes a great *sports* shot, many times may not be pleasing to the player or the parents.

A note on the cropping-these shots are up for print sales so I leave them as loose a possible (without killing the shot) so that parents can purchase them in different sizes without chopping something off. Again, if I were going for a *pure* sports shot I'd tighten them up a bit more.

Anyhow...on with the pitchas'...

#1 I normally 'shoot the ball' from *my teams* offensive perspective, but I needed some shots of the defensive players, like this one:




#2 and this one:



#3 A little offense:



#4 More offense (check the girl out in the background, she's yelling-BALL! BALL! BALL! continuously during this sequence lol):



#5 More offense, shot with the Sigma 1.4 TC:




#6 Shot on goal (she scored) with the 1.4 TC (just slightly back focused, but usable I think):



Well, that's what I've been up to lately , thanks for taking a look.

Mongrel

Andy

well done, exp, focus, colors, action. it's all there mongrel

Mongrel

Hey Andy..
Thanks for the kind words! I appreciate it greatly

Take care,

Mongrel

Rufio220

I like that you give the shots to the players parents. My little sister plays lacrosse and i wish people gave out pictures like that. Good job, I like them.

Mongrel

Thanks Rufio!
I appreciate the kind words and the time taken to post them.

Well, to be honest the short story on my shots is this-

I've been taking pics of both my daughter's games for I guess three years now. I tried film, then my Sony S75, my digital Rebel, my 20D, and finally a used 1D I picked up around Christmas.

For the last two years I would give away free pics and cds for slide shows to the parents and coaches. Then I started getting requests for more prints etc. and offers from people to pay for them. I only have an inkjet and didn't really want to get caught up in the burden of printing all this stuff out. I ask a few of the parents what they thought about an online gallery for purchase and well, the rest is history.

I just about have my smugmug pro account where I want it, and just put my first pics up for sale (the pics above are a sample from the first batch). I am keeping my pricing 'reasonable' (read: low) for now and I'll see what happens. It's tough because I live in a small town and these are all neighbors and friends. I honestly don't feel right about trying to hammer my neighbor $15 for an 8 X 10. I *know* this flies in the face of most sports shooters, but consider this-I put over 200 *good* shots up of my nephew's football team at what I'd call 'standard' pricing. I sold exactly 0-ZERO shots. I think I'd rather sell 10 5x7's at $5 a piece than 0 5 X 7's at $10 a piece.

sorry for running at the keyboard....

Take care, and thanks again for the kind words...

Chase

I am lens-envious. Somehow i will have to svae up for one of those 120-300....maybe i will buy a 100-300 f4 and use money made from that to pay for one.

Nice pics.

Mongrel

Hey Chase...
Thanks for the kind words and taking time to comment.

Re:

Chase wrote:

I am lens-envious. Somehow i will have to svae up for one of those 120-300....maybe i will buy a 100-300 f4 and use money made from that to pay for one.

Nice pics.

Well, as I said in the other thread about the Sigma 100-300 f/4-I honestly don't think you can beat it quality for the price. I used the Sigma f/4 in the fall for field hockey and had GREAT results. On days when I had full sun I even put the 1.4 TC on it and had GREAT results at f/5.6. If you can afford the 100-300 f/4 and need a 300mm zoom *now* I see no reason to wait until you can afford the 120-300 f/2.8 which even used will probably run you twice what the 100-300mm is new. Something to think about for sure.

I had three primary reasons why I got the 120-300-

1. Even during daytime games or even early evening games, the light is not always that good.

2. Isolation of players-the 2.8 aperture really helps to make players stand out by blurring the background. It helps to compensate for crappy backgrounds as well (porta potties, trailers, cars, parking lots and the like).

3. I want to be able to at least attempt shooting field sports like football and soccer 'under the lights'. You can forget about f/4 for that, and f/2.8 won't always be enough.

But, for those really nice days with good (or even decent light) the 100-300 is a fine choice.

Take care, and thanks again,

Mongrel