How about some college football pics!

Erbeman

We got our butt's handed to us last weekend by A&M. Here are a few of my favorite pics from the game. I tried a different White Balance on my camera for this game and I didn't like it. So don't beat me up too bad.

Onrey

Nice job Russ! Any loss is tough! Hope you have more responses than my Bama post several days ago! Get me some good Oklahoma photos when ya'll play!

Gringriff

Nice set Russ. I enjoy the shots of the atmosphere around the game.

Would probably prefer a tighter crop on a few of the action shots especially the two players jumping up in celebration with a ref on each end.

Skin tones look a little green and the one right after the cow bells.

Nice capture with the lost helmet.

Andy

Erbeman

Thanks brother. I shot alot more atmoshpere at this game because that is what the newspaper wanted. I enjoyed it more as well. I used the cloudy WB because I've heard a Pro MX photog say he generally shot with it. I guess during the day it's fine, but once it starts getting dark, you should definately not use it any longer. You are right about that one crop. Thanks

tjk60

Russ, on the WB, first you gotta LIKE the warmer WB during day, I'm not a huge fan. Two, I think you need to take custom WB during the darker parts to get the right stadium light casts.

That said, some real nice shots here

Erbeman

tjk60 wrote:

Russ, on the WB, first you gotta LIKE the warmer WB during day, I'm not a huge fan. Two, I think you need to take custom WB during the darker parts to get the right stadium light casts.

That said, some real nice shots here

Yea, I won't shoot with cloudy WB there again. I always just use Auto WB. It has always done a good job. I just wanted to try something different and see if I liked it. Oh well, live and learn right. I've never tried to make a custom WB.

johng

Russ,
I think you've got some nice shots here. But there's opportunity to do even better:

shot 1: soft - not sure if it's missed focus or motion blur. Also a lot of dead space - especially on the left. I think tighter framing/crop would work better

shot 2: good atmosphere shot. Great as is.

Shot 3: again - a lot of uninteresting dead space - this time to the right. I like including the belt buckle - this shot would look better off-centered to the right so the dead space were on the left where her finger is pointing rather than having her face in center of the frame. Unlike the first shot this one is nice and sharp

shot 4: too loosely framed. Just not enough interesting reaction from the sideline to have them dominate the frame so much.

shot 5: again too loose on the framing. Not a compelling enough reaction from the crowd to give them so much frame space - especially since DOF isn't deep enough to show them.

shot 6: great action and sharpness. This early in the game I would err on a brighter exposure so you can see faces better. With a brighter exposure you could see more of the defender's face and it would strengthen the impact of the photo.

shot 7: great phot, love the warm skin tones - except again the subject is in the exact center of the frame.

shot 8: Technically OK - sharp, filling the frame, etc. But just not that compelling of an image.

shot 9: Nice capture but I'd crop down a bit more - lose some space off the top and the defender on the far left. It's nice to show a couple trailing defenders but a little tighter will make it better IMO.

shot 10: I like the concept. However, face is underexposed - the concentration is what the shot is about - so a brighter exposure would definitely help. Even so, the guy on the right behind him is very distracting and needs to be cropped out. Something to keep in mind - for print and post you don't NEED to maintain aspect ratio. A good photo editor isn't going to so you don't need to here. Crop that guy out of the frame and the shot will be better.

shot 11: great action but again too loosely framed. The other defender adds nothing to the image. So, frame tighter or at least crop tighter if you're out of focal length.

shot 12: OK shot. Again, framing is an issue - the guy behind him is distracting. Try re-cropping to slide the subject back in the frame and cut out more of the guy behind him.

shot 13: I like the concept. But no faces (except for the out of focus one 3 people away) and the finger to the right of the frame is distracting - as is whatever is in the left of the frame. Crop down and get rid of the distracting elements.

shot 14: TIGHTER. a portrait crop might work better. But the loose players to the left and right of the frame don't add - it's the pile at the point of impact that's important. As it is when I looked at it I thought this was a extra point or field goal attempt. In any event - needs to be a lot tighter so that action fills the frame.

Out of time - sorry Hope this is helpful.

Erbeman

Wow, all great points. Thanks alot John for puting so much time into your reply. I'm shooting Tech vs Kansas in the daylight tomorrow. I'm hoping to shoot a better game than I did this last game. I've not thought of cropping without trying to maintain atleast a close aspect ration. That will make cropping alot easier. I realized that from that post over on SS for the SI cover shot which looks like it was shot in portrait, then someone posted the original pic and it is a landscape shot. I didn't realize that you could do that.

johng

Erbeman wrote:

I've not thought of cropping without trying to maintain atleast a close aspect ration. That will make cropping alot easier. I realized that from that post over on SS for the SI cover shot which looks like it was shot in portrait, then someone posted the original pic and it is a landscape shot. I didn't realize that you could do that.

You can change orientation in the crop - PROVIDED you've got a sharp photo to begin with. It shold be easier to do with your D700 than with the 300. I've never shot full frame DSLR, but my experience in Canon with using 1.6 and 1.3 is the crop sensor really doesn't extend your reach for sports work at all. Whether I'm shooting 1.3 or 1.6 my 200mm lens is still only good for about 25 yards. But with the 1.3 I've got looser framing but still just as sharp a photo. My personal preference is to shoot 90% portrait orientation. I try to fill the frame in-camera (I shoot sigma 120-300 2.8) and then crop to portrait for some upper-body close ups.

All that asside - for displaying here on the web - crop however it takes to make the photo look good. Pick up any magazine or newspaper - you won't see 3:2 or 4:5 or 5:7 aspect ratios in the photos. Things are different when you're shooting for print sales. Then it's very important to keep aspect ratios in mind. So when I shoot youth sports I keep that in mind and I crop my photos with a mind for 4x6, 5x7 which are my most popular sizes but I always try to make sure I leave enough room to convert the image to 8x10.

ASkip

Erbeman wrote:

Yea, I won't shoot with cloudy WB there again. I always just use Auto WB. It has always done a good job. I just wanted to try something different and see if I liked it. Oh well, live and learn right. I've never tried to make a custom WB.

Hi,
Since you have a D700, I thought I'd share what I finally figured out after using it for almost a year. I'm so lame. I never read the book. but I kept taking pictures on Auto WB, and still the color changes, especially on our field with the green grass and dark red uniforms. I kept thinking I wish the camera would just tell me what the temperature numbers are in the pictures I like. Then I remembered, after 11 months, that you can use a picture to set your white balance. Doesn't have to be an all white picture, just a picture where you look at it in the LCD and it looks good (for a stadium). So now, I take a couple pictures in auto until it finds something that's good. Then I set that picture as the WB for the rest of the game. It has worked pretty well for volleyball and football. We don't have cycling lights, that hasn't been a big issue. Saves so much time later. and way better than Cloudy.
Still have to readjust after the sun goes down.

So I guess I should admit in one of your pictures I thought everyone was making the Loser sign, but I guess it's supposed to be a pistol or something. hehe.
anna

BMW Kurt

Gig 'em!!!! Class of '81!

Erbeman

ASkip wrote:

Hi,
Since you have a D700, I thought I'd share what I finally figured out after using it for almost a year. I'm so lame. I never read the book. but I kept taking pictures on Auto WB, and still the color changes, especially on our field with the green grass and dark red uniforms. I kept thinking I wish the camera would just tell me what the temperature numbers are in the pictures I like. Then I remembered, after 11 months, that you can use a picture to set your white balance. Doesn't have to be an all white picture, just a picture where you look at it in the LCD and it looks good (for a stadium). So now, I take a couple pictures in auto until it finds something that's good. Then I set that picture as the WB for the rest of the game. It has worked pretty well for volleyball and football. We don't have cycling lights, that hasn't been a big issue. Saves so much time later. and way better than Cloudy.
Still have to readjust after the sun goes down.

So I guess I should admit in one of your pictures I thought everyone was making the Loser sign, but I guess it's supposed to be a pistol or something. hehe.
anna

I do remember reading that. That is probably the way to go. Use that as a baseline WB and then make subtle changes to temperature througout the night to see what works the best then save that setting. Thanks for the post.

Kixx

johng wrote:

You can change orientation in the crop - PROVIDED you've got a sharp photo to begin with. It shold be easier to do with your D700 than with the 300. I've never shot full frame DSLR, but my experience in Canon with using 1.6 and 1.3 is the crop sensor really doesn't extend your reach for sports work at all. Whether I'm shooting 1.3 or 1.6 my 200mm lens is still only good for about 25 yards. But with the 1.3 I've got looser framing but still just as sharp a photo. My personal preference is to shoot 90% portrait orientation. I try to fill the frame in-camera (I shoot sigma 120-300 2.8) and then crop to portrait for some upper-body close ups.

All that asside - for displaying here on the web - crop however it takes to make the photo look good. Pick up any magazine or newspaper - you won't see 3:2 or 4:5 or 5:7 aspect ratios in the photos. Things are different when you're shooting for print sales. Then it's very important to keep aspect ratios in mind. So when I shoot youth sports I keep that in mind and I crop my photos with a mind for 4x6, 5x7 which are my most popular sizes but I always try to make sure I leave enough room to convert the image to 8x10.

Yowie! I can't pay or anything, but, would love to have some input on some of my PITT/UCONN pics!!! Just a simple '3 best/3worst' would be great!!! http://kixx.smugmug.com/Sports/Pitt-vs-UConn/9950379_Z5y88/1/679291922_To5Zo

Erbeman

Kixx wrote:

Yowie! I can't pay or anything, but, would love to have some input on some of my PITT/UCONN pics!!! Just a simple '3 best/3worst' would be great!!! http://kixx.smugmug.com/Sports/Pitt-vs-UConn/9950379_Z5y88/1/679291922_To5Zo

In my opinion, you've got some really good shots in there mixed in with many shots that have no business in there. I feel you need to be more selective on what you keep. There are alot of shots with players in the foreground that are way out of focus and that just looks bad. There are also alot of pics that just aren't all that interesting. Shots of players backs generally aren't that great. If you weed out the bad pics, this could be a pretty good gallery.

Kixx

Erbeman wrote:

In my opinion, you've got some really good shots in there mixed in with many shots that have no business in there. I feel you need to be more selective on what you keep. There are alot of shots with players in the foreground that way out of focus and that just looks bad. There are also alot of pics that just aren't all that interesting. Shots of players backs generally aren't that great. If you weed out the bad pics, this could be a pretty good gallery.

Thanks for the input! That's kind of the way I feel. I am still trying to learn so many things and one of my big problems is picking a few really good pics instead of bombarding my galleries with tons of so-so pics.

Thanks again!

johng

Kixx wrote:

Thanks for the input! That's kind of the way I feel. I am still trying to learn so many things and one of my big problems is picking a few really good pics instead of bombarding my galleries with tons of so-so pics.

Thanks again!

Yep - here's a good exercise for you. Take that gallery of 68 images and reduce it to 17. I don't care how much you are attached to a photo - if it aint sharp it automatically goes in the trash bin. Doesn't have to be perfect but it absolutely can't be missed focus. I looked at the first 2 pages and if you cull 75% of the images you'll have a strong gallery.

bandgeekndb

Kixx wrote:

...one of my big problems is picking a few really good pics instead of bombarding my galleries with tons of so-so pics.

I know exactly how you feel, I was a spray and pray guy for the longest time. I will say this though...everyone says bodies don't matter a lot, but the difference between a D40 and a D90 WILL make a difference in your photographs. Additional focus points, higher frame rates, and the ability to shoot with a nice grip helps a lot.

Also, you'll be stretching the limits of the 55-200 the moment there's even a cloud in the sky, as I found out last year when I tried to shoot with it and my old D40. Thankfully, I've been lucky enough to move up to a D90, but before that, I dropped coin on a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. BEST move I have ever made, followed by replacing my 18-55 with a 17-55 f/2.8. Those lenses are pretty much my workhorse lenses now, I rarely use the rest.

I like your composition of some of the shots, and narrowing down the keepers will surely help. But the moment you can do a gear upgrade, do so, probably lens before body, and you'll have so many keepers that it'll be even harder to pick the best ones!

Best of luck!

PS - Pitt vs. Uconn? Which team are you more closely affiliated with? I'm a Scarlet Knight myself and I know we've played both teams already, maybe you were at one of the games?

Kixx

johng wrote:

Yep - here's a good exercise for you. Take that gallery of 68 images and reduce it to 17. I don't care how much you are attached to a photo - if it aint sharp it automatically goes in the trash bin. Doesn't have to be perfect but it absolutely can't be missed focus. I looked at the first 2 pages and if you cull 75% of the images you'll have a strong gallery.

Something for me to do this weekend!

Kixx

bandgeekndb wrote:

I know exactly how you feel, I was a spray and pray guy for the longest time. I will say this though...everyone says bodies don't matter a lot, but the difference between a D40 and a D90 WILL make a difference in your photographs. Additional focus points, higher frame rates, and the ability to shoot with a nice grip helps a lot.

Also, you'll be stretching the limits of the 55-200 the moment there's even a cloud in the sky, as I found out last year when I tried to shoot with it and my old D40. Thankfully, I've been lucky enough to move up to a D90, but before that, I dropped coin on a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. BEST move I have ever made, followed by replacing my 18-55 with a 17-55 f/2.8. Those lenses are pretty much my workhorse lenses now, I rarely use the rest.

I like your composition of some of the shots, and narrowing down the keepers will surely help. But the moment you can do a gear upgrade, do so, probably lens before body, and you'll have so many keepers that it'll be even harder to pick the best ones!

Best of luck!

PS - Pitt vs. Uconn? Which team are you more closely affiliated with? I'm a Scarlet Knight myself and I know we've played both teams already, maybe you were at one of the games?

I promised myself I wouldn't buy anything new until I actually get paid for a picture. I definitely want to buy the lens that I borrowed... yummy!

Girlfriend's family lives in Pittsburgh. The Pitt/UConn game is the only game I've ever been lucky enough to photograph. So far!

mtpphotos

this has probably been asked before, but how do you get permission to be on the sidelines for these games. I would love to do that.

Erbeman

mtpphotos wrote:

this has probably been asked before, but how do you get permission to be on the sidelines for these games. I would love to do that.

Each school is different. There is no one governing body of who gets in and who doesn't. So, there is no one way to get in. The best way though is to be affiliated with a media outlet.

mtpphotos

I have been going to UK basketball games before I could walk. I know someone who is a writer for UK's paper. Based on what you are saying I should ask him if he has a way in?

Erbeman

mtpphotos wrote:

I have been going to UK basketball games before I could walk. I know someone who is a writer for UK's paper. Based on what you are saying I should ask him if he has a way in?

That is an excellent idea.