Options
Ranking relative difficulties of shooting different sports
Molotov Everything
Registered Users Posts: 211 Major grins
So recently, I've decided I want to branch out and learn more about sports photography. I started shooting roller derby bouts because a friend of mine was on the team, and it's been a lot of fun so naturally I'd like to expand to other sports.
I was thinking of different sports and trying to hypothesize how difficult they would be to shoot. So what I'm hoping here is if you guys that do have experience with these sports could tell me how close to (or far from) the mark my assumptions are. My 1 to 10 scale of difficulty is relative, based only against the other sports on the scale.
1 point of difficulty:
Bowling: you know exactly where the action is going to be ahead of time. At the line during the release, and down at the pins when the ball hits. The ball doesn't travel very fast and the bowlers make a slow, rhythmic approach to the line.
2 points:
Tennis: The court isn't that big and I think if you can get a spot by the net you can cover both sides without any super long glass, and the action is easy to predict, the ball goes from one side to another and the action alternates with it.
Unique challenge: serves are really damn fast.
3 points:
Boxing/MMA/other martial arts: I'm thinking these are easy because the ring is small, there's only 2 people competing at a time, and they have to be in close proximity to have any action going on. The action is more spontaneous. You never know what punch is going to be a powerhouse until it's too late so you almost have to try to shoot them all.
4 points:
Volleyball: getting in to team sports now, that means the action can jump from one person to another but in volleyball at least the court is smaller than, say, basketball.
5 points:
Basketball: Speaking of... the court is bigger, and most of the action is going to happen around the baskets at either end, so it seems like you'd have to pick a side to cover and deal with the fact that you'll be missing action or shooting really loose on the other side.
Unique difficulty: if you can't get a spot behind the net and are shooting from the sidelines, whenever a player is shooting on your side their back will be to you.
6 points:
Hockey: the puck is tiny and travels fast compared to a basketball, making it harder to get a good context shot with the puck and a player in sync.
Unique difficult: in amateur hockey, the glass around the rink is probably like 20 years old and covered in scratches, so it might be hard to find a spot where the glass isn't an interference.
7 points:
Baseball: I shot a high school baseball game this past weekend. The field is really big and I'd imagine you need a serious arsenal of glass to cover a lot of it well. I was posted up between the plate and first, so I could get the batter, pitcher and first just fine, but 2nd and 3rd were starting to get a little loose, and the outfield... forget it. Pitches and bat swings move pretty fast.
8 points:
Golf: pretty much by definition, you're going to miss the majority of the action. You can only cover one hole at a time, so you're missing what's going on on 17 other holes at a given moment. You can either choose to follow a single golfer around all day or set up camp at a single hole, but either way you miss most of it.
Unique difficulty: you have to watch other people play golf for hours.
9 points:
Motor sports (especially something like F1): This exacerbates some of the difficulties of shooting other sports. The tracks can be huge, and you won't even have a clear line of sight at most of it. You have to pick a good spot and stay there as you won't be able to follow a driver, you'll be missing a lot of action on other parts of the track. Also, by definition everything is going really fast. At least if it's car racing you have a large subject.
10 points:
Sky diving. You have to jump out of a freaking plane.
I was thinking of different sports and trying to hypothesize how difficult they would be to shoot. So what I'm hoping here is if you guys that do have experience with these sports could tell me how close to (or far from) the mark my assumptions are. My 1 to 10 scale of difficulty is relative, based only against the other sports on the scale.
1 point of difficulty:
Bowling: you know exactly where the action is going to be ahead of time. At the line during the release, and down at the pins when the ball hits. The ball doesn't travel very fast and the bowlers make a slow, rhythmic approach to the line.
2 points:
Tennis: The court isn't that big and I think if you can get a spot by the net you can cover both sides without any super long glass, and the action is easy to predict, the ball goes from one side to another and the action alternates with it.
Unique challenge: serves are really damn fast.
3 points:
Boxing/MMA/other martial arts: I'm thinking these are easy because the ring is small, there's only 2 people competing at a time, and they have to be in close proximity to have any action going on. The action is more spontaneous. You never know what punch is going to be a powerhouse until it's too late so you almost have to try to shoot them all.
4 points:
Volleyball: getting in to team sports now, that means the action can jump from one person to another but in volleyball at least the court is smaller than, say, basketball.
5 points:
Basketball: Speaking of... the court is bigger, and most of the action is going to happen around the baskets at either end, so it seems like you'd have to pick a side to cover and deal with the fact that you'll be missing action or shooting really loose on the other side.
Unique difficulty: if you can't get a spot behind the net and are shooting from the sidelines, whenever a player is shooting on your side their back will be to you.
6 points:
Hockey: the puck is tiny and travels fast compared to a basketball, making it harder to get a good context shot with the puck and a player in sync.
Unique difficult: in amateur hockey, the glass around the rink is probably like 20 years old and covered in scratches, so it might be hard to find a spot where the glass isn't an interference.
7 points:
Baseball: I shot a high school baseball game this past weekend. The field is really big and I'd imagine you need a serious arsenal of glass to cover a lot of it well. I was posted up between the plate and first, so I could get the batter, pitcher and first just fine, but 2nd and 3rd were starting to get a little loose, and the outfield... forget it. Pitches and bat swings move pretty fast.
8 points:
Golf: pretty much by definition, you're going to miss the majority of the action. You can only cover one hole at a time, so you're missing what's going on on 17 other holes at a given moment. You can either choose to follow a single golfer around all day or set up camp at a single hole, but either way you miss most of it.
Unique difficulty: you have to watch other people play golf for hours.
9 points:
Motor sports (especially something like F1): This exacerbates some of the difficulties of shooting other sports. The tracks can be huge, and you won't even have a clear line of sight at most of it. You have to pick a good spot and stay there as you won't be able to follow a driver, you'll be missing a lot of action on other parts of the track. Also, by definition everything is going really fast. At least if it's car racing you have a large subject.
10 points:
Sky diving. You have to jump out of a freaking plane.
0
Comments
I think motorsports are pretty easy. Maybe right there with bowling. Things are moving relatively slow and predictably. There are also other opportunities to shoot it. Such as practice. You can pick your spot and plan for the action to be there. And it is possible to get good shots from the stands with the right equipment and position. One thing you can not do is be everywhere at once.
Overall, MMA has been the hardest thing to shoot. Horrible light, no flash, and very fast unpredictable action from multiple angles. You might be watching the upper body when a kick comes from no where. There might be something awesome going on and the ref steps in the way. Then there is the beloved fence to deal with. Shooting over it helps, but again this comes with access. The cage is also pretty big. Big enough to cause some issues with lens choices. And makes 2 bodies almost mandatory. Boxing has all of these issues too. Ropes can be a pain. But not as bad as a fence. The ring is also much smaller, and the action is slower and more predictable than MMA. But it has a huge problem. In amateur fights, they have head gear on. Tough to see faces with headgear on! Grappling events have been tough too. Very bad light in gymnasiums and very unpredictable action. It is a sport you need to at least understand to get good shots. It is hard to see who is winning and what is "REALLY" going on.
I have nothing to say about team sports. I have never shot any. But there are a few things that at first glance seem easier to me. #1 is a ball. Action goes where the ball goes. Flash becomes an option with some of these sports as well. This offers some more options all around.
Can't wait to hear what others say here!
As for Motorsports it all depends on if you are shooting indoors, outdoors, TT races, motocross, supercross, etc.
Golf I found to be pretty easy when I photographed for a local newspaper. You just talk to the coaches (they are pretty easy to spot) and they will tell you what hole they are at, and also as a side note its one of the few sports you can drink and drive.. I will photograph golf any day!
Thats my 2 cents, I would have talked about all of them but I have to study for more finals!
You do bring up many good valid points though, was interesting to read!
-Tyler
Now, let's take bowling. Sure it's predictable. But, try and make compelling sports photos of a bowler. THAT is a challenge.
It's also worth mentioning too that different sports have different equipment needs. There is no one-lens-does-it-all solution. A 70-200 2.8 can work for basketball (w/o strobes) IF your camera body has good ISO 3200-6400 performance. But that lens is woefully short for full-field baseball or soccer - even if shooting from the field. Any sport is also made more difficult when there are restrictions on where you can shoot from. So, it's easier to make compelling images from a pop-warner football game where you can get right on the sideline vs. the NFL shooting from 40 yards off field in the stands.
Soccer, Football, Water Polo, Field Hockey, Rugby, Cycling, Track and Field, Swimming and Diving, Wrestling and Rowing
As was mentioned, the difficulty lies in the venue. Most NCAA and HS venues have terrible lighting. You need to use either strobes or shoot on extremely high ISO's and fast glass which seriously increases the difficulty of the sport.
Shooting any sport is about gaining access, having the right equipment and the knowledge of the sport you are covering.
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
Fun game!
Z
Got to agree with that one.
Also, I find volleyball harder than basketball. Mainly because that net and the poles are in the way all the time and it is harder to get faces without shhoting thru or around the net.
http://andygriffinphoto.com/
http://andygriffin.smugmug.com/
Canon 7D, 70-200mm L, 50 and 85 primes, Tamron 17-50, 28-135
So it seems the general consensus so far: MMA is harder than I assumed. Motor sports is easier. Indoor anything is harder than outdoor anything (unless it's night/raining). To be honest I wasn't thinking much about lighting conditions when I wrote the list (can you tell?) probably since with roller derby, the lighting has always sucked so I guess my sports photo 'training' has been dealing with that from day 1.
Also, I like the term 'sportrait.' That definitely describes a good chunk (maybe 20-25%?) of my derby shots. No action, but the girls love seeing them, so I keep shooting them.
I'm still waiting for someone to show up and tell me how easy sky diving is.
20-30 Girls, 2.5mins in a high speed, high ISO environment. Every mom want's their kid in at least one shot even if her kid is a non tumbling base that never sees the front of the mat.
I agree . . . AND you don't know exactly where the action is going to take place. The setters do more than "deek" the opponents out . . . many a time I missed a great "kill" attempt because I had the camera focused on the wrong hitter.
Easiest? Track and Field. Outside, you know what's going to happen, when its going to happen, and where its going to happen.
As far as skydiving goes, if you're an accomplished skydiver then it's just look and bite for the shot
Yep, dance is the same way. Lots of subjects, no time, horrible light, and bad backgrounds.
I do get the high importance of knowing a sport well to photograph it, being able to better predict what might happen next rather than just looking around and trying to react to something happening, but do you think there's a significant scale of difficulty in learning different sports from a spectator/photographer point of view?
Yea, if it's a sport you've grown up watching or playing it will be easier than if it's some sport you've never heard of. But let's just say we find someone who has never seen a basketball or football game ever in their lives and has to learn everything about them both from scratch. Would it be harder to learn enough about football than basketball (place any two sports you want in to this paragraph)?
Seems to me that things would be relatively similar, so 'knowledge of the game' is kind of a constant coefficient in the equation of difficulty.
Again, I'm hypothesizing.
I think once you get the basics down, it would be easier. As far as which would be easier to learn on the fly? I'm not sure. There are nuances of each that are important.
Yes it would be much harder to learn about and shoot football - and catch the main action. One big reason is basketball has 5 players per side while football has 11. In basketball, in most teams all the players are usually involved in the ball action pretty quick and it does not take long figure out who the go to guy is if that is what you want to get. With football you could go half a game and the top receiver not make a catch but then make the play of the game. Without prior knowledge you likely never catch it.
http://andygriffinphoto.com/
http://andygriffin.smugmug.com/
Canon 7D, 70-200mm L, 50 and 85 primes, Tamron 17-50, 28-135
Rocks,
I know what you mean about tracking the "right" player in volleyball.
I agree to about the tack and field although I only tried it once, I can see how it would be easy to figure out where to be and predict what will happen where. The problem I had was it went from sunny to cloudy to bad lights on as a storm was rolling in.
Hope to try it again sometime.
http://andygriffinphoto.com/
http://andygriffin.smugmug.com/
Canon 7D, 70-200mm L, 50 and 85 primes, Tamron 17-50, 28-135
Yea, I'm seeing that being the case for our hypothetical photographer just showing up at either game with no knowledge, but what if he's studious and decides to watch a bunch of games of each before hand? Study time, if you will. Do you think, say, intently watching 20 hours of basketball would prepare you better than watching 20 hours of football? Would you need to watch 21 hours of football to be as up to speed? 30 hours? That's what I'm wondering now, if there is a gap in the learning curves of 2 sports, how big is the gap? Slightly more effort or way more effort?
Sorry if I'm trying to be too quantitative with things, I'm an engineer that plays a lot of poker, I can be obnoxiously analytical. And I am definitely appreciating everyone's input in this thread so far.
Well for basketball a few hours should be a plenty. There is so many opportunities in a game of basketball to get some nice action if the athletes are of high caliber (tall, fast, can dunk etc...).
But with football there still may be only a few great offensive plays per game. So there I think you need more specifics about the teams playing in addition to the sport while basketball you can pick it up more quickly just watching the flow of the game.
http://andygriffinphoto.com/
http://andygriffin.smugmug.com/
Canon 7D, 70-200mm L, 50 and 85 primes, Tamron 17-50, 28-135
Boxing is also difficult to shoot *properly*. The unexperienced can shoot a whole event and not catch one landed blow. And as with MMA, lighting can vary wildly from event to event.
Motor car track racing I think is pretty easy. They go in one predictable direction. They don't go up and down or side to side, just relatively straight lines at predictable speed.
Top fuelers are the hardest motor sport I have done just through the sheer speed. the main shots are as they leave the line and with the acceleration rates you are real lucky to get 3 frames in from the front and that depends on your reaction time even if you are watching the christmas tree.
kids soccer and football can be a challenge. Of ten lots of erractic movement ad you know which way they are trying to go but its far from the single direction they take. Lots of up and down movement as well and other people to get in the way of the real action.
For me, by far the hardest thing I have shot is cheerleading.
For a start it's indoor but here in oz most of the comps have no stage or added lighting, it's just whatever inadequate lights are in the place at the time.
You also have up to 25 kids going in a variety of directions at the same time including vertical and here I have shot comps that went on for over 12 hours non stop.
I have never seen anything move or change direction as fast as cheerleaders.
Here is one of my favorites that I managed to see the light just right and catch the moment.
Just my two cents, indoors is a pain for sure..
www.phabulousphotos.com
Sportsshooter.com Member
http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=10162
You want difficult though... Try the UF game a couple of years ago when it rained so hard it wiped the lines off the field. Us hardcores were out there with rain gear, trashbags, etc etc... I watched many of Canon and Nikon's die that day...
PS volleyball is a bi$%.. you can keep that! lol
Nice shot!
Competitive Cheer can be hit or miss with lighting:
1) Lighting not so great...
2) Lighting very good...
They had a four game season, plus two play off games, and are actually in provincials this coming weekend. I have some pretty good shots, and have spent a lot of time chatting with another photog that is new to the game. We have different strategies about shooting though. I shoot with one body, and the 300mm, at 5.6 varying the ISO and shutter for the light. I shoot from the endzone, to get faces:
My kid with the ball:
He shoots with 3 bodies/lenses, from on the sidelines, and gets run over many times a game
My Galleries My Photography BLOG
Ramblings About Me
Bill Barr
6x7, 35mm, m4/3
Someone new to the sport could pick up some of the action fairly quickly, but getting the timing of striking is difficult, even when you know it's about to happen. Grappling takes a lot longer to figure out, but often they hold the pose for a while and it's just a matter of hoping you are able to see a face, and that the ref won't stand in your way for too long. Every fight gives you a few easy shots of the ref raising the winners arm, and the moments surrounding the announcement of the winner. I judge my success at shooting a fight event on the proportion of action to celebration shots. If I get an event where all my top shots are action, then I will feel like I've figured it out.