Options
One more, and a hero shot
TonyCooper
Registered Users Posts: 2,276 Major grins
One more, and I'll go back to the Documentary forum where
I belong. I'm outclassed here in Sports, and well aware of it.
This is the grandson that didn't have his eye on the ball.
I wish I would have caught more of the baserunner in the
frame. 1/250th f/8, and a lower f/stop would have been
better to blur the background.
I belong. I'm outclassed here in Sports, and well aware of it.
This is the grandson that didn't have his eye on the ball.
I wish I would have caught more of the baserunner in the
frame. 1/250th f/8, and a lower f/stop would have been
better to blur the background.
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/
0
Comments
But somebody needs to tell that kid to get his foot off the top of the bag, or he's going to get his ankle broken...
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
where the mandate was "Sports". The title was "Out at First".
In our club, we have three judges on competition night, and two of the
judges are non-members with some chops in photography...like an editor
of a magazine, someone who teaches photography at a college, or a
professional photographer. They are not chosen based on the mandate;
just for their photographic expertise.
The female judge who commented on this image liked the pose and the
action capture, but said she didn't understand why the other person was
included in the frame. Another judge, who evidently does know baseball,
snorted and said "How can there be a photograph of someone being called
"Out at First" if there's no one being being put out?"
I appreciate your input, but wonder if the idea is to capture the person
or the play. I do wish the runner was closer to the bag, but in the next
frame the ball was hidden in the glove and the runner was past the bag.
Sometimes you get lucky with timing, sometimes you don't.
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Had you cropped to exclude the runner then the fence would be much less prominent. The expression on the catcher's face is priceless.
Something like this:
Gottcha!
with the player isolated than I am in capturing the play itself. The
traditional youth baseball photos seem static to me. To me, they
are for parents who want one shot to frame of their kid as a baseball player.
However, I sometimes do isolate on one grandson, not in play,
like this one on a muddy day behind the plate.
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/
That's great, that's the photojournalism side of the game. It's more challenging because exciting moments involving two opposing players are so rare in youth baseball... or even one player!
And like you say it is way too tempting to look up from the camera and watch the play!
Well, they sell, and the kids love them too. I think it's important to have a mix of both types of shots.
The traditional posed portraits are big sellers too. They put time in a bottle.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
shots in the series (like the last one above), and a few of each at bat. I have enough
at-bat shots that I don't keep the ones where the ball is not in the image.
The difference is that I'm shooting a series over a season, including post-season
All-Stars games, and you're shooting just a few shots of every player for those
player's parents if they choose to buy them. I don't sell images.
Your shots are beautifully crisp and with nicely blurred backgrounds.
Do you shoot on-field, or from behind the fence like I do?
I'm looking forward to the start of Pop Warner football where I'll
be allowed on-field. The coach is a neighbor, and he's getting
me a field pass in exchange for a season series including all
players that I'll provide on disk at the end of the season.
On-field, I can even shoot low as you suggest.
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/
I am always glad when Dgrinners comment on my photos because I know I have a huge amount to learn.
Tighter crop?
That is a big difference. I can't shoot enough to get the ball in the picture of every kid batting. Even when I had 8fps it was still rare. I wouldn't toss those other pics though - the wind-up and even the batter just standing there ready can be nice sportraits with good faces.
When the ball is in the frame the batter is usually looking down towards it and it can be tough to get the eyes.
I got lucky there.
I also really love shooting the follow-through from the opposite side. I think it's a pleasing pose and you can get some good faces that way too.
Thanks. 300/2.8 on FF will do that.
On field. I'll only go behind the fence to get a shot of the pitcher head-on.
I would think if you just asked nicely you'd be able to go on-field too. In foul territory of course. Like 10 feet off to the sides of first and third are great spots and not intrusive. Of course, as soon as 2 more parents ask to do this, they'll shut it down.
Good luck, I've never shot football.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
All I have is a 55/200 Nikon kit lens and a Tamron 18/300 that doesn't produce good
shots at fully zoomed. While I do shoot sports for family purposes, most of what I
do I shoot with a short lens, especially when shooting "Street" or documentary.
Two or more must have asked a few years ago. It's a park rule that no photographers
(even pros) are allowed on the field or in the dugout. At one game, a visiting parent
stood in the dugout opening with a camera, and the umpire stopped the game until
he moved. I never asked at an away game because I'm used to the rules at our
field.
At the All-Star play-offs (at a different field) a pro was on the field but he paid for
the privilege with the sponsors by renting a booth where he sold the images.
They printed on-site.
Football is tough because sideline shots only get the runner or an intended
receiver. Anything else is a mass of bodies. I usually stand behind the goal line
and wait until the play is near the goal. I'll shoot low this year.
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/
Well for your sports it sounds like a better telephoto lens would be a worthwhile investment.
That's just sad. And pointless.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Thanks Chris. I try.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
The officiating crews for HS games around me started enforcing similar restrictions - only press were allowed to shoot. It's just easier having a blanket rule rather than coming up with liability waivers and each photog demonstrating they are bonded or insured (in case a player is injured in a collision with them or their equipment - in which case the school or organization is STILL named in the lawsuit since they have money).
It's unfortunate that organizations have to do that to protect themselves from litigation. But in their place I would do the same thing.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Don't think some insurance company lawyer hasn't suggested it, 'cause for sure some personal injury lawyer has filed suit for just what you postulate.
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
First - HS physics. Let's say a photographer is 65 feet from home plate - just outside the dugout. The ball travels in a strait line. How long does it take to get to the photographer? Now, we have a foul ball going over the fence where people are another 30-40 feet away. 2 factors - more distance and a higher arc on the ball. Think back to YOUR days in school Jack, is the time until impact the same? no.
Now, on to your other point - your dugouts have fences. Great. A number here do to as well. That usually means anyone shooting photos isn't in the dugout - they're likely on the grass/dirt -if they're good little sports shooters they're either short of the bag or past it . In either case they are a potential hazard to a player making a play in foul territory. Now, OHSAA (governing body in Ohio for H.S. athletics) states that for a photographer to be there, there must be a designated shooting spot marked off. That's great but still doesn't stop a fielder from colliding with the photographer. See, that chest-high fence your fields have, just like many fields prevent players from colliding with people on the other side of that fence. And they protect from a lot of low line drives.
No doubt about it there is risk to a bystander talking on their phone. But there is a lot more risk to players throwing a non-essential person onto the field and there is increased risk to THAT person by throwing them on the field closer to the area of play and without any barrier. And, often with a camera glued to their face hindering their ability to see everything going on.
Again, you don't have to agree. I'm simply offering people here a view alternative to yours that is also based on my own experience as a sports photographer. And while I don't like it as a photographer, I do understand it. It's about risk mitigation. Unlike higher fences there is little to no financial expense to such a restriction and the restriction, unlike higher fencing to protect viewers does not impede their view - in fact it removes what could be an impediment to the view. From an organizational point of view it's win-win - they do something that marginally affects safety, do something that is easy to do and can claim is for safety and they remove potential liability. I'd do it to. Especially after seeing how a number of people with cameras behave.
As a sports photographer, I've shot baseball, football, soccer, football, lacrosse, basketball, gymnastics, volleyball, track, martial arts, mixed martial arts. Of all of them, baseball is the most dangerous. It's not surprising it is often the most restricted with regards to where you can shoot from.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
grandsons play has 6' high chain link fence all around the field. There's
about a 10' space between the backstop fence (covered with a mesh
material) and the concrete block dugout.
That's where I position myself up on my upended milkcrate. I have a
good position there to shoot the batter and all three bases. Jack has
rightly pointed out that my shots would improved if I shot low instead
of over the fence.
However, shooting through the diamond openings is difficult because
my lens is bigger than the openings and my mobility is hampered by
the parents and scorer who sit in lawnchairs in that area. I can't
swing that lens and find an opening in the fence in following the
action. I look for action shots, not sportraits, so I compromise.
No photographers are ever permitted on the field or in the dugout.
Liability is probably an issue, but control is an issue also. The umpire
isn't an employee of the park district, so he can't speak for the
park district. There's a Park Ranger, but there are usually six
games going on at a time on the different fields.
Other fields we've been to for "away" games are sometimes
different, but the layout described above is common.
My attitude is that this is a game for the kids and I'm there
as a guest. If the park has rules, I go along with them whether
or not I think they're sensible.
I umpired one season when my son played baseball. It made me
humble. I'm not going to be the parent or grandparent who
complains about something I want to do that's outside the game's
purpose.
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/