I feel your pain. My two grandsons (9 and 10) are on a Babe Ruth team, and all shots have to be
through the "diamonds" in the fence. Many a shot has been ruined when the camera is moved to
follow a player.
Your shots are very sharp, and the depth of field is well-done, but I wonder if just the upper body
is enough in the shots.
Good work on the static shots. Good sharpness, color and exposure. I disagree with the above poster - for these style shots I don't think including legs would add much to any of the images. I look forward to seeing some action though!
These are great, except for the other player up the 1st baseman's butt in the first shot. The 2nd shot is priceless. I shoot LL professionally. Don't tell anyone in my town that all you need is a Rebel or XXD with a 100-400 trombone to get the good stuff. I shoot with a 5D3 and a 300/2.8LIS in order to distinguish myself as the league pro, apart from the parents with the superzooms, point-n-shoots, iPhones, and Rebels with kit 18-55. But frankly what you have here is all you need. Here's a through-the-fence shot with my setup.
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
These are great, except for the other player up the 1st baseman's butt in the first shot. The 2nd shot is priceless. I shoot LL professionally. Don't tell anyone in my town that all you need is a Rebel or XXD with a 100-400 trombone to get the good stuff. I shoot with a 5D3 and a 300/2.8LIS in order to distinguish myself as the league pro, apart from the parents with the superzooms, point-n-shoots, iPhones, and Rebels with kit 18-55. But frankly what you have here is all you need. Here's a through-the-fence shot with my setup.
I get the feeling that you don't care for us amateurs stepping on your toes with
our entry level bodies and kit lenses. I'm shooting a Nikon D300 with the 55-200
kit lens from my old D60. Shooting manual, I can't get below 5.6 at a fast shutter
speed, and live with sharp backgrounds when the batter and catcher are five feet
from the fence and the spectators. You can send me that 300 2.8 anytime.
I don't take any money out of the pocket of a pro when I shoot my grandchildren
at a Babe Ruth game. My family like the shots, the grandkids will have something
to look back on, I provide a disk to every parent at the end of the season with
shots of all the team members in action, and I have a helluva good time.
I get the feeling that you don't care for us amateurs stepping on your toes with
our entry level bodies and kit lenses. I'm shooting a Nikon D300 with the 55-200
kit lens from my old D60. Shooting manual, I can't get below 5.6 at a fast shutter
speed, and live with sharp backgrounds when the batter and catcher are five feet
from the fence and the spectators. You can send me that 300 2.8 anytime.
I don't take any money out of the pocket of a pro when I shoot my grandchildren
at a Babe Ruth game. My family like the shots, the grandkids will have something
to look back on, I provide a disk to every parent at the end of the season with
shots of all the team members in action, and I have a helluva good time.
And, yeah, there's another player in the batter's butt, but the batter is my
older grandson and the on deck batter is his younger brother.
You're reading something that isn't there. I was complimenting the OP, saying he was getting professional results. I don't really care who else is shooting LL, because I'm the official guy doing T&I and action, and the only one allowed inside the fence, and I make enough money from it. It's not my full time job, so it's gravy. I also don't care because the number of people getting shots as good as the OP's and yours is insignificant. I know this because the vast majority of parents with decent cameras are shooting incorrectly. If I see someone who actually gives a rat's and is willing to position themselves to take a good shot, I'll even offer them advice.
There is one woman in town shooting competently with a D300 and a 70-200/2.8. I get no orders from her granddaughter's team because she shoots them all season and gives away all the images. She is the only person I would consider to be stepping on my toes, but I'm totally fine with that because that's what I would be doing if I weren't doing what I do.
My point was A D300 or a 60D or a Rebel with a 55-250 is all you need if you can accept deeper DOF and if you know what you're doing, which you clearly do. Get a 70-200/4 and you can go into business. Now, there are a somewhat significant number of parents shooting with Rebels and kit lenses, so I outfit myself with a rig that gives my shots a technical advantage over theirs. I used to do this job with a 7D and a 70-200/2.8 and scant few people would be able to tell the difference in the photos, but I think half the value of the white 300/2.8 is the attention it grabs.
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
If I see someone who actually gives a rat's and is willing to position themselves to take a good shot, I'll even offer them advice.
I posted some baseball shots in this forum last year that were taken at a different
field where I could stand on a box and shoot over the fence. That made it much
easier than shooting through the fence.
You commented on some of my images saying that I was doing it wrong and should
be shooting low for a better perspective.
This year, the field's fence is higher so I have to shoot "through the diamonds".
But, taking your advice, I sit on the ground and shoot up at the player. And,
the advice works. They're better shots.
On the subject of other amateurs and their mistakes, what I see the most is
that they don't understand that the good shots come from anticipating what
will happen...being ready to shoot where the play will be instead of where the
play was. They shoot the batter after the swing. I shoot when the batter's
shoulder drops indicating the pitch is on the way or when the batter's body
starts to move. By the time the shutter clicks, I stand a good chance of
getting the ball in the frame.
On the subject of other amateurs and their mistakes, what I see the most is
that they don't understand that the good shots come from anticipating what
will happen...being ready to shoot where the play will be instead of where the
play was. They shoot the batter after the swing. I shoot when the batter's
shoulder drops indicating the pitch is on the way or when the batter's body
starts to move. By the time the shutter clicks, I stand a good chance of
getting the ball in the frame.
I like the follow-through, as in the picture I posted above. I think it's a pleasing pose and you can get good eyes and include the catcher. But I think I got what you were getting at, and I agree. I also see amateurs simply being lazy, like standing (strike 1) in the wrong place, for example such that they're shooting their kid's back with no chance of seeing their face, when they could easily walk around to the other side and get a decent shot. Or shooting into the sun or shooting from too far away with an 18-55, or shooting through the fence from their beach chair three feet behind the fence, etc, etc.
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I like the follow-through, as in the picture I posted above. I think it's a pleasing pose and you can get good eyes and include the catcher. But I think I got what you were getting at, and I agree. I also see amateurs simply being lazy, like standing (strike 1) in the wrong place, for example such that they're shooting their kid's back with no chance of seeing their face, when they could easily walk around to the other side and get a decent shot. Or shooting into the sun or shooting from too far away with an 18-55, or shooting through the fence from their beach chair three feet behind the fence, etc, etc.
Well, it's not like the only good shots of batters are the ones with the ball
in the frame. A good shot is a good shot and ball-in-the-frame is just
one thing to look for.
One grandson bats right and the other is a switch-hitter that bats both
right and left, they follow each other in the batting order, so I'm
constantly moving from one side to the other.
I don't know how to avoid shooting into the sun in a late afternoon
game when the sun is always behind first base at our field. If I want
first base action, there's no choice with the layout of the field and
the dugouts.
Tony - here is some additional advice. Move past batting shots. They're like free-throws in basketball. Things are a bit different when you're selling and you need any image of a player. But if you want to really step up your game - ignore the batting shots (and pitcher shots) and spend a couple games trying to capture the action in the field. From an interest perspective, that's where the best shots come from.
Tony - here is some additional advice. Move past batting shots. They're like free-throws in basketball. Things are a bit different when you're selling and you need any image of a player. But if you want to really step up your game - ignore the batting shots (and pitcher shots) and spend a couple games trying to capture the action in the field. From an interest perspective, that's where the best shots come from.
Thanks, John, but all I've posted here have been batting shots because they
were the humorous shots taken recently. My full gallery of shots includes
all positions. With one grandson playing first base and the other
playing catcher, there's a large number of shots of those positions.
Because I shoot with the intent of providing a disk at the end of the season
for all the team parents, I try to capture every player and every position.
I'm weak with outfielder shots, but do try to follow the play on a pop-up
to an outfielder. It's harder to get an action shot of an outfielder.
I do tend to try for certain shots like the slide into bases and the close calls
at the bases. The parents like the batter shots, so I do a lot of those.
The season just started here, so I can't provide examples this early.
I don't post much here because I'm out-classed by photographers like
jmphotography in both skills and equipment.
Tony - the best way to get better is peer review. Other parents are poor peer reviewers. Several years back this site used to have a lot of posters - but as the market dried up many have moved on to other pursuits. But I digress. If you actually want good constructive feedback - then post. We can always do our jobs better even with the same equipment. But, you have to be ready for that constructive criticism though. Sports forums aren't the place if all you want is "great shot" comments.
Tony, I hope I'm not chasing you away. I only ever intend to give constructive criticism. That's what this forum is about. If you just want pats on the back, get those on facebook.
As for batter shots vs defense shots, yeah, you have to take batter shots in order to cover every player on the team. At the LL level of play, exciting defensive moments are few and far between and hard to catch. And I don't even bother with the outfield anymore. The only exciting pose there is an outfielder diving for the ball, which almost never happens at this level. All other outfield poses do not make good photos, and anyway they're too far away for my lenses.
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
On the subject of other amateurs and their mistakes, what I see the most is
that they don't understand that the good shots come from anticipating what
will happen...being ready to shoot where the play will be instead of where the
play was.
That's VERY true, when I shoot baseball and watch those who really know what they are doing -- they know the game. They'll be positioned and aiming at second when there's a steal, and at first when the steal is going to be aborted with a tag attempt at first. I have no idea how they guess (know, intuit) which it will be. The really good ones can often be ready for an infield catch of a hard hit, while I'm still trying to see where the ball went.
I can shoot well technically, and from sheer endurance I often get some good action shots, but what the really expert guys (gals) seem to have is a 6th sense of where the action is going to be.
Or where the reaction is.... I watch one guy, and at least 50% of the time when there's an interesting play he's not on the play -- he is shooting the dugout/bench or coach or looking to get one of the players' reactions. And I see celebration/reaction shots in our paper easily as much as action shots, so he's giving his editors what they want.
Contrary to the indication above -- that pros distinguish themselves by their equipment -- I think they distinguish themselves by knowing how to find the moment to capture, to be pointing in the right direction. Sure, the equipment helps (if nothing else, carrying a 400/F2.8 onto a field and most places don't even ask for credentials). But it's neither necessary (for many sports) nor sufficient -- it's knowing where to point it, and when to push the button that is the real distinction.
Contrary to the indication above -- that pros distinguish themselves by their equipment -- I think they distinguish themselves by knowing how to find the moment to capture, to be pointing in the right direction. Sure, the equipment helps (if nothing else, carrying a 400/F2.8 onto a field and most places don't even ask for credentials). But it's neither necessary (for many sports) nor sufficient -- it's knowing where to point it, and when to push the button that is the real distinction.
This goes without saying. If you can't get the shot, no amount of equipment is going to help. But when a parent with a superzoom or a Rebel can get a similar shot as the pro, the pro's thinner DOF, better colors, and crisper sharpness will help set them apart.
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
This goes without saying. If you can't get the shot, no amount of equipment is going to help. But when a parent with a superzoom or a Rebel can get a similar shot as the pro, the pro's thinner DOF, better colors, and crisper sharpness will help set them apart.
for sure and having access to the field really helps
It's difficult for a parent or non-professional to get inside the chain link fence for a good baseball shot or be on the sidelines at a football or basketball game. But soccer and lacrosse -- much easier
Comments
through the "diamonds" in the fence. Many a shot has been ruined when the camera is moved to
follow a player.
Your shots are very sharp, and the depth of field is well-done, but I wonder if just the upper body
is enough in the shots.
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I get the feeling that you don't care for us amateurs stepping on your toes with
our entry level bodies and kit lenses. I'm shooting a Nikon D300 with the 55-200
kit lens from my old D60. Shooting manual, I can't get below 5.6 at a fast shutter
speed, and live with sharp backgrounds when the batter and catcher are five feet
from the fence and the spectators. You can send me that 300 2.8 anytime.
I don't take any money out of the pocket of a pro when I shoot my grandchildren
at a Babe Ruth game. My family like the shots, the grandkids will have something
to look back on, I provide a disk to every parent at the end of the season with
shots of all the team members in action, and I have a helluva good time.
I'll take an action shot when I can get it, but I don't mind shots like this:
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Babe-Ruth-Baseball-2014/i-bv6bXLN/0/X2/2014-03-25-33-X2.jpg
And, yeah, there's another player in the batter's butt, but the batter is my
older grandson and the on deck batter is his younger brother.
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/
You're reading something that isn't there. I was complimenting the OP, saying he was getting professional results. I don't really care who else is shooting LL, because I'm the official guy doing T&I and action, and the only one allowed inside the fence, and I make enough money from it. It's not my full time job, so it's gravy. I also don't care because the number of people getting shots as good as the OP's and yours is insignificant. I know this because the vast majority of parents with decent cameras are shooting incorrectly. If I see someone who actually gives a rat's and is willing to position themselves to take a good shot, I'll even offer them advice.
There is one woman in town shooting competently with a D300 and a 70-200/2.8. I get no orders from her granddaughter's team because she shoots them all season and gives away all the images. She is the only person I would consider to be stepping on my toes, but I'm totally fine with that because that's what I would be doing if I weren't doing what I do.
My point was A D300 or a 60D or a Rebel with a 55-250 is all you need if you can accept deeper DOF and if you know what you're doing, which you clearly do. Get a 70-200/4 and you can go into business. Now, there are a somewhat significant number of parents shooting with Rebels and kit lenses, so I outfit myself with a rig that gives my shots a technical advantage over theirs. I used to do this job with a 7D and a 70-200/2.8 and scant few people would be able to tell the difference in the photos, but I think half the value of the white 300/2.8 is the attention it grabs.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I posted some baseball shots in this forum last year that were taken at a different
field where I could stand on a box and shoot over the fence. That made it much
easier than shooting through the fence.
You commented on some of my images saying that I was doing it wrong and should
be shooting low for a better perspective.
This year, the field's fence is higher so I have to shoot "through the diamonds".
But, taking your advice, I sit on the ground and shoot up at the player. And,
the advice works. They're better shots.
On the subject of other amateurs and their mistakes, what I see the most is
that they don't understand that the good shots come from anticipating what
will happen...being ready to shoot where the play will be instead of where the
play was. They shoot the batter after the swing. I shoot when the batter's
shoulder drops indicating the pitch is on the way or when the batter's body
starts to move. By the time the shutter clicks, I stand a good chance of
getting the ball in the frame.
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/
I like the follow-through, as in the picture I posted above. I think it's a pleasing pose and you can get good eyes and include the catcher. But I think I got what you were getting at, and I agree. I also see amateurs simply being lazy, like standing (strike 1) in the wrong place, for example such that they're shooting their kid's back with no chance of seeing their face, when they could easily walk around to the other side and get a decent shot. Or shooting into the sun or shooting from too far away with an 18-55, or shooting through the fence from their beach chair three feet behind the fence, etc, etc.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Well, it's not like the only good shots of batters are the ones with the ball
in the frame. A good shot is a good shot and ball-in-the-frame is just
one thing to look for.
One grandson bats right and the other is a switch-hitter that bats both
right and left, they follow each other in the batting order, so I'm
constantly moving from one side to the other.
I don't know how to avoid shooting into the sun in a late afternoon
game when the sun is always behind first base at our field. If I want
first base action, there's no choice with the layout of the field and
the dugouts.
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Thanks, John, but all I've posted here have been batting shots because they
were the humorous shots taken recently. My full gallery of shots includes
all positions. With one grandson playing first base and the other
playing catcher, there's a large number of shots of those positions.
Because I shoot with the intent of providing a disk at the end of the season
for all the team parents, I try to capture every player and every position.
I'm weak with outfielder shots, but do try to follow the play on a pop-up
to an outfielder. It's harder to get an action shot of an outfielder.
I do tend to try for certain shots like the slide into bases and the close calls
at the bases. The parents like the batter shots, so I do a lot of those.
The season just started here, so I can't provide examples this early.
I don't post much here because I'm out-classed by photographers like
jmphotography in both skills and equipment.
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/
As for batter shots vs defense shots, yeah, you have to take batter shots in order to cover every player on the team. At the LL level of play, exciting defensive moments are few and far between and hard to catch. And I don't even bother with the outfield anymore. The only exciting pose there is an outfielder diving for the ball, which almost never happens at this level. All other outfield poses do not make good photos, and anyway they're too far away for my lenses.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
The (civilian) attention 'big whites' attract is something I personally could easily live without
pp
Flickr
That's VERY true, when I shoot baseball and watch those who really know what they are doing -- they know the game. They'll be positioned and aiming at second when there's a steal, and at first when the steal is going to be aborted with a tag attempt at first. I have no idea how they guess (know, intuit) which it will be. The really good ones can often be ready for an infield catch of a hard hit, while I'm still trying to see where the ball went.
I can shoot well technically, and from sheer endurance I often get some good action shots, but what the really expert guys (gals) seem to have is a 6th sense of where the action is going to be.
Or where the reaction is.... I watch one guy, and at least 50% of the time when there's an interesting play he's not on the play -- he is shooting the dugout/bench or coach or looking to get one of the players' reactions. And I see celebration/reaction shots in our paper easily as much as action shots, so he's giving his editors what they want.
Contrary to the indication above -- that pros distinguish themselves by their equipment -- I think they distinguish themselves by knowing how to find the moment to capture, to be pointing in the right direction. Sure, the equipment helps (if nothing else, carrying a 400/F2.8 onto a field and most places don't even ask for credentials). But it's neither necessary (for many sports) nor sufficient -- it's knowing where to point it, and when to push the button that is the real distinction.
This goes without saying. If you can't get the shot, no amount of equipment is going to help. But when a parent with a superzoom or a Rebel can get a similar shot as the pro, the pro's thinner DOF, better colors, and crisper sharpness will help set them apart.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
for sure and having access to the field really helps
It's difficult for a parent or non-professional to get inside the chain link fence for a good baseball shot or be on the sidelines at a football or basketball game. But soccer and lacrosse -- much easier