Red Sox v. Yankees 07/05/08

jennifer

I got invited to the Yankees game today and the seats were obscenely good, 10 rows behind the Yankees dugout. It rained off and on the whole game, so the lighting wasn't optimal but I am still very pleased with my results!

C&C welcome and thanks for looking

KED

jennifer wrote:

I got invited to the Yankees game today and the seats were obscenely good, 10 rows behind the Yankees dugout. It rained off and on the whole game, so the lighting wasn't optimal but I am still very pleased with my results!

C&C welcome and thanks for looking

Great captures! They are pro-looking in angle and sharpness. I think you took full advantage of those great seats (and cannot be faulted for a head interfering with a great Jeter shot in the last one)! I didn't see your gear in the post -- what were you using?

jennifer

KED wrote:

Great captures! They are pro-looking in angle and sharpness. I think you took full advantage of those great seats (and cannot be faulted for a head interfering with a great Jeter shot in the last one)! I didn't see your gear in the post -- what were you using?

Thanks! Everything was shot with my 40D and 70-200 f/2.8L IS. Never once have I regretted the purchase of that lens. Okay maybe one time when my luggage on a flight to DC was over 50lb and after I removed the lens it went down to 49.5 pounds

bendruckerphoto

KED wrote:

Great captures! They are pro-looking in angle and sharpness. I think you took full advantage of those great seats (and cannot be faulted for a head interfering with a great Jeter shot in the last one)! I didn't see your gear in the post -- what were you using?

That's Alex Rodriguez, not Jeter. Wish I could have had those seats. Oh well, at least the Yanks won. Who would have guessed that Mussina would be the most reliable starter going into the All-Star break?

KED

baseballboy828 wrote:

That's Alex Rodriguez, not Jeter.

D'oh!! On third glance, you are correct of course. And PS to Jennifer's post, why am I not surprised that a 70-200 f/2.8 was involved?! If I had 10th-row seats at Yankee Stadium, that'd be exactly what i would bring. Maybe with a 1.4 extender in my pocket. . .

jennifer

KED wrote:

D'oh!! On third glance, you are correct of course. And PS to Jennifer's post, why am I not surprised that a 70-200 f/2.8 was involved?! If I had 10th-row seats at Yankee Stadium, that'd be exactly what i would bring. Maybe with a 1.4 extender in my pocket. . .

I take that lens with me to every single game even if I'm 50 rows back in the upper deck

After I got there I regretted having forgotten to grab the 1.4x TC but honestly I don't think I needed it. I generally prefer the wider shots (if you can call any of those wide) to the closeups anyway. Plus the light was so bad with the heavy cloud cover, I don't think I would have wanted to give up 2.8. As it is, I shot most of them slightly underexposed to get the faster shutter and lightened them up later in Photoshop. I was pretty happy with that decision when I managed to freeze the ball on Youk's bat!

moose135

Nice work, Jennifer! You made good use of those seats - glad the folks in the Bronx didn't give you any hassles with the equipment. And you were lucky to be able to visit both our big ballparks in their final year of use.

jennifer

moose135 wrote:

Nice work, Jennifer! You made good use of those seats - glad the folks in the Bronx didn't give you any hassles with the equipment. And you were lucky to be able to visit both our big ballparks in their final year of use.

Thanks, Moose! My thoughts exactly

johng

Hi Jennifer. Nice seets indeed!

I'm going to offer a different take on the photos. If your goal is to have a couple snapshots to remember the game then I think these are pretty good. If your goal is to have good sports photos then there are some issues. So, if you're in the 'former' category please disregard these comments.

First and foremost, the shots along 3rd base are way too over-cropped. There's not much detail left in them. In reality you'd need 400-500mm lens to get decent shots from that distance. It's expecting too much from a 200mm lens (which is only good for about 75 feet of quality coverage).

The shots at the plate: Very good timing on the one shot. In general however, the shots don't work for 2 reasons:
1. You've included the catcher / umpire who aren't doing anything and don't really add to the shot. The action (the batter) is pushed to edge of the frame. So the frame is dominated by non-action
2. Timing / shot type: You were in a tricky spot. A player's follow-thru can be a nice shot but the face is very beneficial to such a shot as is decent form. So it's tough to get both and thus make such a shot interesting

The last shot has too much motion blur or is just out of focus.

Unfortunately, 200mm is way too short for baseball. If you were shooting from the field it would be too short - even from the best seats in the stands it's too short for most shots. If you reallly are interested in taking better quality shots at a major league game, get tickets to a day game and invest in a longer lens (the 100-400 is a nice choice if you have good seats).

This may sound harsh. But this is a sports shooting forum (and not a MLB fan forum) so I give my advice / opinions as if you are interested in being a sports shooter.

jennifer

Thanks, John. I really do appreciate your comments! For the most part, this is a fun hobby for me. I love shooting sports mostly for myself and never really considered how other people may view the photos from a professional standpoint. Every once in a while I will get a great shot that in my sports shooting naivete think could easily land on the cover of SI. But for the most part, I shoot for the fun of it. It's part of the game for me.

As for your lens suggestion, what I wouldn't give to upgrade! On the one hand I can't afford it and on the other hand I have a tough time getting the 70-200 into some places as it is. I don't know what security would make of a 100-400 (or as long as we're dreaming big here, a 400 f/2.8L).

If you have time, I have loads of other sports shots posted elsewhere and I would love for you to take a look at them and give me your comments (though they may be similar to the ones you just gave). I can PM you with the URL.

Thanks again!

KED

johng wrote:

It's expecting too much from a 200mm lens (which is only good for about 75 feet of quality coverage).

John,serious question: is there math on this? I've seen this kind of reference before, as well as fairly precise commentary on linear footage of focus in relation to depth of field. It seems to me like there are other variables involved, but if there really is math, I'm interested in knowing what it is. Again, serious question.

My experience, shooting mainly non-college lacrosse right now, is that the 70-200 is the perfect all-purpose lens, with or without a 1.4 extender depending on the circumstances. Knowing that I'm at 200 at best (or 280 extended), I try not to shoot the far sideline or the endline from midfield, but sometimes the opportunity just presents itself, then it's mad crops in PP. But, if those "reaches" are futile (mathematically, in terms of printing or otherwise), that would be good to know.

johng

wish I could give you a mathematical reason. It's just my experience I base that opinion on.

KED

johng wrote:

wish I could give you a mathematical reason. It's just my experience I base that opinion on.

Upon reflection I'm sure that there IS math -- X amount of crop on a certain sensor leaves you with Y amount of remaining pixels which allows you to print at a max size of Z. At the end of the day, experience and intuition (gained after years behind the viewfinder) are just as good, probably better. I'm just going to keep shooting and getting the experience up and the intuition honed.