Do you shoot?

My problem is I was broken in to professional shooting with an old-ass Nikon D1-H and because of the quality of what I was shooting with, it was instilled in my head that I had to shoot full-frame every single time. I still worry about that when I'm shooting today with my D-7000 and it's been driven in my head that full frame=higher detail-better picture.

As for the gymnastics photo, that was just a case of a split-second look from the gymnast that I didn't have time to frame the best way I can. Rhody has told me countless times not to cut off limbs and I'm trying to get better at but it's something I'm going to struggle it for a long time, at least until it gets through my head that I don't have to use the entire frame to get a great shot.

 

This is really lovely. Hard to beat the light at that time of day.

One thing I'm seeing a lot of on this thread is really poor backgrounds. I've probably said this before, but backgrounds can make or break your shots. You have to either REALLY throw them out of focus via shallow depth of field, or change your vantage point to clean them up.

Lie on the ground and shoot with a clean sky as your background, or get up high and shoot into plain dirt or grass. But clean backgrounds will definitely take things up a level.

 

A few thoughts:

As for that football shot and whether or not you had anything to do with it, being in the right place, at the right time with the camera on the right settings is what it's all about, so don't sell yourself short.

As a for instance, this football shot always stood out to me after I took it. I love the reactions in the background, the guy on the ground ... all that stuff. I was standing behind the endzone when I took it, which is rare for me. Usually I'm at least close to the line of scrimmage, a few yards ahead or behind. That usually offers the best chance for a good photo, and it's much easier to take notes on the game from there. But this time I was talking to the car to get a different lens between quarters, and this guy broke away on the last play. Thankfully, I was ready to roll and could easily take a knee and pop away. I've tried to get stuff like this at other games, but geez, I just can't sit in the endzone the whole game like the full-time photogs can, and it simply never works as well as this one did. You have to take some risks to get standout photos sometimes, and you have to be ready to take advantage of what chances to do get. You were ready with that football photo, and that's not dumb luck.



As for the gymnastics photo, hey, again, you can't always been in the absolute best spot, and for a spur of the moment thing, that's a good shot.

Very generally speaking, though, the lower your angle on something like that, the better the shot. (If I'd been squatting a little more, or on a knee, for that football shot, you'd be able to see the kid's face better.) I love getting way low for wrestling photos. I don't have one of those little view finders that prevent you from having to flop on your belly, but that'd be wonderful. I don't do it all the time. A lot of the time there isn't room, and I'm only willing to look like a strange guy sprawled out on the ground for so many minutes a day. BUT, it does typically make for better photos of something like that.

Finally, I don't understand the debate about cutting limbs off. I don't think that's a horrible thing to do, and do it frequently myself. It can definitely be done awkwardly, but it doesn't have to be. I sometimes have to remind myself that a great shot doesn't have to include all the body parts or everything I captured in my frame to tell the story. Like in that basketball photo above, if the girl's scrunched up angry face is the story, crop whatever you have to crop to make sure that's what draws reads' attention. People will fill in that she has arms and legs by themselves.

Here is an example I just worked last week. I had this kid's whole ski, and the entirety of the other kid, too, but it was going to take a fairly awkward crop to include all that. My story was about the kid we see the most of, and I think what I did crop out -- part of the ski and the other kid's body -- still allows the story to be told. This isn't a great photo. If I'd been stationed a little differently I could have had both bodies with a lot less empty air between them. But, I use it just as an example for this discussion:

 

I love the football pic. That one is near perfect.

I hate the skiing picture. All I am thinking about is the person's half I cannot see.

 

I'm never certain how critical to be on these types of threads. I know photography is not the primary interest/job of most of the people on this forum.

But I second Devil's comment about the skiing photo.

 

I doubt many here take more photos than I do.

This ran online, with about 20 more from the event. The photo than ran in the paper was a celebration shot from the final run. I had more dramatic photos from the day, but, well, we get a crapload of photos every year of kids hanging above the city so the effect is lost to a degree by March, and the celebration photo fit the narrative of the day and the season better.



Like I said in the original comment, I didn't think it was great, but given the spacing between various things going on in the photo, I thought it worked out fine.

Pictures of both skiers in dual moguls can be difficult to get right:


And from a different event:


About 500 things have to work right to get everyone in the frame at the same time where you want them. But, that's neither here nor there. I didn't have a problem with the photo we're talking about, but also didn't file it to run in the paper.

But, generally, I do fine, thanks in large part to the awesome (photographically speaking) stuff I get to cover. From yesterday:





(In retrospect, I wish I had leveled out the horizon on the last one)

 

Never hurts to have beautiful scenery and good subjects, does it?

As for level horizons, I am FOREVER straightening my shots in post. I must be lopsided or something.

 

I would guess this stuff is a blast to shoot.

Did you consider including the ground at all to give the reader an idea how high up they are in the air?

I know that might be tough to get into frame, but I would almost try to get the skiier in the far left of the image and the landing spot in the right.

Great stuff, though.

 

ADogen, how much experience do you have with a mirrored lens?
We have an old Nikon 500mm mirrored lens. I've talked to some of the pros and they told me it was mainly for nature and scenery and if I used it for sports, golf would be the best.

 

I'm wondering if there's a way we can look at photos more efficiently. Maybe post one or two at a time so we can discuss in more detail? Maybe a template where we can put them side-by-side?

Thoughts?

 

They tend to be slower (have a smaller maximum aperture, which in turn requires a longer shutter speed) rendering them fairly useless for sports unless you're shooting outside in bright, bright noon-day sun.

What's the listed aperture (f stop)?

 

Aperture is 8.
And I'm planning to use it just on super sunny days. Excited about the water donuts, or whatever they're called.