Did you see me on TV yesterday? - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

12/25/2006 09:12:58 PM · #1

Ok, you might have, but you would have never known it was me. I had a press pass for the 49'ers and Cardinals game yesterday. My wife saw me on TV a few times during the game. What a fun experience that was. I put in my 4GB CF card and just held the shutter release down the whole time I was there (not really).

Here are a couple for the boys...

Here are a couple for the football fans...

Lastly, here is one I took for all you Canon folks...

I hope everyone has had an awesome Christmas (or other holiday) so far.

Cheers,
-Jeremy

MattO

Nikon D4

12/25/2006 09:27:36 PM · #2

Were you the guy with the tiny Nikon with the tiny lens? Or were you down at the other end zone when you shot the other photogs? :-)

I'm jealous nice job getting the press pass. Someday I will.

MattO

12/25/2006 09:33:00 PM · #3

Not only am I jealous, but those were some nice action shots!

12/25/2006 09:35:46 PM · #4

Originally posted by MattO:

Were you the guy with the tiny Nikon with the tiny lens? Or were you down at the other end zone when you shot the other photogs? :-)

ROFL! Yes, I was definitely the small camera small lens guy out there. I was shooting with my 80-200 and a 2X tele. There were quite a few big Nikons out there too. But the grey lens' seemed to dominate.

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

12/25/2006 10:58:12 PM · #5

Originally posted by boomtap:

Not only am I jealous, but those were some nice action shots!

Thanks, you'll be happy to hear that there was a couple of D50s out there with monster lenses on them yesterday!

Message edited by author 2006-12-25 22:58:33.

NstiG8tr

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

12/25/2006 11:55:42 PM · #6

Originally posted by jahoward:

Lastly, here is one I took for all you Canon folks...

Are those the 600mm F4 primes

John Pahl

Nikon Coolpix AW 100

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF

12/26/2006 12:04:45 AM · #7

Lucky Duck.. :)

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 12-24mm f/4.0G IF-ED

12/26/2006 12:04:56 AM · #8

Oh ya, the football players were good too...lol

Message edited by author 2006-12-26 00:05:16.

jbsmithana

Nikon D300

12/26/2006 12:10:45 AM · #9

Originally posted by jahoward:

There were quite a few big Nikons out there too. But the grey lens' seemed to dominate.

Be careful making the assumption that all grey lenses are Canon.. Nikon has quite a few big grey lenses out there (well, grey with black focus ring). They look diferent but if don't look close you may not notice. That is not to say that big white Canon leses don't dominate, they sure show up.

Message edited by author 2006-12-26 00:12:59.

12/26/2006 11:08:22 AM · #10

Originally posted by jbsmithana:

You're right I think I have seen a grey Nikon lens before. I forgot about that. Canon seems to be the first thing that pops into mind when you see grey.

mpeters

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

12/26/2006 11:30:54 AM · #11

Go niners!

12/26/2006 12:06:47 PM · #12

Just a word of caution... it's not a wise thing to be posting your NFL photos on the web if you would like the opportunity to continue to get credentials (carefully read the terms and conditions of the credentials on the back of your pass :)

Just speaking from experience here... :)

12/26/2006 12:12:10 PM · #13

Originally posted by alanfreed:

What about the cheerleaders?

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

12/26/2006 12:20:53 PM · #14

Originally posted by boomtap:

What about the cheerleaders?

They're pretty hot.

Oh, you're asking about posting photos of them... :)

I'm not the world's foremost authority on the subject, but I would say that anything you're shooting from the field as a credentialed photographer, by their agreement, can only be used for editorial purposes.

MattO

Nikon D4

12/26/2006 12:45:08 PM · #15

Originally posted by alanfreed:

Originally posted by boomtap:
What about the cheerleaders?

They're pretty hot.

Oh, you're asking about posting photos of them... :)

I'm not the world's foremost authority on the subject, but I would say that anything you're shooting from the field as a credentialed photographer, by their agreement, can only be used for editorial purposes.

I've seen several of them used in past challenges here on DPC, they end up on FM forums, Sportsshooter all the time. Is this different then posting them here? I'm just curious.

MattO

Bugzeye

Fisher Price Kid-Tough Digital

12/26/2006 12:53:38 PM · #16

The last time I was at a football game I noticed something, Alot of the photographers were using the big canon lenses during the game but after the game they were chasing the players up the tunnels with Nikons in hand. I know it sounds crazy but it seems to me that alot of these guys getting paid by the media giants and selling pictures to the associated press are not picky, they will use what ever it takes to get the best shot. Wish I could afford to do that.

Edit: forgot to say thanks for sharing the shots, very cool... I would love to get a press pass for the Packers Bears game on Sunday. Anyone have one laying around they are not planning on using ? lol

Message edited by author 2006-12-26 12:56:55.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/26/2006 01:07:41 PM · #17

Originally posted by MattO:

I've seen several of them used in past challenges here on DPC, they end up on FM forums, Sportsshooter all the time. Is this different then posting them here? I'm just curious.

There is definitely some degree of "gray area" here, but here's my story...

I've been shooting the Steelers games for a small newspaper since 2002. Last year I had posted a small number (10 or 12) of shots as part of my own web site's portfolio (in other words, in addition to "weddings," "nature" and so forth, I had a "sports" section), as well as posting a batch of them here after each game, and for the occasional challenge.

Well... at the end of last season, my editor got a call from the Steelers' media relations department, saying they "weren't inclined" to grant me a pass for the playoffs because I had violated the terms of the credentials by using the shots to promote myself in this way. The credentials stipulate that the shots can only be used for editorial purposes.

Soooo I literally screwed myself out of the chance to go to the Super Bowl. I believe I very likely would have made it to the big game had I not botched it for myself. Another DPC'er who had just begun shooting games for another small paper DID get to go to Detroit, so I don't see any reason why I wouldn't have been able to go, too.

I had honestly not even given it a second thought when I put the shots on my web site (and here). I had seen other sideline photographers who had game photos on their web sites, and I've even seen a couple of area newspapers selling their shots on their sites (which I believe is also forbidden).

I immediately pulled my game shots off my web site, and from here at DPC... and I spent the whole summer worrying about whether I had gotten myself permanently banished from the sidelines. I honestly didn't expect that I would have credentials for this season.

Thankfully I got a second chance, and was able to shoot every game again this season. Obviously I've been keeping my nose very clean by not posting anything here, or anywhere else, unless it's obviously within the guidelines of the credentials.

The Sportsshooter question is a very good one. In fact, that site is one of the reasons I didn't think I was doing anything wrong. That site is full of photographers who are posting their shots to get opinions from others, etc. BUT if you look at many of the photographers' profiles, you see that they're obviously soliciting freelance work based on their game shots -- so for that reason I don't see where there's really any difference between what they're doing at that site, and what I had done.

I asked the Steelers' head photographer about the legality of posting shots at sportsshooter (I'm not a member there, but I was wondering about whether the use of shots is legal there), and he wasn't familiar with the site well enough to offer a good opinion.

Soooo... long story short, I can't say for sure whether posting shots here is really a violation or not, but if I were concerned about receiving future credentials, I'd not post them just to be safe. I would say that if a team wanted to strictly enforce that policy to the letter, they could certainly deny someone's credentials for posting them here.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

12/26/2006 02:07:33 PM · #18

Originally posted by alanfreed:

I asked the Steelers' head photographer about the legality of posting shots ...

You could also ask for specific permission to enter a shot in a contest or in your professional portfolio. They ought not object if it doesn't dilute the commercial value of the image to them.

Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM

12/26/2006 02:22:00 PM · #19

Strangely, it didn't seem to be so much about commercial value. It seemed more like "this is the rule... don't violate it."

Originally posted by GeneralE:

You could also ask for specific permission to enter a shot in a contest or in your professional portfolio. They ought not object if it doesn't dilute the commercial value of the image to them.

Message edited by author 2006-12-26 14:22:18.

Skip

Canon EOS-1D X

12/26/2006 02:37:59 PM · #20

Originally posted by alanfreed:

Strangely, it didn't seem to be so much about commercial value. It seemed more like "this is the rule... don't violate it."

this is the way it is going, more and more. larger venues and athletic organizations are starting to contract directly with services such as getty, pretty much squeezing out freelancers. it's real shame, because most of these shooters aren't in it as much for the money, as they are in it for the thrill of shooting the best performers in the best conditions. this is definitely the type of situation where you want to tread lightly. you might be able to get away with the it's-better-to-ask-forgiveness-than-permission for a bit, but once you get called out, you're out. it also doesn't matter who else is getting away with what; once you're on the radar, all that matters is what you do.

12/26/2006 02:58:31 PM · #21

Originally posted by skiprow:

larger venues and athletic organizations are starting to contract directly with services such as getty, pretty much squeezing out freelancers.

As further proof of this, consider that the NFL banned TV videographers from the field this year, forcing stations to purchase their footage from NFL Films.

More here.

Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM

12/26/2006 03:16:15 PM · #22

It is only a matter of time before the NFL buys a large island and places 32 stadiums there and makes people live in NFL land if they would like to watch it. Then they will gradually buy up land and become a super power in the world. They will then unleash hordes of steroid super trooper football rejects who will take out soccer and baseball with football shaped bombs and assult riffles.

Skip

Canon EOS-1D X

12/26/2006 03:28:12 PM · #23

Originally posted by alanfreed:

Originally posted by skiprow:
larger venues and athletic organizations are starting to contract directly with services such as getty, pretty much squeezing out freelancers.

As further proof of this, consider that the NFL banned TV videographers from the field this year, forcing stations to purchase their footage from NFL Films.

More here.

yep, that's the same thing that's happening with racing. they want to start keeping all the photographers off victory lane, except for the annointed few...

that article points out the one thing that i think the decision makers completely overlook: it's the local media that really connects the fans with the entertainment. you cut out the local media's ability to color things in, and pretty soon, the locals won't have as much inclination to get off the sofa.