| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/10/2002 11:08:43 AM · #1 |
I've been taking shots at Steelers games for a local newspaper for the last couple games, including Sunday's miserable loss against Houston (of all teams...). Drew had suggested I post a link to the shots here... and I would enjoy hearing comments:
//www.thefreeds.com/misc/steelers/texans/
I admit these particular ones were rather hastily edited and some of the color might be tad bit off... and they're smaller than what I'd normally post here, but that means they'll load nice & quick! :)
|
|
|
|
12/10/2002 11:23:03 AM · #2 |
I've only had time to look at about 1/3 of them, but I think you should try and take a least a couple where everyone has their feet on he ground.
Great action shots! Wouldn't be surpised to see any of them in the sports section. |
|
|
|
12/10/2002 11:24:24 AM · #3 |
| these are all fine shots in my opinion, i could definitely see some of them appearing in a newspaper. on some of the photos i wish i had seen a little more of the surroundings like what players on the opposing team were nearby |
|
|
|
12/10/2002 11:28:06 AM · #4 |
What kind of lens are you using to get that close to the action. Some excellent shots. Sometimes the player tends to get a bit lost into the background.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2002 11:29:04 AM · #5 |
These are really awesome, and they're a blast to look through. Keep up the great work, and keep us posted! :)
Drew |
|
|
|
12/10/2002 11:32:49 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by JamieWillmott:
What kind of lens are you using to get that close to the action. Some excellent shots. Sometimes the player tends to get a bit lost into the background. |
I agree with you there... I wish I had one of those fancy huge babies that most of the other guys have, but I'm using a 300mm 5.6, so it's hard to get a shallow DOF if the play is on the other side of the field. I noticed that if the play is taking place in front of some other players on the opposite sidelines, they definitely get a little lost in the shuffle. My only solution that I could come up with is to manually "create" some shallow DOF by blurring the sidelines a bit, but that's not a good journalistic practice. |
|
|
|
12/10/2002 11:37:47 AM · #7 |
Though you could say that blurring the sidelines enhances the action, which is the actual journalistic content of the image.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2002 12:13:51 PM · #8 |
I get the feeling that some shots are too zoomed in, e.g. randal-el and famous-amos.jpg
It works for some shots, usually for facial expressions like gandy-chips-nailvarnish and painful-tackle.
Could you use a filter to get a wider aperture, or is your lens the problem? |
|
|
|
12/10/2002 12:48:12 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by UberFish:
I get the feeling that some shots are too zoomed in, e.g. randal-el and famous-amos.jpg
It works for some shots, usually for facial expressions like gandy-chips-nailvarnish and painful-tackle.
Could you use a filter to get a wider aperture, or is your lens the problem? |
What kind of filter would provide for a wider aperature...? |
|
|
|
12/10/2002 01:48:39 PM · #10 |
Thanks for posting these Alan.
I get funny looks when I admit to liking American Football over here (the UK) and the coverage, outside of the specialist TV programmes is poor. I would love to see photos like these in our newspapers.
I think my favourite of the bunch is amos-drags-a-dude.
I do agree that some are too zoomed-in. The one that springs to mind for me is bettis-handoff. Hands off to who? It would be nice to see the 'bigger picture' in these situations.
Keep up the good work.
Paul
|
|
|
|
12/10/2002 02:29:13 PM · #11 |
|
|
|
12/10/2002 02:32:33 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by bod:
I do agree that some are too zoomed-in. The one that springs to mind for me is bettis-handoff. Hands off to who? |
Truthfully, I've found that the further zoomed out the shots are -- in most situations, anyway -- the harder it is to tell what's going on. I've tried to study the work of other people who shoot NFL games, and it seems that that majority of shots attempt to get the ball prominently featured so that it is somewhat obvious what was happening.
Sometimes this means capturing an emotion, or the start of a big play.
Let me use this one as an example... this was a submission for the Photojournalism challenge:
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=8770
I don't mean to sound critical to the person who shot this, but it's very difficult to tell exactly what's happening here, other than the fact that there's a play in progress. I just feel that in most cases it's gonna be better to bring the ball in close and capture what's going on around it.
By the way, the Bettis shot you quoted was actually a handoff to him from Maddox (who is in the background). :)
By all of this I certainly don't mean to imply that I don't appreciate the criticism... I definitely take it to heart... this is just my reasoning behind it.
Message edited by author 2002-12-10 14:35:10. |
|
|
|
12/10/2002 02:32:55 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by goodtempo:
Go Texans!!! |
Bah humbug :) |
|
|
|
12/10/2002 02:36:55 PM · #14 |
Oh yeah, those colors were really bothering me : ) I just can't figure out why my Seahawks picures didn't come out as good as yours. Maybe it had something to do with being on the third level. Sure, I would have liked a few that showed a wider angle but really love the tight crops. they really draw you into the action. Great job!
T
|
|
|
|
12/11/2002 10:26:07 AM · #15 |
Cheers for the reply Alan.
Good points - and I guess I won't really know what works until I actually try it myself (the only sports photography I have done is of Motor Racing). Not much chance of catching any NFL action over here, but I guess the same style would apply to our football (the one where you actually use your feet ;) ).
The filter mentioned which may help you get a wider aperture is a neutral density filter, which reduces the available light, thereby allowing a wider aperture to be selected.
If you're stuck at f5.6 this isn't going to help though.
Like I said, keep up the good work, and good luck in your push for the playoffs!
Paul
|
|
|
|
12/11/2002 10:29:11 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by bod:
I guess the same style would apply to our football (the one where you actually use your feet ;) ). |
Then you should call it feetball :) Our ball is a foot long :)
(That's about a third of a meter)
|
|
|
|
12/11/2002 10:57:02 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by bod:
I guess the same style would apply to our football (the one where you actually use your feet ;) ). |
Then you should call it feetball :) Our ball is a foot long :)
(That's about a third of a meter) |
LOL! Please tell me that's not the real reason behind the name!
If so, the EU will soon be insisting that any games played/shown over here be refered to as third-of-a-meter-ball as imperial measurements are being phased out.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2002 12:46:45 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by alansfreed:
What kind of filter would provide for a wider aperature...? |
Im not an expert, and Ive never done any sports photos, so I could be really wrong here, but:
To get a narrow depth of field, you need to use an F-stop of 2 or thereabouts (and few lenses actually do that, my coolpix 990 goes down to f2.8 if I get the zoom to the right place). If you go with a wide open aperture, then your shutter speed gets faster (which is good for sports)
You also start getting glare and stuff going bad at the edges of the frame as light comming in at a low angle (e.g. from floodlights) passes through the glass and scatters on the inside of the lens tube (think marbles rattling down a cardboard tube). To avoid this, try using a shade, theres an example at //www.cybercollege.com/tvp013.htm
Also, bright spots in the background may get smeared over the top of the action, and could be eliminated by a circular polariser, depending on the source of the bright spot. Its good to have a circular polariser for landscapes and wildlife photography anyway, so it wont be money wasted if you get one.
Lastly a neutral density filter was what I was mostly thinking of, as this would allow you to open up the aperture but keep the same ISO rating and shutter speed. But thinking about it, you want a faster shutter anyway. |
|
|
|
12/11/2002 12:58:26 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by bod:
LOL! Please tell me that's not the real reason behind the name!
If so, the EU will soon be insisting that any games played/shown over here be refered to as third-of-a-meter-ball as imperial measurements are being phased out. |
I believe that's why :) But to be more precise, it should be called 30.48Centimeter ball :)
|
|
|
|
02/14/2014 08:24:37 PM · #20 |
I just wanted to beat  idnic, so I revived a thread twice as old. :D
Message edited by author 2014-02-14 20:24:47. |
|
|
|
02/14/2014 08:25:41 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Cory:
I just wanted to beat idnic, so I revived a thread twice as old. :D |
OMG This is not a competition! lol
|
|
|
|
02/14/2014 08:27:36 PM · #22 |
| Apparently there was someone walking around DPC yelling "Bring out your dead!" |
|
|
|
02/14/2014 08:29:02 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Apparently there was someone walking around DPC yelling "Bring out your dead!" |
like.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2014 08:31:10 PM · #24 |
| Me thinks Cindi is drunk on some cheap Valentine wine. |
|
|
|
02/14/2014 08:54:37 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by idnic:
Originally posted by Cory:
I just wanted to beat idnic, so I revived a thread twice as old. :D |
OMG This is not a competition! lol |
Ok, sure... But if it was, I'd be WINNING. ;) |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/24/2025 12:48:04 AM EDT.
