Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Superb Sports Pic!

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

mikehit
mikehit  56692 forum posts United Kingdom11 Constructive Critique Points
3 Jul 2013 - 2:16 PM


Quote: Evertonian, Wimbledon is still on, perhaps you would like to try and create a similar image and post it here?
Won't be going to Wimbledon, too far, but I have some nice cricket action shots so you try it too, it is not too difficult and I would imagine it should fall within your range. Set your exposure to multi so that when you hold down the shutter you are in motor drive mode. Just erase those which are not so good and keep the good ones, it saves memory space. You will need a good long lens with a large aperture f2.8 minimum though and a sturdy monopod as per Manfrotto. I use the Sigma f2.8 70-200 and occasionally with the 1.4x converter.

And while you are at it, if you are using something like the Nikon D800, use a 24mm lens and keep firing until the ball lands or is caught and you can crop it to suit Tongue.
Just joking - at times I wish I could do that: I have no problem with gunning like you describe if I have a specific end result in mind but in the long run I would soon get bored if it was so easy.



Quote: Just erase those which are not so good and keep the good ones, it saves memory space.

In what way does it 'save space'? When gunning you take so many that you can miss so much action when deleting 10 of the 15 shots. Also, I never delete in the field because it can (and has!) gone wrong in the past.

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
3 Jul 2013 - 2:16 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Geoffphoto
3 Jul 2013 - 6:43 PM

Evertonian ! I'm sorry, I was just a bit upset ! Sports photography is very hard and I just thought that that was a good pic and the photographer deserved credit, I apologise if I upset you. It was never my intention.

Grin

Last Modified By Geoffphoto at 3 Jul 2013 - 6:45 PM
Evertonian
4 Jul 2013 - 8:51 AM


Quote:
In what way does it 'save space'? When gunning you take so many that you can miss so much action when deleting 10 of the 15 shots. Also, I never delete in the field because it can (and has!) gone wrong in the past.

What I said was " If nothing happens, you can erase the shots whilst the bowler gets ready to make his next delivery and start again."

You don't miss anything whilst the ball is being returned to the bowler via many pairs of hands. The saving is obvious. If you don't erase the shots with no action on them, when you get back to your PC you have to download hundreds of shots, maybe even 1000, but if you save just the run of exposures when something did occur you use less memory cards (Raw are big files as you well know), have less to download to your back-up equipment and less to sort through when doing the editing. I find it works anyway.

With cricket I find that with good timing only about 8 exposures are required for each ball and there is a long time between each ball of the over being bowled.

keithh
keithh e2 Member 1023186 forum postskeithh vcard Wallis and Futuna33 Constructive Critique Points
4 Jul 2013 - 6:33 PM

The confusion arises when people are talking sports photography and someone goes off at a tangent gabbling on about cricket. Wink

LensYews
LensYews  51309 forum posts United Kingdom1 Constructive Critique Points
4 Jul 2013 - 8:13 PM

Even with the shutter life expectancy on the 1d4, I think the gun and delete approach would mean a new shutter every year for me, which is an expense I don't need. Don't you find a 70-200 even with a teleconverter a little short for getting in close in the cricket action. Never shot the game myself, but understood a 600mm was the norm for Batsman shots.

Evertonian
5 Jul 2013 - 8:39 AM


Quote: The confusion arises when people are talking sports photography and someone goes off at a tangent gabbling on about cricket.

Even with the shutter life expectancy on the 1d4, I think the gun and delete approach would mean a new shutter every year for me, which is an expense I don't need. Don't you find a 70-200 even with a teleconverter a little short for getting in close in the cricket action. Never shot the game myself, but understood a 600mm was the norm for Batsman shots.

I failed to see any gabbling but then again is cricket not a sport?

Well I am not a pro so this is not something I do every day, maybe 2 or 3 weekends a year and if I sit on the boundary, in line with mid off, the 200mm end is fine on its own. I will not stay for the whole game as it is far too long. Regarding shutter wear and I must admit I have never contemplated that as it is not a regular event, but a run of 6 shots suffices for the ball to pass by the batsman.

arhb
arhb e2 Member 72332 forum postsarhb vcard United Kingdom68 Constructive Critique Points
5 Jul 2013 - 10:36 AM


Quote: Even with the shutter life expectancy on the 1d4, I think the gun and delete approach would mean a new shutter every year for me, which is an expense I don't need.

I used a s/h 1Dmk2n fairly regularly for about 2 years - with regular 'machine gun' approach for wildlife, and never encountered any issues with shutter wear.
When I traded it in, shutter wear was not mentioned.
I would have thought the 1Dmk4, and anything similar, would be even more durable.

Last Modified By arhb at 5 Jul 2013 - 10:37 AM
Coleslaw
Coleslaw e2 Member 913403 forum postsColeslaw vcard Wales28 Constructive Critique Points
5 Jul 2013 - 10:46 AM


Quote: It's a good photo, but it's not that good.

+1

Nick_w
Nick_w e2 Member 73906 forum postsNick_w vcard England99 Constructive Critique Points
6 Jul 2013 - 9:53 AM


Quote: in line with mid off, the 200mm end is fine on its own.

That must be one very small village green! It would be nice for you to post examples for us to judge how good your technique is and whether it has some mileage.

Nick_w
Nick_w e2 Member 73906 forum postsNick_w vcard England99 Constructive Critique Points
6 Jul 2013 - 10:11 AM

If you want to see great sports pictures:

http://www.markpain.com/other-sport.html

Check out the cricket one 3 or 4 in on the slideshow

Evertonian
7 Jul 2013 - 8:49 AM


Quote: in line with mid off, the 200mm end is fine on its own.

That must be one very small village green! It would be nice for you to post examples for us to judge how good your technique is and whether it has some mileage.

I am not getting tied up with such a practice, it will open a can of worms. If I wanted that I would have used the critique gallery. Trying it for yourself is by far the best way.

danh
danh  461 forum posts United Kingdom36 Constructive Critique Points
14 Jul 2013 - 10:52 PM

Let's say the exposure is 1/1000th of a second. Let's say the frame rate was 10fps. Let's agree that the photographer has therefore captured ten 1000ths of a second, i.e. one 100th of a second of the action. Let's guess how long the frame of the racket was framing the face... maybe one of those 1/100ths of a second? I'd actually guess it was a lot less than that, maybe closer to the 1/1000th again.

In other words, even with practice, experience and great skill, it's a one in a thousand chance. If you choose 'spray and pray' you might be lucky. If you rely on years of accumulated skill and experience (enough to get a job with Getty)' it's a bloody great shot, made better by the framing of the scoreboard.

That's the thing with great sports photography - it looks easy. Look at some of the abject dross in this website's sport/action gallery to see what I mean... and much of that dross gets multiple votes from people who I can only assume have even less idea of what makes a great sports photo than the person who took it. Tongue

mikehit
mikehit  56692 forum posts United Kingdom11 Constructive Critique Points
15 Jul 2013 - 9:58 AM


Quote: In other words, even with practice, experience and great skill, it's a one in a thousand chance. If you choose 'spray and pray' you might be lucky. If you rely on years of accumulated skill and experience (enough to get a job with Getty)' it's a bloody great shot, made better by the framing of the scoreboard.

Let's be realistic, that shot is luck whether you use 'spray and pray' or 'one shot AF'. The photographer would probably have planned to have Murray in front of the scoreboard with his name (that's the easy part), but no-one can convince me that the photographer said to himself 'I want the racket positioned so that it frames Murray's face below his name'. There are far too many variables for a pro to even begin to plan it. It does not stop it being a good photograph, but the thing about pros is that they make their own luck and increase the chance of something like this turning up.

Last Modified By mikehit at 15 Jul 2013 - 9:59 AM

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.