Sports Photos
David Cleland
Hi all,
not sure if anyone remembers me from posting here last summer. I purchased a
canon 75-300 lens for my canon 300d - I am trying it out on sports
photography with very average outcomes. Is the 73-300 lens at £120 fit for
sport or do I need one of the pro lens that look massive and cost massive ?
Some of my photos can be seen at
http://wallacehighrugby.org/content/view/40/2/ but some are fuzzy others are
just boring.... any tips on sports photography or any sites dedicated to it
would be appreciated.
David
Unspam
I think you have some good pictures there but they would have benefited from
a faster lens with a wider maximum aperture to help to isolate the players
from the background and also this would allow you to use faster shutter
speeds to freeze the action.
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
You need high-quality glass for really outstanding sports photos. A
Canon 75-300 zoom isn't going to cut it. See:
http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberPhoto.asp?ID=918
http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberPhoto.asp?ID=919
David Cleland
> I think you have some good pictures there but they would have benefited
> from
> a faster lens with a wider maximum aperture to help to isolate the players
> from the background and also this would allow you to use faster shutter
> speeds to freeze the action.
thanks for the replies,
What lens would you recommend for the purpose ? is the canon 300d a good
enough camera ? I found myself clicking fast to get the action and finding
the camera jammed up writing to the cf card.
also I am using the sports mode on the camera, would I be best to set it
manually, and if so would anyone mind telling me how - I am a complete
novice teacher taking pictures for the school website.
David
grol
"David Cleland" <davidc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:11076314...@lotis.uk.clara.net...
I see what you mean about fuzzy. Most cheap tele-zooms are very soft at wide
open at max zoom. Usually they are sharpest at around F8-F11. This means that
shutter speed is going to be real slow. Slow shutter speed is not good for
moving subjects i.e. sports. With any telephoto lens, you really need a good
sturdy tripod, if you haven't one already. I would think that the lens is the
most limiting factor, not the camera. The 300D should be fine. A faster lens
will improve the pics alot, but these a mega expensive. I guess you should use
the highest ISO setting on your camera that you can get away with, use a tripod,
and not shoot wide open if you can help it (perhaps just one stop under).
grol
grol
"grol" <grol...@NOSPAM.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:BSlNd.15363$mo2.1...@news.xtra.co.nz...
Forgot to mention, if you suspect your lens is very soft, you should do some
test images of still subjects on a tripod. It's not uncommon to get a soft lens.
If so, return it, swap it. The Canon 70-300 is pretty sharp (not excellent
though) for a consumer tele.
Mike Kohary
>> Hi all,
>>
>> not sure if anyone remembers me from posting here last summer. I
>> purchased a canon 75-300 lens for my canon 300d - I am trying it out
>> on sports photography with very average outcomes. Is the 73-300 lens
>> at £120 fit for sport or do I need one of the pro lens that look
>> massive and cost massive ? Some of my photos can be seen at
>> http://wallacehighrugby.org/content/view/40/2/ but some are fuzzy
>> others are just boring.... any tips on sports photography or any
>> sites dedicated to it would be appreciated.
>
> benefited from a faster lens with a wider maximum aperture to help to
> isolate the players from the background and also this would allow you
> to use faster shutter speeds to freeze the action.
Agreed. When you look at most pro sports pictures, the background is always
extremely fuzzy (small aperture), and the action is completely frozen (high
shutter speed). The lens quality is critical in sports photography, because
it needs to be fast and sharp when fully zoomed. I think the camera being
used is fine (though the buffer is limited to only 4 shots, which provides a
challenge), but the lens doesn't look to be up to par with the expectations
of the shooter.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com
Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Kohary
>
> What lens would you recommend for the purpose?
How much are you prepared to spend? ;) Seriously, a 300mm or 400mm zoom
lens that's as sharp as you probably want it is going to cost you a small
fortune.
> is the canon 300d a
> good enough camera? I found myself clicking fast to get the action
> and finding the camera jammed up writing to the cf card.
It's good enough, but as you say, you'll be limited by the buffer, and
therefore challenged to be more picky in your shooting. It can be done - I
do it all the time - but I'm also upgrading to a 20D next week, partly for
the purpose of doing away with this limitation. That said, the 300D can
take terrific sports shots. The lens is what is critical here.
> also I am using the sports mode on the camera, would I be best to set
> it manually, and if so would anyone mind telling me how - I am a
> complete novice teacher taking pictures for the school website.
You would be best to set it manually, or at least on one of the priority
modes. Try setting it to aperture priority, and then set your f number as
low as possible (use the wheel to dial it down). That should ensure a fast
shutter speed (at least as fast as that lens is capable of) which will
freeze the action and help with sharpness, while providing plenty of blur
for the background, isolating the player as they do in all pro sports
photography.
David Cleland
> Forgot to mention, if you suspect your lens is very soft, you should do
> some
> test images of still subjects on a tripod. It's not uncommon to get a soft
> lens.
> If so, return it, swap it. The Canon 70-300 is pretty sharp (not excellent
> though) for a consumer tele.
>
I will try some test shots, I think I need to learn technique, would a
mono-pod help ?
What do you think of the pics other than the sharpness ? as a newbie any
tips comments would be appreciated - are the pics acceptable with the pros ?
David
Mike Kohary
>
> What do you think of the pics other than the sharpness ? as a newbie
> any tips comments would be appreciated - are the pics acceptable with
> the pros ?
My thoughts:
- They need to be even more close-up, or cropped to appear so.
- The best pictures show the ball in action, or the players engaged in
action. It's also nice to see at least one face.
- Don't post every single picture you took. Pick only the best ones, and
post those. Quality over quantity. You might find that only 10-20% of the
pictures turn out really good, and that's perfectly ok. If people have to
go through every picture to find the few good ones, the perception of the
pictures as a whole will drop. But if you post only the good ones, the
overall perception will be very positive.
David Cleland
> Agreed. When you look at most pro sports pictures, the background is
> always extremely fuzzy (small aperture), and the action is completely
> frozen (high shutter speed). The lens quality is critical in sports
> photography, because it needs to be fast and sharp when fully zoomed. I
> think the camera being used is fine (though the buffer is limited to only
> 4 shots, which provides a challenge), but the lens doesn't look to be up
> to par with the expectations of the shooter.
Agreed, the 4 shot is a challenge, but there is no way I can afford a big
camera. I have increased the size of the photos on site - as I found the
ones I published actually looked fuzzier than the real ones.
http://wallacehighrugby.org/content/view/40/2/ if anyone had time could they
comment on the sharpness.
I am happy with this shot
http://wallacehighrugby.org/images/thirdround/3rdround05%20046.jpg
but should have focused on more to remove other player.
This one is ok
http://wallacehighrugby.org/images/thirdround/3rdround05%20048.jpg
but I think this is my best, not in terms of action but it grabs a moment, a
player shaking the hand of the other team's coach, there is just something
about it that............
http://wallacehighrugby.org/images/thirdround/3rdround05%20076.jpg
David
David Cleland
> You would be best to set it manually, or at least on one of the priority
> modes. Try setting it to aperture priority, and then set your f number as
> low as possible (use the wheel to dial it down). That should ensure a
> fast shutter speed (at least as fast as that lens is capable of) which
> will freeze the action and help with sharpness, while providing plenty of
> blur for the background, isolating the player as they do in all pro sports
> photography.
This is where I am lost, is there any books on this ? I got to AF mode and
that the f number as low as I can with the wheel.
I will give this a go -the team is playing again wednesday week, so I am
back out in action. Is there an ultimate set up or lens for this work ?
David
David Cleland
> - The best pictures show the ball in action, or the players engaged in
> action. It's also nice to see at least one face.
Yes, the problem is from the ones on the site I find it hard to pick the
best ones..... they all look the same.
David
David Cleland
This is the lens I have
http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product_info.php?manufacturers_id=&products_id=98415
Would this be better
http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product_info.php?manufacturers_id=&products_id=98416
David
"David Cleland" <davidc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:110771372...@iris.uk.clara.net...
Mike Kohary
>
> http://wallacehighrugby.org/content/view/40/2/ if anyone had time
> could they comment on the sharpness.
The sharpness actually looks fine. I would focus more on framing and
composition. For action shots, try to get all of the player in the shot.
For sideline shots, it's ok to go waist-up or face portrait, but for action,
I want to see everything.
> I am happy with this shot
> http://wallacehighrugby.org/images/thirdround/3rdround05%20046.jpg
>
> but should have focused on more to remove other player.
I was going to point this out as the best shot myself. I wish the framing
had been a little lower - where's their feet? ;)
> This one is ok
> http://wallacehighrugby.org/images/thirdround/3rdround05%20048.jpg
Yeah, again I wanted to see the feet.
> but I think this is my best, not in terms of action but it grabs a
> moment, a player shaking the hand of the other team's coach, there is
> just something about it that............
>
> http://wallacehighrugby.org/images/thirdround/3rdround05%20076.jpg
That is a pretty nice shot - but again with the feet! :) Sorry to nag, but
I'm distracted by it each time. It's also too bad the guy in the yellow
shirt is standing between them, but there's nothing you can do about that.
That's the thing about sports shots - you're completely at the mercy of the
circumstances. That's why you take a thousand shots, and just pick the best
25-50. But I think the ones you pointed out, if they were framed just a bit
lower, would make very nice shots indeed. Keep it up!
Stephen Maudsley
"Mike Kohary" <so...@no.spam> wrote in message
news:cu5il8$igv$0...@pita.alt.net...
With the 300D isn't sports mode the only mode that supports a tracking auto
focus?
David Cleland
> bit lower, would make very nice shots indeed. Keep it up!
Thanks - these are good points, I will work on this for next time and see if
I can make any improvements. Really at this stage my equipment is fine I
need to work on technique.
Thanks for the comments, it does look (as I go through the photos) that I am
aiming too high, too much sky and not enough action.
There was a really brilliant photo opp that I missed as the camera was
writing to the CF card, I was tempted to run on and ask if they could do it
again - but I refrained.
Thanks again,
David
Mike Kohary
>
> This is where I am lost, is there any books on this?
Tons. :) Just pick up a photography basics book, and start from there.
You just need to know how to manipulate the aperture, shutter speed and ISO
in order to achieve certain desired effects and exposures. It's actually
not that hard once you get the hang of it.
> I got to AF
> mode and that the f number as low as I can with the wheel.
Yup, that's what you want. What's the lowest number you can get?
> I will give this a go -the team is playing again wednesday week, so I
> am back out in action. Is there an ultimate set up or lens for this
> work ?
I currently use the Canon EF 70mm-200mm f4/L. I'd like even more zoom, but
it does well in most situations for my amateur needs. (Sorry, I don't have
any sports shots posted on my website, which is badly in need of updating,
but I'll see if I can post something soon to give you an example.) Setting
my aperture to f4 gives me nice blur and separation, and on brighter days
allows for very fast shutter speeds. Even on overcast days, it's fast
enough. If I were going pro, I'd get something that could reach at least
twice as long and with a lower f-stop, like f2.8.
David Cleland
> Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com
>
> Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
> Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I checked out your site, your photos are unreal !! The colors etc are
brilliant what digital camera do you use. Obviously it is nothing to do with
the camera but to the photographer but just looking reassurance that my kit
is up to it.
David
Mike Kohary
> This is the lens I have
>
> http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product_info.php?manufacturers_id=&products_id=98415
>
> Would this be better
> http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product_info.php?manufacturers_id=&products_id=98416
I'm not familiar with either lens. They seem pretty inexpensive, and you
tend to get what you apy for, so... :) Not to say they're bad, I'm sure
they're fine. But what kind of results are you looking for? If you're
looking for pro-style results, these probably aren't satisfactory. But if
you're just into it as a hobbyist, they might be perfectly fine. Check
Google to find reviews on these.
Mike Kohary
> "Mike Kohary" <so...@no.spam> wrote in message
>>
>> priority modes. Try setting it to aperture priority, and then set
>> your f number as low as possible (use the wheel to dial it down).
>> That should ensure a fast shutter speed (at least as fast as that
>> lens is capable of) which will freeze the action and help with
>> sharpness, while providing plenty of blur for the background,
>> isolating the player as they do in all pro sports photography.
>
> With the 300D isn't sports mode the only mode that supports a
> tracking auto focus?
I think you're right, but then you lose control over everything else. Maybe
that's ok, because I think sports mode sets the largest aperture and highest
shutter speed by default. Maybe I should try it myself, because that's
probably why I have so much trouble focusing during action shots. ;)
Mike Kohary
>> 25-50. But I think the ones you pointed out, if they were framed
>> just a bit lower, would make very nice shots indeed. Keep it up!
>
> Thanks - these are good points, I will work on this for next time and
> see if I can make any improvements. Really at this stage my equipment
> is fine I need to work on technique.
I agree, and that's a really good attitude to take. Equipment can always
come later; you can work on technique all the time.
> Thanks for the comments, it does look (as I go through the photos)
> that I am aiming too high, too much sky and not enough action.
Right, aim a little lower and I think you'll be pleased.
Mike Kohary
Feel reassured then, because I use the same camera as you. :) Well, some
shots were taken with older cameras (a Minolta film SLR which I can't
remember the model name of, and a Canon Powershot G2). I carefully
post-process everything in Photoshop Elements, and if you don't do that now,
you'll want to learn how. It's not really that hard, and it makes a huge
difference.
I do buy the Canon "L" lenses (I'm addicted!), which are their pro line, but
with good post-processing you can achieve great color saturation too, as
well as some extra sharpness. Let me know if you need tips on that.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David Cleland
> I agree, and that's a really good attitude to take. Equipment can always
> come later; you can work on technique all the time.
I am only getting in to it - I have a few other pics at www.thegallops.net -
I personally like my flower pic and the trees pic, the others are just "ok"
DAvid
Mike Kohary
>
> I am only getting in to it - I have a few other pics at
> www.thegallops.net - I personally like my flower pic and the trees
> pic, the others are just "ok"
That's a very nicely designed website - did you do that? I like the
butterfly pictures, are those yours?
David Cleland
> Yup, that's what you want. What's the lowest number you can get?
On Av mode the lowest number is 5.0
There is a TV mode and I can get 30"
David
David Cleland
> shots were taken with older cameras (a Minolta film SLR which I can't
> remember the model name of, and a Canon Powershot G2). I carefully
> post-process everything in Photoshop Elements, and if you don't do that
> now, you'll want to learn how.
I have both photoshop elements and premier elements - I bought the bundle.
What do you do to the pictures to process them ? For the photos from
saturday I took them, deleted the really bad ones and used a thumbnail
creator app.
So the Canon 300d is a good camera :) great news - now to learn :)
David
David Cleland
> That's a very nicely designed website - did you do that? I like the
> butterfly pictures, are those yours?
All the pictures on the site are mine I am pleased to say, I prefer the
trees and the one flower on the top right. I designed the site minimally it
is a portal app - same as www.wallacehighrugby.org but tweaked a little.
Actually gallops is my development site where I try things before porting
over to the busy rugby site.
It is an app called mambo that runs on php and it is totally ace.
DAvid
Marvin
> Hi all,
>
> not sure if anyone remembers me from posting here last summer. I purchased a
> canon 75-300 lens for my canon 300d - I am trying it out on sports
> photography with very average outcomes. Is the 73-300 lens at £120 fit for
> sport or do I need one of the pro lens that look massive and cost massive ?
> Some of my photos can be seen at
> http://wallacehighrugby.org/content/view/40/2/ but some are fuzzy others are
> just boring.... any tips on sports photography or any sites dedicated to it
> would be appreciated.
>
>
>
>
Professional pjotographers start with very good equipment, and then take a lot of photos, knowing that only a few of them
will be really good. Like many others, I've learned to take lots of photos with a digicam, and just discard the majority.
For active sports, I set the camera to take a rapid sequence of photos, hoping that at least one of them will be at the right
moment.
Mike Kohary
>> Yup, that's what you want. What's the lowest number you can get?
>
> On Av mode the lowest number is 5.0
For sports, that's a bit slow. It limits how fast you can set your shutter
speed (the two are dependent on each other to get a proper exposure). If
you're looking for a new lens (which it kind of seemed you were), look for
one that gets f4 or better (lower is better). That will allow you to get
faster shutter speeds, which can freeze the action better and give you
sharper pictures overall.
Mike Kohary
>> Feel reassured then, because I use the same camera as you. :) Well, some
>> shots were taken with older cameras (a Minolta film SLR
>> which I can't remember the model name of, and a Canon Powershot G2).
>> I carefully post-process everything in Photoshop Elements, and if
>> you don't do that now, you'll want to learn how.
>
> I have both photoshop elements and premier elements - I bought the
> bundle. What do you do to the pictures to process them ? For the
> photos from saturday I took them, deleted the really bad ones and
> used a thumbnail creator app.
I use Levels and Unsharp Mask. Don't use Auto Level, use it manually.
Here's a great site on how to use Levels, Unsharp Mask, and how to read the
histogram (the website is specifically about scanning, but the same
principles apply to any kind of digital photo post-processing):
http://www.scantips.com/simple.html
Mike Kohary
Thanks, I may look into it. My website is my own design, and it uses a
database that I designed and maintain myself, but I'm not a pro coder and
it's a pain if I want to add features, etc, so I've been looking around at
other things like what you use.
grol
>
>
> > Forgot to mention, if you suspect your lens is very soft, you should do
> > some
> > test images of still subjects on a tripod. It's not uncommon to get a soft
> > lens.
> > If so, return it, swap it. The Canon 70-300 is pretty sharp (not excellent
> > though) for a consumer tele.
> >
>
Hi
I'm no pro, but here's my $0.02 anyways. ;-)
> I will try some test shots, I think I need to learn technique, would a
> mono-pod help ?
I mono-pod may help. But a strong (not a cheap flimsy) tri-pod is really needed.
Basically with a steady hand you need 1/500 sec at 300mm, and 1/90+ sec at the
70mm end. A mono-pod may help a little, but perhaps not as good with a heavier
zoom lens.
> What do you think of the pics other than the sharpness ? as a newbie any
> tips comments would be appreciated - are the pics acceptable with the pros ?
I liked this one, but could be more cropped/zoomed:
http://wallacehighrugby.org/images/thirdround/3rdround05%20046.jpg
Interesting one here, what's going on in the pic? :-)
http://wallacehighrugby.org/images/thirdround/3rdround05%20041.jpg
This is a better cropped/zoomed one:
http://wallacehighrugby.org/images/thirdround/3rdround05%20021.jpg
When the blurry issues are resolved, the person you have focused on should
become the main thing your eye gets drawn to, as the other players will be out
of focus. The shot is too blurry for this to happen. A wider aperture increases
this affect.
The team posed photos are not sharp either. What lens, shutter speed, etc are
you using? The first pic, the players feet don't like horizontal to the photo.
regards,
grol
grol
>
> This is the lens I have
>
>
http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product_info.php?manufacturers_id=&products_id=98415
>
>
>
> Would this be better
>
http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product_info.php?manufacturers_id=&products_id=98416
The problem is that they are both only F4-F5.6 max aperture (a slow lens). Both
lenses are not particularly sharp either. The more expensive USM lens will
reduce camera shake, but a faster lens will allow faster shutter speeds.
Something with a constant F4 might be a little better but very costly. And a
constant F2.8 would make you get a 2nd mortgage on your house (they cost
NZ$15,986 here = US$11,000)!!!
Test your lens on still subjects with a good tripod to rule out a dud lens and
peace of mind.
grol.
David Cleland
> All the pictures on the site are mine I am pleased to say, I prefer the
> trees and the one flower on the top right. I designed the site minimally
> it is a portal app - same as www.wallacehighrugby.org but tweaked a
> little. Actually gallops is my development site where I try things before
> porting over to the busy rugby site.
I added a new set
http://thegallops.net/content/view/28/2/
David
grol
>
> > Yup, that's what you want. What's the lowest number you can get?
>
> On Av mode the lowest number is 5.0
Because your lens is F4-5.6 the most wide open at the 70mm end is F4. And the
widest at the 300mm end is F5.6.
AV mode = Aperture Priority. You set the aperture and the camera calculates the
shutterspeed.
>
> There is a TV mode and I can get 30"
>
TV mode I am guessing is your Shutter Priority mode where you select a shutter
speed and the camera selects the aperture for you. In this case 30" is 30
seconds.
To get the highest shutter speed you need to stick it on AV mode and put the
camera on widest aperture. I would try one stop lower though, as even though
this will reduce shutter speed, wide open is often the softest part of the lens.
Lenses are often sharpest 2-3 stops under wide open.
grol
David Cleland
> The team posed photos are not sharp either. What lens, shutter speed, etc
> are
> you using? The first pic, the players feet don't like horizontal to the
> photo.
yeah, this was a quick few shots, another teacher with a regular camera set
the pic up, I had to run backwards quite a distance to get them all in -
75-300 lens. I then paniced and took little time over the shots.
David
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
David Cleland wrote:
> > I think you have some good pictures there but they would have
benefited
> > from
> > a faster lens with a wider maximum aperture to help to isolate the
players
> > from the background and also this would allow you to use faster
shutter
> > speeds to freeze the action.
>
>
> thanks for the replies,
>
> What lens would you recommend for the purpose ? is the canon 300d a
good
> enough camera ? I found myself clicking fast to get the action and
finding
> the camera jammed up writing to the cf card.
>
>
it
> manually, and if so would anyone mind telling me how - I am a
complete
> novice teacher taking pictures for the school website.
>
To do what you want, it will cost big bucks. Big, high-quality lenses
and film cameras are the best for this kind of work. I use a Leicaflex
SL-2 with a 560mm f/6,8 Telyt-R, which is designed for action and
nature work.
That's what I used for these:
http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberPhoto.asp?ID=918
http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberPhoto.asp?ID=919
http://www.wildlightphoto.com/leica/560r68.html
http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/meleagridae/wituinfo.html
David Cleland
> To do what you want, it will cost big bucks. Big, high-quality lenses
> and film cameras are the best for this kind of work. I use a Leicaflex
> SL-2 with a 560mm f/6,8 Telyt-R, which is designed for action and
> nature work.
I fear the costs would be too much - really my audience is limited - and I
can manage to gain the techniques to get the best pics from the kit I have
then I will have improved greatly.
David
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
As in most things in life, entry-level products and high-end products
differ substantially in performance.
Why a digital camera?
me
news:1107729402.8...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Dear UC:
OH MY GOD! How could you dare ask: "Why a digital camera?". As I write these
very words the alt.photography NG gang is marshaling it's forces to crucify
you. All I can say is, "To those who are about to die, we salute you" and
"Shine on you crazy diamond!"
Film best,
me
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
I would not have a digital if you gave it to me.
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
I have seen this over and over. People buy cheap stuff and then
complain that their photos are inadequate.
You get what you pay for. Practicing with what you have won't get you
any better photos.
ch...@go.com
any better photos. `
- No, of coooouuuuurse not. Just take one photo with any camera, and
that is the best you will ever do. Don't bother learning new stuff,
just accept that you will only get better if you have hideously
expensive gear.........|O:
*I* have seen camera salespeople like this over and over. Instead of
teaching their clients better techniques, they just blame most problems
on their equipment - and of course want their commission.
To the Op I would ask - are you using a tri/mono-pod, and/or any other
techniques to keep the camera rock steady? Are you shooting at the
highest ISO speed? Can you find a higher location so the players will
tend to have a grass background? Have you considered `cheating` with
photoshop to blur your backgrounds (heheh!)? Can you relocate to a
country with better weather? (sorry)....
Look back at the images that really worked (and there are some good
ones in your collection, so don't despair!) - WHY did they work? Are
you able to concentrate more on those (eg perhaps shoot more when the
action is close, shoot less when far away), and work on your
composition a little - eg I note some shots seemed to be shot too high
- cut off legs but plenty of headroom!
Also, experiment with your levels adjustments (gamma, and black/white
point), as some of the images look a bit flat. Lastly - have you
cropped these images? - Some of them could use a bit of the slash and
burn technique - consider what each image is actually about, and do you
need all the peripherals (at the risk of upsetting friends and
relatives in the crowd who might be removed!)?. This will, of course,
also tend to magnify any focus/blurring problems, but if they are
mainly for the web you probably have a fair bit of room to move..
Mspn
I have the exact same camera you have, and I use a 70-200 2.8 USM lens. The
price of that lens is about 1500 dollar. So it is affordable. Check out
www.spelten.com for the sports pics I took with it.
Marco
"David Cleland" <davidc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:11076314...@lotis.uk.clara.net...
BillB
> - Don't post every single picture you took. Pick only the best ones, and
> post those. Quality over quantity. You might find that only 10-20% of the
> pictures turn out really good, and that's perfectly ok. If people have to
> go through every picture to find the few good ones, the perception of the
> pictures as a whole will drop. But if you post only the good ones, the
> overall perception will be very positive.
I recently heard in a radio interview that when typical theatrical
films are edited down for the final release, nearly 90% of the 35mm
film used doesn't "make the cut". In the past, still photography
might have encouraged some to use most shots due to the cost of
supplies (the larger the negative the more imperative this was).
With digital cameras, avoiding "wasted shots" no longer needs to be
as much of a concern as it used to be. All that's lost is a bit of
time and battery power, but they may be made up for by gained
experience and knowledge.
Dirty Harry
"Mike Kohary" <so...@no.spam> wrote in message
news:cu5pdb$vdb$0...@pita.alt.net...
> Stephen Maudsley wrote:
> > "Mike Kohary" <so...@no.spam> wrote in message
> >>
> >> You would be best to set it manually, or at least on one of the
> >> priority modes. Try setting it to aperture priority, and then set
> >> your f number as low as possible (use the wheel to dial it down).
> >> That should ensure a fast shutter speed (at least as fast as that
> >> lens is capable of) which will freeze the action and help with
> >> sharpness, while providing plenty of blur for the background,
> >> isolating the player as they do in all pro sports photography.
> >
> > With the 300D isn't sports mode the only mode that supports a
> > tracking auto focus?
>
> I think you're right, but then you lose control over everything else.
Maybe
> that's ok, because I think sports mode sets the largest aperture and
highest
> shutter speed by default. Maybe I should try it myself, because that's
> probably why I have so much trouble focusing during action shots. ;)
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com
>
> Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
> Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yea this is correct, its pretty sad...but true. I was hoping the guy that
made the hacked firmware would get around to getting this working. This is
about the best workaround you can do...
http://www.xmldatabases.org/WK/blog/1454_Digital_Rebel_Hack_No._2_-_Full_time_AI_Servo.item
the sports mode limits you to 400 iso and you can't use the flash, but an
external one works...
David Cleland
> I would not have a digital if you gave it to me.
actually, technically you would. If he gave you it you would have it ?
David
David Cleland
> OH MY GOD! How could you dare ask: "Why a digital camera?". As I write
> these
> very words the alt.photography NG gang is marshaling it's forces to
> crucify
> you. All I can say is, "To those who are about to die, we salute you" and
> "Shine on you crazy diamond!"
> Film best,
> me
Yes, but without digital how could I take a photos and have them on the
website within 2-3 hours.
David
D...@me.com
Sad isn't it that in the us of a the 70-200 f2.8 costa $1500 but in the
UK it costs £1500. Rip off UK again.
Still David, get the fastest lens you can afford. I too use the 70-200
f2.8 for some football shots but in the main use a 300 mm f2.8.
If you really must have the versitility of a zoom lens Canon do a 100 -
400 mm f4.0 lens for a reasonable price. (decide what is reasonable -
£1000+ here)
In good light I shoot on the 300 mm at f4.0 - f4.5 so this would be
possible with the 100 - 400.
400mm on a 300D is equivalent to 640mm. Therefore, effectivly a 640 mm
f4.0. Longer than canons f4.0, £6000 600mm f4.0.
As someone pointed out in this thread, you get what you pays for in
this game.
By the way, looking at some of your shots on your site, get a bit lower
down to ground level, that will help things a bit as well.
Keep at it and god luck.
DAve H
In article <42071dde$0$4783$ee9d...@news.euronet.nl>, Mspn
David Cleland
> down to ground level, that will help things a bit as well.
thanks - I am going to try that at the next match. I am in the UK and there
is no way I can afford those prices - so it is time to do the best with what
I have......
It is very enjoyable though :)
David
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
I have taught my clients better techniques. Having been down the road
a lot more times than they have been, one is in a position to learn
from experience, both one's own and that of one's clients.
The point is to start them off right to begin with. Seldom would
customer ever want to buy more than he needed. One fellow wanted to buy
an F4, but I convinced him an N90s just what he needed, and it was.
Usually, it was a struggle to get them to spend enough. The smart ones
would listen.
me
news:1107747912.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Me neither! You are obviously a man of exceptional taste and intellect.
Film best,
me
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
Yeah, then what happens?
me
news:11077709...@lotis.uk.clara.net...
Just curious but do you require that and why?
Film best,
me
Unspam
>
> Sad isn't it that in the us of a the 70-200 f2.8 costa $1500 but in the
> UK it costs £1500. Rip off UK again.
>
> Still David, get the fastest lens you can afford. I too use the 70-200
> f2.8 for some football shots but in the main use a 300 mm f2.8.
>
> If you really must have the versitility of a zoom lens Canon do a 100 -
> 400 mm f4.0 lens for a reasonable price. (decide what is reasonable -
> £1000+ here)
>
> In good light I shoot on the 300 mm at f4.0 - f4.5 so this would be
> possible with the 100 - 400.
>
> 400mm on a 300D is equivalent to 640mm. Therefore, effectivly a 640 mm
> f4.0. Longer than canons f4.0, £6000 600mm f4.0.
>
> As someone pointed out in this thread, you get what you pays for in
> this game.
>
> By the way, looking at some of your shots on your site, get a bit lower
> down to ground level, that will help things a bit as well.
>
> Keep at it and god luck.
>
> DAve H
>
>
> In article <42071dde$0$4783$ee9d...@news.euronet.nl>, Mspn
> <mspe...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
You can get one on ebay from Hong Kong for 895.00 plus £45 postage. I got
one and the service is quicker than buying from here.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3871319593&category=4687&
sspagename=rvi:1:3v_search
grol
Ignore the "me" troll.
piemanlarger
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107790065.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
You sell the images, make more money and buy better equipment, or go on
holiday again!
Pieman
>
piemanlarger
Shops such as Jessops (UK) can put you photos on disk as they as scanned and
printed, most are only charging £2 per disk.
Pieman
> David
>
>
piemanlarger
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107654366.6...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>You need high-quality glass for really outstanding sports photos. A
Canon 75-300 zoom isn't going to cut it.
Good shots come from good lens, fortunately it does not always mean high
expense. I dont know much about canons apart from we (the brits) used to use
them on ships to rule the world. Now the Japs have them and they rule the
Brits!
Anyway, much like young David I was once starting out as a "pro" sports
photographer having jacked in my 12 years as a stock controller and I was
convinced that good shots only came from expensive lens and camera. I was
using a sigma 70-210 f2.8APO lens and getting superb results from it, every
bit as good as the expensive f2.8 Minolta equivalent lens I "tested" for a
couple of weeks. I could not really afford the Minolta lens at the time,
and as it was no better than the sigma one there was no point. My sigma lens
lasted for about 4 years before falling apart (i do off road motorcycle
photography so very dusty in summer and wet and muddy the other 50 weeks of
the year!). The day it fell apart i needed an instant replacement, my local
jessops only had a 2nd hand 70-210 f4 Minolta lens in stock. I paid about
Ł80 for it, the sigma at the time was Ł700 or near. Anyway, the f4 Minolta
was almost as good as the sigma, I thought it was slightly less sharp than
the sigma, but only on enlargements 18x12 inch for example. Certainly the
first weekend it was used the picture editor phoned me to say how nice and
sharp he thought that weekends prints were, he thought they were better! So
i used it for about 3 years making lots of money until i picked up another
sigma last year, but this time for only Ł300 off sigma direct.
Yes I have spent Ł80 on std zoom lens and could have had better results
from a washing up bottle and a bit of cling film over the end, but there are
bargains about. Try as many lens as you can until you get a good one. Most
decent shops will allow you to fire shots off with a lens and at least being
digital you can instantly get an idea of the results, even if you have a few
test prints made.
Pieman
piemanlarger
> > - They need to be even more close-up, or cropped to appear so.
> > - The best pictures show the ball in action, or the players engaged in
> > action. It's also nice to see at least one face.
>
>
> Yes, the problem is from the ones on the site I find it hard to pick the
> best ones..... they all look the same.
Generally what Mike said is correct. Try buying every sunday newspaper this
weekend or if its just rugby your hopping to photograph, one copy of each of
the weekly / monthly specialist rugby mags and look at the photos used in
these. This is standard and style of photograph you need to be producing if
you wan to get anywhere in this field! Compare the shots used with yours,it
will probably be apparent whjat the obvious differences are.
Pieman
>
> David
>
>
me
news:kSQNd.1833$K_6....@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
Good answer Pieman I was going to say the same thing only about US film
processors. I'm curious does that price include prints?
Film best,
me
PS: The alt.photography gang hate it when I say film best. They first
attacked me on 10/29/04 in "Camera for my Wife": http://tinyurl.com/5brkq
David Cleland
>
> You sell the images, make more money and buy better equipment, or go on
> holiday again!
>
> Pieman
you have not seen my images then :)
david
David Cleland
> Anyway, much like young David
jeepers been a while I'm 32 !!!
David
David Cleland
> Generally what Mike said is correct. Try buying every sunday newspaper
> this
> weekend or if its just rugby your hopping to photograph, one copy of each
> of
> the weekly / monthly specialist rugby mags and look at the photos used in
> these. This is standard and style of photograph you need to be producing
> if
> you wan to get anywhere in this field! Compare the shots used with
> yours,it
> will probably be apparent whjat the obvious differences are.
yeah, I have learnt a right few things already, I am looking forward to the
next match now to see if I can improve any. One problem I am having is I am
now bombarded with requests for the images on cd from parents. I can not
seem to avoid creating work for myself.
David
David Cleland
> Generally what Mike said is correct. Try buying every sunday newspaper
> this
> weekend or if its just rugby your hopping to photograph, one copy of each
> of
> the weekly / monthly specialist rugby mags and look at the photos used in
> these. This is standard and style of photograph you need to be producing
> if
> you wan to get anywhere in this field! Compare the shots used with
> yours,it
> will probably be apparent whjat the obvious differences are.
>
> Pieman
Pieman - what do you think of these pics I took recently ?
http://thegallops.net/content/view/28/2/
better than the sports ?
David
piemanlarger
"grol" <grol...@NOSPAM.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jjuNd.15398$mo2.1...@news.xtra.co.nz...
>
> "
> >
>
> Hi
>
> I'm no pro, but here's my $0.02 anyways. ;-)
>
> > I will try some test shots, I think I need to learn technique, would a
> > mono-pod help ?
>
> I mono-pod may help. But a strong (not a cheap flimsy) tri-pod is really
needed.
> Basically with a steady hand you need 1/500 sec at 300mm, and 1/90+ sec at
the
> 70mm end. A mono-pod may help a little, but perhaps not as good with a
heavier
> zoom lens.
>
It would be impossible to get good rugby shots with a tripod, the game is
just to flowing and unpredictable for it so forget it, apart from perhaps
team portraits etc.
Monopods are used but again they can get in the way with action that is
close to you. Most monopods are used on 300+ ml lens.
Pieman
piemanlarger
Are you certified/checked out by the police? Just a thought, I think it was
about £20 but it means they are fairly happy you are not a pervert and are
ok to photograph children. absolutely bulshit in most circumstances but the
way PC (pol. corrct) is these days its worth doing to cover yourself. Allot
of events where children are going to be photographed now require about 2
weeks notice of your intention to attend and take photographs so the parents
can be warned!
Pieman
Unspam
They also put them on CD and process your films simultaneously, however they
do not like professional photographers.
piemanlarger
Your asking the wrong person really. To me, there are two reasons to take
photographs. One is to sell them, so i have to know what the customer wants.
the other is to please me so i dont care what anyone else says about them,
as long as I or in your case you are happy with them, they are ok.
However, top photo of flower.
No flower expert me, it looks ok, I cant check how much depth of field there
is and if its pin sharp though, cant enlarge it. Perhaps you could have
cropped in a bit tighter on it. The background is nicely out of focus but
for me there is a bit too much of it, if its a photo of a flower then lets
have the flower?
Stones. The top left hand corner is black /empty and so uninteresting. I
would have cropped this off, or perhaps better still lowered the shot to
loose it and perhaps got some more stones /water in at the bottom? Other
wise its a pleasing shot.
Sunset.
To much darkness at the bottom of the shot, more wasted paper? I
cant say its a stunning sunset shot but as you, like I are in the Uk (im in
Wales, did you hear about the rugby game on the weekend by the away?) we are
not blessed with grand canyons. The sky has interst but the trees dont do
anything for me, a nice strong english oak would have been gereat, plant a
seed know and return in 10 years and you have the shot. alternativley cut
and past sky to different oak tree shot and in 10 mins you have the shot!
Church thing.
There is some sort of paint on the road to the left so
again i would have made a little crop to loose this yellow stuff which I
find slightly distracting as a lead into the photo. Other than that it seems
ok.
I spent a couple of years in a local camera club listening to other peoples
views when i was an amerture photographer. I always thaught allot of judges
picked "faults" in other peoples work just to have something to say and seem
as if they knew better. Attitudes changed towards me the day i announced i
had jacked my job in to do photography full time (Weddings more than sports
at the time). People did not like me telling them work they were picking
faults in had sold, and as i said for me that's what it is all about, either
pleasing yourself or your customer, you dont have to please me with your
work.
Pieman
grol
> Pieman
Thought you might appreciate this:
http://www.explodingdog.com/sept27/goodpie.html
Simple, but so effective.
Mmm.... I like pie!
grol
piemanlarger
great, motion blur, zoom bursts etc. Not much of it sold! You soon learn
what the market wants and now if I have to look back at those shots I do say
they are crap, but some of them still sold and I learnt from every shot.
The best tip i was ever given came from a very close friend whogot me into
photography when it was a passing phase for him. Just image every shot you
take is going to cost you £10 to print. It made me slow down (first off road
event I with an auttofocus 3 fps slr was a Mountain biking event, 30 rolls
of 36 exposure film in two days, over half went straight in the bin, follwed
by about 30% more upon taking a second look!) as i i slowed down i took
better shots. It does not count so much now with digital as we can just
delete unwanted shots, but it may help you in not having to delete so many
shots. Take a 1000 photos at your next rugby match if you think it will
help. an editor is only going to want 6-12 pin sharp action shots, so make
sure you have this many at least or he will not use you again.
Pieman
>
piemanlarger
"me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote in message
news:110folv...@corp.supernews.com...
no, Jessops (www.jessops.com) do the disk only for £2, prints are about £7 i
think for 36 film shots depending on size of print and print times.
Digital best Me!
Know thats something I would never have thaught 3 months ago.
Pieman
piemanlarger
"Unspam" <uns...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:BE2D9CAA.15946%uns...@mail.com...
I have no problems with my local jessops branch. I regularly walk in with
100-200 photos on a card and stick them through their machines. why does
your branch not like pros?
A pro should be given no better service than an amerture. If an amerture
accepts poor quality prints, he is not an amerture, but a fool.
Pieman
piemanlarger
To "arty" for my tastes!
>
>
Mike Kohary
>
> I added a new set
> http://thegallops.net/content/view/28/2/
All good shots, but I love that stepping stones picture - very nice!
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com
Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
You want to make money doing photography? How quaint!
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
Ah, but go to dental school and you can afford to buy the very best
equipment and travel the world, pay alimony for two wives, and own
three or four houses and a Porsche or Jaguar!
piemanlarger
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107822369.4...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
theres no want about it, I do.
Pieman
>
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
How quaint!
I give my work away.
>
> Pieman
>
>
> >
Mike Kohary
>> The team posed photos are not sharp either. What lens, shutter
>> speed, etc are
>> you using? The first pic, the players feet don't like horizontal to
>> the photo.
>
> yeah, this was a quick few shots, another teacher with a regular
> camera set the pic up, I had to run backwards quite a distance to get
> them all in - 75-300 lens. I then paniced and took little time over
> the shots.
lol...yeah, panic has afflicted us all at one time or another, and at least
in my case, continues to from time to time. I don't know that you ever get
over it entirely. ;) "I've got to get this shot, and I have like 2 seconds
to do it!" <raise camera, hastily click shutter - oops, it's angled like 20
degrees - try again, oh shit, the moment is gone!> ;)
Mike Kohary
>
> Yes, but without digital how could I take a photos and have them on
> the website within 2-3 hours.
You'll want to ignore the "advice" of the posters "me" and "uranium
committee". They are anti-digital trolls whose only objective is to confuse
you. All of the "advice" they may be giving you is not genuine, and is not
meant to help you.
Your original assessment is absolutely correct: practice with what you have
to improve your technique. Your pictures *will* improve, no matter what
equipment you're shooting with. A good photographer can obtain good
pictures with almost anything (in fact, I myself make it a point to practice
with "lesser" cameras from time to time, to keep myself on my toes and make
sure I'm maximizing my technique and creativity, and not just relying on
superior equipment to get good shots. The photographer, and not the camera
or lens, is the most important factor in any shot.)
Mike Kohary
> "David Cleland" <Davidc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:11077709...@lotis.uk.clara.net...
>>
>> the website within 2-3 hours.
>
> Shops such as Jessops (UK) can put you photos on disk as they as
> scanned and printed, most are only charging £2 per disk.
That's not cost-effective compared to digital, though.
Mike Kohary
>
> By the way, looking at some of your shots on your site, get a bit
> lower down to ground level, that will help things a bit as well.
Excellent advice. If you look at the pros shooting pro sports, they are all
on the sidelines, not in the stands. That's how you get the "you are there"
look.
piemanlarger
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107822847.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
It cant be worth selling then?
>
>
> >
> > Pieman
> >
> >
> > >
>
piemanlarger
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107822530.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
For which you have to spend all week in work and possably worse still, have
bad breath and spit spat at you!
No thanks, two days a week working when and where i want will do.
Pieman
>
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
Mike Kohary wrote:
> David Cleland wrote:
> >
> > Yes, but without digital how could I take a photos and have them on
> > the website within 2-3 hours.
>
> You'll want to ignore the "advice" of the posters "me" and "uranium
> committee". They are anti-digital trolls whose only objective is to
confuse
> you. All of the "advice" they may be giving you is not genuine, and
is not
> meant to help you.
>
> Your original assessment is absolutely correct: practice with what
you have
> to improve your technique. Your pictures *will* improve, no matter
what
> equipment you're shooting with. A good photographer can obtain good
> pictures with almost anything (in fact, I myself make it a point to
practice
> with "lesser" cameras from time to time, to keep myself on my toes
and make
> sure I'm maximizing my technique and creativity, and not just relying
on
> superior equipment to get good shots. The photographer, and not the
camera
> or lens, is the most important factor in any shot.)
Utter bullshit. It's certainly not true that "A good photographer can
obtain good pictures with almost anything". If pro photographers could
get by with amateur equipment, they would. The range of capabilities --
and the quality of result obtainable -- is considerably greater with
better equipment.
I have been engaged in 35mm photography for 40 years, and much of that
has been action or sports photography. I have photographed almost every
sport you can name (pro/college football, tennis, rugby, lacrosse,
soccer, basketball, fencing, swimming, gymnastics, etc.).
You'll note the ball just leaving the hands of the pitch-man in this
shot:
http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberPhoto.asp?ID=919
This takes concentration and anticipation. You have to know a little
about the sport, to anticipate the action.
And I didn't do this the first time, either. It takes years of
practice, even with good equipment. You can't expect results as good as
this right off the bat. But with better equipment, your capabilities
will be enhanced.
Unspam
Jessops have a company policy of not accepting commercial work in their
labs, I was informed of this after by the general manager after spending
around £10,000 on processing last year. Now that's customer service for you,
I now go elsewhere where they like to earn money.
me
> "David Cleland" <Davidc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:11077709...@lotis.uk.clara.net...
> >
> > > OH MY GOD! How could you dare ask: "Why a digital camera?". As I write
> > > these
> > > very words the alt.photography NG gang is marshaling it's forces to
> > > crucify
> > > you. All I can say is, "To those who are about to die, we salute you"
and
> > > "Shine on you crazy diamond!"
> > > Film best,
> > > me
> >
> >
> > Yes, but without digital how could I take a photos and have them on the
> > website within 2-3 hours.
> >
>
> Ignore the "me" troll.
I'm always amazed at people who self-righteously ride up on their white
horse and impale their foe with the label "troll". I have come to see that
the use of this word is nothing more than another way to defame the comment
or the commentator. Even if the label troll had retained it's original
meaning what does it say about the culpability of it's user? Are they not
equally guilty of trolling? How does impaling their foe with this label
elevate them above their enemy? To my enemies I say: You may, with my
blessing, continue to troll along behind me impaling me whenever you please.
Film best,
me
Mike Kohary
Heh, that's how it's going to go, my friend... ;)
Want to see some good examples? My local newspaper has a couple of really
terrific sports photographers, who shoot all the Seattle Seahawks games
(American NFL football). You can see many good sports shots here:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/football/index.asp?from=jumptoHP
Look on the right-hand side of the page, for the box labeled "Game Photos".
I look to photos like these for inspiration and ideas of how to shoot
sports.
Mike Kohary
>>
> Jessops have a company policy of not accepting commercial work in
> their labs, I was informed of this after by the general manager after
> spending around £10,000 on processing last year.
Seriously? Why not? What do they care if it's commercial or not?
piemanlarger
>
>
> >
> > "Unspam" <uns...@mail.com> wrote in message
> > news:BE2D9CAA.15946%uns...@mail.com...
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> "David Cleland" <Davidc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:11077709...@lotis.uk.clara.net...
> >>>>
however
> > they
> >> do not like professional photographers.
> >>
> >
> > I have no problems with my local jessops branch. I regularly walk in
with
> > 100-200 photos on a card and stick them through their machines. why does
> > your branch not like pros?
> > A pro should be given no better service than an amerture. If an amerture
> > accepts poor quality prints, he is not an amerture, but a fool.
> >
> > Pieman
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Jessops have a company policy of not accepting commercial work in their
> labs, I was informed of this after by the general manager after spending
> around £10,000 on processing last year. Now that's customer service for
you,
> I now go elsewhere where they like to earn money.
They dont in S.Wales! I have used branches in Cardiff, Bridgend, Swansea and
Carmarthen with no problems. I even pay with my company cheques so i am not
hiding the fact i am a pro and expect pro results, which i have go every
time since they went to digital labs.
Pieman
>
piemanlarger
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107824061....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> Utter bullshit. It's certainly not true that "A good photographer can
> obtain good pictures with almost anything". If pro photographers could
> get by with amateur equipment, they would.
I do, I use minolta !!!
The range of capabilities --
> and the quality of result obtainable -- is considerably greater with
> better equipment.>
> I have been engaged in 35mm photography for 40 years, and much of that
> has been action or sports photography. I have photographed almost every
> sport you can name (pro/college football, tennis, rugby, lacrosse,
> soccer, basketball, fencing, swimming, gymnastics, etc.).
> > You'll note the ball just leaving the hands of the pitch-man in this
> shot:
> > http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberPhoto.asp?ID=919
> > This takes concentration and anticipation. You have to know a little
> about the sport, to anticipate the action.
>
True, but the equipment is going to have little effect on this. The canon
300d the original poster has would be more than capable of achieving this
shot, but that particular model is classes as a budget camera.
> And I didn't do this the first time, either. It takes years of
> practice, even with good equipment. You can't expect results as good as
> this right off the bat.
That depends, if David could get a good photographer to go with him one day
he would, or should, improve greatly in one or two outings. I know I have
taught a couple of camera club photographers to get good off road mx shots
in in days shooting.
> But with better equipment, your capabilities
> will be enhanced.
In some low light circumstances certainly. Your shot looks as if it were
taken in good light though so i suspect David's lens may have been able to
get something similar that particular day?
I used an £80 f4 lens for 3 years that got me plenty of published and
saleable print work. I still only use Sigma std and long zoom lens today
because their quality is as good a minolts lens costing twice as much.
Just trying to point out some usefull encouragement to the chap.
David Cleland
> Usually, it was a struggle to get them to spend enough. The smart ones
> would listen.
I'm listening - the problem is I just do not have any money.
David
Unspam
> Unspam wrote:
>>>
>> Jessops have a company policy of not accepting commercial work in
>> their labs, I was informed of this after by the general manager after
>> spending around £10,000 on processing last year.
>
> Seriously? Why not? What do they care if it's commercial or not?
I have no idea, they are small minded automatons and are only following
orders.
BillB
>> They also put them on CD and process your films simultaneously,
>> however they do not like professional photographers.
>>
>
> I have no problems with my local jessops branch. I regularly
> walk in with 100-200 photos on a card and stick them through
> their machines. why does your branch not like pros?
It may have less to do with being a pro than Jessops implementing
an unorthodox customer kill filter. The messages in this ng can be
used to provide interesting "profiles". :)
Unspam
Do you work there by any chance?
BillB
>> It may have less to do with being a pro than Jessops implementing
>> an unorthodox customer kill filter. The messages in this ng can be
>> used to provide interesting "profiles". :)
>>
>
> Do you work there by any chance?
No, but the attitude evinced by this reply of yours only bolsters
my hunch. Some of your messages are thoughtful and helpful, but a
few have been blunt or abrasive. An example:
> Planes in an airport, how unusual.
and later
> I am not a fan of pictures that require long winded captions
> to spark interest, the picture is unremarkable, my opinion,
> I'm entitled to that, just as you are entitled to yours.
You could have gotten the point across more effectively had you
used tact. You almost seem to relish belittling others. And you
say that:
>>> Jessops have a company policy of not accepting commercial work in
>>> their labs, I was informed of this after by the general manager after
>>> spending around £10,000 on processing last year. Now that's customer
>>> service for you, I now go elsewhere where they like to earn money.
>>
>> Seriously? Why not? What do they care if it's commercial or not?
>
> I have no idea, they are small minded automatons and are only
> following orders.
Since it's clear from other messages here that Jessops will accept
known commercial work (and had accepted yours for perhaps a year,
possibly longer) it doesn't seem unusual at all to think that they
may simply have wanted you to take your business elsewhere, and
found a kinder, gentler way to do so than you might have, had you
been in their position. If you had previously called them "small
minded automatons" or implied the same, that could have been an
additional straw.
me
> No thanks, two days a week working when and where i want will do.
Just curious but what type of photography allows you to earn a living
working two days a week? You must be very good at what you do. Please give
me all the gory details, I'm jealous/envious!
Unspam
Bill, you have no idea what you are talking about or perhaps you think it's
acceptable to use a lab where you ask the technician in charge of a £250,000
Fuji Frontier why the pictures he just printed have no mid tones and he
comes back with, "I don't know", then re-prints and they are fine. They are
simply not trained properly and are button pushers who know nothing about
the machinery they operate, they are on a production line and are on the
minimum wage.
Anyway, I tried Photobox, excellent service, quality printing and no having
to complain about the prints.
BTW, I just had a call from Jessops customer liaison dept, they confirmed
that they accept no responsibility for commercial work and this has been
misconstrued by the manager as we don't *accept* commercial work (even
though they have a professional counter in the branch I used), but they are
looking into the technical problems with the Fuji computer transfer systems
at that branch (the biggest in the world apparently).