Histon FC Vs Swindon Town FA Cup 1st Round

ryanyboy · 17-11-2008, 6:31 PM

Hi all,

I've been admiring some of the sports pictures on AVF from Pete, Tobers and others and thought I ought to show you my own efforts.

This was the "highest" standard of football I've ever shot and was probably the third or fourth time I've had a serious go at shooting sports.

I would be the first to admit that my lenses are far too inferior to consider doing it seriously. BUT I really enjoyed the whole experience and maybe one day I'll consider doing it seriously.

Please feel free to give me your honest c&c's on these.

1. Pre match hand shakes.

2. Ada & Cox

3. Mitchel-King & Paynter

4.Swindon's J.P. McGovern

5. Goal (shame about the player in the way!)

6. Injury!

7. Giant Killers.

The game finished 1-0 to Histon - a real giant killing

All images were shot with a 70-200 f/2.8L lens and a 1.4x TC (giving a max aperture of f/4

) The last few were all shot at ISO of 6400 (the camera's max ISO).

Hope you like 'em.

booyaka · 17-11-2008, 6:47 PM

do you need permission for this as you look fairly close to the action? press pass etc??

nice set of shots and i presume (noob question) you are using the high ISO because of not being able to use a flash??

ryanyboy · 17-11-2008, 6:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by booyaka

do you need permission for this as you look fairly close to the action? press pass etc??

nice set of shots and i presume (noob question) you are using the high ISO because of not being able to use a flash??

I had permission - photographers bib, in the media centre, choice of position during the game etc.

In the first half I chose to sit behind the Histon goal assuming it would see the most action.

In the second half I went along the sideline just level with the Histon penalty area.

Typical - much of the action (and the goal) was up the other end!!

ryanyboy · 17-11-2008, 6:54 PM

Oh and yes, no flash. ISO due to crap floodlights and need to keep shutter speed up.

gaffatape · 17-11-2008, 7:02 PM

These look very good, youve stripped the EXIF out so difficult to fully evaluate but good all the same

ryanyboy · 17-11-2008, 7:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaffatape

These look very good, youve stripped the EXIF out so difficult to fully evaluate but good all the same

I wouldn't know how to strip the exif data out (or put it back in for that matter

) but if you click on my flickr link you'll see them all there.

Thanks.

Ryan

Bristol Pete · 17-11-2008, 7:36 PM

Thats a reasonable start....

ryanyboy · 17-11-2008, 8:10 PM

I just noticed - when you look at the images as they are in the thread they look really jaggedy. But when you click on them to view larger they look better. Is this something to do with the AVF site? If so would it be better to put the medium sized pics from flickr into posts?

Bristol Pete · 17-11-2008, 8:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryanyboy

I just noticed - when you llok at the images as they are in the thread they look really jaggedy. But when you click on them to view larger they look better. Is this something to do with the AVF site? If so would it be better to put the medium sized pics from flickr into posts?

Yes it is the forums ropey resizing

tontoshorse · 17-11-2008, 8:42 PM

They're great. I like the goal one - the player looks ok to me.

To avoid a bit of forum resizing try putting "link" (no spaces) after your img tag.

There's a thread somewhere about.

julian_fraser · 17-11-2008, 9:03 PM

Very nice indeed. Especially like #2, 3, 5, & 6 - all the action shots actually, they look sharp and well-timed.

Not exactly an "inferior" lens I'd say

but I suppose the TC was essential wasn't it.

Pirate!! · 17-11-2008, 9:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bristol Pete

Thats a reasonable start....

Not wishing to go off on a tangent, but if BP would be so kind, I for one would like to ask (and this is a VERY broad question), the how, what etc of sports image photography from 'one that knows', taking into account (for most of us lesser mortals) say a max of 300mm.

Maybe pointers, tips, settings etc to try. I guess emulation is a form of flattery . . .

jonnypb · 17-11-2008, 9:21 PM

a nice set considering you haven't done much sports stuff, some good action shots and you've got the ball in frame as well which is good

ryanyboy · 17-11-2008, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by julian_fraser

Very nice indeed. Especially like #2, 3, 5, & 6 - all the action shots actually, they look sharp and well-timed.

Not exactly an "inferior" lens I'd say

but I suppose the TC was essential wasn't it.

Thanks Julian,

Yeah "inferior" wasn't the best choice of words as I love the 70-200 but what I meant was it isn't long enough really. The other togs at the match had 300 and 400mm primes which gave them the faster shutter speeds (f/2.8) and the reach.

My little 70-200mm boosted to 98-280mm on the 1.4TC; was still lacking in length and was obviously slower.

Why does it always come down to length and speed

Pirate!! · 17-11-2008, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryanyboy

Why does it always come down to length and speed

I asked the missus that question many times

booyaka · 17-11-2008, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pirate!!

I asked the missus that question many times

not long enough on both counts is the usual reply i get!!!

Pirate!! · 17-11-2008, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by booyaka

not long enough on both counts is the usual reply i get!!!

Moving on . . .

pumbaa · 20-11-2008, 8:49 PM

Could I request (as an embarrassed Swindon fan) that these photos and all references to this game are completely removed from history.......

Just kidding. Despite the result, these are some really good shots.

Gordon @ Convergent AV · 20-11-2008, 10:36 PM

Some really nice shots there......Well done...time to save for that expensive glass!

Tobers · 20-11-2008, 10:39 PM

6 & 7 work really well. Looks like you're closer to the action (or the action is closer to you!!) so you've got the depth of field working for you. You've got the ball in shot very nicely on the action shots. Looks like you're doing pretty well (from someone who'se just started and also feeling his way).

Next step - 300 2.8 lens

.

ryanyboy · 20-11-2008, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordon @ Convergent AV

Some really nice shots there......Well done...time to save for that expensive glass!

Yeah - looks like it. Or forget sports altogether and leave it to those with the equipment to do it properly.

Anyone got several thousand GPB spare....?

ryanyboy · 20-11-2008, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tobers

6 & 7 work really well. Looks like you're closer to the action (or the action is closer to you!!) so you've got the depth of field working for you. You've got the ball in shot very nicely on the action shots. Looks like you're doing pretty well (from someone who'se just started and also feeling his way).

Next step - 300 2.8 lens

.

Thanks Tobers. Not my first field of photography but I got a real buzz from it. Maybe one day............

Now, onto that 300 2.8 that you're offering to buy me....

ryanyboy · 21-11-2008, 12:00 AM

Can't believe no-one picked me up on the spelling mistake in the thread title - even the SMINDON TOWN fan missed it!!

**senu** · 21-11-2008, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryanyboy

Can't believe no-one picked me up on the spelling mistake in the thread title - even the SMINDON TOWN fan missed it!!

Would you perchance , want it changed??

milkmanchris · 21-11-2008, 8:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryanyboy

Yeah - looks like it. Or forget sports altogether and leave it to those with the equipment to do it properly.

Anyone got several thousand GPB spare....?

Its not just the equipment

But since you asked about lenses, 200mm F2 is one of my favourite Canons, helped me out loads at football.

Used on a MK3 will give you any number of cropping options, especially for the 72dpi newspaper and web work