Is there that much to sports photography?

Ricky91t

I was just sitting here thinkning this and wondering....

Is there much of an upper hand a pro has to a randomer other than the "knowing" more about the game.Like say for example one of the pro sports photographers on here goes and shoot american football something they've never done before.Do you think they could come out with a new paper shot on there first shoot.Reminds me of "no experience required" and how those people were thrown in at the deep end but had good gear and someone to help them out.Is sports more your knowing of the sport and where to place yourself, or the photographic skill you have.

I'm sorry for posting this if it seems like a waste of time but i'd like to know what you you people think.

Like could someone with a 1d mkIII whos never used a camera before go and shoot a game with pros and produce the same image?I think if you stay in the same place as the pros you'll get a great/good shot or am i wrong?
:rolleyes:

kensutz

The can of worms have been opened.

Ricky91t

kensutz wrote: »

The can of worms have been opened.

haha i just like to know other peoples viewws on these things

whyulittle

You know what you have to do Ricky, go out and try it.

sasar

ricky91t wrote: »

...I'm sorry for posting this...

I forgive you!

Ricky91t

whyulittle wrote: »

You know what you have to do Ricky, go out and try it.

I happily shoot sports but im in no position to buy a 1d MK III and 300mm lens

PaulieC

I think it's simple enough. Just need a D40 with a kit lens or elase a good bridge camera . or a sony ericsson phone - they have good cameras

City-Exile

In a live game situation, where the papers have deadlines, the pros are getting images cropped & captioned, out to the papers while the game is going on.

Anyone can take a picture, but not everyone can work to a deadline, under pressure.

With regard to photographing a sport for the first time, a good photographer will be aware of the sport & have an idea in their head of what they will capture, before they ever set foot in the arena.

I've never covered golf, for example, but I know what type of shots I should go after. The same goes for swimming, or hammer throwing, or anything like that.
If it's a sport I've never heard of, you can be damn sure I'll google it before I cover it.

Sports photography, more often than not, has very little to do with art, it's about reporting an event.

kensutz

Exactly what Peadar has said.

Ricky91t

City-Exile wrote: »

In a live game situation, where the papers have deadlines, the pros are getting images cropped & captioned, out to the papers while the game is going on.

Anyone can take a picture, but not everyone can work to a deadline, under pressure.

With regard to photographing a sport for the first time, a good photographer will be aware of the sport & have an idea in their head of what they will capture, before they ever set foot in the arena.

I've never covered golf, for example, but I know what type of shots I should go after. The same goes for swimming, or hammer throwing, or anything like that.
If it's a sport I've never heard of, you can be damn sure I'll google it before I cover it.

Sports photography, more often than not, has very little to do with art, it's about reporting an event.

Cheers Peader
Thats the kind of answer i was hoping to get

Calina

ricky91t wrote: »

I was just sitting here thinkning this and wondering....

Is there much of an upper hand a pro has to a randomer other than the "knowing" more about the game.Like say for example one of the pro sports photographers on here goes and shoot american football something they've never done before.Do you think they could come out with a new paper shot on there first shoot.Reminds me of "no experience required" and how those people were thrown in at the deep end but had good gear and someone to help them out.Is sports more your knowing of the sport and where to place yourself, or the photographic skill you have.

I'm sorry for posting this if it seems like a waste of time but i'd like to know what you you people think.

Like could someone with a 1d mkIII whos never used a camera before go and shoot a game with pros and produce the same image?I think if you stay in the same place as the pros you'll get a great/good shot or am i wrong?
:rolleyes:

An awful lot depends on what you want to achieve. If what you want to do is produce a great photograph, then I would venture to say that a knowledge of the sport concerned would go a long way towards getting you that photograph. Much of what Peadar and Ken have said relates more the business side of things.

What matters most to me, I've realised, is the photograph and this has changed how I approach things. Mostly, what I get out of shooting the sport that I do shoot is heavily dependant on knowing the sport and especially knowing the guys I shoot.

I would say that it's possible that someone with a 1D MkIII might get a great photograph with zero experience and a decent lens, but the camera would have to be on fully automatic mode and I doubt they'd be able to work out how they did it.

There's this image out there that sports photography is easy. Maybe to outsiders it looks easier because like, you just stand there and snap. But I've said it many times that sports shooting is harder because the amount of time you have to make the shot is very often 0 seconds. It looks like point and shoot but the chances of missing it are a lot higher than they are if you're shooting some landscape. You have less time for consideration.

One of the good things to do - and I do it with the kite magazines on a regular basis - is to look at the sports photography of people you respect and try and figure out how they made some shot.

In brief I'd say it's entirely possible to get a great shot with zero experience. I'd doubt whether it's possible to reproduce said shot or something approximating to it. And I doubt if anyone inexperienced could use a 1D MkIII effectively without depending on the camera to do everything which means the range of options are limited and understanding why somethings work and somethings don't just isn't going to happen. If you take a simple example from me: mostly my aperture is a function of available light except in one key condition - shooting widelens shots in the water. Then the aperture goes to 8 and smaller for what are very, very obvious reasons to me.

If you're depending on a camera to do everything for you...you won't know why and your photographs will suffer because of it because it may well not happen.

I'm going to close by suggesting that if you're interested in looking at other people's sports photography quickly and easily, it's worth having a close look at Peadar's and Paudie's work. They both have websites and they are both, to my mind, at the top of the game. Amazon also is full of sports photography books - I have a few myself and about the most you'll get is a) knowing your sports and b) looking at the guys who do it well.

After that, if it's a question of the photograph or the business, it's up to you to decide what you're looking to know.

whyulittle

Calina wrote: »

In brief I'd say it's entirely possible to get a great shot with zero experience. I'd doubt whether it's possible to reproduce said shot or something approximating to it.

Exactly, anyone can get lucky and get a good shot, but consistency is the thing.

Plus, there are no auto settings on a 1DM3.

Borderfox

It was said above, consistency is the key. I shoot to sell to the public and it can be a different type of pressure to shooting a football/GAA match. I would say fairly confidently that somebody off the street even with top of the range gear couldnt pick up a camera and produce the pictures I take for the whole day.

Good points mentioned above regarding Googling and checking magazines of the relevant sport. I think knowledge of the sport plays a role in getting a good shot as much as reading the game or knowing where to place yourself

Valentia

I played a lot of sports in a previous life, basketball mainly. I have not had a chance to give sports photography a lash though I'd love to. The only reservation I have is that when I gave up playing basketball I started refereeing and I was crap. I couldn't stop becoming involved in the game instead of concentrating on what I was supposed to be doing. I think the same might happen with the photography. Still it's something I really want to do sometime.

Completely OT but TIME magazine this week has a special on sport and it's significance on our lives. Worth a read.

City-Exile

Danny, it took me about 5 years to detach myself from the game, when I was covering Cork City FC. I lost count of how many goals/goal celebrations I missed, simply because I was celebrating myself.

Consequently, it's very difficult for me to be a fan now & I enjoy results more than games these days, if that makes any sense.

Inversely, I had no problem covering Leinster Rugby, because I couldn't have cared less about them.

Paulw

Some very interesting and good posts in this thread.

I do have to agree. You go to a sports event as either a photographer or a supporter. You can't do both. When there to photograph, you will miss a lot of the game. Your view is restricted as to what the lens sees. I haven't yet had the problem of letting my emotions make me miss a shot.

Other than that, when you cover a sports event, what are you there for? If for press publication, then you only need a small number of images. 5 quality images? I've never yet failed to get enough shots when on assignment for a paper, no matter what sport it is.

But, if you're covering it for direct sales, assignment from the event organiser, or even just yourself, then you are really going to want a large number of quality shots.

You can get lucky - 5 good shots in 90 min shouldn't be too hard. But, what you really need is consistent good shots. Each game you should be able to get at least 20+ quality shots worthy of print.

The biggest thing is knowing your camera gear and knowing the sport. Know what images are print worthy. Sometimes it's interesting to see some images in print. Some are brilliant, some average, and some are just a player shot. It really depends on what is required.

My first time capturing a new sport, I always get a low number of images that could be printed. But, every following game, the number of shots greatly increases. You get a better feel for the sport and the players.

I know from covering Leinster Rugby, what way the players go. I know who to look for, and generally where to look for them. I know their style. The same with covering Sporting Fingal now too.

Giving a total beginner a 1D MkIII and a 300mm lens - you may get lucky and get 4-5 good images. But, on a frequent basis, without knowing the sport and your kit, having the skill to capture a good image, you won't last.

Overdraft

City-Exile wrote: »

I lost count of how many goals/goal celebrations I missed, simply because I was celebrating myself.

Ricky91t

Paulw wrote: »

I do have to agree. You go to a sports event as either a photographer or a supporter. You can't do both. When there to photograph, you will miss a lot of the game.

I totally agree with that i remember the Munster game i was at when i missed Lifemi Mafi getting tackled after he kicked the ball my mum was saying "if you didn't have the camera you would of seen it":p.But when she saw my photos she was pleased i took the camera:D




THanks all for your replies i would of replied earlier but my broadband has been down

mervifwdc

I think if it was the first time someone had picked up a camera, they would get a few average shots, provided someone told them how to turn it on, and were the shutter button was.

and, if someone was used to shooting, a regular photographer from here say, with the more suitable gear, I'd say they would get better shots than they usually do.

but....

shooting sports is a funny one, as it's getting yourself in the right place at the right time, and knowing what to look for. It also depends on why you are shooting. I've shot matches for papers, and as Paul said, you need a small number of shots, so that's easy enough (unless it's 4 regional papers, and you need to go home with 20 shots from 1 half but that's another story).

when your shooting for direct sales, you'll need at least 3 good shots of each and every player on the pitch, so that's 90 good shots from a gaa match, or 1 per minute. I'd not like to try it! I'd get every player, but a lot of average shots. I'd have a few crackers of a few players, but it's not easy to get a good shot of every player.

So, I guess my answer would be "it depends" on what you classify as getting good shots!

oh - and it goes the other way also. If someone handed me a tripod, and pointed me ata mountain or lake, I'm pretty sure I'd come back with loads of garbage, mayby a few average, but very few if any crackers.

Merv.

Merv.

AnimalRights

Merv Merv, so good they named you twice.