| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
11/1/2009 SI Cover
Matthew Sharpe, Photographer
 |
Oxford | MS | USA | Posted: 10:31 PM on 10.27.09 |
->> If you haven't seen this week's SI cover, check it out. It's a great shot by Bob Rosato of Reggie Bush long-jumping into the endzone on Sunday at Miami. Link:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/cover/featured/11315/index.htm
If I had to take a guess, I'd say Bob Rosato was probably using either a 16-35mm or a 24-70mm (or the Nikon equivalent of that glass). Agreed?
Now I've been at this for a few years, but I'm always and will forever be in a state of learning. And one of my biggest weaknesses is the wide-angle, endzone/sideline photo such as this cover - I always feel like I'm too far away or too tight to really capture the shot well. Is a 16-35mm too far? What works best for you to achieve this style of photo?
I realize it's a rather basic question, and ultimately the answer lies in my equipment, but I appreciate your advice regardless. Thank you in advance. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 10:55 PM on 10.27.09 |
| ->> the action happening where it needs to happen and you catching the moment? just saying. lens/camera choice is just that..a choice. too tight? too loose? man! ain't that the nature of the game? you're kind of asking a question that doesn't have a definitive answer. |
|
Matthew Sharpe, Photographer
|
Oxford | MS | USA | Posted: 11:14 PM on 10.27.09 |
->> I realize there's no definitive answer for shoot tight or shoot loose. I get that.
But if Rosato has a 70-200mm on for that shot, it doesn't make it off his camera. And if he shoots it with a 15mm fisheye, it certainly doesn't make the cover.
I'm asking about the in-between, the tight-but-not-too-tight sideline/endzone shot as seen in the cover photo example. Is the lens of choice 24-70mm or a tighter crop on a 16-35mm?
And yes, anticipating the moment - that's what peak action photography is about, but that's not what I was asking.
Thanks for your response. |
|
Dan Powers, Photographer
|
Appleton | WI | USA | Posted: 11:22 PM on 10.27.09 |
| ->> I like to shoot more from the back of the end zone, however, when I used to shoot from the side of the end zone I used a 50mm fixed lens. Back of the end zone I'm using a 70-200...Dan. |
|
Dustin Bradford, Photographer
|
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 12:05 AM on 10.28.09 |
| ->> It looks like 50mm or 70mm based on the angle of view of the field and stands behind. |
|
Andrew Fredrickson, Photographer
|
Seattle | WA | United States | Posted: 12:34 AM on 10.28.09 |
| ->> I would not be surprised if that was shot with a 70-200. Looks like it could be in the 70mm ballpark to me. I don't think 35mm would not show that much compression in the background. |
|
Philip Bowen, Photographer
|
Kampala | UG | Uganda | Posted: 12:53 AM on 10.28.09 |
->> My first impression is it's a 70-200 wide or a 24-70 zoomed.
I think you need a bit of focal length to blur the background that much, given how far away Reggie is from the camera. Even at f/2.8. I guess lens choice would depend on how far away you are from the action and what kind of backgrounds you are dealing with. Is it clean if it's in focus or do you need to blur it?
Don't know if there is a 50mm that autofocuses fast enough for shooting NFL.
I for one have no problem with asking equipment questions. All the old school catching-the-moment advice in the world isn't going to pay your rent if you have a 16-35 on your camera for a shot that demands a 300. |
|
Ric Tapia, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Philip Bowen, Photographer
|
Kampala | UG | Uganda | Posted: 1:03 AM on 10.28.09 |
| ->> We can't. We're guessing. That's why we say things like "It looks like..." or "I would not be surprised if..." or "I think..." |
|
Matthew Sauk, Photographer
|
Sandy | UT | United States | Posted: 10:55 AM on 10.28.09 |
->> great shot...When I saw that the first thing that I said to myself is, I wonder who got that shot!
Would have been even better if it was taken from a lower position, but still awesome shot |
|
Jamey Price, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Charlotte | NC | USA | Posted: 11:33 AM on 10.28.09 |
| ->> looking at the original, I would have to guess 70-200 lens or something like it. |
|
Saul Loeb, Photographer
|
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 11:52 AM on 10.28.09 |
| ->> Why don't you ask him? |
|
Jeffrey Furticella, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Charlotte | NC | US | Posted: 1:02 PM on 10.28.09 |
->> "What works best for you to achieve this style of photo?"
Luck and preparation, the rest won't matter much without a healthy dose of either.
- furt |
|
Corey Perrine, Photographer
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 1:23 PM on 10.28.09 |
| ->> I heard he used his iphone....... |
|
Alan Look, Photographer
|
Bloomington/Normal | IL | United States | Posted: 1:31 PM on 10.28.09 |
->> "What works best for you to achieve this style of photo?"
Try buying one of his used cameras. The last used IIn I bought had Bob's name still in the owner information. It's brought me some luck.
I'm 50% sure it took the current #6 image on my member page, coupled to a 600 @ under 30 yards. Everyone else had headed for the sidelines to get the run back. So, point 2 is to stay awake and away from the pack.
(Thanks Bob!) |
|
Ron Alvey, Photographer
|
Dayton | OH | USA | Posted: 1:52 PM on 10.28.09 |
| ->> Alan, did you also buy Jon Voight's used car???.......(a scene from Seinfeld) |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|