| 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
World cup 2010 photos how they do that?
Kay in t Veen, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Rotterdam | ZH | Netherlands | Posted: 4:03 AM on 07.17.10 |
->> Hi all,
i've been amazed by some of the photagraphers at the world cup this year.
i located some amazing photos at Boston.com (the big picture)
These photos look just so darn amazing. But i wonder what they do different in Post processing or just shooting the photo than the gross.
#1
[img]http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/wc2010...[/img]
(REUTERS/Brian Snyder)
This photo is rich in color, maybe even a bit dark but is not over saturated.
also its pretty sharp
#2
[img]http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/wc2010...[/img]
(REUTERS/Yves Herman)
This photo is also nice and sharp, this has to been shot on a closer aperture like F/4 F/5.6 ?
what do you guys think. |
|
Israel Shirk, Photographer, Assistant
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 1:56 PM on 07.17.10 |
| ->> The stadium is lit for television. It is one of the most watched sporting events in the world. The light is going to be nothing less than perfect. The best soccer/sports photographers in the world are assigned to shoot it. You're going to get great results. Usually at these huge events with the deadlines and the intense competition between wire and photographic services there isn't time for much post processing, except for maybe cropping. In all honesty I wouldn't expect anything less. |
|
Phil Hawkins, Photographer
|
Fresno | ca | usa | Posted: 2:25 PM on 07.17.10 |
| ->> What were media facilities like? Internet connections good?... room to work, security... It appeared that about 20 to 30 photogs were working each game, plus remote cameras... What kind of coverage did SI do? I know it was complete, but how many shooters per game, did they setup similar to the Superbowl in each location? |
|
Dylan Lynch, Photographer, Assistant
|
Edmonton | AB | Canada | Posted: 3:14 PM on 07.17.10 |
| ->> Honestly, I don't know what's special about those photos.. I mean, they're technically good, and they're great moments, but you're surprised that they're so sharp? Aren't most of our photos sharp? If not, you've got more to worry about than how one of the best soccer photogs in the world pulls this off. What you've posted should be your standard, all edits should be at that level - I doubt any professionals would let anything of a lesser technical merit see the light of day. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 12:07 AM on 07.18.10 |
| ->> thanks dylan. I wanted to say that but was trying to be diplomatic. I agree...if you have to ask how to make photos like that, at an event like that you should really be thinking of a career change. |
|
Sam Morris, Photographer
|
Henderson (Las Vegas) | NV | USA | Posted: 1:58 AM on 07.18.10 |
->> It's an honest question, and I think, Chuck, you answered it well in your first post.
There are people on this board from all levels of experience and there is nothing wrong with asking. I've had to muddle my way through my career picking things up along the way. I'm not sure if I would be any better off being able to ask 2000 people a question rather than one or two and then figuring the rest out on my own. But I do think 20 years ago I would have appreciated a resource like this. |
|
Jeroen de Jong, Photographer
|
Waalwijk | _ | Netherlands | Posted: 4:14 AM on 07.18.10 |
->> The second picture seems to be shot in normal daylight, but without any sun on the the field because the stadium is so high.
It can be shot even at lower divisions in your country (I know. I did.) |
|
Pete Gawlik, Photographer
|
Brighton | East Sussex | United Kingdom | Posted: 4:45 AM on 07.18.10 |
->> Hi Kay,looking at your member page I think you already take shots as good as the two you ask the question about.
I really like number 4 on your page.
Pete |
|
William Guerro, Photographer
|
Galloway | NJ | USA | Posted: 8:36 AM on 07.18.10 |
| ->> I personally Like Photo #7 in Kay's Gallery. I think it's a well Shaped shot ;-) |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 2:44 PM on 07.18.10 |
->> Kay,
As you progress in your career and encounter numerous lighting and logistical situations, you will gain the ability to anticipate what it will take to get a specific photographic result. After a while, you'll not only know where to position yourself and what settings/techniques to use, you'll also be able to recognize and react quickly to unexpected opportunities.
--Mark |
|
Scott Serio, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Colora | MD | USA | Posted: 3:58 PM on 07.18.10 |
->> It doesn't hurt that these folks either own the top of the line equipment or had access to it through NPS or CPS. Right out of the camera just about any well exposed, tack sharp images with the D3/D3S and 300/2.8 combination always look freakishly sharp.
For this event, everyone else is right, top shooters, top equipment, great athletes and solid night lighting when needed.
The only part of K's question that might come into play is RAW v JPEG/Fine. I shoot everything RAW unless it is horse racing and a remote where RAW just kills the buffer way too fast. Still, even JPG/Fine with the above parameters will produce amazing results. |
|
Tom Davenport, Photographer
|
Hayden | ID | USA | Posted: 7:28 PM on 07.18.10 |
->> I have heard this "Lit for Television" comment a lot. How does that translate to still photography as in exposure? Every time I have shot at a stadium "lit for television" the best I ever get is ISO 1600 1/500th f-2.8, at best. Does it mean that it is even light and not harsh light?
Tom |
|
Darren Whitley, Photographer
|
Northwest Missouri | MO | USA | Posted: 8:37 PM on 07.18.10 |
| ->> It depends on how close you are to the light source. Harsh light isn't so harsh when you're a considerable from the light source. |
|
Patrick Fallon, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Columbia | MO | USA | Posted: 9:32 PM on 07.18.10 |
->> Tom,
Typically, "lit for TV" means that the "still" photo settings are ISO 800 or 1600 at about 1/500th f/2.8.
More importantly, the lighting should be even across the field of play, and with a consistent color temperature of 5500 Kelvin. |
|
Tom Davenport, Photographer
|
Hayden | ID | USA | Posted: 10:13 PM on 07.18.10 |
->> Thanks Patrick. Ahh, even lighting and consistant color temps. Makes sense. Now to get high schools to light for tv! Thanks again.
Tom |
|
Scott Evans, Photographer
|
Bay Village | OH | USA | Posted: 12:51 PM on 07.19.10 |
| ->> I think it's ironic that we have a message board to ask questions and yet when a member does, they often get grief for it. too funny (and not in a good way). |
|
Dylan Lynch, Photographer, Assistant
|
Edmonton | AB | Canada | Posted: 1:04 PM on 07.19.10 |
| ->> @Phil Hawkins: They had over a hundred at each game, at the VERY least. It was more like 20-30 photogs at each corner. |
|
Phil Hawkins, Photographer
|
Fresno | ca | usa | Posted: 3:02 PM on 07.19.10 |
| ->> Dylan, yeah, that's what I meant... must have been quite a workroom(s); especially on those wet days. |
|
Daniel Malmberg, Photographer
|
Huskvarna | Sweden | Sweden | Posted: 7:59 PM on 07.19.10 |
->> According to AIPS newsletter, there was in total 900 photogs for the whole world cup:
"At today's FIFA Congress Blatter acknowledged an explosion in media coverage with more than 3,000 written press and website media, 900 photographers and 15,000 broadcasting representatives in South Africa for the world's biggest football carnival." |
|
Andy Mead, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Durham | NC | United States | Posted: 12:41 PM on 07.20.10 |
->> Howdy,
I shot one game each of the first four days of the tournament.
4 games each at the two Johannesburg stadiums, 4 in Pretoria, and 2 in Rustenburg.
The Johannesburg games generally had 120-180 field photographers, Pretoria 80-150, and 70-100 in Rustenburg. From the FIFA media website, it looked like other venues had often substantially less with as few as 40 (20 listed plus shooters from 14 agencies).
I shot most games with my 300mm f/2.8 (leaving the 400 at home) on a brand new Canon 7D, my 70-200mm f/2.8 on a 1D Mark IIN and a 17-40mm f/4 on a 1D Mark II.
Looking at the EXIF data from random photos from 8:30pm starts here are a sampling of settings:
Soccer City: ISO 2000, f/3.2, 1/1250
Ellis Park: ISO 2000, f/2.8, 1/1600
Loftus Versfeld: ISO 2500, f/3.2, 1/1250
Royal Bafokeng: ISO 2000, f/3.5, 1/1600 |
|
Andy Mead, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Durham | NC | United States | Posted: 12:45 PM on 07.20.10 |
->> And by "four", I meant to type "fourteen".
Sigh. |
|
Andy Mead, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Durham | NC | United States | Posted: 2:02 PM on 07.20.10 |
->> And as far as the internet went, it was absolutely fantastic. Wired and Wireless everywhere, including on the field. Generally 100kbps+ upload and download speeds.
I was shooting, doing quick selects and starting uploads of 6-10MB jpegs to my partners back in the states for them to process images as I returned to shooting.
Between three of us, with two stateside, we had over 200 processed images out to three clients within a couple hours after the end the US/Algeria game.
That would not have been possible without the really high bandwidth I was getting on the sideline. Every seat was wired, and even the wireless on the field was solid at all four stadiums I worked at.
Unlike Germany, there was no registration or fees involved. Just plug in and go. |
|
Matt Young, Photographer
|
Casper | WY | USA | Posted: 5:25 PM on 07.21.10 |
->> Great light, great equipment and great shooters. On the equipment side I recently started using a Mark IV and shot a theater production, along with my Mark III. The difference was amazing to say the least. The higher ISO on the IV vs the III, not only let to higher shutters, but for some reason the IV photos seem to have the 'pop' Kay is referring to.
Just something I noticed.
If your interested in the photos:
www.caspercollege.edu/photos
the production is "Sunday In The Park With George"
Moose |
|
Allen Murabayashi, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 7:09 PM on 07.21.10 |
->> kay
in looking at the images in your portfolio, they seem a little flat from a dynamic range and contrast standpoint. a simple curve adjustment might get the images to be a little punchier. just a thought... |
|
Israel Shirk, Photographer, Assistant
|
Boise | ID | US | Posted: 8:55 PM on 07.21.10 |
| ->> The sharpness issue might be partly that you're shooting with 7d's and not pro gear. While the 7d's do have pretty good AF, it's not on the same level as a 1d Mk IV when tracking fast-moving subjects. |
|
Andy Mead, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Durham | NC | United States | Posted: 8:44 AM on 07.22.10 |
->> Israel - I sure hope you're not saying "it's the camera, not the photographer".
I have had no "sharpness" issues whatsoever with Canon's "prosumer" line of bodies going way back to the old D30. While I do primarily use 1D family bodies, I have carried a 20D around for years (and a 10D before that) as a third body.
There are differences in shutter lag and autofocus capability, but a "sharp" shot is a "sharp" shot.
I will say, however, that the quality of the glass can make a big difference in sharpness. |
|
Daniel Malmberg, Photographer
|
Huskvarna | Sweden | Sweden | Posted: 9:52 AM on 07.22.10 |
->> Canon EOS 7D have a stronger lowpassfilter than other Canon cameras.
Therefore the images from it needs a little bit of more "input sharpening" than the other Canon cameras.
Some images shoot with 7D and EF 300/4l IS USM.
All shoots in RAW and edited in Lightroom 3.
http://blogg.photo-it.net/?p=1511 |
|
Israel Shirk, Photographer, Assistant
|
Boise | ID | US | Posted: 10:07 AM on 07.22.10 |
->> Andy-
I'm saying that it's a distinct possibility that it's part of the problem.
I have had "sharpness" issues all the time with Canon's "prosumer" line of bodies going way back to the old D60. I as well carried around a 20d for a while :)
The difference was very noticeable to me. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 4:10 PM on 07.22.10 |
->> Kay,
Another photographer mentioned to me that you might also check the filter insert. Also, many lenses perform better at intermediate f/stops. For example, an f/2.8 lens might be sharpest at f/5.6.
--Mark |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 5:10 PM on 07.22.10 |
| ->> Andy, that's why they are Prosumer cameras. They DO NOT function as good as the high end equipment. sure they work, just not as well. I for one don't see anyone using a prosumer camera at the bigger events I am fortunate to attend. so yes, it could be the camera and not the photographer. that's only common sense. |
|
Andy Mead, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Durham | NC | United States | Posted: 1:17 PM on 07.28.10 |
->> Chuck,
I agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, a couple of 1D Mark IVs weren't in the budget. Two weeks in South Africa cost almost double what five weeks in Germany ran us four years ago. YCJ does come out ahead financially on the World Cup, but it's not a great money maker.
It's one of the trade-offs of running your own small agency. We have to pick and choose our battles. We will have to upgrade to the Mark IVs, but given the current noise capabilities of the Nikon bodies, the 7D was a compromise purchase - and a lot cheaper than either getting the Mark IV or switching to Nikon. We knew going in to the World Cup that the low noise on the new generation of backs had reached a point where our Mark II family bodies were at a competitive disadvantage. There is a qualitative difference between soccer action shots at 1/1250th vs 1/640th (or slower).
YCJ (my agency) has survived as long as it has because we don't buy gear on credit. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|