rdgreenwood wrote:
I've been following this discussion all day, and the comments by people who, like me, are clueless about sports photography have served to remind me what a wonderful thing UHH is. It is democracy in its purest form. Many of us drop everything to rush in with a totally asinine suggestion. It's a thing to behold.
Even I put my two cents in earlier, forgetting the lesson I learned from my one foray into the art and science of sports photography. I was working on a piece about Eric Gregg, a National League umpire, and the Phillies had given me clearance to shoot from the first base dugout. I was there to shoot photos of an umpire, a guy who mostly stood in one place and waved his arms.
Well, I stayed on task for about three innings, but then I figured I might as well get some shots of the players in action. BIG MISTAKE!. I was shooting with a Nikon N90, and I went through 4 or 5 rolls of Ektaptess point film before the game was over. Of the 144-180 exposures, do you want to guess how many "keepers" I got? Does the number 0 tell you anything? Oh, I got great shots of Eric--Eric making a close call, Eric joking with a fan, Eric in the set position as he waited for the pitcher to throw--but zero of "baseball action." That stuff's for real sports photographers.
In this conversation, maybe we wanna-bes should just watch and learn.
I've been following this discussion all day, and t... (
show quote)
well, if I had to make my living shooting sports, I would starve. I do it for the fun of it and the kids and the kids parents get a kick out of it. Just like any other hobby though, you want to be the best you can be. This was shot Friday night at a scrimmage, under the lights. Had to crop the photo to get it to look like something. Didn't have time to zoom all the way in as I was focused on the QB before the throw, then had to focus on the receiver as he caught the ball.