Photographing Rugby - my second attempt

[Kodiak]

PS: See the EXIF.

That's a darn good shot, man!

[William W]

. . . .I had the impression that those samples and the EXIF on those images were brushed off as inconsequential, but, well, again, that's just me...

As already has been stated your impression is incorrect so there is no point in carrying on that line of conversation.

WW

[William W]

Bill,
This was a cause of arguments with my ex-wife, where experience taught me that
once in front of a client, the weight of a diploma is nothing compared to a portfolio.

There is nothing to prove… but to share!

Kodiak:

The OP posted pictures of what seems to be a local Union Game. I gave an analysis of the images which included some suggested exposure settings for those two shooting scenarios.

I consider that "sharing".

Another member later suggested to always use a fast lens wide open at very fast shutter speeds as an all in one solution to sooting Rugby. I disagreed with that approach. I had already given the reasons why I disagree with that one solution approach.

The display of the certificate was addressing the personal attack and demeaning nature and content of it by another member - it was NOT addressing a client.

In fact whilst we are the topic of sharing - I think do a lot of that here: and I don't think that I am here to prove anything about me.

As previously mentioned, this is off the topic and it is pointless continuing this line of conversation.

WW

[Polar01]

Andre maybe you should chew on your own stuff, see link you put it up there.

http://www.outdoorphoto.co.za/galler...flight&cat=520

How dare that photographer from South Africa use a crop camera (D7000), less than pro glass (340mm 35mm equivalent 510mm) likely a 80-400mm, and a f-stop of 6.3 . Take that guy out behind the barn and teach him a lesson, only pro Full Frame cameras, only Pro Glass, and most important as you say only shoot at f/2.8, as you point out in your posts #9, #15, #17, and lastly #39. What was this guy thinking, shooting at f/6.3 instead of 2.8, as we all know only look at EXIF which states f/2.8

PS Andre you might want to take Karin with you when you take that guy out back behind the barn



Cheers: Allan

[Doorstop]

As already has been stated your impression is incorrect so there is no point in carrying on that line of conversation.

WW

WHAT are you still on about?

Do you really mean that I should revisit 40 posts to see when I said that, why I said what, and in what context it was said?

Come on, man? Is this splitting of hairs really necessary?

[Doorstop]

Andre maybe you should chew on your own stuff, see link you put it up there.

http://www.outdoorphoto.co.za/galler...flight&cat=520

PS Andre you might want to take Karin with you when you take that guy out back behind the barn

Cheers: Allan

I beg your pardon? I sincerely hope I am misunderstanding you here.

Please show us your rugby photographs?

[Doorstop]

Andre maybe you should chew on your own stuff, see link you put it up there.

http://www.outdoorphoto.co.za/galler...flight&cat=520

How dare that photographer from South Africa use a crop camera (D7000), less than pro glass (340mm 35mm equivalent 510mm) likely a 80-400mm, and a f-stop of 6.3 . Take that guy out behind the barn and teach him a lesson, only pro Full Frame cameras, only Pro Glass, and most important as you say only shoot at f/2.8, as you point out in your posts #9, #15, #17, and lastly #39. What was this guy thinking, shooting at f/6.3 instead of 2.8, as we all know only look at EXIF which states f/2.8

PS Andre you might want to take Karin with you when you take that guy out back behind the barn



Cheers: Allan

Sorry Allan, please could you also help me? I don't see the post where Andre referred to this photograph? I am trying to read what he said? What was the context that he referred you to this particular image?

[Stagecoach]

Please show us your rugby photographs?

I sincerely hope this is not a level of input we are going to be seeing at CiC which appears to be suggesting that if someone can not show a top shelf photo they have taken their views are not as significant as others.

[Shadowman]

You can chew a little on this one.

http://www.outdoorphoto.co.za/galler...-kick-&cat=520

PS: See the EXIF.

Was this shot taken by the same photographer? What is your take on the two images as far as DOF?

http://www.outdoorphoto.co.za/galler...flight&cat=520

Found the answer to the first question, two different photographers, second question still stands.

[Doorstop]

I sincerely hope this is not a level of input we are going to be seeing at CiC which appears to be suggesting that if someone can not show a top shelf photo they have taken their views are not as significant as others.

You are, of course, correct and I stand corrected.

Simultaneously, I sincerely hope that THIS is not the type of derogatory comment I can expect when I take part in a discussion and disagree with anyone?

you might want to take Karin with you when you take that guy out back behind the barn

[Polar01]

Well Karin the link that Andre put up was from his "you can chew a little on this one" post #39, well the next image in that link also showed one of another image. I simply also looked at it think it was going to be another example of the f/2.8 rule and what did I find was that photographer shot his image of a rugby player at f/6.3 not f2.8 It seemed that all the links Andre put up were to images that were shot at f/2.8.
Now I think you can find the link as you commented on it, yours was the next post.
Now to the question you put in the post before your post #47, "Please show us your rugby photographs?", well sadly I do not have any as I have no or little interest in the game, however I will gladly look at yours' if you post them. Off topic nice cat images on your in the other thread.

Cheers: Allan

PS:looking forward to seeing your rugby shots, Oh try not to yell my eyes are not that bad.

[William W]

WHAT are you still on about? Do you really mean that I should revisit 40 posts to see when I said that, why I said what, and in what context it was said? Come on, man? Is this splitting of hairs really necessary?

No.

One just assumes that others involved in a conversation will remember what they write and when they write it or if they don't they would indeed check before continuing the conversation.

WW

[Doorstop]

Well Karin the link that Andre put up was from his "you can chew a little on this one" post #39,

You said it.

well the next image in that link

You are drawing another image into the discussion, as stated by you: "the next image in that link", That was not the image that Andre was referring to.

It seemed that all the links Andre put up were to images that were shot at f/2.8.

ABSOLUTELY correct - the links that Andre put up for you, will take you to the specific images taken by the two top professionals (Simon and GB), who both use f/2.8 - which is EXACTLY what Andre has been saying all along.

The image you are linking to and drawing into the discussion was shot by another photographer, Craig, who also belongs to the same group and also posts in that gallery. (A gallery for pro's and amateurs alike.) And Craig will be the first to state that this image is not really the same technical quality, and if he had the equipment, he will more than likely follow the guru's at his next shoot.

PS: When people seem to not be able to understand, I feel compelled to stress the important phrases in a sentence to assist them.

PPS: I do not have decent rugby shots - that is why I am not making condescending remarks on other people who at least know a little bit more about the actual subject than I do.

[Doorstop]

no.

One just assumes that others involved in a conversation will remember what they write and when they write it or if they don't they would indeed check before continuing the conversation.

Ww

stop.

[William W]

stop.

maybe, if you say please rather than just giving orders . . .

[William W]

. . . And Craig will be the first to state that this image is not really the same technical quality, and if he had the equipment, he will more than likely follow the guru's at his next shoot.
PS: When people seem to not be able to understand, I feel compelled to stress the important phrases in a sentence to assist them.

. . . and it appears that you also like to speak on behalf other people: or do you have a transcript from Craig attesting to the fact that his work is inferior?

WW

[Doorstop]

... and it appears that you also like to be the center of attention: or do you always derail discussions after taking deep umbrage when discussions by others do not agree with you and your opinion only?

[William W]

Was this shot taken by the same photographer? What is your take on the two images as far as DOF?

http://www.outdoorphoto.co.za/galler...flight&cat=520

Found the answer to the first question, two different photographers, second question still stands.

Referring to the image “In Full Flight” by Craig Gissing:

The DoF seems both adequate and also appropriate for that particular shot.

It appears that the Photographer wanted both players in acceptable focus, with the emphasis on the player with the ball – composition does a lot for that cause. Also it appears that the Photographer locked focus on that player with the ball as the Foreground Player appears slightly OoF. But it is worth noting that the viewers' eye is generally less likely to notice a slight OoF in front of the MAIN SUBJECT.

The bokeh adds to the illusion of a shallower DoF than is actually present: the main constituent of that bokeh is the (large) Subject to Background distance.

If that image is a full frame crop from a Nikon D7000: then using a FL = 340mm Lens on that Nikon APS-C Camera, the DoF would be about 12ft. It occurs to me that the Photographer needed all of that 12ft to get both those players in reasonably sharp focus.

The EXIF reveals that the Photographer used Manual Shooting Mode, but other hand the Sigma Lens which was used has a Varying Maximum Aperture and at FL = 340mm it would be most likely (based upon the averaging rule Varying Max. Ap. Zoom Lenses) that the lens had already reached the maximum of Aperture, F/6.3: so therefore it is difficult to deduce if the Photographer selectively choose that particular Aperture to pull the shot, or not.

That stated, the lighting appears to be flat, probably an overcast day, and in this regard the Photographer did well to time the shot at the point of least motion to pull it at Tv = 1/500s – or he might have timed the spray of shots with that intent, or perhaps he was just lucky.

The shot is technically good: and has an appropriate DoF. That stated and on the other hand IF the shot were pulled at F/2.8, then the DoF would have been about 5’ (1.75mtrs) and, if the Photographer had have nailed focus on the player with the ball, the resultant image would have rendered the foreground player MORE OoF, which still would have been nice, but as previously mentioned the viewers’ eye tends not to take in any detail of an OoF foreground, especially if that foreground does not provide a linear lead-in into the main Subject: so it becomes a bit of personal taste as to whether or not F/2.8 would have render a “better” Photograph in this particular shooting scenario.

But there are other benefits for using an F/2.8 lens, even if an F/2.8 aperture is not chosen to pull the shot – for examples, but not limited to:

> the intrinsically better AF;
> brighter viewfinder;
> ability to use a tele-extender;
> ability to pull the shot at a faster Tv for any given ISO
> ability to use a slower ISO for any given Tv

WW

[William W]

... and it appears that you also like to be the center of attention: or do you always derail discussions after taking deep umbrage when discussions by others do not agree with you and your opinion only?

No. I have simply responded to the comments that have been made in this conversation.

So - do you have a testament from Craig informing us that he considers his work is as technically inferior?

WW

[Doorstop]

No. I have simply responded to the comments that have been made in this conversation.

Exactly.... when opinions do not agree with yours, you run around scanning certificates and derailing discussions, going on and on and on and on, until you wear everyone down, insisting on having the last word... JUST like my 3 year old g/d.

So - do you have a testament from Craig informing us that he considers his work is as technically inferior?

As you are definitely not going to sleep and will go in circles for the rest of your life until you have an answer, and you won't take my word, why don't you contact Craig and ask him directly?