Photographing Rugby - my second attempt

[William W]

. . .why don't you contact Craig and ask him directly?

Because:

You are part of this conversation and Craig is not.
You chose to speak on Craig’s behalf.
Asking for verification of your claim is reasonable.

WW

[Doorstop]

you won't believe me, so contact Craig. Or not - whatever floats your boat.

This is now boring and I don't want to play with you any more.

Edit - why are you sending one response to my email notifications, which I then answer, then you have a totally different response on the forum? URGH... actually, who cares don't even bother answering, I won't be reading.

[William W]

This is now boring. . . and I don't want to play with you any more.

. . . WOW! . . . your intentions in this conversation was just to play a game. That's an interesting revelation.

WW

[Shadowman]

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,

That's the type of analysis I like to read when judging the merits of a shot, regardless of the aperture chosen; even if shooting wide open could have improved the shot. The other thing that jumped out at me, which could lean more towards shooting wide open; is the slight distraction of the "Vaseline" poster in the back. On one hand it is in your face, but from the corporations viewpoint, that's probably a money shot, probably not what this particular photographer wanted to achieve, and even if he shot wide open (f/2.8) would that be enough to completely blur the sign.

[William W]

. . .The other thing that jumped out at me, which could lean more towards shooting wide open; is the slight distraction of the "Vaseline" poster in the back. On one hand it is in your face, but from the corporations viewpoint, that's probably a money shot, probably not what this particular photographer wanted to achieve, and even if he shot wide open (f/2.8) would that be enough to completely blur the sign.

That’s an interesting angle on the photo and also an interesting question.

I assumed this data:
Camera to Subject Distance = 150’ / 50m
Subject to Background Distance 150’ / 50m
Circle of Confusion 0.016mm

All other data I got from the EXIF

Then I ran that data through a Blur Calculator. ('Blur Calc' - REF BOB ATKINS)

The (simple) result is:

At the “Vaseline” sign the blur would be spread about twice as much if the Photographer used F/2.8, rather than f/6.3.

My conclusion is that even with twice the width of the blur, the sign is still big enough and has enough central substance in the lettering, that it would have be easily read even if F/2.8 were used in that shooting scenario.

***

Thank you for posting both this and the previous question.

Both are most relevant to this conversation and also to the OP.

WW

[Shadowman]

That’s an interesting angle on the photo and also an interesting question.

I assumed this data:
Camera to Subject Distance = 150’ / 50m
Subject to Background Distance 150’ / 50m
Circle of Confusion 0.016mm

All other data I got from the EXIF

Then I ran that data through a Blur Calculator. ('Blur Calc' - REF BOB ATKINS)

The (simple) result is:

At the “Vaseline” sign the blur would be spread about twice as much if the Photographer used F/2.8, rather than f/6.3.

My conclusion is that even with twice the width of the blur, the sign is still big enough and has enough central substance in the lettering, that it would have be easily read even if F/2.8 were used in that shooting scenario.

***

Thank you for posting both this and the previous question.

Both are most relevant to this conversation and also to the OP.

WW

William,

I try to weigh the options of shooting wide open, what is the end result, who is the audience I'm trying to reach, what are the limits of my gear. I like to think every photographer facing a challenge like the photo/scene in question uses the same process in choosing their settings.

[AB26]

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

Allan, (and William)

That is not very nice of you, insulting a Lady like that!
I think I should take you behind the barn and teach you about cameras and lenses.

Craig was using a D7000 (that is a Nikon camera) with a Sigma 50-500mm lens. I suspect Craig is making the best use of the equipment he has. And what a job he is doing with less than the best equipment. (I’d like to see him with a D4s and good Nikkor glass.)

The Sigma 50-500mm lens is not a fixed aperture lens and the aperture narrows down as you zoom in. The Sigma 50-500 is an F4.5-6.3 lens. You know what that means? Shooting at 340mm on a 50-500mm f4.5-6.3 lens you will find that you are probably restricted to f6.3 MAXIMUM aperture at the 340mm mark, in other words WIDE OPEN! In other words, Craig was shooting WIDE OPEN doing a darn good job with what he has.

If you care to read my comment correctly you will understand that I suggested WIDE OPEN at HIGH SHUTTER SPEEDS.

PS: Allan if you read properly you would not have assumed Craig was using an 80-400mm lens.

[Polar01]

Andre I failed to read farther down when I opened the EXIF info tab, I now see that the lens was listed down in the additional info area. I had looked down at that area on others and not seeing anything other than image size links the decided to not look there this time my mistake. If I had I would have seen the lens used as I did not, I than assumed the 80-400mm as the new one would have done nicely the only other was the 200-400mm and at $7700.00 seemed a bit pricey.
You work with what you have, you also work on the look you want with what you have.

Cheers: Allan

[rpcrowe]

If anyone has a spare hour or so to devote to sports photography research (generic sports photography) Scott Kelby's 54 minute YouTube video has some excellent and valuable pointers...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ4KsGYDzgU

[AB26]

Andre I failed to read farther down when I opened the EXIF info tab, I now see that the lens was listed down in the additional info area. I had looked down at that area on others and not seeing anything other than image size links the decided to not look there this time my mistake. If I had I would have seen the lens used as I did not, I than assumed the 80-400mm as the new one would have done nicely the only other was the 200-400mm and at $7700.00 seemed a bit pricey.
You work with what you have, you also work on the look you want with what you have.

Cheers: Allan

Allan,

It does make a difference when you do read things. I tend to STUDY the EXIF from the shots taken by the Guru’s, that is how I learn.

If you read my initial post carefully you will not find any suggestion like “only shoot at f2.8”. If the Big Guns shoot wide open most of the time, you should ask WHY? Theory is one thing but getting it right in practice is something else!

Talk about being rude:
You owe the lady a public apology for suggesting I should take her behind the barn. You are old enough to know you should show a little more respect to ladies.

[dabhand]

Not into sports photography but I was reading an interesting piece today by Tom Jenkins - one of the UK's top, multi-discipline sports photographers.

In it he said his workhorse lenses are 16-35 and 70-200, attached to a Canon 1DX which is generally connected via a cable to the internet so that an image lands in his editors in-box in less than 30 seconds !

Not only is his gear better than mine, but it looks like his uploads speeds are too !

steve

[TareqPhoto]

I hope one day i can shoot Rugby as good as i did shoot soccer in my area, and i am ready with the equipment, but i just need to understand the Rugby game and where to stand then i am ready to go.

[dabhand]

I hope one day i can shoot Rugby as good as i did shoot soccer in my area, and i am ready with the equipment, but i just need to understand the Rugby game and where to stand then i am ready to go.

I think the best approach for a newcomer to the game would be to watch a few games on the TV and/or buy a few DVDs - basically unless you can gallop up and down the touchline the majority of interesting action, much like football, takes palce at either end of the field.

steve

[TareqPhoto]

I think the best approach for a newcomer to the game would be to watch a few games on the TV and/or buy a few DVDs - basically unless you can gallop up and down the touchline the majority of interesting action, much like football, takes palce at either end of the field.

steve

Sure if i will go to shoot Rugby then i will stand where those photographers from press or whatever standing too, i don't want to be less than them even they do that for income, but i am planning to work for a local press company so i can get access to more places, sports or not, i don't think i may do Rugby if i work with them, but i can always ask for permission and it may open me some doors here and there.

[rpcrowe]

I agree with Tareq about understanding the game in order to shoot it well! IMO, understanding the game, not only allows the photographer to position himself or herself in the correct position for the upcoming action (given that the photographer holds the requisite permission to station himself in the best areas) but, enables the photographer to anticipate action and therefore be ready to shoot that action...

Another requirement (as I see it) is to have viewed enough still images of Rugby to have an appreciation of what professional sports photographers consider the best shots...

The understanding of a free flowing game like Rugby, Soccer or American football is more important than understanding of a sport with specific geographic limitations such as auto racing in which the vehicles are on a specific track and some running events in which the participants are moving down certain lanes.

IMO, one of the easiest field games to shoot is American baseball because most of the action is severely limited geographically: the pitcher is on the mound or close to it, the batter is in the batter's box. the bases are a specific distance AND if the ball is hit into the outfield, the photographer really has a bit of time to follow the ball. probably Cricket is about the same...

BTW: IMO, I don't consider it worthwhile to shoot sports from the viewing stands.If I am attending a game, rather than shooting it, I don't even carry a camera!

[TareqPhoto]

Where i can see best or many top quality pro rugby still images? I want to see/look more at those photos so i can learn and understand what kind of photos it should be taken, i did this with soccer and i succeeded.

[Dave Humphries]

Where i can see best or many top quality pro rugby still images?

Have you tried a google search Tareq?

I'm not a sports follower, but that's where I would start - or the Gallery section of the professional association website for whatever discipline of Rugby you intend to shoot.

Good luck, Dave

[rpcrowe]

Here is a collection of Rugby photos.

https://www.google.com/search?q=rugb...w=1097&bih=539

I have absolutely no idea of the rules or strategies of Rugby, however I did notice while perusing these images that many of the most professional appearing images were shot from a low camera position (ruling out the overhead shots). Many of those Rugby images that I prefer appear to have been shot from the low camera angles.

A Google search using the parameters "Rugby Photography Tips" brings up a lot of hits. I think that is where I would start if I were interested in photographing Rugby...

[TareqPhoto]

I started there with google, but honestly speaking, most or over 80% of the photos are just normal or not that high quality better than average or standard, so that i asked here as i thought some will know sites with just best high quality photos of Rugby [or another sports included].