Need help with baseball photography...

[LWW]

I shoot a lot of baseball.

Is this the type look you were going for?

If so you really need a fast aperture. That's about all.

LWW

 

[manaheim]

Hey again guys. I gave it a try with editing the picture to add blur to it. Here is a pic that I took yesterday, and I took about 5-10 minutes carefully blurring out the background, going slow around the edges so I don't blur the player out too. Let me know what you think:

The pic looked fine, but I almost wonder if your time isn't worth more than this? You know, add up the hours you would take doing this (and the "not as good" quality that would be the result), come up with a dollar value of that time, multiply it by the number of pictures, and then apply that to some new equipment.

The cam you have and are using looks pretty nice, (I looked it up here, if anyone is interested and doesn't feel like googling) but it is a P+S, and when it gets down to it, it is going to limit you.

Anytime anyone comes to me with the P+S in hand and says "Look at this picture, I want to make it better but can't seem to..." I instantly look at them and say "Welcome to the crossroads of SLR and P+S."

And it's totally that... you have to decide "Do I stay on the P+S road and do the best I can and fight this into place?" or "Do I invest time and money into equipment that gives me more options and flexibilty?"

There's nothing wrong with a P+S... nothing at all... as long as you are ok with what it does for you, and what it may limit you to. What you are doing seems very much a candidate for a different road... after all, look at your own picture and see those guys with the HUGE lenses on their cams... and they are sitting closer than you are.

BTW, those are some great shots. Seems like you have a real (k)nack for it... I'm not sure I could pull those off with my DSLR, let alone with a $300 point and shoot. I know there's all this legal discussion, but maybe this is a case where you might even shoot for an official job doing this, vs. just a hobby on your own.

Just some thoughts. I hope they're helpful.

 

[Village Idiot]

If this guy got a DSLR and a huge lens, do you think he'd actually be able to take pictures then? I'm sure stadium security would be stopping him at the gate with a "Sir, you can't bring that camera in here."

 

[randerson07]

I know in Chicago, you can bring in whatever lens you want, but you cant bring a tripod.

And you cannot interfere with anyones view of the game. I want to say Wrigley Field will allow video cameras too, you just wont be able to sell what you capture.

Heres one I took at Wrigley last week with my 10D


Edit: HAHA I just noticed I put my name an a copyright dealy on there after reading the above discussion, I should take that off, nobody can use this photo for anything anyways.

 

[ksm]

Randerson 07:

Having a copyright notice on your photo is not wrong or illegal. You took the photo the photo is yours. You are copywriting the actual photograph not the contents. You might not have the right to sell the photo but that doesn't mean that the photo isn't yours.

Now if there is a sign in the ball park oron the ticket that said :"no pictures allowed" then taking a photo would be illegal (if indeed that park is private property)because it would be the same as walking into someone's home and snapping away without permission. Guess what, even if you did that you still own the photograph until a judge makes you destroy it.

Now for the general legality of these photographs. I am only familiar with the general guidelines of major sporting events. For the most part cameras are allowed. The sport is a product of whatever controlling agency (MLB, NBA, etc) and as such they have full rights of sole profit. You cannot use any photos for commercial purposes (i.e advertising) without their consent.

Now if you were to sell a print like the one randerson has as an artisitic interpretation of the game (unless their is express rules somewhere that says otherwise) I think you should not have a problem. You are not tying the field or the team or the park to some type of endorsement. Now the photographing of the actual player maybe harder to prove as an art print but not impossible. But that be up to you if you want to take the league up in a battle.

Heck prints as art have for the most part been upheld by the court, including the photo of the hasidic jew in NYC that was taken and sold without his consent. No commercial explotation of the photo (i.e. not used for advetisement) just sold as an art print. But I do not take sport photos and they're might be more rules on the leagues' guidelines, that I am not aware of, that "you agree to abide by" when purchasing the ticket to the game that prevent you from selling art prints also.

My 2 cents

 

[Village Idiot]

And all modern DSLR's will do at least 1/4000 shutter speed with most doing 1/8000.

But faster shutter speed isn't always better. Balance is the key.

 

[kylehess10]

Do you have any pics of John Maine from the mets? I played against him in the past and would love a nice photo. PM me if you think you might have one.

I got a couple pics of Maine from last week when the Mets were in town and he was pitching. Shoot me an e-mail if interested: [email protected]