Football C&C

matt.garnett · Sep 2, 2013

Here are some of my shots from the first game of the regular season

I was lucky enough to get to use an evaluation 600L f/4 IS II from Canon. Absolutely awesome lens. It'll never be able to replace my 300L 2.8 until I'm done shooting HS sports though. It's a little heavy to swing around and at f/4 I wasn't able to get many great shots once the sun went down. Overall, I'm pretty happy with the results. Please leave me some C&C so I can continue to improve!

1.

2.

3.

4. (The kid with his helmet off just kicked a 57 yard field goal)

5.

6.

Please let me know what you think!

Cheers,

Matt

imagemaker46 · Sep 2, 2013

Image 5 is definitely the strongest photo. The others all look a little soft. The 600mm can overpower a lot of photographers, especially those that aren't comfortable using it. With the 5D mklll you should have been ok shooting with this lens at iso's over 3200. I don't know what the light was like after the sun went down, so I can't really comment on that. To be honest the pictures are just ok, apart from image 5. I also know that a lot of football games don't always produce good images, and with the 600mm, you will tend to miss more than you would with a 300-400mm.

matt.garnett · Sep 2, 2013

The light was pretty bad after the sun set. My ISO was around 12,800, so not many of those photos were useful. With the exception of the fourth, which was a massive crop on my 1D3, and the sixth which I focused on the reporter, the rest of the originals look take sharp. I guess that posting these online must've lost a little quality, because now that I look at the first one it looks softer than it does in lightroom. I appreciate the feedback, but I'd really like a little better detail. You say that my photos are just okay, am I missing the peak action? I'm getting the ball, faces, eyes even. My exposure and WB is pretty spot on, so what am I missing? I know that these are my photos so I automatically am biased towards them, but please elaborate.

imagemaker46 · Sep 2, 2013

If you were shooting at 12,800iso, then the light must have been a couple of 60 watt bulbs, I've shot in some really bad light, last week I was shooting at 5000iso and ended up stopping as it wasn't worth it. I went to the bench and shot some portraits at a slower shutter speed. I was using a 5D mklll and my 300mm and a 1.4.

Frame 1 A tighter crop
Frame 2 WB looks off, a little blue
Frame 3 tighter crop-I'd crop across the back of #11, take out #40. Would also try a crop across the hip of the ball carrier, turn it into more of a true vertical.
Frame 4 Crop all the stand out and crop out #40 right to the shoulder of #25
Frame 5 Great shot
Frame 6 Just a basic interview shot, nice expressions.

With the 600mm I would have expected to see more interior line action, it's ideal for that kind of action. As I said the 600mm will eliminate some of the shots that you may have had with a shorter lens. I don't know how much football you shoot, or how well you know or understand the game. Unfortunately I have a tendency to compare other photographers football to what I shoot.

matt.garnett · Sep 2, 2013

I'd kill to shoot in a stadium with 5000 ISO at night. Given, I'm using an f/4 lens so usually I'd be more around 8,000 maybe 10,000, but still. 1/500 was still not fast enough to stop a majority of the action later in the game. Maybe I just don't like the shots that other people like. I love frame 2 and 3. Probably some of my favorite photos I've taken. I tend to follow the ball and I don't really pay much attention to the line. Most of our offense is outside runs and passes since our o-line is pretty weak, but I have some photos. I'm not a professional photographer, but I've been doing this for a few years so I like to think I have a pretty good idea of what I'm doing.

1. I agree
2. I agree
3. I agree that it needs to be cropped, but I think that at the waist is a little extreme.
4. Totally agree. I hate that crop but I made the mistake of pulling out my 70-200 so that image is already cropped about as far as it will go without IQ degrading
5. Of the set, probably my least favorite
6. I felt like I needed to put in something for closure.

I appreciate your honest critique, even as I try and act a little protective. It's kinda hard to get that sometimes over at FM. Obviously I'm nowhere near your level, even if we may both shoot on a 5D Mark III, but I'll continue to slowly improve.

Derrel · Sep 2, 2013

These look like they should be sharp; they appear in-focus, and the motion is well-stopped...I suspect the issue is the exact sharpening that is being applied in Lightroom. Not sure exactly what sharpening settings are being applied, but the sharpening routine does not seem to be quite optimized for the size of the images when displayed on the web...maybe look into how you've got LR set up to sharpen.

imagemaker46 · Sep 2, 2013

Why do you find #5 your least favourite? I find that kind of strange. As a football picture it really is the strongest. We are all protective of our own images, I really wouldn't expect any different. The light you have to shoot in would be a real struggle. I usually shoot in pro stadiums so the light is pretty good. I have a few more Jr games this season and will be shooting at close to 5000iso at the kickoff. I've got another pro game at the end of the month to shoot in the afternoon, really looking forward to that one. Keep at it, you are on the right track.

Derrel · Sep 2, 2013

Number 3 is the strongest football image...the guy on defense has the ballcarrier wrapped up in a cool fashion, even has one sleeve pulled up revealing the back's undershirt sleeve, and he's ALMOST got his helmet ripped off...the ballcarrier's chinstrap is already up and over his eyes, but it's hard to see in such a tiny file.

Shot #5 just looks like a runner carrying the football, and a kid trying to make a piss-poor arm tackle is hidden from view and totally blocked by the back of #12...all the action is implied in #5, but in shot #3 the action is actually HAPPENING and visible.

The idea that shot #5 is obviously the "best" shot is highly debatable.

matt.garnett · Sep 2, 2013

Derrel-- That is my exact feeling. In fact his helmet actually did get ripped off that play, which the photo doesn't quite fully show, but it partially implies it. I also like 2 a lot because just as our defense forced the offense to, the kid responsible for the fumble is wide-eyed watching as our defense snatches it up. Photo 5 is a run-of-the-mill RB photo with a cool tilt in my opinion, with good technical quality. It doesn't have much personality though. Not a ton of face, and no eyes. A great newspaper action shot, but not an eyebrow raising portfolio photo.

imagemaker46 · Sep 2, 2013

Derrel said:
Number 3 is the strongest football image...the guy on defense has the ballcarrier wrapped up in a cool fashion, even has one sleeve pulled up revealing the back's undershirt sleeve, and he's ALMOST got his helmet ripped off...the ballcarrier's chinstrap is already up and over his eyes, but it's hard to see in such a tiny file.

Shot #5 just looks like a runner carrying the football, and a kid trying to make a piss-poor arm tackle is hidden from view and totally blocked by the back of #12...all the action is implied in #5, but in shot #3 the action is actually HAPPENING and visible.

The idea that shot #5 is obviously the "best" shot is highly debatable.

You're right it is debatable. I like the shot as a clean action running back with the ball. I don't find that #3 is really anything special and easier to shoot as the play has been stopped and the ball carrier is just being held up. The running back in #5 is moving forward and the play is still in progress. It's harder to follow the running back shooting with a long lens than it is to shoot players that are stationary as in #3.

imagemaker46 · Sep 2, 2013

matt.garnett said:
Derrel-- That is my exact feeling. In fact his helmet actually did get ripped off that play, which the photo doesn't quite fully show, but it partially implies it. I also like 2 a lot because just as our defense forced the offense to, the kid responsible for the fumble is wide-eyed watching as our defense snatches it up. Photo 5 is a run-of-the-mill RB photo with a cool tilt in my opinion, with good technical quality. It doesn't have much personality though. Not a ton of face, and no eyes. A great newspaper action shot, but not an eyebrow raising portfolio photo.

Try cropping #5 tighter, taking out #61 and see how it changes. It is a good technical running back shot and there is as much face in it as there is in #3. Being told his helmet was ripped off, also says that you missed the peak action. I wouldn't put any of these as eyebrow raising portfolio photos, as I mentioned they are pretty good, but not outstanding. I have no doubt though from looking at these that in time, you will be producing some pretty outstanding football images. I'd like to see what you can do during some days games, I expect pretty good.

matt.garnett · Sep 2, 2013

You're right it is debatable. I like the shot as a clean action running back with the ball. I don't find that #3 is really anything special and easier to shoot as the play has been stopped and the ball carrier is just being held up. The running back in #5 is moving forward and the play is still in progress. It's harder to follow the running back shooting with a long lens than it is to shoot players that are stationary as in #3.

I don't think that it really matters the level of difficulty a shot is to pull off. I think what matters most is the resulting image. You like #5 better, we like #3 better. People have different tastes, but if you're basing your judgement mainly on the difficulty an image is to capture I think that is the wrong mentality. Consumers could care less how many thousands of dollars a photographers gear costs, they care about the product.

matt.garnett · Sep 2, 2013

imagemaker46 said:
Try cropping #5 tighter, taking out #61 and see how it changes. It is a good technical running back shot and there is as much face in it as there is in #3. Being told his helmet was ripped off, also says that you missed the peak action. I wouldn't put any of these as eyebrow raising portfolio photos, as I mentioned they are pretty good, but not outstanding. I have no doubt though from looking at these that in time, you will be producing some pretty outstanding football images. I'd like to see what you can do during some days games, I expect pretty good.

I'll post the change in a few minutes. I do agree with you that I like the tighter crop. My tendency is to leave photos loose. I'm fairly new to shooting with the 5D III where you are allowed to crop to much greater extents. My "eyebrow raising portfolio" comment was an exaggeration, but I want to pass the point that the photo isn't a typical tackle, it is a little different than the norm. Did I miss peak action? Maybe, but also maybe not

matt.garnett · Sep 2, 2013

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

7. (An idea of what it was like when the sun went down)

imagemaker46 · Sep 3, 2013

The crops have turned the "average" images you posted into great football images. The tackle shot has more impact now. The last one you posted looks great. You should forget about the loose crops from now on, and crop tighter. If I had seen these photos first I would have just said great football shots.