Need help with baseball photography...

[JimmyO]

Not only is the lens limiting you here, but your position. In order to get that nice blurred background you want to be as close to the subject as possible, and you also want the background of the shot (the people in the stands) to be as far behind the subject as possible. That being said i dont think any realistic camera setup would be able to get the shot you are looking for given these circumstances.


Btw, great shots!

 

[asfixiate]

I still don't know how he was able to get that shot with 68mm. Makes me want a sony.

 

[Early]

Not only is the lens limiting you here, but your position. In order to get that nice blurred background you want to be as close to the subject as possible, and you also want the background of the shot (the people in the stands) to be as far behind the subject as possible. That being said i dont think any realistic camera setup would be able to get the shot you are looking for given these circumstances.


Btw, great shots!

I just tried doing some math, and in broad daylight, if he can set his iso on 100, and shutter 1/2000 sec., it will give him an aperture of f4.4, which is his widest. Wouldn't that be wide enough?

 

[Early]

I still don't know how he was able to get that shot with 68mm. Makes me want a sony.

Where did you see 68mm? I believe his camera zooms out to 380mm.

 

[kylehess10]

I've never heard anything about selling photos being illegal, but definitely video I have.


As for the zoom, my camera has 10x optical/20x total. I always take my shots from 1-2 rows above the dugout, and to take the shots I posted in my first post, I usually use between 12x-14x zoom. That's what I've noticed has made the pictures more clear. Going in upwards of 17x-20x zoom there is a lot of noise in the picture so I stay away from that. My pictures come out best during day-games and I set the mode to 1/2000 shutter speed and 100 (or sometimes 200) ISO.

My pictures actually come out better before gametime, mainly because I'm a little bit closer to the players and I don't get any fans in the background like this one I took a few weeks ago:

 

[D-50]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A03E2DC1F3EF933A25757C0A9679C8B63

Looks like news organizations got sued for selling photos they took that originally were to be used for newspaper articles. I cannot imagine the NBA/MLB/NHL/NFL would be fine with anyone selling photos of their players without their consent.

I do not have a sports ticket however I imagine on the back it says something that addresses this exact issue. if anyone has a sports ticket I would love to hear what is written on the back.

I would not mess around selling photos that are in conflict with such a large organizations rules. They could easily bury anyone of us here on the forum in legal debt or copyright fines.

 

[dEARlEADER]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A03E2DC1F3EF933A25757C0A9679C8B63

Looks like news organizations got sued for selling photos they took that originally were to be used for newspaper articles. I cannot imagine the NBA/MLB/NHL/NFL would be fine with anyone selling photos of their players without their consent.

I do not have a sports ticket however I imagine on the back it says something that addresses this exact issue. if anyone has a sports ticket I would love to hear what is written on the back.

I would not mess around selling photos that are in conflict with such a large organizations rules. They could easily bury anyone of us here on the forum in legal debt or copyright fines.

This is fear mongering... the o.p. is simply asking for advice on equipment and not using the forum to facilitate any sales....

 

[D-50]

This is not "fear mongering" at all. fear mongering would be more along the lines of "If you sell Photos of a professional sporting event without consent the terrorist win" and where did I insinuate that the o.p. was trying to facilitate sales?

I was simply pointing out that selling photos taken at a professional sporting event without consent could get you involved in a lawsuit that you do not want to be in.

Go ahead and keep taking photos at games. A DSLR is really the only way your going to achieve the look you see in professinal photos especially if you pushing your P&S camera into the digital zoom portio of its zoom. At the point you go into digital zoom you are zooming in on the image in the camera not the actual subject so DOF will not act the same way.

 

[asfixiate]

if you watch baseball it always says you can't do stuff without the express written consent of MLB. even if the post was something else. An efficient response was mentioning this as its courtesy to let the photog know that he could get into trouble.

 

[D-50]

Thank you asfixiate. All i was doind was warning the O.P. of a potential situation, isn't this forum for us to discuss and ecducate each other on all aspect of photography?

 

[asfixiate]

yes.

Its like giving someone advise on how to take the best shots of an air force base...even if you have good recommendations without it being legal I'd recommend you cover yourself.

 

[D-50]

Not to beat a dead horse here but if someone were to ask "what is the best way to take a shot of the Whitehouse at dusk?" im sure many would answer "use a tripod" I welcome anyone to set up a tripod outside the whitehouse and see what happens. To not tell someone of a potential pitfall in their shooting is doing them as much a disservice as telling them the wrong advice.

 

[dEARlEADER]

if you watch baseball it always says you can't do stuff without the express written consent of MLB. even if the post was something else. An efficient response was mentioning this as its courtesy to let the photog know that he could get into trouble.

this is fine to mention as an aside.... but suggesting that BIG corporations can/could "easily bury anyone of us here on the forum in legal debt or copyright fines." for giving the op lens advise is a little rich.... it gives the impression that posters should run from this thread like it's a frag grenade...

gave me that feeling anyway...

 

[D-50]

I was not saying MLB would sue us for giving advice on a lens. I would reccomend at least 200mm and 2.8. I was saying they would sue the op for selling copyrighted material. This would apply to anyone here who plans on selling material that is copyrighted by anyone especially an organization with pockets as deep as the ones mentined.

Although giving advice can land you in a heap of legal trouble just depends on the subject matter but thats for a different forum all together.

 

[asfixiate]

Might have been a little much to say in a "easy big fella" way but in this case....its actually something that needs to be said. Even though I'd actually consider buying some of these shots just as far as composition is concerned I'd be HIGHLY worried about getting nailed. Might take some time but be careful...dont sell them on a website or advertise really...maybe say here's some cool shots

Not to mention the fact that there's at least 10k worth of camera equipment behind the batters that are being paid to take the shots and he's selling them.

Doesn't see that fair. Shoot away just don't sell IMHO.