dancefloorlandmine (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
dancefloorlandmine) wrote2008-09-01 12:19 pm
dancefloorlandmine) wrote2008-09-01 12:19 pm
[Photos] A sporting chance ...
I've just been asked to take some photos for work this weekend. Of a five-a-side footbal tournament. Not exactly a photographic subject I've ever tried before. Any of the photographers out there (including those who've, say, covered Whitby) got any handy advice for taking photos at sporting events? It's a bit of a change from my usual gig/club/architecture/portrait millieu!
(And this is when I wish I had a 70-200mm (or more) f/2.8 lens! [grin])
(And this is when I wish I had a 70-200mm (or more) f/2.8 lens! [grin])
no subject
Cheers!
Huzzah - that, I have!
Unfortunately, shutter release cable, I don't - I'm not even sure whether the EOS-400D can take one. Hmm ...
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Fair point! The cable's probably better for these purposes, as I'll be behind the camera rather than in front. Ta!
no subject
Long lens, contious shutter, huge memory card, pick a sport and go for it. I used a tripod for some of the whitby match and found it helpful.
Oh, a knowledge of the game maybe helpful, I had no idea what was going on and felt had I known the rules would have coped better in knowing where the ball may go next.
no subject
Ah - that would be behind the panel I've never yet opened. [grin]
Wish I had a faster long lens - unfortunately the 75-300 is quite old, and also not the fastest at the long end. But then, I suppose I've just got used to taking photos in the near dark, so needing a wide aperture! Daytime photography is a whole new experience! [grin]
I've got a smattering of football knowledge, although given that these are five-a-side teams mustered by corporate donors, I'm not sure what the skill levels will be like ... I might have to rely on physics to guess where the ball's likely to be!
no subject
no subject
I'll give mine a go, then. What's the aperture range of yours?
I'm a heathan? Bah! You're the heathen, madam! [grin] (I suspect that this argument could go on for some time - I hope that there's a teabreak!)
no subject
Yes a Heathen, indeed. Hiring kit, pah!
(Mind you I suspect i could not hire lens for mine as the 'professional' people are heathens as well.)
no subject
Depends on your particular brand of nonconformism ... [grin] Hiring camera gear is a bit like getting crack at a "first puff discount", I suspect. Once tried, forever wanted ...
It's usually printed on the end of the lens barrel, next to the lens length (at least with Canons), indicating what the maximum aperture of the lens is. Thus my old Canon 75-300mm lens is often referred to as "75-300mm f/4-5.6". This indicates that it can open up to f/4 at 75mm and only up to f/5.6 at 300mm. It's also a way to differentiate between different lenses with the same focal lengths. The lower the number after the 'f/', the wider the aperture, the more light you can get in, and the faster the shutter speed you can use*. Also, usually, the more expensive the lens. [sigh]
* Apologies for telling you things you probably already know.
no subject
Hmmm, I really need to learn f stops properly. Reading books again I think. *sigh*
Oh, I have no idea on the technical side, I just point the camera.
no subject
Could well be right. Not my church, so I'm not sure. [grin]
I basically let the camera do the work too, but I like to know what some of the numbers actually mean. Most kit and standard zoom lenses have minimum apertures of about f/3.5 to 5.6, which are viewed as reasonable. Fast zoom lenses tend to open down to f/2.8, and prime (non-zoom) lenses can go down to around f/1.2 for what
The number after the f/ is the second half of a ratio, indicating how much of the lens is actually letting light in. So something taken at f/2.8 means that the aperture opening is 1:2.8 of the lens (or 1/2.8, for fractional people) - about a third. If it's taken at f/10, then it's about a tenth.
no subject
*scrabbles for a non techie speak book*
no subject
In brief ... the smaller then number next to the "f/", the bigger the hole, and the more light you can get into your camera. The more light you can get into the camera, the faster a shutter speed you can use, and the less blurred people are due to moving.
(There is a payoff in terms of depth of field, but I think that would require a series of images to illustrate - which I haven't yet taken ...)
(Good icon.)
no subject
Like geese.
no subject
no subject
"The much interpreted artificiality and hypnotic slowness of the protagonists is partly due to the technical requirements of filming: actors had to pay attention to not move too fast thereby leaving the extremely limited depth [of field]."
no subject
no subject
Random is usually best; If you try to get a certain image, no doubt, you will have missed it :)
no subject
no subject
You can also get the tranny-friendly RC5 wireless remote (or I can lend you it if you're careful) but this doesn't do half-press focussing, and only works from in front of the camera.
I would also suggest you don't promise too much; I imagine this sort of thing is quite hard esp when you don't have the "right" lens (and no, that doesn't mean go out and spend money! ;-)
no subject
no subject
Cool! Ta!
Fair enough. I'd been considering getting one of the remote triggers anyway, but suspected that the 'front only' aspect might not help in this case.
Heh - I've already got my "expectation management" disclaimers in place. [grin]
[snork]