First football game — which lens?

[Nill Toulme]

Shooting my first football game ever tonight — yikes!

I'll put the 70-200 on the 1D and either the 300 or 400 f/2.8 on the Mark II — which one? And is there any point in throwing the 16-35 on the 20D and taking that too?

I expect to have pretty much free sideline access but not sure till I get there.

Now off to look for shooting-football tips...

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

[Steve Mitchell]

Good luck tonight Nill. Use your 400 for football, that's the lens for football. Here are some tips I posted sometime ago for shooting football. Click here.

[Eugene C. Finley]

Nill, I have used a 300 and 400 walking up and down the sidelines. I am smaller than Steve and the 400 nearly wore me out. If the 400 were lighter I would prefer using that lens, but since the 300 does not weigh as much, I prefer using the 300 so that it does not wear me out.

I definitely agree that the 400 is the best lens to use due to the focus ability but I have to say that it is heavy.

If you are going to have two cameras just be aware of the limitations of your own body.

You will not need a wide angle unless you plan on photographing players on the sidelines in groups.

[Nill Toulme]

Thanks both. I'm used to schlepping the 400 and the 70-200 around on the soccer pitch, so this shouldn't be too bad.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

[Nill Toulme]

Thanks again guys for the helpful advice on my first football outing. My conclusion: Football is hard!

I ended up shooting with the 400 f/2.8 on the Mark II, the 70-200 f/2.8 on the 1D, and the 16-35 on the 20D. As I recall, for the most part I shot the Mark II and 1D in M, f/2.8 @ 1/400, ISO 3200 and 1/320, ISO 1600 respectively. The latter still wasn't quite enough exposure for the very dark end zones, but I just don't like to go to ISO 3200 on the 1D. Probably should have gone to 1/250 there, but would have preferred a bit more shutter speed all round. For the sideline/halftime stuff I think I put the 20D in Av at f/4 or maybe f/5.6, ISO 3200.

Anyway, if I'm going to do any more of this, like basketball I have a *lot* to learn, but for better or worse, here are some of the results.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

Shot RAW and converted with C1 for the 1D and Mark II, BreezeBrowser for the 20D, jpg's and HTML generated by BreezeBrowser with default USM. AWB, and with few exceptions I didn't fiddle with trying to adjust it in the conversions, which shows...

Complete game (300+ frames) with EXIF and slideshow at
http://www.toulme.net/sports/woodwar...2904/index.htm

You'll notice that I "cheated" by shooting a lot more than just the action on the field...

Thanks again for all the good help so far, and in advance for any constructive comments that might be forthcoming.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

[jliechty]

Of the photos in your post, I like 12, 25, and 28 of the football shots, and 18 and 19 in the "other" category.

[Nill Toulme]

Thanks. Now — why? ;-)

And tell me some things you *don't* like about a few of the others. (Other than that are so many of them. Yikes! I got carried away. Anyway, I've gone back and numbered them for easy reference.)

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

[spencenaz]

I'd say that's pretty darn good for a first try at football. I'll give you my personal gut feeling from a fanantic football fan that loves looking at football photos.

18 and 23 I like as is, and wouldn't change a thing. 19 too, but I like color better for football most of the time. Although, I do like so of the old B&W SI stuff.

12 and 13 I think could benefit from a slight crop. But, otherwise I like them too.

25 is very good. I think it could benefit from a slight change in angle or perhaps a crop. The ref and player on the right detract slightly for me. Otherwise, it is very interesting to me.

I like 3 very much, but I think it could have benefited from waiting a slight bit longer to snap the shot.

4 and 17 I think are good, but a lower shooting angle like 21 might make them more interesting. 21 would be great, except the bokeh flare looks kinda weird to me. Keep in mind these are nit picks. I'm not trying to trash your work.

10 and 11 seems too busy to me. A crop here might change that though.

I think this is a fine job for you're first time out. I hope the first time I get to go shoot a football game I get stuff this good.

To me the most interesting football shots are the ones like 12, 13, 16 and 23. They show the ball, aren't too busy, show some action and some pleasing motion blur, and have good shallow DOF. Second to that would be the reaction shots that Steve always talks about. And thirdly the sidelines stuff, or the band shots. I think those are important too.

Good Work

[Nill Toulme]

Thanks very much. That's extremely helpful and useful feedback, and I agree with virtually all of it.

It's funny, I always tell people (and myself) to "crop tighter, crop tighter" — but then sometimes I fall off of it and find myself wanting to include a little space, or whatever, for whatever reason. And it usually doesn't work. This was my favorite shot of last weekend, for example, and a lot of people said it should have had a vertical crop that centered on the players:

Funny too about what you say regarding 3 and 25. I actually have several more versions of each. I picked #3 from those more or less at random, and #25 mostly on the location of the intervening opposition player (whom if I'd had the lights on I would've been in front of, not behind).

You might enjoy looking at the whole shoot, and I'd love to hear your comments on the rest of it. But maybe not tonight — either my site is getting slammed really hard (by its standards) or else my server is dying a slow and ugly death.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

[spencenaz]

Originally Posted by Nill Toulme

Thanks very much. That's extremely helpful and useful feedback, and I agree with virtually all of it.

It's funny, I always tell people (and myself) to "crop tighter, crop tighter" — but then sometimes I fall off of it and find myself wanting to include a little space, or whatever, for whatever reason. And it usually doesn't work. This was my favorite shot of last weekend, for example, and a lot of people said it should have had a vertical crop that centered on the players:

Funny too about what you say regarding 3 and 25. I actually have several more versions of each. I picked #3 from those more or less at random, and #25 mostly on the location of the intervening opposition player (whom if I'd had the lights on I would've been in front of, not behind).

You might enjoy looking at the whole shoot, and I'd love to hear your comments on the rest of it. But maybe not tonight — either my site is getting slammed really hard (by its standards) or else my server is dying a slow and ugly death.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

I'd love to see the rest sometime.

Cropping is such a tough thing for me. When I look at other's work, I always see crops in my mind's eye that I like. But, I have an impossible time dealing with my own shots. I never seem to be happy with a lot of my crops, so a lot of times I refrain. It's such a highly subjective thing I guess.

[Nill Toulme]

Have a go at it now if you like. It seems to be creeping back towards normal.

http://www.toulme.net/sports/woodwar...2904/index.htm

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

[under1630]

I just began taking shots of High School football and here are results. The settings were: Canon 20D w/70-200 F2.8L ISO 1600 2.8 1/800.

[under1630]

Some more shots. The last shot is my 14 year old son making yet another sack.