11/11/11 A football game- recap

Shooting sports is not something I do that often, though I think I really like it. Therefor- it is VERY hard for me and I get frustrated.

As I predicted, my 70-200mm lens was on my 7D body for 95% of the game. And as the game was under the lights, I was glad for the usable higher ISO and the low low f/2.8. Getting the right angles, figuring out what is important, and following the action is even more interesting. (read hard) I think if I had more pratice and more of a direct goal, it could/would be easier. I do know a 70-200 is not going to get me very far in the sports photography world. I would need at least one more body and a 300mm or 400mm prime lens. The 70-200 is good for 'closer' up photography... in my case, it was the best I had and I 'happy' with the results.

I took well over 500 photos, but it was easy as the Canon 7D made shooting 7 fps much easier to snap crazy.

It was also a little frustrating as a lot of the action wind up being away from me, run away from me, or generally not easy to shoot. However, I did position myself to snap, as it turned out, the winning score. It was right in front of me, and I recognized the play pretty much right away.

Woot. Life is good for that one.

For the rest of the set, check my flickr set for them. It helps to have a relationship with the subject in question. I've shot other games, and I was able to call the day of and get permission to shoot this. Thank you again Calvert Hall.

Impromptu photo assigment

I hadn't planned to shoot tonight.... not at all. However, as I will not be in town for the annual Turkey Bowl I won't have a chance to shoot it like I have in the past. (2010, 2008)

I realized yesterday that Calvert Hall was in the play offs for the MIAA championship. They play tonight under the lights at CHC, and I figured- what the heck?

I called, asked nicely, and they said sure. Gonna be cold, gonna be a bit windy. So layers, gloves, etc are in order. I got plenty of cold weather gear, not worried about that.

Haven't shot a sports game since I got my Canon 7D though. I think the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS is gonna be glued to the body for 90% of the game.

Gonna be fun, never 'officially' shot a CHC game at home before. Will offer the images up to the Alumni Office if they want any of course. Won't be like Ravens Stadium, but at least I won't be hedged to the stands.


Off to charge batteries and make sure my Patagonia Capilene doesn't stink.

U2 in Pittsburgh- a photography review

(my set of photos on Flickr)

     First off, it was relatively easy to get my 70-200 f/2.8 in to the venue. A huge lens like that, and you would think I would need some cloak and dagger to get it in, you would be sort of right. But that is not the subject of this post. (I guess it could be really) If I feel generous, I will add it to the end of the write up.

I had planned to be in the unwashed masses with General Admission for U2. Get there early, line up, grab my spot and wait. Turns out my ticket didn’t appear until 5:30pm. In the mean time I happened to get a very pricey ticket given to me for the Pittsburgh show- a Red Zone ticket. Someone couldn’t make it.

I would up third person in from one rail and on my own rail. (more on the Red Zone) I had my Canon 7D with 18GB of memory, and the following lenses with me- 15mm f/2.8 fisheye, 50mm f/1.8, 17-40 f/4, and 70-200 f/2.8. The 50mm was my decoy lens on the camera to get in the venue.  As it was used in Chicago almost two years ago!

      I talked up the security in front of me, a nice lady who pretty much could care less if I had pulled a professional video camera out. As long as I was not interfering with others and it wasn’t harming others (or the band), they could care less. This was also confirmed by the area supervisor who turned out to be a really nice guy. I quickly made friends with the folks around me, informed them of what I was doing, and they were all cool with it.

      The show started after nine, and I was very hesitant about getting the 70-200 out of my bag, and using it. After the first two songs, I pulled it out and realized I saw no one even looking at me. I continued to use it without hesitation for the entire show.  I kept looking for U2’s security to come around because I was so exposed in the spot I was in, that the big white lens would be easily spotted. I was my only check to keep using it.

     The only things that slowed me down were the weight of the gear and my own internal check for interesting photos. I had not expected to be able to use the 70-200 for 2.5 hours. That’s a lot of weight to keep up in front of my eye for stretches of time.   (3.2 pounds for the lens plus 1.8 pounds for the camera body)

     I realized the day after that I had violated a (generally speaking) cardinal rule for photography with a long lens- keep your shutter speed one stop above focal length. This caused me to lose quite a few shots. *sigh* I still got a great deal of really outstanding photos.

     Afterwards U2 friends asked me after hearing how many photos I took, “so, did you enjoy the show at all?” My response was something like this, “If I wasn’t photographing during the show, all I would have done was think about photographing it.” I think I was admitting having an addiction.

Quick hits:

•  Was trying to get some different feeling shots that just didn’t turn out in post the way I had thought they would.
• Going through 1,700+ photos is never fun, but Lightroom made it much easier.
•  During the bonus song of Bad, there was VERY basic lighting which made for very bland photos. An AMAZING song, but not so much for the photographer in me.
• For Ultravoilet, there were two techs right around Bono doing the smoke machines to help with the suit of lights Bono had. Very very distracting.  Very hard to shoot around.
• $3.50 for a bottle of water wasn’t TOO bad. Thankfully I could go refill it at a water fountain and disperse the cost.
•  Amazed at the number of empty seats.

Simple gear dilemma

So my birthday just passed and I got some cash to buy photo gear. I know what I would LIKE to get, however the budget is not that expansive! I would love to get the Canon 5D Mark II, or the 24-70mm f/2.8, but that is not realistic at all. Not when the lens is about $1300 and the Canon body is $2500.

What can I get that is cheaper and usable? Now that is a pickle.

So far I have decided on:
Op/Tec raincover
Digital Timer Remote
Two new replacement Batteries
Some Conkin P series adapters for my 70-200 lens

I am debating on several other items, such as an additional Compact Flash card, maybe trying out a cheapie beauty dish/ring light. But the debate rages in my head on what would make photographing the kids easier. At this point, unless I get a separate high ceiling room in my house with a full-time setup for portraits, not much rings a bell for me right now.

I've built some DIY gear like gridspots, light tent, gels for strobes, and some other fun stuff. But how much homemade stuff can I do?

So basically I have hit a practical wall- there are not much else I can do with small items unless I spend more time and energy to put in to the hobby to learn and grow more. I am very comfortable with my results, but I know I can do better. So whats next? I don't know if I can get there from here with the time and energy I have available.

Maybe I should just get a nice new hiking camera bag.