How the Sochi games are being shot

<p>One sort of knows about the technology, but this article describes the preparation (years), the network (massive) and the workflow that involves more than a few people. I've wondered how these shots got out so fast - even before events are done we're seeing professional shots of the action. And the sheer numbers - the math is quite stunning. </p>

<p>It's interesting to read the comments about "machine gunning" and how it takes away from the notion of the photographers' skills. Having worked around professionals at racing sites, I'd say it's knowing where to aim the camera, how to set it and when to press the shutter - and high fps adds to the number of take-homes if you know what you're doing to start with.</p>

<p><a href="http://gizmodo.com/the-inside-story-of-how-olympic-photographers-capture-s-1521746623">http://gizmodo.com/the-inside-story-of-how-olympic-photographers-capture-s-1521746623</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>I've also been following, with interest, the French team that were shooting the upper third of the slope style course <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/sochi-drone-shooting-olympic-tv-not-terrorists-152517775.html"><strong>using camera drones</strong></a>. There were streaming high def straight to the broadcast feeds, and doing a really good job with their custom-built hexacopters (designed to fly for extended periods, in battery-chilling cold, with ultra steady camera gimbals). <br /><br />Speaking of workflow ... all that streaming high def video was being both broadcast and recorded on the fly, from untold numbers of cameras. Really something. Enormous amounts of data. My hats off to the crew handling that operation.</p>

<p>I'd missed that coverage Matt - as the article says I can see that being the future of sports coverage. </p>

<p>One of the things that I realized today is that the speed these photographs are hitting the media means that the photographer is actually not not seeing the shot from the moment they push the shutter, until they see it published later. </p>

<p>Great article .. every once in awhile you could see the shadow of the drone on the ski slopes moving at a fast track .. I wondered more about that than the workflow .. seems like such technology is going to change a lot of things photographically speaking. And the photography was indeed stunning and spectacular.</p>

<p>Very impressive. When I worked for UPI, we thought we were fast because we could get a picture of Miss America being crowned on the transmitter about 10 minutes after it hapened. :)<br /><br />Watching other sporting events the past couple of years, I've seen laptops in baseball photo dugouts so the photographer doesn't even have to walk back to the press room to upload. Linking the camera to a photo editor who's choosing the shooter's best shots and moving them along is one more step to speed things up. It's a team effort and everbody has their specific job.<br /><br />"even before events are done" is not necessarily new. At Miss America, we had photos in newsrooms while the show was still on the air. Even in some of my PR work, I've posted photos online for conference clients while a speaker is still on the stage. But nothing like these Olympics photographers are doing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"It's a technical shot," says Paquin, "But there's nothing special about it."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>We live in an age of 'miracle and wonder', technologically speaking. But I think Mr. Paquin's statement applies to most of the images I've seen from this year's Olympics. Really interesting article. I don't think I'd make it as a professional sports photographer; not only for my lack of skill, but also because it doesn't sound like a very nice job.</p>

<p>When I photographed the New York Yankees in 1970, the AP photographer used a 70mm Hulcher that held 100 feet of film. The Hulcher is basically a movie camera and was capable of 24 frames per second and more, up to 64 fps, but with shutter speeds up to 1/1000 of a second. I used, as most other photogs did, a Nikon F which whizzed along about 4 to 5 fps. So, I guess today's top pros have slowed down in the fps area. Interesting.</p>

<p>"the AP photographer used a 70mm Hulcher that held 100 feet of film."<br /><br />I'm sure they did from time to time but that was a specialty camera and I doubt that they used it at every game. When I was at UPI in the late 80s, our photographers and my AP friends typically shot baseball with a Nikon F2 and motor drive, which only went up to 5 fps. The motor was more to be ready for the next shot than for shooting bursts. Back then, photographers were expected to anticipate the peak of action. The days of "spray and pray" were still in the future.</p>

<p>I don't know if anybody does "spray and pray". I think it's one of those put-downs to elevate the accuser above the accused. For instance it only takes a few hours of watching a sport to identify where the peaks of action will occur. What people are being accused of here is being an alien who knows nothing about our earth ways.<br>

You could restrict yourself to taking one or two well-time shots of a sporting moment, but if you were there to cover an unrepeatable event, why would you risk only taking one photo? You can get rewarded for the shots you might get, not the ones you won't get because you were being parsimonious. Apart from anything else, I don't know of any camera that will let people fire away constantly without locking up the buffer after a minute, so nobody can be entirely indiscriminate anyway.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For instance it only takes a few hours of watching a sport to identify where the peaks of action will occur. </p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

As someone who has shot sports professionally, this blanket statement is very much not true. Shooting fights, the difference between a graze and a knockout can be less than an inch. There is no way to call that in advance, regardless of how much time is spent watching a sport. There are similar types of issues with other sports. I looked for your sports photography but couldn't find any, so maybe you don't have the experience.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't know of any camera that will let people fire away constantly without locking up the buffer after a minute</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Still frames for video are becoming very common.<br>

<br>

<br>

</p>

<p>Clever people know when they are being supported and don't bite the hand that feeds them.</p>