One simple arguement against the perceived need for fast lenses: the 400/2.8 and the 600/4

You are right about macro - longer lenses are much better for insects, for the most part

Yes, 180 or 200mm will be good, but 800 not sure.

In addition to a long working distance, long primes cover proportionately less background. This gives you the freedom to move slightly in order to avoid distracting elements (if the subject doesn't fly away). A set of extension tubes works quite well, even if the lens doesn't focus close enough by itself. You can use extension tubes on a zoom lens, but the focus shifts when the focal length is changed. The main disadvantage I find is flexing and rebound when used on a tripod. A fluid or geared head, where you handle the head not the camera, is much easier to work with. The original collar on my Nikon AF-S 300/4 was completely useless.

The advertisement is still visible and readable.

To me, it’s more than just visible and readable. If I ran across the shot, I might very well assume it to be an ad for Biozell. Her body and the sign seem to be in perfect coordination, working together, especially connected by both color and composition. The sign is perfectly registered to the edge of the frame, so the sign itself becomes very intentional. They are also fairly equally lit.

In this case the large aperture has separated the main subject from the background in a way that I like.

To me, the dominant feature separating the subject from background is the fact that the background is a big window framing the out of doors, which is both a physical separation in the content of the photo and an emotional separation in terms of indoor/outdoor.

when I photograph events or portraits for others, they often express a liking to the shallow depth of field shots because the colours and tones are nicer and not everything is in focus.

This doesn’t surprise me. But I don’t necessarily think it’s because DOF is always the best choice in determine the relationship of foreground to background. Of course, I don’t have clients to please, so I have the luxury of doing more of what I want. I think people often respond to narrow DOF because it can be a fairly obvious and stylized look. Consumers respond to those things. Blurs look impressive. Honestly, I think they can be very effective at times but I generally tend to find other ways to separate my backrounds through perspective, using compositional elements when I can, trying to work with existing natural light so it creates a natural highlighting of the subject, and other means. I also find myself wanting to INTEGRATE backgrounds more than many do. I like that sense of how a subject often seems to be intimately related to the background and don’t generally see the world or photos as a matter of primary subject against subordinate clause, but rather as a story in which background can provide interesting ideas and harmonies and counterpoints.

 

So, I wouldn’t necessarily have approached the pic of the woman singer feeling thrust toward separating her by DOF more than she was already separated from the background. She and her dress have a lightness about her and could take on an almost floral presence by feeling just a little more part of that background, to which she is already connected by light and narrative. I’m not saying my way would be better. Just throwing out an alternative to the use of DOF, which I do think can become a default to the exclusion of other ways to see scenes photographically.

In addition to a long working distance, long primes cover proportionately less background. This gives you the freedom to move slightly in order to avoid distracting elements (if the subject doesn't fly away). A set of extension tubes works quite well, even if the lens doesn't focus close enough by itself. You can use extension tubes on a zoom lens, but the focus shifts when the focal length is changed. The main disadvantage I find is flexing and rebound when used on a tripod. A fluid or geared head, where you handle the head not the camera, is much easier to work with. The original collar on my Nikon AF-S 300/4 was completely useless.

 

That reminds me, I need to get some E-mount extension tubes for my Sonys. The minimum focus distance of the Sony 100-400mm is only 3.2', so adding either the 1.4x or 2.0x teleconverters enhances magnification nicely. Shortening MFD with an ET really is even better, particularly for subjects like bees. I do recommend hand holding this relatively light rig, particularly when ETs are added. With the ETs, AF can get very slow, so MF and moving the camera in and out is an option, which is much easier without a tripod. Shooting with the TCs, I use the Sony's excellent AF; however, I'm guessing now, an f/5.6 lens, with a 2.0x teleconverter and a 25mm ET, probably hit the limit of the Sony's a9's ability to AF, but I'm not sure. AF at f/11 is amazing on the a9. (Okay on the a7RIII, but not good enough for BIF).

BTW it is so easy to close 2.8 down to 5.6 or 11, opposite way not so much:)

Fred, 400/2.8 lenses used mostly by sports photographers, they don't have luxury of time to wait for players get into the right position in relation to background. And with long lens not much of background gets in frame anyway.

BTW it is so easy to close 2.8 down to 5.6 or 11, opposite way not so much:)

Fred, 400/2.8 lenses used mostly by sports photographers, they don't have luxury of time to wait for players get into the right position in relation to background. And with long lens not much of background gets in frame anyway.

 

True.

 

Still, I don't think that sports photographers use 400/f2.8 lenses with bokeh in mind. They need the speed in low light. The DOF is pretty darn shallow anyway and then with teleconverters added, they shooting at f/8 and higher, light allowing, to get a player's whole head in focus.

they don't have luxury of time to wait for players get into the right position in relation to background.

Right. Which doesn’t stop a viewer of the photo from seeing what they see. And, whether through cropping or framing, there’s an intentionality in the way that sign relates so presiely to the corner of the frame that doesn’t simply look like happenstance or accident, whether it was or not.

Right. Which doesn’t stop a viewer of the photo from seeing what they see. And, whether through cropping or framing, there’s an intentionality in the way that sign relates so presiely to the corner of the frame that doesn’t simply look like happenstance or accident, whether it was or not.

 

Just like wildlife photographers, I'm sure that sports photographers position themselves with background awareness.

Just like wildlife photographers, I'm sure that sports photographers position themselves with background awareness.

Yes! That was my point. The composition and the way the sign was dealt with compositionally, despite the depth of field, made the photo, to me, look like an ad for the product in the sign.

Yes! That was my point. The composition and the way the sign was dealt with compositionally, despite the depth of field, made the photo, to me, look like an ad for the product in the sign.

 

Agreed. If it were mine, I'd probably crop it much tighter, emphasizing the HUGE smile and getting rid of most of that sign. Showing the whole sign does take away, in my opinion.

Yes! That was my point. The composition and the way the sign was dealt with compositionally, despite the depth of field, made the photo, to me, look like an ad for the product in the sign.

LOL, Ilkka you should tell figure skater move to another background or tell her wait, till you run 15 rows up. Fred, when last time did you shoot figure skating or at least seen it on TV, before advising how to do it properly?

Nick, you're projecting something onto me I didn't do or say and your sarcasm isn't really helping much since it's just plain silly. I didn't tell Ilkka how to shoot. I told him what his photo looked like to me. It's up to him to care about that or not. The fact that I know sports and many other photographers work under all kinds of restricted conditions doesn't change the fact that a photo looks this way or that to me. If a photo looks like an ad to me, it looks like an ad, even if I know the photographer had no other choice but to shoot it this way.

 

Having shot on the fly enough in my life, I know that my choices can sometimes be rather restricted, but I also know there are things that can be done when cropping or even taking the shot under restrictions that can quite drastically change the character of the eventual photo. Sports photographers, landscape photographers, photojournalists, all balance choices and restrictions with certain decisions they make or intuitive steps they take when shooting.

You guys have successfully diverted the discussion away from the OP's point that

 

 

And he said that without having any experience shooting sports, much less at night under lights or in a gym.

And he has so far refused to define "practical," despite several statements referring to it.

Well ,I guess Clint Eastwood summarized it already, "Opinions like a.......s, everybody has one."

"Opinions like a.......s, everybody has one."

Presumably, Eastwood meant it to apply to all of us, even the one saying it!

 

But, more importantly, I doubt Ilkka is as thin-skinned as you seem to think he is in needing you to try to stifle my opinion of his photo, Nick. He probably has enough confidence in his own work to know, as I do, that when a photographer shares his work publicly, viewers are naturally going to have opinions about it. Frankly, I don't—and I have a feeling Ilkka might not—think as little of other people's opinions as you and Clint do, Nick. I actually enjoy hearing opinions of my work, especially if they're made in good faith. To each his own, I guess.

 

Over and out.

Edited June 23, 2018 by Norma Desmond

To me, it’s more than just visible and readable. If I ran across the shot, I might very well assume it to be an ad for Biozell. Her body and the sign seem to be in perfect coordination, working together, especially connected by both color and composition. The sign is perfectly registered to the edge of the frame, so the sign itself becomes very intentional. They are also fairly equally lit.

 

 

Yes, I get your point. I linked to that image to illustrate that advertisements are a common problem in figure skating photography when the photographer is at ice level. It can be alleviated by (1) shooting at either such small arenas that they don't attract advertisers, or (2) at Olympics where there are no ads but for the event itself, (3) by shooting from a higher vantage point (I don't generally like this perspective) which then shows just the ice as background, or (4) making frame-filling images with a large-aperture lens, or (5) making images with a broader view of the arena that the ads are so small in the frame that they do not grab too much attention. Of course, (6) timing carefully (with respect to the background) and cropping tightly may help in some cases but even a small segment of the ad is often recognizable by someone who has seen ads for that brand before. I typically aim to time the shots for subject expression as a priority and background secondary, but clearly I should pay more attention to the backgrounds. In the case of Elizaveta's image, I evaluated the image with three croppings: (a) show the subject, ad and spectators, (b) show the subject and ad, and finally © show the subject and part of the ad. This was shot in 2012 and I made the judgment at the time to include the ad because I couldn't get rid of it entirely and I felt cropping it slightly would create an uneasy impression (I don't like it when objects are cut near their edges). Elizaveta won the competition and her flexibility impressed everyone, which is why I originally posted the image.

 

If the subject is closer to the camera, the background texts can be made illegible, as in this case:

 

Emmi Peltonen

 

but the window for that kind of an effect is admittedly narrow.

 

There are of course other sports where the advertising is not placed as effectively. I would like to get images which show the athletes with and without audience reactions but avoid the commercialism. I don't quite see the attraction of placing the Olympic rings in the background, either; when I googled "reuters olympics figure skating korea" there were many such shots to the point where it has become an overused visual effect.

Edited June 23, 2018 by ilkka_nissila

I don't quite see the attraction of placing the Olympic rings in the background, either; when I googled "reuters olympics figure skating korea" there were many such shots to the point where it has become an overused visual effect.

This is a very good point. We should, when we think of it, try and avoid copycat ideas or affectations. Or at least try a variety of perspectives for the same composition.