First boxing shoot

Just did my first boxing shoot, let me know what you guys think<div></div>

As the end result was B&W I might have gone to `H` and allowed F2 at 1/1000 the 50mm lens performs a bit better

there and you would have had a bit more DoF to play with.

 

It is the guts which are in focus, and the face is a bit out, it seems to me.

 

The trade off in noise from the 20D using `H` (and cleaned up in Photoshop) would be worth it, IMO

 

In regards to the timing and framing, I think it could be improved, albeit that ``missing`` is not really the aim of the

Boxing Game, I get the idea of the photo, but whilst you got the anguish on the `misser` capturing the look of relief

on the `missee` would have been good too.

 

 

On my screen it could be punched a bit more, (sorry for the sloppy pun) it appears a little flat, lacking the full

dynamic and contrast of a sports B&W, for my taste.

 

I have taken lots of sports, but not any boxing . . . Jeff Spirer would be one man here to ask for some more hands-on

experience and suggestions in regard to little tricks of the trade.

 

WW

PS: I meant to ask, was Flash not allowed, or just your decision not to use it?

 

WW

I like it. I can't believe that guy's not wearing a mouthpiece though.

another<div></div>

Well as an image I like the balance and the dynamic better in the `punch` than the `missed`.

 

But neither captures the `punch crunch` that I guess I have come to expect from boxing photos.

 

I might be expecting too much, as I stated, I have not done any boxing Photography.

 

BTW I am ONLY commenting upon each image with a `how would I improve this photo` perspective . . . I `like` them too . . . neither photo is `bad`.

 

What about my flash question?

 

And a supplementary, what were your reasons for choosing to shoot in Av?

 

WW

I could have used flash but have read that using a 50mm 1.4 wide open is the best way. Next time i think I will shoot manual to check it out maybe at 1.8

Contact can make a big difference...<p><center><img src="http://www.spirer.com/bschwartzjune/b118.jpg"><br>Brian Schwartz, Copyright 2005 Jeff Spirer</i></center><p>but there are mood shots you can do also, outside the ring...<p><center><img src="http://www.spirer.com/gladiator/slides/fighter2.jpg"><br><i>Gladiators, Copyright 2007 Jeff Spirer</i></center><p>Most sanctioned fights don't allow flash during the action these days. The tones are a bit mushy also, work on your b/w conversion techniques.

Best shot I got that night. Cheers jeff. Do you shoot your 50 wide open ? and do you use manual or AV priority?<div></div>

I shoot the fights with a 24-70/2.8 on a 1.3x camera. A 50 would be too long for a lot of what I shoot, which is kickboxing and MMA, because you need the whole body. I usually shoot wide open on Av.

 

That's a much better shot. Dodge the face a bit to bring out the color.

Hi Greg,

 

Nice pics for a first time. when I can use flash I do . I would put your camera to 400 or 800 ASA and set it to manual at 250th if you can on 5.6 or F8 . It is important to have a good depth of field and a high flash shutter speed which will synch with your camera . Mine is 250th but you can get away with 125th of a second. The most important part of a good sports pictures is timing and that comes with practice. Good luck , boxing is a great sport to get amazing images.<div></div>

A bit bigger<div></div>

``. . .I shoot the fights with a 24-70/2.8 on a 1.3x camera.``

 

and taking the image ``Brian Schwartz`` you have (typically?) TV Tx quality lighting, which allows the smaller aperture of the zoom and lower ISO to be used. (and you get a greater DoF from the perspective of the wider FL lens).

 

***

 

But, Jeff, if faced with poor lighting and No Flash, would you sacrifice ISO or aperture first?

 

Obviously there are limits and they apply to each situation and it is a very general question.

 

I have taken on some pro bono swimming work, and although the bigger meets have good lighting allowing acceptable SS (to suit the stroke) and ISO to work at F3.2 to F4.5, some smaller pools are very poorly lit. No flash is allowed. I am not interested in buying 1 series cameras: this sporting stuff it is not a professional pursuit.

 

Personally I don`t mind the grain (noise) of the higher ISO from the `Prosumer` cameras, (lots of Tri X pushed to 1600 at football matches a while ago), so I tend to sacrifice the ISO first, and the prints only go to 5x7 anyway.

 

But I am interested in your perspective: remembering I am asking the question outside the realm of having a Pro Sports camera with 6400 capacity etc.

 

I think your perspective on my question bears on this thread too.

 

Thanks,

 

WW

Greg.

 

I think the last image is the best sports shot of the three: The faces are important . . . just as a really rough visual comparison.

 

WW<div></div>

thanks Marc nice shot, nice and crisp. William I appreciate the comments, but not a big fan of people editing my photos. I dont spend much time editing my shots to put up on here. I spend the time tweaking images when I go to print.

Between the bell<div></div>

Greg:

 

The photographic post I made above was by way of my comment only (a picture is worth a thousand words), and addressing your initial request `what do you guys think`

 

I could have written more regarding visual aspects the face, like in my first comment, viz:

 

``On my screen it could be punched a bit more, (sorry for the sloppy pun) it appears a little flat, lacking the full dynamic and contrast of a sports B&W, for my taste.``

 

But I thought to save time and also to give a clearer view of the point I wished to write about, a visual statement would be a better resource.

 

It was NOT an `editing` of your image as such: nor was I implying or questioning how or what you do with your prints.

 

I was simply addressing the question you asked: ``let me know what you guys think``

 

I think the bottom image has more impact than the top image: they are both YOUR images: and I clearly indicated what was done to the top image to get to the bottom image it to give it, IMO, more impact.

 

I suggest if you want caveats put on open questions such as: ``let me know what you guys think`` you should clearly state them up front: but to my mind as we work in a visual industry, that would be restrictive to feedback you might get: moreover, quite clearly photographs and the enhancements and changes thereof, are used on many occasions here at Photonet Threads to show points of view.

 

I am yet to be advised that such is not an acceptable protocol.

 

Any offense or aggravation my actions caused you, were certainly was NOT intended, it was merely a comment, in visual form, as you firstly requested.

 

WW

No worries William, guess I am not used to [posting on here much, it has been a while since I put images up on here. Guess I never seen that done before. Cheers

Peace.

 

Thank you for the prompt response.

 

WW

<i>But, Jeff, if faced with poor lighting and No Flash, would you sacrifice ISO or aperture first? </i><P>I go to 2.8 first, then move ISO. I do shoot in poor lighting regularly at one venue, and sanctioned events in California do not allow flash, so this does happen.

I understand that.

 

I note at F2.8 (as your limit) and especially if you held the 24 to 70 zoom at the wider FL, there would be a reasonable DoF remaining available to you.

 

Thanks,

 

WW