What's wrong with this picture

I shot some Rugby games this fall. One of the photos is below. I used

a MF Nikon camera with a 100/2.8 lens and Kodak Supra 800 film. The

picture was cropped a little bit. The original picture was about 1.5

times higher and 1.5 times wider. So it was not very heavily cropped.

Obviously there is something wrong with quality. I was told that I

had to open up the lens to isolate the players from the background.

That's fine but the quality is still too bad.

I could blame the lens because it is not Nikon-made lens but an old

Russian-made lens with Nikon mount. But I took decent pictures with

the same lens (though the objects on those pictures were much

larger). So I guess the film is too grainy to render detail. But on

the other hand, I heard that many pros use 800 ISO film and even push

it to 1600 and obtain good, publishable results.

I will be grateful for any ideas.

Best regards, Denis Kazakov<div></div>

The color doesn't look real good to me, but it's hard to judge that because my monitor is off, too.

I think this particular shot would have been much better if taken from near ground level- although it obviously wouldn't do to just lay on the ground for all your rugby shots. But that would tend to minimize the background clutter. I like how you caught the one guy in the air, and that would show it better as well.

Part of the problem is that professional sports typically have less-cluttered (or at least different) backgrounds than what is seen here.

Hi Dennis,

The crop dimensions you talk about are a heavy crop, you are useing less than 45% of your

original negative. To isolate the players yes you need to shoot wide open and also get

higher or lower or even from the other side of the pitch to reduce the background clutter.

800 iso film is not a good choice unless you need the speed, always use the slowest film

you can this will greatly improve the quality, you can't get a 1600 film crop to less than

half your neg and then get any sized print unless it is going into a newspaper at 72 dpi.

Think about it, the quality would double if you didn't crop, your acceptable 5x7 would turn

into an acceptable 8x10!

Use slower film and don't crop so hard and your shots will jump at you, you have the

timing.

Take care, Scott.

The color is just as bad as sharpness. So you think film is the problem. Next time I will try 400 ISO. Now I also have 200 mm Nikkor lens and can reach further. Players in that shot were in the middle of the pitch which was too far for 100 mm, so I had to crop.

Thanks for your advices on the camera angle. I will try different angles next season. I played Rugby myself, so I can understand what's going on and what can happen next.

This, by the way, is the final game of the Russian Championship 2004. Rugby is not that popular in Russia and it is only recovering now after the perestroyka years. But this was good for me because I could stand on the sidelines and nobody asked me what the hell I was doing there.

Hi Denis,

400 will deffinately give you better results than 800 but if you can get away with it go

down to 200. The colours are obviously affected by the film you use and again the slower

film will give you better colours but just as important is your printing, a good printer will

get your shots looking way better. Most pros will tell you who does the best printing in

town so phone a couple up and get their suggestions for quality labs.

I used to play flanker for my very succesful school side and my town team, that was a long

time ago though, all our sports teachers were Welsh so we had to be good at rugby!

If I was you I'd get on the internet to some of the rugby magazines world wide, they might

just buy a shot and brief write up for a news column.

Take care, Scott.

Hi Scott,

I usually played as one of the backs or fly half. I think you call it this way; I do not know all the Rugby terms in English. It also was quite some time ago when I was a university student, though I still miss it sometimes.

It is a very good idea about international magazines. I will have plenty of time early in the next season to improve my quality so that I will be able to offer good pictures towards the season end when important games are played. And I will try to use slower films.

I know a few good labs in Moscow and they do improve my shots, but when it comes to scanned photos I have to do all the color corrections myself and it is a whole business on its own.

Thanks for your encouragement!

Hi Dennis, I have done a fair bit of Rugby photography, laying on the ground to get an image is not a good idea if the play is heading your way, you just may have the players trampling over you. Ouch.

My preferred method is to situate myself at the end of the field where the light is coming from over my shoulder and work the 25 to the try line and back to the dead ball line for play close to the try line. Wait until the play is within 35 metres with your 200mm and you will get good action shots involving two to four players. I move up to the halfway line for line outs. Because it is a fairly fast moving game that can change direction instantly you can't do full justice to it by racing all around the field.

Scott gave good advice in trying to pick a background that is not too busy, also use the widest aperture and try to get close shots (25 metres and closer to blur the background)

I have posted a couple of images taken with a Sigma 70-200 2.8 on a 10D these are taken under reasonable quality Stadium lighting.

Good luck, if you have any more questions after your next try click on my name and email me.<div></div>

Denis

You have pretty good action in your photo.The problem is not the lens, it's the focus.You seem to be back-focused, the person you have at the critical focus point is the 3rd person from the right,in the background.You do have a good eye, just keep shooting,and working on follow focusing .

Thanks Erin,

Your pictures are good quality. I'd be happy to achieve that level.

I saw a few pros using tactics similar to what you've described but they had much stronger lenses than I. I was moving along one of the sidelines from one try line to the other to stay at the same level as the ball because I could not reach far into the field with my lens (I have a film camera, so my 100 mm is not the same as digital 100 mm). Of course, once in a while the game changed direction and the players were too far from me, but most of the time I could keep pace with them when they were on my side of the pitch. Staying back of the dead ball line did not work for me, because much weaker team suddenly started winning :)

Thank you for your offer of help. I will try again next season and contact you if I run into trouble again.

Hi Michael,

Thanks for reassurance. I will keep learning.

Best regards,

I like the image with all the players seems to be running step..nice shot BUT you will have to see about getting a bigger lens like an inexpensive 70-300mm for sports. That way you don't have to crop so much and fill the view with all the action. if you got sunlight, no problem with using 200asa film. I use 200asa and even 100asa color film with no ill affects. I have shot motorcycles races with bikes doing 100-130 mph at 1/1000 and have hardly any noticeable blurring from motion. 200asa is not as slow as you are led to believe. In high school I had a MF Pentax with a f3.5 135mm lens and got decent shots at football games,even night football games but once I got a 300mm, I thought I was ready for Sports Illustrated.

SO get closer and try not to use such fast film. It cost more and you start to lose clarity and color.

Hi Armando,

It sounds encouraging that you could make it with an MF camera. I did not open up the lens because I wanted to have enough depth of field in case I err in focusing. I will practice focusing and try a slower film. Now I have a 200 mm lens which should be enough to begin with. I also have a 2x teleconverter but I guess this combination will be too dark and I won't use it unless they won't let me near the pitch.