Workflow for Film Sports Photography

I'm old fashioned, or maybe I just love getting fast glass for what a fraction

of what it should sell for now that everyone is dumping their film gear for

DSLRs. I don't do sports for a living, but I am trying to do some PJ work just

to sharpen my eye and build a portfolio for potentially booking school

photography jobs in the future.

 

My current dillemma is how can I do this as cheaply as possible? The newspaper

I do gigs for wants digital files; they're too friggin' lazy to look at a stack

of prints. I would like suggestions as to what I should go about doing to

efficiently sort through the shots I take so that I only have to waste time

scanning the good ones at high resolution. I think they're OK with low-res

proofs for selection purposes.

 

Can anyone recommend workflows that were common before digital capture caught

on but after the color darkrooms had been replaced in favor of scanning at

newspapers? I have access to a coolscan, but it's not efficiently designed in

that it does high resolution slow scans or no scans at all. There's a preview

option, but those are too low-resolution to be of use. I'm looking for a

scanner that can make good scans for evaluative purposes in proofing, or

perhaps another solution I'm overlooking.

 

Thanks,

 

~Karl

I guess that you shoot enough images to mean that either you process your own film or simply have process only service commercially. For all that they are decried as being inadequate as scanners for 35mm when compared with dedicated film scanners, I would look at the Epson 4990 or V700 flatbeds for your purposes - both will allow 4 strips of 6 to be scanned in holders, and you can even squeeze in a whole roll of 36 for contact proofs where sharpness is less critical. It won't take long to amortise the cost against the cost of having photoCD type scans done alongside processing at a lab, and you'll have better results. Read the hands on reviews here:

 

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/scanners_page.htm

Mark, thanks, I didn't know they made scanners like that. I am already processing and proofing commercially, using some old KIS units I bought back in 2005. I can get paper on ebay so cheap that it costs me something like $1 to proof a roll of 35mm 36exp., which is nothing compared to what I feel my time is worth to do the equivalent photoshopping of 36 digital camera files, or scanning 36 frames on a coolscan. I guess, for this application, cut film is the only solution, just as it is with the coolscan. Do you know of any scanners that can feed uncut strips of 35, as having to cut and sleeve film further complicates my workflow when doing reprints, as machinery works much quicker with uncut strips.

<i>The newspaper I do gigs for wants digital files; they're too friggin' lazy to look at a stack of prints. </i><p>

 

I have yet to deal with an editor, picture editor, or art director at a publication that was "lazy." I'd like to see some justification for that insult being slung. Where is the evidence on this? <p>

 

Everyone I've worked with seems to be there for incredibly long hours, puts a lot of effort into everything they do, and would be incredibly insulted about being called lazy. Given that they all have access to the internet, it might pay to think a little bit, since they can find this board if they search on your name. It doesn't seem very smart to attack the potential client.<p>

 

More than that, publications are built around a digital workflow, and if you can't fit into that, there isn't much point in trying to work with them. It's a bit like driving up to the back of the local Safeway with a couple chickens in cages in the truck. It's not looking at the business and doing what's required to do business.<p>

 

Based on some of your prior posts, it seems like you are more interested in the medium than in the photos, which is also not a key to success. It's far better to figure out how to meet the market needs and go from there rather than pick a medium and insult the clients when they do things different than how you want to do them.

Sony makes scanners that will do a roll of 36 in a few minutes. It does a pre-scan in half a minute and you see all the thumbnails, check-off which ones you want scanned and color correct them and then it scans at 2 or 3 resolution options. I have a UY-S77 that I want to sell, or there's a newer model. There are other makes also. Better to ditch the film "now that everyone is dumping their film gear for DSLRs" happened years ago.

 

I used the Sony for the year of transition I went through back 6 years ago. I was soooo happy to get rid of film. I held on to the Sony for the 'once a year' job, but now it's been unused for 2 years.

 

BTW, I tried the high-end flatbeds and the Sony beat them on quality & speed. I've also got a Heildelberg if you want it too. For low rez, it would be OK. The specs and the final results are 2 different things.

 

Doug

Honestly, I don't get paid enough to run my 5D into the ground. But a D70/10D class camera can be had for $400 used. It's a no brainer.

 

Newspapers have to be efficient... if you shoot mainly for enjoyment and some exposure find a weekly newspaper to do your freelancing so the deadline pressure is not so great. One I know of use P+S cameras for night time football!!!!!!

 

Of my four press association awards this year, one came from a M3 and 50mm Summilux that were manufactured in 1959.

 

I've been thinking of making it really exciting and shooting medium format.

 

Since my deadline is every Monday night I can get away with film to some extent. That and the fridge full of film waitng to be shot...

Doug and Robbie, thanks for your responses, none of my cynicism is directed towards

you. Understand I've invested heavily in film-based equipment. I have no money to put

into a second platform that requires just as much, if not more expenditure.

 

And, I am working for a weekly publication with pretty lax guidelines, all B&W, small

pictures, so it's nothing critical. Their website has higher quality photos than the actual

paper they put out does.

 

All the photography I do is for enjoyment. I don't enjoy typing or using Photoshop,

because college is about nothing but using computers all day long, typig papers on

computers, using computers to analyze data, using computer programs to do homework,

having to pay bills, register for classes with computers.

 

I need a break from all that. You gentleman have my envy in that you lived in a time

before all this was the case. It's been like this for me since before I was born, and

photography is my chance to have a "breather" from all that, and return to something

simpler. I hope that is reasonable enough in why my preference is for film.

 

Doug, please email me, I'd be interested in tye type of scanner you say you have. I'm

curious, is that what the press was using before DSLRs caught on, or were they using a

different type? I'm curious as to how the hybrid workflow works/worked.

I shoot for the professioanl awards, a rotating weekly gallery of my best work, the satisfaction, and to advance my ultimate goal of weddings and portrait success.

 

Few newbie wedding photogs have done what I have done to forward my career. First, dedicate a year to second shooting and now going into my second year of news and sports coverage. Actually learn how to tell a story with pictures and to actually understand is an actual PJ.

 

But, if your intention is to make some part of your income as a photographer, you need to come across as a responsible and reliable photographer. Really, you need to change your perception of reality.

 

A good, professional working relationship built on years of on time good work builds trust that will take you far down the road in positive word of mouth, etc... etc... etc...

 

So my advice would be ditch the scanner idea for now, and spend the same money or less on a DSLR. A scanner would be a silly waste of money in the long run.

Go to an event, shoot 15-25 rolls, drop them off at the lab, pick them up scan strips of film on my Nikon CoolscanIV ED(which sits idle)at low res, email to the editors, let them pick, then rescan the winners, re-email. I learned to muiti-task, but this way takes days. I bit the bullet and when digital last year and wish I had done it 5 years ago. Now I shoot twice as much and chimp a lot but it has saved my marriage. Check the book on that coolscan, you should be able to scan at least a strip at a time. I lost a lot of business because everyone had digital cameras and was working for free and giving them away.

Another thing that I find a bit puzzling: large quantities of pictures you suggest taking 15-25? That's over 500 shots assuming you mean 36 exp rolls. I doubt I would shoot more than 100-150 at a sporting event.

 

I think that, even with digital, anything over say 300 just makes more work for you or your editor.

Karl you are right, the more you shoot the more you edit and it means more work. Some of these guys I see on the field plant their finger in the button the instant the ball is snapped and rock on until the whistle blows. It's a sure bet they don't have to do their own editing. I might get 300 in a really good Div.1 football game, usually less. A basketball game, under 150 consistently. I always get what I need and everyone seems to like it.

 

This will sound cheesy but if I'm short on time and want to shoot film, esp. b&w, I'll shoot Kodak C-41 b&w and take it to Wal-Mart. For $3 they will soup it, scan it and put it on a disc in less than an hour. Quality is suprisingly good and I've come up with some nice prints and some nice published work this way. Scanner prices are dropping but your time is worth something and this will save a lot of it. One other thing, if you are shooting Nikon and have glass that is AI or newer, it will work on mid-level and up digital bodies while maintaining most of the bodies capabilities. My D200 that I just paid about $1300 for will use every piece of Nikon glass I own. So will my F2's. You won't have to start from scratch and if you did, it would still be very cost effective. Something to think about.

 

Rick H.

Until I switched to Canon in December,the D200 (or sometimes D70) mounted with the 300mm f/2.8 AIS was my standard setup. Killer lens, that I got in bargain condition from KEH.

 

Probably shoot 250 images for football and around half that for basketball. If I had a true speed demon like the D2H it would likely double in both cases.

 

Yes it's more work, so I chimp and dump as much as I can the obvious klunkers while there is downtime happening during the game.

By the way Robbie, in another post, one about parents becoming suspicious, I made some intemperate remarks about some of what you said. I still strongly disagree with what you said but I could have been a bit nicer, a little less rude to you. No offense was intended no matter how it looked and I apologize for the tone my response.

 

Rick H.

I'm glad that the rest of the posters to this thread have kept their comments civil. I still don't get why people get so hostile to my wanting to shoot film, when all the scanning is my own time and expense. If I want to be backwards, what harm does it do the 99.99% rest of the press body who shoot digitally? It's not as if I'm going to convert any of them back.

 

I've seen a couple of posts saying to get photo CDs or take it to Walmart. While my C-41 process isn't perfect, I have the advantage of very cheap processing (~10c/foot at capacity), and no scratches, so I'd prefer processing myself.

 

Does anyone have any information on the way people did their workflows with tight deadlines, portable processing or scanning, etc? Are their any shortcuts to evaluating negative film? I really like the flatbed scanner recommendation, but I almost always run into Newton's rings when I go that route. It is very difficult for some reason to get the film laying perfectly flat in the film adaptors of the flatbeds I've used. I *can* photoshop them out, but that never looks as good as getting it right in the first place. I don't really care about dust; I can take care of that easily with the clone tool.

Where are the un-civil comments?

 

I'd be worried about calling editors lazy - that strikes me as uncivil and self-defeating. I've never found insulting the clients to be very effective. What is your take on that?

Jeff Spirer , feb 07, 2007; 04:35 p.m.

Where are the un-civil comments?

I'd be worried about calling editors lazy - that strikes me as uncivil and self-defeating. I've never found insulting the clients to be very effective. What is your take on that?

 

Check under your last post. . .

 

Is an unpaid position at a college newspaper, part-time really a customer-client relationship? Maybe if they paid me, or reimbursed my time. I never said anything about newspaper staff on a whole. That would be a stereotype, and I'm not one to partake in that sort of thing.

 

I really don't know why you're posting on this thread. If anyone is attempting to defeat my plans it is you. What possible harm could a film-based photojournalist do you, huh? Do we all carry the ebola virus? There's over 100 years of history to film-based photojournalism. Is one or two more years of that history going to make any difference?

I'd like to say something else: the reason I never decided to go to photography school or try to build up a portfolio at a major studio in the area is because of my fear of the very large group of 40+, burned out PJ and studio photographers. Your lack of care for your craft is sickening sometimes. You'd never hear a cinematographer talk about how he'd duped the studio into paying him $10,000 more than he'd gotten on his last film. The only thing people "professional photographers" of this type seem to talk about is making more money, not improving their craft, or their artform, or the credibility of images they produce. This is why Hollywood still shoots film and studios do not, because the former cares about the quality of the image, whilst the latter cares about nothing but padding its pockets with more and more money, often at the expense of quality. Having spent countless thousands of hours in a darkroom, I can tell you it can be miserable, but the prints I get out of it make that arduous work feel good. A lot of the guys in this industry are cynical, burned-out, arrogant jerks, and I am deathly afraid of joining the club lest I succumb to this drain of enthusiasm that afflicts so many others who've been in this field for a long time.

 

Take care.

 

~KB

Karl don't take this personal...

 

Pnet is better with true professionals like Jeff, Marc Williams, and others with far more talent than you or I... they take the time to teach and advise and you would do well to listen.

 

If you want to shoot film, by all means go for it!

 

But, if your deadline is 10PM and the game you are shooting ends at 9PM... what will you do?

 

People look for reliable photographers to provide steady and consistent work. At some point, your attitude or your choice of image delivery will likely fail you.

 

If you say you want to do this for fun... good for you.

 

If you get paid, or have others depend on your work, then sports photojournalism isn't likely a wise choice.

 

You need to be your own boss... Portraits, fine art, weddings...

"But, if your deadline is 10PM and the game you are shooting ends at 9PM... what will you do?"

 

They still make C-41 press kits you know. I've had closer deadlines than that, by a lot. Ever scanned wet film that you processed in a bathroom while nealing in wet astroturf with a laptop that hates water even more than you do? ;-)

 

"People look for reliable photographers to provide steady and consistent work. At some point, your attitude or your choice of image delivery will likely fail you.

 

If you say you want to do this for fun... good for you.

 

If you get paid, or have others depend on your work, then sports photojournalism isn't likely a wise choice.""

 

I'm not going to lie and say I've never missed a deadline, but then again, none of my deadlines have been paid. I've done all kinds of crazy things to make deadlines, and I think my choice of medium, with it's 100-year history of quality results, is not nearly as important as the quality of work I produce artistically.

 

Jeff's been nothing but critical of every posting of mine to which he's responded. I wish he'd be patient with me, and remember that, when he was my age, he probably got a lot more help with the exact same questions.

 

What kind of advice is it to tell someone that the $1500 they've put into analog cameras and film are all a waste and that an expenditure of two-three times that amount are necessary to "save you money".

 

I had really really hoped this thread wouldn't degenerate into a film vs. digital debate. All I want to know is how to make more efficient use of my time in scanning film. I don't know, pretend that we're on a photography forum in 1989 and I'm asking this question. . .

Karl, speaking as someone who does this every day and does it for a living I can tell you that if you choose to make a career working for any kind of publication you'll be doing it with a digital camera. No place that will pay you a living wage will let you shoot any other way. When time is available I can still shoot some feature items on film and I enjoy doing it but when I've got a deadline looming it's going to be a D2H or one of its cousins. It isn't a digital vs. film debate, that's just how it is out there. After you've been doing this for a while you'll discover some other realities. Anything worth doing is worth doing for money, as much as you can get. If you don't believe me wait until you get hired on somewhere and start juggling life's little curve balls along with the power bill, rent and a significant other who doens't quite share your passion. Almost every working pro I know loves what he's doing but it doesn't mean we are all purists of some sort.

 

Rick H.

One other thing, the $1500 you've dropped on film gear is certainly not a waste. For me it was an investment in some incredible gear at giveaway prices and I regret none of it. You still need to find a digital body to go into the mix and if you shoot Nikon you'll be able to do so. A D200 isn't all that expensive if the long run and I think if you work with it a while you'll discover what most of us here already know.

 

Rick H.

<i>The only thing people "professional photographers" of this type seem to talk about is making more money, not improving their craft, or their artform, or the credibility of images they produce.</i><p>

 

This would appear to be yet another blanket condemnation, this time of professional photographers. If you have truly talked to them all and this was all you had heard, then you could make this statement.<p>

 

However, most of what I hear is different. There is what one is paid for, and everyone, regardless of what business they are in, wants to be paid more. There's nothing wrong with that, especially in a low-paying job like photography. On the other hand, many of the pros I know talk about how to improve their work, what isn't going right in what they are shooting, etc. Most pay far more attention to getting the right shot than using specific equipment. They just use what they have to use to do it and work on getting better shots.<p>

 

<i>This is why Hollywood still shoots film and studios do not, because the former cares about the quality of the image,</i><p>

 

Interesting, I am in Hollywood every couple weeks. The big reason for film is that they haven't figured out cost-effective large scale digital movie projection yet. If you go to the studios (I was at Paramount last week) you will find this out quickly.<p>

 

<i>A lot of the guys in this industry are cynical,burned-out, arrogant jerks</i><p>

 

How many have you met, really? You say you're young, it doesn't seem like you've had time to damn them all.<p>

 

<i>What kind of advice is it to tell someone that the $1500 they've put into analog cameras and film are all a waste</i><p>

 

You are misunderstanding. If you want to do the job, you do what you have to do. You don't show up for a job as a gravedigger with a couple of spoons. <p>

 

If you truly want to do this, then you do what everyone does - you go into debt to make it happen. Very few people get out there and have $10K to drop - they borrow and rent and go into debt, but you believe in yourself enough to make it happen. I did this years ago, although it wasn't in photography, it was in music, and I spent years paying it back because I wasn't good enough. It was a big mistake at the time (the musicians got more chicks than the photographers) and it slowed me down, but I don't regret the investment. I bought what I had to buy in order to just get gigs, if I had been good enough it would have paid off. It's no different in photography.<p>

 

If you really want to understand what it takes to be successful in sports, it's worth reading <a href="http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6453-6821">this.</a> I realize very few people become SI photographers, but it shows how it works. Even if your goal is simply to do school photography jobs as you suggest, you have to do what is competitive, like Robbie says. Robbie has a good eye and knows how to operate his equipment, but he also knows what it takes to succeed. Even if you don't care what I have to say, he is worth listening to.

Interesting article Jeff, although that is not the type of work I am looking for. You seem to have the impression I am trying to make a living off of this sort of photography, and dance photography. Of the money I make in photography, most comes from weddings and film processing, and now possibly some of the college's fraternities. All the work I do I am my own boss. I don't work with clientele that tell me what to shoot, how much to shoot, and where to shoot. I volunteer for assignments to fill in time and have a little fun while building up a good portfolio.

 

I am not planning to now, nor do I intend to in the future go into debt, with the exception of buying a car, or buying a house. College tuition and digital cameras are not on that list, and that will continue to remain the case. I'll buy things I can afford with money I've earned from photography financing my photography equipment.

 

I am STILL not in need of a conversion, so if you aren't willing to tell me what I want to know (and I'm certain you all know exactly what information I am after) then I don't know why you continue to post.

 

I'm not making up stories just to make myself feel good at 3 in the morning on an internet forum. There are a lot of photography burn outs. I have six names that pop into mind without more than a passing thought when it comes to "burnouts; photographers". Isn't being a burnout justification for my description? I'm not sayign that all photographers over 40 are burnouts. I know a lot that are passionate as ever. Hey Jeff, why does 73% of dramatic television continue to be shot on film? They "solved the projection problem" back in the '50s, yet continue to pour hundreds of thousands into rawstock with every episode. What the hell is NFL films thinking continuing to invest in a format that can't even be projected without being blown up to 35mm, Super 16? Don't they know that they have HD cameras now? It's an aesthetic and a quality that filmmakers look for when they're shooting movies, not "ease of projection". I couldn't give a flying fu ck what the soda-jerk goes through loading a film I've shot onto a platter. George Lucas predicted theatres would be 99% digital two years ago now. They're still less than 1%. Anyway, I'm continuing to wait for pertinant responses. Again, think 1989, and how those poor fools possibly did it, or even way back in 1996. Christ, this is like the Southpark episode where they discover a man frozen in ice for four years in 2000 and treat him like he's a prehistoric relic. This shit was current less than five years ago, surely you haven't all forgotten the tools you used and tricks that you had to meet deadlines. (Again, these are volunteer submissions for a weekly paper).

I already told you how to do it as cheaply as possible and it had the double advantage of being less time consuming. If you want to do it all yourself then buy the chemistry, soup the film, look at it with a loupe and scan the ones you like. That's how we did it back in the day. Did it in stadiums, bathrooms, hotel rooms and just occasionally in an honest to God darkroom. I was at one stadium this year that still has a darkroom in the press box according to the sign on the door.

 

I do think you are on the right track by avoiding as much debt as possible. What are you planning to make a career in? Photography? A specific discipline or anything that will bring in some cash flow? Just curious as you seem to have much passion for it. Something to think about and I found this out the hard way. Don't get too far behind on the tech curve. You are expected to have certain skills in this market like any other and the further behind you are the harder it is to catch up. That was true before digital as well. Know everything you can about your craft and you'll get noticed.

 

Rick H.

Rick, that's a good question. At this point, I am trying to make a career in photography whilst simultaneously going to college fulltime for something totally unrelated (what I don't know, still undeclared). A lot of people knock interest in photochemical processes, and treat labwork as something that should be done by a clerk, but I think the art of printing is as great as the art of photography (especially now with Photoshop).

 

I've only developed film in the field once, and that was B&W. What sort of chemicals were/are available for doing C-41 this way? What sort of scanner were you able to rig up on-site? The rig I used was completely unsatisfactory for continued use.

 

Regards,

 

~Karl