patrickconnolly

Check out the sports and event photography sections of the forums at Rod Galbraith's website (www.robgalbraith.com) You'll find there's a whole lot more to getting and keeping event photography jobs than you ever imagined.

Do we complain when political web sites don't allow us to post photos? Most of us are here for the photography.

Beau ... Thanks for the notice. I live about 1/2 mile from Seashore State Park here in Va Beach, and will keep this in mind. Sounds like a nice project for me and my 11 yr old for this spring and summer.

 

Pat

It makes sense to outsource work that you are capable of doing equally well when you are bringing in income during the time you would be doing the work. In other words, for your example to make sense you would have to bring in more than $153 during the x hours of work to break even. Although the price you charge the client covers that, whose pocket the money ends up in can be important. Bottom line, if your workload is sufficiently high then the outsourcing makes sense. If you have downtime then the value you place on the time off will determine the way to go.

Miles, I'm not sure if there is a "do it all" lens. If you are shooting sports such as soccer, baseball and lacrosse, you may find that reach of the 70-200 is simply too short. However, the 100-400 is pretty large, and I wouldn't want to be lugging it on a mtn biking trip.

 

I use the 100-400, 70-200 2.8(non IS), and 50 1.8. I also expect to get a 24-70 2.8, which should cover my needs quite nicely.

 

Good luck!

Michael, all the photographers you talked to have one thing in common - they are shooting in well lit venues. Where I live, high school football stadiums are rarely that well lit; to the contrary, they often have very definite light and shadow areas on the field - usually directly related to the number of burned out bulbs in the stadium lights. I've had the ISO cranked up to 3200 to get 1/125 shutter speeds - massive noise but it sure beats the motion blur. In this case IS would come in handy. Hence, if you shoot in that kind of venue and you can afford it, get the IS.

What exactly does your sports editor mean by multiple movement in a single frame? Multiple exposures giving a stop action view - i.e. a pitcher's arm motion or a batter's swing? If so, I can think of no other way with a digital camera than during post processing.

 

Regards ... Pat

Daniel, just to point out, you assume that responders to this post shoot post samples of all their work at photo.net Since I shoot mostly youth sports I don't post that work here since many parents don't expect to see their children's likeness posted on the internet in a place they aren't expecting - no matter how honorable the forum.

 

I agree with the suggestion that the monopod will prove to be an annoyance - these lenses are easily handheld. (OK, I do admit that after a couple of days of 4-5 hrs of handholding the 100-400 I end up having to ice down my left elbow ... but it still beats being hampered by the monopod!)

I bought the non IS version of the 70-200 2.8L. I bought the 100-400L IS the same day ... I love both lenses!

 

The vast majority of my sports shooting is outdoors; as a result I just couldn't justify the extra $600. So far my wife isn't buying my logic of "I saved $600 by sacrificing on this lens - doesn't that justify my spending another $4k on a ID Mk II N?"

When my son was in the Niku it was suggested that we sing to him - the theory being that he was familiar with our voices from his (all too few)days growing within Mom. As an only child I knew absolutely zero baby songs, and since he was 3 months premature, I had no time to prepare. So I sang what I knew - Jimmy Buffet tunes. Working my way through the Greatest Hits album one night, I was quietly singing the line "Why don't we get drunk ..." when a Nicu Mom walked past. She obviously was familiar with the song and the next line, for her glare could easily have burst me into flames!

 

Michael was nicknamed "Wild Thing" by three different nurses - you can see a picture demonstrating why he got that name here: http://www.photo.net/photo/1043843

 

Go Stewie!

 

Go Stewie!

Lex, my son spent two months in a Nicu, so I'm well acquainted with the stresses involved. Young Stewie has great medical care and an obviously loving and caring family. That's a very powerful combination.

 

I'll keep Stewie and his family in my prayers. My son came home on Thanksgiving Day 11 years ago - here's to an equally joyous homecoming for y'all.

proshow gold from photodex

Driving through rural North Carolina many years ago, foggy and misty afternoon. Rounded a curve and came upon a young girl riding on a large white horse. She stopped outside the wrought iron fence of a family cemetery and sat there for a moment looking at the graves. It was one of the most surreal moments and scenes I've ever encountered. Of course, my camera was at home.

I may not be able to quantify it, but there is a discernible difference in quality between the 75-300 and the L glass. I used the 75-300 for a couple of years - mostly sports photos of my kids and their teams. I upgraded to the 70-200 2.8L and 100-400 L lenses this summer and have not regretted it for a moment. Gone is the purple or green fringing that I found so annoying.

 

But having said that - I have 12 20x24 prints taken with the 75-300 that are hanging in the local soccer club's office, with 3 more on order. Museum quality - nope - but just fine for the audience.

 

Bottom line, it depends on how you will use the lenses. I'd suggest the 75-300 - use it until you have a list of complaints about your images. If you dont have a lot of things to complain about, then that lens is right for you. If you have a lengthy list, then it is time to upgrade.

 

Good luck - let us know your decision!

I use available light. Results aren't as good as in daylight, even with 2.8 lenses, especially in very lowlight venues such as high school football fields and gyms. Even at that, though, I prefer the look to the deer in the headlights look one gets with flashes. Now, strobes, such as used in major college and NBA arenas, are a whole different story. Guess it all depends on the available money and access.

Thanks for the inputs ... you've confirmed my suspicion that these may be too big for practical use. I've shared your inputs with my wife and she suggested two bags, one to keep the gear in at home and another for 'field' work. I do love that woman!

Hi, I've searched the forums and while finding lots of useful info,

none directly address the question.

 

I'm looking for a bag/backpack that will handle the following:

 

2 bodies - Canon 1D Mk II N & 10D

4 lenses - 24-70L 2.8, 70-200L 2.8, 100-400L, 50 1.8.

Flash - 580EX

 

My wife wants to buy me a new bag to accomodate the new 1D Mk II I

will be purchasing shortly. She's researched recommendations for the

Lowepro Super Trekker, which looks great, but seems to be huge, and

at nearly $400 would hate to get it and not use it very often! Any

other ideas?

 

BTW ... I'm shooting mostly sports, so won't be hauling the gear for

great distances from my car.

 

Thanks ... Pat

I'll concur with Dave. The EZ Prints print quality has been good - no complaints from anyone. The ability to customize the site is great as well ... now I just have to remember how to do all of that. Finally, their customer service has been exceptional. Well worth the money.

Take a look at MyPublisher.com I've had good luck with their books, they are easy to design and upload. Turnaround is pretty good as well. A small book is about $10 plus shipping.

When my wife died of cancer 5 years ago, one of my sister in laws put together a small hand made album of pictures of my then 5 yr old son and his mom. It remains one of his treasures. Later that year I made a CD of photos for her siblings and close friends. It included pictures from her childhood as well as adult life. It was very well received - rather than being a sad occassion it prompted a lot of reminiscing (sp?) of vacations and other memories.

 

I used a product called flip album then - but it did have some limitations. I haven't seen any of their recent upgrades as I've been using Photodex's Proshow Gold for the last couple of years.

 

I think it will be well received by all. Good luck.

Okay, here's the second one - looks like technology has won this round!<div></div>

Okay, one more try at the smaller image. Sorry, operator error.

It's very, very hard. High school football stadiums are notoriously dim - our eyes can adjust, but the camera, ahh, she don't lie.

 

I've found that there are often pools of 'better' light on the field where the lights overlap. It can be worth camping out in one spot where you can take advantage of this. Also, pay attention to the game - that way you can be looking for the dramatic shot, rather than reacting to it. Football is way too fast a game for that.

 

It is the combination of low light, fast action, camera motion (from panning) that makes focusing such an adventure. Focusing has to be dead on given the 2.8 aperature; as a result I use the center focus point exclusively - at least that way I'll have some idea of what will be in focus.

 

I try to keep the ISO down, but all too often ISO of 3200 is needed to get a shutter speed of 1/180. I use Neat Image to clean up the high ISO noise, which helps a lot, but isn't perfect. I understand Noise Ninja gets similar results.

 

I'll try to load two images as examples. The first shows that focusing is hard - but can lead to dramatic effects. Note that only the center helmet is in focus - everything else suffers from blur. In this case the blur helps with the sense of motion - but, without that in focus central point it is only an out of focus shot.

 

The second example show that in low light it might be best to focus (no pun intended) on more still shots that tell a story.

 

Shoot like mad while the sun is still out, and be more selective in low light. The parents and kids love the pictures - even with the problems, for it is something they can't do for themselves. But there probably won't be many that you'll feel good enough about to include n your portfolio of favorites.<div></div>

With smugmug professional accounts you have a couple of different choices. As far as names go, the default is something like www.johndoefoto.smugmug.com (where you select the "nickname" i.e. johndoefoto). You can point a domain name to smugmug so www.johndoefoto.com points to your smugmug account. Or you can do something like photo.johndoefoto.com, which allows www.johndoefoto.com to be "saved" for a website with more than just images. The header and footers can be modified as well. Go to smugmug and check out the power user and professional accounts - there are some good examples of customization available. Hope this hasn't added to the confusion level.

It all depends on what sport(s) you are shooting. 85mm means you have to be very, very close to the action.

 

Consider the 75-300 USM IS f4.5/5.6 Its about $380 or so. I used the non-IS version for a few years and had some good success with it shooting soccer, field hockey and litle league baseball. While by no means the image or build quality of an L lens, it is certainly servicable. And since the 300D has its limitations in sports photography they are a pretty good match.

 

If you plan to make $$$ at this, you will at some point have to invest in big boy gear. Good luck !!