A Second Attempt

[Dan_Powers]

Not sure where that read smile face came from.

[GabeSchaffer]

Actually, the Crunch shots were all made using my 200/1.8. The ones that are from overhead were at 400mm, but it was just my 200 with a 2x TC.

For those who may be unaware, MISL is indoor soccer, which means it's played on a field setup much like an ice hockey rink. The field is about 100'x200', with penalty boxes in the middle.

When shooting from the penalty box (my preferred position), a 200mm lens (320mm on a D30) is the absolute longest I can use. A 400 would give me a nice tight shot of either goalie, but I wouldn't be able to shoot any action that occurs midfield. As it is, the 200mm gives me shots that are too tight (i.e. the ball is just off frame) when the action is real close. The images where it looks like I moved in closer are actually the ones where the players moved in closer to me.

Besides, I don't need tight shots, because I'm shooting for the web, and cropping isn't a problem.

Here are some highlights from the last game I shot (all cropped):

Goal!
Header
Player in the air
Player running at me

Another advantage to the 200/1.8 is that it's f/1.8. That means I can shoot at ISO 800, and get 1/500 even in the dark areas. BTW, if you're going to be in town for the All-Star game, Delane, I hear it will be in the Gund Arena. That should give you 1/500 f/2.8 @ ISO 800.

[JedWee]

Hmm... there seems to be a very different emphasis to football (soccer) across the pond. You have some good shots from the latest batch, but they're all individuals -- for example, the "goal" shot, to me, would be much better if the goalscorer were in the frame as well. Because you're cropping, I'm assuming it was an executive photographer's decision rather than a failure to capture it at the time.

Over here, the photographers tend to go for things like tackles, headers when two people go up at the same time, goals obviously, two people side by side running for the same ball, that kind of thing.

[Martin_Ogden]

Sportspix, I'd love to use longer lenses, but as I'm unpaid as yet, and only begining to shoot football (2 games so far), the cost prohibits it. I'm using a Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX lens with 2x teleconverter. This gives me 600mm (ish), and cost me £750 ($1,100?), and that's quite enough so far. If I can start selling some pics, then I'll get more. But while I'm still practicing, I'll stay out of the Poor House!! [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[GabeSchaffer]

Jed, I don't think there's necessarily any difference to what soccer (football) pictures look like in America -- I just posted pictures that I had processed for the team in white, based on their request.

To see the top 100 shots from the game un-cropped, click here: Crunch vs. Heat week 2. You will see plenty of shots of players fighting for the ball. Remember, these are 3MP images, so anything that isn't tight can be cropped for use on a web site, media guide, photo montage, video, or many other things.

I recently spoke to a guy shooting a university soccer game for the school (he usually shoots American football and baseball), and asked him if he ever gets shots of the opposing team. He acted like I was crazy, and said he wouldn't be doing his job if he were to shoot the opposing team.

[JedWee]

Hi Gabe,

Sorry, maybe I'm not expressing myself right! Your pictures are good, I'm not saying they aren't, but I'm noticing a difference in what sells over there. As you mentioned, you're shooting for the team, but over here, even when we do that, the clear emphasis is on the players in the thick of the action, which usually entails the situations as described. In the club programs, news releases, news stories, those are the types of pictures that are run over here, and save for player profiles, individual shots rarely get used.

I think it's just the different expectations and demands over here, not that one is any better over the other. One thing I have noticed from hanging around this forum is that there is a market in the US to sell sports pics to competitors, to parents, etc. That doesn't exist over here. I guess it's just an extension.

When I shoot for the clubs I work for, I certainly don't shoot the opposition, but I do shoot my players tangling with the opposition. As in, I don't sit myself behind the opposing goal, but I rarely press the shutter to take a shot of one of my team's players unless it's an action shot, the exception being if the club specifically asks for an individual shot of player XYZ.

Yes, I have seen your 100 shots and see what you're talking about. What I'm getting at is that over here, I would have done the editing differently from what you did/based on the instructions from your team.
Keep those pictures coming 'cause they're good stuff.

[Thomas_E_Witte]

I've been trying to figure out how to word my reply for 24 hours now, and still think I'll screw it up... Here goes.

I agree with Sportpix (Dan) on the longer glass issue. I interned with him years ago and that is one thing I quickly learned shooting football with him. Tighter tighter tighter. The only problem is that with soccer you often need to get the entire players body in the shot. With football I have no qualms slapping a 1.4 converter on my 600, because most of my shots are usually from the waist up. Shooting like that with soccer will get you a whole lot of nothing unless they go up for headers like this one or the keeper is running through punching the ball out. (That link has a lot of roll overs, so give it time to download.)

In Gabe's case he's not going for that rare shot of two guys going up for a header, he's trying to get as many different shots of every player on the field. The most action some of those guys are going to see is dribbling up the flank, so he's got to shoot full body. (if getting the ball is really that important to you.)

Being the case, Gabe is sort of forced into using a shorter lens. I've been to similar arenas and there are just no photo positions outside the penalty box or overhead.

However, if you were shooting outside I can't get by with anything less than 500mm on film. That and a 200 around my neck for anything near me.

In closing, I too think you should shoot tighter, but it's logistically to difficult to do for indoor soccer.

Thomas

GO Photography