Options
Get outta my background
TonyCooper
Registered Users Posts: 2,276 Major grins
Shooting another Babe Ruth minors game last night, this guy
in the yellow shirt stood in that same spot the whole game.
He was in the background of every catcher shot and batter
shot.
You ever tempted to tell a spectator to move?
Yeah, I can tone down that yellow in Photoshop, or even make it
another color, but he's in every photo.
in the yellow shirt stood in that same spot the whole game.
He was in the background of every catcher shot and batter
shot.
You ever tempted to tell a spectator to move?
Yeah, I can tone down that yellow in Photoshop, or even make it
another color, but he's in every photo.
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/
0
Comments
Why not shoot tighter? The action is at home plate, everything else is a distraction from that. You could also shoot at a bigger f-stop to minimize the background.
It's a great shot, you have it all there, crop it down....Frank
http://www.youatplay.com
I'd have to crop out the umpire, and that's the story. Without
the umpire, it's just a slide into home plate. Safe or out?
One grandson (two on the team) is the catcher, so I get a lot
of plays at home. This one happens to be our team at bat
and a teammate sliding in. I chose this one because of the
umpire. It's hard to get the slide, the play, the ball, and the
ump signaling safe or out all in the frame.
But, we all see 'em differently. Thanks, though.
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/
Had to laugh at this ... I have the exact opposite problem shooting Aussie Rules football.
In our football, medical staff can go on the ground at any time ... same for "runners" who carry messages from the coach to the players, same for waterboys. Then there are boundary umpires (lines judges?). Now double that for both teams.
I would love a dollar for every shot ruined by these people. When I get the chance I will ask really nicely if they wouldn't mind moving a couple of metres either way. They all do so and then a few minutes later will stand in the exact spot to block my shot again - they just forget I'm there.
I get a lot less wound up about it these days ... as someone I read said --- "The game will go on whether you are there or not ... but you won't have anything to shoot if THEY are not there"
Re the composition - two different and equally valid interpretations of the same situation.
One is to focus in on the action only with tight crop ... the other is to tell a different story (and that requires the umpire).
If the guy in the yellow shirt is a Dad, encourage him to wear team colours!!
www.acecootephotography.com
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
The best bet then is to minimize distracting background. The best way to do that is long focal length and wide aperture. 78mm f/6.3 is neither. It's a big reason why shooting from down the baseline vs. dugout area is generally preferred. You want to get out at 200mm + and use a wider aperture.
Yes, backgrounds at youth sports will always be distracting - especially at the plate for youth where there's not as much room between the box and the fence as there is for older kids.
In the end, this gets to the difference between Photography and just capturing a moment. This type of photo can be made better by some up-front planning on the part of the photographer - i.e. longer focal lengths (meaning further shooting distance) and wider aperture.
The timing of the shot is great. The wide DOF really distracts from the impact of that timing.
I sometimes wonder if the "sports shooters" in this group really have an understanding
of what some of us have to work with.
As a grandparent, I'm not allowed on the field. I can't move down the baseline. I can
shoot "through the diamonds" (the fence) and sometimes sneak into the dugout and
stand in the opening. This shot was from the dugout, and the dugout is where the
design of the field puts it.
I shoot a Nikon D300, and - this day - a Tamron 18-270 that isn't a 2.8 lens. I shoot
RAW, Manual, and constantly adjust speed and aperture and ISO (these are games
that start at 6PM) to adjust for failing light. Better long glass is just not in the picture
because my overall needs don't require it. My lenses (I also have a Nikon 55-200 kit
lens) are just not going to go down to the wider aperture at the speed required for
baseball action shots.
You may ask why I post in a forum where many of the readers are better photographers
and have better equipment. Well, I read the comments and do put into use whatever
tips my situation and equipment allow. Based primarily on some comments by Jack
(jmphotocraft) last year, I'm shooting more from low-to-high where I can, and the
results are better.
The only thing I've really got going for me is a good sense of anticipation of where
the action will be. I'm ready to photograph where it will happen rather than waiting
to see where it is happening and trying to get there in time.
I admit to being a "capture the moment" photographer. I'm trying to capture the
moments of each player on the team (including my two grandsons) for the team
year-end disk. You're only seeing one of many for each game. Sometimes this is
a stretch because not all players can be caught in good action shots. I'm not
interested in good portrait shots. Let the parents do that.
Do keep the comments - and criticism - coming. I learn from it.
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/
By your logic, someone could say "but I don't have a d300, I can only afford my iphone, you need to understand the limitations of the iphone".
OK, rant over. Back to your specific situation. Why is it not possible for you to move down the fence line? Plenty of parents shoot from outside the fence and down the line. What prevents you from setting up along the fence about 10 feet behind first base?
As to the aperture of the lens - welcome to sports shooting. if this were a macro forum and you're shooting insects, guess what? A 1:1 macro lens is going to produce better shots.
If you are unable or unwilling to shoot from down the line and unwilling or unable to buy a lens appropriate for a d300 for sports use the reality is the level of quality of your shots is going to have a rather low ceiling. So, it's going to be a rare shot (and you've posted at least one) where you overcome all those obstacles.
But, you want to walk the line of being treated like a sports photographer but using the "I'm just a grandpa that can't afford f/2.8 lenses) crutch. This isn't facebook. Not every shot is a great shot simply because it's a picture of your grandson (or some specific kid).
At this point, this will mark that last time I take the time to offer critique on your photos. Too many excuses and too much expectation on your part for special consideration.
You've practically mastered your gear, so you need to accept that any further posts from you are going to be met with "you need better gear", or silence. We're not here just to pat each other on the back. I think you've earned yourself at least a 70-200/4. It would be a significant upgrade. The lens excuse is really getting tired, and you certainly shoot enough and well enough to justify it. YOLO.
I also think you only think you're not allowed on the field. I'll bet you could strike a deal with the committee (or even just the head of the committee) to be allowed on the field in exchange for providing photos to the team. Who knows, after a season of that they may want to hire you to be the league photographer.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
OK, rant over. Back to your specific situation. Why is it not possible for you to move down the fence line? Plenty of parents shoot from outside the fence and down the line. What prevents you from setting up along the fence about 10 feet behind first base?
.[/QUOTE]
I don't know how I could do that. Moving down the fence line allows me to shoot
straight-on at the players on the bases - and I do that for those shots - but not
at the action at home plate, and that's what you're suggesting I do. I couldn't
get a shot of home plate from that position.
Down the line is shooting "through the diamonds". The lens won't go through
the diamonds; it's always on my side of the fence. The camera can't be angled
towards home plate because of the fence. It's maybe 10' between fence and
the base path line and the dugouts (which are just fenced enclosures) are
between first and home. Maybe the field layout is different from what you are used to.
Thanks anyway, and I like the "grampa forum" disclaimer.
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/
http://www.youatplay.com
Seriously. www.lensprotogo.com
Wow, that sucks. At our fields the fence is only about 4' high past the dugouts. I think this is fairly typical, hence John's suggestion.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Found this and read it curiously, especially the idea of telling a spectator to move. My first reaction was "does the photographer not have feet"?
I don't know your particular field, but I really do think many photographers miss opportunity. I shot a minor league game last week with another photographer, he wanted to compare post processing afterwards so we wanted shots taken in the same situations. Anyway...
He stayed in the third base dugout the whole game except a couple innings he shot from the 1st base dugout.
I wandered. I spent a couple innings shooting over the fence at center field. I found a spot at the fence all the way down the 3rd base line. I got up on some stands a bit beyond 3rd. I went over to first and got about half way to the fence, and shot over it, to get the initial running of batters after the bat. I got behind home plate for a few shots every pitcher change to shoot head-on to the pitcher through the fence. Probably a couple more shots from various places in the stands. AND I spent some time in first and third base dugouts.
Some fields are really tough to find good spots, but photographers who just stay in one place miss out. Be creative. Another photographer friend, who is somewhat short, quite literally travels with a step ladder, which he'll set up and shoot over tennis fences; I bet most baseball venues would allow you to do that outside the boundary fences. Worth it? Up to you.
At one venue I use a long lens and climb a berm that's beyond center field, to get over the fence shots. Puts me 75' further away probably, but the angle is great, and the back fence has no overlooks and it's just too tall to shoot over (even with a carry-able ladder) and has signage you can't shoot through. So I make do, put on a teleconverter.
One other place with poor access I chatted with the players practicing, and stood in the bullpen. Oh, and while there, got some nice shots. I've asked groundskeepers parked in their golf cards on the side watching if I could climb up on the back and shoot over a fence.
At tennis matches I've also put a camera on a monopod, pre-focused at higher F-stop, set the self timer, and raised it up over the fence to get shots. With a remote you can even time them (aiming is a bit hard, but this does nice wide angle shots).
Even with credentials a lot of ball fields are very limiting; creativity and exertion is often needed. Maybe a bit of smoozing of the coaches or venue officials to get better access, climbing on things not precisely meant to be climbed, learning which lenses can shoot through what kind of fences.
You have to find what's right for you, but grandparent or not, starting the thought off with "why won't HE move" is not going to do nearly as much good as "OK, where can I move to next".
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
The fence around the entire field is over 6' high. This photo shows why
moving back along the baseline is not feasible here. The Dodger coach in blue
is standing in the dugout opening, and the fence is over his head. Our
coach, in red, is the first base coach. I can't shoot over this fence
even standing on a box with a D300.
John's suggestion is a good one...provided it can be done. To me, it's
rude not to explain why I'm not taking his suggestion, but - to him -
I'm making excuses. I don't want to make excuses, but I do want to
explain why I reject good suggestions.
As for the ladder suggestion by another poster...uhhhh....no thanks.
It would take a ladder to get high enough; even shooting from the
stands isn't over the fence as you can see.
Last year, when the boys played on a different field, I posted a shot
and commented that I was standing on box to get over the fence. You
said this was a bad idea, and to shoot from low, and I have adopted
that suggestion whenever possible.
I have asked for permission to shoot from on the field and it was
rejected. It's a city park, and the Ranger dismissed the request
with something about a liability issue.
(This photo is not offered for critique or as a particularly good
shot. It's just to show the fence. I was seated on the ground
shooting through the diamonds. My wife blames Jack for the
dirty pants I come home with from sitting in the dirt.)
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/
I actually posted this more as joke than anything else. I think it's a common
reaction by many photographers when there's someone in the background you
don't want in the background.
As do I. Running, though, is more like it. One grandson bats right, and one bats left
but he's a switch hitter so I sometimes have to run back. They follow each other the
batting order. I photograph other lefties on the team.
Evidently, all fields are different. Beside the fence issue, our field has a drape
over the fence behind the catcher, so there are no shots possible from directly
behind the catcher. Pitcher shots have to be done from about 10' left or right
from directly behind. Still possible, though, and I do them.
Thanks for the comment.
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
My point is to do whatever, within reason, to get the shot. I agree, low is better. But if you can't get low, get higher.
I probably used too many examples, but my real point is that many people just stick to one place, wherever is the obvious vantage point. There's (almost) always some alternative. Maybe the OP really has no alternatives, but all too often a case of giving up too easily.
Here's one from yesterday from about 20' above the playing field, on a berm beyond center field. Does it look as good as if I were at ground level? No. But the angle is better than either side line for getting batter faces:
Here's one after a basketball championship. The conference had walled off an area and would not let any media other than their photographer in (even those with school credentials). You can see a bit of it at the bottom, the blue the girl in grey is leaning on. So most photographers were shooting over people's heads. I climbed up on the basketball goal itself, putting me at about 9' or so, for these shots.
Now I did have school credentials and the local staff knew me so wouldn't complain (it was actually the conference who was trying to get exclusive shot positions, not the university). I am not suggesting a fan just go run up and climb the basketball goal.
I am suggesting that creativity and a bit of exercise is not a bad thing if you want good perspectives.