Looking for Photos?

I'm currently hosting three photo albums on my new web site:

http://PaulMPhotography.com

Enjoy!

Camera vs. Photographer

Rather than take up space at my main blog, I'm going to jot a few notes down 'round these parts.

I'm just getting back into "real" photography after mostly sloughing it off since my last college photography course back in 1993. Sure, I have taken quite a few pictures since 1993, but really, the last time I was serious about composing the picture and making sure everything was set right was back about that time frame.

About 10 years ago now, I traded the first SLR I ever bought (the original Canon Rebel) for a Minolta 7000i system. I used it a little bit during my days at Western Washington University, and hoped to take a photography class up there, but that didn't really pan out. I shot a few pix up in the North Cascades, but I couldn't tell you where those pictures are today. Probably buried in my garage somewhere. I hope.

I've never really been much of a sports photographer. I've mostly concentrated on scenics, and have literally hundreds and hundreds of rolls of negatives of various mountains around the greater PNW (and a few pix from Germany, Florida, Washington D.C. and Montana). To this day, the only game I ever shot while sitting along the sidelines (and not in the stands, or during my son's YMCA youth leagues) was a soccer game I asked permission to photograph while I was back in high school.

The rest of my sports photography experience has come from sitting, usually, waaaay up in the 300-level of various sports arenas. As long as I've owned an SLR, I've had a 200 mm. My first digital camera only had a digital zoom, and that was at 640x480 resolution. Not very good. A few years ago, I got a point-and-shoot digital that had a 4x optical zoom, with a 2.2x digital zoom booster. That helped, sure, but even with the 4 megapixels, it wasn't very easy to read the letters on Ichiro's bat as he raised it up in the air (like he does during every at bat). Nowadays, I'm really starting to prefer sitting closer to the action. I'd love to hook up with some of the people I know on the Internet who could probably get me on the field. But that has yet to happen.

As the photography world has evolved, so has my interest in both sports and photography. I longed for the day that I could relearn all my old photography skills, combining my love for sports with my (former) love for photography. But with the cost of film developing, I also longed for the day where I didn't have to feel guilty for blowing through 150-200 frames. Digital point-and-shoot cameras really should be called something else. More like "Point, push the shutter button, wait for 10 seconds for the meter to meter, another 10 seconds for the camera to decide what it's focusing on, and then shoot. Then wait another 30 seconds before you can take another picture, while the camera writes the image to the card. Even the good ones that shorten these lags give you limited control, and the lack of lens interchangability limits you even further.

When the dSLR came out, I was in camera-envy heaven. Now that a good 7-8 years has gone by, the prices have come down significantly. They're still expensive, mind you, but nowadays you can get a very decent Nikon D50 with a Nikon lens for $600 at Kits Camera (not exactly known for their in-store camera prices). And used, lower-megapixel, older dSLRs can be found for even lower.

I was finally able to buy my first dSLR, and while I initially wanted the higher-megapixel D70s, I was able to snag an older Nikon D1H for $300 less. I actually am glad I have the D1H over the D70s now, though. While I do make decent money at my day job, I don't have a very large photography budget. Hence the "Lens Fund" button on all my blogs. We still have lots of debt from our college and newlywed days, and we're still trying to pay it off. I've got lots of room on my credit cards, but since we're in what's called "Debt Snowball" mode, using a credit card for anything is completely verboten. So, moral of this story-ette: money is an object for me. I have to maximize the limited money I do have.

Going back to photography, though, I've heard a lot of people, myself included, say "If only I had a better camera -- I could take pictures like _________!" Sure, it's true. A better camera will help you take better pictures. A camera that's faster will help you take pictures faster. A camera with a longer zoom will help you take pictures closer to the action. Certainly upgrading from a "Point-and-wait" camera to a SLR will solve a few problems. But it won't necessarily make you a "good" photographer.

With my once-$4,000 camera and a pretty intimidating-looking telephoto lens, I've had people ask me what paper I work for. I may "look" like a photography professional to the average Joe and Suzi with their 8-megapixel Point-and-Wait cameras, but I'm a long, long way to actually being a professional photographer. For one thing, the lenses I have are bargain-basement low budget. When I switched to Nikon gear last fall, it was for the glass. I wanted to enter into the world of Nikon optics, even knowing it requires a bit of a budget. Since any nikon F-mount lens will "fit" on any camera (how well it works, of course, is another story), I figured I could slowly ease my way into the Nikon brand by buying older manual focus lenses (which I assumed would fit my budget better).

While the lenses technically work with my camera, the MF versions I've seen haven't really been much cheaper than the AF lenses. I bought my current Nikon 70-210 f4 Series E on eBay (where else!), and while it's not exactly the best lens for shooting sports photography, having the extra f-stop (f4 at 210, rather than a typical f5.6) really helps. While it's a Nikon lens, with Nikon optics, it's still a bit lacking in its tack-sharpness. It may be because my manual-focusing abilities aren't quite as good as an AF system would do. I also suspect that the fact that I lose my matrix metering (one of the best metering systems in a camera, even to this day) doesn't help things, either. It's still better, though, than the lenses I've had in the past.

I'm rather disappointed, too, with the Tamron 2x teleconverter I bought. While I like having the 400mm lens, having it at f8 isn't anywhere close to being useful other than in extremely sunny days. I could've done just fine shooting Sunday's Felix game in the bright sunshine. I might've actually been able to squeeze a 1/1000th at ISO 400. I was lucky to shoot 1/100th wide open at ISO 1600 back a few weeks on Opening Day.

My other lens is a Nikon 28-80 3.5-5.6 Series G lens. It's a fabulously sharp lens, and with the matrix metering and autofocus, I can really sqeeze some good shots out of it. Unfortunately, though, even with the 1.5x zoom factor shooting with the D1H, it's just not quite long enough for sports photography. I'll probably keep this one around, though, until I can afford (and find) the new 18-200 VRII zoom. It's well worth the $45 I paid for it (attached to a semi-functioning Nikon N75), and helps eat some of the cost of the Tamron teleconverter.

While having decent equipment will help anyone take a good picture, the photographer has to be a) familiar with his/her equipment, and b) comfortable with his/her equipment. You have to have things organized to capture the right shot quickly. There are all kinds of decisions to make, especially in the dSLR world.

Even with my limited experience shooting sports, I do know a few tricks for taking better pictures. Always, always, always keep both eyes open. That's really tough to do at times, but when I'm anticipating a hitter's swing, I keep one eye on the batter through the lens, and the other eye watching the pitcher. This requires a lot of trial and error. I have taken several shots, though, with the pitcher winding up and quickly following the ball to the batter. People ask me how much of the game I am able to watch, when I'm shooting, literally, hundreds of pictures. I watch different aspects of the game, of course, and, well, shooting through a telephoto is a lot like watching a game through binoculars. Sure, you have to pick out what action you're watching. It can be hard to change camera positions quickly, too (i.e. watching a pitcher throw to a base in keeping a runner on -- switching the focus from the batter to the baserunner). But, again, with both eyes open, you start to see pitchers' pick-off moves.

I'm still learning a lot as a sports photographer. I know that I've got to get better glass -- preferably something autofocus. But, while having good equipment helps, having a game plan and a vision for what you want to shoot works even better. Knowing when to throw the teleconverter on (even at the sacrifice of quality and f-stop); knowing who to watch; knowing what camera settings to use; knowing the game you're watching; remembering to change your settings back, when you want to try something a little unorthodox to get the image; knowing what good practices are; knowing how to break the rules and still get away with it. All of those things are important.

Cameras don't take pictures. Photographers take pictures. A good camera can make a difference, sure, but the photographer has to have some skill. The more familiar the photographer is with his/her equipment, the better images he/she will make. In sports photography, too, you have to react to the situation. Sure, one of the biggest rules in photography is that the photographer has an image in mind, and knows how to translate that image onto the paper or screen. The syntax of visual communication, composition, too, is very important. But with sports photography, things happen unexpectedly. Being aware of what's happening is vitally important. Images can make themselves, so you have to be ready.

Afterthought:
While I complain and moan about my "cheap" lens, I'm still able to get some very decent results. I didn't shoot a long 5 fps burst in anticipation (although I did shoot 3 frames or so in succession) and I didn't have to have the 18-200 VRII lens, nor the 300 2.8 that I ultimately would like to get to capture this image:



It's all about timing, anticipation, composition, and hair-trigger accuracy with a shutter button. Having a fast camera certainly helped here. But, as the photographer, I still had to compose the picture, anticipate the swing, pre-focus my manual-focus lens and shoot at the right moment to capture 1/2000th of a second. And, before you ask -- no, he wasn't bunting. That was a full-fledged stroke. While he still has a ways to go before he's developed his full batt-speed potential, he still has taken a lesson or two from Ichiro.

I always liked watching sports better than playing them, myself. Fortunately my son likes playing them better himself. Here's to hoping he makes more money as a major-leaguer than his father does as a photographer.