Photographing Rugby - my second attempt

[skilsaw]

Sunny Saturday afternoon, hint of autumn in the air, rugby match to watch.
What could be better?

Pictures did not come through... must try again.

[skilsaw]

Hmmm... Can't seem to get the photos to go through.

[skilsaw]

This is becoming bothersome.




Two classic tackles.

[Shadowman]

Good focus on player with ball in first short, a bit less on second shot.

[William W]

Good focus on player with ball in first short, a bit less on second shot.

Maybe:
But Subject Movement of the Main Subjects has a big play in both Images.'

Subject Motion Blur will add to the perception of being Out of Focus.

*

I'd suggest David consider a faster SHUTTER SPEED for transverse movement for men at that level of Rugby: 1/1250s would be a good starting point.

REF: Both those shots seem to be pulled at: F/22 @ 1/320s @ ISO1000.

In that light it would have been better would be to be working the Av around F/8~11 for a pack of three players and allow the Tv to get to 1/1250s~1/2500s.

Also Note: that on both images there appears to be background PANNING BLUR.

WW

[jcuknz]

I suppose it is hardeer to shoot this sort of stuff with a DSLR than what I used for fun and that was an early 'super zoom' before they became 'super' and it just had a x8 zoom giving me 280mm equivalent. Because of its small sensor I rarely used more than 100 ISO and this was shot at much less that Bill's suggested shutter speed.

"GotYou!"



This I know was shot at 1/95th

"Try"



So my comment is that if you have a bit of a clue about the game and know your gear you do not have to follow the accepted words of wisdom if as in my case you didn't even have 1000
ISO etc

EDIT I only have three shots about football, as it is called in NZ, and not being at all interested in the game, though having edited numerous games for TV, I merely went out to see what I could capture.

[Stagecoach]

Good ones David, like the action but agree with what Bill has said.

I'm pleased you have posted these because shooting rugby is the next thing on my list to try, and there's plenty of it here.

For me I would have preferred to see the backgrounds more OOF and one of the things I am going to try and learn is the DoF characteristics of various apertures at main focal lengths between 100 to 300mm assuming you fill the frame to three quarters of its height with a 6ft man.

[William W]

. . . I am going to try and learn is the DoF characteristics of various apertures at main focal lengths between 100 to 300mm assuming you fill the frame to three quarters of its height with a 6ft man.

Hi Grahame -

You don't need to learn the FL as the FL doesn't matter.

The DoF will be the same for any given aperture, provided the FRAMING and the CAMERA FORMAT remains the same.

This is true for shots which are framed in a typical 'Portraiture' range and with the most typically used FL of lenses (not super-super wide angle and not Fisheye) - so for example lenses from 28mm to 1000mm on 135 format - you are good to use this Axiom of DoF.

For example – you’re shooting with 135 format camera and at FL =200mm and framing ¾ Shot Vertical Field of View, vertical (FoVv) ≈ 5ft

Then -

DoF at F/2.8 ≈ 11”
DoF at F/4 ≈ 1’4”
DoF at F/5.6 ≈ 1’10”

Now let's say that you rack the lens to FL= 400mm to make the same ¾ Shot, BECAUSE the players have moved down the field.

N.B. the shooting distance is now exactly twice the distance away to make the SAME FRAMED SHOT. . . ergo DoF is the same as the table above.

*

The Bokeh may change: but Bokeh depends on many more elements than FL so learning FL doesn't matter for that, either: Bokeh is probably more dependent upon Subject to Background distance and Aperture.

Here is one sample of my DoF Cheat Cards for 135 Format:




WW

[AB26]

Rugby:
Wide open at high shutter speeds! Like F2.8 @ 1/2000sec.

[Stagecoach]

Bill, you are correct of course and I also know it well, but, I totally overlooked it in what I said above.

I should have kept it simple, in other words on my assumption that I want to fill the frame to 3/4 of its height with a 6ft man to learn the DoFs for main apertures.

In fact I need to do this prior to Saturday before my first attempt at marathon runners and will make a chart similar to yours.

Thanks.

Grahame

[William W]

PS – Yes I did “know” that for the “Full Length” shots that the OP posted (and they looked cropped anyway) that the DoF would be sufficient using F/8 to F/11 for a pack of three or four blokes in a tackle. And that's why I suggested that Aperture Range, for that shooting scenario, assuming that the: grit; facial expressions; sweat and muscle outlines of all the three or four players were all important enough to render reasonably sharply in the final image.

*

The OP appeared to used a Canon EOS 7D.

An APS-C Format Camera has about 1⅓ Stops of Aperture equivalent MORE DoF than a 135 Format Camera.

That means using that cheat sheet above, just move the apertures 1 stop more open is close enough for rock and roll - i.e. the F/11 column just becomes an F/8 column for APS-C, the F/5.6 column becomes an F/4 column and etc . . .

WW

[Stagecoach]

Rugby:
Wide open at high shutter speeds! Like F2.8 @ 1/2000sec.

I suppose the answer to that Andre is if f/2.8 is going to give you the DoF you want for the depth of the group you wish to be reasonably sharp.

[William W]

. . .
In fact I need to do this prior to Saturday before my first attempt at marathon runners and will make a chart similar to yours.

Thanks.

Grahame

I was thinking exactly that.

Thanks for confirming that you are aware: saved me a PM.

Break a leg.

Bill

[William W]

Rugby:
Wide open at high shutter speeds! Like F2.8 @ 1/2000sec.

Maybe that works for you: but not for me.

I have found that shooting scenarios change way too much to only have a "one formula answer fits all the shots" approach to any Photography.

Maybe the "wink" means that you are not serious - I don't know - but just to inform any readers who might take that serious advice for shooting parameters - just want to mention that I disagree with that approach and for the reasons above: the OP's images are one example where F/2.8 and 1/2000s might neither be appropriate.

WW

[AB26]

I suppose the answer to that Andre is if f/2.8 is going to give you the DoF you want for the depth of the group you wish to be reasonably sharp.

Grahame,

What people seem to forget is that DOF is extended the further your subject is away from you.

The closer your subject is to the lens the shallower the DOF.
Always keep that in mind!

You shoot Rugby with a tele lens and your subjects will be some distance from you. With a tele lens the DOF extends the further your subject is away from the lens.

Here is a typical example: http://www.outdoorphoto.co.za/galler...s-grey&cat=520
Look at the EXIF for the shot. Canon EOS 7D, 100mm, 1/2000sec, F2.8.
Even the guys shooting with EOS 1Dx do the same thing.

This one was captured buy one of the Guru’s of sport and action Photography:
http://www.outdoorphoto.co.za/galler...-debut&cat=520

Monkey see, monkey do. My way of learning.

[William W]

. . . What people seem to forget is that DOF is extended the further your subject is away from you. The closer your subject is to the lens the shallower the DOF.

Subject Distance is not the only factor to consider when reckoning DoF.

As has already been pointed out for the same FRAMING of any shot the DoF remains the same, for any given aperture and Camera Format - so really in this regard the Focal Length of the lens is irrelevant - which also has been previously been pointed out.

WW

[AB26]

William,

Maybe that works for you: but not for me.

Maybe it does not work for you but it works for the guys whom really know how to shoot sport and action!
http://www.outdoorphoto.co.za/galler...tackle&cat=520

Maybe the "wink" means that you are not serious - I don't know - but just to inform any readers who might take that serious advice for shooting parameters - just want to mention that I disagree with that approach and for the reasons above: the OP's images are one example where F/2.8 and 1/2000s might neither be appropriate.

WW

Maybe I am serious – LOOK AT THE EXIF!

You might disagree with that approach and inform readers as to why, it is up to you!
It is also up to readers to decide whom might be the better sport and action Photographers and how to approach their next attempt at shooting RUGBY!

http://www.outdoorphoto.co.za/galler...tion-2&cat=520

PS: Did you know the game of RUGBY is played in SA as well?

[Stagecoach]

Grahame,

What people seem to forget is that DOF is extended the further your subject is away from you.

The closer your subject is to the lens the shallower the DOF.
Always keep that in mind!

Andre,

Perhaps some do forget this but I certainly do not Andre, what is important is knowing the DoF you are going to achieve with your subject being framed as you want it.



Grahame

[William W]

William, Maybe it does not work for you but it works for the guys whom really know how to shoot sport and action!

I will take that comment as, at the most, a personal attack, which is not warranted nor endorsed under the terms and conditions of this site.

Or at the least that is an un-warranted and also very ill-informed critique of my ability; experience and recognition by organizations more endorsed and lofty than: yourself.

***

Frankly, Andre, if you want credentials - and you seem to be resorting always to “credentials” and “endorsements” of Sports Photographers “whom really know how to shoot sport and action!” and who have shot at big events . . .

Then this is only one of my many credentials:



WW

[Barnwell]

Maybe:
But Subject Movement of the Main Subjects has a big play in both Images.'

Subject Motion Blur will add to the perception of being Out of Focus.

*

I'd suggest David consider a faster SHUTTER SPEED for transverse movement for men at that level of Rugby: 1/1250s would be a good starting point.

REF: Both those shots seem to be pulled at: F/22 @ 1/320s @ ISO1000.

In that light it would have been better would be to be working the Av around F/8~11 for a pack of three players and allow the Tv to get to 1/1250s~1/2500s.

Also Note: that on both images there appears to be background PANNING BLUR.

WW

I agree with William here. I shoot various sports and his is good advice. After that, being in the right location and getting focus on the subject are the main concerns. In sports you should have opportunity to take many photos so try different settings. Don't forget to stay out of their way, they don't see you.