Jump to content
Melbourne Football

Photography


bazzatron
 Share

Recommended Posts

My 2c is that if you are interested in sport photography dont start by taking pics at AFL games. Start out shooting at your local club where you will have much more freedom and access to players etc and build up a strong portfolio. Then try to work your way up to VFL, then AFL.

If your interest is more about taking a series of images to show your love for your club, take pics of something other than the game itself. Choose to focus on something else like the cheer-squad or another aspect of the club that professional photographers dont shoot. Due to the restrictions on where you can go and what you can bring in, shots of the game taken from the stand will often be pretty dull and repetitive I'm afraid.

Another issue you might come across is that even though you are allowed up to 200mm lenses, sometimes people get told to stop shooting if their equipment is deemed to be of a "professional" standard (which an L series lens may very well be). Most pro sport photographers have worked their tits off to get where they are, so they can often be pretty territorial.

Edited by KSK_47
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey dudes, i have an assignment for my photog unit due and im being slack. Any ideas of a good location for light. The aim is to take a no of shots with different levels of nat light but i'm worried everyone will be doing the same things. Any adverse ideas welcome! Was going to do the shrine on st kilda road but its a stock standard place... problem is i don't want to be travelling to far and at night by myself :) cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many shots do you need and do they all need to be of the same subject?

I would recommend getting up at the crack of dawn and shoot a stadium exterior from every conceivable angle. Because of the shapes of stadia you will often get some great natural lighting effects

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go up to the top of the Eureka at sunset?

 

Canon EOS-600D Digital SLR Camera - Body Only - $499
http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/prod7237.htm
Canon Lens EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM - $1649
http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/prod1638.htm

$2148

Better camera, cheaper, but more than adequate lense.

 

Also check out discountcameras.com.au who are often the cheapest Ive found for Australian stock. They are owned by Michaels in the city and do next day delivery.

Edited by hedaik1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many shots do you need and do they all need to be of the same subject?

I would recommend getting up at the crack of dawn and shoot a stadium exterior from every conceivable angle. Because of the shapes of stadia you will often get some great natural lighting effects

For this activity observe and photograph the light differences that occurred in approximately the same scene throughout the a period of a day (Shooting can take place over several days):

• Choose a location that is easily accessible and offers variations in light during the day

• Create an interesting composition based on the gestalt laws

• Choose a subject with a good range of colour

• Work at times when there will be significant change of light between your images

• Experiment with natural and artificial light at dawn light or dusk

You can choose either a landscape or an architectural site. Select the best 7 images that show this distinct difference.

Comment on these best 7 images in approximately 150 words in total on the change that you feel has occurred - both visually and emotionally. (Approx150 words)

 

 

I'm thinking of doing a pano of the MCG(or another place) going from left to right of different times of the day...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By now, pretty much everyone on the entire planet has seen the images of the man with part of his leg missing taken at the Boston Marathon. As a result of the public's reaction, parts of the media are now stopping and asking "how much is too much?". Here is an interesting article looking at the ethical dilemmas faced by heartless bastards photojournalists.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/18/business/media/news-media-weigh-use-of-photos-of-carnage.html?smid=fb-nytimes&WT.z_sma=BU_NMW_20130418&_r=0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think its to much. I dont think people realise that people were actually hurt unless they see this sort of stuff. We read about all of these explosions and disasters all the time in far away lands and that x amount of people were killed or injured, but it doesnt really mean anything. When you actually see someone who is proper fucked you realise how real it is and not just some story. The world is a dangerous place full of dangerous people.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, there are two issues raised by this.

1- is it too gory?

For me, I agree with you. Bomb blasts are gory so blurring it, or cropping parts of the shot softens the blow which will, as you say , lessen the impact.

2- Should photographers think about putting their cameras down and helping during incidents like this?... I am a little torn on this one

Edited by KSK_47
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think publishing a full shot of him is a bit rude, after all, he is in a compromising position which he might not like to be shown in. Full gore with a blurred face was probably the best course of action. I saw all three versions, the one with his legs cropped out was kinda of pointless, just showed a guy in a wheelchair, big deal. Its like war photography though, you see dead bodies all the time with out any censorship, i guess its up to the subject of the photo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whenever there is a major event whereby people are dying/injured/mass devastation, there is someone there making sure his got spare charged batteries and some SD cards ready to capture it all rather than 1. getting the fuck out of the dangerous situation 2. helping out, yes the photos show the emotion but sometimes too much is too much... have the decency to crop his face out jesus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone else see the double standard here?

1) Bomb goes off in Anytown, USA; graphic images saturate the news and people are (justifiably) horrified.

2) Bomb goes off in Anytown, Middle East and images are dulled down, with very little intent to capture the human element of the tragedy.

Of course this is over simplifying things, but when you consider US armed forces have embedded journos and most of their output for our consumption is vetted substantially, compared to this last week's coverage of Boston, you really can't ignore the difference in the two. It feels like I'm stating the obvious, but US hegemony is also enforced through the mainstream media and this week it couldn't be any clearer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Modern media at its very core is sensationalist, this is the reason. 

 

There are bombings everyday in various countries within the middle-east, so much so it has gotten to the point where the viewership have become so used to it, it's simply not newsworthy anymore. The problem not only lies within the media, but also the viewership. KSK also alludes to a good point, this sensationalism is not only limited to Western media. Its even evident here within Turkey for fucks sake and much of the eastern world. You also don't hear jackshit about how the French essentially liberated Mali in a month, the yanks could learn a thing or two. 

 

Whats going to sell more?

 

Also fucking rofl at the american media thinking chechens were from the czech republic, fuck me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NEW ACT MAKES IT LEGAL FOR PHOTOGRAPHS TO GET USED WITHOUT PAYMENT TO THEIR AUTHOR

 

In a nutshell, the new Act (Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act, which received Royal Assent) that got voted through by government allows all work considered to be an orphan work to get used for free. Orphan works are those works whose creator cannot be found. One could immediately jump to the conclusion that this means purely photographers (this applies to more than photography, and to creatives as a whole) who have died and are uncontactable. It does not just mean this. It means any work. Consider for a moment that the billions of images that get uploaded to various websites, on the whole, have their metadata stripped out. IPTC and metadata is something most enthusiast photographers bother with (you should!) but the majority of photographers, especially those in the editorial markets, always fill in full IPTC which show’s the author of the image, copyright, contact details and so on. Well, the majority of websites, social networks and so on strip out ALL of this data. Your work, even something you shot a minute ago and uploaded, just became an orphan work. As such, it can now be used for free and for whatever purpose the thief of the image wants to use if for.

 

http://photothisandthat.co.uk/2013/04/29/is-the-uk-government-trying-to-kill-of-photographers/

 

Pretty fucking shocking!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...