[lahinch_lass]

April 26, 2009 at 1:35 pm

Very very nice shots there flynny.
My favourite is the first, but they’re all good pictures.

You’ve certainly made the most of the settings used to get good crisp images.

[lahinch_lass]

April 20, 2009 at 2:58 pm

kensutz wrote:

Unfortunately I’m working tomorrow evening so I can’t make it to the Russia game. Should be interesting to see how they get on.

Going to try and get to that match, have meetings at work up to 6pm, but will scoot cross-country from shannon to birdhill and hopefully get to the game on time.
Have a certain photo I need to get further signatures on, and few of the guys in the munster team tomorrow night are likely to be on their final outing for munster, so it’s a last chance to get those signatures.
I shall of course endeavour to get some pictures, but I ain’t hopeful. If the lights at St Marys in Dublin are “AIL standard” then I’m in for a dim and dark night, and absolutely no point in using the Teleconverter to extend the lens.

[lahinch_lass]

April 20, 2009 at 11:20 am

kensutz wrote:

Almost similar in choice of shots :lol: Were you were sitting to my left in the second half? Then followed me into the media room when they tried to stop us going in

The choice of pictures was deliberate.. I wanted to show the difference in the quality of shots, particularly when I spotted your shot of dougie.
I was one of the 2 girls sitting together, the other lass was on her first outing pitchside so latched onto me as a friendly face. I think Pat sorta scared her before the game.
I was only in the media room briefly to dump the vest and hope Glyn would show up.
You’d think those stewards would kow me by now :roll: yet every time Glyn has to come escort me to take the MOTM photo.
I do my photography for the supporters club.

[lahinch_lass]

April 19, 2009 at 6:26 pm

super shots there, love the facial expressions captured.

[lahinch_lass]

April 19, 2009 at 6:23 pm

great shots as usual Ken.

Here are some of my feeble efforts from the same match. I upped the ISO for this match, 640, and 800. f2.8 lens 2nd half, but ~f4 in the first as I was using a teleconverter.

These are all post-cropping and some minor editing of levels.

[lahinch_lass]

April 8, 2009 at 1:15 pm

hmm I’ve tried iso800 in the past and found the whites ended up overblown… leaky. Not sure of the correct terminology. Basically iso800 + my camera + floodlights + white strips on munster kit was not a good combination. Is there another setting I should be changing to compensate, or help reduce the effect ??

[lahinch_lass]

April 7, 2009 at 7:09 pm

fabulous shots ken…
there’s one photo of Contepomi I saw taken that I’m waiting to see where it will surface.

I wish my pictures from that game were that sharp :(
There’s just far too much noise in most of my shots. And I really don’t know if I should jack up the ISO or not. I was operating with ISO 400 and 1/500 shutter speed for pretty much the whole game. I was using a teleconverter on my F2.8 for most of the first half until things got too dark, so I took off the teleconverter.

Canon 40D with Sigma 70=200mm F2.8, no IS/OS, but using monopod.
the below are post crop, but pre-resize, rotation & light adjustments

[lahinch_lass]

April 7, 2009 at 6:29 pm

excellent info.. now a further question is there a standard rate card for newspaper published photos ?

I provide photos for one of the sports NGBs on a regular basis and they send those pictures out with their press releases. Now the magazines associated with the sport do pay for use of the photos but I’m not aware of any standard behaviour on the part of the newspapers.
The attitude from the regional papers is very mixed. One regional newspaper consistently removes the name of the NGBs primary sponsor from the press releases even though otherwise publishing the release verbatim. Others send photographers to events, while others request copyright-free images to be provided to them.

[lahinch_lass]

April 7, 2009 at 6:20 pm

general question on this theme .. what are typical insurance costs for photographers ?
I did look into getting my kit insured along with €3m PL and it was quoted at ~10% of the cost of my equipment. Is this normal ?
Say about ~€5k worth of cameras, lenses, and laptop, is it really normal for the insurance to be such a high proportion ? Or is it the PL insurance that pushes it so high?

[lahinch_lass]

April 7, 2009 at 6:11 pm

I recently saw an example of fujipix photobook, and theirs is much more like a traditional photoalbum. they print actual photos as prints and then laminate them into the album.
I’ve used Kodak and Spectra in the past. Kodak was so-so, Spectra I’ve been very happy with. Good quality, very sharp images. Just stay away from pure B&W with them, their print process can’t handle it at all for photobooks or cards. Kodak I felt was expensive for what you get. It looks good, but was easily twice the price of the spectra equivalent.
I also got a photobook done with blurb.com earlier this year, very much book-like, very light paper, but the picture print quality is still good, and actually requires higher standard of image than spectra. Not sure how/why, but using the same image on spectra it printed at ~A4 on their photobook no bother, but with blurb their quality checker limited it to about two-thirds the size.

I’d suggest getting a similarly sized album from a range of suppliers and see which you are happiest with. Personally I prefer the options that allow book creation & editing offline, and you only need to go online when it’s finalised and you’re ready to order.

[lahinch_lass]

April 7, 2009 at 6:03 pm

I’d assume it depends on the event. for GAA matches you need permission from their Media officer, for rugby you need it from the IRFU, soccer would be the FAI.
Each governing body would have it’s own criteria, and may depend on demand for any given fixture.
One example for thomond park & munster rugby, precedence goes to the major sports photo agencies, national papers, regional papers, then freelancers. If there are too many photographers requesting access then the freelancers don’t get allowed pitchside.

[lahinch_lass]

March 25, 2009 at 7:45 pm

highonsnow wrote:

Could you be convinced to buy the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM? It’s probably THE most credited zoom lens out there, tried and tested and highly recommended.

There’s a sigma equivalent, and I use it for sports shots on a Canon body, but it’s light enough that it wouldn’t be awkward on a Sony DSLR.

I havent looked at the Sony alphas for a while, but if they’re followed on from the Minolta’s physically they’d be smaller than their canon counterparts. But the Sony body tends to be heavier due to the in-built opticial stabilzation – makes lens buying a lot cheaper when going for the 3rd party solutions, you don’t need to pick the IS/OS versions. Which is good, because the minolta w/OS in the body, and a standard lens is half the weight of a canon with an IS lens.

[lahinch_lass]

February 14, 2009 at 7:43 pm

Piotr M wrote:

My choice would be sigma 150-500. Same optical quality plus OS. However, I’m going to buy sigma 100-300/4, and to use it with TC x1.5 (I have one), if necessary. It is excellent piece of glass.

I’ve used the 100-300/4 a few times, my father has it. It’s grand in daylight, I just wasn’t comfortable using it for nighttime matches. I perfer to have the f2.8 70-200mm under the floodlights. given the majority of Munster games are nighttime it doesn’t make sense for me to invest in anything not f2.8, and anything other than the lens I’ve already got is way too pricey.

The 150-500mm investment is primarily for surf photography, which will of course be daylight photography. I may use it for the odd rugby match, but most likely when I know I’ll a distance from the pitch.

[lahinch_lass]

February 13, 2009 at 4:52 pm

rc53 wrote:

Resellerratings is US based, but useful to check if buying from there

http://www.resellerratings.com/

Is there a similar European/UK/IRL site?

General site in the UK
http://www.shopsafe.co.uk/

just gives advice about online shopping and lists known safe retailers.

[lahinch_lass]

February 13, 2009 at 4:45 pm

I have the Sony 18-250mm, got in Oz last autumn when I was there on holidays. I’m using it on an old Minolta Dynax 5d. It is my sencond DSLR, so I got that lens simply for the range flexibility on it, and so far I’ve mostly used it at it’s widest angles rather than up at the higher zoom end.
It’s damn convienent for a 2nd camera and gives me a much wider zoom range when I’ve got a high-speed lens on my primary camera.
It all depends on your planned usage. Wahat I would say is the sony 18-250mm lens is very compact, compared to the 70-300mm standard kit lens types, it’s about the same size as the old 28-80mm lens I used to have. In that regard it is ideal for travelling light.