The good news from the photographer's point of view is that they can go back to shooting. Getty Images will market for them and possibly be a great outlet for licensing (not selling - the photographer keeps the copyright) their images. The more licensing that it is done, the more money we make. Simple.
Now, the words "news agency", "photo agency", "wire service" and similar words are all interchangeable. You'll hear them and they all refer to places like Getty Images. Basically, they are gargantuan image archives with every possible photo you can think of. In order to be successful, you need a big archive of your images. The more images you have, the higher the probability of an editor choosing yours. It also helps to shoot pictures of the Yankees as opposed to the Pittsburgh Pirates - which is my team.
So, I just sign on with Icon Sports Media, or Icon for short. I had emailed them months ago and, at the time, they had enough photographers in the Pittsburgh area. No luck.
About a month ago, I get a call from their Content Manager asking me if I would be interested in covering the Pirates and Pitt football. He told me their coverage needs drastically changed and they needed someone. I was the guy.
Lesson... Don't be afraid to ask. Don't be afraid to put your name out there. I learned a saying from a very successful entrepreneur... "PERSISTENCE either PAYS OFF or PISSES OFF". The ones you "piss off" probably never had to hustle and make their own way in the world. Most people, though, will appreciate you staying on top of it. You just have to walk that fine line. They are busy people - all they need is to be reminded every so often that you're available and interested.
I shoot my first couple of games. I asked a very well-known photographer for some general advice before my first game. Instead of a couple simple answers like "you can move around between innings", "look for markers so you don't stand in a spot that a person has occupied for years"... I got, "I can't teach you how to shoot baseball in an email." WTF? Anyhow...
I do pretty well, only shooting from the "on-deck circle" pits at PNC Park. Truthfully, I was a little nervous and apprehensive about moving around. I just watched what the other photographers were doing and now I feel comfortable doing just about anything.
You have to remember that this opportunity came out of nowhere. I had been shooting Pitt basketball for a few months, so I had only purchased the Canon 70-200.mm f/2.8 IS so far. Let's just say that I was hindered by the distance I could reach. I used my Canon 50D when I wanted to get a little more reach since it is a 1.6x cropped sensor and helps.
After the first game, I ordered a Canon 2x TC II Extender/Teleconverter thinking that I will now have a 140-400 lens. WRONG! The TC made the images soft and it did not help one bit. In fact, I returned it the next day. So, here's ADVICE, don't buy the Canon 2x TC II. It will not help. At least not if you want your images to be tack sharp.
I realized that I needed to take a chance on a bigger lens. A friend of mine had a Canon 300mm f/2.8 for sale and gave me a good deal with a few extras. I think it was around $2,000 - not bad. So, now I have the following "sports shooter gear":
- Canon 1D Mark II
- Canon 1D Mark II
- Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM
- Canon 300mm f/2.8 USM
- Canon 1.4x TC II (extends my 300mm to a 420mm without affecting IQ)
- Benro Monopod (composite and strong)
I put the 70-200mm on the 50D (thought the little extra reach wouldn't hurt) - the 50D shoots around 5-6 frames per second (RAW). Slow if you ask me, but the resolution is around 15 mega-pixels. That would be the setup I started using in the on-deck pits and anything that was up in my face.
FYI, even though there are newer versions of the Canon 1D, the improvements aren't important enough to me to make that financial commitment. IS the 8.2 mega-pixels a hindrance? Not really when you consider I am trying to fill the frame anyway by shooting tight. And it shoots a ridiculous 10+ frames per second. Priceless when shooting sports.
Another "dumb" question that got an answer that was pretty much useless. I asked the same "guy" if a Canon 1.4x TC II (which would make the 300mm f/2.8 a pure 420mm f/4) would help since I really wasn't in a position to invest in a Canon 400mm f/2.8 just yet. The response was one for the ages: "They suck. You need a 400. If you are going to shoot the big leaguers then you have to start acting like one."
Okay, for those that don't know... I was a scholarship Division I baseball player, selected to the 1994 Team USA squad and played in the Cape Cod League. I "played" with the people that he is "shooting". So, with all due respect - I think I can handle acting line one. For some reason I would guess this fellow was the one who got picked last in gym class. I digress... these pompous, arrogant, holier-than-thou photographers get under my skin, sorry.
Well, I heard from some other guys at the park that with the 1D Mark II and the 300mm f/2.8... I should give it a shot. They all had good things to say about the image quality (IQ) and couldn't figure out why I got the response I did. Maybe he had a 400mm he wanted to sell? Who knows.
I purchase the Canon 1.4x TC II and attach it to the Canon 300mm f/2.8 - paired with my Canon 1D Mark II. I have to tell you, it takes tack sharp images, gets me filling the frame more and I'm shooting at f/4 which is where I'd like to be anyway. As an example, here is a shot of Tim Lincecum - Cy Young Award winner from the San Francisco Giants.
I don't know about you, but there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with that image (above). Here's a shot (below) from the same game where I had to quickly switch to my 70-200/50D setup when a play was coming right at me.
Again, you can see where both setups work well in different situations. Just for comparison, here's an image shot WITHOUT the 1.4x attached.
A similar picture from the same distance away from home plate WITH the 1.4x attached. You can see how much closer I can get.
So, I feel like letting certain people know that, in the real world of buying your own equipment, the combination of the Canon 1.4x TC II and the Canon 300mm f/2.8 works just fine. Until I am a big shot like the aforementioned fellow, it is a great workaround to not having the Canon 400mm f/2.8.
The only issue is when the sun goes down. Since I like my shutter speeds to be at least 1/1250, it has to come off or the ISO has to be pushed into the stratosphere. If you have any questions about my setup, shoot me an email message.
