I've never worked auto races, Bill, but for team sports it's always been
that way. And there's a good reason for this: it's foolish to rely on one
shot or another turning out as expected due to the vagaries inherent to
that kind of photography. Also, one never can be sure when the next
critical moment will arrive, and so you're "on" for the entire event, all
four quarters or whatever the case may be. Even shooting for small dailies
when I started out I'd habitually go through four or six or eight rolls of
Tri-X for every high school game I attended, be it football, basketball,
baseball . . . it didn't matter.
The sports editor of the Rhinelander Daily Globe told me early on that I
was submitting more film than they had time to process and go through. He
wrote me a note with my reloads one day that read, "You're too
enthusiastic!" I noticed he did not bother to add "Stop submitting so many
good images," though, and so I continued to run through tons of Tri-X and
the paper continued to publish my (otherwise acceptable) work.
In journalism film's dirt cheap and history waits for no man.
But you know, I didn't need an AF and three bodies to do all that. My
modest OM-1 MD with winder sand three-lens kit did just fine. (Not that I
wouldn't have loved to have had 4T's back then screwed to motor drives with
an assortment of lenses to work with.)
Anyway, no matter the gear a sports photographer uses "more" is almost
always the operative word of the day.
Tris
"However, the equipment I see, film or
digital, all looks pretty much the same--big wunderbrick bodies, huge
lenses, etc. Point and blast--the fastest AF and MD wins <g>."
Sounds like some "pros" at SI are taking huge amounts of pics and picking
the best one. At least you are thinking about what to take.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|