When the photo doesn't match the story

Boy, I remember those days. I remember a lot of great photos of JV hurdlers when somebody set a state record in the 1,600.

To be fair, being at the right place at the right time is hard in track, although the finish line -- and no JV -- for a few races is obviously a good bet.

 

A) I'm guessing the paper isn't going to provide me the $1000 worth of equipment to get a decent shot.

B) I'd say 85% of the time it doesn't matter. But a few times a season, something extraordinary happens and we don't have a shot of it.

This weekend, we have no photographers working. So while we're covering a D3 softball conference title game and a prep baseball game, our lead package is going to be a throwaway feature with a courtesy photo. Excellent.

 

Are you sure we don't work together?!?

 

My shop supplies a couple cameras for the sports dept, and we've gotten pretty good a getting shots on a regular basis...the drawback (if you call it that) is that we shoot 90 percent of our stuff, so it's become part of the routine. More of a treat for us if we're able to leave the camera bag in the car once in awhile.

 

We have one camera. Photog was up against hours already on Thursday night, so I took the pics of the baseball game. Just before it was over, a fire burned down one of the oldest homes in town (and since this town is really into its history, it was a big deal). The managing editor called and asked me to take pix of the fire on the way back. I ended up there an hour while the ME tried to track people down for quotes. And somehow, I still made deadline and the ME was only a half hour late.

But the photos matched both stories. One kid hit three homers and I got a good shot of the kid just after he rounded third on the second one with the head coach grinning from ear to ear right behind him. And the fire photo that ran was one of the firefighters heading into the home to try and get control in the middle of the second floor, where it apparently started.

 

Nice work apeman and go Pittsburgh State...I'm a Portland State guy myself...remember some big football playoff battles back in the 90s with you guys.

 

$1000 for a good camera?

I think a Canon SLR can be had for about $500. You could also grab an old Canon lens to slap on it.

 

Shooting your own photos is so much better. You know what you want, especially if you are in a small shop where you can get photos that fit the space.

 

your point A is such a bullshit copout. We have cameras in our sports department that are probably from 2002, if that late, and I got some pretty good shots with it. It can be done.

 

I agree, bud. I use a Nikon D50 with a stock lens. It doesn't get much lower than that. While it's harder to get a decent shot indoors, and I'm lucky that nobody enforces a flash rule in my area, it can be done. For an afternoon game on a sunny day, it's impossible to take, even an inning of shots, and not come out with something halfway decent. Three innings of shooting a seven-inning game should get you the shot you want.

 

Or go used. The last four Nikon D1H bodies I've bought have totaled about $1,000.
And sorry Jimmy if I don't have much sympathy. I've had to shoot my own photos since 1999 and I've used my own equipment since 2001. At my last shop we had an old Nikon D1 and a sad-sounding D100 on its last legs, for two of us in sports. Since we often had games at the same time and I didn't trust that D100, I used my own D1H. When my original D1H died with 320,000 clicks on the shutter, my publisher reimbursed me the $300 I spent on a used one since I used my personal equipment for work.