21st Century Technology . . . or just pure sweet timing?

I recently photographed the Australian Masters Indoor Cricket Championships.

Unlike the outdoor version, INDOOR Cricket is a blur of almost non-stop action: a little yellow ball zipping around a net-enclosed court at over 100 kpm, and 10 players running, diving, jumping and otherwise moving all the time.

The peak action moments are the split-second when a batsman and the ball meet,

and the split-second a batsman sprints across the "crease" (the marking on the ground beyond which, once crossed, the batsman is "safe") as that moment coincides with the ball hitting the wickets.

This post is about the latter, and the "human timing over technology" aspect therein.

In the first instance (batsman and ball meeting), the drama of the photo is maximised if the exact moment the ball hits the stumps is caught.

In the second instance, that drama is maximised the closer the batsman's bat is to the line.

Over the course of this tournament I published each day's photographs on the same evening they were taken. And each morning I'd hear comments along the lines of how good my camera's motor-drive or continuous-shot capabilities must be.

Bah humbug!!!

If I'd relied on the technology of my cameras, I'd have missed dozens of perfectly-timed shots like those above, even though the Nikon D4 I was using is capable of taking 11 shots per second . . . but mine doesn't because I shoot single shots. I never use continuous-shot mode (aka motor-drive for older, not-yet-caught-up-with-digital folk).

I've had more than one punter scoff at this assertion, until I explain the following:

at full stretch, a fit batsman in indoor cricket might be running at about 7 meters per second. The D4 can take a photo every one-tenth of a second, so between one frame and the next our batsman could have covered 70cm. So he could be up to 35cm before or beyond the line . . . 35cms!!

And what about the ball? While many can bowl at over 100 kph, let's say it's travelling at a leisurely 60 kph. That's 1 kilometer per minute. That's over 16 meters per second! Again, a photo every one-tenth of a second . . . between one frame and the next, the ball has travelled over 1.6 meters!!! So we could end up with a photo of the ball nearly one meter away from the stumps, or nearly one meter past the stumps.

Compare that to the photos above . . . on continuous shot mode, I would have been relying on luck to get anywhere near that position of the outstretched bat, or the ball just centimeters away after crashing through the stumps. In such situations, my sense of timing is going to trump the frame-per-second capabilities of even Nikon's flagship camera. Always. Each and every time.

Now of course there are situations where the high frame-per-second capabilities of modern cameras are going to be very handy . . . I guess . . . many sports don't have the same well-defined critical moments as discussed above, so blazing away at 11 shots per second, without having to worry about little things like timing and anticipation and understanding the game and reading the flow of the game etc etc, is going to get some interesting and exciting shots.

But for real excitement and drama, to really capture the essence of the sport and to capture that . . . ummm .  . . what's it called? . . . ah yes, to capture that "decisive moment" (now where have I heard that before?) . . . for me, nothing beats good old-fashioned human timing.

 

See the images of the 2013 Australian Masters Indoor Cricket Champioships

Time-lapse with a DSLR (or why I miss 35mm film less each day)

You know, I'm missing 35mm film less and less nowadays . . . yes, I know film has "the look". I know it has the feel and the history and the smell and the romance . . . and the cost. And the waiting. But in many ways what is more important now is what it doesn't have.

In this post, the "what-it-doesn't-have" I'm most interested in is the capacity of modern DSLR cameras (in my case both a Nikon D200 and D700) to shoot time-lapse video. No video camera required, all it takes is one of my Nikons, time, and the right software. In other words, NO specialist equipment, just a tripod and the Nikon. This is something I wouldn't have dreamed of trying with my film gear, but with digital, it's a breeze.

Software requirements can be covered in a few ways, I'm trying LRTimeLapse (free for non-commercial use) and LightRoom 4 (definitely not free, but hey . . .). LRTimeLapse allows for some very professional looking effects, including the slow "Ken Burns" effect (very slow zoom in then out again), and LR4 allows full editing of levels, sharpness etc and use of a vast array of digital filters.

The results?

See for yourself. Here's my very first attempt using this software combination. Please note, this is a very low-res, bandwidth-friendly version, the original is astonishing, in full 1920 x 1080 HD, rendered at 30 frames per second:

For Nikon DSLR owners, the necessary interval shooting is via the built-in intervalometer in the D700 (and most other newer models I think--even my old D200 has this feature). Just set it and go away for an hour or so, the camera does it all for you automatically. This particular effort involved 600 photos (one every 5 seconds), but I only processed 400. I sat around for 50 minutes enjoying the view while the camera tripped along. Half an hour editing and rendering and there it was!

Here's a more recent effort, again using this software combination, and again a very low-res, bandwidth-friendly version. The original of this is amazing, the sun's rays rotating across the sky while the higher clouds move in the opposite direction. Again, it is full 1920 x 1080 HD, rendered at 30 frames per second:

Like I said, I'm missing 35mm film less and less these days.

Ladies and Gentlemen, presenting . . . Elvis Presley!!!!!

No.

Never.

Probably wouldn't have even if I'd had the chance . . .

. . . oh alright, if I'd had the chance I probably would have gone to see Elvis perform live. And if I had, his photo would be amongst the other in this post.

But I didn't, and it isn't.

But I have seen many others (and even photographed some of them):

ELO, Steeleye Span, 10cc . . . . Led Zeppelin (February 16th, 1972, Subiaco Oval. Loud!!) . . . Deep Purple, Santana, Neil Young, the Pretenders, Tom Waites, Eric Clapton . . . .

Bob Dylan . . . Frank Zappa, Hothouse Flowers, Paul Rodgers, the Kransky Sisters, Ry Cooder, the Bee Gees, Dan Sultan

 Cold Chisel, Joe Cocker, Yothu Yindi, Joe Jackson, Melanie Safka, Gurrumul Yunupingu, Leo Kotke, Crosby Stills and Nash,

Elton John, Pearl Jam, Mike McLellan, Touchstone, the Dubliners, Doug Ashdown, Ralph McTell, Loudon Wainwright,

 Sky . . . Black Sabbath . . . Manfred Mann, Chain, Billy Thorpe, Stevie Wright, Split Enz, Archie Roach and Ruby Hunter

 Jethro Tull, Moody Blues, Fureys, James Taylor . . . Leonard Cohen . . . Sonny Terry and Brownie McGee, Daddy Cool, Eagles, Normie Rowe, Dragon, Ronnie Burns, Redgum, Shane Howard

Goanna, John Schumann, Richard Thompson, Paco Pena . . . Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens) . . .Tom Petty (and the Heart-Breakers), Tracy Chapman, Jeff St John and the Id, the Pigram Brothers, Toni Childs, Max Merritt, Roberta Flack, Jeff Beck

 . . . did I mention Led Zeppelin? Deep Purple? Dylan? Sabbath? Cocker? Cohen? Yeah, well, I have lost (through a very nasty burglary some years ago) more photos than I care to remember, but I have rebuilt a bit of a collection over the past few years.

Two things about this.

First thing: if you don't know any of these acts, tough. Your loss. I couldn't care less, so please don't bother commenting along those lines, I ain't listening

Second thing (but only if you promise to not tell anyone who works in the security business in Perth, Western Australia). Okay, here it is: I've managed to photograph many of the musicians above on my "professional-type" digital SLR. In fact, every photo in this post was taken by me, from regular paid-for-just-like-everyone-else seats, despite the efforts of some as described below. The original of every image shown here is sharp as a tack, and look bloody fantastic as large framed prints on mine and a lucky few others' walls.

 So what? I hear some of you say. Gasp! I hear fellow West Australians splutter. You WHAT? from an ex-security staff

Well, I don't know about your part of the world, but here in Perth we have an entertainment-industry security commandment . . . under no circumstances are ordinary punters allowed to take photographs of musicians on stage

I think that means photos like this one . . . . and the others . . . . oh dear . . . .

The problem with such prohibitions is that they are often left behind . . . in the case, left behind by mobile phones with cameras.

Go to any concert now and as soon as the act begins, like the studio audience of a 1970s "live" music show, thousands of arms reach for the sky. However, unlike 1975, instead of waving side to side like hypnotised worms, today each upstretched arm is topped by a mobile phone or tiny point 'n shoot camera, showing small rectangles of light to all those behind. I must admit, an idiot popping off a camera-flash to get beautifully illuminated photos of the backs of heads in the three rows immediately in front of them is annoying, but nowhere as annoying as thousands of little rectangles of bright blurry blobs between you and the act for whom you paid substantial amounts of money to see (and photograph dammit, put your bloody arms down!!).

I've heard rumours of a nursing home on the outskirts of town, reserved for security staff and venue operators deeply damaged by the advent of mobile phone cameras. Can you imagine trying to stop thousands of people from taking photos at a concert with their mobile phones? Can you imagine searching people's bags for illicit drink and hidden cameras, knowing that every mobile phone is in fact a camera? Can you imagine trying to ban everyone from taking their mobile camera into a concert? Like I said, prohibition outflanked.

To save the sanity of those security folk still able to function, venues now ban "professional-type" cameras. This seems to mean anything that looks complicated or expensive, which in turn means you've got Buckley's of being allowed to take an SLR and lens into a concert. Which in turn means you're just not going to be able to get anything better than a mobile-phone photo, right? Well, I for one don't accept that, so I'll post soon on how to get high-standard photos of your favourite artists, despite the efforts of the security personnel sworn to prevent you from doing so . . . as long as you can get a clear view through the forest of phone-camera wielding arms.

Stay tuned.