For those of you who used to shoot sport on film and now digitisl

D

D-pearce92

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,115
Name
Dex
Edit My Images
Yes
Morning all
Have got to do an assignment on sports photography from the 60's through to to modern era. I have been trying to find out what equipment you would of used back then and whether you would develop in the boot of your car or whether you would have to run back to the office to develop your film to get it in the paper the next day.
I have been trying to google but its getting me nowhere so any help or links would be very helpful.

Many thanks for your help
Dex
 
Last edited:
I was shooting through the 90's. Obviously things varied from event to event but as an example, for a 3pm Saturday kick off, the Sunday papers would want a photo for their first edition in their office for 4pm. We would have 1 or 2 photographers on the touchline and 1 technician either set up in the stadium or we'd have to knock on nearby houses and offer them a few quid for using a room with water and phone line access.

I'd have 10 minutes to get a photo worth publishing then run the film to the technician who would develop it scan it then wire it to the office who would distribute it.

I could then shoot the rest of the match shooting both action for later editions and regionals and if the light was right, decent stock images of individuals.

Hope that helps a bit
 
Thanks mike, in regard to film would you shoot on a high iso film and then would you have to change the film over at half time or would you take photos sparingly so that you knew the film would last the whole game.
 
Again, it varied, but as long as the photographers and the techs were all in agreement you could change throughout the game.

As an example, in the 90's Fuji produced an 800 iso film that pushed well to 3200 so we might do the first 10 mins at 800, shoot 1600 until half time then finish off at 3200 just shooting goals / celebrations etc. That would be for a winter game obviously.

I'll be home later and can go into a bit more depth then if it's of any use.

Mike.
 
pooley said:
Again, it varied, but as long as the photographers and the techs were all in agreement you could change throughout the game.

As an example, in the 90's Fuji produced an 800 iso film that pushed well to 3200 so we might do the first 10 mins at 800, shoot 1600 until half time then finish off at 3200 just shooting goals / celebrations etc. That would be for a winter game obviously.

I'll be home later and can go into a bit more depth then if it's of any use.

Mike.
Click to expand...

Thanks Mike, think that should be ample for the moment for me to write about. If i do need abit more info is it alright if i Pm you.
 
Hi, I used to cover football in the late 80's early 90's & used nikon F3hp's with a very heavy 300mm 2.8 & nikon 180mm f2.8.
I would get to shoot just 10 mins of a game usually and then had to leave to dev & print ready to wire down to London.The image was transferred by fastening a print to a rotating drum scanner. I have even had to process a film in a bath covered with all the curtains I could get down to cover me :).
We used kodax tri-x 400 as a rule but also Ilford XP which had range from 400 asa to 1600 (very grainy). This though had a colour film process C41 so wasn't used in the field much.
The nikon F3 had a MD4 drive capable of 8 fps so could eat a 24 frame film in no time so bursts very rarely went above 2/3 frames (we where *******ed if we used more than 1or2 films)lol. Hope this is of help!. Kind regards Graham.
 
Bluesman graham said:
The nikon F3 had a MD4 drive capable of 8 fps so could eat a 24 frame film in no time so bursts very rarely went above 2/3 frames (we where *******ed if we used more than 1or2 films)lol.
Click to expand...

Back in the 80's I used to get E6 processing done at the Daily Record lab. I recall the girls there shocked that a new photographer covering a midweek Celtic game had taken over 70 pictures!

I didn't do any press work then, but I've just spent the day scanning some colour negatives I shot. So many oof with the manual focusing...

I did some event style work covering Rallying in the 1980's too. Didn't have a website to show pictures on, we had to print contact sheets, cut them up into individual shots and post them to competitors in the hope of attracting orders.
 
Bluesman graham said:
Hi, I used to cover football in the late 80's early 90's & used nikon F3hp's with a very heavy 300mm 2.8 & nikon 180mm f2.8.
I would get to shoot just 10 mins of a game usually and then had to leave to dev & print ready to wire down to London.The image was transferred by fastening a print to a rotating drum scanner. I have even had to process a film in a bath covered with all the curtains I could get down to cover me :).
We used kodax tri-x 400 as a rule but also Ilford XP which had range from 400 asa to 1600 (very grainy). This though had a colour film process C41 so wasn't used in the field much.
The nikon F3 had a MD4 drive capable of 8 fps so could eat a 24 frame film in no time so bursts very rarely went above 2/3 frames (we where *******ed if we used more than 1or2 films)lol. Hope this is of help!. Kind regards Graham.
Click to expand...

Thanks Graham, will definately help me when i come to do my essay. Its amazing just how much sports photography has changed in the last 10-20 years.
 
duncolm said:
Back in the 80's I used to get E6 processing done at the Daily Record lab. I recall the girls there shocked that a new photographer covering a midweek Celtic game had taken over 70 pictures!

I didn't do any press work then, but I've just spent the day scanning some colour negatives I shot. So many oof with the manual focusing...

I did some event style work covering Rallying in the 1980's too. Didn't have a website to show pictures on, we had to print contact sheets, cut them up into individual shots and post them to competitors in the hope of attracting orders.
Click to expand...

Thanks Duncan, So glad im doing sport as this alot more interesting than doing the easier to research route that most of the class is doing.

In regards to focusing would you focus onto a certain point then wait for the subject to enter than take the photo or would you follow the action and focus as they are coming towards and hope you get it fairly sharp?

Sorry for the double post, i thought i had clicked the edit button.
 
Last edited:
Field sports you needed to be able to follow focus.

At certain times for other sports you might pre focus like on the finishing line for athletics or for motorsports but you had to be your game focus wise. The only time I'd pre focus for football would be for a penalty where you could guarantee where the player would be by then you had to follow him for the celebration shot or rebound.
 
For shooting rally cars, it would always be pre-focus on a point on the track where you reckoned the car would be at the most interesting angle.
Shooting american football as I did, where the action is much less predictable, you might pre-focus, but always be ready to refocus as the action developed. There were features in the viewfinder which made manual focusing easier than it is in modern digital slrs, but for someone with my limited ability you got nowhere near the accuracy of modern auto-focusing.
 
Thanks Mike and Duncan. Has anyone else got any stories or any other info that i could include.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top