Capturing Sport from all angles

[etherial]

It's all good guys, good robust discussion.

I didn't even think of the 'infomercial' potential of this, and to be honest I'm not going to buy into it because I don't care!! As I said in my OP, this wasn't about gear, or measurebating! If that is what you choose to see, then so be it!

I chose to take away from it tips on making my photographs more interesting, ideas on different ways to cover an event, the location, and the personalities of the people involved whether they be spectators, officials or players. So I couldn't care less what their motivation is, I think it is a helpful clip that can make me (and many others) better photographers.

PS and Andrew, since when was I "old"??

[I @ M]

PS and Andrew, since when was I "old"??

errr, someone, can't remember who now, said that looked like you were in your 80s --- or was that born in the 80s ---- gees this alzheimer's is getting to me.

[etherial]

It isn't really though, is it. He has tens of thousands of dollars worth of the best equipment available, because you can't do that with a D3000 and a nifty fifty. And did you see any soft or poorly exposed images in there?

Must be a tricky job making baseball look interesting though.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that just the equipment makes the shot! The camera and lens are just tools. Many of the shots he presents could be done with lesser quality gear, anyway the lesson here isn't about gear, it is about ideas on presentation, capturing the emotion etc. Sure good gear helps, but don't focus on it, draw from the positives. You said it yourself (maybe tongue in cheek) that he has made baseball look interesting and I say that the way he has done this is more about the technique than the equipment.

[etherial]

errr, someone, can't remember who now, said that looked like you were in your 80s --- or was that born in the 80s ---- gees this alzheimer's is getting to me.

The power of the internet hey, I could be 18 or 80 couldn't I!!

Happily I can say I'm old enough to know better, and young enough to do it again. Although there are some here that would dob me in and there are some member mug shots around that give me away.

[James T]

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that just the equipment makes the shot! The camera and lens are just tools. Many of the shots he presents could be done with lesser quality gear, anyway the lesson here isn't about gear, it is about ideas on presentation, capturing the emotion etc. Sure good gear helps, but don't focus on it, draw from the positives. You said it yourself (maybe tongue in cheek) that he has made baseball look interesting and I say that the way he has done this is more about the technique than the equipment.

I think I'll be fine thanks. Well aware of what it takes to get a shot.

My point was referring to your measurbating comment. As along with parroting the almighty 'rule-of-thirds', saying the equipment doesn't matter, is one of the first catch cries forum members learn.

Your original post suggested technicals and gear aren't important, they are. $10,000 lenses and cameras wouldn't exist if that wasn't the case.

[fabian628]

interesting clip. Not sure how good the advertising for nikon is, you see him using a nikon body breifly at the start, and then for about 1 second you see his camera strap is yellow. Other than that it is pretty hard to identify the camera body or lens. He could have been using a sigma super tele lens

[Scotty72]

That is the point of viral marketing.

Don't ram the brand down the audiences throat; and hopefully whip up positive emotions (the flag, nostalgic Fenway Park, apple pie etc) that you briefly associate with your product. When the audience want to replicate that positive emotion, they go looking for the ingredients (oh look, a Nikon camera and mega pricey lens are all you need).

In fact, ram the brand too hard, the campaign gets exposed = bad publicity.

About 18 months ago: a fluff 'story' went viral about a guy who had a chance encounter with a girl on the NY subway. Desperate to find the girl of his dreams, he could only describe the girl in vague terms but somehow (it was a miracle) he managed to describe the (insert brand name here) fashion label she was wearing. Surprisingly , sales of the brand went up as young hopefuls bought up big to hopefully recreate those deeply romantic circumstances.

Eventually, the scam was exposed (so sad)

In typically Australian fashion, we copied the yanks.

An item (maybe 1 year ago) all over Oz TV suggested that an unusually attractive young lady had had a chance encounter with a gentleman. Why had the babe noticed the guy across the crowded cafe (soooooo romantic , isn't it just)? Well, his jacket was so stylish! That any man who dresses so well must be a catch.

Unbelievably, our bombshell hero walked away without the babe's phone number or, you guessed it, his lucky jacket. So, it was now our babe's mission to find the owner of the chick magnet jacket (now, of course, for ID purposes only <wink, wink>, she reluctantly mentioned the jacket was Brand X. (only once in the entire story).

Can you guess which way sales went after this story was aired (until that scam was exposed) as countless single men stormed Brand X outlets to acquire their own babe attracting jacket.


If you still think this video is not a plant... Oh! pleeeease

Scotty

People should watch Media Watch: they expose this crap all the time.

[Chris Michel]

Delly Car one of Australias top full time sports tog did a so called fluff peice on his photography history and current work and he mentioned in it his camera brand once, but the peice was done on him and what he had acheived in a career covering major sporting events, and how he came to those amazing pics we can only ever dream of taking.... i guess in your eyes this was a infomercial too...... even though it was produced by channel 10 for a kids show ...... hmmmmmm what next ...... Dick Johnson doing adds for a car care product with his falcon in the background...

Ahhh thats what it is - the conspiracy theorists at work again.... everything must have a hidden agenda....

[fillum]

That is the point of viral marketing.

Don't ram the brand down the audiences throat; and hopefully whip up positive emotions (the flag, nostalgic Fenway Park, apple pie etc) that you briefly associate with your product. When the audience want to replicate that positive emotion, they go looking for the ingredients (oh look, a Nikon camera and mega pricey lens are all you need).

In fact, ram the brand too hard, the campaign gets exposed = bad publicity.

About 18 months ago: a fluff 'story' went viral about a guy who had a chance encounter with a girl on the NY subway. Desperate to find the girl of his dreams, he could only describe the girl in vague terms but somehow (it was a miracle) he managed to describe the (insert brand name here) fashion label she was wearing. Surprisingly , sales of the brand went up as young hopefuls bought up big to hopefully recreate those deeply romantic circumstances.

Eventually, the scam was exposed (so sad)

In typically Australian fashion, we copied the yanks.

An item (maybe 1 year ago) all over Oz TV suggested that an unusually attractive young lady had had a chance encounter with a gentleman. Why had the babe noticed the guy across the crowded cafe (soooooo romantic , isn't it just)? Well, his jacket was so stylish! That any man who dresses so well must be a catch.

Unbelievably, our bombshell hero walked away without the babe's phone number or, you guessed it, his lucky jacket. So, it was now our babe's mission to find the owner of the chick magnet jacket (now, of course, for ID purposes only <wink, wink>, she reluctantly mentioned the jacket was Brand X. (only once in the entire story).

Can you guess which way sales went after this story was aired (until that scam was exposed) as countless single men stormed Brand X outlets to acquire their own babe attracting jacket.


If you still think this video is not a plant... Oh! pleeeease

An argument that is outstanding in its irrelevance...(or have I somehow missed the Nikon <--> jacket connection?)

People should watch Media Watch: they expose this crap all the time.

Raise it with them...


Cheers.

[I @ M]

Delly Car one of Australias top full time sports tog did a so called fluff peice on his photography history and current work and he mentioned in it his camera brand once, but the peice was done on him and what he had acheived in a career covering major sporting events, and how he came to those amazing pics we can only ever dream of taking.... i guess in your eyes this was a infomercial too...... even though it was produced by channel 10 for a kids show ......

Chris, would you be able to provide a link to the channel 10 produced piece please, it would be interesting to see.

I could only find a couple of videos of him offering sporting photography advice, this one is quite good for tips and hints.

[Wayne]

I feel people just like to think (or tout) that big, expensive lenses and bodies (brand aside) don't make the shot. Whilst the gear doesn't make all the difference, and the photographer certainly has significant input both pre and post shutter click, I would love to see someone taking pics of say cricket at the MCG during the night session of a day/night match with their D5000/550D and a 70-300 ish f4-5.6 variable aperture lens and then getting those published in a newspaper/magazine etc etc all the while being paid for it.

As said above, this is one of the first ideals that photo forum members learn, and I suspect often derived from envy. Yep, envious that they don't have the $5000 pro body, and $10K f/2.8 or f/4 monster glass on their monopod sitting at the side of the ground making editorial shots for which they may get paid.....

The gear does matter, very much so.

I don't think this is a Nikon infomercial, and I don't think it would matter what brand he was shooting, the theorists would still cry foul.

[Scotty72]

Well, it is unfortunate when those damn trees keep blocking the view of the forest.

Of course, another attempt to obfuscate the argument. I did not attempt to connect the the Nikon with the jacket. Of course this was known. But, why play the game when it is easier to cause a sideshow (much like the job of the third base coach in baseball)? The jacket was an eg of the kind of viral marketing this Nikon video was.

So, some did not find it strange there was three of four clear shots of the Nikon brand. Nor was it found 'convenient' that the Nikon logo just happened to pop up on the advertising boards behind the action. A co-incidence I am sure.

Who was it that suggested that propaganda works best on uncritical audiences?

[Scotty72]

I feel people just like to think (or tout) that big, expensive lenses and bodies (brand aside) don't make the shot. Whilst the gear doesn't make all the difference, and the photographer certainly has significant input both pre and post shutter click, I would love to see someone taking pics of say cricket at the MCG during the night session of a day/night match with their D5000/550D and a 70-300 ish f4-5.6 variable aperture lens and then getting those published in a newspaper/magazine etc etc all the while being paid for it.

As said above, this is one of the first ideals that photo forum members learn, and I suspect often derived from envy. Yep, envious that they don't have the $5000 pro body, and $10K f/2.8 or f/4 monster glass on their monopod sitting at the side of the ground making editorial shots for which they may get paid.....

The gear does matter, very much so.

I don't think this is a Nikon infomercial, and I don't think it would matter what brand he was shooting, the theorists would still cry foul.

Whilst, I do think that it was an infomercial, I take your earlier point.

Gear does matter. That is why the pros carry $40,000 worth of it and not $1,000 worth (as you suggested).

Of course, it is not considered good form to point that out (every child wins a prize after all).

Whilst the photographer has a very huge influence, those who have the $1,000 twin lens kit will very quickly find the gear severely limits them.

[etherial]

Geez guys, ease up!! Of course gear helps, if it didn't he would have been there with a P&S or his iPhone because it is much more convenient!! Having all the tools and knowing how to use them are completly different things! By focusing on the gear or the motivation behind the clip you are missing the point of why I posted this!!

[Scotty72]

Fair enough... there are a few good tips ... if you can get that sort of access

I think if I waltzed in to Fenway carrying that sort of equipment and asked to set up behind the home plate, a few eyebrows might be raised

[fillum]

Well, it is unfortunate when those damn trees keep blocking the view of the forest.
<blah blah blah>

Scotty, in post #27 you presented a poorly formulated argument:-
You first state that product identification is subtle - that's fine, I have no argument with that.
Then you cite an actual but unrelated viral marketing case ("Brand X") - that's fine, I remember it (although your description contains inaccuracies but not relevant here)
But then you jump straight to this conclusion:-

If you still think this video is not a plant... Oh! pleeeease

You made no attempt whatsoever to relate your example case back to the RedSox video, so as a consequence it's irrelevant at this point. So I called you on it.

When you responded you chose not to strengthen your argument by relating the "Brand X" case to the RedSox video (as I expected), but instead chose to accuse me of obfuscation, not playing the game and causing a sideshow. (Wow! I did all that in just 2 lines of reply? ). In my opinion a somewhat ironic accusation in light of the post to which I was referring. You also chose to throw in a couple of lightly veiled insults which were supposed to sound clever, but didn't.

Anyway I searched out the "Brand X" video which you cited and had a look at it. Apart from the fact that both are in colour, both are in English, and neither starred Russell Crowe, I couldn't find any similarity between them. But perhaps that's just something to do with me being an "uncritical audience". I'd be happy to be enlightened...


What I really don't understand is what you see in the RedSox video above that makes you think it's viral. Who is going to look at that video and say "Wow, that's fantastic! I need to send this to all my mates!". What reason is there for it to go viral?
The flag? Americans are surrounded by flags, why would the one here inspire anyone to forward this video to all their friends?
The baseball? There is an enormous amount of baseball stuff on the internet including video of amazing plays - why would anyone choose to forward the video above instead of something more spectacular?
Fenway Park? Why would this cause anyone to forward the video to all their friends? Incidentally, my understanding is that the RedSox and their fanbase are amongst the most hated in the Major Leagues, so non-RedSox fans would be unlikely to even look at this (unless maybe they had an interest in sports photography).
The flag+baseball+Fenway together? Is this imagery so unusual and so inspiring that people are going to start firing this video off to their mates? I would imagine that Americans see this sort of stuff so often that it wouldn't even register with them in the video.

Of course the video will be picked up by photo blogs/forums which will boost it's view count, but I don't image it would be more than a few thousand or so, maybe even a few tens-of-thousands - but still, hardly the numbers viral marketers would be looking to achieve. In any case, readers of photo blogs in most cases would have already bought into a brand, so this style of marketing attempt would probably achieve very little in that environment. Almost 3 weeks since upload and YouTube shows 6835 views, hardly figures that would be having the marketers knocking the tops off the champers. (For comparison, "Brand X" is around 270,000 views).

Something else not obvious to me is who is the target group for this campaign. If it is a marketing campaign then surely there would be a target group? Perhaps you can provide some insight...


The comments above are referring to Nikon. I do see this video as being intended to promote Boston University and perhaps more generally life around Boston.



Cheers.

[Scotty72]

Scotty, in post #27 you presented a poorly formulated argument:-
You first state that product identification is subtle - that's fine, I have no argument with that.
Then you cite an actual but unrelated viral marketing case ("Brand X") - that's fine, I remember it (although your description contains inaccuracies but not relevant here)
But then you jump straight to this conclusion:-


You made no attempt whatsoever to relate your example case back to the RedSox video, so as a consequence it's irrelevant at this point. So I called you on it.

When you responded you chose not to strengthen your argument by relating the "Brand X" case to the RedSox video (as I expected), but instead chose to accuse me of obfuscation, not playing the game and causing a sideshow. (Wow! I did all that in just 2 lines of reply? ). In my opinion a somewhat ironic accusation in light of the post to which I was referring. You also chose to throw in a couple of lightly veiled insults which were supposed to sound clever, but didn't.

Anyway I searched out the "Brand X" video which you cited and had a look at it. Apart from the fact that both are in colour, both are in English, and neither starred Russell Crowe, I couldn't find any similarity between them. But perhaps that's just something to do with me being an "uncritical audience". I'd be happy to be enlightened...


What I really don't understand is what you see in the RedSox video above that makes you think it's viral. Who is going to look at that video and say "Wow, that's fantastic! I need to send this to all my mates!". What reason is there for it to go viral?
The flag? Americans are surrounded by flags, why would the one here inspire anyone to forward this video to all their friends?
The baseball? There is an enormous amount of baseball stuff on the internet including video of amazing plays - why would anyone choose to forward the video above instead of something more spectacular?
Fenway Park? Why would this cause anyone to forward the video to all their friends? Incidentally, my understanding is that the RedSox and their fanbase are amongst the most hated in the Major Leagues, so non-RedSox fans would be unlikely to even look at this (unless maybe they had an interest in sports photography).
The flag+baseball+Fenway together? Is this imagery so unusual and so inspiring that people are going to start firing this video off to their mates? I would imagine that Americans see this sort of stuff so often that it wouldn't even register with them in the video.

Of course the video will be picked up by photo blogs/forums which will boost it's view count, but I don't image it would be more than a few thousand or so, maybe even a few tens-of-thousands - but still, hardly the numbers viral marketers would be looking to achieve. In any case, readers of photo blogs in most cases would have already bought into a brand, so this style of marketing attempt would probably achieve very little in that environment. Almost 3 weeks since upload and YouTube shows 6835 views, hardly figures that would be having the marketers knocking the tops off the champers. (For comparison, "Brand X" is around 270,000 views).

Something else not obvious to me is who is the target group for this campaign. If it is a marketing campaign then surely there would be a target group? Perhaps you can provide some insight...


The comments above are referring to Nikon. I do see this video as being intended to promote Boston University and perhaps more generally life around Boston.



Cheers.

Interesting that you found the brand x video when I did not identify what brand x was.

Anyway, this is pointless. You clearly think it is a video that aims to promote 'life in Boston'; clearly, I think that it is not. Perhaps the high production values evident in the clip were paid for by 'life in Boston'.

Anyway, we disagree. End of story.

Cheeers

[kiwi]

scholl holidays finished yet scotty ?

[fillum]

Interesting that you found the brand x video when I did not identify what brand x was.

Doesn't really matter what it was - you didn't explain how the case was relevant to the RedSox video so my original argument stands.

Anyway, we disagree. End of story.

Fair enough. But a pity you couldn't have just said that without throwing in yet another snide remark.


Cheers.

[Scotty72]

scholl holidays finished yet scotty ?

No, this is week 1 of 2. Qld starts a week earlier than NSW.