I'm Jerry Lai, and I am a professional photojournalist and photo editor based in Chicago. After over 17 years in the industry, I want to share my experiences, and make you a better sports photographer.
I currently have a staff position with a large newspaper in the United States, covering pro and college athletics around the world. There are a lot of videos out there from seasoned professionals like myself out there, but few (if any) cater their knowledge to the students and beginners. And that's how I want to set myself apart. I want to provide to all of you FREE, FUN, and ENTERTAINING tips and tricks on how to get the most out of your gear - whether it's the top of the line model or an entry level kit, and produce results that look like they can belong on the sports page of any newspaper!
Would removing acne or makeup blemishes and unsightly stands of hair from a model be considered digital art? How about additions such as adding catch lights to eyes or changing eye color altogether? I guess my main question is does adding or subtracting to any original image automatically make it digital art? If so, then my secondary question is where does contrast, sharpening, noise removal, intentional vinetting, selection brightening or image blur fit into all of this?
Thank you so much for sharing this! I am fairly new to plane spotting and this was all very helpful information. Shooting with Canon EOS R7 and a Sigma lens (150-600) but looking for a 200-400 lens. Do you have any recommendations which one to buy?
Awesome video mate cheers. Ive been shooting news and sports for around 36 years back then it was on film cameras obviously haha today i use a 1dx love it to bits however one recently died it had been well used the second body is likewise well used but still functional im thinking about an upgrade to mark iii i dont fancy the mirrorless option only because im hard on my gear i know the 1dx line can handle it but not sure the R series could anyway liked and subbed cheers
hey jerry, i have a canon 70d and the only AF areas i have are, Manal selction:1 pt af, Manual select: zone af and Auto selection: 19 pt af. what would you recomend i use ?
Good educative video. Wish you had given some thoughts to Nikon also. I guess the Z9 with the 5.0 firmware and airplane auto detect is the best camera out there for airshow. 🛩
I'm a bit sad, because of our country, photographers usually are not paid well... so you have to do some other jobs with it.... you are mostly outta free time... is that the same in other countries as well?
For Division I football, my favorite position is with the TV cameras on the camera deck five stories above the field. I have clear shots of the entire field and with a decent 400-600mm lens, I've been really happy with the results (plus, as Jerry says, sidelines, especially in football, can be hazardous especially if your camera is in front of your eye)
Won't need robots snapping pics or AI, or certainly any humans. It will just be stills captured from live video simultaneously being used for live coverage during the event, place in optimized full coverage positions an angles. Fully deep cropping available as well. Then the AI is just the culling staff to march through the footage. No great moment gets missed, 100% peak images if desired. "Generative Fill" for any "undesirable" ruining perfection, all done way faster. None of that tech is far off. Video doesn't just kill the radio star, it kills the sports event photog in the near future.
I got a 1DX MK1 and if you know how to handle it you will never need to buy another camera again. Everything else just ends up being G.A.S and overkill (look at all the PRO images that have been shot using 1DX over the years, just confirming the facts of the matter). We now have WAAAAY more than we ever need, but still some like getting "drunk" through by manufacturers feeding us new spec, new features, new this + that, faster this + that.... even though its not needed to shoot a great photo 99 times out of a 100.
I've been shooting my son's little league games for three years and it took me a few years of trial and error to figure all this stuff out. Thanks for the explanations!
the higher res faster burst just makes your job a little easier to find the exact moment you were looking to get a camera is just a tool and even a bad photographer with the newest tech will take bad photos.
Still...those ,old camera shots look better, like more realistic. When the cameras shoot better that we can even see , photos become too perfect to the point that they look fake, like AI generated. I'm all for the old gear and the realistic image.
Great video, thanks! I do disagree a tiny bit about the faster shutter speeds in baseball. Even the faster shutter images you showed looked better to me. But maybe I’m the only one.
I have been a pro motorsport photographer for 50yrs, I had the DCS520 before the 1D. Looking back at images using the 1D they almost seem sharper than using a 5Div. I did wonder if it was because the sensor was 4mp and the lens resolve 20mp! Now, using a similar lens the body is 30mp, who knows, only cropping with 30 or 50mp is a great bonus. I do know that these days the additional improvements, self cleaning sensors, better iso performance, even IBIS is a godsend.
Yes, the newer camera didn't make you a better photographer, but that wasn't the original question. In fact you said simply that the ISO capability of newer cameras triumph older ones, so quality wise, newer cameras take better pictures.
Hello Jerry! I'm from Ukraine. Thank you very much for the interesting and informative video. All recommendations are very clear. We do not have such videos either in Ukrainian or in Russian. Very soon I will try your advice in practice))
I shoot travel baseball. One of my favorite positions is that I use a cannon RF 1200 mm lens, and I shoot from a tower located 465 feet in straight away center field back to home plate, and I get some green shots. I also shoot from inside and outside the first base position, and I do get some great shots.
All right let me ask this: If a person should expect to earn $200/game -- whatever the level -- why do I see so many pictures of pro-level sports photographers carrying around $10k lenses on a monopod, draped over their shoulder?
You said one of the things you started with was volleyball. Volleyball is rough! The focus of attention moves around the room sooo fast. Volleyball has inspired me to go back and rework my approach or skills on mulitiple occasions.
Thanks Jerry. First of all: Inspiring photos as always. I went back and slowed down the video to 0.50 just to soak in a little about the composition, positioning and what your set-up and thought process might have been. Great stuff. It took me longer than I'd like to admit to really learn what motion blur looks like. It's not always a streak of blur across the screen. Often it's just a generalized blur that looks similar to focus or lens-quality issues. If you look closely at the slowest examples here you can start to see some of that. If you are just starting out, the best thing you can do for yourself is to go to a known venue and shoot a series across the full range of speeds your camera can produce usable photos in .... and learn from that. Maybe start out briefly at a 400th or even 1/250th and gradually increase from there over one or two games. You could throw away a game and a half to do that but you'll save yourself a lot of time in the "apprentice" box. And you will build some beginning insights into the true limits of your gear.
