300 – No, not “Tonight we dine in hell”
I need a 300. No, not 300 Spartans to tear through every morsel who challenges me, because I really didn’t like that movie that much (I bet after you took it out of slow motion the whole thing is only about 15 minutes long). The 300 I am talking about is just as paramount though.
I wanted to use a 300 f 2.8 at this game because I had seen the photos in the paper. Since you basically are confined to a 70-200, unless you’re shooting Bill Frakes tight which is awesome, you’re going to get a nasty background. This is because you can’t hardly get enough zoom to really take advantage of that shallow depth of field. Is this not making sense? Let me show you:
That’s at 200 f2.8. You’re starting to lose the background, but not hardly there. What happens is when you have a longer focal length is your depth of field is more noticeable. I’m not sure who is reading this thing anymore, so if anyone wants me to explain just ask. I think most everyone should know what I’m talking about. But take this image shot with a 300 for example:
Now you see how the background just kind of drops off? That’s because of the 300 f2.8 (the 2.8 is pretty crucial). That’s why I wanted to use one, because you have a nasty background at these games.
But something that I did that helped out even more was shooting from the crows nest. This cleans up your background another 100 percent. Look at the photo above. I actually think the background contributes, because it guides your eye between the ball and the player. You can see his face because I shot it tight with the 300, but this picture could have happened with a 70-200.
If you’re at newspaper that has pool gear, and there just happens to be a 300 f2.8 sitting in the closet, use it for something, even if it’s just a t-ball game. It’ll be fun.