This season I have had quite a number of people ask about photographing this sport, or even about photography in general. There is always an occasional enquiry but this year I have found myself several times showing someone how I do it, which may (or may not) be the best method, but it seems to work for me. I am always happy to let someone have 10 minutes using my camera so they can get the feel of what it's like, and as I've mentioned before in this Ramble it changes completely your view of the match, as I'll describe later. It may for you be fun for 10 minutes but not be the way you'd wish to spend the day. For a few I hope it will and they will derive the pleasure I've had over the years from the exercise.

It has been the first season in which I have had the opportunity to really try out a new lens. I cannot tell you how pleased I am with the results and I hope you can see the reason why in some of the Galleries  that I have been able to load to this site during the year. I find it incredible that I can photograph a player in action 70 yards or so away and read the maker's label on their pads which may be only an inch or two long. That has made the chasing through the typically 500-700 frames I shoot in a 50-over game (350-400 in a T20) a much more pleasurable experience. I still get the shot where the advertising boards are clear as crystal and the player no more than a fuzzy blur, but that's down to the operator, not the equipment!

However, I have been ruminating that it's been quite a while since I watched a cricket match. Now that may seem an odd thing to say, but as I recently explained in the Ramble, you get an odd view through a long lens (400mm in my case although many cricket photographers use 500mm or 600mm). Firstly the full frame gives a view much like this...

Now the original has quite a wide angle actually and you could argue I should change to the 500mm or 600mm you commonly see at the international matches carried by the Getty guys or those from the broadsheet newspapers. Why don't I? Well there are a number of reasons...

1. They cost - anything from £5K to £8K is fairly typical - and it's not just the outlay - there's the continuous, year on year, insurance premiums against theft to consider but there are practical reasons too...

A shot taken from long-on. Carla Rudd batting in the County Championship against Sussex
This angle doesn't work well for an off-side player or a drive and often the backing-up batsman can obscure the view.

This shot from slightly behind square on the off-side. Forward of square is also a useful angle.
Danni Wyatt batting for Sussex in the County Championship on her way to a century.

And this shot from behind square on the leg side can easily include the keeper, and if you know the batsman's style
means you have a better chance of getting the ball in the shot, always a plus.
Suzie Bates is batting in a KSL match for the Southern Vipers. Spot the ball...

This shot, taken with an earlier version of the current lens, shows a useful angle to capture a bowler.
Much depends on the co-operation of the backing up batsman (not that they are aware of this!)
Lea Tahuhu is bowling here against England

Head-on can be quite good for bowlers too and yes, you can stand in front of the sight screen behind the keeper.
These usually need cropping as a 'portrait' shot rather than landscape but sometimes backing up batsman etc. are acceptable.
This is Lucy Pearson bowling in the World Cup in South Africa in 2005 taken with a much poorer lens than current shots.

The fact that the difference in quality is not so apparent is because your screen is not as critical as you might have thought!

One other problem that plagues the photographer is in the nature of the game itself. Bowlers essentially try to repeat the same action with every ball they bowl. The only variety you can add to the shots is to move angle, and, of course, shoot them on a different day in different kit. Batsmen are friendlier playing all around the wicket, not so predictable for getting a good shot but when you are well placed and the batsman obliges, a larger variety of pictures can be acquired for any individual. For instance take a look at this gallery of shots of Arran Brindle. You will also notice other shots like her taking a catch (usually not very exciting pictures, really requiring video to show the player's talent) and more 'human interest' shots, like Charlotte Edwards helping her to her feet after a harmless fall.

3. How large do you want your final print to be? Since my kit will easily provide an A3 print (that's twice the area of an A4) and in many case probably an A2 (that's twice as large as an A3 or 4 x A4 sheets laid down to form a rectangle), I can't see the necessity to carry around anything larger (for me that is). It is worth remembering that the screen you are looking at these pictures on is nowhere near as critical as a piece of paper. An odd remark you might think, but the shots above have been set at 72dpi (dots per inch) or possibly 96dpi. This is the resolution of most monitor, laptops etc. although some tablets and mobile phones are gradually getting higher resolution screens. To print well on an inkjet printer at home you'll likely need 240dpi or preferably better, and for commercial printing 300dpi is the industry standard. If I were to print these actual versions, rather than going back to my original file, then much detail would be lost. This is why pirating images from the Internet often gives poor results unless you print them much smaller than the originals. And anyway, why would you want a picture covered with a 'watermark' and at low resolution, when you can probably have a high resolution one from me FREE without the 'watermark'? (If you're in the picture that is, or a close relative). Anyway pirating is a breach of the photographers copyright!!!  Many commercial organisations (especially local papers) will offer to credit you but no cash is on offer. I find this quite offensive. Basically for two reasons - they want to make money from my shot (that is sell their papers - and being unwilling to pay (I have had a £5 suggestion turned down!) implies the pictures are worthless - if they are, why do they want them?  It costs to take shots and as one photographer has neatly put it...