The CardBoard
Were you there? - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Were you there? (/thread-4687.html)

Pages: 1 2

Re: Were you there? - DC - 01-08-2013

(01-08-2013, 07:32 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:Those of you who warned me about field level seats at the Rose Bowl were right--in fact, the very front row seats are sunk in about 8 inches lower than the field.  Photographers, wandering VIPs, security personnel, etc. were blocking our views for some of the game.  Still, if Stanford had scored more often in front of me, it would have been absolutely golden.  I'll weight the ~row 45-53 locations a little more heavily next time, but I won't forget the feeling of being so close to the game and the players.  And if I'd actually had my 55-200mm lens as many others had, I would have had much better photos...

I thought no digital SLRs were allowed, and no cameras that could use interchangeable lenses.

Re: Were you there? - fullmetal - 01-08-2013

(01-08-2013, 08:06 PM)DC link Wrote:[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=7347.msg56800#msg56800 date=1357698742]
Those of you who warned me about field level seats at the Rose Bowl were right--in fact, the very front row seats are sunk in about 8 inches lower than the field.  Photographers, wandering VIPs, security personnel, etc. were blocking our views for some of the game.  Still, if Stanford had scored more often in front of me, it would have been absolutely golden.  I'll weight the ~row 45-53 locations a little more heavily next time, but I won't forget the feeling of being so close to the game and the players.  And if I'd actually had my 55-200mm lens as many others had, I would have had much better photos...

I thought no digital SLRs were allowed, and no cameras that could use interchangeable lenses.
[/quote]

Turns out the stadium guards were not so picky.  I assume they were turning away anyone with a lens larger than a coffee can (i.e. 70-200mm f/2.8).  The 55-200mm f/4-5.6 is about the size of a coffee mug.

Re: Were you there? - JeffInCorvallis - 01-08-2013

(01-08-2013, 07:58 PM)terry link Wrote:[quote author=JeffInCorvallis link=topic=7347.msg56788#msg56788 date=1357693475]
Stitch together a zillion photographs.  On a much smaller scale (shot at the beginning of 4th quarter):

[Image: 8362246715_983c605429_z.jpg]
rose bowl pano small by jhintzman, on Flickr

Jeff, that's a great photo. Did you take it? Can I buy one?
[/quote]

Terry - it is 6 exposures stitched together, and yes, I took them.  Message me and I can see that you get one.



Re: Were you there? - Robbie - 01-09-2013

(01-08-2013, 06:04 PM)JeffInCorvallis link Wrote:Stitch together a zillion photographs.  On a much smaller scale (shot at the beginning of 4th quarter):

[Image: 8362246715_983c605429_z.jpg]
rose bowl pano small by jhintzman, on Flickr

I love the clouds

Re: Were you there? - Farm93 - 01-09-2013

(01-08-2013, 07:32 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:Those of you who warned me about field level seats at the Rose Bowl were right--in fact, the very front row seats are sunk in about 8 inches lower than the field.  Photographers, wandering VIPs, security personnel, etc. were blocking our views for some of the game.  Still, if Stanford had scored more often in front of me, it would have been absolutely golden. 

I was in row 12 of section 8.  That meant I really could not appreciate gains and losses that well.  For example, Hogan's toss to two spin Taylor looked like a 20 yard play from my perspective.

However, all 4 touchdowns (and all 6 touchdown looking events) were scored in "my" endzone and it was easy to see that both field goals at the other end were good from our seats.  So all of that was sweet.  Sitting just 7 or 8 seats away from the player parents and relatives in section 9 was GREAT.  For those parents that ran up and down the aisle trying to get people up and make noise...Thanks!! That was one of the best elements of the 2013 Rose Bowl Game.  So while I would not recommend my seats, the experience was pretty cool.

Re: Were you there? - fullmetal - 01-09-2013

(01-09-2013, 11:44 AM)Farm93 link Wrote:[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=7347.msg56800#msg56800 date=1357698742]
Those of you who warned me about field level seats at the Rose Bowl were right--in fact, the very front row seats are sunk in about 8 inches lower than the field.  Photographers, wandering VIPs, security personnel, etc. were blocking our views for some of the game.  Still, if Stanford had scored more often in front of me, it would have been absolutely golden. 

I was in row 12 of section 8.  That meant I really could not appreciate gains and losses that well.  For example, Hogan's toss to two spin Taylor looked like a 20 yard play from my perspective.

However, all 4 touchdowns (and all 6 touchdown looking events) were scored in "my" endzone and it was easy to see that both field goals at the other end were good from our seats.  So all of that was sweet.  Sitting just 7 or 8 seats away from the player parents and relatives in section 9 was GREAT.  For those parents that ran up and down the aisle trying to get people up and make noise...Thanks!! That was one of the best elements of the 2013 Rose Bowl Game.  So while I would not recommend my seats, the experience was pretty cool.
[/quote]

Being near enthusiastic parents was also pretty priceless.  Did I mention that Devon Cajuste's mom was in my section?  She made her way down to the front row at the end of the game, and the post-game reunion was very touching.  It's moments like those that brought the game to me.