what is wrong with this photo?

I keep getting low ratings on this photo, 3's and 4's, and I want to know why.

Unfortunately, no one seems to leave critiques, so I was wondering what people on this

site look for in sports photography, and why this photo is getting such low ratings. The

only part I find distracting is the gym light just behind the ball, what about you?

It could be that people have rated this shot on the "rate newest" queue, without any interest in sports photos specifically- and comparing it artistically to still lifes and landscapes and whatever. Which is like comparing apples and pliers. Anyway, to my mind, to improve it, you'd mainly need to have a different background and more famous players- both things you have minimal control over. In other words, it looks good.

Forrest,

I did not vote on this shot, but what I see is it's a typical hoops photo. Shot looking up, armpits, etc. There is really nothing too exciting about it.

It's cool you are shooting w/ strobes, but the shadow across the left player's face/chin is distracting, IMO. I think also seeing the right player w/ some blur could be distracting as well. Maybe you could try bouncing the light off the gym's white walls so the light evens out. Idid that w/ wrestling recently and it was nice.

What I want to see is a shot from a different perspective, say from the stands, where you clean up the background and not get the armpits. Now granted, you may be stuck on the endlines because that's where the hoops officials want the photogs to be. Do what ya gotta do.

I generally shoot from the stands just be different than the rest sitting along the sidelines, looking up at the players. Sometimes shooting from a different vantage point will yield a different photo. Here's a shot from my portfolio as an example that I shot 1/2 way up the stands:

http://www.sportsshooter.com/msbphoto/sportsportolio1/pages/15.html

I hope this helps. Good shootin'!

Mark

Folks with dialup connections won't wait for a 300+ kb photo to load. That may cut down on the number of responses.

 

Sports photos tend to be bread-'n'-butter stuff. After a while most of 'em look pretty much the same. For example, while I'm a huge fan of boxing it's not likely I'll offer a comment unless it's either an exceptional photo or a photo of a boxer with whom I'm familiar. After seeing tens of thousands of boxing photos I feel like I've pretty much seen 'em all.

 

Also, some athletes are more photogenic than others. If you find a basketball player who sticks his tongue out like Michael Jordan going for the dunk, or Muhammad Ali with his mouth open because he was constantly talking to opponents during fights, get as many shots as you can because little stuff like that makes sports photos memorable.

That shot is publishable for a local newspaper which does a comprehensive sports coverage in its area of interest, sharp, both players can be identified, well exposed, and some action involved.

 

Sure it could have been more dynamic, and with a better background, but finding a decent background in any gym is much more difficult than getting a good pic.

 

Don't worry about comments or ratings, you are well on the way, your timing is good.

 

The comment above about low ratings from people without an interest in sport is very relative. Someone who takes macro shots of flowers with the assistance of a tripod, or their cat sitting on the couch, or their ugly kid doing nothing, is not going to be aware of the combined skills required to get a nice sports action shot.

The photo is ok, Not extra-original if not the most common, well exposed and shows the heat of the moment, but no motion.<p>

It's again the same problem: To critique within a genre or among all photos. The problem is that fashion, landscape photogs do not necessarily know the demands and challenge set by sports actions. Critique with words is the best critique. The guys who rate low and give no arguments can go to Mururoa IMO. Numeral rating - photographic quality can not be measured with an absolute scale bar technicalities.

I think it's an OK shot. Something that I could send in to the paper. I've been trying to experiment with different things to try to set my stuff apart from some of the other photographers...not all, just some. :)

 

A couple photographer friends of mine told me..."You have to bring something different to the table, something that will set your images apart from someone elses. Why should someone use your services over another photographers services."

 

That's when I started experimenting with different things. First was strobes, then came remote camera images. Next will be remote camera images in different positions. Also shooting from different vantage points will add variety to your work. I'm still experimenting and I see a huge improvement in my work.<div></div>

Roland, do you have a snapshot of the setup you used for the shot above? Also, did you use a polarizer filter on the lens to shoot through the glass?

Hi Dan,

 

Sorry, I don't have a snapshot to show. I used a Bogen Variable Friction Arm with camera plate. I did not use a polarizer. I made a gobo with black gaffer tape and aluminum foil to cut down the reflections from the glass. I taped one end to the backboard and antoher end to the bottom of the lens.

 

If you look <a href="http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1062/">here</a> you can see kind of what it looks like.<div></div>

Actually, the shot was used for the paper I shoot for. Unfortunately, I can't convince them

to pay the money for the Bogen Magic arm and clamp, as well as another receiver. Yes...

for a daily newspaper you would think the money involved would be a trifle... but

newspapers are so stingy with their budgets it strains the imagination sometimes.

 

Quick question on the remote shot... how do you set up the Pocket Wizards? When you link

the strobes with the remote camera, do you have it set up with the Pocket Wizard Pluses?

Or do you have to use the MultiMax?

Forrest,

 

I have a set of Pluses (receiver and transmitter) and 1 Multimax. I use the Multimax on the remote camera, set to relay mode. I use the plus receiver on one strobe and the other strobe fires from the built in slave.

Well Forrest, as you will now be aware, far as the Editorial and Financial management of newspapers is generally concerned, most photographs are just a rather expensive way to illustrate the story and fill the gaps between articles and adverts, so money for 'unnecessary' extra equipment, beyond the basic requirements to carry out the job, is very hard to justify on the photogs part ;-)

 

Of course there is that rare bird, the Editor who is also a photographer and will champion the photo editors and their staff, but he/she is regarded with a jaundiced eye by the Financial Managers as a kind of maverick and spendthrift!

Of course sometimes the photographer can get revenge by being ordered by the Editor to take pics such as this one, were the Editor saved the Mayors life at a Mayoral Reception by performing the Hemlich manouvre as she was choking on a morsel of food and decided that they should demonstrate it via a pic on the front page;-)<div></div>

<p>Looks like <i>Brokeback Mountain</i>, with a bad rug!</p>

And the guy in the back has a bad hairpiece, too!

<b>As the chorus sings <i>Can't take my Eye off of Ewe</i></B>...

That is just too funny. <a href="http://content.collegehumor.com/items/2006/02/collegehumor.1661701.451xAUTO.jpg">Have you seen this one?</a>