Another Bad American Idol Contetant?

<p>I joined Photo.net a couple of years ago in an effort to improve my photography skills, especially in the area of sports. I know I’ve improved and am grateful to those on this site who have helped with their vast knowledge and techniques. I never purchase equipment without first asking the experts here.</p>

<p>I worked hard this year to take photos that pull you into the game and have finally filled my portfolio with some of my better shots, being mindful to show photos that are clear, colorful, well cropped, and that capture the play, including the ball, and show some emotion. In order to get some feedback, I’ve posted some to the critique forum, but have gotten little or no response besides the "normal" 3 (below average) or 4 (average/fair). Yet others photos in this same category, which I personally found lacking, merited better ratings with some being poorly cropped, lacking in any vibrance or clarity, or not telling much of a story without a narrative. (I’m sure it’s merely a question of taste, but why do the butts or breasts of well-toned girls rate much higher than the emotion caught on the face of a guy who hits a grand slam homerun?) ;’d</p>

<p>Even so, I’ve tried to set my personal disappointment aside and look at this logically, but I’m wondering if I just don’t get it. Am I like one of those contestants on American Idol who thinks they can sing, but who are hideously awful deserving of Simon’s cruel rant? I’ve been on the verge of shutting down my account and breaking down to tears, so I hope that’s not the answer. I kind of hope that the answer is that my target audience just can’t be found at PN. Maybe I need to find another website that has a sports photography target and that can truly tell me if I’m on the right road or if I need to turn back around. Do you skip over the sports photos on PN for whatever reason and refuse to rate them? Please, I’d love your feedback.</p>

<p>I dont even participate in that thing and if I were you I take that section with a grain. <br>

Preferably some Grain alcohol.</p>

<p>From all the complaining I notice, it appears it's a farce anyway.</p>

<p>Ratings are not something to get worked up over. They are just numbers. It's a glorified game that can be affected by so many factors that it really needs to be viewed as just that, a game. For example, nature makes sure we like boobs, so they are going to get rated higher. Nature also did a good job of making sure we don't like spiders, so they are going to get rated lower. Sure, you can learn if people generally like an image or not, which can be useful in some situations. But it's not a learning or feedback tool in the way that you seems to be looking for.</p>

<p>It seems you have a lot of nice comments on your portfolios and I think that is more valuable than any ratings. Ratings are pretty empty and tell you nothing really.</p>

<p>Looking over your work quickly, my comment would be that I think you are cropping a bit too close most of the time. I feel that you get the person, sometimes even cropping out part of them, but might be missing some context to the shot. Usually you see just the opposite, too much open space and no focus--so you aren't doing that! The other comment I have is that your images feel a bit oversaturated and dark at times. I think that this causes the faces to get somewhat obscure and also weighs the image down a bit. I don't know if this is happening in post or if you shoot jpeg with a more contrasty and saturated setting. But raw would be good and then back off a bit to give some context and I think you will be fine. Sports photography isn't easy and you have getting in on the action down it seems, the hardest part to learn. Now just work on fixing the finer points and you will be fine--and stay away from the ratings thing!</p>

<p>If you are happy with your images, you are on the right road. I wouldn't worry about PN ratings. Why would the opinions of random strangers be more important to you than your own opinion. The only opinions that count are your own and your customer's (if you are selling your work).</p>

<p>I don't really look at, rate or comment on sports photographs because the subject doesn't really interest me. Even with Sports Illustrated (whose readers you might think would be interested), the swimsuit edition outsells all the other!</p>

<p>I think your photos are fine. Certainly "above average". However I think the average PN rater is probably looking more for "art" than sports documentary images and so pictures of baseball players probably aren't very highly rated no matter how good they might be.,</p>

<p>I don't know whether you're any good at singing but you have some great stuff in your portfolio. I don't think baseball action shots lend themselves well to being rated on aesthetics and originality but maybe you can get something useful from the comments rather than the numbers.</p>

<p>Ratings tell more about the 'rater' than the 'ratee'. They are an amusement, nothing else.</p>

<p>Here's the think about sports shots, Laura: a lot of people simply have no emotional investment in them. It has nothing to with your evolving chops in that area, and everything to do with the fact that (despite how it may seem in some demographics) <em>most</em> people just aren't connected to, say, baseball. As such, they don't <em>see</em> the years of training that go into a particular style of play, nor your good sense of timing and communication in portraying it in a certain way. <br /><br />As you surely know by now, from showing those same shots to people closer to the subject matter (or related to the people in the images!), niche subject matter is like a narcotic to some audiences, and leaves other people utterly bored. I know this from my own little niche world of hunting dog stuff. Total yawns from most people, because, of course, the images have very little meaning to most people. "Oh, look, a picture of a dog." Anyone who breeds and trains the dogs I focus on, of course, <em>gets</em> it.<br /><br />There are probably a lot of people who <em>do</em> skip over the sports stuff because they don't feel informed enough to comment on anything sports-ish ... though they might chime in if the images convey a real wallup of more <em>universal</em> stuff (joy, anguish, etc., talk to people regardless of the venue). But one of the hardest things to do when shooting a formal sporting event is to get those face shots that really do tell the universal stories that will talk to a more general audience.<br /><br />In your baseball "Players" folder, you're getting closer to the sort of intimacy that will make the photograph compelling to people who have no interest in the sport or the individual people involved... but just like the power of a flash, you have to <em>hugely</em> crank up that intimacy to make up even marginal ground with a non-specialty audience. Baseball involves lots of shaded faces, backs of heads, and similar-looking grim pitcher's/batter's faces. Those are tough things to get past, since it's the nature of what's in front of you.<br /><br />If I had to make just <em>one</em> compositional suggestion: <em>de-center</em> more of your subjects. The action you're shooting takes place within the context of a narrative. Even if you don't know anything about baseball, you know that people are doing things not in a vacuum, but in the context of a larger set of things going on. Give the players in the images some visual space so that what they're doing has some room to move, to see. A lot of this comes down just to simple cropping decisions, but can be made easier for you if you shoot with it in mind. The Rule Of Thirds is a bit rigid of a guideline to apply to everything, but there's a reason it's such a natural fit for so many compositions. If you'll indulgle me? I'm going to cite some of your own examples, here:</p><div></div>

<p>Matt has, IMHO, given you really excellent advice. That's wayyyy better than any numerical rating.</p>

<p>Yes, I think Matt has done a good job visually describing what I was saying regarding context. Nice job, Matt.</p>

<p>Thanks for your responses. I’ve never liked the "ratings" but always appreciate the critiques. I’ll certainly take all that you shared today to heart and try to have better portfolio additions next year.</p>

<p>John A, thanks for the critique on saturation. I do very little in post processing with the exception of cropping. This year I had set my camera saturation to "vivid" because last year I had been told that my colors were too dull ... I guess I’ll set it back to normal and try again.</p>

<p>As always, Matt, I do appreciate your help and will heed your instructions. You (and, of course, Josh, Bob, and Lex) are the face of PN. I’m glad that you mentioned "niche" in your post because you are indeed one that has found his niche. Before your response, I was going to add another note after my initial post to say that I want to find my niche. I look at many other photographers on PN who have found theirs: Matt Laur (upland life and hunting); Emilian "Bebe" Chirila a/k/a Photo Fun (simple beauty in B&W), Peter Meade (sports from across the pond), Ron Jones (scenery of the Midwest), Cynthia Jean and Deidre McNamara (digital glamor), Rarindra Prakarsa (misty Indonesian life), and Ton Mestrom (street). Even though I’ll never compare to the likes of Wilson Tsoi or Damir Sencar when it comes to sports photography and I know I'll never shoot for <em>Sports Illustrated</em>, I want to find my niche too.</p>

<p>Thanks again.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>why do the butts or breasts of well-toned girls rate much higher than the emotion caught on the face of a guy who hits a grand slam homerun?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>because a lot of people who rate you are guy, and whe prefer butts and well tanned girl vs guy face? ; P</p>

<p>Seriously, i dont want to said again what already have been said, but take the rating system like a little tap on your back (or your ego) and put more attention on constructive comment, bad or good at first, like the one Matt gave you.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I know I'll never shoot for <em>Sports Illustrated</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em><br /> </em><br>

hmm, hopefully Tsoi and Sencar didtn think the same when they start...If you want to shoot for them, put the effort at least in that you think you could. I think and hope i would one day retouched for the best photographer i know..i just need to work to get there.<br>

<em><br /> </em></p>

Ratings are like perfume: to be used on the surface, not taken internally.

<p>

The meat of any critique is in the comments, not the rating. With some luck, there will be something there that helps you improve your photography -- but in most cases, what matters isn't how good or bad your picture is, but WHY it's good or bad. In some cases, that can be pretty obvious -- things like poor exposure or focus are simple. Once you move beyond that, however, it takes more work. For better or worse few people are willing to put in enough work often enough for most critiques to be as good as you'd hope for -- but such is life. As with many free resources, it's usually worth at least what you paid for it, but not <i>necessarily</i> a lot more...

<p>

As far as the issue you mentioned with using the vivid setting in the camera: my immediate advice would be to shoot in raw format, and handle such processing outside the camera (e.g. in something like Lightroom). This IS a bit more work, but gives you much finer control. The camera rarely gives more than a couple setting for <i>how</i> vivid of colors you want, and it's often just on or off. That's rarely enough -- it varies from one shot to the next, based on changes in the light. IMO, while you're shooting, you should concentrate on getting the best shot, not adjusting things like saturation level in camera. It's better to adjust saturation levels when you have a nice, big (hopefully color-calibrated) screen to use, and plenty of time to adjust to suit the individual picture.

<p>

The change in attitude may also reflect improvement in your shooting. Saturation is often seen as a simple way to add a little "spice" to an otherwise bland photograph. As you do a better job of portraying the excitement of the subject matter, the requirement to "spice up" the picture with extra saturation tends to diminish.

<p>

Likewise, on the technical side, overexposure will often lead to flat looking pictures. As you improve technically and really nail the exposure more often, you no longer need to add saturation to cover for what you lost to overexposure.

<p><em> I’ve tried to set my personal disappointment aside and look at this logically</em><br>

<em></em><br>

As soon as you realize that many of the rates you get will never have any logic to them, your disappointment will disapate. I didn't read the other posts, If there was a suggestion that you seek out a variety of people to give you critiques and vice versa, then I will second that advice. Ther are a lot of good people here who will help if they are specifically asked. Community wide requests don't seem to yield much detailed feedback.</p>

<p>Laura it looks to me like you dished out as many if not more 3/3s and 4/4 than your audience ! </p>

<p>Harry, I've even given some 1s and 2s, but a majority are 5s and 6s. With that said, you miss the point of my post. I want true critique of my work. Yet, instead of critiquing my work, you take a jab at me personally. That's certainly not going to help me improve my skills. Thankfully others have responded to give me critiques that I will use to further improve my work. Thanks for your comments, though.</p>