Is Sports Photography Considered Candid Phography?

[tom_thumbnail]

<p>Can, or is, sports photography considered candid photography?</p>

<p>This is for those shots when the athlete(s) is neither looking at the camera (they better not be, or they will drop the ball or get knocked out by a right hook etc.) nor posing for the camera. They are generally aware there are photographers present taking photos, of course.</p>

<p>So is that candid photography? </p>

<p>If not, how does it fail to meet the generally accepted definition of candid phtotography?</p>

[wayne_naughton]

<p>Some of the horse (harness) races i've seen over the years could scarcely be considered 'candid'....if that's what you mean<grin></p>

[mohammed_abidally]

<p>Not in my dictionary.<br>

Candid is where the subject person in neither specially performing nor posing in any special manner, e.g. sitting on a park bench chewing gum and dreaming would be candid.<br>

Websters says "relating to or being photography of subjects acting naturally or spontaneously without being posed"....<br>

That said, I guess there could be "candid moments" even while a subject is playing a sport.</p>

 

[luis_g]

<p>No.</p>

[william_livingston]

<p>in the grand scheme of things, does it really matter?</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>Does it matter - No... but No sports photography is not the same as candid photography. Event if the subject doesn't have the ball / puck / bat / stick / whatever - if they're on the playing area it's sports.</p>

<p>Candid is catching the guy outside picking his noise - the lady with a scowl on her face getting off of the bus... The kids outside playing and unaware that you're even there.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[joshroot]

<p>I think Mohammed has the right of it on this one. If someone is performing (play, concert, sports, etc) they aren't really "being themselves" they are just doing the performance.There are different levels of freedom and randomness in each type of performance, but at the core people are out there doing something that was organized to happen and planned to have people watching.</p>

<p>That having been said, Sports photography isn't "posed" photography either. People have a tendency to lump all images of people into "candid" and "not candid". When in reality there are number of exceptions and sub-genres that cross the boundaries of both.</p>

[valjalbertphotography]

<p>Strictly speaking, I don't think the word "candid" applies to sports, unless it's some kids tossing a football in the backyard or something like that. But to pro sports? Not really.</p>

<p>What does apply is the decisive moment. It's exactly the same idea as candid people photography, but with longer lenses usually needed and very fast motion to capture.</p>

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>but with longer lenses usually needed</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That really depends on what sport you are shooting and from what location.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Rather than a philosophical or theoretical definition, I'd proffer an <em>operational</em> one, although there are no absolutes:</p>

<p>Would a sports photograph in general be accepted in a contest or salon as a "candid" photograph?<br>

I'm thinking <strong>not very often</strong> .</p>

 

[cooltpmd]

<p><em>Candid is where the subject person in neither specially performing nor posing in any special manner</em></p>

<p>I would guess that mosty people view "<strong>Candid</strong>" as a subject caught in the act of behaving ... in some natural environment ... unaware of the photographic capture.</p>

<p>In a sport, there are a great deal of Candid moments ... for the athlete is consumed with behaving as an athlete in that "naturl" envirmonment. Of course, being in front of a crowd is a modifyer and destroys much of what is "Candid" (seemingly unobsereved).</p>

[joseph_leotta]

<p>I consider it action photoghraphy.<br>

Candids I think occur when people don't expect a photo to be taken. Folks playiing sports know there always a possibilty of being in a photo,</p>