Untitled

Why the Elves pick less extraordinary photographs from an otherwise impressive body of work mystifies me. Personally I don't like the idea of being judged by one image - good or bad.

 

Michael's 69-picture portfolio is one of the most professional and consistently high quality bodies of work that I have seen on photo.net. As a news photographer he MUST bring home an acceptable image or he is not doing his job.

 

Michael's portfolio pictures include all the major sub-groups: candids, sport, landscape and portrait shots. They tell many stories and readily qualify as a "slice of life" from his area of Minnesota. A very impressive presentation.

 

To details...The first thing that strikes me about this particular photograph is that it is too light. A quibble maybe, but correct exposure is important if the PoW standards are to be maintained. It is nicely composed, but obviously cropped. Perhaps another quibble, but the luxury of being able to crop lightens the load when you can afford to do it (as, of course, most press photographers can. The readers don't care about cropping, its only us arty-farty navel-gazers on photo.net). This is not Michael's best photograph, but at least it's not of birds and trees or sand-dune fences, and has a large element of Life in it.

 

I urge all photo.netters to take a look at Michael's portfolio. There are strong images there, yes, but its real attraction is in the overall interest and the "day in the life" feel that this body of work makes available for us all to see. Great portfolio... just maybe not such a great individual photograph.

I agree with the previous comment that Michael's portfolio is terrific, and also that this may not be the best photo in that bunch (it is a bit light), but it is exceptional. Were it in the big leagues, I could easily see it on an Upper Deck card.

The only thing that confuses me is the perspective. The catcher is on the right and the base runenr is hitting him from the left. The play must be taking place at home plate, and looking at the background, you must have been somewhere in the outfield or on the infield (?), so it seems as if the runner is coming in from first. Is the image flipped? If so, would highly recomment not doing so with scenes that depend heavily on the actual perspective. Maybe I need some sleep then look again later and I'll figure it out.

 

I've tried and failed at action shots so much it hurts. This is a really an excellent shot and I think much harder to capture than it seems it should be.

 

I readily support this one as the POW.

Michael's portfolio is excellent. This picture is not.

 

Sure, occasionally you really cannot move at all at major sporting events. This though looks like an event where it would have been possible to move around. The collision is splendidly captured and Michael's other work illustrates his ability to anticipate the peak of action. However the messy background spoils this one. It could have been thrown out of focus with wider aperture, or would moving to the photographer's left have taken the distracting shelves out of view and the tree would have been away from the centre of attention. However perhaps there was a car or advertising board over to the right, or guys stood around chewing gum.

 

Maybe it was a grab shot whilst Michael was changing places to avoid the things just mentioned. Whatever its a lousy choice from a superb portfolio. The exposure is way off too.

 

This photo 6/10 (Did it make the paper?)

 

Portfolio 9/10

 

Elves 2/10

Yes, this is obviously the peak of action, but what is the action? Sports shots can be exciting, even if the sport itself is of little interest to the viewer, but in this case it is not at all apparent what is going on. This picture doesn't tell a story, it's more of a dangling participle.

 

As a sports photographer I will be defending Michaels picture. I am only hoping that all of the previous photographers have gotten a chance to do sports photography, or they would not have open their mouths. I wonder if Dummett,Walter and Marsden looked at the POW reason why they chose the picture: "Sports photographers don't have the luxury of picking their light or choosing their backgrounds. They are often limited in where they can go (for safety reasons), and have to take photos when the events happen. Sports photography is all about capturing the action at its peaks." The helmet, mit and catcher is in mid air. Give me a break it's an excellent photo, it's perfectly stilled action, it caught a turning point of the game and a photographer could'nt ask for better luck in taking this picture. His Portfolio is filled with outstanding work, and I for one stand by POW "elves" for picking this photo of the week. They should choose more sports.

I have to admit that, like Michael Walter, I have a hard time following what is going on. Don't get me wrong, it's a terrific "peak of the action" photo, just that the action is a little confusing. I'm assuming this is looking back toward home plate (from the outfield?), but the runner seems to be coming in from the left. Did he miss the plate and is coming back? It looks like he has an awful lot of momentum, so that probably isn't it.

 

Anyway, there's loads of action, timing is exquisite, but the shot is a little confusing. Maybe I'm looking at it wrong.

 

I agree that your portfolio is wonderful and all works well together. I'm glad you've shared it with all of us on photo.net.

The photograph may be decisive moment, and it may have been run in a paper, but is it a good photograph? To me, your explanation sounds like you are making an excuse for yourself. Don't get me wrong, I am by no means knocking your photographic tallent, because it is evident that you are a VERY good sports photographer from your other shots. This photograph however, is not one I would be too happy with, not because it is poor, but because it can be done better. We can see problems with exposure, d.o.f., even distracting elements. IT is a fine sports photograph, but it is by far not a great one. You can't see all of the catchers face, you can't tell what's happening, where they are going; which would all be alright if only you had retained the shutterspeed and stopped down one, creating less dof and improving exposure.

 

And white, you don't need to defend Michael, we are simply critiquing one of his shots. I feel confident that he is a mature, well intentioned photographer and that he will appreciate a critical review of his work.

 

Lastly, I have greatly enjoyed the rest of this folder, I especially like 169253, keep shooting those tremendous photographs,

 

K

Sure, Michael has prettier photographs in his folder. But this is a sports photograph, not a fine art landscape photograph.

 

As the elves said, the photo is light to retain shadow detail. You have to do this when shooting sports during the day. Better to blow out a highlight here and there than to have the best shot on a roll unusable because the face is hidden in a shadow.

 

Yes, the background in this photo is ugly. Coyote ugly. But what do you expect sports photographers to do, drape a clean backdrop across the fence and block the spectators' view?

 

Rather than nitpicking this photo to death, use it as a chance to learn about an aspect of photography you've never attempted. This photo captures the peak moment of the action. The photographer did his job; he brought back the best photo possible under the circumstances.

not bad, i do agree that it isn't the best of a nice portfolio though.

Is the picture backwards? It would seem that the runner is coming home from first base.

Like others here, I'm a bit confused by the photo as it does seem flipped. However take a closer look at the letters on the helmet and jersey. They don't appear to be flipped. All this does is confuse me further. What exactly is going on here?

This is a good photograph in the sense that you've caputured a nice little conflict taking place and frozen it in time.

As news photographer, I wouldn't choose this photo to stand on its own becasue it's hard to tell what's taking place, which way the action is heading, who is crashing into who.

There's no ball to help us figure this out, either. (I think I see its shdow, though.)

Also, I would not call this the peak of action. Don't get me wrong, it's certainly very close, but I think a few hundreths of a second earlier may have captured the moment better. Of course, I wasn't there.

Anyway, I think its a decent supporting pic for a 2-photo story.

I don't believe that the Photo.netters that chose this pic are very experienced sports photogs, as shots like this are a dime a dozen, I'm afraid.

It's perhaps one out of a hundred of these that is truly great, tells a story, and makes you gasp.

"They should choose more sports."???

More fences?More birds?Sunsets?etc?

Photo.net is doing okay.All kinds.Please.

I rate this photo above average. I know

how hard it is sports action photography.

Successful sports photography relies upon the photographer's understanding of the sport. Some previous comments indicate why some individuals are not sports photographers. The perspective and positioning are fine. The base runner is coming to the plate from 3rd and lowering his left shoulder into the catcher. The catcher's mask is on the ground toward the 1st base dugout, away from the play. The visitor's helmet rack is easily visible on the side of the first base dugout. It is easy to distinguish the direction of the play at the plate.

 

This is a splendid shot of the action and impact at the plate. It shows excellent anticipation, positioning, and timing. It might be more interesting with a slightly shallower DOF or slower shutter speed to get slight motion blur. However, most newspapers prefer the clear shot.

 

I hope this picture was taken at a college game. It is against the rules to go into the plate shoulder or head first in high school baseball.

 

Great work Michael....despite all the "critique" here, I think the way the helmets are suspended and the catcher in "flight" adds more to the impact of the photo. To me, it looks as if the runner came from the left of the photo and spun to his left after he hit the catcher based on the fact that the helmets are still where they were before the runner hit the catcher. The only thing that would have been nice, would be to see home plate, to give some perspective.

 

Good Job!!

I knew this picture was taken with Kodak film the instant I saw it. It is an awsome picture and it is such a shame that people still waist such good efforts on poor film. Just try 1 roll of Fuji Reala 135 and I promise you will never want to use any other color film. It has 7 layers of emulsion, including one just for skin tones and one for those (pale)green trees in the background. This is a vibrant picture but the colors are washed out, it is a shame. kyle

I think this is a very good, interesting photo. You captured the movement/action very well. The people are positioned nicely in the photo and are in some very interesting positions. The point is you captured the action very well. Afterall, capturing the action is what sports photography is all about, isn't it?

For a daily sports assignment, I would've been fairly satisfied to have shot this image and have it run in the paper. The flying helmets & mitt, the collision - it is a nice moment in the action.

 

But if I were showing my portfolio to a photo editor, this wouldn't be included in it. As previously stated, the background is just too distracting - a wider aperture could have improved this. Also, on first glance, the action is a little confusing. I would have appreciated a caption with this photo. IMHO, a decent photo, but not a great one.

 

 

This is a well taken sport shot. But not that hard to take focus on your base and wait for the action to come to you` not that much work involved .But when the players are running around a full size football field or in my case rugby field its a whole new ball game any thing can happen anywhere so reading the game is all important with some luck added. Sport photography does take a lot of patience and skill and a lot of wasted film.keep up the good work

I am guessing with the little dial in my head - photo.net EV whizzes can correct me - that there's no way this guy could blur out that background anymore than it is unless he had a gagillion mm lens on his nikon. At that shutter speed, 1000-8000 I assume, he's probably already at around a 4 or 2.8 aperture. I kind of like the background anyway. The tree fills the frame, and the helmet rack and truck give a sense of a small town baseball game. A well deserved POW and a great portfolio.

As a sports photographer, I have to say this is a great photo. Great job Michael! As for the others who don't like the photo: Give me a break! When a great sports picture comes along, you have less than a second to notice it, frame it, focus it, and finally shoot it. Forgive Michael for not taking the time to set a more appropriate aperture to blur the background, but I doubt he had the time to think of this. Beside, once you have the appropriate shutter speed, you want to stop down the lens a little to give you some "safety" when you're camera doesn't focus fast enough.

 

As for location, forgive Michael for not being able to move like the speed of light to a better location. As a sports photographer, you have no clue where the next action shoot will happen.

 

Again nice job and a very nice portfolio.

 

I knew this picture was taken with Kodak film

For most of what I shoot Fuji SUCKS. Or maybe my photos suck and if I spent more time looking at who made my film instead of trying to use film that fit my usage I'd be better off. I had a teacher tell me that there are no bad [fill in the blank]only bad applications of the [fill in the blank]. This picture does not suffer from bad film. It is slightly over exposed - maybee.

Meanwhile, the photo is very good, if not amazing for what it is. You could focus all day long on home plate and not catch this shoot. It is 1-part luck, and 10-parts guts. How many would have hesitated, unsure, and lost the shot?

I once worked for a guy who said "no one notices if a restaurant is clean but they'll come for miles to tell you its dirty."

There are a lot of weeks in a year...

The POW's generaly offer a lot

Try learning

It looks like the photographer is shooting from by the 3rd-to-homeplate baseline. I would say he's closer to homeplate than he is 3rd base since the view is more of a sideview of the runner and not a 'shot from behind' the runner. That would explain the appearance of the runner coming from the left of the catcher.

 

Now to the shot. I like this shot alot. I just finished reading a post on how easy it is for photographers to use technology to take 7 frames a second, have 50 crap shots, and 1 winner. If that was so, then why don't we see more 'winners' out there? I think Michael's shot shows thought. He anticipated where the action was going to be and made the shot. This shot is able to convey the speed of the runner, the determination of both players to make the play, and physical impact of the collision. This is what makes it a great shot. Who cares if it's slighty overexposed!

No question that it's an excellent shot taken in difficult contrasty lighting. If you disagree, try going out and taking a better sports shot.

To all of you out there that have commented positively or negatively on my photo. I thank you for your comments. I also have put a series of that play on my Photo.net photographer's folder to answer any questions. I have also darkened the images. My computer at work is set for our printing press not your home computers. Excuse the error. Thanks again for your comments.

What's confusing about this picture is that things look parallel that shouldn't be parallel. It looks like the 3rd base to home path is parallel to the 1st base to home path and both are parallel to the fence. Could somebody draw a diagram showing the view from above the field? I was also wondering how far back the photographer was? It looks like he was a long way back with great depth-of-field.