Coalville v Stamford Rugby union

Congratulation Ian!

 

Players at the back atract my attention since they are quite static contrary to the front ones, just walk only (only seen good on a small picture). I like this photo it's OK but on the other hand it's so regular. Maybe that's advantage and the reason, simply good solid work. The light is soft that's OK too..., the composition is "dynamic central spread" - no fault. But it is going to be another discussion why it is POW? I guess.

I'll hold on for a moment and wait for other comments to see what am I missing this time?

Nice detail and perfect timing as POW given Australia's drubbing of the British Lions on the weekend! Would like to see the uncropped version.

I find myself looking and looking for the focal plane in this image. The back is blurry because it is way behind the focal plane. The very foreground is a bit blurred because of the motion. Even in the middle I cant seem to find anything really clear for my eyes to focus on. Like usual, there is no technical info about lens, time, or aperture so I dont know what to attribute it to. It does look really grainy/cropped for ISO 200 film though. Yes the timing, lighting are all fine but otherwise this is another go to the race track and aim your camera into the corner type picture. Ian, your mirror dish or scooter shots are really awesome.

...and I'm not usually much for sports photos. The expression and action is great. Frankly, I can't find that much to criticize about it technically, though it does seem a bit grainy and the shutter a bit fast for ISO 200 (perhaps that was the default). Photographers of "real life" situations must work with the light conditions presented to them. The point in sports photography, it would seem, is to capture a moment of the game that conveys the emotion and flavor of it, which this image (to my eye, at least), does well.

I generally enjoy action photos despite not being interested in sports and such, but you can't deny an interesting subject, here you go. As far as the subject and composition go, no complaints, good timing. But we've all seen grainless action shots, daylight permits quit alot of this (even indoor action work on super-G 1600 has been seen to have less grain than this) so as its obviously been cropped, the question is - How much? Maybe quite alot, but we 35mm can't do that too much without paying dearly for it, my suggestion - shoot slides, and crop with your lens instead (on that note, tho i know I am an offender here too, tech info is always interesting, lens, aperture, shutter speed if possible, source of scan even) good shot.

... an non-American sport on photo.net. Avoiding the reference to the Lions game on Saturday, it's a great piece of composition, nicely balanced with good depth of field, really focusses the eye on the action.

 

Now if it was only Rugby League....

Although I like the composition, lighting, and DOF, would it not be possible to get a shot like this *almost* all the time if one were to shoot a roll or two of film per game (or "match" as those across the pond prefer) with a *relatively* wide angle lens and then liberally crop the resulting images in a search for the right composition? On the surface I would think so (although I certainly have not tried). If so, then I'm not sure there is anything particularly special about this picture - especially given the resultant grain. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the picture is bad (in fact I find it somewhat pleasing to look at), just that it is not necessarily special. Any comments from those who specialize in action and/or sports photography?

Good points which I will attempt to elaborate on.

 

First and foremost, I must point out that I am very new to photography and still "learning the ropes" so to speak. Not only from a technical perspective, but from an artistic one also.

 

Having said this, I think my main dilemma with this picture has to do with "intent". For example, did Ian (the photographer) visualize the ultimate product which we are now viewing at the time the picture was taken, or instead, did he merely take many, many separate shots and only after seeing the results, make the artistic decision to produce what we now see via cropping. To me, the first method seems to be a more genuine artistic endeavour, although this does not necessarily mean the second is without merit.

 

But the above merely restates what you have already accurately paraphrased. So the meat of the question is *why* do I feel this is the case? Honestly, I do not know. I'm still attempting to come to grips with this question, and it seems to me from reading many threads at this site that I am not alone in this conundrum. However, what I can say is that in my nearly three months of pursuing this hobby in a fairly serious way is that I have taken three shots which I have deemed worthy of framing, and they hang on my wall as I speak. All three were "pre-visualized" prior to getting the shot and all three have been *minimally* cropped (essentially the only cropping to take place has been that which is required to matt the pictures during framing). So my biases and *limited* experience seem to suggest that visualization of the ultimate product is an important aspect of the artsitic process right from the earliest stages. Any "post-exposure" editing (i.e. cropping, dodging, burning, photoshopping) would seem to muddy our understanding of what the photographer was originally trying to accomplish. However, this is my opinion only, and it most certainly does not make it *right* (whatever the hell that means in this context). And I most certainly reserve the right to change this opinion as I become more "enlightened" in all things photographic and artsitic.

 

Sorry, I've rambled long enough.

The intensity in the faces make this a winner. Especially the face of the ball carrier. The timing was great

Nick, regarding your suggestion that one could achieve this type of photo by shooting off a roll with a wideangle lens. Doesn't that method apply to any photography, not just sports stuff? Nature photography, street photography for example? While it may be ideal to pre-conceive how the photo will turn out, that ultimately depends on the players producing the right visual formation for the photographer! So there has to be a certain element of chance, take a few photos, the general feel is great, it's an action situation, later on look at the prints and choose the one that appeals most. I've had a lot of success taking street photos like that, you just see a scene that looks good and you shoot it and don't worry so much about the exact frame of the image or people, just take the picture and you'd be surprised how many photos come out looking good.

My first reaction was a shrug, but after a few minutes staring at it, I really like it. A lot. I'm usually pretty pleased with POWs, but this one speaks to me.

The timing is great, yeah... it captures the action, blah, blah, blah. I love the composition of this photograph. With everything going on, and all those colors (the socks -- yikes!), everything focuses on the ball. There's the players walking forward from the back, and the two fighting in the middle and there, right in the middle, is the object of it all: the ball. There are distinct forces pulling in a number of directions (I count five), all of which revolve around the ball. It's a delicious point of tension. I could almost get philosophical about it.

While it may be a good action shot, I think it's an all-around good shot. Compositionally, very nice. Hearty congrats.

Thankyou for the above comment`s,Very rarely do i use my camera in continuous shutter mode even though the camera i now own can shoot off 5.5fps in manual focus. The best advice i have been given from a professional sport photograher is if you see it in your view finder you missed it,so anticipation is the key to good sport photograhy and knowing the sport you are going to photograph.The reason this shot was cropped to the right was because thier a distracting player in view who would have took your eye away from the main action .It has taken me some time to get to this standard, i still have a lot to learn about sport photograhy, and some big telephoto`s would be nice.This shot was taken with minolta 700si 70--210mm zoomf2.8 monopod shutter priority early evening with the sun to left of the player`s almost behind them.

finally the british lions hopefully will beat the aussies on saturday and take the series.

You won the cricket what more do you want.

Nicely done, Ian! Good capture of a peak action moment.

 

The only suggestion I'd make is that maybe you could try to have the headgeared fellow in the center toned down a bit. There's just enough depth of field in the photo that he's in pretty sharp focus and the white headgear draws attention away from the foreground action.

 

Also, it's been 3 or 4 months since there's been a sports POTW. Thanks to the elves for the change of pace (finally)!

Darragh: You're right, I suppose it is an "idealistic" expectation. Maybe what I was trying to say in my long-winded response to Michael is that the "ideal" would be to pre-visualize the final product, compose and expose it according to that final vision, and display the print "as-is". Maintaining this level of control throughout the process must be "worth something." IMHO, that "something" is simply a greater degree of "specialness" than a heavily cropped version which suffers from granularity as a result. However, having the vision to isolate a "scene within a scene" for it's own merit is also worth something, just "less of a something" than if the "ideal" process were followed. Again, IMO only, and also with no disrespect meant to Ian, since I have already said that I like the lighting, composition, DOF, and visual aesthetics of this picture.

Though I am not a professional sport photographer, I've had a few sport photography outings; the most memorable was an NBA game. Armed with 2 cameras (F5) and 3 lenses, I used up 2 bricks (40 rolls) of film in about 3 hours. Though there were a lot of good pictures only 1 ever made it to print. This picture, IMO, is good enough to print. The determination, velocity, and intensity are all there. These are the fundamentals of good sports photography. Yes anyone can shoot bricks of film, but not every outing will produce a good image. Please correct me if I am wrong.

As for the graininess of the film, I've said again and again, it's all a personal choice. What works for you may not work for others. I find it exhausting having to defend my choice of Velvia in my own work. In this image the grains work very well, I think it enhances the intensity of the contact. This may be the result of my over exposure to general sports photography and not the artistic "good sports photography". Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

Finally, cropping. I think cropping decisions should be made solely by the photographer and/or publisher. Comments regarding cropped imaged are impure are complete BS. There are thousands of legitimate reasons to crop, technical as well as artistic. Ultimately the print should convey the photographer's vision, the film is simply a medium which to delivery the image on to paper. If there are unnecessary distractions, technical failures, or any else that lessens the photographer's intent then it should be CROPPED. I always shoot slightly wider then image I have in mind, mostly to insure against technical problems, lack of good judgement, someone else's perspective, etc. I will not risk missing the shot by framing to the exact mm, or taking 1 shot and hope (though pray is more like it) that I didnt mess up the settings.

Beauty of a Shot..'n' good-on-ya

I like how all the motion is stopped without blurring, so all the details can be examined such as facial expressions and body positions. It has a documentary style to it. I don't understand why the ratings are so low. I would guess the shot merits at least 7/7.

 

Has anyone else noticed that there seems to be a rating deflation? I've seen a number of shots that could have at minimum a full point higher average rating. Some shots get ratings like ones or twos, which doesn't seem constructive. Sometimes I wish the numerical rating system would be changed to something else, so that people would have to write more comments.

Yes, I think this would make a great front-page photo for a newspaper as Kiet implies, but unfortunately this is the picture BEFORE print and it looks like the image AFTER print. I have had two of my sporting event shots published top half of front page in local newspapers recently and they want hi-res clear images to start with because they know that the image quality goes downhill through the off-set printing process.

 

Ian - If you are using a relatively slow film and you are losing the light as you state - early evening with the sun to left of the players almost behind them then why would you position yourself on that side of the field? I completely agree with your statement if you see it in your view finder you missed it.

 

As far as preconception goes; I completely disagree with darragh smyths notion of shooting by chance and hoping for a lucky winner. I may not have the best shots but each of them took at least 2 hours of preparation, calculation, and preconception (some as much as 5 hours). I have found that there is a direct relationship between the effort and time put into a shot and the final results. When I do find something I like, I always study the site first and take note of all the aspect that will affect the shot and them come back when everything is most optimal; it is what I consider fun work. It takes patients to stand on a street corner for 2 hours while you wait for all the elements in the composition to come together just right. In the case of the POW I would have taken the time to load some faster film and walk to the other side of the field, probably even added a flash at full power to do some filling.

 

I once asked a photographer who made his living and reputation shooting pro football the secret to success in sports photography. His answer was, "f/8 and 'be there'."

 

Don't know what f-stop Ian used, but his positioning, anticipation, and reflexes sure nailed this piece of action. A fine shot!

A good action shot,- where an imaginable diagonal line is running across the picture, creating tension.The DOF is beneficial, to the eyes, not to get lost in a congregation of people.

Kyle, I agree completely with you that the more effort you put into a picture, the better the result will be. However, I suppose there are two types of images. Those that are pre-concieved in a certain scene and you wait for the elements to come together as desired. And there are those that are not pre-concieved but represent beautiful, unique images in their own right. For action photography or people street photography, a lot of it is just being there at the right time and having that extra split second to get the camera up to take the shot. You have to be able to predict the shot, but it's maybe a matter of seconds rather than hours. Maybe I'm just a lazy photography but I like to take pictures of things that impress on me, rather than vice versa. Just a different style.

I agree 100%. I also think the grain works well for this photo, and after looking at it for a while I find the lower-left to upper-right diagonal composition to be pleasing for this shot, enhanced by the bold striped shirts. Very nice sports photo that has an ambiance.

Right time, right place, right film, right lens, right photographer. Great shot.

I would like to know more about the technical specs of this picture. What shutter speed, focal length, shutter speed, etc. Very well composed action shot. Ian, your overall folder is amazing.

determination written all over those faces, that's why I like it. The diagonal shift is great too.