tom_permutt

It's a little hard to tell, because the small version is too small to see and the medium doesn't fit on my screen - you might try scaling it down. Anyway, I think it needs cropping. I think the action under the basket is interesting enough to stand on its own: there's a good face on the shooter and good conflict with White 13. On the other hand, the White players lined up are kind of funny, too. Don't try for both, though. Make up your mind which you like better, and cut out everything that doesn't contribute to that. (For me, the honest sports shot of the shooter and the blocker is better than the modest laugh of the players out of position, but you choose.)

 

Either way, it's a keeper: good action, good personality, good technique (color, light, focus).

This would be better, I think, with the right quarter cropped out, so that the kicker frames the action in front of the goal rather than splitting it. Still, for me the exposure is too late. The main subject is no longer involved in the play, he's just falling over; whereas the now-active players are small and not very interesting.

It's actually a pretty classic *application* of the rule of thirds. The right side of the frame is divided into flat water, wave and sky. The left side is divided unequally. The space is also divided left and right well right of the center of the frame. Yes, the surfer's in the middle, but, as Mike says, it's not a picture of a surfer.

I like this a lot. Your tips, too: I don't literally follow them all (I think I can move the camera with a tripod about as fast as my brain can keep up with, and I can sure hold it longer), but especially the last one is golden: you have to concentrate on the ones you can get, instead of seeing and missing them all. Sometimes I pick a spot and wait for something to happen there, sometimes I follow a player.

Hilarious.

OK, "heart of photography" is a bit over the top. Still, there is a lot of empty space, and no faces.

 

Anyway, Gregor, as a rule you will get more feedback if you are slow to defend. Once you have said, "Well, I like it anyway," there is not much more for anyone to say.

 

Of course, you are right, that technique by itself is nothing; you have to have something to say. It doesn't hurt to say it prettily, though.

Good. I'd like it better with the setter's face (the others are good, though) and all the way to the floor so we see her feet in the air.

Yes - it's fast, it's pretty, and it shows an extraordinary amount of tension and conflict. I especially like the implied motion of the attacker (frozen still but obviously moving fast, else he would fall over) contrasted with the turtle-like pose of the goalkeeper, who works with concentration and reaction rather than raw speed.

Depends on your purpose. As art-with-hockey-players, we could "read between the lines." As sports photojournalism, we need to care about the *game*, which has everything to do with - the puck.

Mike - Thanks for the kind words. I haven't had any problems about the flash: I respect the players and the referees doing their thing, and they respect me doing mine.

It works both ways, as action and as portraiture. The faces are remarkable. I agree about cropping from the top.

Improved, I think. I like Darryn's idea of more depth of field with motion blur instead of focus blur - then the goal is sharp as well as the ball. The perspective is nearer to what you want, I think, than before, but the ball doesn't need to be quite so big. So, I think you want to be closer to the goal and farther from the ball.

Very nice combination of abstract design and personality. The catchers add a lot. If you could lose the white structure on the right and gain the missing toe, it would be even better, but you got what was there, at just the right moment.

 

Since you ask about the color, it's nice and natural on the whole, but you might try raising the saturation just a little.

Very appropriate for the purpose, I think; reminds me of the peach baskets and all. It's also nicely executed.

Does the blur from existing light along with the flash bother you?

General comments also welcome.

It's a nice idea. You might experiment with the perspective (various lenses, various distances) until the essential elements - ball, team, goal - use the whole frame in a harmonious way. For me, as it is, too much of the picture is empty sky and unpretty fence. Another thing to think about is a longer exposure so that the runners are blurred but the ball and goal are sharp, emphasizing the idea that they are there, ready or not, but the players have to work.

Yes, very sweet, and nothing wrong with the technique, either.

It's beautiful. There is rather too much of the black for me, but, well, yes, it was dark out, wasn't it? Still, most of what I want to see, and less of what I don't, is from the pink tree on the left to the tallest one on the right (to the left of the flagpoles, I think it's a tree). It might be stronger with just that.

The expression is interesting, but I'd like to see more of the eyes, especially with the (too) shallow field. Even the rest of his face is out of focus, so there is not much to see but the eyes, and you don't give us those. The framing is just too cute for me: I don't see a good reason why we need all that blank space beside him paired with the severe crop up and down.

I don't think even such nice legs as these can stand this treatment. The rest is beautiful.

Lovely. The color is not quite right, I think: the whites of the eyes are pink, and the dark side of her face is green.

I like the back seat better: less to look at, more to think about. Anyway, you wouldn't want both in the same show; it spoils the accidental effect, which is critical.

Yet another outstanding job with an almost ordinary subject.

What is interesting to me is the interaction between the two men in the background. One buttoned-up stuffed shirt (maid of honor's boyfriend?) and one beer-from-a-bottle roughneck (groom's rogue brother, perhaps), and maybe they are about to come to blows. Now, you might wish they were in focus, and Mr. Nobody were out of the way, but that's part of the joke: he's perfectly oblivious, and so are you, because you are paid to take his picture because he's important.

 

Now, you would have been very clever to do this on purpose (especially since the joke is partly at your expense). You caught it, though, and you saw it. Well done.

Everything works for me except - the face, which unfortunately is everything. She just looks dead to me. The square catchlights maybe contribute a little to the zombie look, but other than that, it's not you, it's her. I still don't like looking at it, good as it is technically.