timing and framing are nice. Now you need to work on your backgrounds. Exif shows 150mm 6.3 aperture. You need to use wider apertures (as wide as your lens will allow) and longer focal lengths - shoot tight to begin with - and use less cropping. That will help blur the backgrounds.
Out of curiosity - was this a game-time shot or warm-ups?
this is a game shot. Sometimes, HIgh school fields don't offer great backdrops. When this thing is viewed larger you can see every detail on his face which is pretty cool.
Sometimes, HIgh school fields don't offer great backdrops.
Actually they almost never offer great backdrops. Which is why it's important to isolate your subject from the background. And while you may not be interested in improving others reading might be. If you're not interested please say so - in which case we wont waste our time commenting.
So to those interested in getting better quality shots:
Subject Isolation is important. You can obtain that isolation by using the widest aperture at your disposal and the longest focal length. So, in the case of this photo - unless the lens is a 150mm 6.3 lens the subject isolation could be improved by opening up the aperture and increasing the focal length. Having a sharp subject is key - that's the basics of sports shooting. If you want to get to the next level of sports shooting you need a sharp subject and more of a blurred background (to the extent your equipment and environment allows).
i certainly am interested in getting better shots of course, I had the 70-200 2.8 with a converter--to much reach which is why i was where I was with the zoom--as far as ap, no excuse for 6.3
As an example to those interested. While the background isn't as bad as the OPs (i.e. there's no fence) see if you think the blurred background doesn't improve the shot by keeping interest on the subject. This is just a random shot - not particularly noteworthy but I think it helps illustrate my point.
Let me start off saying this is a GREAT SHOT......not being of the calibre of some on here let me also say that yes the bg is distracting somewhat.....since it is in somewhat focus (the bg)...use small amounts of Gaussian blur to make that distinction between subject and bg........so with a bit of care in post processing you can get that seperation between forground (subject) and bg....if done in camera much better less processing time......but it can be done in post also.
Keep shooting and posting some great shots.............bow
so with a bit of care in post processing you can get that seperation between forground (subject) and bg....if done in camera much better less processing time......but it can be done in post also.
Well, sure, you can. But in my opinion PS'd background blur always always always looks bad. For one thing you usually do not get that nice drop-off from sharp to blurry that you do with a wide aperture. Look closely at John's sample image, how the foreground grass is blurry, then gets into focus at the feet, then fades gradually more and more blurry as you go further back. Very pleasing. And PS blurring always looks awkwards around the perimeter of the subject anyway.
Besides, if you're trying to do a lot of these shots you simply do not have the time to post-process shots like this.
Open the lens as wide as possible. Shoot with the longest focal length you can. And strategically position yourself to have the least offensive background possible given the horrid conditions you are shooting in.
Let me start off saying this is a GREAT SHOT......not being of the calibre of some on here let me also say that yes the bg is distracting somewhat.....since it is in somewhat focus (the bg)...use small amounts of Gaussian blur to make that distinction between subject and bg........so with a bit of care in post processing you can get that seperation between forground (subject) and bg....if done in camera much better less processing time......but it can be done in post also.
Keep shooting and posting some great shots.............bow
**Im not trying to be a jerk or anything but before anyone starts being critical of others images be sure you have yours right because usually everything you tell them they are doing wrong is exactly what your doing wrong ....
As an example to those interested. While the background isn't as bad as the OPs (i.e. there's no fence) see if you think the blurred background doesn't improve the shot by keeping interest on the subject. This is just a random shot - not particularly noteworthy but I think it helps illustrate my point.
erson83,
Nice shot.. Nothing you can do about the background with the converter attached.
Keep shooting and working the field to your advantage.
Dont get discouraged by others that think they know it all and tell you what your doing wrong when they arent really much better..
**Im not trying to be a jerk or anything but before anyone starts being critical of others images be sure you have yours right because usually everything you tell them they are doing wrong is exactly what your doing wrong ....
OK Joe - I'll bite. I took a shot that was ROUGHLY the same type of angle / distance of background to subject. I.E. it would not be of much help to show a shot where the entire length of the field was between the subject and the background. If you LIKE I can post one of those. But are you suggesting the backgrond in the shot I posted is no more blurred than the background of the OP?
Here's another shot to make Joe happy - 300mm 2.8 with the length of the field behind the subjects. not as relevant IMO because this angle isn't possible for the goal type shot the OP had - and the OP doesn't have 300mm 2.8 - but he DOES have 200mm 2.8. But if this makes Joe happy:
Dont get discouraged by others that think they know it all and tell you what your doing wrong when they arent really much better..
I'm sorry. You're a Sports Shooter member and you don't honestly think that JohnG's image isn't a lot better? :shrug
Nobody is saying they know it all. But I'm sorry, there are better ways to capture that same goalie image, and that is all that people are saying here. Its called constructive criticism and helping someone reach further and improve their photography.
Nothing you can do about the background with the converter attached.
Actually there are a few things that could be done. A 2.8 lens with a 1.4 teleconverter becomes an f/4 lens. That shot was captured at f/6.3. There is at least one thing that can be done -- open the lens further.
While I can't disagree with JohnG's original comment...in general shooting tighter is better, as is blurring the background. However, I also don't see how this shot could have been captured, in context with the goal, from this angle, without shooting wider.
I don't know what your target audience is for this photo but I am certain that the player and family will absolutely love this shot because it captures the moment in context.
I thank every one for chiming in--I feel that people have very good things to say from a critical basis, but I think some of us need to say it in a better, less smug way. I thank all for their comments--i was impressed with the clairity of the goalie's face and expression and not so much on the back. I shot today strictly in 2.8 w.out the converter and really, from the angle i was at for the original shot i don't see how much would have been different. Had there been stands full of fans instead of a fence and a track, im wuite sure the shot would have been fine. Again, thanks for all who stopped in!
However, I also don't see how this shot could have been captured, in context with the goal, from this angle, without shooting wider.
Kevin - I agree. Perhaps I was a bit unclear in my original comments so I'll elaborate. This shot is VERY tight for 150mm (and unless the OPs equipment behaves differently than mine, the exif shows the focal length WITH the tc - so the 150mm should be AFTER the tc is taken into account). So, I surmised the original shot was even wider and cropped down to the tight framing you see in the photo. My premise is that if the shot were framed this tightly to begin with and at a wider aperture the background would be more blurred.
Is it a good shot? Absolutely. Could it be better? Yes. Look - I don't claim to be the best shooter here - far from it. But I've gotten better than what i was by seeking honest constructive criticism and taking it to heart and trying to apply it. The OP can choose to disregard my advice if he chooses as can anyone else. But you and the OP do yourselves a disservice if all you consider is input from people telling you every shot is great. I count myself in the category of those who still need a lot of improvement. And, you may not like my language - fair enough. But this isn't gradeschool. Grow a thicker skin if you want feedback from photographers. Clients won't give you feedback they just won't buy. So I'm sorry if I come across as smug - it is not my intent. Again, to all those reading - give my advice a try and see if it doesn't help in the long run. In the short run you'll get more out of focus shots because DOF is shallower. But you'll get better at it.
Well done.
Wow, great capture. You've got the face, the determination, and the pivotal point of action in one frame - well done. Especially a game like soccer where there may only be 3-4 opportunitys a game.
i certainly am interested in getting better shots of course, I had the 70-200 2.8 with a converter--to much reach which is why i was where I was with the zoom--as far as ap, no excuse for 6.3
I have found there isn't enough reach with sports. For example, you don't have to get full body on your shots. If you were at full reach with the converter, which would be around 270mm, you would have had a great shot of the facial expression of the goalie and upper torso shot. For sports, don't be afraid to crop off limbs or parts of the body.
JOHNG: much clearer.... and while I don't always like the comments I get on photos either, I do listen and it has changed the way I shoot for the better.... )
ERSON68: It would be interesting to see the results of you cropping your photo similar to what JOHN68 demonstrates.... (try a 4x6 ratio) If you can get the upper torso, ball and part of the goal in the shot I think the clarity of the strain in his facial expression may really add some punch to the photo.
erson83 - If you are setting this up as a specially-prepared image for the family of the player, there may be a better way to insert depth of field in Photoshop. If you simply do a gaussian blur that will look pretty fake, but there's a way to apply a gradient to the blur so it goes from sharp on the bottom to blurry at the top, very similar to the way real depth of field works in a photo where the ground beneath the player is in focus and the blur/bokeh gradually increases upward through the photo.
I apologize that I don't have the steps to accomplish this, but if you search for gaussian blur and gradient and/or depth of field I'm sure you may find some tutorials on how to do this. Hope this helps, and great shot, by the way!
thanks again guys! I was at odds as to how to crop this. I thought the ball and netting were crucial to the shot as well, of course, as the face. If anybody would like the original to play with feel free to message me, I'll be glad to email one over!
For preference I happen to prefer the original. The stretch, him leaving the ground etc. In the case of Jon's header shot, the legs really wouldn't add a lot to the 'story'. But in your shot I think they do. But that's a matter of preference.
I like it. Like johng said, its a matter of personal taste. However, I do think chopping off his fingers wasn't exactly what I had in mind when I suggested sacrificing body parts.:D
I've cropped this things six ways to Sunday and with the original, and the all out stretch this kid put on, it's hard to get a crop with all the key components...I'll just present the customer with about 4 different shots--maybe they'll buy em all!
I've cropped this things six ways to Sunday and with the original, and the all out stretch this kid put on, it's hard to get a crop with all the key components...I'll just present the customer with about 4 different shots--maybe they'll buy em all!
That's sometimes the hardest part when cropping to make the picture fit within the confines of print size.
With all that's said and done, the customer will probably pick the original. We can get hyper critical of what looks good and what doesn't. I have had pictures that I wouldn't submit to any publication, but the parent really liked the pic.
That's sometimes the hardest part when cropping to make the picture fit within the confines of print size.
With all that's said and done, the customer will probably pick the original. We can get hyper critical of what looks good and what doesn't. I have had pictures that I wouldn't submit to any publication, but the parent really liked the pic.
I have noticed that too...I guess we get bogged down with technicallities (sp) sometimes when all the client sees is their perfect little boy!
Comments
Out of curiosity - was this a game-time shot or warm-ups?
Actually they almost never offer great backdrops. Which is why it's important to isolate your subject from the background. And while you may not be interested in improving others reading might be. If you're not interested please say so - in which case we wont waste our time commenting.
So to those interested in getting better quality shots:
Subject Isolation is important. You can obtain that isolation by using the widest aperture at your disposal and the longest focal length. So, in the case of this photo - unless the lens is a 150mm 6.3 lens the subject isolation could be improved by opening up the aperture and increasing the focal length. Having a sharp subject is key - that's the basics of sports shooting. If you want to get to the next level of sports shooting you need a sharp subject and more of a blurred background (to the extent your equipment and environment allows).
Keep shooting and posting some great shots.............
Besides, if you're trying to do a lot of these shots you simply do not have the time to post-process shots like this.
Open the lens as wide as possible. Shoot with the longest focal length you can. And strategically position yourself to have the least offensive background possible given the horrid conditions you are shooting in.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Thanks art
erson83,
Nice shot.. Nothing you can do about the background with the converter attached.
Keep shooting and working the field to your advantage.
Dont get discouraged by others that think they know it all and tell you what your doing wrong when they arent really much better..
Joe
http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=2850
OK Joe - I'll bite. I took a shot that was ROUGHLY the same type of angle / distance of background to subject. I.E. it would not be of much help to show a shot where the entire length of the field was between the subject and the background. If you LIKE I can post one of those. But are you suggesting the backgrond in the shot I posted is no more blurred than the background of the OP?
Here's another shot to make Joe happy - 300mm 2.8 with the length of the field behind the subjects. not as relevant IMO because this angle isn't possible for the goal type shot the OP had - and the OP doesn't have 300mm 2.8 - but he DOES have 200mm 2.8. But if this makes Joe happy:
Nobody is saying they know it all. But I'm sorry, there are better ways to capture that same goalie image, and that is all that people are saying here. Its called constructive criticism and helping someone reach further and improve their photography.
Actually there are a few things that could be done. A 2.8 lens with a 1.4 teleconverter becomes an f/4 lens. That shot was captured at f/6.3. There is at least one thing that can be done -- open the lens further.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
I don't know what your target audience is for this photo but I am certain that the player and family will absolutely love this shot because it captures the moment in context.
regards, kevin
Canon 1DM4, 300mm 2.8, 70-200mm 2.8, 200mm 1.8, 24-70mm 2.8, 85mm 1.8
Kevin - I agree. Perhaps I was a bit unclear in my original comments so I'll elaborate. This shot is VERY tight for 150mm (and unless the OPs equipment behaves differently than mine, the exif shows the focal length WITH the tc - so the 150mm should be AFTER the tc is taken into account). So, I surmised the original shot was even wider and cropped down to the tight framing you see in the photo. My premise is that if the shot were framed this tightly to begin with and at a wider aperture the background would be more blurred.
Is it a good shot? Absolutely. Could it be better? Yes. Look - I don't claim to be the best shooter here - far from it. But I've gotten better than what i was by seeking honest constructive criticism and taking it to heart and trying to apply it. The OP can choose to disregard my advice if he chooses as can anyone else. But you and the OP do yourselves a disservice if all you consider is input from people telling you every shot is great. I count myself in the category of those who still need a lot of improvement. And, you may not like my language - fair enough. But this isn't gradeschool. Grow a thicker skin if you want feedback from photographers. Clients won't give you feedback they just won't buy. So I'm sorry if I come across as smug - it is not my intent. Again, to all those reading - give my advice a try and see if it doesn't help in the long run. In the short run you'll get more out of focus shots because DOF is shallower. But you'll get better at it.
Wow, great capture. You've got the face, the determination, and the pivotal point of action in one frame - well done. Especially a game like soccer where there may only be 3-4 opportunitys a game.
ERSON68: It would be interesting to see the results of you cropping your photo similar to what JOHN68 demonstrates.... (try a 4x6 ratio) If you can get the upper torso, ball and part of the goal in the shot I think the clarity of the strain in his facial expression may really add some punch to the photo.
regards, Kevin
Canon 1DM4, 300mm 2.8, 70-200mm 2.8, 200mm 1.8, 24-70mm 2.8, 85mm 1.8
I apologize that I don't have the steps to accomplish this, but if you search for gaussian blur and gradient and/or depth of field I'm sure you may find some tutorials on how to do this. Hope this helps, and great shot, by the way!
www.rfcphotography.com
I like it. Like johng said, its a matter of personal taste. However, I do think chopping off his fingers wasn't exactly what I had in mind when I suggested sacrificing body parts.:D
That's sometimes the hardest part when cropping to make the picture fit within the confines of print size.
With all that's said and done, the customer will probably pick the original. We can get hyper critical of what looks good and what doesn't. I have had pictures that I wouldn't submit to any publication, but the parent really liked the pic.
I have noticed that too...I guess we get bogged down with technicallities (sp) sometimes when all the client sees is their perfect little boy!