Background, background, background

jfriend

If you're shooting sports - think about your background - constantly.

Here's a nice action pose that is completely wasted because of the cluttered background. And with no separation between subject and background, even f/2.8 wouldn't have helped much (this was taken at 330mm, f/4). Into the trash bin:

jfriend

Compare that previous one to this one from the same shoot. The lighting was really harsh, but here there's a nice background separation and a much less complicated background that doesn't compete with the photo as much (360mm at f/4):

AlmostThere

I just played around with it for a few minutes, but your player caught in the air as she is, seemed to open a lot of possibilities using motion blur. Hope you don't mind the liberty.

AlmostThere

Maybe everything but the player.

ian408

I don't think this is about how to fix a background in post but rather to work harder at watching backgrounds and avoiding the problem to begin with.
So many shots are ruined by cluttered backgrounds.

kidzmom

Both shots are wonderful. I love your workup AlmostThere! The motion blur is really nice. A lot of times there is NOTHING you can do about your background, especially in children's sporting events and I don't believe sending that fantastic shot to the bin is the answer. Often the field is surrounded by lawn chairs and people propped up along the sidelines and everything would be trash. Your motion blur suggestion sure makes that fantastic action capture rise out of the crowd--- when recomposing wtih a clear background is NOT possible.

zoomer

Agreed, the background is so important, think background first subject second.

kiz5

There are also other times where you're just thankful you're at 2.8, when shooting towards those ugly backgrounds...

jfriend

AlmostThere wrote: »

I just played around with it for a few minutes, but your player caught in the air as she is, seemed to open a lot of possibilities using motion blur. Hope you don't mind the liberty.

I really like that. I may have to go rescue the RAW file and try it myself. Thanks for the idea.

PhotoLasVegas

Nice reminder! We are constantly fighting people in backgrounds here in Vegas (Strip tours, etc.).

As for "fixing" photos like this - fine, go ahead.. but I know the profit margins of these types of photos and IMO it's not worth the extra time.

jonh68

PhotoLasVegas wrote: »

Nice reminder! We are constantly fighting people in backgrounds here in Vegas (Strip tours, etc.).

As for "fixing" photos like this - fine, go ahead.. but I know the profit margins of these types of photos and IMO it's not worth the extra time.

I agree with that point. if its sales to parents, I doubt they are as critical of the background as we are.

jfriend

jonh68 wrote: »

I agree with that point. if its sales to parents, I doubt they are as critical of the background as we are.

It's not that they are critical of the background. It's that the foreground (what they care about) just doesn't look very good when there's a messy, conflicting background.

zack75144

could you share the next shot in the series? I want to see the blond with the suede boots

all BS aside, I agree with the OP's point.

attorneyjay

I love a perfect background as much as anyone, but I don't throw every shot with an imperfect background in the trash bin. I shoot for youth and their families. I try very hard to create technically correct works of photographic art, but that's not necessarily what my viewers look for or appreciate. They want to see themselves or their loved one in professional looking pose or action scene. Some even enjoy seeing the background - they can be funny or poignant- and I sometimes highlight these in my galleries. Perfect backgrounds are hard to come by. I am always pleasantly surprised what people will buy. I do my best getting perfect shots but I'll also make available some imperfect shots because my viewers still love them and buy them.

Now, if I were shooting for SI or ESPN the mag then, yes, my trash bin would be filled faster.

I try to balance my desire for perfection against my viewers' and customers' interest in seeing a unique, albeit imperfect pic of the their prized youth athlete.

Jay

jfriend

attorneyjay wrote: »

I love a perfect background as much as anyone, but I don't throw every shot with an imperfect background in the trash bin. I shoot for youth and their families. I try very hard to create technically correct works of photographic art, but that's not necessarily what my viewers look for or appreciate. They want to see themselves or their loved one in professional looking pose or action scene. Some even enjoy seeing the background - they can be funny or poignant- and I sometimes highlight these in my galleries. Perfect backgrounds are hard to come by. I am always pleasantly surprised what people will buy. I do my best getting perfect shots but I'll also make available some imperfect shots because my viewers still love them and buy them.

Now, if I were shooting for SI or ESPN the mag then, yes, my trash bin would be filled faster.

I try to balance my desire for perfection against my viewers' and customers' interest in seeing a unique, albeit imperfect pic of the their prized youth athlete.

Jay

I guess I'll repeat something I said earlier because I think my initial comment that I started this thread with is getting taken a different way than I intended.

All I really care about is how good a subject I capture. THE reason I think about the background is that a cluttered and crummy background detracts from and can even ruin a good action shot of your subject. This is not because many actually look or care about the background, but because the cluttered background makes it so hard to see the subject. Obviously nobody buys or selects images because of the background. They select them because of the subject - it's just that a bad background can ruin a good subject and a good background can enhance a good subject even more.

If I have a choice, I'll find a shooting angle that gives me the best chance of both good light and good background. The point of this thread was to remind folks that a good background can really enhance the quality of your subject.

If I don't have a choice at my venue, I've taken plenty of shots with bad lighting and/or bad backgrounds because that was the best that was possible and something (often with some post processing) was better than nothing. But, I'll avoid the crummy background if I can.

johng

I agree completely with the OP. A clean or blurred background makes the photo look nicer. The parents may not be able to articulate WHY as easily as we do. But, if they have 2 photos to choose from and their child looks the exact same in both but one has a better background, you can bet they'll choose the one with the better background. If their choice is 'bad background' vs. nothing then they may very well choose the bad background (assuming the price is acceptable). so it's all about relativity. I've never met a person yet that says "wow, that car back there really makes it a great photo".

So, for example if you're shooting a soccer game and covering one team, AND one side of the field is parking lot and the other side is trees or open space, if lighting allows, shoot with the parking lot to your back. Plan your halfs with that in mind. Everything else being equal, that simple decision will make your shots better.

jonh68

jfriend wrote: »

It's not that they are critical of the background. It's that the foreground (what they care about) just doesn't look very good when there's a messy, conflicting background.

We are not in disagreement. Unless a parent wants a specific treatment and pay for the extra processing, there isn't a reason from a time vs money standpoint to do this kind of processing if a photographer is trying to make money from shooting a game.

jfriend

jonh68 wrote: »

We are not in disagreement. Unless a parent wants a specific treatment and pay for the extra processing, there isn't a reason from a time vs money standpoint to do this kind of processing if a photographer is trying to make money from shooting a game.

I agree with that. Not worth the time to fix the background in post unless the image is somehow really special. That's why I didn't even keep the image. I had plenty of other good images of this athelete without this background complication.

travischance

jfriend wrote: »

I really like that. I may have to go rescue the RAW file and try it myself. Thanks for the idea.

John:

There's always Alien Skin Bokeh. I can't remember the cost but there's a 30-day trial & they have a few good examples of saving photos similar to yours.

cr8ingwaves

I agree with the OP that while you have to pay attention to and chose your background carefully. Anyone that shoots youth sports knows that you can't always do that. The little bit of PP blurring out the fans is a great option. Having an option like that in your bag of tricks can certainly save the day if you weren't able to capture any other images of a certain player during the game.
The PP saves that photo from looking like every other image that was captured by a spectator.

torags

travischance wrote: »

John:

There's always Alien Skin Bokeh. I can't remember the cost but there's a 30-day trial & they have a few good examples of saving photos similar to yours.

I have it & used it. It's great.

It works extremely well for bullriding, the ultimate test. The bull can't get very far from the walled crowd in 4 sec. & you can pick a preset bokeh (2.8, 4.0, etc)

If you're selling shots, I would think it would be good for your kit. The work can be done in PS, but these presets are a lot faster for the dumb of us.

Here's one where I used it (ignor the sepia treatment) the spectators were pretty distinguishable

AlmostThere

ian408 wrote: »

I don't think this is about how to fix a background in post but rather to work harder at watching backgrounds and avoiding the problem to begin with.
So many shots are ruined by cluttered backgrounds.

I totally agree. I wouldn't have bothered making the changes if the OP hadn't relinquished the shot to the trash.

torags

I think the objective is subject separation.

Most times a cluttered background is to be avoided; but there are times when you don't.

I've seen shots of a moto race with snow covered Colorado Mountains in the background; a gorgeous image

by Latebreaker.com...

I intentionally waited for a rider to get air in front of this background



There are other examples of the wall at the Indianapolis Speedway with late light and racers aside & in front of.

Just saying don't always discount backgrounds

ian408

torags wrote: »

Just saying don't always discount backgrounds

I don't think anyone is saying "discount the backgrounds" but rather watch them so your photos aren't destined for the bin.

jfriend

torags wrote: »

I think the objective is subject separation.

Most times a cluttered background is to be avoided; but there are times when you don't.

I've seen shots of a moto race with snow covered Colorado Mountains in the background; a gorgeous image

by Latebreaker.com...

I intentionally waited for a rider to get air in front of this background



There are other examples of the wall at the Indianapolis Speedway with late light and racers aside & in front of.

Just saying don't always discount backgrounds

This is a pretty different case. This is purposefully an image of a motorcycle racer in front of a desirable background. If you have a desirable background and it's a useful part of what you're trying to accomplish with your image, then by all means use it. The point of this thread was that if it's not a useful part of what you're trying to accomplish (because it would significantly detract from your image) then it will do you well to plan for some separation. Separation can be by color, by luminosity or by blur.