Options
New member, CC welcome.
michaeljeffries
Registered Users Posts: 5 Beginner grinner
Hello everyone, new member here from Virginia. I wanted to introduce myself and I figure the best place to do that is in my favorite section ... Sports photography. I've attached a few of my more recent photos and I invite any CC you may have.
http://www.michaeljeffriesphotography.com
http://www.michaeljeffriesphotography.com
0
Comments
Shoot tight and crop tighter is something you'll hear a lot of. The 1st 3 are not tight enough. You either need to zoom more, or wait for the action to get close enough to fill the frame.
Sports photos need to engage the viewer. Your last two do not show the athletes faces. The viewer isn't drawn into images. Eye contact is key.
www.seanmartinphoto.com
__________________________________________________
it's not the size of the lens that matters... It's how you focus it.
aaaaa.... who am I kidding!
whoever dies with the biggest coolest piece of glass, wins!
Ditto....Donek I agree 100% you never want to have to show your subjects from the back but sometimes if the players name is on the jersey it might work but not in those pics.
If #2 was cropped tight that might work it's sharp and good exposer. #1 take the guy to the right out thats not in focus and straighten it up it will be a nice shot. Just keep shooting and remember tight and pay attention to you horizon.
Nikon D70,D2H,D300,Nikkor 300mm f2.8,Nikkor 80-200 f2.8, Nikkor 24-70 AF-S f2.8,Nikkor 50 f1.8
www.ScottDavis.smugmug.com
I like 2 & 4.
The straightening suggestion is good as well as watch your depth of field.
You might consider picking your background before setting up to shoot
Numbering the shots posted is a good idea, so viewers can specifically comment
For example on the first few shots - without the details of equipment I can't say whether you're simply too far away for the lens you're using or whether you've just zoomed too little.
More specifically -- shot 1: the story is the missed tackle that player and the ball carrier need to fill the frame. Everything else in the frame is irrelevant. But a very common mistake made by new sports photographers is to try and frame very loose and crop heavily. When you do that, you find two issues: 1) focus isn't as sharp as it needs to be and 2) you don't retain fine detail in face/hair/muscle so the subjects look a bit plasticky.
Shot 2 has slightly better framing than shot 1 but it has the look of a photo that was more heavily cropped and over-sharpened to compensate.
shot 3 - too loosely framed. You're trying to include too much in the image so there's no detail in any of the participants. I'd rather see tighter framing on either pass rusher/blocker. This is the biggest difference between being a fan and being a photographer - as a photographer you have to commit. Commit to a smaller segment of what is going on. By doing so, you will capture more detail and facial expression and that is what will compel a viewer. Of course it also means you can end up with some not-so-exciting wasted plays. For example in this shot, the expression/action on the right is much more interesting than on the left. So, the quality of the end shot would have depended on which rusher you chose to photograph on that play. But you can't try to get both and still make it compelling.
shot 4: nice action but it's the backs and no ball. This shot needs to be from the other side. That's another hard lesson as a photographer - action alone isn't good enough. You have to be fortunate enough that the players are positioned so you get the faces. Sometimes great action happens but there still isn't a good shot of it
shot 5: nothing interesting going on here. No action, no emotion, nothing visually compelling.
Keep at it. It's great you've decided to post images on a sports photography site. That's a great step towards improving. Family & friends think every shot is great. The way to improvement is by getting feedback from other sports photographers. Keep practicing and keep an open mind for feedback and you'll improve in leaps and bounds.
I'm here to learn so please feel free to give me constructive criticism to help me become the photographer I desire to be.
I'll also pay more attention to horizons in the photos to make sure things are level. I never even considered that!
Buuuuuut I MUST defend photo #5, which is one of my favorites.
"nothing interesting going on here. No action, no emotion, nothing visually compelling."
A difference of opinion I'm sure, but it's also apparent that I'm in the minority with this opinion. I won't go into some long winded explanation of why I love the photo, nor will I say "I'm right, you're wrong" - I love this photo and will continue to use it in my portfolio.
Once again, thank you for the feedback and I look forward to putting your advice to use and submitting more photos in the future.
Remember - this is sports. Everyone knows football is played on a football field. A fence, dirt field, trees aren't useful context. Context is the corner pylon of the endzone or something that adds to the specific shot. It's similar in baseball - you don't need the "context" of an umpire behind home plate when taking a photo of the batter at the plate. Everyone knows he is there. Now, if the background in football is the screaming masses of 105,000 Div I college - that's a bit different. That can be a compelling background.
You are correct, there is no 'right' or 'wrong'. If you feel strongly about an image, by all means keep it. BUT, you mention 'portfolio'. Now, when you mention 'portfolio' that usually means your photographic 'resume' that you show perspective employers or clients. If that's the case, you want to keep that portfolio brief. No one wants to see 100 photos. So you want 10-20 images that are your best work. If you ARE looking to have a portfolio that will get you clients/job offers I suggest getting input on that portfolio separately from a variety of sources (family/friends not being any of the sources). There are lots of images I personally like from my shooting but they don't make it into a portfolio because they don't represent a photo a customer would buy. In the end the question is: who is the customer of your portfolio and does every image in the portfolio represent an image they could see themselves buying?
Also worth mentioning that the customer makes a difference. A shot a mom would buy could easily be tossed in the garbage by an editor - they want different things. Case in point, "mom" loved this photo and I include it in portfolio shown to parents but would never include it in a portfolio shown to an editorial client: