First time Football attempt C&C request

adbsgicom

Edit 11/3 @ 2pm EDT: I bumped the gallery exposure down 2/3 and bumped the WB up 500K. This reloaded the gallery so you may be seeing the modify pix based on the advice by Chuck, Andy and Jack. Image 2 was deleted due to universal agreement that it was horrid...

Okay, not sure if this made it easier or harder, but this was small indpendent school co-ed flag football (at least no need to get light under the helmets). Field is 1/4 of the normal fields (1/2 as long and 1/2 as wide). What became really obvious very quickly was how little play time there is. This is all the harder with two 20-minute halves and very little clock stoppage (only for time-out). After coming off the soccer season, I felt like I had very few clicks.

1. Shot too high and lost his foot.


2. Too tight? Mostly out of necessity, this was right in front of me at 70mm on a DX...
Removed to protect my reputation.....

3-7. I sent the parents this as a 4-frame image... Amazing concentration and catch...





8. From that same catch, just not workable in 4x6 aspect


9. Picked this one...


10. Ready for the Heisman...

Photosbychuck

Nice series

1) Nice photo just a tad over exposed.
2) Bad angle
3-6) good photos just a tad over exposed.
8) Good photo just a tad over exposed.
9) Love it my favorite
10) Good photo just a tad over exposed.



Chuck Cassidy,
www.icurdigital.com

adbsgicom

Thanks. Overexposed is easy to fix...

Gringriff

Nice series - I agree with Chuck on the exposure being a little bright. Colors look good but maybe number 3 is just a little cool. Maybe warm it up just slightly and see how it looks??

jmphotocraft

Most of these are overexposed IMO, some slightly, some significantly. You're using manual exposure which is good to prevent the background from confusing the camera, but I like to set my exposure giving priority to the faces. Your faces all look hot to me.

I agree shooting sports is tough at younger ages because there aren't many magazine cover moments due to the level of play and skill. Soccer definitely has more.

I like to shoot at f/2.8 always for maximum bg blur. I see you are at f/3.5. I think thin DOF is one big thing that jumps out at parents as being different than shots they take, so you may as well use all of your f/2.8 lens. Otherwise you could have saved a lot of money and bought a 70-200 f/4. (well, you couldn't have because you shoot that second-tier brand, hehe ;-) I kid, I kid)

3-7 are really 3-6, but I will go by your labels...

1, nice shot, overexposed.

2, bad face, overexposed, delete.

3-7, I had to look at this several times to see what was going on - he's running backwards, yes? Nice set.

8, Nice capture.

9, nice shot, a little tight, I wish his elbow wasn't cut off

10, this is a magazine cover! This kid feels like a superstar now thanks to you.

adbsgicom

Andy and Jack,

Thanks, I've knocked things down 2/3.
One #3, I think the coolness comes from the huge shadow his arm is casting across his face. Image temperature is the same, but it is on the cool side of sunny. I've actually rebalanced the lot of them for color. (up about 500). I have reloaded the gallery. I'd appreciate your feedback if you think the brightness is better.

Point taken on the 3.5 vs. 2.8. I started out at 2.8 but I think on the early shots I wasn't getting the images I wanted (probably more to do with user errors) and so I gave myself more margin. I plan to try an camp out at 2.8 today.



#2 has been duly deleted....

jmphotocraft

I think this is a step in the right direction, but I think a few could come down even more. Especially 10, his face is still white hot on my iMac, and that is such a great shot. I cleared my browser cache and reloaded the page so I'm looking at your new versions.

Here's a couple of examples of how I try to expose for the face in blazing sun:

adbsgicom

Something evil is happening at smugmug, I think. I cleared my cache as well, and I'm getting the old image as well.
Not sure if linking the smaller version will force the load here, but this is what I really have. Is this what you see and think should come down more?



Looking at it again, I see where it could come down further. I think I didn't step away from the image long enough when I edited and it just seemed so much darker that I called it quits on it w/o being objective enough.

jmphotocraft

This ^^^ looks much better than the one in the original post. Smugmug takes some time to fully replace all images. Or maybe we should clear cache AND cookies.

I have to remind myself when editing to try to create a pleasing photograph, not just an accurate reproduction of what I saw at the time. What you see under harsh sun and what you want to see in a photo are often two different things.

adbsgicom

Not sure what is going on. I had a problem a couple of weeks ago when I had images in two galleries, though loaded independently (with different watermarking) via LR3. One gallery would alias to the other for an extended period of time. It was very weird. I ended up clobbering one of the galleries...

Thanks for the additional feedback...

Gringriff

Andrew,
I like the revised one much better. Good Job. I know what you mean about the editing. I now try to wait a day or two after editing to review again before releasing.

adbsgicom

Do you think this works as a gritty edit. Not good for publication but more for the athlete...


Partly masked two iterations of Nik Tonal Contrast (let very little hit his face, and kept most of it off the kid in the back...)

Thanks to all of you for your help and guidance...

jmphotocraft

I like it, it pops.

Edit... if you got that at full res, that is, not much cropping, this would make a sick wall cling.

adbsgicom

jmphotocraft wrote: »

I like it, it pops.

Edit... if you got that at full res, that is, not much cropping, this would make a sick wall cling.

Some cropping (2700x1800 ish)

jmphotocraft

maybe not enough, but look into it.