Going To The Hoop

73Rocks

Here is 4 shots from action the other night depicting players flying down the lane going to the basket.










All shot with my 7D – my trusty 50mm f1.4 prime lens set all the way open to f1.4 – my 580 EX at 1/64h power for just a little “fill flash”- shutter speed 640/sec – ISO 640 – cropped to 4 X 6 for effect (and for my editor)

Thanks for looking.

johng

Shot 1: nice shot. Good timing and action, good color and sharpness. Just a tad crooked though.

shot 2: I like the timing, but the framing is too off. Way too much dead space at the top of the frame. Again, crooked.

shot 3: not bad, I like the player in the background's expression. But you've got a definite color cast here - look at the skin tones vs. 1st two shots. Also the way this turned out the closer defender has become a distracting element. The best part of the image is the two facial expressions but the frame is dominated by the other defender, whose face you can't even see.

shot 4: decent action - but the wide angle still kind of hurts this shot - let's in way too much of the distracting background. #3 is blocking a view of the player's body and #3 really isn't involved. So, without being able to see the legs of the shooter, I'd go for a tighter crop so the action and EXPRESSION fills more of the frame.

73Rocks

johng wrote: »

Shot 1: nice shot. Good timing and action, good color and sharpness. Just a tad crooked though.

shot 2: I like the timing, but the framing is too off. Way too much dead space at the top of the frame. Again, crooked.

shot 3: not bad, I like the player in the background's expression. But you've got a definite color cast here - look at the skin tones vs. 1st two shots. Also the way this turned out the closer defender has become a distracting element. The best part of the image is the two facial expressions but the frame is dominated by the other defender, whose face you can't even see.

shot 4: decent action - but the wide angle still kind of hurts this shot - let's in way too much of the distracting background. #3 is blocking a view of the player's body and #3 really isn't involved. So, without being able to see the legs of the shooter, I'd go for a tighter crop so the action and EXPRESSION fills more of the frame.

John . . . thanks again for the constructive criticism. Yes, I should have caught the crooked alignment on the shots. On the framing, I use a standard 4 X 6 cropping for my editor, however I am still stuck on trying to include just a little piece of the net or the backboard to give my shots a little orientation . . . something I need to concentrate on more. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
And the color cast – you’ve got a great eye! About halfway through the 3<SUP>rd</SUP> quarter my batteries on my flash gave out and I didn’t want to stop shooting to change them out until the quarter break. So what you are noticing is me shooting without any fill flash at all. Just a choice I made then and I would make it again . . . I would rather have a great action shot without the correct color than any shot at all.

I will take your advice and apply it to my next game.<o:p></o:p>[/FONT]
Again – thanks for the help –Mark

AceCo55

Out of curiosity, why does your editor want a 6x4 crop? I can understand a loose crop for editorial to give them some flexibility in final publication, but I really don't understand their reasoning. As you are well aware, you end up with dead space that I assume they will crop out anyway?

Moving Pictures

AceCo55 wrote: »

Out of curiosity, why does your editor want a 6x4 crop? I can understand a loose crop for editorial to give them some flexibility in final publication, but I really don't understand their reasoning. As you are well aware, you end up with dead space that I assume they will crop out anyway?

As a newspaper editor/pagintor of some vintage ... I can only assume that it was for a set "standalone" spot (as in a "high school picture of the week" in the stats section) or some such. But the 6x4 crop size baffles me. That's kinda small.

(shrug)

Having worked with pictures moving on and off the major wires back in the daily managing editor days, I'd consider 6x4 way small, and frankly, request a photog to give me larger. 10" wide at 200 dpi is considered sorta minimum standard, IIRC.

AceCo55

Thanks for the info - as with you, I still find it odd.

73Rocks

AceCo55 wrote: »

Out of curiosity, why does your editor want a 6x4 crop? I can understand a loose crop for editorial to give them some flexibility in final publication, but I really don't understand their reasoning. As you are well aware, you end up with dead space that I assume they will crop out anyway?

When my editor 1st contacted me I was processing all my images in 4 X 6 format . . . and that's what she said would be acceptable. The other 2 papers that I also now shoot for also take my images in 4 X 6 format. Not sure why, I just know I get paid for them and we are all happy with the arrangement.