timmy dealing against the braves

Qarik

2 time cy young winner Tim Lincecum.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

too bad he sucks this year! haha

jmphotocraft

Nice sequence and nice seats! Were you in the well?

Qarik

nope..way down 3rd base line. I had my 70-200mm with 2X TC on D200 crop body. 600mm of zoom! my shutter speed was not quite where I wanted it for the last few frames

johng

I guess I disagree with Jim on this. Way too much dead space and too little detail. Also, not a fan of the color treatment - what skin you can see has a very unnatural color cast to it. Great for a fan site, but not so much as sports photos. Given pitching sequences are predictable, what makes one interesting is timing and detail - facial expressions or timing the release. If you want to shoot baseball, try a lower level of play where you can get close enough to the action to use the gear you have.

jmphotocraft

I understood he was probably focal length limited, and that these were intended as fan photos. As such, they're nice, and I like how they demonstrate the pitcher's impressive stride and flexibility. As for the garish colors, well, it's a D200. :smooch

If these are supposed to be serious sports photos, then I agree with your assessment.

johng

jmphotocraft wrote: »

If these are supposed to be serious sports photos, then I agree with your assessment.

It's a SPORTS board on a PHOTOGRAPHY site. Look at it this way - if I attend a wedding and take a snapshot of the couple that has red-eye and blown highlights and post it in a wedding photography forum, how should the photos be critiqued? If the couple is famous, does it change things - given that it's still a photography forum dedicated to wedding shooting?

I just think for people reading these posts and trying to learn it sends a bad message that a shot is "good" just because the subject is famous. Probably some of the best baseball photos I ever see come from Paul Aleese - he covers Little League (has covered a number of LL World Series) among other youth sports. I just try to be fair and judge photos on their own merit. If you don't have the proper location or equipment to shoot action photos at a major sporting event, but you want to produce photos - try something different. I've seen some great fisheye/wideangle shots or even crowd shots.

I'm not trying to be mean here - but I think this has been a great board for people to come and learn about sports photography and especially since this board is camera brand agnostic. I'd hate to see this turn into a place where snapshots of famous people are put on the same level as outstanding photos of a 9 year old playing the same sport. It tends to devalue the hard work people put into it and tells the silent readers that "good sports shots" are made by taking photos of famous people.

jmphotocraft

I think people who are or will be competent sports photographers can recognize for themselves that these are just fan snapshots.

People who would confuse these with serious sports action photography probably never will become competent sports photographers, and that is fine with me. The more pretenders out there, the better the real photographers look.

Qarik

interesting discussion. they are indeed "fan" shots and I processed them as such and they have some novelty here (I don't recall seeing much MLB action on this board..let alone any pitching sequences at this kind of angle)

jhefti

I shoot MLB at AT&T Park all the time, and there are several fan seating areas that are just as good as the photographer wells. The ones behind the plate are almost as low as my position in the wells. If you want to spend the money, you can get great shots with just your 70-200mm alone. (But please tell your neighbors not to annoy us photographers by asking to have their picture taken, then asking what newspaper it will be in! Seriously, I get these questions fairly frequently.)