New Bantam House Select Hockey

divmedic4

Some new shots from this morning. Still having to shoot through the glass. As always, comments, critique and suggestions for improvement are appreciated.

1)

20130210-012 by Divmedic4, on Flickr

2)

20130210-020 by Divmedic4, on Flickr

3)

20130210-037 by Divmedic4, on Flickr

4)

20130210-061 by Divmedic4, on Flickr

5)

20130210-090 by Divmedic4, on Flickr

6)

20130210-091 by Divmedic4, on Flickr

MJRPHOTO

Much better then the other post

divmedic4

Thanks MJR. Tried incorporating as much advice as I could in to this set.

john l

Hi Tom. These look pretty good to me. I might crop a little differently but that is a personal choice. I don't know where all the hockey shooters have gone but not much posting this year. Keep shooting, not much better fun than hockey. I have 3 grandkids playing house league to AAA and it's always great fun.j

johng

Tom - sharpness is better and exposure is better. However, the framing is a bit too loose in these. That was the one thing going for you in set 1 - tight framing. Flickr hides the exif so I can't tell the focal lengths. But the next step in the process is to try and frame tighter while shooting. You also need to start getting comfortable shooting in portrait orientation. For example - shots 5 & 6 are isolation shots - the only real subject is the player - yet 2/3 of the frame is dead space. That's a shot you want in portrait orientation tight on the player. with top gear and no glass between you a crop would handle it. But for many shooters and shooting through glass you probably don't have the detail in the image file to support such a crop. So, get used to flipping the cmaera and framing tightly. That I would say is the next step. You're doing pretty well but getting that tight framing will really help.

divmedic4

john l wrote: »

Hi Tom. These look pretty good to me. I might crop a little differently but that is a personal choice. I don't know where all the hockey shooters have gone but not much posting this year. Keep shooting, not much better fun than hockey. I have 3 grandkids playing house league to AAA and it's always great fun.j

Thank you John. I agree hockey is just awesome to watch and really enjoying trying to shoot it.

johng wrote: »

Tom - sharpness is better and exposure is better. However, the framing is a bit too loose in these. That was the one thing going for you in set 1 - tight framing. Flickr hides the exif so I can't tell the focal lengths. But the next step in the process is to try and frame tighter while shooting. You also need to start getting comfortable shooting in portrait orientation. For example - shots 5 & 6 are isolation shots - the only real subject is the player - yet 2/3 of the frame is dead space. That's a shot you want in portrait orientation tight on the player. with top gear and no glass between you a crop would handle it. But for many shooters and shooting through glass you probably don't have the detail in the image file to support such a crop. So, get used to flipping the cmaera and framing tightly. That I would say is the next step. You're doing pretty well but getting that tight framing will really help.

Johng, I appreciate the compliment on the improved sharpness and exposure. I understand what both of you are saying about the framing/cropping. I do have more parents starting to ask about copies of their children so I left these loose so the could be cropped to the size they want if buying some. From you and other experienced shooters, I would like to ask if it is better to crop them to a better print right away and then adjust to the requested print.

Also, thank you for the suggestion about not being afraid to go portrait orientation. I have thought of that but wasn't sure if it would work well.

johng

Tom - when you are shooting for print sales you really want your photos to grab attention. The goal is to get things tight right from the start. Ideally you want enough space for 8x10 framing. The problem with such loose initial framing is it doesn't have that WOW factor. That WOW factor is what gets people wanting to buy. The better you are at exposure and framing to begin with the less you have to work the photos before a potential client sees them.
The photos above are good but they're not going to generate a lot of sales because they lack WOW. As has been discussed all over the place - selling sports images is much tougher today than it was 5 years ago. More and more parents have DSLRs and there is often one shooting with a 70-200 2.8 type of lens. And they're giving away shots for free.

You don't get a second chance to make a first impression. So, the first impression to potential clients can't be: "Yeah that's a little better than Tommy's mom does but she's giving them to me for free".

Here's a link to one of the posters that used to hang around here - these are the types of framing you want in your initial presentation to clients:
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=153071

If you REALLY want to learn - start visiting Fred Miranda. LOTS more participation there. It can be a bit of good-ol-boys network there - tough to get feedback

But here's a look at the type of work you need to be looking at if you really hope to make money shooting hockey:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1188820/0?keyword=hockey#11336750

Don't get me wrong - you're off to a fine start here. But your goal is to make money, not just take good shots of your own kid. That's a whole different level. Even making great photos is only part of it. Developing a good business model is something completely different. You'll find heaps of stories from shooters that are where you are at now - good and people just starting to ask about prints and images. But finding a steady stream of people actually willing to pay is a whole different story.

divmedic4

Johng, I thank you for your straightforward critique and advice. I did create an account at FM and started looking through their sports forum. I definitely want to get better and I want to feel comfortable when a parent asks for prints telling them it will cost $xx because the quality is consistently that good.