For what it's worth, I like the second one better even though the first one is technically better. The second team picture is straight, plus the background is less distracting. The first team picture is angled and looks awkward, plus those banners are hanging right over their heads. But, in the first picture, everyone is looking at the camera. That is definitely a plus. If you straightened the shot & didn't have those banners in the way, I would like the first one better. I also like the cover/frame design on the second one a little better than the first one. Just my preference there.
For what it's worth, I like the second one better even though the first one is technically better. The second team picture is straight, plus the background is less distracting. The first team picture is angled and looks awkward, plus those banners are hanging right over their heads. But, in the first picture, everyone is looking at the camera. That is definitely a plus. If you straightened the shot & didn't have those banners in the way, I would like the first one better. I also like the cover/frame design on the second one a little better than the first one. Just my preference there.
Sherry
+1
And I'll add that the cheese smile and tilted background on the individual in the first one ruins it for me too. Like the second individual much better.
Some people will like the first better because of the fancy artwork though
1. The layout is less cluttered & I don't think the Puck design adds anything to the image tbh?.
2. The team photo is a better crop losing the destracting banners behind & levels applied.
3. The Individual playe's pose is way better with corrected horizons, I would however, flip the image so he is facing into the page?, this would lead the eye back to the centre & group shot below!.
The one thing that does let it down though is not all the players are looking at the camera in 2 but are in #1?
perhaps photoshop the heads from #1 to 2 for the distracted few?
Thanks for the replies , #1 was done by the hired photographer, I like to shoot action and do not promote myself for team shoots etc....but this is my little guy and although I supported the hired shooter by purchasing the package, I wanted to shoot my own as well (making the second one you see) I assumed the pro would have created something a little better than what I received , I was quite disappointed .Yes I had some kids looking away but but the sloping backgrounds in #1 drives me nuts , But not being a pro, but just a hobbiest I thought I would ask opinions to see if my disappointment was justified .
Thanks for the replies , #1 was done by the hired photographer, I like to shoot action and do not promote myself for team shoots etc....but this is my little guy and although I supported the hired shooter by purchasing the package, I wanted to shoot my own as well (making the second one you see) I assumed the pro would have created something a little better than what I received , I was quite disappointed .Yes I had some kids looking away but but the sloping backgrounds in #1 drives me nuts , But not being a pro, but just a hobbiest I thought I would ask opinions to see if my disappointment was justified .
Thanks for your input
#2 is much better IMO. If I received #1 from a "pro", I would be very disappointed as well. I would talk to the board and voice my opinion that next year they should consider another option.
#2 is much better IMO. If I received #1 from a "pro", I would be very disappointed as well. I would talk to the board and voice my opinion that next year they should consider another option.
worse thing about it , up until this year I was on the Board and in charge of booking the photography who is truly a pro but they elected to go with someone else.
worse thing about it , up until this year I was on the Board and in charge of booking the photography who is truly a pro but they elected to go with someone else.
No.2 is my pick as well.
I would have asked for my money back If a fauxtographer presented me with the first one. It's simply sub standard, end of story. The graphic design doesn't really enhance the presentation of the images either. Pretty much a fail in all aspects to my mind. And the individual shot of the boy looks like the shooter was drunk.
I used to shoot preschools and did the same thing. How many times I got told I was the only shooter that ever got all the kids looking and the repeat business that got me, I couldn't count.
These days thats a simple problem to fix if you prepare for it and take plenty of pics in bursts so at least in one shot you have every kid looking at the camera.
I had the same thing one year with my Kids Baseball team Pics.
I put in a proposal for the work and got knocked back. My son came home after the pics were done and told me the photographer that did the pics was clueless and not to expect much. Months went by and there was no pics so at the last game before Christmas, I took my event trailer to his game, shot the team before they started their warm up and went to the trailer and printed all the kids a package and gave them to the coach to hand out at the end of the game.
Of course the parents were stoked and it still took weeks after the games started again for the hired shooters pics to be delivered. There were no surprises in what we got which wasn't much. Lots of parents from other teams as well as our own were ticked off and wanted their money back.
I didn't even have to approach the club the next year, they emailed me before the season started and organised the Photo day.
I get really ticked off with these people that take work away from real shooters whom would jump at the chance to do the work and would deliver a respectable product when these clowns deliver garbage. The opportunity is lost for a legitimate shooter to earn a buck and someone gets the money when they don't deserve it.
There is good money in T&I, perhaps JMP you should look at doing it yourself next year. If you invested in a couple of flashes you'd be right gear wise and you would recoup the cost several times over. You obviously have the best part of 12 months to read up and practice your setup so by the time things rolled around again you should be able to do something even better.
Even if you did nothing more than what you have shown here, I would accept that of my kids, the Fauxtographers lack of effort I would be pretty pi$$ed off with and they would know about it.
Thanks for the feedback , and no need to be sorry jmphotocraft how does one learn if there is no critique ?
Glort ,funny thing is It has been mentioned to me to start doing it not only for hockey but for Ball as well. Obviously with ball it will not require flash , I think I may try it .anyone point me in the direction to get quality trading cards printed?
Comments
Sherry
+1
And I'll add that the cheese smile and tilted background on the individual in the first one ruins it for me too. Like the second individual much better.
Some people will like the first better because of the fancy artwork though
1. The layout is less cluttered & I don't think the Puck design adds anything to the image tbh?.
2. The team photo is a better crop losing the destracting banners behind & levels applied.
3. The Individual playe's pose is way better with corrected horizons, I would however, flip the image so he is facing into the page?, this would lead the eye back to the centre & group shot below!.
The one thing that does let it down though is not all the players are looking at the camera in 2 but are in #1?
perhaps photoshop the heads from #1 to 2 for the distracted few?
just my 2p's worth!. Kind regards Graham.
C&C most welcome
Nikon D3s,D3, D2hs x2 Nikkor 70-200 2.8, Nikkor 24-70 2.8, Nikkor AF-SII 300 2.8, Nikkor 1.4 & 1.7 converters etc.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bluesmangraham/
Thanks for your input
Comments and constructive criticism always welcome.
www.mikejulianaphotography.com
Facebook
As my kids would say - that's ironic.
Comments and constructive criticism always welcome.
www.mikejulianaphotography.com
Facebook
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I would have asked for my money back If a fauxtographer presented me with the first one. It's simply sub standard, end of story. The graphic design doesn't really enhance the presentation of the images either. Pretty much a fail in all aspects to my mind. And the individual shot of the boy looks like the shooter was drunk.
I used to shoot preschools and did the same thing. How many times I got told I was the only shooter that ever got all the kids looking and the repeat business that got me, I couldn't count.
These days thats a simple problem to fix if you prepare for it and take plenty of pics in bursts so at least in one shot you have every kid looking at the camera.
I had the same thing one year with my Kids Baseball team Pics.
I put in a proposal for the work and got knocked back. My son came home after the pics were done and told me the photographer that did the pics was clueless and not to expect much. Months went by and there was no pics so at the last game before Christmas, I took my event trailer to his game, shot the team before they started their warm up and went to the trailer and printed all the kids a package and gave them to the coach to hand out at the end of the game.
Of course the parents were stoked and it still took weeks after the games started again for the hired shooters pics to be delivered. There were no surprises in what we got which wasn't much. Lots of parents from other teams as well as our own were ticked off and wanted their money back.
I didn't even have to approach the club the next year, they emailed me before the season started and organised the Photo day.
I get really ticked off with these people that take work away from real shooters whom would jump at the chance to do the work and would deliver a respectable product when these clowns deliver garbage. The opportunity is lost for a legitimate shooter to earn a buck and someone gets the money when they don't deserve it.
There is good money in T&I, perhaps JMP you should look at doing it yourself next year. If you invested in a couple of flashes you'd be right gear wise and you would recoup the cost several times over. You obviously have the best part of 12 months to read up and practice your setup so by the time things rolled around again you should be able to do something even better.
Even if you did nothing more than what you have shown here, I would accept that of my kids, the Fauxtographers lack of effort I would be pretty pi$$ed off with and they would know about it.
Glort ,funny thing is It has been mentioned to me to start doing it not only for hockey but for Ball as well. Obviously with ball it will not require flash , I think I may try it .anyone point me in the direction to get quality trading cards printed?