Cheerleading
Smugis Maximus Mugis
Registered Users Posts: 3 Beginner grinner
I specialize in Cheer, Portraits, and Parties.
For me, Cheerleading has been the hardest, usually bad lighting, high speeds in all directions, bright colors. And when the girls fly, closer to the lights, everything changes, so you try and find the happy medium.http://www.yourmomentsforever.com/
For me, Cheerleading has been the hardest, usually bad lighting, high speeds in all directions, bright colors. And when the girls fly, closer to the lights, everything changes, so you try and find the happy medium.http://www.yourmomentsforever.com/
0
Comments
There are some people who will not click on a weblink - especially from someone with just 1 post (spammers etc).
Are you looking for feedback on specific photos, or your website or just introducing yourself.
Not sure about other non-American countries, but cheer leading is almost a non-event in Australia.
www.acecootephotography.com
I looked at some of your galleries and they seem a bit flat and underlit although the stage dosen't look like the lighting is bad at all. How do you shoot? We do a lighting test before the start of the event and decide on an exposure which everyone shooting it uses in manual mode and thats it. First shot is the same as the last and we check as we go to make sure nothing has been accidentally bumped or changed. Often we'll be at 3200 ISO but it's no big deal the pics are crisp and bright and that's what the parent and competitors want and it's not like they are being provided in poster size.
Hello, I as well set up for auto ISO limits at 3200, the limit for a 5d. I use a Sekonic when I get the chance for light reading, but many times the lights are never brought to the same level, and then, only for the best teams is it turned up enough, But, we cope.
I recently have been liking Cheer Portraits, unless I am shooting at Worlds or Nationals. And now the Summit.
My favorite is contract shooting, for the entire routine, I literally focus on one athlete.
Everything I have has been processed with Digital Photo Pro.
>> Everything I have has been processed with Digital Photo Pro.
What does that mean? When I did a search, it looks like a magazine type site? I ask, because my first reaction was "these look like they came straight out of the camera, you can get a lot more pop with a bit of post processing".
Here's an example: http://www.yourmomentsforever.com/Cheer/Contract-Photos/i-mFJQvM9/X3
That shot is nicely framed and pretty girls, obvious cheering; but the colors are just washed out and low contrast. Take the raw, do a bit of post processing, push in some shadows, lower the black point afterwards, add a bit of saturation and sharpening and I think you'd find it a whole lot more interesting.
cheerleaders...cheering.
Turns out it's a thread about photographing cheerleading competitions, which is
an altogether different type of photography. Isn't that stage stuff where the
photographers are able to position themselves for the shot?
Where are the shots of the cheerleaders at a football game? In the snow,
the rain, the sleet, and the hail?
Most of the OP's shots on her linked page are Portraits, more like trading cards
or Facebook pix.
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/
The problem I believe with the images is they are just straight out under exposed. Don't have or have used a 5D so not sure what their peculiarities are. We set the exposure to what we need manually and that's it. IF the OP is saying they vary the lighting for different teams, my suggestion of talking tot he lighting guy is even more relevant. If he's shooting at worlds, he's shooting with Hammy so he could have a chat to him about what he talks to the lighting guys about. Never known the lighting to vary in my experience but who knows what Ideas some of these associations have?
As for processing images, Who the hell has time for that with cheer? You shoot reduced size Jpgs and that's it. If the exposure is right and the lighting is remotely decent, The pics will have plenty of pop to them.
I look at it this way, I shoot with the guy who does the biggest Cheer events in the world.
If it's good enough for him and associations are flying him around the world for what he does, So are Jpgs straight from the camera IF they are done right to start with because thats what they get from him.
From my experience, the 70 to 200 2.8 appears to be the best lens to use for most cheerleading.
1/640 shutter minimum, 1/1000 max, always at 2.8, ISO set to max out at 3200 auto, raw only, burst mode, tracking sensitivity based on single contract photos, team photos, or specialty photos (example) complete tumbling pass.
If my subject is in the rear of the mat for most of the performance, I set the lens focus for 6.5m. And I always dial in the right color temp, or use an Expo disc.
If the lighting is really poor, and I must go to 1/500 or less, I will try to concentrate on the still, or posed shots instead.
For me, going higher than 3200 ISO is not worth the noise, and the effort it takes to get rid of it. I will catch the girls at a clap of the hands, or pyramid frozen at the top type moment instead.
http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-pKdT7/i-qmTP4c3
http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-pKdT7/i-5WwkSxJ/A
http://www.yourmomentsforever.com/Cheer/All-Star-Challenge-41214-/i-gfdLBZn/A
Cheerleading for the sake of cheerleading is a relatively new sport that I think would be better named "Group Gymnastics". It is awkwardly orphaned from its roots in actual cheering for other sports. When one spectates a cheerleading competition, one has to imagine another sport going on somewhere behind the stage, for which the contestants are cheering. They should simply sever the last tie it had to other sports and call it something other than cheerleading.
I think the OP needs to work more on timing, composition, and focus.
Her bra is showing, and the light is flat.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.