Customer's favorites vs photographer's
jmphotocraft
Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
Here is a series of action shots of a particular player. See if you can guess which 1 photo the customer ordered:
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Which 1 photo did the customer order? 16 votes
1
31%
5 votes
2
43%
7 votes
3
6%
1 vote
4
18%
3 votes
0
Comments
4 would be my 2nd choice because it's the least flattering and astheticaly pleasing and balanced but they often see things in pics we don't. Maybe it's the kids look which the parent well knows or they see something else in it.
One thing is for sure, they seldom pick the best shot from a photographic standpoint.
least?
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
of all the players on the team and post them to a Snapfish site the
team put up.
I would put up #2 for this player on the basis that it's the one the
parents would like to see on the site. My own preference is #3
because there's more intensity there.
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/
Same here.
http://www.knippixels.com
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
By the way I had this problem way back when I was shooting motocross. I got feedback that my shots were too "artistic".
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Personally I like 1 the least, and I think I like 4 the best followed closely by 3. I think 4 is a slightly better baseball pitcher pose than 3, and since I know this kid I think 3 betrays the fact that he hunches his shoulders in the first part of his delivery. I do like the grip on the ball in 3.
Anyway, I'm just dumbfounded. I don't know why anyone would buy 1 if they were only going to buy one print. I could see buying 1 with one other, or all four, but just 1? Really? :snore
Clearly I have no idea what I'm doing.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I just finished doing cards for a team. I shot about 7 games of action shots, sorted them all by player pulling only the shots with the player isolated. I set them up in a gallery so they could choose, but I pulled my choices out first and proposed them.
I didn't keep careful count but I'd bet not only did I pick the right one less than half the time, some of the shots they picked were really surprising. One in particular I had 24 action shots, probably at least a dozen of which were decent. Fielding, throwing, several base running, one iconic batting shot in the follow through (two ball on bat ones but inadequate face showing).
They picked one with him stepping into the place at the plate and bat held loosely where his helmet hides his eyes completely. It's a clear shot of the body, and it was a day the stadium was full (they like full backgrounds if the stands show), but... no eyes? Go figure.
My theory is that as photographers we have these innate rules we've learned, and judge shots by them, whether we know we are or not. Others just look at them and react, they aren't judging them by any rules other than their immediate reaction. The result is we see them very differently.
As a simple example I try to discard any shot not sharp and focused. Period. Doesn't matter if it's a great action shot.
When I process my wife's photos (she's not into computers), she insists on keeping absolutely awful shots - focus, exposure, blur everything bad -- because it's a shot of an interesting subject. Since I don't like sleeping alone I edit her way then, but it's painful and boggles my mind.
But she just plain doesn't see those things the same way, especially if her attention is not called to it, but to some extent even if it is.
Perception is always contextual, we judge based on what we are looking for in a shot, and different people look for different things. Here you are asking a bunch of photographers -- don't be surprised if they all agree with you, mostly.
And yeah, I have no understanding for keeping poor photos just based on sheer content. Sure, if that's the ONLY record you have of a special memory, keep it. Otherwise, wtf? I also don't get when people on fb fawn all over crappy photos and selfies. OOF, underexposed, overexposed, backlit, terrible comp, finger over the lens, it does not seem to matter to many people.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
Why??
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
My kid's a pitcher. If I'm buying, it's #4, no doubt at all. But I also like #2.
I'd show the kid #3 because it shows flaws in his mechanics. But, for the same reason, I would not buy it.
Heh. I call that "S.I. Shots" vs. "Dad Shots." A pro friend of mine produced the most stunning baseball photos imaginable; his worst put my best to shame. But he was driving the parents crazy specifically because he was being too selective. They seemed to expect a certain quantity and some variety, not just quality. For me as a team photographer, it just seemed like I had happier parents if I kept in some of the shots that were photographically lousy but an interesting or unique subject.
In my (limited) experience it also makes a huge difference how knowledgable the parents are about the sport: indeed, I think it matters more than knowledge of photography. You'd be surprised how many sports dads don't know squat about the game. (Of course, they like to tell you how to coach the team anyway.)
Agreed. I have had experienced sports parents pick shots entirely because of the grip on the ball (and told me so). I still wouldn't purchase it, though, because my kid would look at it 10 years later and demand to know why I kept a picture with him hunching his shoulders like that!
Here's my exhibit A. The parents loved this shot; so did the kid. (Right after this he smashes into that fence, ball in glove.) You don't have to tell me how photographically dubious it is; I know; that's my point.
Yes, I can see why they'd like it ... it's a reminder of a significant event (collision) that they can reminisce over - rather than yet another random catch / throw / pitch etc shot of their offspring that could've been taken at more or less any time / place / event.
pp
Flickr
And the parents probably like 1 because they can see the concentration in their sons face.
When I take photos of kids at church events, I select the ones I like best and process them. Then I go back and add more because it is hard to know what others may like unfortunately.
Thanks for posting this.
"You don't take a photograph, you make it." ~Ansel Adams
Phil
In general I agree but I would have thought in this case that sports knowledge would be the equalizer.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
She brought up an interesting point.
What were the husbands choices?
I would guess they would be action shots because guys are more interested in sports....
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Because 1 has that moment of implied action. You are looking at it from a sports photographers perspective of catching action which many/most people don't appreciate.
I'm looking at 1 as a portrait, not a sports picture and this is what the parents see. It would even be stronger with a tighter crop from the waste up. Also his face is in total shadow which again is more pleasing subconsciously than a face in and out of shadow.
AMEN!
I picked no.1 as what the customer bought, gave my reasons and am not the slightest bit surprised. I have done enough events long enough to see that coming. So many times have I shot what I thought were prize winner shots only to have the client get excited about some meat and potatoes shot that anyone could have got.... and what they probably did.
They don't look at all the crap shooters drivel on with about wether this lens is sharper than that or nit pick shadow detail and minute blow highlights or have long boring RAW/ jpeg debates and all the other things photographers THINK is important.
Now no doubt I have to state the bleeding obvious before someone with no other worthwhile input says I don't care about quality. I do but my standards well surpass the clients even if I'm not chasing perfection.
Instead of worrying about photographic perfection, I spend a load of time talking to my clients and finding out what they want. Why put effort into something that will gain me no extra appreciation or client sales?
One thing I did well with when I did equine work was when the kids fell off. Everyone seemed to love the wide eyed expressions and open mouths and would come to me to see if I caught the action. Often these were technically crap shots.... bad angles, focus may not be great, camera movement blur... You name it. NEVER did that stop me selling not only one pic but generally a whole series.
Don't know how many pics have sold of kids sitting on a horse in the marshaling yard before their ride in the arena, kids sitting on benches for baseball, soccer and football games, even adult Drag racers in the pits when I did Drag and circuit racing pics.
Clients don't give a Damn about what lens you used, what camera, raw/ jpeg/ ISO, they aren't photographers and the content is what they worry about not the quality.