Reposting softball pitcher

dbaker1221

Overall I think the pics were fair, but I love this photo of hte East Troy pitcher.

dbaker1221

dbaker1221 wrote:

Overall I think the pics were fair, but I love this photo of hte East Troy pitcher.

Ah...there it is!

Frog Lady

nice capture dbaker - but if you crop it down in a portrait orientation, you would lose a lot of the distracting bkgd and it would be a much stronger picture, IMO.

C.

dbaker1221

Frog Lady wrote:

nice capture dbaker - but if you crop it down in a portrait orientation, you would lose a lot of the distracting bkgd and it would be a much stronger picture, IMO.

C.

Thanks ..I didn't crop it much in case the parents wanted different sizes than the 4x6 that I usually crop to. Some times that bugs me cause if I crop it tight you can't get other sizes out of it very well....unless I'm missing something.?

johng

Frog Lady wrote:

nice capture dbaker - but if you crop it down in a portrait orientation, you would lose a lot of the distracting bkgd and it would be a much stronger picture, IMO.

C.

I definitely agree. If you don't have a lens capable of a wider aperture to better blur the background you need to frame differently. A portrait orientation would have given latitude for 8x10 crop and eliminated a lot of the distracting background.

In the long run, you need a wider aperture but that costs $$$$ so in the mean time you must be more careful with framing.

dbaker1221

johng wrote:

I definitely agree. If you don't have a lens capable of a wider aperture to better blur the background you need to frame differently. A portrait orientation would have given latitude for 8x10 crop and eliminated a lot of the distracting background.

In the long run, you need a wider aperture but that costs $$$$ so in the mean time you must be more careful with framing.

Recrop

johng

dbaker1221 wrote:

Recrop

The portrait definitely looks better but because the original was in landscape, the re-orientation via crop doesn't leave enough room for an 8x10 print which puts you in a bit of a bind given your customers want the 8x10 option. It's just something you have to be thinking about when you are actually shooting. It's a pain in the butt sometimes and I'll be the first to admit I end up with some crops that won't work in 8x10. But, in those cases I'll typically do what you just did - given that the vast majority of my sales are 5x7 and 4x6. So, If I have to choose between a finished product that doesn't work for 8x10 or a product with a too-cluttered background I'll choose the neater background. But I make a concerted effort to shoot wide enough to allow for an 8x10 crop. The challenge is knowing what type of a shot you want so you have the camera in the correct orientation when the shot occurs. Just something to think about for the next time you're out shooting.

gouldphoto

dbaker1221 wrote:

Recrop

The cropped image as a portrait is much better, even though the print size options become limited.

Nice shot

Steve Gould
http://www.gouldphoto.com

DJ-S1

Ordinarily I'd agree re: portrait vs. landscape but in this case I don't think so. With a very busy background the extra room of the landscape actually helps IMO. To me the portrait version doesn't have enough context, and that silly jungle gym in the background is now WAY too prominent and impossible to ignore.

I like the first version even with the background. That's what kids ball is all about.

System

I agree .you really needed to change your vantaige point . to loose the jungle gym.. i more idea is to get on a step ladder on shoot down to alter the background.. i 6' ladder does wonders sometimes...

Jeffro

Backgrounds.....well first thing you should have done was called in a local contractor to demolish the park in the background...making your shot nice and clean. JK folks.

I agree it is important to get nice clean backgrounds, or use a wide aperature to blow out the bad stuff, but sometimes it's just not possible to that, especially at local fields. These fields are usually bunched together, and have lots of "stuff" going on.

With that said, I like the original shot better, than the crop, because like DJ-S1 said, the playground equipment seems to be taking over. It probably would have been better to do a "portrait" shot at the time, and zoom in...if possible.

cha-ching! (my 2-cents)

dbaker1221

Jeffro wrote:

Backgrounds.....well first thing you should have done was called in a local contractor to demolish the park in the background...making your shot nice and clean. JK folks.

I agree it is important to get nice clean backgrounds, or use a wide aperature to blow out the bad stuff, but sometimes it's just not possible to that, especially at local fields. These fields are usually bunched together, and have lots of "stuff" going on.

With that said, I like the original shot better, than the crop, because like DJ-S1 said, the playground equipment seems to be taking over. It probably would have been better to do a "portrait" shot at the time, and zoom in...if possible.

cha-ching! (my 2-cents)[/quote



Thanks everyone..... I have to admit that I tend to only look at what I'm shooting ( being fairly new at it) I will have to keep telling myself to look behind.

dbaker1221

Reposting softball pitcher
All right. Here is my post photo answer to you guys on the background.

I ps'ed it a bit. I didn't spend alot of time doing it , I just wanted to see how it would work out. I blurred it some ....I know it's still there but does that help???

Jeffro

dbaker1221 wrote:

All right. Here is my post photo answer to you guys on the background.

I ps'ed it a bit. I didn't spend alot of time doing it , I just wanted to see how it would work out. I blurred it some ....I know it's still there but does that help???

works for me. .......but then again, who am I?

Poseidon

Having not seen your first picture, I say the background is still very distracting. I don't think that the background is a "deal breaker" because surely her parents would still purchase that image. I would take my lesson learned and next time make it a point to:

1) Check backgrounds BEFORE shooting
2) Use a larger aperture to help seperate the subject
3) Move closer to home plate so that the pitcher appears to be looking into the camera, maybe?

pat.kane

and
4) level the horizon

ian408

Merged these two threads to make one consistent post.

By blurring the background, you have added to the interest of the
photo. Obviously, backgrounds should always be considered but most
are not given the option of choosing a great background You've
chosen a good way to de-emphasize it.

Ian

Frog Lady

another trick... one of the things I do on occassion if I have something brightly colored in the bkgd is to slightly desaturate the object. This reduces the intensity of the colors and makes it a bit less obvious.

cheers,

C.

winger

dbaker1221 wrote:

All right. Here is my post photo answer to you guys on the background.

I ps'ed it a bit. I didn't spend alot of time doing it , I just wanted to see how it would work out. I blurred it some ....I know it's still there but does that help???

Its a great capture in terms of action.
But yeah the background is killing me.

For sports some of the easiest ways to fix your backgrounds....take a knee or find some way to get higher.
even if its just standing on a milk crate or something....it really can make a difference in the photos because you wont have distracting backgrounds taking away from the great action.

johng

Some good ideas for what to do to fix up photos here. The real question though is: are you giving the photos to parents or are you charging for them? If you're charging for them, you need a lens with a wider aperture (or if you have such a lens you need to use the wider apertures. That background is a good distance away - a 300mm 4.0 lens would diminish it to nothing. It's different when shooting a batter or someone running down the line and you have a fence 10 feet away from them - then even the best lenses have issues. So, if you're going to charge for photos you should be willing to invest $1000 to get something like a Sigma 100-300 f4 or better yet the Sigma 120-300 2.8. If you're shooting for the pure enjoyment and simply sharing photos with friends then you may not be able to justify the added expense. In that event I agree - use different shooting angles to minimize backgrounds. I prefer shooting up to shooting down though - simply because you can see faces better - especially if they're wearing caps.

Jeffro

Since you are selling your photos, I have some tips for you....which I have given so many times now .

1) use the watermark.
2) turn off external links.

why you ask....well here....

Attachment not found.

The kids, and parents alike, are more than likely stealing all the shots they want. It's a simple click of the link,blogs,forums link and I have your shot. Even if those are turned off, I can do a screen shot, save it, crop out the shot, and save it. I've seen it done way too many times. Kids will take the shot with the "proof" on, print it out, and hang it in their lockers, so there is no ultimate safeguard.

I also noticed that you shoot in shutter priority and are choosing f8 at times that f4 would be better...or f4.5 if that's the best you can do. Use the f-stop to help get rid of that back ground, unless you want it.

dbaker1221

Jeffro wrote:

Since you are selling your photos, I have some tips for you....which I have given so many times now .

1) use the watermark.
2) turn off external links.

why you ask....well here....

Attachment not found.

The kids, and parents alike, are more than likely stealing all the shots they want. It's a simple click of the link,blogs,forums link and I have your shot. Even if those are turned off, I can do a screen shot, save it, crop out the shot, and save it. I've seen it done way too many times. Kids will take the shot with the "proof" on, print it out, and hang it in their lockers, so there is no ultimate safeguard.

I also noticed that you shoot in shutter priority and are choosing f8 at times that f4 would be better...or f4.5 if that's the best you can do. Use the f-stop to help get rid of that back ground, unless you want it.

Wow.... thanks

Jeffro

dbaker1221 wrote:

Wow.... thanks

You're welcome:D