Critique my Photo

shutteractions

Please let me know what you think of this photo.
I just go my Nikon D300 for Christmas :barb and havn't had much time to use it.

www.smugmug.com/gallery/4185895/1/244587867#244587867

johng

The concept of the shot is a good one. But, IMO, faces always look better when you're shooting at their level or slightly below. Almost never down on them. It also has the affect in this photo of your eye being drawn to the helmet of the in-focus player rather than the face. So, next time out, make sure to kneel or sit and get down on their level rather than shooting down on them.

Bill Pruitt

Get low!
I agree with getting lower, but watch out for the sky, it can often get blown out when used as a background.

http://www.billpruittphotography.com/photos/243114122-M.jpg

shutteractions wrote:

Please let me know what you think of this photo.
I just go my Nikon D300 for Christmas and havn't had much time to use it.

www.smugmug.com/gallery/4185895/1/244587867#244587867

shutteractions

johng wrote:

The concept of the shot is a good one. But, IMO, faces always look better when you're shooting at their level or slightly below. Almost never down on them. It also has the affect in this photo of your eye being drawn to the helmet of the in-focus player rather than the face. So, next time out, make sure to kneel or sit and get down on their level rather than shooting down on them.

Thank you so much! I was rushed that day, trying to take shots and run try-outs. I really appreciate your comments. I took a look at your gallery and you have some fantastic shots. I love the gymnastics! I shot for one of my kids teams, boys gymnastics. I'm still figuring out the gym. lighting/no flash thing.
Thank you again!

shutteractions

Bill Pruitt wrote:

I agree with getting lower, but watch out for the sky, it can often get blown out when used as a background.

http://www.billpruittphotography.com/photos/243114122-M.jpg

Thank you for looking and taking the time. I appreciate the comments!!

wmstumme

I also agree with the "lower" comments. Additionally, I like the short DOF, but might suggest you have it a bit more in the center of the photo. What I mean by that is not necessarily centered in the printed shot--but have some faces objects that were closer to the camera (and which are OOF) also in the print. Right now, it just seems a little lopsided to me--the OOF area is all beyond the subject and is too great a percentage of the print. Just not enough balance.

However, this was a nice shot and is really close to being a really great shot.

PS: next time you post, you may want to embed the image right in the post. For whatever reason, having to click on a link to see the image seems to take too much of my energy. I really am getting lazy!

shutteractions

wmstumme wrote:

I also agree with the "lower" comments. Additionally, I like the short DOF, but might suggest you have it a bit more in the center of the photo. What I mean by that is not necessarily centered in the printed shot--but have some faces objects that were closer to the camera (and which are OOF) also in the print. Right now, it just seems a little lopsided to me--the OOF area is all beyond the subject and is too great a percentage of the print. Just not enough balance.

However, this was a nice shot and is really close to being a really great shot.

PS: next time you post, you may want to embed the image right in the post. For whatever reason, having to click on a link to see the image seems to take too much of my energy. I really am getting lazy!

Thank you for your comments, I can see what you are saying regarding the OOF area being out of balance! I will try that next time. Practice, practice.
Thank you for taking the time to look at it and post a suggestion I really appriciate it!!

beetle8

wmstumme wrote:

I also agree with the "lower" comments. Additionally, I like the short DOF, but might suggest you have it a bit more in the center of the photo. What I mean by that is not necessarily centered in the printed shot--but have some faces objects that were closer to the camera (and which are OOF) also in the print. Right now, it just seems a little lopsided to me--the OOF area is all beyond the subject and is too great a percentage of the print. Just not enough balance.

However, this was a nice shot and is really close to being a really great shot.

PS: next time you post, you may want to embed the image right in the post. For whatever reason, having to click on a link to see the image seems to take too much of my energy. I really am getting lazy!

I think that the comp is nice and unique, however the bill of the ball cap in front of the image is the ultimate distraction to an otherwise great shot.
I would like to hear more from you about the d300 I've been hearing mixed revews and been seeing mixed results from the images.