Lacrosse, Feet or no feet?

ASkipASkip Registered Users Posts: 224 Major grins
edited March 6, 2008 in Sports
Hi,
I was wondering what you all think, how important is it to keep the whole guy in the picture for lacrosse? I'm thinking the feet can go most of the time, but then every once in a while I wonder whether the guys want to see their legs running.
so like here, feet look good since they're in the air. (and hey look the closest thing to a sundress is in the background in this March 1 photo).
261736838_YkxHg-S.jpg
but here I kind of feel bad about missing his foot:
261734401_s5Huz-S.jpg
a lot of the time, feet aren't necessary at all...
261820153_bQSAB-S.jpg

So if I cut off part of a foot, should I just remove everything from the knee down? I'm just never really sure.
(I think the sky was actually blue this day but it was so bright looking into the sun that it totally blew out).
Thanks.

Comments

  • johngjohng Registered Users Posts: 1,658 Major grins
    edited March 6, 2008
    Cutting body parts off at the joints always looks akward. That really goes for all sports. My personal preference is if the feet are gone, you want the crop up as high as possible - preferably just above the knees. But the rest of the image would dictate whether that were possible.

    What camera are you using? This is one of the reasons I love shooting with a Canon mkIII because I no longer have to choose the center point to get high precision. I believe the Nikon d300 and d3 are the same way. This way you can select a higher focus point and you lose less feet.
  • ASkipASkip Registered Users Posts: 224 Major grins
    edited March 6, 2008
    johng wrote:
    Cutting body parts off at the joints always looks akward. That really goes for all sports. My personal preference is if the feet are gone, you want the crop up as high as possible - preferably just above the knees. But the rest of the image would dictate whether that were possible.

    What camera are you using? This is one of the reasons I love shooting with a Canon mkIII because I no longer have to choose the center point to get high precision. I believe the Nikon d300 and d3 are the same way. This way you can select a higher focus point and you lose less feet.

    Ah, that seems reasonable, to choose a naturally bendy part to cut off.
    So wait, the non center focus is not as precise on the D200? I had no idea. My D300 arrived this week so I guess I got it just in time!
    thanks.
Sign In or Register to comment.