Klamath Crusaders Football

Digital Illusions

I was recently contracted by a local weekly newspaper called the Pioneer Press. They asked me to go and shoot at a Semi-Pro football game between the Klamath Crusaders and the South Coast Storm. Below are the images that were published in the latest paper. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
What do you think? I am looking for some constructive criticism for future reference. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>

1



2


3



4

5

donek

I probably wouldn't have submitted number 1. Faces are the most important thing and there really aren't any clear ones in that shot. The perspective in 1 and 2 are from too high an angle. Shots from a lower vantage point always look better and help to get a view under the helmet. 2 is off to me; horizontal, cropped at the knees and not straight. Look at the edge of the building, it should be verticle but it's at about a 5 degree angle. Given the newsprint you could have easily cropped this verticle and no one would have known. 3, 4, and 5 are all sportraits which would probably sell well to a parent or player, but in my opinion, fall short for newspaper. In 5 the focus appears to be on #60 rather than #65.

I think shooting for news is quite different from shooting for parents/athletes. A newspaper shot should tell a story. It should bring the reader to the game by illustrating emotion, interaction between teams/players and show action.

Understanding the media you're images are being printed on is very helpful as well. Newsprint is very low resolution compared to what's printed in a lab. As I said you could easily have cropped 2 verticle without anybody noticing. The focus issue in 5 probably went unnoticed on newsprint as well. This doesn't give you justification for being sloppy, but by viewing the printed results, you'll get a feeling for what you can or can't get away with.

Digital Illusions

donek wrote:

I probably wouldn't have submitted number 1. Faces are the most important thing and there really aren't any clear ones in that shot. The perspective in 1 and 2 are from too high an angle. Shots from a lower vantage point always look better and help to get a view under the helmet. 2 is off to me; horizontal, cropped at the knees and not straight. Look at the edge of the building, it should be verticle but it's at about a 5 degree angle. Given the newsprint you could have easily cropped this verticle and no one would have known. 3, 4, and 5 are all sportraits which would probably sell well to a parent or player, but in my opinion, fall short for newspaper. In 5 the focus appears to be on #60 rather than #65.

I think shooting for news is quite different from shooting for parents/athletes. A newspaper shot should tell a story. It should bring the reader to the game by illustrating emotion, interaction between teams/players and show action.

Understanding the media you're images are being printed on is very helpful as well. Newsprint is very low resolution compared to what's printed in a lab. As I said you could easily have cropped 2 verticle without anybody noticing. The focus issue in 5 probably went unnoticed on newsprint as well. This doesn't give you justification for being sloppy, but by viewing the printed results, you'll get a feeling for what you can or can't get away with.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p>Thanks for your comments, I do appreciate them. I do believe that you are right about number 1. However I do not have an IS lens and most of the shots I took at 300mm were rather blurry, this was really the only on the field team shot that turned out. It also happened to be one of the shots the paper wanted. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Number 2 was actually taken just seconds after number 1, they were the same play. It was taken at 70mm with the player running directly toward me. So I had little time to adjust to the unexpected opportunity. I will try cropping and straightening that shot to see what it looks like. As for the knees that’s a rookie mistake on the fast adjustment.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I also agree with your comments on 3, 4, and 5 but again that’s what the paper wanted. As for the focus on 5, that’s another rookie mistake, however it was the only photo that I captured on the sideline, in the daylight, that had a player looking at me with their Helmet off. Number 4 has to be my personal favorite from the game.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I submitted 12 images to them and they printed these 5 in a two-page double-truck spread. I also had another 5 shots from a Cinco de Mayo parade printed on a third page in the same issue. So the editor/publisher must have liked what he saw. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
You can see all the other images I kept from the game at the gallery below.<o:p></o:p>
http://www.digitalillusions.us/gallery/4859271_sLGti#289442488_SjYbk <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Are there any other suggestions out there?<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p></o:p>

Digital Illusions

Digital Illusions wrote:

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p>Number 2 was actually taken just seconds after number 1, they were the same play. It was taken at 70mm with the player running directly toward me. So I had little time to adjust to the unexpected opportunity. I will try cropping and straightening that shot to see what it looks like. As for the knees that’s a rookie mistake on the fast adjustment.

You can see all the other images I kept from the game at the gallery below.<o:p></o:p>
http://www.digitalillusions.us/gallery/4859271_sLGti#289442488_SjYbk <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Are there any other suggestions out there?<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p></o:p>

here is the #2 photo after rotating it 3*. I have to agree the photo looks much better. Thanks for the suggestion.


I have also added scans of the pages from the newspaper to the gallery posted above. I appologize for the scans poor quality. They come from a cheap scanner.