In your opinion, what do you think. It's just something that popped into my head when going through my portfolio. What elements are needed for a good sports picture, interpret it how you wish and make it in your own words. If I wanted to get the textbook definition I would google it, and sometimes the best pictures break the textbook's rules.
Now that I've thought a bit more, I should add that I don't think there are really rules to a good picture. Sometimes, you just need to see it to know if it is a great sports photo.
A) You can see the player's eyes
B) You can see the puck, ball, etc.
C) Personally, I prefer to see the competition in some way - to show the obsticle they are trying to overcome
Completely subjective as to what is considered a good photo. From my experience, editor/media types, parents/family, and the athletes themselves all have different criteria. It always amazes me what people think is a good photo.
For me, this is what I try for:
1. faces with some kind of emotion/expression
2. ball, puck, etc
3. some element of action or confrontation
If you search YouTube for this "Scott Kelby's Tips for Shooting Sports - Google+ Photographer's Conference" I found that video to be helpful. Roughly 24,000 views - 300+ 8- about an hour long
To me, a great sports image not only has to have the basics of emotion, action, context, etc., but it has to be composed in a way that it draws you in and keeps you there. In other word, it has to be composed well, like any other piece of art. Sometimes we become so focused on just capturing the peak of action, we forget about how the light is falling on our subject, or the background, or general composition. We have all caught faces, peak of action, etc., but what really separated those shots from great shots.
Its almost a "I cant tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it" kind of thing. Sometimes its about killer clear action with gorgeous light, other times it about pure emotion, other times its about something unusual or even a new look at something ordinary. Often its a combination, if you look at great sports photos they are great as much for what they are not instead of what they are.
Not to be contrary, but the ball, puck, etc. is NOT required for a great sports photo. All it has to do is to involve sports and be a GREAT image. I'm sure you remember pictures of "The Catch" from the 48ers victory over the Cowboys, but how about Eddie Mathews 500th HR on the cover of SI, or others like it? It's a seminal moment captured in time, period. A great face, eyes, expression are always included in these shots, IMHO, because those are the window into the soul of both the competitor and the viewer, which makes the connection.
Shots that I've taken that exhibit this look like this, but then again I'm biased, these are like my children too. There are many more that are better than these few, I'm sure.
I don't think the ball, puck, etc is required for a great photo it's just something that I try for in action photos. Obviously, it depends on the composition. Who cares about the ball or puck in a celebration shot.
ggreene wrote:
Completely subjective as to what is considered a good photo. From my experience, editor/media types, parents/family, and the athletes themselves all have different criteria. It always amazes me what people think is a good photo.
For me, this is what I try for:
1. faces with some kind of emotion/expression
2. ball, puck, etc
3. some element of action or confrontation
I think it depends on both the sport and level of competition that being shot.
A great sport shot of a 5-year old girl running along a soccer ball that comes to her knees in grass above her ankles is the greatest sport's shot in the world to a parent.
Bobby Hull slumped over in fatigue with his dental plate out and every year of his age showing is a great sport shot.
Mean-Joe Green handing his shirt to a kid who gave him a dring - was a great sport's shot.
Almost any photo taken at the Kentucky Derby "could" be a great sport's shot - even if doesn't show a horse or a jockey.
