Berkyboy Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Track and Field... working with crap backgrounds | |
cocodrillo
I'm going to have to agree with lionsfan54 to a point,
lionsfan54 wrote:
I see zero problem with the backgrounds in any of these shots. And, if you hadn't said something, I wouldn't have noticed. I would have thought, "looks like a normal, busy track and field background"
If your assignment, or intention, was to just shoot a track and field meet than I think you have some decent photos.
Technically their solid, maybe their a little on the ''track and field'' cliché side, but their still not bad because of ''crap backgrounds."
What you're missing is, and I think what your asking for advice on, can be summed up in the following video about Australian sport photographer Adam Pretty which aired in 2012 during the London Olympics.
Pay attention to his formula for impactful sport photos.
In the video Pretty talks about building the photo in layers starting in reverse of what most photographers think of when taking a picture.
#1 find or identify an interesting background,
#2 shoot in interesting light,
and finally
#3 carefully compose your subject considering #1 and #2 (I'm paraphrasing here but this is Pretty's point).
The video also identifies the use of narrow depth of field and slow shutter speeds that come at the cost of taking a chance, or a risk, of not capturing the ''decisive moment.''
As far as writing off the advantage of f/2.8 telephoto class, shot wide open, I think you're overlooking the impact narrow depth of field can have for washing out ''crap backgrounds'' especially when their used with proper technique and planning.
I hope this helps.
Steve
|