I'd say if he swims "like a man drowning", you've nailed this shot!
Honestly, without any context of what he's doing it does just like the little guy is drowning; there is nothing in the photo that tells us he is swimming.
Shooting tight is one thing, but an image can also be so tight that it looses all sense of context. IMO, that's what has happened here.
Any other shots from this meet you'd care to share?
Scott Sewell wrote:
I'd say if he swims "like a man drowning", you've nailed this shot!
Honestly, without any context of what he's doing it does just like the little guy is drowning; there is nothing in the photo that tells us he is swimming.
Shooting tight is one thing, but an image can also be so tight that it looses all sense of context. IMO, that's what has happened here.
Any other shots from this meet you'd care to share?
How much context do you want? It's a shot of a boy swimming, I explained he was no Mark Spitz. That's the point of the shot
All he meant is that there is nothing to distinguish this picture from a swimmer racing vs some kid messing around in the pool. Was the shot cropped or were you in that tight?
Without context, we can't define this as sport so much as candid. I believe what Scott asks is not unreasonable for a sports corner post.
Also, for photography, the quick tip is this: context = background. It's not an absolute, but details in the background often place the image in context for us.
Another thought: shooting tight is subjective and not always a function of the lens used. I've used fisheye lenses and shot tight despite having a full 180 degree FOV. I've also used a 400 2.8 for a group shot and and that was somewhat loose (since we have to print at 8x10,4x6,5x7, etc).
I hope you don't take Scotts comment the wrong way, nor my own.
DukeK wrote:
All he meant is that there is nothing to distinguish this picture from a swimmer racing vs some kid messing around in the pool. Was the shot cropped or were you in that tight?
That's the full frame, edge to edge. Why is that a problem? I explained it was a shot of my nephew, who is not a great swimmer.
Without context, we can't define this as sport so much as candid. I believe what Scott asks is not unreasonable for a sports corner post.
Also, for photography, the quick tip is this: context = background. It's not an absolute, but details in the background often place the image in context for us.
Another thought: shooting tight is subjective and not always a function of the lens used. I've used fisheye lenses and shot tight despite having a full 180 degree FOV. I've also used a 400 2.8 for a group shot and and that was somewhat loose (since we have to print at 8x10,4x6,5x7, etc).
I hope you don't take Scotts comment the wrong way, nor my own.
Max
...Show more →
I gave the context in the OP. I also know what 'context' means and how lenses work, I'm not so sure how this particular forum works, but I'll try and learn.
And yes shooting tight is subjective, that's why I did it!
FYI, this was not a 'candid', it required two remote flashes and quite a lot of lying down on my belly, but equally it was not the Olympics either
I have to agree with the others here, Liam. It's a neat shot, but not necessarily an action/sports shot. You telling us it is isn't the same as showing us, just as you giving us the context in the OP isn't the same as putting it in the photo.
You have knowledge of the picture that the viewer does not. As such, maybe you're seeing things we're not seeing. We're not seeing them because they aren't there. You told us it was a swim meet, but as already stated by a few others, nothing in the picture tells us this. There is no difference between that image and an image of someone playing in a pool - or worse yet - drowning.
Show his stroke. Show line ropes. Show something that puts us there and keeps us from having to 'ask' what the picture is of.
I agree with the others, what I find more frustrating than the image is how you asked for people to not hold back about their comments but now comment on how you dont agree.
My comments on the photo are:
a. Eye is almost dead center (not for me)
2. Its an up the nose shot (not really doing anything)
c. Really shiney (looks blown out) spot above the eye is distracting/weird to me.
I would have prefered what the posters have suggested, I'd like to see more about this moment you've captured here...
James Broome wrote:
You have knowledge of the picture that the viewer does not. As such, maybe you're seeing things we're not seeing.
Mmm, I think the reverse is true. You guys are looking for things that are not there. They are not there because they are not meant to be.
James Broome wrote:
You told us it was a swim meet
No I didn't. Perhaps that is where the confusion is coming from. I thought swimming was a sport, but as this picture is not from a 'meet' it may not conform to what you guys consider a sport picture. This is a simple shot of boy fighting his way through the water as much as he is swimming through it.
DustinFinn wrote:
I agree with the others, what I find more frustrating than the image is how you asked for people to not hold back about their comments but now comment on how you dont agree.
My comments on the photo are:
a. Eye is almost dead center (not for me)
2. Its an up the nose shot (not really doing anything)
c. Really shiney (looks blown out) spot above the eye is distracting/weird to me.
I would have prefered what the posters have suggested, I'd like to see more about this moment you've captured here...
I have absolutely no problem with any of the comments made thus far. None whatsoever. I'm sorry you're frustrated but there's no law that says I have to agree with any of the comments.
I don't have a problem with the composition though I do agree it's up his nose, if you have a better angle with which to portray this shot I'm all ears
As for the blown highlights, again I like these in this context because along with the high shutter it lends a metallic quality to the water which contrasts with the boy making him appear even more vulnerable in the water.
The shot is an awesome shot very well done, lighting, stopping the action and showing what you intended. I don't feel that any one was trashing your shot but rather trying to provide valid C&C for the sports forum. You did state: "This is my first post in the sports section, I'm normally found posting in the people forum. C&C welcome, no need to hold back."
As mentioned in the previous post if you backed up and got the lane ropes, his stroke or another swimmer in the shot that he was racing against it would give it more of sense that there was some competition or sport going on here.
There are some very good sports shooters here and they do provide very good C & C for sports photography. They may be better at giving you the hard, straight C & C than sugar coating it, then you did say "no need to hold back" too.
Again it's a very cool shot, maybe not so much of a sports shot though as posted.
The shot is an awesome shot very well done, lighting, stopping the action and showing what you intended. I don't feel that any one was trashing your shot but rather trying to provide valid C&C for the sports forum. You did state: "This is my first post in the sports section, I'm normally found posting in the people forum. C&C welcome, no need to hold back."
As mentioned in the previous post if you backed up and got the lane ropes, his stroke or another swimmer in the shot that he was racing against it would give it more of sense that there was some competition or sport going on here.
There are some very good sports shooters here and they do provide very good C & C for sports photography. They may be better at giving you the hard, straight C & C than sugar coating it, then you did say "no need to hold back" too.
Again it's a very cool shot, maybe not so much of a sports shot though as posted.
Just to repeat, I've got no problem with any of the comments and I'd much rather people gave it to me hard and straight (maybe I should rewrite that bit!).
I can see from people's responses that Sports corner is more for organized sports and particularly for touchline shooters. I've got heaps of shots that conform to those guidelines, perhaps tomorrow I'll try again
Hi Liam,
Keep them coming, that is a great shot as is the work you post on the people board.
Not sure it says "swimming" to me, but you've got that from the rest of them at this stage
John
Liam, at first glance it does look like a swim meet shot of a boy swimming the backstroke and usually I will shoot more strait on from the end of the lane and get full face shots as they pull away from me, but in reading your posts, this was not taken at a swim meet so it would not be fair to C&C the pic based on that. That would be the usual on this board. Your pic quality is great along with color against the water. I have seen your postings on the people forum so I know your work is quality. This pic is different even though it may not say swimmer on it. Keep them coming.
i agree with the first postings....for all we know, this was taken in a kiddy pool in the yard with rubber duckies floating around. or some kid just falling / thrown into the pool or whatevet.
liamh, you did become very defensive with your comments.
My problem is not with the composition nor the context. For what it is, it's a portrait showing one of the cool effects water can play. Plus, we have a good facial expression.
I do however, however have a problem with the lighting. It has a real flashed look to it, which doesn't work in this context. I really see evidence of a photo shot several stops under the ambient and letting the flash try to light the scene. It's not working for me here. Were the flashes bounced at all?
"It's not a stroke you'll see in Beijing this summer"
so not backstroke? well what a perplexing shot-it is kinda of harsh on second look. however, parents must be happy with it. no goggles? tough on the eyes.
