Sorry, but I'm going to have to go with James on this one. The background is too much. Maybe if you had underexposed it by another 2/3 or full stop to emphasis the cloud and get more separation. (yes, the catcher would be failrly dark, but he's not the subject anyway)
Gotta have the eyes open. It's not a bad smoke ball, but gotta have the eyes open. It can work with no ump. It's sort of a staged shot to begin with. I like to shoot it later in the evening under a precise backlight. If you have decent light falloff, you can slightly over expose the subject and smoke, drop the curves and get a studio effect. I have shot a few but have only one handy at the moment. The smoke got a little uruly...
As to the eyes being shut, I find it hard to believe too many kids can be on the recieving end of a 90mph fastball "pop" that's an arm length away from their face and not flinch. Even in Paul's staged shot the kid is squinching his eyes. Paul, what did you use, talc?
P Alesse wrote:
Gotta have the eyes open.
So if the eyes aren't open, dump the shot? hmmmm
As to the background, it's a ball field that was build in 1929 and while it does have a lot of character and beauty it's not well kept.
Paul, this shot wasn't "staged", as a matter of fact I was just getting a shot of the catcher in action and didn't even take notice of the dust cloud until I was in post. Which also speaks to the background. I don't think the opposing batter on deck would have taken it to well if I'd asked him to scooch over a bit and take the chairs with him.
Mickey - your last response reads a bit defensive to me. Keep in mind, the suggestions myself and others have made about your image were made to help improve things if you find yourself in a similar situation in the future. We're not saying you should have asked the on deck batter to 'schooch over a bit' or to pick up the chairs. We're saying the image itself is merely 'OK' because of the background. Could you have done something about it? maybe not in this case. But does your inability to control your background give you a "get out of jail free card" when it comes to the quality of the image?
If you have that much trouble accepting constructive criticism, I'm afraid you'll have even more trouble improving your work. We all learn from doing, listening, then redoing.
You took my comments all wrong. What I was trying to say is that it's pretty common for smoke or dirt to fly off a catcher's glove. It happens all the time. What I was trying to point out is that if you want the image to standout as an image that emphasizes the smoke, then there are ideal conditions that make it more conducive to feature the "smoke ball". When you have a late sun that's backlighting the batter and a neutral background with a catcher that has a dirty glove, hopefully you could remember this shot posted here and build on it. I'm not saying that you should rearrange the scene. I'm saying to be conscious of the scene you need to have to augment a shot, always keep it in the back of your mind and when the scene comes into play in realtime... be ready to shoot it.
Same advice holds true with the Detrick Shots everyone is trying as of late. You wouldn't ask a pitcher for a high leg kick just so you could get your shot. But, if you see a pitcher with a high leg kick follow through, you then can look at the other variables. Is the sun skimming the baseball? How is the background? Can I shoot through the fence? If yes to all... then you have the makings of a Detrick shot.
Part of being a professional photographer is being observant of all environmental variables and knowing which shots will fit those variables. I forgot what game it was and I forgot who the photographer was, but a few years ago, there was a monumental game for Roger Clemens. The photographer knew that the first pitch of that game would be epic. So, what did he do? Set his camera on a tripod from the first base photo well. And set it for a 1-2 second exposure. Why? Because he knew that there would probably be 50 thousand flashes going off in the stands with that first pitch. I think he caught everyone of them. It was a brilliant shot. Did he ask 50,000 fans to snap their cameras all at the same time? No. He just knew it was coming, had a scene in his head, and created it. Photographers don't take photos... they make photos.
It's a nice shot Mickey .... but you have to also understand .... Paul's advice will only make you better, not intended to tear you down ... but build you up. What he offered was a solid perspective on how to take the experience of a good image and apply that experience when you want to capture your next great image. Much of what we do isn't just reaction to a situation, but evaluating all the factors involved and preparing for the next opportunity that presents itself.
For those also not necessarily reading between the lines, I also believe that Paul's use of the "staged" comment was that baseball has PLENTY of shot opportunities that are, essentially "staged". A pitcher will look in, wind up, and deliver at the beginning of every play. A catcher will signal, crouch, and catch most pitches. Batters...yadda, yadda, yadda, and so on.
It's a sport where you KNOW where some 'action' is going to occur - heck, even a double play can often be anticipated and pre-focused. This is evident on the message board with multiple postings of players doing all of these things...they happen in every game, at every level, every day across the country. What can be done, therefore, to make an image stand out? Your 'smokeball' is an interesting capture that, I'm sure with more practice, anticipation, lighting consideration, etc can get even better. If you like the concept, go with it - you mentioned being pleasantly surprised by it as it wasn't even planned...how much better can it be done next time with you concentrating on a clean background? And yes...if you do pre-plan it can be considered "staged"...or it can be considered an accomplishment by a proactive, knowledgeable photographer.
Man, it's threads like this one that once again drive home to me that the FM Sports Corner is the best place on the Web for constructive and useful critique of sports images - bar none.
The advice given here (especially by Paul, James and Mike) is not only spot on, but it's specific and not at all derogatory.
Sorry to all that mistook my response as "defensive". I should have started the original post with "look what I found in pp". As I said, I didn't know the dust was there until I was processing. I have captured several catcher shots with dust around the mitt.
I just thought it was nice how the dust looked so "soft". More like smoke than any other dust shot I had seen before.
Please understand that I have a great deal of respect for all the folks that take the time to respond. I have probably learned more here with regards to nuts and bolts digital techniques in the last four years than I have in the previous forty with film. Paul, Dennis, James, et al. Your photography inspires.
I guess I was surprised at some of the comments that seemed more appropriate to studio photography where you can look back at your work and tweak your images with do-overs. But in retrospect I guess you all were right in one respect or another.
Anyway, I didn't mean to be ungreatful for your collective help and support.
dmwierz wrote:
Man, it's threads like this one that once again drive home to me that the FM Sports Corner is the best place on the Web for constructive and useful critique of sports images - bar none.
The advice given here (especially by Paul, James and Mike) is not only spot on, but it's specific and not at all derogatory.
Dennis, you are "spot on".
Thanks to all who took the time to look and comment.
