NY Jets @ Seattle Seahawks. (11-11-'12).
/forum/topic/1165462/1

1      
2
       end

xicotencatl
Registered: Sep 26, 2006
Total Posts: 1012
Country: United States

Al;
images #3 & 4, were taken with a Mark III + 70-200 /2.8
The rest were done with a 1Dx + 400 /2.8.

Yes, they were taken from knee level.

Lio.



Marty Bingham
Registered: Feb 05, 2006
Total Posts: 2414
Country: United States

xicotencatl wrote:
I hope my answer doesn't not sound rude or sarcastic,


Actually it does, a little. You asked for comments.


Here are my thoughts.

1. No face/eyes. Bad background. Should be culled.

2. Unless it's a game changer in a big game it really doesn't have much to offer. If it was a game changer chances are forty people have a better shot. I would hit the delete button.

3. Same as #1 with a more acceptable background. Whether it was a TD or not has little bearing on keeping or culling. Still not a keeper.

4. No face. No Ball. No action. You can sometimes get by without one or two of those but not all three.

5. Looks a little under exposed. Distracting background. Needs a little dodging under the helmet. It's a border line stock keeper that needs a some post processing.

6. Decent stock image. You misspelled Sanchez's name. If you were submitting to a photo editor it should have been kicked back to you for correction.

7. Fair. I'd like to see a little more separation between the subject and background.

8. Best shot of the series. #99 and #36 kind of junk it up a little though. If you shot a burst you may have a cleaner shot in the sequence to select for presentation.

Please take these comments a constructive criticism, meant to motivate you to take a closer look at your images and work on issues that may cause you problems in the future.

Thanks,
Marty




xicotencatl
Registered: Sep 26, 2006
Total Posts: 1012
Country: United States

Hi Marty!
Thanks for your comments.

1.- Please forgive my ignorance, I don't know what "culled" means.
2.- I thought it was a good shot, but I understand what you are saying "in this case".
3.- I liked the action, that's all. But yes, I understand your point.
4.- It was one of the first things I learned here (No face, no ball, no action = no good). I posted because I strongly believe it wasn't a TD. (Look at the image I'm going to post).
5.- I'll try to work on my PP.
6.- I'm used to write it like that, just as "López, Pérez, García, Hernández, ....." I worked for this Spanish Newspaper for 6+ years, but I know if it was for an English newspapers/magazine, I'm sure I would've been more careful.
7.- Not sure how can I get "that separation". Shoot before, shoot after, move to a different place?
8.- I do have a better shot, but Mark Sánchez has full control of the ball.

I sent a PM to "clarence3" yesterday and told him/her to not take it the wrong way. I was very specific on my PM, so yes, you are wrong on this one. My problem with me, and it's a big factor for me not post here is that my English is not that good. I told Russ my problem and he's the one who encourages me to post here because he says my work is good, however when it comes to give an answer or explain something. It's right here when I have a problem. And to prove it, I didn't even know what a "jube shot" is! http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1036754

When "Clarence3" said that he/she would like to see "some eyes in my action shots", I was like: "ok, getting the action shot is not easy (at least not for me), getting it in focus and well framed is another factor, and now this person wants to see some eyes? !! I was like WT...... Does he/she want me to ask them to smile for my shot, or what? But no, I wasn't being sarcastic, and like I said: I already apologized via PM.

Thanks a lot Marty for your time, I know I have a lot what to work on still.

Lio.



Scott Sewell
Registered: Dec 08, 2003
Total Posts: 8558
Country: United States

xicotencatl wrote:
I hope my answer doesn't not sound rude or sarcastic,


Marty Bingham wrote:
Actually it does, a little. You asked for comments.


Here are my thoughts.

1. No face/eyes. Bad background. Should be culled.

2. Unless it's a game changer in a big game it really doesn't have much to offer. If it was a game changer chances are forty people have a better shot. I would hit the delete button.

3. Same as #1 with a more acceptable background. Whether it was a TD or not has little bearing on keeping or culling. Still not a keeper.

4. No face. No Ball. No action. You can sometimes get by without one or two of those but not all three.

5. Looks a little under exposed. Distracting background. Needs a little dodging under the helmet. It's a border line stock keeper that needs a some post processing.

6. Decent stock image. You misspelled Sanchez's name. If you were submitting to a photo editor it should have been kicked back to you for correction.

7. Fair. I'd like to see a little more separation between the subject and background.

8. Best shot of the series. #99 and #36 kind of junk it up a little though. If you shot a burst you may have a cleaner shot in the sequence to select for presentation.

Please take these comments a constructive criticism, meant to motivate you to take a closer look at your images and work on issues that may cause you problems in the future.

Thanks,
Marty



I agree with clarence3 and Marty and originally typed a response almost identical to what Marty posted. The action just isn't working for me, for the same reasons Marty mentioned.

The OP has now twice mentioned not getting athletes to pose for these images and, frankly, at this point I'm confused if the OP is being sarcastic or is serious. I know of not a single sports photographer who would offer C&C to another sports photographer and think such a thing, let alone suggest it. We all know we can't control the position of the athletes and whether they're facing us or not. What we CAN control is what we shoot and, more importantly, what we select as our best of the best. Backs, no balls or no faces are rarely considered great sports shots. Sure, there are exceptions and nothing is set in stone. But in the case of the images in this thread, those without faces, balls or with players backs to us just aren't work. Sorry. Not trying to be mean; just offering a perspective that I believe might be important in this thread.

Finally, I would say these images appear to be a bit underexposed. Blow out the white unis if you have to, but it's important to have better exposure on the faces.

Keep shooting and keep posting!



Russ Isabella
Registered: Jan 30, 2005
Total Posts: 9953
Country: United States

Lio,

Thanks for responding to the most recent feedback. Your English is pretty damn good, way better than anything I could offer outside my native language, so I can understand why you hesitate to post, and I can see where problems of translation/understanding might arise, but you sure don't need to apologize for your English. I'm glad to see you posting your work. Your soccer photography is killer, and it's great to see you having the chance to shoot other professional sports. I'm jealous of the NFL opportunity! I like 6 and 8 best.



1      
2
       end