Actually the moment I hit send I recall someone told me she isn't playing Miami this year (injury). So I guess she won't be heating up anything.

Michael - I hear what you're saying and appreciate your detailed critique. It's helpful to get critical input from other photographers, and that's exactly what I was looking for.

To me, this is really like 1/2 a frame. Tehre is nothing to the lower left that is visually interesting or appealing. The mind instantly ignores that...which in some cases certainly might be good...but here it's just lacking.

I agree. As I said up-thread, "I would have preferred to have the batter's entire body, but all I had with me was my 400."

If I were at the game specifically to obtain an image like this, I would have come better prepared with a wider lens. However, it was just a spur of the moment capture, taken after I'd gotten most of the other more standard shots.

My mind works in pretty linear ways - as I tell people, I'm a "recovering Engineer" and my creative forays aren't always successful. When I do step out on a limb, even a little one, it helps to hear what other people think.

This particular shot was one of more than a hundred images I took at the game, and 1 of 76 submitted. You've provided me with a valuable data point, as did Hammy and many others - thanks to everyone for their thoughts.

And, I have asked the client why the image was culled and haven't heard back from them. They probably figured I had gotten other, less distracting shots, of the pitcher like these:

hey you get my email. the ground is frozen ... they cancelled

dmwierz wrote:
I was shooting a HS baseball game the other day, and had gotten all the standard batter, pitcher and infielder shots, so I went behind the backstop and set up the shot below. After submitting my images to my client, I noticed this was one of 4 out of 76 submitted shots that was culled.

I kinda liked the shot. Am I seeing something worth saving that's not there? The team I was shooting is the pitcher's club. I would have preferred to have the batter's entire body, but all I had with me was my 400.

Dennis

Forgive me Dennis but, I do not like the shot for a few reasons.

IMO:

I can appreciate intensity and expression in the face of an athlete in competition but the facial expression of the pitcher is unattractive;

The light in the middle of the picture (on the bat) is distracting as is reminants of the chain link fence.

The crop should be just to the left of the ball.

Ted

Ted,

Thanks for your comments. We've had quite a discussion here on "attractive" Vs. "real" facial expressions. Athletes often don't look "attractive" when they are being athletic.

This is a real shot of a real pitcher showing real exertion throwing a real pitch to a real batter with real (challenging) light shot through a real backstop...if I had set it up in a controlled environment I could have told the pitcher to not look as goofy, or moved to the other side of the fence (since the batter wouldn't be real, he wouldn't be swinging) and could have actually re-staged the shot for a time when the lighting wasn't so challenging, etc., etc...

FWIW, my client admitted their Content Manager made an error - a new employee. And I was told they are going to use this photo as an example to train Content Managers - sort of a way to demonstrate how "different" is OK.

You see, I never claimed this was a great picture - I readily admit it has problems. I just said I kinda liked it. Yeah the face looks odd. Yeah the specular highlights are distracting. This shot wasn't even really planned - just something grabbed on the spur of the moment.

My only real question was wondering if this particular image deserved to at least be included with the other 76 images from this game. I agree with the other comments above - sometimes we photographers see things differently than the end user. I'm satisfied that at least the customer will have the chance to see the shot and make up their own mind.

dmwierz wrote:
Ted,

Thanks for your comments. We've had quite a discussion here on "attractive" Vs. "real" facial expressions. Athletes often don't look "attractive" when they are being athletic.

FWIW, my client admitted their Content Manager made an error - a new employee. And I was told they are going to use this photo as an example to train Content Managers.

You see, I never claimed this was a great picture - I readily admit it has problems. I just said I kinda liked it. Yeah the face looks odd. Yeah the specular highlights are distracting. This wasn't a set-up shot, and wasn't even really planned - just something grabbed on the spur of the moment. My only real question was wondering if this particular image deserved to at least be included with the other 76 images from this game. I agree with the other comments above - sometimes we photographers see things differently than the end user. I'm satisfied that at least the customer will have the chance to see the shot and make their own mind up.

Just gave my opinion. I remember the attractive comment last summer. I took a hit on this. You and Carl should remember this.

Ted

I think the difference here is a shot that is basically static as far as game action is concerned, and a shot that is during peak action/exertion. There are times when the goofy/ugly face helps tell the story and other times where it's just a distraction. I have zero problems with an athlete exerting themselves in a competition with a goofy face. If all other elements of the picture are good, a goofy face does not move the shot to the cutting room floor.

frozenrope wrote:
I think the difference here is a shot that is basically static as far as game action is concerned, and a shot that is during peak action/exertion. There are times when the goofy/ugly face helps tell the story and other times where it's just a distraction. I have zero problems with an athlete exerting themselves in a competition with a goofy face. If all other elements of the picture are good, a goofy face does not move the shot to the cutting room floor.

I do not disagree, but expression was not the sole criteria. I am a father of athletes...........that being said capturing expression, effort, frustration, exuberance and so on is part of photography. I was told last year one should look for the pleasing.

All that being said, I replied, omitting the facial expression, i did not like the blur, the bright light or the remnants of shooting thru a fence.
Ted

I just like seeing threads with lots of Dennis's photos.

As for the original photo here, I really want to like it, but I keep coming back to the "ehhh" side of things. While it's a neat idea, I do find the photo being "sliced" by the OOF batter a bit much, and despite a great expression on the hurler, it just seems like the shot is a foot-wedge away from being better somehow.

I bet most of us get shots with OOF players in the foreground, usually by accident of course... here's a couple hockey shots from last year...

FWIW, and in no way am I implying that I'm even in the same Universe as Peter Read Miller, check out the video on "How to Shoot a QB" and NB his comment on "OOF players in the foreground".

http://www.usa.canon.com/app/html/NFL/index.html?id=shootingtips

Ted ellis wrote:
frozenrope wrote:
I think the difference here is a shot that is basically static as far as game action is concerned, and a shot that is during peak action/exertion. There are times when the goofy/ugly face helps tell the story and other times where it's just a distraction. I have zero problems with an athlete exerting themselves in a competition with a goofy face. If all other elements of the picture are good, a goofy face does not move the shot to the cutting room floor.

I do not disagree, but expression was not the sole criteria. I am a father of athletes...........that being said capturing expression, effort, frustration, exuberance and so on is part of photography. I was told last year one should look for the pleasing.

All that being said, I replied, omitting the facial expression, i did not like the blur, the bright light or the remnants of shooting thru a fence.
Ted


I understand what you are saying. All I am saying is that looking for pleasing is more important in static shots. Catching the action and everything that goes with it outweighs the goofy look. For the record, I am a father of athletes as well. If I am evaluating an image of one of my son's playing ball, I don't care if he has a goofy face, that's what he looks like. Most of the time, if you put a premium on pleasing facial expressions when shooting action, you'll send a lot of otherwise very good images to the circular file. Following the detour, I was making these comments in response to your reference to the previous conversation on this and your example.

I agree with you on the image in question in this thread. I would mute the reflection and clone out or mute the fence.

frozenrope wrote:
Ted ellis wrote:
frozenrope wrote:
I think the difference here is a shot that is basically static as far as game action is concerned, and a shot that is during peak action/exertion. There are times when the goofy/ugly face helps tell the story and other times where it's just a distraction. I have zero problems with an athlete exerting themselves in a competition with a goofy face. If all other elements of the picture are good, a goofy face does not move the shot to the cutting room floor.

I do not disagree, but expression was not the sole criteria. I am a father of athletes...........that being said capturing expression, effort, frustration, exuberance and so on is part of photography. I was told last year one should look for the pleasing.

All that being said, I replied, omitting the facial expression, i did not like the blur, the bright light or the remnants of shooting thru a fence.
Ted


I understand what you are saying. All I am saying is that looking for pleasing is more important in static shots. Catching the action and everything that goes with it outweighs the goofy look. For the record, I am a father of athletes as well. If I am evaluating an image of one of my son's playing ball, I don't care if he has a goofy face, that's what he looks like. Most of the time, if you put a premium on pleasing facial expressions when shooting action, you'll send a lot of otherwise very good images to the circular file. Following the detour, I was making these comments in response to your reference to the previous conversation on this and your example.

I agree with you on the image in question in this thread. I would mute the reflection and clone out or mute the fence.


Good points, I have tried to be acutely aware of what looks good and not in the expressions of those I shoot since Dennis and Carl critiqued me on that last year.

Ted

I can't help myself. After you check out what PRM had to say in the link above, take a gander at these shots from the AP covering today's A's/Red Sox game:

Image 1

Image 2

Image 3

Again, I'm not saying my shot is anywhere close to as good as these. As I said up thread, had I planned this shot at all, I'd have brought a wider lens. I'm only saying those who would cull out my original post because of the OOF player in the foreground might want to expand their horizons a little....

Good find Dennis! I see exactly what you're saying... and I agree expanding horizons is a good thing as I said before.

I think the thought you had that you wish your shot had been a little wider to get more of the batter in the frame is the thing. Keep at it and post up more attempts when you get the chance to try it wider.

dmwierz wrote:
I can't help myself. After you check out what PRM had to say in the link above, take a gander at these shots from the AP covering today's A's/Red Sox game:

Image 1

Image 2

Image 3

Again, I'm not saying my shot is anywhere close to as good as these. As I said up thread, had I planned this shot at all, I'd have brought a wider lens. I'm only saying those who would cull out my original post because of the OOF player in the foreground might want to expand their horizons a little....


I have no problem with a blurred fg in a baseball picture. Never was a point of issue. How much blur, light reflections and other artifacts can be.

I posted this on a thread in late February.

Clearly the foreground is oof.

Ted

This is my own thread, and even I've grown weary of it!

:o) cheer up Dennis. It's all good. hey is that a Springer in your avatar?

Randy, yes it is. I have two, and they are both asleep next to me at this moment, all three of us on the couch watching the Blackhawks get beat by the Bluejackets

The Springer in my avatar is our eldest, at 10 years old. We have his aunt, who is 6 years old, also, and she's black and white, and a real character.

They're great dogs and a hoot to have around!

haha Dennis loves his dogs ... we were talkinga bout them on tuesday i believe

The batter is so out of focus as to actually be a little distracting. Coloration is actually quite good -- you've got the blue jersey with red undershirt matching the red bat and lighter blue outfield wall. That is one attractive aspect of the shot.

I would keep it, what's the difference? It's just bytes.

dmwierz wrote:
Randy, yes it is. I have two, and they are both asleep next to me at this moment, all three of us on the couch watching the Blackhawks get beat by the Bluejackets

The Springer in my avatar is our eldest, at 10 years old. We have his aunt, who is 6 years old, also, and she's black and white, and a real character.

They're great dogs and a hoot to have around!

I have two boys, both black and white, both rescues. Oldest is 11 and the youngest is two. Youngest has three legs after being hit by a car as a puppy. Rescue group took care of amputation after owner left if without care. He's a great dog without a clue that he's missing a leg (front left). He runs, leaps, wrestles.

They're great dogs. Mine are curled up next to me like yours, as usual.