|
Mr.Burns Registered: May 19, 2005 Total Posts: 526 Country: United States |
Must have been some kinda fastball! ![]() Thanks for looking. -Mickey |
|
mnkypsycho Registered: Feb 15, 2006 Total Posts: 14 Country: United States |
that is an awesome picture, now just put a motivational statement and sell it to corporate offices. |
|
Rocketball Registered: Dec 05, 2006 Total Posts: 1897 Country: United States |
mnkypsycho wrote: |
|
flauri Registered: Sep 19, 2004 Total Posts: 1147 Country: United States |
Sweet shot Mr. B....only nit is what Rocketball said on the eyes. |
|
TrojanHorse Registered: Apr 04, 2008 Total Posts: 666 Country: United States |
Go with "Be the ball" |
|
dj dunzie Registered: Aug 14, 2006 Total Posts: 4453 Country: Canada |
Great capture... well done. |
|
James Broome Registered: Jun 07, 2004 Total Posts: 1137 Country: United States |
I guess I'll be the lone dissenter here. It's 'OK'. No ump. No batter. Distracting background. |
|
Jonathan Knight Registered: Aug 05, 2006 Total Posts: 1967 Country: United States |
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) |
|
yaris Registered: Nov 28, 2008 Total Posts: 1 Country: N/A |
Nice shot!!! |
|
mcarlson Registered: Feb 12, 2005 Total Posts: 300 Country: United States |
James Broome wrote: |
|
P Alesse Registered: Dec 25, 2004 Total Posts: 7119 Country: United States |
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... ![]() . |
|
Mr.Burns Registered: May 19, 2005 Total Posts: 526 Country: United States |
Thanks all. ![]() 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. |
|
James Broome Registered: Jun 07, 2004 Total Posts: 1137 Country: United States |
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? |
|
P Alesse Registered: Dec 25, 2004 Total Posts: 7119 Country: United States |
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. |
|
butchM Registered: Mar 12, 2004 Total Posts: 2688 Country: United States |
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. |
|
Ted ellis Registered: Aug 08, 2007 Total Posts: 5587 Country: United States |
Here is one of mine if I may. Paul's is betterin mine. |
|
mcarlson Registered: Feb 12, 2005 Total Posts: 300 Country: United States |
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. |
|
dmwierz Registered: Apr 22, 2005 Total Posts: 2844 Country: United States |
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. |
|
countryfarmboy Registered: Dec 31, 2008 Total Posts: 1 Country: United States |
Here's my favorite catcher shot ![]() |
|
Mr.Burns Registered: May 19, 2005 Total Posts: 526 Country: United States |
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. ![]() And even some dust coming from the batters hands (talk about a distracting background! haha): ![]() 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. -Mickey |