Hi all, I covered 2 games on Saturday!, here's a selection of pics from both. C&C most welcome. Kind regards Graham.

#1


#2


#3


#4


#5


#6


#7


#8


#9

That bad??

Thanks for knaff all again guys!! (I've now cancelled my subscription to this US domaine site). Kind regards Graham.

I know nothing about BB,SB,LX or much about American Football, but I'm willing to add my feelings as a fellow photographer!, I've recently read the posts about the loss of top end pro subscribers!! well all those that stated about "commenting" on fellow togs work ,unless there of a certain Ilk!!, are IMO just as bad,It's just the same!!. If I posted some Soccer from a pro arena, then comments would flow ( League restrictions stop me from posting any pro soccer), I am finding there is a real elitist attitude developing on this site & wish to be no part of it. Hope you have a great life!. Kind regards Graham

Graham, truly loving these cricket shots. #5 and #9 are my favorite.

sir_saju, thanks for the sympathetic input!, God I wish i worked where you do . do you cover the West Indies tours?, I'll bob over if you need a hand , Kind regards Graham.

A good set, although a couple look a bit soft/OOF. What lens did you use? The americans have never understood cricket, but what can you expect from a nation where men play rounders and lacrosse!

Well they're better than some of my attempts at the cricket. You've got the ball in most of them and the timing is right for the bowled dismissals. They do look a little washed out in colour and contrast though. What lens were you using? They don't look like a lot of the images I see in the press which seem to be mostly taken from in line with the pitch rather than side-on, so the perspective is different for me. Do you shoot these for a living?

Graham Crowthe: Confess to ignorance of the game of cricket. But this state of mind has nothing to do with the quality of your images of this sport. In addition, viewing your images roused my visual and intellectual curiosity as I tried to fathom the meaning of the action.

I tend to agree with the softness of the images, except for No. 2.

Compositionally, No. 1 seems awkward, for 2 reasons. One, the player leans dramatically to camera right, yet he has no room between him and the edge of the frame. More space here would give a sense of the player doing something into the field.

Two, the blurred figures in the background distract, and so does that blue object.

Otherwise, the intense physicality of the player works here.

I like No. 6 the best, for its simplicity. It captures that almost calm, even serene, facial expression which I've seen in young female soccer players, where I had expected exaggeration from exertion. The image background, however, distracts owing to its brightness. The several implied triangles in the subject add to its mechanical tension and interest.

Agreed with anotherview on #6 as the best image for me of a sport I don't know at all. #1 needs a different crop, and focus is an issue nearly throughout. Did you use in camera exposure compensation to accomodate the shadows of the caps?

Graham,

Would you have been able to shoot towards the batters and bowlers in a more head on manner? Pretty much all the elements are there, except faces in some of the shots.

Also, what gear did you use. Most of the folk in North America have no idea of how incredibly far away from the action you had to be to shoot cricket. Last time I shot it (and the only time, so far), I used a doubler on a manual Tamron 300mm f2.8 with my Canon F1 -- about five years ago.

Sean

Grahmn,
Just stumbled on to your cricket stuff. Interesting. Don't get to sports first so sorry I took a bit to find it. I always look for something other than the standard fare cause, well how much BB, FB, and such can a man take. Now cricket I don't know squat about other than millions of folks (mostly Brits and ex-colony types) seem to get rather exercised over it.

Pix one: Strong action figure taking a miss on the ball (is it called a ball?) A a bit soft. I like how you've got the nervous nellie in the background. He/she seems very concerned about the white line.

Pix two: Excellent probably the best of the bunch. The batter (?) is definitely putting the wood to the ball. Obviously there is no strike zone in this game. Love how you got the catcher (or whatever he is back there by the wicket) in the frame.

Pix three: Incredible shot really. I think you call the pitcher the bowler(?) He's really putting some stroke on the ball. Again, the image is soft. You're not doing a lovely, foggy English countryside here

Pix four: Lots of action. Love it. Everybody is real concerned - well except the folks back against the wall Not sure what the significance is other than it's a strike, the wicket is safe and the catcher isn't getting the ball. Once again, there is nothing actually in focus. Closest place seems to be around the catchers face.

Pix five: Our batters still up. It's another swing an a miss. How many strikes does he get? If this had been crisp on the eyes it would have been a great shot.

Pix six: Guess we finally got the black hat guy out. This guy doesn't do helmets. Not much energy in this shot. Not on par with the rest of the batch.

Pix seven: A fraction of a second late here. Just a nano-bit earlier and you could have cropped the batter out and had a high energy shot of the bowler (?) in action. Still soft, though.

Pix eight: Looking a bit prissy here, but then somebody just ate his lunch. I'd have cropped the catcher out completely. Still soft. Focus seems to have settled on the shin pads.

Pix nine: Well that tears it. Great catch of the wicket coming apart. The fuzzies really hurt you on this one. The ball is a blur.

It appears you had fairly good light for most of the shots. What lens/aperture/speeds/ISO were you shooting at. Only one of the 9 pix posted had the sharpness necessary for a good shot.

As for slow/no response from the forum, well it's hard to predict. The superstars always get noticed. That's just how it is. Unusual, unknown sports or subjects get little response even though a pix is a pix. Try showing some rodeo or curling and you'll realize it doesn't have anything to do with locale.

Getting bent out of shape over lack of response generally doesn't help much. Again, I don't know anything about cricket, the limitations you face on access to the action, weather, rules, etc. Your pix may very well be amazing achievements compared to what is normal as I have never even seen pictures of cricket except in reference material. So please take my critique with a huge grain of salt and as always keep shooting and showing.

Robert

OntheRez: Yes, an FM forum response to a post remains unpredictable. Some of my posts never receive a comment, and some only days later. A few times the number of posts has surprised me.

I've felt discouraged myself at absent response, until I noticed a correlation between the likelihood of FMer comment and the day and time posted. Typically, posting done around Saturday morning or midnight Sunday or any late hour my time sees little if any response. I conclude FMer response has something to do with the Web site visitor count during one's post.

anotherview wrote:
OntheRez: Yes, an FM forum response to a post remains unpredictable. Some of my posts never receive a comment, and some only days later. A few times the number of posts has surprised me.

I've felt discouraged myself at absent response, until I noticed a correlation between the likelihood of FMer comment and the day and time posted. Typically, posting done around Saturday morning or midnight Sunday or any late hour my time sees little if any response. I conclude FMer response has something to do with the Web site visitor count during one's post.

I think you are on to something. In Graham's (I see that I miss-spelled his name - sorry bout that!) case, his original post showed up at 3:26 AM on the 10th. I don't know if that reflects my local time, server time, FM time (which I think is in California), or what. If it's California time then Graham posted (assuming him to be at Zulu and CA to be +8) around 11:30 in the morning on the 11th a right proper time for him but given that a strong majority of FMers are probably in US/Canada time zones the post sat for a while and then got pushed off the opening screen by European evening traffic before the Americas came on line. He tried popping it up at 11:30 AM FM time on the 10th which would have been way late for him but still too early to get anyone's attention on this side of the pond. By that time, folks would have been sneaking looks at work and such, but then he'd have been fighting the problems of the "sun having already set on the empire" while the ex-colony - the US - never got a taste for cricket and would have been ignoring the topic.

When Graham got POed and let it go on Saturday afternoon (FM time), there was an audience and he started to get responses. I often wonder how the folks in the Antipodes ever get noticed and the folks in Japan and China also must fight the time thing. There is no doubt that most people don't go past the opening screen of posts unless they've been following a thread and go digging for it. Don't know if there is an answer given the nature of how we slice time and the info overload we all have. Hope Graham swings back by though, as he's finally getting some feedback.

Robert

OntheRez: Re: "got pushed off the opening screen." Yes, many FMers from wherever and whenever they view the home page see only the ongoing posts as they arrive. During a busy posting time, an individual posting could stay in view only minutes at best.

I note that the "Forums" link at the top of the page takes the visitor to another page where one will see a link for "Read the latest 60 posts." I go there for this longer listing.