I am not saying, in any way, that face is not important. But if you look at enclosed cars, with seats that completely wrap around the head, full coverage helmet, Hans devices that restrict turning of the head and a fire hood the possibilities of getting anything of a face are near impossible. I do have some where the driver did look to his left and I caught a hint of eyes and another his glasses - just to name two.
I look at Mark J. Rebilas's images, they are awesome and I am so glad that I was guided to his site for they inspire me greatly. But I look at his shots and of the racing action there are hardly any that show a face. You may see a helmet or two, and there is one or two that you might catch a glimpse of eyes...but those are far and few between (not talking about the static, non-racing shots).
Yet this week I sold two images to different companies for advertising. Two images that frankly were just a shot of the car as it went sidways through a turn. What I heard was that the images were "perfect, best they had looked at" and I thought they were just average. This is why I say it depends on the use and the audience. Three others will be coming out in a racing magazine (just learned that today) and again both were average to me, but they reflect the stories that they will be appearing in.
Fish On wrote:
What makes a great sports image? 2 words come to mind - Paul Alesse.
Take a look at the threads that Paul has posted sports pictures, whether it be football, soccer, baseball...etc.. and you'll get the idea.
I love Paul's images, they are great.
I do like Russ's post here: Russ Isabella wrote:
I'll start this off with what for me is at or near the top of the criteria list: The image does not require an explanation! A great image speaks for itself. Period.
I've been telling people that sports photography is not always about the action, but the reaction as well. A great reaction shot to a big play can be just as important, if not more important, than the photo of the play itself.
Question for those that responded. How many of those shots (the wow factor, tells a story image etc.) do you'll get per game? Or do you even get those types of images every game?
For me, if I shoot an event strictly for myself, I'm more likely to get select images. If a client has specific needs, then it limits my vision of the event and consequently my shooting. Wish I could get over that, but that's the way it is for me.
Methodical wrote:
Question for those that responded. How many of those shots (the wow factor, tells a story image etc.) do you'll get per game? Or do you even get those types of images every game?
Not that many. Maybe one or two at a good game. But it also depends on how emotive the players are. My shooting is usually geared towards 'second run' or magazine news, or sports info/family purchase. That means direct gaze to the camera and "tall and strong" dominate. It also means I shoot tighter and thus will miss many of the daily-news style key play shots, often because there are no faces in the frame.
I think one of the reasons people want to shoot big time sports is they think the 'wow' shot is a slam dunk. This isn't really the case. Rather, you want to be shooting events/games that really matter to the athletes, that have a lot stake for the participants. They then do react, which creates more 'wow' photos.
Anyways, that's one view. There are a number of stellar shooters here with very different styles and approaches, and client requirements.
For the shooting I do, I go along with cocodrillo. It really depends on the race, the lighting at the track (some of the bull rings I have been too have lighting in name only), the amount of dust that is in the air and the racers themselves. I've been to Lucas Oil and Outlaw events and the racing was nose to tail and very boring. Then I have been to a local track with local racers and the racing was over the top.
One national sanctioned race the winner got out of his car, I was set to get that most awesome winners circle shot, and all he did was a half hearted wave. That was it. Bleh.
Of all the great sports images in history, I think 90% of the all-timers are non-action. My favorite (if I had $15K I'd buy it today) all-timer is Neil Leifer's overhead image of Ali raising his fists in victory as the ref is declaring Cleveland Williams out as he's laying on the canvas. The perspective, composition...it's as close to perfect as perfect gets.
I'd say it's more than just the immediate subject. Capturing the atmosphere/context at the right moment can truly distinguish a moment in history from a "mere" great shot of athletic moment. My all time favorite is Bobby Orr's "flying goal," which may have been shot at slightly behind the peak action, and contrary to the shoot tight/crop tighter mantra, but the combination of the player's face, body language, opposing player's reaction and celebrating crowd in the background make this a true work of art.
Taking pic's at dirt tracks is totally different than what most sports photog’s think; like what rglens said about dust; clay and dirt plus the fantastic lighting system dirt tracks have. Most nights I have to stop taking pictures because of the combination of dust and poor lighting during the main events
Many big races you'll see 15 to 30 picture takers in each turn ALL getting the same shots! I sure got tired of taking pics from the inside of tracks.
I echo what rglens says here "I've been to Lucas Oil and Outlaw events and the racing was nose to tail and very boring. Then I have been to a local track with local racers and the racing was over the top." But WoO Sprint cars but over the last few years mini sprints has open a whole new world to me loads better racing and you DON’T have the big buck teams just mum and pops operations. Cost of sprint car motors going between 40k to 80k makes the mini sprint racing grow like you won’t believe when you can get a top notch car and motor for 25k
Get back to the question of the thread; most pictures that I sell are not the best looking but what the customer wants aka dusty with clay/mud all over the cars. Heck my "BEST" picture that major sprint car mag and calenders pick up of mine was a shot were I was covered with clay afterwards and spent hours cleaning off my gear
It seems to me that how we shoot a game and what we concentrate on is strongly influenced by the expected use of the images. Like a lot of folks here, I shoot sports with a particular purpose. Some folks are shooting for a publication others for some kind of direct sale, etc.
We seem able to describe pretty well what makes a good sports image. It may vary from sport to sport and there may be disagreement from person to person, but the elements are identifiable. In addition, there is the idea that good for one purpose may not good for another.
What I haven't been able to cipher is what makes a particular image great. What makes it stand out from all the good images? Maybe there are no clear answers.
