I said earlier in this thread that I assumed because it is a shot of a boy swimming that it qualifies as a 'sports' shot. I now see and understand that is not the case, that's what I mean by learning how this forum works.
I also think that this misunderstanding is the cause of much of the comment on this thread as it is a staged water 'portrait' rather than a 'sports' shot. This is something I recognize now, but only because of peoples responses on this thread.
I thought I gave all the context required, "swims like he's drowning", clearly that was not enough for some. As for being defensive, again I've explained that earlier in the thread and have nothing more to add other than repeat that I have no problem whatsoever with the C&Cs regarding the shot.
Geo31 wrote:
I think the shot is quite legit as a sports photo. Just because the photo is not of a competitive event doesn't make is less of a sports photo. If someone took a photo of Lance Armstrong running, I'm sure very few would argue that it didn't belong here. This photo is no less a sports photo because the youngster is not an athlete, more because he's not competing. It's a legit sports photo. Sports photos are staged all the time. Ask Niel Leifer or Walter Iooss.
As such, the C&C given is done so within this context. I think most of the C&C given here has been good as usual (with the exception of the "blown highlights" that aren't really blown). People who shoot sports photos on a regular basis (and most who look at them) expect the photo to explain the context of the photo. While captions are often expected for sports photos, the lack of words to bring additional meaning to the photo does not diminish from the quality of the photo (hope that is making sense - a good photo is a good photo on its own w/o words).
Again, I think the C&C was good here. Liam, ignoring the perceptions of defensiveness or confrontation, as a practical matter, I think that once you have to start explaining too many things about a photo during C&C, one simply needs to step back and consider the advice given. So, IMHO, the photo is technically interesting (in many ways more interesting to me than the 'bat on ball' photos that are posted that are otherwise not interesting), it does not accomplish what most sports photos should for the reasons spelled out already. You're a fine photographer and if you're interested in improving your sports photos (including "sportraits"), this is a helpful and knowledgeable group. There is a measure of "group think" here (as well as some out-of-the-box brilliance), but no more than in the People section. The advice is free and we all do this for fun, right?
If you captured what you had in your mind's eye, that's great! Sometimes that's hard to do with sports photos (or any photos for that matter). Consider the advice given and work with it. You don't have to be a clone. But consider the new info to improve the creative side of any sports photos you may take in the future. ...Show more →
Hey Geo31,
Thanks for taking the time to write that, I think it's fair and balanced. Actually, I already do a few 'sportraits', though I'm not sure this is necessarily the right place to share them
