SCC Rugby 7s - SUNDAY's Matches (2nd Series)

[geoyip]

Comments Welcome ...

01


02


03

[geoyip]

04


05


06

[geoyip]

07


08


09

[geoyip]

10


11


12

[geoyip]

13


14


15

[geoyip]

16


17


18

[sehsuan]

Originally Posted by geoyip 17

would you care to share how the words, HSBC has such a different bokeh just to the left of the head of the guy with blond hair?

frankly, i see muddy colours (16) very loose, (14, 15) and evident PS'ing to falsify actual visuals (05, 12) oversaturated skin (03).

i'm not sure if you're shooting sports, or trying out your PS skills on photos taken at a rugby match.

[geoyip]

Originally Posted by sehsuan and evident PS'ing to falsify actual visuals

No falsifying. Adjusting levels, brightness n contrast, saturation to bright out colors and using blur tool to blur out the bg and bring out the subject is not falsifying, they are part of the digital workflow practice widely commercially and non commercially

Have to emphasize that the images have no way been falsified.

There's another area in digital imaging which is refer to as digital manipulation, that’s another topic altogether and not practice here.

No offence, but if you have a problem with psed images, that's yours.

PS, thanks for pointing the spot, have corrected

[ParkertR]

the shots are nice but the post editing has destroyed the pictures... some of them. oversaturation of colours (referee's jersey and skin tones), and the not so wise use of the blur tool... - it was a good try but the DOF looks so wrong in 12, 15 and 17, at least those are the obvious ones. If it ain't broke, don't fix it

Good job on capturing the moments though... i like the expression of the players in 3 which is framed well - to me! cheers~

[geoyip]

Originally Posted by ParkertR the shots are nice but the post editing has destroyed the pictures... some of them. oversaturation of colours (referee's jersey and skin tones), and the not so wise use of the blur tool... - it was a good try but the DOF looks so wrong in 12, 15 and 17, at least those are the obvious ones. If it ain't broke, don't fix it Good job on capturing the moments though... i like the expression of the players in 3 which is framed well - to me! cheers~

Thanks for your comments. I'm a sucker for colors lah ... perhaps to much at times

Appreciate the feedback

[sehsuan]

i wonder how often sports photos are corrected in such a way each time they're published. if that's a stock library of say, minimum 100+ shots, bless the person who's going to curse and swear at spending a long long time doing all of them.

surprisingly, some of the photos are soft, probably due to lack of USM. are you sure you did a complete job there? there are also some photos which i believe are somewhat out of focus too. i'm viewing the photos and checking the DOF via the pitch. what's the use of shooting with such a long lens (with TC) to get only photos whose sharpness have been affected visibly, and deepening the DOF when it'd be better off to have less of it?

digital manipulation/postprocessing is fine by me, but not to the extent that you've done for your shots. i'd probably be better off cutting images of people and pasting them on the moonscape...

[geoyip]

Originally Posted by sehsuan i wonder how often sports photos are corrected in such a way each time they're published. if that's a stock library of say, minimum 100+ shots, bless the person who's going to curse and swear at spending a long long time doing all of them.

All the time, if not most of it .... just look at magazines, papers etc, the colors n sometimes sharpness are not out of box. This is the case for digital, for film, i'm not to sure. But anyway, don't think any pros would use film for sports with the advantages for going digital.

Originally Posted by sehsuan bless the person who's going to curse and swear at spending a long long time doing all of them.

Nah, if u know the ropes, its very fast PS (for enhancing) is suppose to save u time instead of spending more time. But if you're doing digital manipulation .... Ah that that's a very time consuminmg process ... from creative to production. C here for examples of digital manipulation (note: not all images are manipulated):

http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=99225

Originally Posted by sehsuan surprisingly, some of the photos are soft, probably due to lack of USM. are you sure you did a complete job there? there are also some photos which i believe are somewhat out of focus too. i'm viewing the photos and checking the DOF via the pitch. what's the use of shooting with such a long lens (with TC) to get only photos whose sharpness have been affected visibly, and deepening the DOF when it'd be better off to have less of it?

Photo are sharp enough 4 me, u can't make a overly blur image sharp anyway, u'll start to get artifacts. U can increase dof in ps to bring out the your subject

Originally Posted by sehsuan digital manipulation/postprocessing is fine by me, but not to the extent that you've done for your shots. i'd probably be better off cutting images of people and pasting them on the moonscape...

Once again, the photos i posted here are not manipulated neither have they been falsified in anyway. If u like to moonscape (whatever that means) then ugo ahead lah. I'm happy with my own post processing

[r32]

The visual quality of your PS blur is different and less pleasing than bokeh from a lens. It gives it the false effect of a soft focus lens, a dreamy feeling that is at odds with the action being portrayed.

I would go for a lower angle still, you appear to be standing. Maybe a sitting or prone position would be better, I don't know? Also, if possible, choose your background, frames with less elements are less confusing to look at, I found that those with two or three players in the picture, with facial expression, worked the best for me. And crop them.

Your selection of shots (to be displayed) need to be better. I feel that a tight photo story of 5 strong images is better than a whole list of 20 images from which people tell you, "I like #5, #7, #13". Your strongest critic is yourself, and you need to emotionally divorce yourself from the pictures you painstaking took, and judge each one objectively. I can tell that while you are asking for comments, you are being instinctively defensive about what you have done.

I'm no great photographer myself, and when I go back and look at my old galleries, I still wonder why I posted some terrible pictures. It seemed nice then, but after the euphoria wore off......

[Jed]

Hmm, am I the only one that's having trouble viewing the pics?

[geoyip]

Originally Posted by r32 The visual quality of your PS blur is different and less pleasing than bokeh from a lens. It gives it the false effect of a soft focus lens, a dreamy feeling that is at odds with the action being portrayed. I would go for a lower angle still, you appear to be standing. Maybe a sitting or prone position would be better, I don't know? Also, if possible, choose your background, frames with less elements are less confusing to look at, I found that those with two or three players in the picture, with facial expression, worked the best for me. And crop them. Your selection of shots (to be displayed) need to be better. I feel that a tight photo story of 5 strong images is better than a whole list of 20 images from which people tell you, "I like #5, #7, #13". Your strongest critic is yourself, and you need to emotionally divorce yourself from the pictures you painstaking took, and judge each one objectively. I can tell that while you are asking for comments, you are being instinctively defensive about what you have done. I'm no great photographer myself, and when I go back and look at my old galleries, I still wonder why I posted some terrible pictures. It seemed nice then, but after the euphoria wore off......

Thanks for your feedback, some valuable pointers u have made … bokeh, facial expression, shooting from lower angle (I should try it out). but I don’t really like too tightly cropped images, could be just me.

To clarify the issue on being defensive, I had too rebut sehsuan comments (no offence to sehsuan) on what he posted quote “"has evident PS'ing to falsify actual visuals.””

Me being very new to photography, have seen my pics improved partly due to feedback from Csers here, and I’m glad I discovered clubsnap. Good comments gives us motivation and confidence, and the “negative ones” can help us improve on areas we don’t see. But having said that, that does not mean we have to agree with all comments others make, we may share the same viewpoints, and disagree with some or we may have totally different taste altogether.

In my opinion, I think myself and sehsuan has different likings, so along the way, perhaps my posting may have unintentionally offended him, if it has sehsuan, my apologies.

Having said all this, I’m pretty sure we can all agree to one think, this type of posting is a waste of everyone’s valuable time (Gosh, I bet this is my longest post). lets move on from here and continue to reap the aplenty positive benefits clubsnap has to offer

[geoyip]

Originally Posted by Jed Hmm, am I the only one that's having trouble viewing the pics?

Jed could be due to my web host upgrading the servers, could not access my webby this morning as well

[Witness]

eh.... i feel an arguement brewing here.... i champion old school techniques... the blur filter really cannot compare to PS..... btw....people still do use film for shooting sports.....tt's y the f5 was made.....and prob y they are gonna make an f6 u see...

to most people, the blur might have gone off unnoticed....eg. the diff in blur of the hsbc words.... but lets erhm say tt we are photog here...not really digital imagers..though there may be an irony tt with digitization it may be merged as a singular entity.....

perhaps wat u could do to improve is to set the aperature to the desired size before certain shot...so as to get the desired blurness...saves a lot of work too...

perhaps its a matter of range...or where u were standing....but some shots could have been improved if u could have gone closer.....

i have shot rugby matches before...i try to look out for clean backgrounds when shooting.....may sound abit tough...but sometimes taking shots squatting down may have certain good qualities to it too haha...

i'm not really a sports shooter.... its juz my 2 cts worth...

[sehsuan]

geoyip,

i do understand we have different preferences. otherwise we'd go by the same name!

however, let me clarify what i meant by falsifying the photos. in sports/photojournalism, photo manipulation of putting in effects that aren't captured in the original shot, is a taboo. cropping, saturation modification is ok, but using the magic hand to put a blur effect to remove distractions in the background sometimes backfires - may be better to leave things as they are, since people can understand you may be limited by your lens' aperture size, for example.

i once met this local newspaper photographer, he told me even rotating an image 180 to correct an "upsize down" image wasn't even ethical, although it was because of the limitation of a spot to shoot from. we all may have different values here, but do consider before using PS to do unnecessary work first. you may want to say, work on reading the gameplay and learning to anticipate your triggering of the shutter first - once you've got it, no one will tell you that your distracting background is the first thing they notice looking at your pictures.

[2100]

No offence meant and not trying to compare, but you may gauge for yourself the meaning of "over-processed" by looking at your images and Willyfoo's.

Try printing out some of your pics. I think most probably will look real "off".

[geoyip]

Originally Posted by sehsuan geoyip, i do understand we have different preferences. otherwise we'd go by the same name! however, let me clarify what i meant by falsifying the photos. in sports/photojournalism, photo manipulation of putting in effects that aren't captured in the original shot, is a taboo. cropping, saturation modification is ok, but using the magic hand to put a blur effect to remove distractions in the background sometimes backfires - may be better to leave things as they are, since people can understand you may be limited by your lens' aperture size, for example. i once met this local newspaper photographer, he told me even rotating an image 180 to correct an "upsize down" image wasn't even ethical, although it was because of the limitation of a spot to shoot from. we all may have different values here, but do consider before using PS to do unnecessary work first. you may want to say, work on reading the gameplay and learning to anticipate your triggering of the shutter first - once you've got it, no one will tell you that your distracting background is the first thing they notice looking at your pictures.

sehsuan

I respect your views even though we do not share the same. I do agree though that if your’re shooting sports/photojournalism, the most important focus is on reporting the event in an honest and fair way. But not all sports Photography’s for this purpose, some may shot for an ad campaign, some for stockist to be use by agencies, others just want to shot their fav team / idols.

As to your newspaper photographer friend, I do respect his views as well. But I feel times have change and what use to work before may not work now, but that’s just me.

Using PS to do unnecessary work … I’m all in for improving photographic skills, but neede more time lah … the D70 is the first cam I ever own and I only started photography in March this year … so lots more to learn. Maybe one day we come out shot together …