]Lamergod[S C C R u g b y 7 s
- Thread starter lamergod
- Start date
Some nice images, but you need to be very careful of your exposures... one or two of them suffer from overexposure - #4 for example. Although in some others you've just about got details in the whites, I can't shake the feeling that your exposure is above what I would consider "normal" (which of course is subjective).
#12 shouldn't be in there, it's out of focus and unless there is a reason for it being out of focus - I can't see any personally - then it's got no excuse being shown as example of your work... it's out of focus! You've got plenty of other good stuff.
#20 works well for me (although again, I feel it's overexposed), but #21 doesn't really do much for me aside from as an abstract.
#12 shouldn't be in there, it's out of focus and unless there is a reason for it being out of focus - I can't see any personally - then it's got no excuse being shown as example of your work... it's out of focus! You've got plenty of other good stuff.
#20 works well for me (although again, I feel it's overexposed), but #21 doesn't really do much for me aside from as an abstract.
Thanks for your time.
I gotta agree, my exposure is very inconsistent due to the sun and I was using manual mode.
#4 and 5 were shot heavily over exposed, I brought the exposure back but it gave a funky colour and temperature. It's really tedious changing the colour temperature despite it being RAW.
#12 was inspired by a picture of Samuel Eto. Looking at it now, I shouldn't have let it pass my QC.
I thought #20 is a tad underexposed
. Maybe it's my uncalibrated monitor. The spotlight sucks big time, I don't really like the lighting for 20 and 21.Keep the critique coming!!
Is there a reason you were using manual exposure? There is a reasonable amount of variation in light intensity on some overcast days (certainly Friday and Sunday fall into that bracket; indeed Sunday was more changeable than overcast) so in those instances I tend to just work off some form of automatic exposure.
You are right; #20 might not be overexposed. I was going off the memory of the SA winger but thinking about it again he was quite light for a coloured player.
The fact that you're shooting RAW makes sense; it certainly explains the overall upward shift in the tone curve of most of your images that I alluded to before as being "above normal" exposure.
You are right; #20 might not be overexposed. I was going off the memory of the SA winger but thinking about it again he was quite light for a coloured player.
The fact that you're shooting RAW makes sense; it certainly explains the overall upward shift in the tone curve of most of your images that I alluded to before as being "above normal" exposure.
Oh and the Eto'o picture; that works because it's a graphic study of light and dark, lines and form. That has a graphic quality to it that works partly due to its lack of detail; indeed I'm not sure that shot is sharp either, although it is sharper than yours, but that doesn't fall down terribly due to the reasons the shot works.
A wise man once told me that when shooting sports, it's better to use manual as when you track the player, the camera will react faster to the shutter as it does not have to calculate the exposure.
So that's what's so nice about the image that I can't put my finger on. Wow, I would have benefit a lot from going to your workshop, especially learning how to see light.
But a poor 15 year old does not have the money to part. I saw a lot of people in some red polo, were they your students? I was wondering if your 'rugby tournament' was this.
Eh, that wise man better not have been me! (See below re auto-iso)
I know once upon a time cameras had faster shutter lags if the camera was on MF rather than AF; I've not seen different figures quoted for manual or automatic exposure but that doesn't mean they don't exist. But these days to the best of my knowledge current cameras have a single shutter lag quoted with no provisos for metering modes.
I know once upon a time I had a suspicion that Auto-ISO (when it first appeared) was messing up focusing performance (not shutter lag though), but this was never verified and I've long since lost that impression as newer generations of cameras have appeared. I put that down to an old man being distrustful of new technology!
In all honesty, I've always metered the scene in front of me. In many ways it's not dissimilar to other genres of photography. I'll run automatic unless there is a serious reason why the in camera sensor will get messed up - in sport, helpfully, it's quite rare... teams have to wear different strips so while one might be wearing all black, the other will probably have something quite light on
The main reason I use manual exposure in sport is if the light is, totally, flat. I know we get days like that in the UK, I've not spent enough time in Singapore recently to say if that happens here or not but from what I've seen in the last week or so, it hasn't yet. That way if I set something I know it'll be off by at most a third of a stop from the start of a game through to the end, and chances are I'll check every so often as well. That way it can eliminate any differences that result from say a lighter or darker background. In changeable/bright lighting, I'd still trust the camera than have to worry about it every couple of minutes. And the last thing you want to be doing is checking or tweaking your exposure and missing what's in front of you.
Hmm, I'll take that at face value as a compliment even if it seems a little effusive for what to me is a straightforward observation! Light is every photographer's friend - you live by it and you die by it. As photographers we paint with light, so learning how to use it and harness it is the key to most things that you do. And incidentally I think most of the commentary about the Eto'o image was down to the Masters degree rather than the sports photography!
Well, a number of factors meant that unfortunately we didn't get enough of a response so the workshop didn't go ahead (which is just as well given I was hopelessly ill on the Saturday!). But no, those people therefore weren't part of the workshop; I wondered myself and they were part of a group called Photography Kakis - anyone know anything about them?
I think some Singaporeans (not you specifically) are very ready to spend huge amounts on their camera gear, but sometimes a lot more reluctant to spend money (or even time) on things like brushing up on technique or pick up experience. When really most of us would readily admit the most important factor in the photo creation process is the photographer.
I'm generally always happy to share so I'm not against doing so. Particularly if you bribe me with some local cuisine that I can't get in the UK!
Don't worry the wise man isn't you. There's a lot of mountains in the world you know.:bsmilie:Eh, that wise man better not have been me! (See below re auto-iso)
I know once upon a time cameras had faster shutter lags if the camera was on MF rather than AF; I've not seen different figures quoted for manual or automatic exposure but that doesn't mean they don't exist. But these days to the best of my knowledge current cameras have a single shutter lag quoted with no provisos for metering modes.
I know once upon a time I had a suspicion that Auto-ISO (when it first appeared) was messing up focusing performance (not shutter lag though), but this was never verified and I've long since lost that impression as newer generations of cameras have appeared. I put that down to an old man being distrustful of new technology!
In all honesty, I've always metered the scene in front of me. In many ways it's not dissimilar to other genres of photography. I'll run automatic unless there is a serious reason why the in camera sensor will get messed up - in sport, helpfully, it's quite rare... teams have to wear different strips so while one might be wearing all black, the other will probably have something quite light on
The main reason I use manual exposure in sport is if the light is, totally, flat. I know we get days like that in the UK, I've not spent enough time in Singapore recently to say if that happens here or not but from what I've seen in the last week or so, it hasn't yet. That way if I set something I know it'll be off by at most a third of a stop from the start of a game through to the end, and chances are I'll check every so often as well. That way it can eliminate any differences that result from say a lighter or darker background. In changeable/bright lighting, I'd still trust the camera than have to worry about it every couple of minutes. And the last thing you want to be doing is checking or tweaking your exposure and missing what's in front of you.
What do you mean by down to the Masters degree than sports photography.
Finding context about sports photography lighting is very rare. Usually, when I go search about lighting, they all give me strobes. Which has nothing to do. The only thing about lighting in sports that I can find is to get the sun behind you. That's all. I want to learn more about using light to shape an image or in this case, using lighting to show the contour of the body.
Even SportsShooters doesn't have a lot about it.
I think I heard of them around Clubsnap or somewhere. I gotta say, they are a wee bit noisy.
Singapore is full of gear-heads. I gotta admit, going to the Rugby 7s opened my eye as I saw how many people own a 300 F2.8 or a 400 F2.8 And I even saw the 200-400 twice! I know we just recovered from an economy downturn but......
I would love to have a chat with you about sports photography. I have a lot of burning questions about shooting and choosing sports photography as a career.
Last edited:
Just want to say thanks to Jed for posting c&c on many posts like this :thumbsup: It does enlighten and motivate me (and i sure many others) and strive to improve even more.
Cheers
Cheers
Hi Lamergod,
....like some of the raw approach you took in your works, just that you will never please everyone, I kind of wonder what is so great about eto's work too, but flikr is a community where you can get a lot of unmerited accolades.....many of the works has horizon problem, which your favourite critic has taken issue of with some others......Usually there is very little you could do to control light in some sports because you most probably are not allowed to use flash nor could you dictate the time. But when there are strong directional light you could try to harness them..that's about all you could do.
....like some of the raw approach you took in your works, just that you will never please everyone, I kind of wonder what is so great about eto's work too, but flikr is a community where you can get a lot of unmerited accolades.....many of the works has horizon problem, which your favourite critic has taken issue of with some others......Usually there is very little you could do to control light in some sports because you most probably are not allowed to use flash nor could you dictate the time. But when there are strong directional light you could try to harness them..that's about all you could do.
Last edited:
I'm not seeking to please everyone. One man's trash could be another man's treasure.
Eto's picture is just a piece of wonderful artwork that I appreciate.
I try to make my sports work as artistic as possible. Many people believe that sports photography has to be cropped from head to toe, no dead space, nicely frame. Both face and ball must be seen. But I don't believe in all these rules. I try to make my work in an editorial point of view, less journalistic.
Take a look at this. This is by far the most amazing picture I've ever seen. You'll probably never see it in the back pages of the newspaper, but it's just amazing. This too.
This guy, Ryu Voelkel has the most amazing sports pictures. Why does sportsmen hire him just to shoot themselves in action? Because he's unique. He's different from that pack of beer bellied photographer. This is what I want to achieve as a photographer. So it just shows that sports photography can be artistic as well.
Last edited:
I mean understanding why certain photographs work and on what levels, is probably more down to my Masters degree than my background in sports photography. I don't think there is a lot of focus or emphasis on creative for the bulk of bread and butter sports work; it's about capturing the moment and telling the story as effectively as possible. Features is a little different and you get the chance to play around, but in reality most sports photographers run on experience, and working with ideas that comes from that experience.
Danntbt is right in that a lot of the time you have to work with what you are given. Having said that there is a big difference in sports photography cultures in different parts of the world; the Americans place a huge emphasis on strobes which they use extensively on location and indoors. In the UK we work pretty much on ambient light for actual action, turning to strobes only for feature work.
Non-strobe sports lighting is not dissimilar to normal photography as I said; it's about knowing where it's coming from and how to harness that, in relation to your backgrounds, the effect that you are working towards, making use of any special lighting conditions, etc.
Yes, when I was there last year it created quite an impression on me too. And the number of Wimberley heads floating around, I wasn't paying much attention this year cause I was working but last year I counted two supporting 70-200/2.8 class lenses (!). That's overkill, and indeed, counterproductive.
I know who Ryu is although we've never talked but then there're not that many of us Asians around
I'm not so sure about the second shot, but I do like the first one a lot, and actually contrary to your belief, I can see that being used in a newspaper like the Guardian. Over here you'd have a decent idea if you had a "Guardian picture", which was basically anything slightly artistic and eye-catching, and you'd have a decent chance of getting it in the Guardian the next day. I had a similarly off beat freekick image, not as artistic at Ryu's, that was one of my early Guardian pictures way back when I started - I vaguely remember it being Leeds v Man Utd in the Prem but I might be wrong - at a game that I was shooting together with my boss. We talked about the pictures I sent in at night in the hotel and he mentioned that was "different" and might make the Guardian and sure enough it did.
There are plenty of photographers trying to do "different" things over here to differing extents. But a lot of the time there is a lot of pressure on employed photographers to concentrate on the bread and butter as well. Some agencies are quite happy for you to mess around, others are quite happy to get something different as long as you never tell them you've missed a goal as a result of it. Big agencies simply need to delivery things such as goal and celebration pictures to lots of clients, and they need photographers to produce that as consistently as possible in a style that offers minimal risk.
Take that Nakamura freekick; it's what you could call a low percentage shot because most of the time the players wouldn't open up in between to allow you that window. Without lots of clients everywhere, you can afford to take a gamble. If you know lots of people are waiting for the goal picture (if the freekick goes in of course) then you have to concentrate on something that will be a good shot, most of the time, as opposed to a stunning shot, every once in a while.