Discussion in 'Photojournalism & Sports Gallery' started by SnapLocally, Apr 6, 2010.
That first girl is smoking hot. My favorite picture by far haha.
Thank the heavens this is a photography forum :meh:
With so many images, you could please number them so that they are easier to refer to when giving comments
I feel you got some good ones in there, but some dont have the action feel of the fight, such as the fourth
Not sure why you included the second one, the guys face is blurry
The 9th is the best IMO, nicely captured.
I dont care much for the last two images, the lighting doesnt do much to them
I've considered numbering my images, but I figured that numbered or not, it's not going to prevent anyone from looking, though it may reduce some of the commentary.
The second shot- that's what we in the industry call "motion blur", and it can occur when a fighter gets "punched in the face".
Why would you not want to have a clear and sharp image of the guy's face when he gets hit? I don't get why the "industry" would want to have blurry shots, whether done by motion blur or what not. I don't remember seeing blurry shots in any magazines, or in any of your other photos. Is there a logic behind why they want blur?
Number two might be my favorite one. It really lets you know that the guy is getting wrecked. There is a blond guy getting hit towards the bottom and it doesn't look as gnarley. In number two that dude is getting worked, I love it.
I looked at it again. Did you warp his face at all?
Seriously BigTwinky, this is not a put-on...when a guy's head is snapping around from the impact of a punch, facial features can be distorted, ands the slower shutter speed allows motion blurring to occur...which creates a temporal feel. I can almost feel the punch. It looks different than a total stop-action shot, but this type of boxing photo has been around for decades. Some people consider that type of boxing shot to be highly desirable.
I smiled a bit when I read the OP's description : "and it can occur when a fighter gets "punched in the face""
As stated above, that's how the shot turned out. Clear and sharp is fine, but there's no way to correct a shot that's moving to that extent.
As far as how well the shots turn out, quality is predicated on a few factors:
- atmosphere and illumination
- quality of action/experience of fighters
- the competence of the photographer
and in only one of those factors do I have any control over.
I cringe at nearly every one of the photos in the second set, but at the same time I can't stop looking. Very nice.
Great photos once again. Huge fan of your work. What lens are you using for the shots???
For optical sharpness at a bargain price, you can't beat the Tamron 17-50, non-IS. It's every bit as sharp as the Canon 24-70L, at 1/3 the price.
Separate names with a comma.