beach volleyball

[amolitor]

Guess photographers shooting for SI aren't doing this right either.

NHL news, scores, stats, fantasy - Hockey - SI.com

Oh look, a contextually relevant, recognizable object which so far from detracting from the main subject (the athlete) is quite muted (darker toned) and actually creates a line pointing directly AT the athlete without being in the way, or being visually distracting.

That's exactly what I was talking about, thanks for the really great example of what I was describing as a good use of this idiom.

 

[imagemaker46]

Tell you what amolitor, if I ever need any tips on how to shoot static flowers or sleeping babies you'll be the first person I check with. I have to say that I'm not really too thrilled with the hockey shot, I know that is a standard pose, there are just so many poses you can do with hockey players and a stick.

 

[runnah]

I disagree with Andrew and agree with 46 on this one.

 

[amolitor]

Oh, I hardly know anything about flowers and babies, I just muddle through. But feel free to ask!

 

[imagemaker46]

Oh, I hardly know anything about flowers and babies, I just muddle through. But feel free to ask!

Oh sorry, the only pictures I've seen of yours were a flower and a baby.

 

[amolitor]

Oh, I hardly know anything about flowers and babies, I just muddle through. But feel free to ask!

Oh sorry, the only pictures I've seen of yours were a flower and a baby.

Well, those are certainly things I take pictures of. I just don't claim to have any special knowledge.

 

[imagemaker46]

Some fields of photography require a knowledge of the subject and others don't, shooting sports does require an understanding of each sport. Whatever works for the individual.

 

[gsgary]

Only one bum shot

 

[imagemaker46]

Only one bum shot

I do have lots more in the "personal file"

 

[vintagesnaps]

That photo was literally the first thing I saw when I looked at SI's NHL page. I would think the stick is recognizable (but with hockey at least where I live you never know) and no it's not obscuring the subject but I think it can work either way. I never thought about it to realize I use that technique and not just when I've been shooting hockey. I may have something in the foreground out of focus and partially obscuring what is in focus, or not, it depends on what it is.

 

[imagemaker46]

I'm doing a shoot with 7-8 hockey players tomorrow for some newspaper ads and will probably be using that pose for a couple of them, I have a few ideas for the others, but only have 30 minutes for the shoot before practice starts. I wonder sometimes just how much these "creative" directors understand photography and what's involved in setting this stuff up.

 

[amolitor]

That photo was literally etc etc

What? I have no idea where you're going here.

Anyways, go find me a picture on SI.com where the subject's face is hidden behind the ball, or the stick, or the wall, or the fan, or, well, anything. You know what SI does with those pictures? It doesn't publish them.

 

[Hooligan Dan]

I had a long thought out response to all of this then I deleted it. Long story short, pro photogs shoot sports with very shallow DOF to single out the subject. A ball out of focus is far less distracting than a subject lost in the background because a deep DOF is used. A sports (ball)sports action photo without the ball is completely useless in almost every case, so it needs to be there. Layering, which in many sports is unavoidable, is also a standard professional sports practice(and in photojournalism in general). I was recently told by my editor that I'm not layering enough.

Google olympic beach volleyball. There are countless shots similar to these shot by AP, SI and any other large publication you can find. Same goes for soccer, baseball, rugby, football.

If you don't like that style that's fine. But it is the way sports are shot on an amateur and pro level. I hate photos of babies, flowers, selective coloring and I'm not particularly good that them. And I really hate babies dressed as flowers. But does that mean that style of photo, which is everywhere, is the wrong way of shooting a baby?

 

[Hooligan Dan]

That photo was literally etc etc

What? I have no idea where you're going here.

Anyways, go find me a picture on SI.com where the subject's face is hidden behind the ball, or the stick, or the wall, or the fan, or, well, anything. You know what SI does with those pictures? It doesn't publish them.

Associated Press. They cover far more sporting events than SI does and they publish them every single day.

London Olympics Beach Volleyball Women

 

[imagemaker46]

I had a long thought out response to all of this then I deleted it. Long story short, pro photogs shoot sports with very shallow DOF to single out the subject. A ball out of focus is far less distracting than a subject lost in the background because a deep DOF is used. A sports (ball)sports action photo without the ball is completely useless in almost every case, so it needs to be there. Layering, which in many sports is unavoidable, is also a standard professional sports practice(and in photojournalism in general). I was recently told by my editor that I'm not layering enough.

Google olympic beach volleyball. There are countless shots similar to these shot by AP, SI and any other large publication you can find. Same goes for soccer, baseball, rugby, football.

If you don't like that style that's fine. But it is the way sports are shot on an amateur and pro level. I hate photos of babies, flowers, selective coloring and I'm not particularly good that them. And I really hate babies dressed as flowers. But does that mean that style of photo, which is everywhere, the wrong way of shooting a baby?

Thanks for this Dan.