Golf

imagemaker46 · Feb 11, 2012

It appears that you have the gear, what you haven't quite yet aquired is the skills to use it. The first shot has nothing to do with the guy walking into the frame, but more that it's really late,the second shot, no ball, no shot. The next two, are motor drives and a hope to get the ball in, and the last one says nothing about golf. My only advice is to look at golf photos and take what you see to the course, you have a lens long enough to do the job.

EIngerson · Feb 12, 2012

Nice series!

FilmaTroy · Feb 13, 2012

Go check out some pro golf mags. Your timing should usually be in the follow through for the best shots. In golf photos you shouldnt need to show actual action shots of the ball being hit. just my opinion. i would say #2 is your best shot it shows the action by the grass divot flying, and as you see it was time later the others and still shows the action

AceCo55 · Feb 14, 2012

Thankyou all for taking the time to provide feedback - it really is appreciated and definitely helps one question what they are doing.

imagemaker46: you may well be right but I'm not sure I agree that a golf shot without the ball is necessarily a "no shot". For me the last shot is all about the passion this guy has for the game. The promise of success for it ... only to have it snatched away at the last moment as the ball hangs on the edge ... and his reaction to it. Perhaps it is more of a photojounalistic style than a pure sport shot ... but isn't that an essential element to why people play and watch sport? (the struggle / the emotion / the successes - the defeats)
"the second shot, no ball, no shot. The next two, are motor drives and a hope to get the ball in" ... well I did get the ball in both so I'm not sure you can have it both ways? But if you could elaborate I'd be grateful - I'm not trying to be a smart-arse ... I really am interested in the difference.
(I can tell you golf downswings are so fast my 6fps 'motor-drive' does not guarantee a keeper. Lot more to do with timing than shooting rate). I would also suggest that sports photography generally has a lower keeper rate than many other types of photography ... so I see nothing wrong in using continuous shooting to increase my chances of catching a moment.
As I said I am grateful for everyone's observations and it can only help me.

imagemaker46 · Feb 14, 2012

AceCo55 said:
Thankyou all for taking the time to provide feedback - it really is appreciated and definitely helps one question what they are doing.

imagemaker46: you may well be right but I'm not sure I agree that a golf shot without the ball is necessarily a "no shot". For me the last shot is all about the passion this guy has for the game. The promise of success for it ... only to have it snatched away at the last moment as the ball hangs on the edge ... and his reaction to it. Perhaps it is more of a photojounalistic style than a pure sport shot ... but isn't that an essential element to why people play and watch sport? (the struggle / the emotion / the successes - the defeats)
"the second shot, no ball, no shot. The next two, are motor drives and a hope to get the ball in" ... well I did get the ball in both so I'm not sure you can have it both ways? But if you could elaborate I'd be grateful - I'm not trying to be a smart-arse ... I really am interested in the difference.
(I can tell you golf downswings are so fast my 6fps 'motor-drive' does not guarantee a keeper. Lot more to do with timing than shooting rate). I would also suggest that sports photography generally has a lower keeper rate than many other types of photography ... so I see nothing wrong in using continuous shooting to increase my chances of catching a moment.
As I said I am grateful for everyone's observations and it can only help me.

1. You are early on the follow through, if you had more twist in the body and could see the head of the club it would have really worked, the guy in the background does kill the image.
2. Without the ball in this shot it look like he could just be hitting a clump of glass, these are hard golf shot s to get, as the timing has to right on, and the angle you have to shoot from is key, same with coming out of the sand trap, the sand exploding, but the ball really does make the difference between a hit and miss shot.
3-4. There is nothing wrong with these as simple golf shots, you have all the elements in the frames.
5. This would have worked really well if you had the golfer head to toe, with the whole club in the frame. It's really too tight, being able to only see a tiny bit of the grip doesn't say he's playing golf. As a stand alone photo it doesn't work, as a series of photos where you have other golf shots it would be ok.

Golf is one of those sports where you have to work to get great images, using a long lens and being able to shoot from a little further back allows you to get into the best angles, timing is the real key to shooting golf. You also have to always be aware of the camera noise, drives golfers nuts, I think even at fun stage of just playing. Again a longer lens keeps you further back and creates less distraction.

AceCo55 · Feb 15, 2012

imagemaker46: thank you for the extra detail. Makes a lot of sense - I will try the 200-400 lens and try to improve my shots/timing. I agree about the last shot - would have been a lot better to have it in context - would have been a lot better story. Sometimes the shooter (me) can get a little precious about a shot because you know the "story" of the individual and the context of events before and after the shot. Thank you for reminding me that the whole story has to be in the shot for others to appreciate the same set of circumstances.
I really do appreciate the time you have taken to point out things I should look for.
Back to the fairways!!