UL Hurling

paudie

Hi guys, this is my first time shooting a hurling match. The lighting was pretty weird, clear skies but it was suunset, probably could have done with a fill flash in some places. Let me know what you think.

Thanks,
1.


2.


3.


4.


5.


6.


7.


8.


9.(My favourite)


10.

B0rG

I think bigger copyright put in the center will certainly add more to the image.

kjt

Nice photo's. I really like no 8 and 9, great action shots

Edit: a few borders around some of the other photo's could make them look a lot better.

Wez

B0rG wrote:

I think bigger copyright put in the center will certainly add more to the image.

lol

B0rG

2 Wez, you know just couldn't resist...

one thing thou... I have trouble remembering me seeing any kind of sport fotos with border or paspartu... Which made me thinking do you actually put border on sport fotos?

Tarakiwa

Number 8 is a greeat shot but you HAVE to do something about your signature ........ Way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way TOO BIG

Flipflip

Number 8 is definately the best I think.

But as was said, copyright is too big!

rymus

goes back to the old debate; big copyright on photos ruins display but small copyright doesn't stop people knicking your photos. For the purposes of displaying photos on boards, I think a small copyright in the corner would do the trick.

paudie

Ok, I'll accept that maybe the (c) should be on the same line as my name, but I think the type is the right size. How else is it suppose to stop people taking my photos, does it really take away from the photos that much. I don't think it gets in the way really.

Thanks for replying anyway.

Fenster

Any chance of a link your Flickr site? I didn't notice your photos in the boards.ie group.

paudie

www.flickr.com.photos/boardy

Valentia

Are you planning on selling these Paudie? They are really good. The sliothar in the shot is spot on and they are sharp. But If I wanted to rob these I wouldn't have any trouble cloning out the sig. Also at this size they can't be printed very big.

The way I look at it is if I have a picture that could sell It's very unlikely that the prospective buyers would be ripping my stuff off from here.

Fenster

I'm going to go with the unwashed masses about the watermark. It's not a deterrent and it's an outright eyesore - there's no point for me saying whether I like them or not as what I see when I look at the photos is your name in a horrible bloody font.

I'll occasionally add a tag in the EXIF data, but I personally want people to come look at my photos and then take them if they want them and tell all their friends about it.

thebaz

paudie wrote:

Ok, I'll accept that maybe the (c) should be on the same line as my name, but I think the type is the right size. How else is it suppose to stop people taking my photos, does it really take away from the photos that much. I don't think it gets in the way really.

Thanks for replying anyway.

your flickr link doesn't work , and i think the size is too big , i believe it does take away from photos , especially photos 8 and 9 which are excellent .
Have you had photos taken in the past , i didn't realise it was such a big problem, as Valentia says i don't think any potential buyer will nick it from here !

paudie

Thanks for some constructive criticism Valentia, appreciate it. The watermark is for Flickr where the audience is wider. But I take your point about the small image size.

I am thinking about possibly selling the shots. This was my first attempt at watermarking and to be honest I've seen a lot bigger ones. I guess because the shots are mine I'm able to see past the watermark a lot more easily than others.

I take your point about being able to get rid of the watermark easily, but I also realise that if someone really wants to get a photo there isn't a whole lot you can do to stop them. This watermark is to stop the average person copying it for themselves, something I have had problems with in the past.

Guess I'll be trying again with the watermark.

www.flickr.com/photos/boardy

Valentia

The light is actually very good Paudie. It is clean and crisp and I think it helps the pictures jump out. Who was playing? Some Cork crowd I suppose The only thing I would suggest is a wider aperture. This will throw the background out of focus, thereby focusing more on the action.

Hurling is a mighty game!!!

paudie

Just in case you were wondering I really did appreciate your comment as the others seemed to just give out but not mention why.

It was CIT vs. UL, I was shooting at F4, my max for that lens. I thought the bokeh was ok for most of them though. Guess I need to start saving for that 2.8 .

Edit: Ok guys I have to back off a little, I over reacted earlier. I just read through the posts properly and realised most people did mention the fact that it was too big. Rymus for some reason I missed your post completely. Guess I should post two lots on flickr, one with the watermark for general viewing and then a private one I can post on forums, problem solved (although a little tedious )

melekalikimaka

i like no. 8, indeed the watermark ruins them, also there is alot of grass space below a no. of the images that look like they are there almost for the watermark?

rymus

lock your flickr down to only making the normal 500px version viewable. Maybe allow full size to people you have marked as friends/family etc. Display the 500px version on here. I dont think anyone is going to bother wasting their time stealing an image that small... At least that way you wont have people giving out about huge watermarks.

Out of interest, what was the final score?

Oh and, what lens were you using?

paudie

70-200m F4 L

Didn't stay around, had to take my lift, CIT were ahead by a few points when I left though.

Will take all of the above into account for my next lot. Appreciate it guys.

Shrimp

The tension in shot 3 is great.. the muscles flexed as he's swingin the hurley. Nice work!

Oriel

Ok Ok, who are you actually thinking about selling them to, and who in their right mind would buy them?

rymus

way to go with being constructive.

B0rG

Constructive criticism...
here ye go (camera left right is assumed):

1. What we have on the picture - 1/5 of sky. 2/5 of trees, 2/5 of grass. Plus some people and the lame signature on top of the most important (i guess) part of the picture.

The main question what was photographed?

Technique:
Straight horizon needed - currently it's leaning to the right.
Sky removed! - important parts of the game are grass and players. blurred trees need to be cropped.
Severe cropping on the group of figures also required. Then we get the answer to the question what was photograped: arses.


2. Crop + zoom. For a photo of the jump, there is too much ground below (cropp above the (c) - for once its actually useful), and waaaaaay to much sky. Why you didn't remove old man on the right with crop is still a mistery to me, but I suppose putting the signature took a lot of time. Remove figures behind the players as there are 2 major mistakes - you cut the left hand of the old guy on the right, and cut left person by half. At least horizon is straight there...

3. Throwaway material. Shot needed to be taken split of the second before. Good sport photograpers can actually predict the situation and press the trigger millionth of a second before the actual event, so the event will be exposed.

And of course multiple pictures needed to be shot. The guy in red is falling to the left in very ugly way. Throwaway. Can't save anything here... Two guys on the right are nice, but amount of retouching needed to save them is just doesn't worth it.

4. This picture tells us that photographer didn't not bother to choose his photographing spot (so he could see the whole field) before the game began. Other than that I failed to understand why you spend time cropping and sharpening this photo...


5. Cropping is right here - should've done the same with 2. Ah ok - left background guy is chopped by half, and right has his elbow eaten... The major mistake here was the choice of focal length. The background is still sharp adn attract attention. photoshop the background from some of the prev photos and it will show the next mistake - sun shade on the face of the blue player...

6. WHERE ARE THEY GOING? You can try to straighten horizon, add some space to the right and remove some grass from the left, then flip the picture horizontally (so they walk from left to right). And then crop them below the stick...

7. This came out almost good, but... Crop above (c) from the bottom, and cut the sky as well (it's overexposed anyway). See if you have some space to save left guys elbow... But then it's just boring shot... Prolly left guy arse need to be shadened otherwise it stands out way too much...

8. This is ok - exposure is almost perfect, but then he looks a bit like a duck... I'd add cantimeter of grass below, and chop off cantimeter from the top but that's just me...

9. tis better. Again: horizon, crop a bit from top and bottom, check if you can save last guy feet, if not you can just crop the blue guy and it'll still be ok.

10. Horison is straight, cropping is good, but colors needs to be corrected. But still throwaway.

About the signature:
1. this font is only good for headers on cheap wedding invitation.
2. usual format of the copyright is (c) {year}, {person} i.e. (c) 2006, B0rG. The reason being is that copyright actually expires.
3. Resolution is extremely low for these pics to be used anywhere except web.
4. Photographic quality is extremely poor - I woudn't want to admit these are actually my pictures...

paudie

Thank you.

Most points taken. Just a note to say, of course they are low quality why would I waste everyones bandwidth by uploading full res?

I'm not fully sure what you mean by the photographic quality, as in the framing? The action? The exposure? All of the above?

About the colours, still working off of an uncalibrated monitor and not going to get it calibrated until new year, so I'll just have to deal with it.

In no. 4 I was trying to show a spectators POV, the crowd were included on purpose. Guess it didn't work.

As already mentioned I was shooting at F4, the limit of lens, and therefore some of the shots don't have perfect DOF.


BTW Sinecura, I was thinking of maybe selling to the clubs for their sites or something similar. Again thanks for being constructive.
Guess I need to spend more time on the editing.

Cheers.

B0rG

Nah, you need to think more what it is you're shooting and most importantly how.

This is top 200 photographs from most prominent russian photography web site. I'd suggest you check yourself how many people put the copyright on the pictures, and how they do it. What you posted does not deserve a copyright.
http://www.photosight.ru/list.php?id=21

As for now, try to stick to the simple rule - whatever is in focus is the subject (and object) of the photo. Everything else is garbage. Well, everything else is background if put on a PC way. If you wanted to show the spectators and the game then you should've used wide angle, as it gives you extremely large depth of field - so every object is in focus.

How to make that particular picture is entirely different question: you wanna show people watching the game - so the game and the people must be in cadre. Preferably equally sharp. What you got is blurred image of people's back's and some guys in shirts running on the background. Then you need to think what you want to say with the picture... If it's "People WATCHING the game" - then ppl's back's do not work, as you don't watch with your back, you watch with your eyes and facial expression of interest.

So

Before you shoot such a picture you need to think what kind of story you wanna tell with it: is it "PEOPLE ARE WATCHING the game" or it is "THE GAME that people are watching" depending on it you should choose the focus points and dof.

This is the example of the story I'm trying to tell:
http://picasaweb.google.com/peterperov/StPetersburg/photo#4981425221840535570
Though I know it's too early for me to actually tell it. I know about million things that are wrong with this photo, I'm waiting for summer when I go back to St.Petersburg and reshoot it.

And the last important part is to know your equipment. I assume you went to shoot with the 70-200. That gives you nice range from 70-135 and some flat pics on 135 - 200. The story you wanted to tell with (4) is just impossible to shoot with that kind of equipment.

Thing that bothers me most is that everyone on boards wants to get some 500mm lense and go shooting as if it's easy. In my opinion everyone should spend at least a year with the wide angle lens before taking tele, as shooting complex pictures with tele is more complicated.

I don't believe I'm actually doing this, but wait for my next post, it'll give you a good explanation of the dof, apperture and the focal length.

paudie

No need, I understand DOF apperture and focal length grand. I was purposely trying to keep the spectators out of focus and the players in focus, just experimenting. I do have wide angles but since I had the 70-200 and sports is better shot with a zoom I used it. I hadn't planned on getting the spectator shot before I went. I just saw the oppurtunity and took it, I didn't put as much thought into the shot as you think I did.

Just to let you know I definitely do want a 500mm or even a 600mm, but specifically to shoot surfing I know not to take it to a match.

I'd also like point out again that this was my first field sports shoot so don't think too badly of me.

B0rG

thing is 2.8 or 4 will not affect bokeh as much as focal range. What I was getting at is to have the players in focus and the background completely out of focus - so it's not noticeable that you cut off guys legs. Similar to good macro photography when the backgound is so blurred it's not recognisable.

paudie

Oh I didn't know there was a link between bokeh and focal length, my bad. I thought it was all down to having a really fast lens. I still don't get it though, is it a mix of big aperture and long focal length?

B0rG

you get good bokeh at long focal ranges. Basically you get your object separated from the background and background is nicely blurred. Both dof and bokeh are practically the same effect but on the different scale.

apperture affects it too, but not that big. I'll try to explain - imagine you're shooting portrait at 135mm:
at F4, you'll get subject eyes in focus, but ears will be blurred
at F11 you'll get the ears in focus too.
any background within 2 meters of the subject will be completely blurred - bokeh effect.

So knowing your subject distance you can manipulate focus/out of focus (dof and bokeh) using apperture and focus length. Mastering this effect is important.

This is changing when you focus on infinity - every object that is behind "infinity" distance will be reasonably in focus. Look at your 70-200 it has focus ring going up to 10 meters, that is your "infinity focus point".

Read my post and try setting up the same test - you'll see what I mean.

2.8 is a fast lense, but all it gives is the ability to shoot at low light at a price of a paper thin dof - again in my post I was shooting at 24mm with F2.8, you can see only one battery in focus.

Roen

Here's a cúpla links about DoF.
http://dofmaster.com/dof_imagesize.html
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dof2.shtml
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=98842
http://www.pinnipedia.org/optics/misconceptions.html

They may be on the techie head side of things but photography was developed (pardon the pun) by nerds back in the 1830's and it still is a science led discipline, the fact that artists and everyday folk have access to it and produce some wonderfully creative images cannot take away from the fact you need to get the tech side right first.

The sports snapper lads I know all used to use 600mm f4's for Gaelic games and 400 f2.8's for soccer. Now with the crop factor on the digi Nikon's they use the 600's are pretty much redundant and they use the 400's for almost all Gaelic sports.
In a match like the one your were at you can probably get closer i.e. on the touchline, to the action than they can so I wouldn't despair just yet.

Unfortunately, having said that, this is one of those problems in photography that can really only be solved by horsing loads of cash at it and getting a 2.8 or faster lens.

The important thing is that you get out and keep doing what you like doing. And save up for that 2.8 of course!

B0rG

of course in sports photography they sacrifice everything for shutter speed.