| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Newspapers Spoers photos:- Not always sharp...
Michael Cullen, Photographer
 |
Wexford Town | 0000 | Ireland | Posted: 10:43 AM on 11.13.07 |
->> I see many sports photos in newspapers and on news/sport web sites, and they are not 100% sharp, some of the are soft focus. Do sports photos, not need to be 100% sharp, I know this is not possible all of the time....
Your views.... |
|
David Bernacchi, Photographer
|
Milwaukee | WI | USA | Posted: 10:56 AM on 11.13.07 |
| ->> I've noticed that as well...I'd like to hear from some editors out there. |
|
Doug Steinbock, Photographer
 |
West Springfield | MA | USA | Posted: 11:16 AM on 11.13.07 |
->> Funny ya'll noticed that. yet, every time I look for work, I'm told my work doesn't meet the "high standards" of the AP, Getty, MLB.com, etc. Yet, The stuff I see in the papers every day isn't any better.
One editor told me that the pressure of deadlines leads to the inferior image quality. |
|
Andrew Brosig, Photographer
 |
Pittsburg | KS | United States | Posted: 11:18 AM on 11.13.07 |
| ->> I've had sports editors at various papers I've worked for that were bound and determined they were NOT going to run a photo I selected because "we ran the same kid last week," or "But this kid had an amazing game," or one of a dozen other reasons. Often, in my experience, anyway, there's no other option but to submit a less than perfectly focused image because the sports guys refuse a photo and there's just no other option because there has to be a photo. |
|
Michael Cullen, Photographer
|
Wexford Town | 0000 | Ireland | Posted: 11:28 AM on 11.13.07 |
->> So what is a good photo
1) zoom X1 to see if the face look sharp
or look at the pic on full- to see if it looks sharp?
Here in Ireland, I see many photos are very soft, or very poor focus.
How do you know if a photos is GREAT for AP/Getty etc? |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 11:45 AM on 11.13.07 |
->> 99.9% of readers you have to remember are not sports photographers and as such will not analyze the photos in the paper. They will gives the photo a quick glance and thats it. They won't even read the bylines belive it or not =)
Sharpness is nice but its not what really makes or breaks a good photo.
Various internet photography forums certainly put way to much emphasis on sharpness. When you've got people that take photos only to show off how sharp their lenses are and then debate it with other analytical types it causes some people to loss perspective.
Anyone who's ever shot in the youth sales market can all tell you some of the crazy images parents buy. You can have some amazing shot and a parent doesn't buy it but then another parent will drop $200 on some photo where their kid is half blocked by another player and not even the point of focus. Sharpness is lost one anyone who isn't a photographer.
Lets face it, we've all shown our significant others a photo from our new expensive lens and what responce do they give ?
"Looks the same as your old lens" doh!
Point is though that capturing the moment is what really matters. If you look back at some of the best photographic images of the 20th century you'll find that not all of them are razor sharp but they are all amazing shots.
I'm sure we all would love to get a 100% keeper rate from both our equipment and ourselves but thats not going to happen. There will be plenty of shots that are simply too out of focus to be useable and we've got to simply delete and move on.
There will also be shots where maybe the focus not dead on but still very close and the subjects are in an acceptable range of focus still.
Those are the shots we've got consider on overall merit and not suffer from the trap of tunnel vision in terms of "is it sharp or not" as the only thing we are considering when doing our editing and sorting |
|
Karl Stolleis, Photographer
 |
Santa Fe | NM | USA | Posted: 11:59 AM on 11.13.07 |
->> Lots of factors go into determining if something is sharp, as reproduced at a paper. How much sharpening, press register and press type all factor it. You really need to see the original image to say - sharp or not.
And yes, it does matter. Sharp is good. Soft is only good if someone's head is missing. |
|
John Setzler, Photographer
|
Hickory | NC | USA | Posted: 12:02 PM on 11.13.07 |
->> In my situation, my 'best' photos from any given sports event aren't usually the ones I get to have published. The MO at my sports desk is that the photographers get to fill holes in the page design. The pages are rarely designed to accommodate a great photograph. When I return to the newspaper with my work, I have to visit the sports desk and find out what size and shape my 'holes' for the assignment are, and then I go through my stuff from the shoot to find the best image that will fit the hole. It's very rare that my best work gets published.
Sharpness isn't usually much of a problem, but finding a crop composition that will nicely fill whatever my slot is can be difficult. |
|
Dave Amorde, Photographer
 |
Lake Forest | CA | USA | Posted: 12:40 PM on 11.13.07 |
| ->> I don't know about anyone elses images, but when mine turn out soft, the problem is rarely the lens in front of the camera; it's usually the moron behind it. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
 |
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 12:58 PM on 11.13.07 |
->> John if that's the case, and I'm sure that it is, then the first hole that needs filling is the one at the editors desk.
Jeff I once watched a mother almost have a melt down because we didn't want to sell her a photo of her kid that was plain oof, not soft, just focused 3 feet away. She kept shoving a $20 at the table help and demanding that she had the right to buy that picture! I would have laughed my ass off but was way to busy assuring her that she could have the shot gratis in light of the $80 she was spending. |
|
Michael Cullen, Photographer
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 1:13 PM on 11.13.07 |
| ->> Speaking of holes to fill, why is that page designers always seem to gravitate towards wide horizontal slots just when hoops season starts and all my shots are in the portrait orientation of 7 footers LOL |
|
Karl Stolleis, Photographer
|
Santa Fe | NM | USA | Posted: 3:23 PM on 11.13.07 |
->> The tennis pics I looked at the player/players are the in focus part of the frame. Looks like a combination of low res files (based on the artifacting you can see) and not enough sharpening (in the form of an unsharp mask - an industry standard).
The tipoff to a frame not being sharp is to find where the actual point of focus is in the frame.
Try turning off the sharpen filter in your camera and see how soft things look. |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 3:37 PM on 11.13.07 |
->> I don't know about anyone else but I'd be darn proud to say I've taken even one of those photos in that collection. Thats some world class photography by some of the best in the business.
No the tennis shot of Venus doesn't look tack sharp but does that really take away from the moment ? Can you as the viewer still feel the excitement and emotion of the win ? If so then its still an excellent photo.
Just like the saying about not being able to see the forest for the trees, don't get so wrapped up in technical details that you miss whats actually going on in the photo.
If you look at a photo and all you can see is sharp/unsharp, over/under exposed and so forth, then your missing out on what good sports photography is all about.
Its about the human element, the thrill of competition, agony of defeat, determination and all that good Wide World of Sports stuff. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
 |
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 3:54 PM on 11.13.07 |
| ->> ditto jeff....and I agree with karl. none of those photos looked sharp on my computer but I've actually seen some of them in print and they're razor sharp. and I too would be happy to have my name on any of those frames. incredible stuff |
|
Al Goldis, Photographer
 |
East Lansing | MI | USA | Posted: 3:58 PM on 11.13.07 |
| ->> None of the photos in the Reuters Sports Press PDF book are sharp, however, most are in fact in focus. It's just the production of the PDF that is the problem. |
|
Brad Penner, Photographer
 |
Neptune | NJ | USA | Posted: 5:22 PM on 11.13.07 |
->> "If you look at a photo and all you can see is sharp/unsharp, over/under exposed and so forth, then [you're] missing out on what good sports photography is all about.
[It's] about the human element, the thrill of competition, agony of defeat, determination and all that good Wide World of Sports stuff."
I strongly disagree. To me that sounds like an excuse from someone who made a soft image of a great moment.
If an image is soft and exposed improperly, it can have all the human elements in the world and it's still not a great photograph. It's just a great moment that the photographer missed. Period.
A great sports photo, as with any photo, really, needs everything to converge perfectly: a great, peak moment, tack-sharp focus, proper exposure, pleasing composition, and a clean background. Missing any one of those can turn a great moment into a lousy photograph.
Remember, it's the job of the photographer to make photographs. The greatness of the moment exists whether the photographer captures it or not. Just because they were there for this great moment doesn't necessarily mean they'll come back with a great image.
I guess my point is this: don't make excuses, or settle for "newspaper sharp" photographs. Make photographs that you are proud of, and don't use one extraordinary element to compensate for another less-than-extraordinary element. When all the elements come together to make that great photo, you will know it.
And above all else, keep shooting. Practice makes perfect... or will at least make you better.
-b. |
|
Doug Holleman, Photographer
 |
Temple | TX | USA | Posted: 5:39 PM on 11.13.07 |
->> Sometimes the importance of the moment captured outweighs the quality, as long as it's useable. And in some cases, editors just don't have a great eye. Sometimes it's a matter of what fits. Sometimes, those decisions are just made quickly, without a great deal of scrutiny.
I think most photographers have seen their own work published and wondered "why did they choose THAT photo?" when they had submitted much better photos in the batch. I know a lot of my favorite shots never saw the light of day.
A particular photo you see published somewhere is not always the best way to judge the photographer's skill. |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 6:02 PM on 11.13.07 |
->> I've got to disagree Brad.
I've seen hundreds of threads on various photography forums full of tack sharp photos of dollar bills, cats and brick walls. I'm talking text book perfect exposure, cut yourself sharpness, photos taken with the lenses that cost as much as a small car, the whole 9 yards.
Are any of those great or even good photos though ? Not hardly, a brick wall is a brick wall no matter how well exposed or how sharp.
On the other hand, on my bookcase I've got a few books on the greatest images of the 20th century and similar. You know the stuff, timeless photos by Nat Geo, Pulitzer winners, Bresson, Weston, Eddie Adams, etc etc (I always get those types of books year after year as gifts but I'm not complaining, keep sending them lol)
There are photos in there that are not in perfect focus.
There are photos that have motion blur due.
There are photos that have excessive grain.
There are photos with blown highlights.
There are photos that were underexposed.
There are photos with not enough DOF
There are photos with messy backgrounds
so on and so forth, you catch my drift I'm sure
Can you really say that any of those photos are in your words "A great moment that the photographer missed. Period."
I mean come on, If you posted Bresson's "Behind the Gare St. Lazare" on one of the popular photo forums for critique they'd tear it apart.
Poor framing, exposure, motion blur, you name it. You'd have a bunch of armchair photographers saying how the image sucks, giving advice about his needing a faster lens or using a higher ISO, tips on the rule of thirds etc etc.
Don't get me wrong, its always best to nail the focus and exposure, but thats certainly not defines a great image. |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
 |
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 6:02 PM on 11.13.07 |
->> Brad Penner said, "A great sports photo, as with any photo, really, needs everything to converge perfectly: a great, peak moment, tack-sharp focus, proper exposure, pleasing composition, and a clean background. Missing any one of those can turn a great moment into a lousy photograph."
Amen.
The five items Brad mention can be summed up in one word - SKILL. If you got it, making a lousy photograph is a non-issue and you will never turn on in to an editor.
If you want to make sure a soft image never gets use, delete the file while chimping on the sidelines. If it is grossly OOF dump it and work on getting a killer shot on the next exchange.
Sports editors don't have the same standards as photographers. They want art that will help tell the story with the words on the page.
Against my better judgment back in March I moved a photo that was softer than I would personally use, but it captured the moment, the jubilation and excitement, and I wanted to see if it would be used by the client. I sent one or two other jube shots to CYAA. Well, it got used alright. They pic ran six columns, 8 inches deep - huge on Sports' page 1. Obviously the sports guys liked it, but I was embarrassed by it. It was the first and last time I moved an image that soft to a client paper. |
|
Michael Cullen, Photographer
|
Wexford Town | 0000 | Ireland | Posted: 6:15 PM on 11.13.07 |
->> Have a look at this photo (Its not 100% sharp) but after reading what people are saying here, this photo would pass.
http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=6903
(Photo of Justine Henin at Sony Ericsson tennis Championships, Madrid, Spain last week) |
|
Michael McNamara, Photo Editor, Photographer
 |
Lincoln | NE | USA | Posted: 6:37 PM on 11.13.07 |
->> Focus-wise for a newspaper, the photo works. But it doesn't have the ball, it has a distracting background and she is squinting.
If you want to make an editor accept a photo that isn't tack sharp, there should be other compelling content, and the tennis photo doesn't have it.
In a tennis match, a player will hit the ball hundreds of times, so for a photo like this (a very common moment in the course of a match), there needs to be more going on to make an editor look beyond the focus. |
|
Ron Scheffler, Photographer
 |
Hamilton (Toronto area) | Ontario | Canada | Posted: 6:52 PM on 11.13.07 |
->> "A particular photo you see published somewhere is not always the best way to judge the photographer's skill."
I agree. And what you also don't see in the photo is the situation in which the photographer was working. Many times there are factors beyond the photographer's control that affect quality of content in addition to how technically good that content is.
When looking at sports photos one has lots of time to examine the content and overlook just how fleeting some of those moments really are. Or the reflex/reaction/timing/coordination needed to even get the shot. And on the technical side, just imagine the days of manual focus... most of us would be lucky to get a fraction of of the usable images we get now... and not having digital to confirm that we really did get what we thought we got.
While not about sports only, I think this is an insightful read: http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1834 and this comment from it sticks in my mind: "I was expected to cover big events alone, and transmit. There were times I felt miserable, unable to go through the creative process. My internship threw me into the chaos and frenzy of covering news, news and more news. I loved every second of it. I learned that I enjoyed covering news above all else. I learnt quickly to be resourceful, fast and decisive. I learned that it didn't matter that I didn't shoot anything that was visually astounding." |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 6:54 PM on 11.13.07 |
->> Clark, who are you trying to impress ? Other photographers or editors ?
If you produce art that tells the story of the words on the page then in my book your doing well.
If editors are using your photos then you are doing well.
Its the editors after all who are the ones that are writing the checks.
I've never made a dime off another photographer saying "wow, sharp photo" |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 7:02 PM on 11.13.07 |
->> Michael, I think your missing the point because that photo would not in my opinion "pass" regardless of how sharp or unsharp it is.
Theres no ball, the motion blur detracts from the image if anything and its a bit of an ackward pose overall of the player. Not a horrible shot mind you but its certainly not going to go down in history either.
You caption mentions an "epic victory" That shot does not in any way say epic victory to me.
The Venus shot on the Rueter's website however does, sharp or not.
Thats the real difference |
|
Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer
 |
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 7:26 PM on 11.13.07 |
| ->> 100% sharpness isn't quite as important as, say, 100% correct spelling... |
|
Ryan Miller, Student/Intern, Photographer
 |
Corning | NY | USA | Posted: 8:08 PM on 11.13.07 |
| ->> From what I have been taught...."content is what matters." |
|
Steve Daggs, Photographer
 |
Washington | IL | USA | Posted: 9:23 PM on 11.13.07 |
| ->> I am with Brad and Clark. If the photo is running with my credit on it, it will have all the elements of a quality image, especially sharpness. With today's new web presses, newspaper reproduction has just about eliminated "newspaper sharp" from the quality equation. |
|
Aaron Rhoads, Photographer
 |
McComb | MS | USA | Posted: 10:02 PM on 11.13.07 |
->> Chuck,
the crab boat in your main photo is a little soft don't ya think.
8) |
|
Brad Penner, Photographer
|
Neptune | NJ | USA | Posted: 10:13 PM on 11.13.07 |
->> Jeff, you said this:
"I've seen hundreds of threads on various photography forums full of tack sharp photos of dollar bills, cats and brick walls. I'm talking text book perfect exposure, cut yourself sharpness, photos taken with the lenses that cost as much as a small car, the whole 9 yards.
Are any of those great or even good photos though? Not hardly, a brick wall is a brick wall no matter how well exposed or how sharp."
Did you read my entire post? Slow down and read it again. What I said is that ALL FIVE ELEMENTS must be exhibited for a photograph to be considered great. And I'm not talking about passable here, I'm talking about great. Moment, focus, exposure, composition and background. Your examples of dollar bills and brick walls are clearly missing the element of moment. However, an image that has the element of a moment, but lacks, say, proper exposure or focus, is just as flawed.
Jeff, I know you posed the question to Clark, but I'll give you my answer. I'm not trying to impress other photographers -or- editors. I'm trying to impress myself. I know I can produce images that will run in most publications. That's not an issue for me. I am, however, and will always be, my own toughest critic. That's the only way to improve. When someone tells me I've made a good image, of course I appreciate it, but in my mind I'm going over the hundred things I wish I'd done better. That's just the way I am, and the way I have to be if I hope to keep improving my craft.
Jeff, you also said this:
"I've never made a dime off another photographer saying "wow, sharp photo""
But I'll bet a dollar to a donut (whatever that means) that another photographer won't tell you that you've got a great photo if it's not sharp.
Making a great photograph is like baking a cake. You can add just the right amounts of sugar, eggs, milk and butter to the batter, but if you forget to add the flour it's going to taste like shit.
One more, Jeff:
"If editors are using your photos then you are doing well."
I see a -lot- of garbage in almost every publication I look at. Like I said, I'm confident in my ability to make "usable" images. If you can sleep at night because you make images that are "good enough for publication," then by all means, we can agree to disagree. That doesn't mean, though, that you're making great images. If, on the other hand, you'd like to become the best photographer you can be and make great images, then why would you stop at "usable?"
-b. |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 11:04 PM on 11.13.07 |
->> Hey Jeff,
Brad's last post expresses my thoughts to your questions almost to the word and far more eloquently than I probably could have written. |
|
Joe Cavaretta, Photographer
 |
Ft Lauderdale | FL | USA | Posted: 11:13 PM on 11.13.07 |
| ->> well, as we used to say at an unnamed large picture agency that I used to work for: "There's sharp, and there's wire sharp." |
|
Aaron Rhoads, Photographer
|
McComb | MS | USA | Posted: 11:32 PM on 11.13.07 |
->> I myself am changing by photography style.
I'm now going to a "Barbara Walters-The View/Liz Taylor-White Diamonds" type of picture takin. |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 11:47 PM on 11.13.07 |
->> I certainly respect all of you guys opinions even though they may differ a bit from mine so don't take my continued debate to be anything other than simply that, debate.
That said, here is something that struck me as sort of intresting as I've thought over all the points brought up.
At most any event we are at anymore, theres plenty of photographers taking plenty of photos right ? I'm sure we've all felt the effects of market saturation in recent years. Sit on a packed baseline at a bball game and listen to 15 guys all hammer the motordrive at 8-10 FPS and just consider that for one given play theres probably been at least 100 frames taken of it.
Now if some editor chooses a certain shot as the one they want to run, even if it may be a touch soft, over all the other possible choices, a good portion being in focus, well exposed and otherwise textbook perfect, whats that say about the shot used ?
If I have a slightly soft shot (which is all my first few 1D mkIII's could produce in fact) and it still ends up in print over someone else, why is that ?
Did the editor simply not care or could he/she not tell the difference ?
Did my frame capture a certain moment that trumps the better technical attributes of the other photos ?
So I understand that some of you say you felt or would feel embarassed if a less than perfect image of yours ran with your name on it, but should you perhaps feel proud ?
Proud that even when you weren't at your best you still produced an image more desirable that some other guys best in focus shots of the same moment ?
your thoughs ? |
|
Sam Morris, Photographer
 |
Henderson (Las Vegas) | NV | USA | Posted: 12:11 AM on 11.14.07 |
->> Damn, that Capa sure blew it with that photo of the D-Day landing. I can't believe that photo even got printed.
My point being is that on occasion, everything converges to make a great photo. For the run of the mill, everyday sports photo that runs in the paper, it better be sharp. If you didn't get it, you didn't get it. Curse yourself, try to do better next time and move on.
At the very least, don't include it in a portfolio or online gallery. And be sure to proofread your post and subject title. |
|
Jeremy Harmon, Photo Editor, Photographer
 |
Salt Lake City | UT | USA | Posted: 1:41 AM on 11.14.07 |
->> "What I said is that ALL FIVE ELEMENTS must be exhibited for a photograph to be considered great."
I disagree. Great photography is about communication. It has very little to do with how good somebody is at using all the auto-gizmos on their camera. Sam is right that everyday run of the mill stuff had better be sharp (and technically sound in other ways as well), but on occasion, content will trump form. If content overrides technical "accuracy", it will run.
And to the person who marked Steenburgh's comment as inappropriate may I say, you will never see a correction run in a paper that says a photo was too soft, but you will see a correction run in a paper if some part of your caption is spelled incorrectly. |
|
Derrick den Hollander, Photographer
|
Melbourne | VIC | AUSTRALIA | Posted: 5:56 AM on 11.14.07 |
->> Brad, your first post here is quite possibly one of the best I've ever read on this site. I agree almost completely, but I think the extra element has to be "caption".
My editors would'nt be very impressed if I submitted pictures that were'nt sharp. If you submit your images to any wire service, agency, magazine or newspaper without a proper caption, you're sunk. It is an industry standard - at least from my experience. Sometimes you'll miss one of Brad's elements, and it may get run - but no caption, and the picture won't see light of day.
I won't single out any person here, but if your gallery here or on any other site, that you refer an editor/agency to, has no captions - then you can pretty much forget getting a look in the front door.
I've worked at international events, and provided agencies like Getty, Reuters, AFP, AP, AAP, News, Fairfax, Yonhap, Xinhua etc etc with the information they need to caption images. Results, rankings, team lists, etc etc etc. This is provided to photographers in media centres at every major international event.
Photographers will spend hours after an event captioning and submitting images. It is possibly the toughest part of an event, especially if you are not familiar with the sport, but you must have them. The best photographers will have the whole caption process downpat, and be out of a venue within a couple of hours of the day's events completion - the inexperienced will spend many, many hours doing it. If You're shooting say an Olympic Games, you're possibly in for 12+ hours a day just shooting. Add a couple of hours captioning - and do this for 14 days straight. Spend 6, 7 , 8 hours captioning, and you'll burn out within a few days - my point is, get into the hang of it now, so when you nail that big assignment, or Getty or Reuters decide to give you a go - it's all second nature.
Do this with all of your sports assignments you place into public scrutiny (eg: your website, or online gallery/portfolio), no matter how small, so when Getty or whoever come a knocking, they'll see your work is industry standard. No training, babying, fixing your stuff-ups, nothing - they can trust and be relatively sure that the big event they give you, you know the industry standard.
Again, on Brad's post - I agree totally with what he mentions are elements for great pictures. I shoot junior, high school, elite sport - even with juniors, if the background are parents or cars or empty seats, I'll move - or find an elevated position, blur the background with DOF or slow shutter, to get a clean background. You must know your equipment intimately to get sharp, properly exposed pictures. You must have some level of expertise for your pictures to be run. To quote another poster here - SKILL.
There are always exceptions to Brad's elements, but if you look at best pictures from major international sporting events, their common theme are the elements Brad mentioned.
My newspaper editors will run my sports pictures either way - but if I ignored those core elements, then I'd not get very much work. It's taken me a few years to get up to speed with the highest standards - not that I reach them, but it's certainly what I aim for. If I submitted images without captions, my ears would ring for days after my editor called me, and I'd find I get more and more days off.
Disclaimer: If you shoot pictures where Mum's and Dad's are your market, then I guess you don't need to remember Brad's advice. However, when you do nail a big gig, don't expect for all the elements to all come together if you have'nt practised this every single time you shoot.
Good on you Brad, an insightfull post - in my opinion and experience. |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 2:39 PM on 11.14.07 |
->> Jeff wrote - "So I understand that some of you say you felt or would feel embarassed (sic) if a less than perfect image of yours ran with your name on it, but should you perhaps feel proud ?"
Me? Nope. I have lots of less than perfect images run every week. I'm not proud of them. In a way, they piss me off because though I may have turned in the best I had from the assignment, I still think I can do better. The perfect shot is elusive but the thrill for me is in the chase ;-)
Jeff wrote - "Proud that even when you weren't at your best you still produced an image more desirable that some other guys best in focus shots of the same moment ?"
Nope. If the editor had a slightly OOF pic and a razor sharp images from another shooter in front of him from the exact same moment I would expect him to pick the sharp one. Wouldn't you as an editor?
If an OOF pic (or a pic with some other deficiency) runs that just means that there was nothing better from to select from of that moment or from the event or the editors in the process don't care or didn't take time to look at the technical details of the image as closely as the content. Yes, there are times when the content merits running a less than technically correct image and that is okay in my book. However, IMHO, it should be the exception and not the norm. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 3:09 PM on 11.14.07 |
| ->> if you turn in an OOF photo at our paper it better have some SERIOUSLY redeeming quality or you're going to have a very pissed off picture editor wanting to know why you turned in crap. and it's all downhill from there.... |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 3:32 PM on 11.14.07 |
->> I think that goes without saying most anywhere Chuck.
Point of the whole thing though is that there can in fact be redeeming qualities that trump sharpness in SOME cases. As few and far between as they may be, they do exist.
Theres not an absolute rule that if it is not tack sharp it is garbage, 100% of the time, no questions asked, period.
To each his own and if someone wants to live and shoot by a strictly black and white set of standards for every image they produce, more power to them. It should ideally serve them very well and take them far.
However, I for one am quite glad that we have had photographers and editors in the past that judged based on content above all else in SOME situations.
Theres a lot of classic photo's that might have never seen the light of day had someone been to rigid on technical quality and didn't see value of the content. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
 |
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 4:32 PM on 11.14.07 |
->> As an aside, how often does an image appear less sharp or otherwise deficient due to heavy cropping rather than how the image was originally captured?
I've seen images run in the local paper from shooters I was standing within 10 feet of, using the same focal length, where I have an image of the same moment, and the crop that runs - and runs fairly large - is extreme. i.e. 20-30% of the frame is used. |
|
Andrew Bright, Photographer
|
Auckland | New Zealand | New Zealand | Posted: 5:48 PM on 11.14.07 |
| ->> My 2 cents: sharpness can mean the difference between a good image and a great image, or a great image and a stunning image. From my own experience, the images I truly think are world class are the ones that have the 5 Bradlements discussed earlier. They're the images you can just lose yourself in. If they only have 4, they're still very good or great. |
|
Aaron Suozzi, Photographer
 |
Fort Wayne | IN | USA | Posted: 7:10 PM on 11.14.07 |
->> Here is my 2 cents:
I think people are trying to split hairs when it's a very simple answer:
IT'S EITHER IN FOCUS OR IT'S IN THE TRASH.
I shoot a lot of sports and it sucks to miss that moment or the peak action of a game, but that is life and you move on to make the next picture. It is impossible to have every moment of every game, you do the best you can. But in my opinion there is no excuse to use out of focus pictures. |
|
Doug Steinbock, Photographer
|
West Springfield | MA | USA | Posted: 7:23 PM on 11.14.07 |
->> Aaron,
Let's say, you were shooting a football game and an airplane crashed into the press box killing the President of the United States. Being the top notch shooter you are, you held your camera on the crash and captured the whole scene. But, because it was a night game, your photo's were underexposed and a little out of focus.
Would you destroy the images because "IT'S EITHER IN FOCUS OR IT'S IN THE TRASH?" Even though this image would make the front page of every major newspaper in the World?
Is "in focus" really that important or is it the event itself? |
|
Aaron Suozzi, Photographer
|
Fort Wayne | IN | USA | Posted: 7:53 PM on 11.14.07 |
->> Doug,
Can we be serious for a minute? The question is related to sports photos being out of focus and not Air Force 1 crashing into the press box at the game one is photographing. What I am saying is as professionals we have to have standards, that is what separates us from the weekend warriors who have a new EOS Rebel and think they are the next great sports photographer because they saw a commercial on TV.
In addition to shooting on a regular basis, I also teach three photography classes at the local university. From the beginning of the semester I am constantly stressing the importance of proper exposure and focus. These are the building blocks of photography and without those, what do you have?
As a freelancer, I am constantly having to compete with photographers who are willing to do work for less than what I charge or even for free. But I don’t lose my clients to them because my standards are so high. They know I am going to deliver high quality pictures on time. Now this didn’t happen over night, it’s the result of a lot of hard work. In college I was constantly picking Brad Mangin’s brain about how to shoot this sport or that (I don’t think Brad is delivering out of focus pics to Sports Illustrated or any of his other clients). I volunteered to carry gear for San Jose Mercury News photographers like Dick Wisdom and Michael Rondou, just so I could see how they did things and learn from them.
We all have standards that we choose, my personal standard is: IT’S IN FOCUS OR IT’S IN THE TRASH. |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 8:14 PM on 11.14.07 |
->> "the 5 Bradlements"
ROTFLMAO.....that makes your post worth more than 2 cents Andrew...that's priceless...LOL |
|
Brad Penner, Photographer
|
Neptune | NJ | USA | Posted: 9:00 PM on 11.14.07 |
->> Andrew:
I'm honored to have a word coined in my likeness...
Everyone:
Photos of great historical significance are just that - photos of great historical significance. If they're also great photos, then so be it. But a photo can win award after award for its historical significance and still be mediocre. All I'm concerned about is making great photos. Again, the great moment happens whether or not the photographer nails the shot. So when I, the photographer, find myself in the middle of a great moment of some significance, I want to be sure that I will be prepared to make a great image, not a soft image of a great event.
-b. |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 1:18 AM on 11.15.07 |
->> Brad, who's the judge of what makes a great photo though ?
You ? Me ? Popular opinion ? The judge who gives it an award ?
If we have Aaron and his "its in focus or its in the trash" mindset judge a contest he could very well pick a very different winner as to what a "great photo" is than some avant garde fine art photographer right ?
When a soccer mom buys a poster of her kid, even if its a little soft and she and the rest of the family says "great photo" are they mistaken ?
I've attended gallery openings with one friend who likes to stand back 15 feet from an image to take it all in and another who likes to look at it with an 8x loupe. Which one of them would be a better judge as to what a "great image" is ?
I'm as wrapped up in technical perfection as anyone, maybe more so even. I've spent countless nights comparing lenses, blowing every image up at 400% til I can hardly see straight, driving my peers crazy with asking them if they think my TC is making my 400 look soft each and every game, returning 1D mkIII after mkIII after mkIII because none of the images are sharp enough in a sequence.
I fully understand and live the anal detail obsessed gearhead photographer lifestyle. Its what works for me, but, at the same time I'm not going to go tell someone taking a photo with a Holga or worse yet, a LensBaby, that they can't produce a "great photo" because it wouldn't produce an image that meets my standard of technical perfection.
Would you ?
As an analogy, I play a bit of blues guitar as my distraction from photography. I've jammed with guys who are quite anal about tuning. They bring their Peterson stroboscopic tuner to a informal jam. They get on everyones case about improper intonation of their instruments.
These guys would no doubt say "if its not in tune its garbage" fair enough ?
But then you go listen to Hendrix live at Berkley or some other mind blowingly amazing performance of your choice (I love Jimi myself) and you realize he's not quite in tune. Granted he's so high I don't know how he could even stand so maybe that makes him even more amazing but thats neither here nor there.
Point is, was the Berkley performance therefore garbage ? |
|
Wally Nell, Photographer
 |
CAIRO | EG | EGYPT | Posted: 10:53 AM on 11.15.07 |
->> My humble opinion is that rules are there to be broken, ... as the exception, not as the rule. I think Brad's posts have expressed what most people's views are. If we take the example of Air Force One crashing in the press box, someone mentioned that they would use an unsharp picture. Yes, but only if there are no sharp ones. And the news value will of course dictate the leniency in the usage of the image. I cannot see any editor knowingly choose an unsharp picture over a sharp picture of the same thing.
All I know, is that for me to keep any unsharp pictures, or transmit any unsharp images; the content would have to be really outstanding; and very different from any of the sharp images I have. I keep maybe .01% of my unsharp images for the sake of content, and of those, very very few have ever been published.
With regards to the images of Robert Capa, the very fact that his pictures had motion blur, told the story. It was not a mistake, it was part of the story. If you have motion blur, or unsharp images because of error, ... I just cant see it being acceptable. The unsharpness has to be part of the story for it to work.
Certainly for magazine work I have done, if it was not 100% sharp, it went into the trash. And the image quality in the mag is and has been outstanding, ... because only the best images were used. |
|
This thread has reached the maximum number of posts
If you would like to continue it, please create a new thread.
[ Create new thread? ]
|| Sponsor Special Deals
Nikon D3 (refurbished demo!)
|
Available from:
Samy's Camera
|
Price: $3799.00 |
Notes:
We have 15 refurbished demo Nikon D3 cameras available. First come, first served! Comes with a 3 month manufacturer warranty, and extended warranties are available. Send an email to samys@sportsshooter.com, or call 866-726-9463 and identify yourself as a person from SportsShooter.
|
|
-- More Info -- |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|
