| 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
Live Redskins Photo Feed
Justin L. Fowler, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Guy Rhodes, Photographer
 |
East Chicago | IN | USA | Posted: 3:46 PM on 09.11.05 |
| ->> Kinda refreshing seeing someone elses entire take, back-focused images and all. Makes me feel a lot better with the night football game I struggled with last week. |
|
Delane B. Rouse, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Washington, DC & Seattle | WA | US | Posted: 3:46 PM on 09.11.05 |
->> they posted 111 pics from Q1, 67 fdrom Q2, and 96 from Q3. I see q few that are out of focus (it happens), but I think this is just terrible.
A quality publication such as the Washington Post shouldn't show the public images that otherwise would never see the light of day...
dbr |
|
Rick Burnham, Photographer
|
Enfield | CT | USA | Posted: 4:18 PM on 09.11.05 |
| ->> You can look at it this way they probably won't be viewed because who would want to see the 'Skins any way?? |
|
Robert Dall, Photographer, Assistant
|
Winnipeg | MB | Canada | Posted: 4:43 PM on 09.11.05 |
->> I don't know. . . but didn't Bill Eppridge say at the "The Last Luau" that the highest honour a publication can give is to publish the photographer contact sheet.
Isn't this kinda the digital version of it????
I know the Robert Kennedy Assination and a Red Skins game are two very different things, but I though I'd be Devil's Advocate for once. . . . |
|
Damon Moritz, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Woodbridge | Va. | USA | Posted: 6:06 PM on 09.11.05 |
->> I agree it would be an honor.
This, however, is using technology for the sake of using technology. Someone wanted to say "We did this first."
It doesn't really work for me as something I would like to do. |
|
Doug Holleman, Photographer
|
Temple | TX | USA | Posted: 1:36 AM on 09.12.05 |
->> I'm in total agreement with Guy. This is something I've always been curious about, whether big-time photographers get anywhere near the number of crappy shots that I do during a typical game. It's nice to see some clunkers here and there. Kinda gives me a little more hope.
I sure wouldn't want thousands of people gawking at every non-chimped frame I shot during a game.
Doug |
|
Thad Parsons, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Oxford | UK | United Kingdom | Posted: 7:11 AM on 09.12.05 |
->> One comment that I have (which is slightly off topic) is about the layout of the section holding the photos. It does not work for vertical photos. Why would you design something that does not work for vertical photos?
Just the biggest thing that jumped out to me while browsing the photos ... |
|
Bob Ford, Photographer
|
Lehighton | Pa | USA | Posted: 8:55 AM on 09.12.05 |
| ->> Do you think the photographer really only took 349 photos at the game? I don't know about everyone else, but I shot a LOT more than that at an average NFL game. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 11:22 AM on 09.12.05 |
| ->> Great. We're now one step closer to video. |
|
Tim Gasperak, Photographer
|
San Francisco | CA | USA | Posted: 11:33 AM on 09.12.05 |
->> There are a few interesting things about this to me. 1) I don't personally feel like this is using technology for technology's sake. It's an interesting marketing vehicle for the paper and they potentially increase online readership at a time when most people wouldn't read the online paper. Remains to be seen if that actually works for them, but it's worth a try.
2) I take maybe the controversial stance that we photographers on the whole are too protective of our outtakes. We take the attitude that by somehow "hiding" our outtakes that we maintain some level of mystery and voodoo about what we do, as if we take nothing but outstanding pictures all the time. I definitely think there's a time and place to share outtakes vs. selects, but I think the Post's experiment is worthy and in my mind does nothing to denigrate the quality of the publication or the photographer's skills. |
|
Delane B. Rouse, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Washington, DC & Seattle | WA | US | Posted: 11:38 AM on 09.12.05 |
->> Tim-
I jsut don't see any advantage to showing some of those images. What advantage do you gain by showing out of focus images? Ever? I could be off here...but I jsut don't see what you're seeing.
dbr |
|
David Stout, Photographer
|
Jonesboro | AR | USA | Posted: 11:48 AM on 09.12.05 |
->> I have to agree Delane. The gallery as a whole loses "impact" with the less desirable shots.
Just my dos centavos. |
|
Sam Santilli, Photographer
 |
Philippi | WV | USA | Posted: 12:06 PM on 09.12.05 |
| ->> Just like watching Tiger duff one into the drink! I for one do not wish to be "watched from the gallery", I have enough pressure in my life. I see enough of my own missed shots and really and truly do not want to see others. God bless those guys for putting it on the line, that takes guts. |
|
Dave Rossman, Photographer
|
Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 12:19 PM on 09.12.05 |
| ->> I'm sure the NFL will clamp down on this very soon. The television networks pay billions to have the exclusive rights to broadcast live sports events. Isn't this just a slow,klunky way of broadcasting it live? I don't see this lasting very long. Plus it seems a bit gimmicky to me. Might as well strap a video cam on our heads. |
|
Ron Scheffler, Photographer
|
Hamilton (Toronto area) | Ontario | Canada | Posted: 1:20 PM on 09.12.05 |
->> That's a good point Dave. Reading the back of an NFL credential I have handy, at the end of the second paragraph it states ".... photographs must be time-delayed and/or limited in amount as set forth in the transmittal documents accompanying this working credential."
I can't say I'm familair with the "transmittal documents" but perhaps a special arrangement was made by them with the NFL for this live feed feature?
Interestingly MLB does address a specific number of images that can be sent during the course of a baseball game. I believe it is seven (but don't have a credential handy to double check). As far as I know, there is no restriction on the number of images that can be sent after a game.
I can understand the benefit of a live feed back to the editors but disagree whether it creates much valuable content for readers. Right now it's somewhat interesting because it is a first. As a photographer it could be interesting to see the entire body of work of other photographers (as a point of comparison). What will be the general reader opinion once every major publication does this? It may become an issue of information overload. Too many average images to wade through to see the key moments. It could also cheapen the value of photography more than it already has been. Yes, I do think there is a certain "magic" we try to bring across in photos because we see events in a way the average person probably does not. Why show average images that will only serve to bore rather than engage the viewer? |
|
Mike Brice, Photographer
|
Northwood | OH | USA | Posted: 1:26 PM on 09.12.05 |
->> Dave,
Be careful what you suggest. You never know.
As a Skins fan living out of the area and a photographer, I thought it was neat to flip through the images because it showed some out of focus, missed shots, but it also showed some very nice images. It also showed how the photographer elected to cover the game, position, etc...
I don't think it will last because the return of investment - or the pain in the ass factor - will deep six this idea, but this experiment may mean we could see this feature return for other events, whether sporting or news. |
|
Jared Soares, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Lawrence | KS | USA | Posted: 1:53 PM on 09.12.05 |
| ->> I always thought you were supposed to show your best work all the time. |
|
Doug Holleman, Photographer
|
Temple | TX | USA | Posted: 2:42 PM on 09.12.05 |
->> Something like this would be a great feature for Sportsshooter, to feature a photographer's day each week (though probably not very do-able), as a learning tool.
But I don't know about it's appeal to the general sports-nut consumer. |
|
Andy Mead, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 3:35 PM on 09.12.05 |
->> As someone who started down the road to photography by hosting - not shooting, but hosting - sets of photos taken by fans from the stands at Major League Soccer and US Men's National Team games, I have to say that the appetite of fans for poorly composed, out of focus, under or overexposed photos knows no bounds.
Not only is there a "sucker born every minute," but inevitably the most popular shots are the ones most folks around here would delete first.
As I have become a photographer, I have observed an inverse relationship between what I consider to be a good photo and what people (including editors) want prints of.
---
I don't know about the NFL, but at least as far as professional soccer is concerned, the fan base was crying out for any sort of coverage. We filled that gap with a lot of crap, but not only did the fans not seem to care - we started getting inquiries from magazines wanting to publish various shots.
I wouldn't be so quick as to judge what the fans or readers my be interested in. Fans tend to see what they want to see, the vagueries of focus and composition on most shots don't really factor into it. As long as they get to see their favorite player, or they see a big play (out of focus touchdown catch) I found that that was usually enough.
The subject of what photo editors are looking for, however, is a different subject. In that case, maybe it would be better -not- to put the out of focus or missed shots up.
As I started shooting games myself a few years back and have learned the craft myself, quality output has become my primary focus (no pun intended, but perhaps it should've been). But I haven't forgotten my experiences and lessons from the past. The appetite of the average sports fan knows no rational bounds. Quantity usually trumps quality. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|