| 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
Out of focus pixs in major magazines
Vern Verna, Photographer
 |
Greenville | SC | United States | Posted: 1:01 AM on 10.31.05 |
| ->> Is it just me or are their more photos running in major magazines out of focus? I have seen several in the last few weeks and just got home tonight from the game and oops there is another one. Course this one really irks me, i have the same play and mine is in focus. Now I am not saying I get the frame everytime but on this one I did. Does anybody else see this? Also i have seen a lot of back of heads running in prominent photos. The way I learned it was we need faces. And in the old days, if the face was exposed right on chrome and dark we threw it in the trash and now there are full pages of a back of the head. Somebody tell me I am exaggerating. |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 1:42 AM on 10.31.05 |
->> No Vern you're not crazy.I notice it as well and just sigh. Is it THAT important to photo editors that they run out of focus images of some play?
Any photo editors want to chime in as to what the rational is for lower standards in an age where auto focus is the norm? |
|
Jeff Stanton, Photographer
|
Tucson | AZ | USA | Posted: 4:02 AM on 10.31.05 |
->> I worked at a place called Color Lab Miami in 1990-90. I used to notice it a lot, especially a lot of pros shooting chrome who purposely shot out-of-focus images and then sold it as art.
Something also very intereresting in that time period. I processed a lot of film for several popular working pros, many whose names have been mentioned on this site, some numerous times. These people heavily depended on the lab to pull their poor lighting skills out of the toilet. I mean, three stop pushes were not uncommon. Five stops were the norm for one photographer in particular. We'll just keep those names secret. |
|
Joseph Rogate, Photographer
|
Seaford | NY | USA | Posted: 6:52 AM on 10.31.05 |
->> As the old saying goes:
If your a staffer the photo is ART.
If your a freelancer the photo is "OUT OF FOCUS".
As far as the out of focus photos in magazines and newspapers, those are probably the on takes the shooter had of those particular plays. The editor wanted it and used it. |
|
Andrew Brosig, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Paola | KS | USA | Posted: 7:14 AM on 10.31.05 |
->> Michael:
I'm fighting someting similar with one of the news/sports editors here. He keeps insisting that out of focus pics run if, in his words, "that was a big play," or, "I haven't run a picture of her all year." Those, by the way, are a couple of exact quotes. I've tried to explain that, particularly for photojournalism, it may be a big play, but it's still a bad photo. Still can't get through to him, though. What to do, what to do?
Andrew Brosig-photo editor
Miami County Newspapers
Miami County, Kansas |
|
Craig Peterson, Photographer
|
St. Petersburg | FL | US | Posted: 9:26 AM on 10.31.05 |
->> In the last S.I. NASCAR edition, they ran a double truck of Michael Waltrip flipping down the backstretch at Daytona.
It surprised me because the image was so heavily cropped, you could actually see pixels in the image, not to mention it was soft. I would have never thought that Sports Illustrated would run an image like that, it really looked like crap.
I guess getting the shot is more important than having it in focus in certain situations. |
|
George Bridges, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 9:48 AM on 10.31.05 |
->> I see it a lot in newspapers and some magazines.
The photographer or editor is so focused on running an image of the "big play" that they ignore that fact that it is simply a bad picture -- either out of focus, all backs, hard to read etc etc.
I realize in tellin the story of the game an image of the big play can be important, but if it's not a good photo then it's not a good photo. Period.
We all take our best guess as to where to be and if you're on the wrong side of the play and get nothing (or at least nothing good), then you took your best shot, it didn't pay off. Move one. |
|
Aaron Suozzi, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Fort Wayne | In | USA | Posted: 11:18 AM on 10.31.05 |
->> What I have noticed is more and more newspapers using freelancers or part-timers that either don’t have the skill of the veteran full timers or the equipment needed to get the job done. They cost less and the quality of the product shows. I have worked with a few people who turn in out of focus pictures that I wouldn’t even consider during an edit.
In my opinion, if there are technical problems (ie. exposure or focus) then it isn’t even an option. |
|
Sandy Huffaker, Photographer
|
San Diego | CA | USA | Posted: 11:33 AM on 10.31.05 |
->> Vern,
Are most of these out of focus shots intentional? If so, I don't see any problem with expanding the boundaries of what a sports shot should look like. I also don't think it should be over-used. |
|
Stew Milne, Photographer
|
Providence | RI | USA | Posted: 11:43 AM on 10.31.05 |
->> Ditto, I've seen a ton of OOF pics. Some are good moments or big plays, others aren't. And I don't think it's intentional either.
Soemtimes when I'm editting on deadline, like during last night's Patriots game, I don't always open an image in photoshop to check the sharpness of the image. It looks good in photo mechanic, where I caption it and then ftp to my photo editor. Sometimes an OOF shot goes to him, where he will NOT put it up on the wire. That's his job. If I had the time when shooting on deadline I would check for sharpness and never turn an OOF focus photo in. It's just not right. I don't care if it's the biggest play of the game. We should take more pride on our work. If you screwed up and didn't get the shot in focus, then maybe you learn and get it next time.
-sM |
|
Jim Colburn, Photographer
|
Omaha | NE | USA | Posted: 1:09 PM on 10.31.05 |
->> " Is it just me or are their more photos running in major magazines out of focus?"
Don't think of it as "out of focus" but "selective focus". It's just that the thing actually IN focus is just outside the frame..... |
|
Greg Ferguson, Photographer
|
Scottsdale | Az | USA | Posted: 2:10 PM on 10.31.05 |
->> The other day my wife and I were scanning through a prominent sports mag, and noticed some images that had been HEAVILY sharpened - to the point of halos - and still they ran it.
Anyone who knows photography and/or digital processing, would know what had been done. Seeing the image lowered my opinion of the magazine and made me wonder why they'd select the shot.
OOF and blown-exposure images are the first ones culled after I ingest a card, and they're the ones I hide when showing images to clients/customers. I am too picky and take too much pride in my work to let others see work that isn't at least average. |
|
David Griffin, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Charlotte | NC | USA | Posted: 2:38 PM on 10.31.05 |
->> Film: Out of focus
Digital: Soft
That just kills me! |
|
David Bernacchi, Photographer
|
Milwaukee | WI | USA | Posted: 2:42 PM on 10.31.05 |
->> Unfortunately ladies and gentleman, that is why the " citizen journalist " with camera phones will be there.
Not good !! |
|
Vern Verna, Photographer
|
Greenville | SC | United States | Posted: 2:45 PM on 10.31.05 |
| ->> Sandy, i am talking a sports magazine/s running out of focus pix that are good pixs but r soft. The one that got me i have the same play (yeh it was a big play) and mine is sharp. They ran a pix of mine in the same issue so it is not like they dont have access to my images. This is not intentional, they wanted to run a shot of this play and evidently it didnt matter if it was in focus or not. |
|
Justin Sullivan, Photographer
|
San Francisco | CA | | Posted: 3:27 PM on 10.31.05 |
->> "Also i have seen a lot of back of heads running in prominent photos. The way I learned it was we need faces. And in the old days, if the face was exposed right on chrome and dark we threw it in the trash and now there are full pages of a back of the head. Somebody tell me I am exaggerating."
Like frame 10 in your gallery? |
|
Ron Scheffler, Photographer
|
Hamilton (Toronto area) | Ontario | Canada | Posted: 3:34 PM on 10.31.05 |
->> I've learned from photographing weddings and various events that the client often looks at images differently than I would. When I edit a wedding, I'm often eliminating images that are technically poor. When a bride/groom/family member comments on the final selection, they don't usually tell me how they love the images because they are super sharp or love the selective focus I achieved by shooting at f/2 or using some tilt, or are disturbed by the graininess of high ISO shots, etc. They look at the images in a way quite different from my technically tuned eyes. What matters most frequently to them is the pure content of the image, rather than how that content was created.
While I agree that running out of focus images isn't desirable, it's probably a matter of considering a number of factors in order to understand what an editor was hoping to achieve (assuming he/she is competent, which if they are working for a major sports magazine, one would expect). Yes, as photographers we see the softness, the sharpening halos, the pixelation, etc... but the huge majority of people reading these magazines are not attuned to the technical aspects in the way we are. I think that is where a good editor is key in deciding what is more important - understanding the technical factors and how they affect a given image while also being able to evaluate the importance of the content of the image, even if the focus is off. Certainly mistakes are made and bad images run, I just don't think it's as simple as saying any OOF image should automatically be disqualified. |
|
Gabriel Hernandez, Photographer
|
Harlingen | TX | USA | Posted: 4:35 PM on 10.31.05 |
->> There is a photo on the NPPA website that shows a little boy carrying a piece of meat. The boy is out of focus with the background in focus. I like the photo but it bothers me that the photographer missed his focus.
Maybe its a new style haha :P (from "Your biggest "I blew it" moment" on the Message Board)
http://www.sportsshooter.com/gabriher/snap/ |
|
Vern Verna, Photographer
|
Greenville | SC | United States | Posted: 5:11 PM on 10.31.05 |
->> Justin, frame 10 would happen to be the punch that won the last fight mike tyson won. so yeh it is a big moment, it is in focus and i can see half of mike face. yeh i would have liked to have more, but from what i heard in the press room out of about 50 shooters there only a few (like 2 or 3 got it). I am not saying I am the best photog in the world. I did get this shot, and trust me i have missed alot of stuff.
What I was trying to say in my post was that in major sports mags, i pay my subscription to see good photos and it seems that more and more we are getting crap. At a recent nfl game a friend of mine brought up the fact and asked if any of us saw the double truck in a mag that ran and was out of focus. 3 shooter there commented they saw it and that is what they thought when they saw it too. This led a friend to comment on another recent double truck that was back of heads.
Oh and by the way I search the mighty getty archives Justin (not your photo) and it looks as if the image posted of the same play is got the same focus point which makes the subject out of focus but hey it is close. Now let me cover my butt here, i dont have an acct with getty and cant tell for sure on the small image but it looks slightly out to me.
Maybe I am not clear as to what I am saying. I am complaining more about editors running back of heads or out of focus images as opposed to using another photo. I am not jumping on photogs here, they dont get to pick photos. |
|
Vern Verna, Photographer
|
Greenville | SC | United States | Posted: 5:35 PM on 10.31.05 |
| ->> Image 10 is now gone because if someone thinks it is crap well it may be or may not. But obviously if an editor has the same thought it makes my portfolio look bad overall. I think I should have some of my best there and so it was replaced. Now as to the replacement, i replace 9 and 10 with two photos that i cant decide if they are good photos or not. 9 i like except for the fox cameraman and i think it tells the story of the walkoff homer that won game 2. 10 i like again but dont like that it is just a pile and you can't see podsednik. Any opinions on these is welcome. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 10:29 PM on 10.31.05 |
->> It surprised me because the image was so heavily cropped, you could actually see pixels in the image, not to mention it was soft. I would have never thought that Sports Illustrated would run an image like that, it really looked like crap.
I wonder how many complaints SI has received from the general public about pixellated, "soft" shots?
The average person is not very picky about technical quality. Just look at camera phones. |
|
Bob Croslin, Photographer
|
St. Petersburg | FL | USA | Posted: 10:49 PM on 10.31.05 |
->> I wonder if some of these out-of-focus images are the result of many of these magazines still being set up to deal with film images. I know SI doesn't count but I'm still getting calls from clients who demand I shoot film. When I beg and plead to shoot digital I've time and again been given the excuse that the pre-press house the client uses just isn't up to speed on digital.
If you want to see what I think is probably a case of this check out the latest issue of Longboarder magazine. There's a spread that is clearly digital and the images look like ass while the images taken from film look fine. |
|
Jim Comeau, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
david pardo, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Walnut | ca | USA | Posted: 4:21 AM on 11.01.05 |
| ->> sometimes i wonder who photographs the Victoria's Secret ads. sometimes their focus is way off, and it's not cause of a soft filter. |
|
Craig Peterson, Photographer
|
St. Petersburg | FL | US | Posted: 9:07 AM on 11.01.05 |
->> I think it goes without saying the average Joe that buys the sports magazines could care less if an image is soft or pixelated (if they even notice), and they sure as hell aren't going to complain.
It's just disappointing as a photographer to see that major publications are running these kinds of images. If the publications and agencies were willing to pay experienced photographers what they are worth, instead of using in-experienced WFH photographers, they would not have to settle for OOF images.
You get what you pay for..... |
|
Greg Ferguson, Photographer
|
Scottsdale | Az | USA | Posted: 10:27 AM on 11.01.05 |
->> "I believe this picture recently sold for over $1 million and many would consider it out of focus or blurry."
It IS blurry and out of focus. The blur and focus issues are secondary to the content because we also can tell it's from a different day and age when the equipment and film limited the photographer SO much that capturing any image as art was a major task. Bressen's "defining moment" image was advanced for the time.
Today it wouldn't be as impressive because 35mm equipment raised the bar. Our expectations and standards are higher given the equipment and technologies available. |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 1:26 PM on 11.03.05 |
->> Andrew
In response to your editor's comments, I'd be tempted to say this: "People may not cognitively state that they see the difference between a out of focus picture and a sharp one, but on a subliminal level there's no doubt they do. And people are funny, they are usually attracted to things that are BETTER."
In other words, quality sells - and that includes newspapers along with 60K cars, 25K custom kitchen appliances and 500K-1M homes.
One publisher I freelance for has told me more than once that they essentially can't afford to offer too much quality to the readership ( therefore don't ask for an increase or more assignments) and if keeping within a budget is the most important thing, I'm in no position to argue - it's not my butt sitting in that particular seat. But I do disagree. I do believe that good, sharp attractive images not only sell newspapers, they communicate to readers - and more importantly - potential readers - the quality within.
I'd ask the editor to work with the photo staff on the people they do need to run images of. I would also point out that in focus images are just easier for the average person to look at.Simple IS better, ya know?
As for camera phones, the quality will never be there - and it will make it easier for good photography to stand out. That's something I can easily live with. |
|
Les Hassell, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Longview | TX | United States | Posted: 5:37 AM on 11.04.05 |
| ->> Michael, be careful with the "the quality will never be there" argument; you'll more than likely be eating your words. They've been uttered plenty of times in this business over the years about 35mm, more recently about digital SLR's and most recently about DV frame captures which are now being published. In response to Vern's original post, I think, good or bad, we are seeing a huge growth in communications overall and there are some growing pains that are going to need to be addressed. Editors, barraged with multiple images and video from every conceivable angle of a single moment in time available in real-time, are going to have to develope more efficient ways of editing. However, if it comes down to having "The" shot taken with a cell-phone or not having it at all, I'm running the cell-phone shot. Quite honestly, of all the historically iconic or defining moments in photojournalism, I can't think of very many images that would be considered 'technically' perfect... but, they're still perfect moments. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 9:37 AM on 11.04.05 |
->> Quality
Quality will always win when there is a choice. But moment wins when the choice is low quality versus not capturing the moment.
This is why chimping is very bad. You don't want to lose a double-truck to a guy with a point and shoot that doesn't know how to chimp. |
|
John H. Reid III, Photographer
|
University Heights | OH | USA | Posted: 1:03 PM on 11.04.05 |
| ->> I find it interesting that there is not one specific example of the images listed here, other than the Michael Waltrip image, which seems to be more a case of too tight a crop. I would like to be able to judge for myself. I have not been seeing evidence of out of focus images proliferating in major magazines, and I try to keep up with what is being published. |
|
Vern Verna, Photographer
|
Greenville | SC | United States | Posted: 1:15 PM on 11.04.05 |
->> well i am not gonna call out a specific image and thus another member with the particular example that inspired this thread. 3 other images i was shown in recent weeks and i dont remember what they were of or who's image it was.
The Michael Waltrip image doesnt make any difference with a crop. If an image is in focus, it can be blown up, if it is out, no matter what size it runs, it is still out of focus. I haven't seen it so I can't tell you if it is out or not. The only difference is, the bigger it runs the more easier it is for an amateur to tell it is out of focus.
I am not talking about major out of focus pixs here i am talking they just missed focus pixs. |
|
Scott Lukaitis, Photographer
|
Brick | NJ | USA | Posted: 9:35 PM on 11.04.05 |
| ->> I am an avid magazine reader. I read about 40 magazines a month and I often wonder how some of the photos included were even considered for publication. Don't get me wrong there are some really really good images out there but there is some junk being published as well. As a newbie to the industry I don't even think about submitting stuff that isn't pin-sharp focus. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|