| 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
This Week's Sports Illustrated Cover Photos
Willis Glassgow, Photo Editor, Photographer
 |
Florence | SC | USA | Posted: 2:12 PM on 06.14.11 |
| ->> Not sure if anyone saw this week's cover photo from Sports Illustrated, but to say the least, it looks pretty funky. Now, while I am not REALLY old, I am old school, and I'm not sure what exactly was done is post production and more importantly.....WHY?.....Both players look soft, while the background is sharp. The players also look like that have been sharpened in Photoshop, (a lot) and while I know the game had been strobed, the players look toally cut out. I'm not sure if this was really done, but it just looks that way. I guess this thread is asking the question, "Am I missing something here?....Why would SI put a photo like this on its cover? |
|
Jeff Brehm, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Salisbury | NC | USA | Posted: 2:46 PM on 06.14.11 |
| ->> I had a similar reaction to an SI cover 2-3 weeks ago, which showed LeBron James and another player diving for a loose ball. The players in the foreground, including LeBron, were soft and poorly lit while those in the background were sharp. I know sometimes you have to make tough choices when deciding between action and technical merits, but if I had shot that photo, I probably would not have even offered it as an option to a photo editor. |
|
Thomas Derr, Photographer
|
Matthew Jonas, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Evergreen | CO | USA | Posted: 7:40 PM on 06.14.11 |
| ->> Is it possible that it was from a remote that wasn't focused on that particular spot? Still good action though. |
|
Willis Glassgow, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Florence | SC | USA | Posted: 1:41 PM on 06.15.11 |
->> I'm shocked that there is not more reaction to this thread....again, the question would be WHY?....Are people afraid to chime in because maybe it would percive them as criticizing SI. It would not a criticism, just asking a question of why something was done.
Jonas, it very well might be from a remote, and yes the action is very good, but quality wise, it is far from a great photo. I would've never submitted this photo, but again maybe the photog had no choice or a say in the choosing of that particular image. I'm sure Greg Nelson, (who is an incredible photog, BTW) had much better stuff than this image. My question was more of WHY did they use this particular image? It's more a question to the photo editors of SI than of other photogs. I would just love to hear some other opinions. |
|
Willis Glassgow, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Florence | SC | USA | Posted: 2:30 PM on 06.15.11 |
| ->> and to respond to the email I just received without a name, email or telephone number. I'm not calling out SI editors. Far from it. I just want to know WHY something was done. That's it! PERIOD! I also want to know if I am missing something here in all of this. That's why I ask the question to other photogs, and of course photo editors. Maybe they can shed some light on my possible ignorance. If we don't ask questions, then we stop learning. |
|
Wes Hope, Photographer
|
Maryville | TN | USA | Posted: 2:45 PM on 06.15.11 |
->> A: It was probably shot Canon. Ouch!
B: It was probably OOF (see above).
C: They probably referred to a thread on SS I seem to visit at least a few times a years because I am a Canon shooter: http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=8115 (which can lead to a "cut out" appearance).
D: Sometimes the "moment" trumps technical perfection, IMHO.
E: Folks aren't all rallying behind you because they don't agree with you. And the SS boards aren't full of life as they once were. |
|
Delane B. Rouse, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Washington | DC | US | Posted: 2:58 PM on 06.15.11 |
->> It sounds like you're calling them out to me...but its very difficult to gauge your intent via the internet so I'll take you at your word that you're NOT calling them out.
Also, this isn't the Sports Illustrated Photo Q&A forum, so if you REALLY want the answer I'm sure you know that you can take a look here:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/about_us/staff/mag_staff.html
and make a phone call... |
|
Phil Hawkins, Photographer
|
Fresno | ca | usa | Posted: 3:03 PM on 06.15.11 |
->> Inquiring minds want to know....
I do think it's a case of not wanting to alienate SI that people don't respond, but I also have this question. There was a day not long ago when all the basketball shots were seriously out of white balance. I mean WAY off. NBA, NCAA, it didn't matter. Sometimes you can attribute this to magazine print inks being out of balance during the manufacturing process, but the ad shots were perfect, as were other story head shots, etc. This has since been corrected, but the fact that it occurred at all was perplexing.
I have always understood that for SI to consider your shot, especially for the cover, assuming it's not a one-time, fleeting shot of some unbelievable occurrence in the world of sport, that your image had to be UBER sharp and generally technically perfect. SI is supposed to be the pinnacle, the oracle, of sports photo excellence; except when it's not, I guess. |
|
Willis Glassgow, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Florence | SC | USA | Posted: 3:32 PM on 06.15.11 |
->> Delane,
As much as I would like them to, SI Photo Editors would NEVER respond to an Q&A. We all know this as fact. So posing a question to them would be a complete waste of time. Wes, I don't want people to necessarily agree with me. I want to hear their opinion on the subject. I, like most of us, look at SI with great admiration, so when i see something that just doesn't seem right, I want to know why. Since I can't ask SI directly, I'm asking all of you. |
|
Phil Hawkins, Photographer
|
Fresno | ca | usa | Posted: 7:49 PM on 06.17.11 |
| ->> (The sound of the crickets here on this subject is deafening) |
|
Louis Lopez, Photographer
|
Southern California | CA | USA | Posted: 9:29 PM on 06.17.11 |
| ->> I think I heard a pin drop... |
|
Brad Mangin, Photographer
 |
Pleasanton | CA | USA | Posted: 9:42 PM on 06.17.11 |
->> Willis- Never Say Never? Isn't that the name of the hit movie and song by Justin Bieber? And isn't the great Robert Caplin Bieber's buddy and official tour photographer? And doesn't Caplin do work for the magazine? See? It all comes full circle.
"SI Photo Editors would NEVER respond..." WRONG.
Jimmy Colton might be the most approachable big-time picture editor on the planet. While working in the office or enjoying the view in his backyard he will answer any email or phone call that comes his way, and he has been doing this for years. He loves discussing photography and was at the forefront of dealing with the digital manipulation problems at the magazine head-on many years ago.
The folks at 1271 6th Avenue aint perfect. They make mistakes, although I would be willing to bet that I make WAY more in my tiny little home office. Cranking out over 3 million magazines a week printed at multiple facilities is not easy and sometimes things just don't work out as well as one might hope. If you spoke with Jimmy he could tell you what goes on there every week and how things happen.
"So posing a question to them would be a complete waste of time." No it would not. It would be very educational and would help you understand what happened.
Phil- you say this: "SI is supposed to be the pinnacle, the oracle, of sports photo excellence." You should know:
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=24167
The crickets have moved on because there is not much to say. Pick up the phone, send an email. Deal with your questions directly. That is what I do if something is driving me nuts. After all, you think I would pose an important question in the SportsShooter.com message board?
Liddy? |
|
Chad Ryan, Photographer
|
Fort Wayne | IN | USA | Posted: 10:52 PM on 06.17.11 |
->> I seriously doubt there is foul play in this instance. From the photo I saw at the above link my take is that the focus plane is set somewhere well behind the players. The lens could've been bumped or the focus ring shifted slightly, but the background is clearly more in focus than the action. It's a technical difficulty, and anyone who uses remotes regularly has these problem, assuming this was shot from a remote. If not, let the Canon jokes fly.
Just last weekend, I set up a softball remote. I checked focus three times, locked it in manual focus then looked again. Everything looked fine. I pop the card in to do my first edit, and every damn frame was back focused on the fence behind home plate. It was clearly not where I set the focus, but something went wrong. Unexplainable, but it happened. Side note: this is why I followed Bert's advice from the first day I heard it at a SS Academy a number of years ago, "Never rely on your remote!"
Someone else mentioned it above, and I believe the idea that the action or the moment IN THIS CASE FOR THIS STORY trumps whether or not the photo is tack sharp. The story was how Dirk and his Dallas teammates succeeded against the Big Three, and this photo illustrates that story. Should it have been the cover? I don't know, but then again I'm not working for SI so I don't get to say.
If the question needs to be asked, fine. I've raised questions in the past too, but only after I considered as many options as I could think of and made certain I wasn't just being reactionary. I'm all for asking questions that need to be asked, but I think this one should take about a minute to consider. My uninformed opinion here is this was a slight, very slight, gaff made at capture and not manipulation in post. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 12:40 AM on 06.18.11 |
| ->> bad photos get published. plain and simple. doesn't matter if it's Clay Today, where I started in 1974 or "the pinnacle" Sports Illustrated in 2011. I had a "mug" shot printed in SI 28 years ago it was in focus. so what. The SI guys are great shooters, I've worked beside a bunch of them over the years. anyone, ANYONE who works in editorial photojournalism KNOWS more often than not you have NO control over a photo that is picked. some editor decides THAT'S the photo. so THAT's the PHOTO. as a shooter you might hate it..but the editor picked it out. you're done. holding your "heroes" in this world on a pedestal will do nothing more than bring you disappointment and heartache. |
|
Tim Casey, Photographer
|
Gainesville | FL | USA | Posted: 2:52 AM on 06.20.11 |
| ->> I was wondering the same thing when I saw that magazine at the airport this week. If the headline said "Eyes of Texas" or something to put the emphasis on the fans watching the play, I would have understood. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|