Am I getting better

I do race timing and when my brother is around I tak photos and wedo the timing between us. I charge a nominal fee tot he athletes and I've probably around 30-40 photos since I have been doing it.

I have been trying a little harder of late and now I have been able to do 2 years running at the same event

I wonder if as a comparison anyone thinks I am getting better, I tend to think a little more where I am going to located myself in terms of athlete speed and camera stability.

http://www.stuweb.co.uk/swp/?a=10

choose worcester duathlon under 2005
or choose worcester duathlon under 2006

thanks in advance

STuart

p.s. Be harsh I can take it

--

Stuart D Steele - http://www.stuweb.co.uk ~ http://www.triathlonbooks.co.uk ~ http://www.swim-masterclass.co.uk

Though I didn't have the time to look thru both entire galleries, I don't believe I saw a lot of differences. 2006 looked like brighter conditions and maybe a less exposure would have helped or an angle that didn't include so much sky. However, many are quite decent and I'm sure your subjects would be pleased. Don't be afraid to try some creative angles - and vary how much your subjects fill the frame.
--
Tessa HD Campbell
Love to dream and dream in color
(eight-twenty-eight and are-one)

I'm not sure

1) The pictures are too static. Fixed location, fixed focal length, picture after picture after picture. It doesn't say anything personal or exciting about the athletes.

2) The closeups were much better than the distance shots. Even in th 2006 gallery, Page 9, for example. Small figures in the distance, underexposed (in favor of the sky, I guess).

3) Your images are much, much better in the closeups shot from unusual angles. The medium-distance, shot straight on are simply not very exciting.

What you need to capture, IMHO, is the speed, the fatigue, the exhiliration of the racers, not just "mug shots" as it were.

Hope this helps...
--
AAK - http://www.aakatz.com