A wider aperture separates the subject from the background. That's important in sports.
What kind of "golf nut" does not recognize the golfer in Pic 1??? ;-)
Of course there are bonus points for famous golfers! No one is interested in seeing a photo of Troy Kelly except his family and friends (unless he would somehow make it into the top 10 on any given day; but alas for poor Mr. Kelly......).
On facebook there are bonus points. Not in photography and not on a sports photography sub-forum (or at least not to experienced sports photogs), A bad photo of a famous person is still a bad photo. Or, in this case - boring photos. If this were a Golf enthusiast site it would be different. It's a photography site. Hopefully you can understand the difference
I think you're misinterpreting what the poster is saying. He's saying the shot is boring and lacks any value - the idea he's making is the image to speak to someone who doesn't recognize the person. Again, it's like a paparazo photo of someone on the street. The photo itself is boring. It's only value is the person in the photo is boring.
"lacks any value"? pictures of golf celebrities are hardly worthless... dustin johnson is a pretty hot topic, for example
media outlets are paying for simple boring images of him: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/golf/201...ugs-affairs-and-the-silence-that-shames-golf/most people on facebook don't care about golf, lol
it's a lot more likely that there will be golf fans in this forum, as opposed to any other dpr forum.
"lacks any value"? pictures of golf celebrities are hardly worthless... dustin johnson is a pretty hot topic, for example
does that shot of dustin walking around with his hands in his pockets have any artistic value? he doesn't even have a golf club in his hand, and it's a bland shot... what else, other than he was there.
Sure. But I assume people on a photography forum are interested in the craft of photography. So, I give my C&C as if they're actually interested in the photographic merits of their shot. Not saying you or anyone else has to do the same thing. Various forums here have posts every day that show great photos and they don't have a famous person in it. 99% of the good sports photos I see in internet forums don't have a recognizable name in them but they're still good photos. Why?
Here's a link from another thread someone else just posted. Not a recognizable name in any of the photos., But they are very compelling images. Quality sports images tell a story. Whether a million dollar athlete or a 5 year old kid. Or a 72 year old hurdler.Yeah, you're right Dan. Just like boring shots of celebrities hold value to National Enquirer. That doesn't make them good portraits. A boring shot of a famous athlete is still a boring shot. Golf is certainly not an easy thing to shoot and make interesting. But, when you have to know the person in the photo to make it interesting, that pretty much sums it up."lacks any value"? pictures of golf celebrities are hardly worthless... dustin johnson is a pretty hot topic, for example
does that shot of dustin walking around with his hands in his pockets have any artistic value? he doesn't even have a golf club in his hand, and it's a bland shot... what else, other than he was there.
--
dan
you are making a lot of judgments, that don't represent everyone here.Yeah, you're right Dan. Just like boring shots of celebrities hold value to National Enquirer. That doesn't make them good portraits. A boring shot of a famous athlete is still a boring shot. Golf is certainly not an easy thing to shoot and make interesting. But, when you have to know the person in the photo to make it interesting, that pretty much sums it up."lacks any value"? pictures of golf celebrities are hardly worthless... dustin johnson is a pretty hot topic, for example
does that shot of dustin walking around with his hands in his pockets have any artistic value? he doesn't even have a golf club in his hand, and it's a bland shot... what else, other than he was there.
--
dan
i don't see anything compelling or interesting in any of those photos, and i have zero interest in ever seeing that type of content again.Here's a link from another thread someone else just posted. Not a recognizable name in any of the photos., But they are very compelling images. Quality sports images tell a story. Whether a million dollar athlete or a 5 year old kid. Or a 72 year old hurdler.Yeah, you're right Dan. Just like boring shots of celebrities hold value to National Enquirer. That doesn't make them good portraits. A boring shot of a famous athlete is still a boring shot. Golf is certainly not an easy thing to shoot and make interesting. But, when you have to know the person in the photo to make it interesting, that pretty much sums it up."lacks any value"? pictures of golf celebrities are hardly worthless... dustin johnson is a pretty hot topic, for example
does that shot of dustin walking around with his hands in his pockets have any artistic value? he doesn't even have a golf club in his hand, and it's a bland shot... what else, other than he was there.
--
dan
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bristol-40886339
"lacks any value"? pictures of golf celebrities are hardly worthless... dustin johnson is a pretty hot topic, for example
does that shot of dustin walking around with his hands in his pockets have any artistic value? he doesn't even have a golf club in his hand, and it's a bland shot... what else, other than he was there.
i thought that you covered some of the technical issues with his shots fairly well, so "nice shot" was simply constructive encouragement.Actually Dan, offering critique is all about judgement. I try to help people here become better sports photographers. Sometimes that means telling them what doesn't work about their photos. Tell me Dan, what have you offered in this thread to help the photographer? What advice from your own experience have you provided that will make the OP think about what they could do differently?you are making a lot of judgments, that don't represent everyone here.Yeah, you're right Dan. Just like boring shots of celebrities hold value to National Enquirer. That doesn't make them good portraits. A boring shot of a famous athlete is still a boring shot. Golf is certainly not an easy thing to shoot and make interesting. But, when you have to know the person in the photo to make it interesting, that pretty much sums it up."lacks any value"? pictures of golf celebrities are hardly worthless... dustin johnson is a pretty hot topic, for example
does that shot of dustin walking around with his hands in his pockets have any artistic value? he doesn't even have a golf club in his hand, and it's a bland shot... what else, other than he was there.
--
dan
i don't know who the golfer in photo #1 is, but i was interested in the shot from a technical standpoint.
it didn't have anything to do with who he is, it was about how the light was under a dark hat bill, how the shot was processed, equipment used, etc.
very relevant to a camera forum, in other words... and you as a photographer, should understand the value of trying to deconstruct a shot; how it was made.
--
dan
I try to do a little more than say "nice shot".
john, i'm pointing out that your views and opinions and attitudes clearly don't reflect everyone in the group.
