Football, what do think about this pic

[rjb_FotoTaker]

I just started photographing my kids football team this season.
I was trying to get pics of at least every player when I caught this image. I don't know why, but I am very happy with it. Tell me what you think.

other than resized (not cropped) this is the way it was captured.



I was using the Sony A100 w/ Sony 18-200 lense in sport/action mode.

[subrataofkris]

The DOF is very good and so is the idea of leaving a good space in front. But the problem is that the light is behind the boy (from top-left), so the face has become very dark. I would not like the top to be cut-off, infact to have a bit more space on top after accomodating the full figure.

[FotoMike]

The moment you caught is a good one. I actually have a poster size photography of Jerry Rice at almost the same moment. However, i would agree with subrataofkris on cutting the head off. Except for that i dont see anyting else wrong. The space in front of him gives gives idea of movement from his eyes to the edge of the photo (which is where he is looking). Good job!

[clockdoc]

As 'sub' mentioned, exposure is your greatest challenge here. The Sports/Action mode was not a big player except for providing you with a faster shutter speed and more shallow depth of field. Since camera meters are designed to give you good exposure for scenes that fall into the "average" range, you need to evaluate your scenes tonal range and adjust exposure accordingly. Here you have a subject with dark skin wearing a white jersey against a and area of lighter background mixed with darker areas. The camera doesn't know what is important and gives you its "best guess."
Use you camera's "spot" metering function and run some tests to see what exposure value the camera gives when set in auto (or in Sports mode) and compare it to what the spot meter gives you. Granted, if you exposed for the skin tones then some other areas may become washed out but you are always in control of your settings. Flash may have helped here but experimentation will be the best teacher. I'll be happy to help where I can. I am glad that you are pleased with your shot and that is what is important here.

[aadam_21]

I personally don't mind the lighting here, I almost like it. I agree that it would look nicer if the helmet were fully in the frame. What aperture was this shot with? My only suggestion would be a little more blurring of the background. To me, it's still a little too in focus.

[jdepould]

Not to pick on you, but people who shoot sports horizontally (landscape orientation) drive me insane because heads and feet ALWAYS get cut out and there's dead space in the frame that doesn't contribute to the overall image. There are instances where it works, but for the most part, portrait orientation works better.

[waffles]

I'm with everyone else about the helmet. It just drives me crazy when parts of something get cut off like this.

I think the lighting on the face is tward the lower end of acceptable. It works, but is pretty close to being too dark.

I'll have to disagree with jdepuld a bit about horizontal sports shots. Where you cut off the bottom of the shot works.

[jdepould]

Originally Posted by waffles

I'm with everyone else about the helmet. It just drives me crazy when parts of something get cut off like this.

I think the lighting on the face is tward the lower end of acceptable. It works, but is pretty close to being too dark.

I'll have to disagree with jdepuld a bit about horizontal sports shots. Where you cut off the bottom of the shot works.

It's more about the big empty spaces than the limb amputation. If it did something to add to the shot then it wouldn't be distracting. If it showed someone running and you wanted to give them some space to run "into" then that makes sense, but this is a more static shot. A vertical orientation would've given you more pixels to play with for cropping as well.

[pcarfan]

I like this shot. DOF and the moment are brilliant. Exposure and framing as has been mentioned could have been better, but for me even these look fine. But, can't this image be sharper? I am waiting for my first DSLR to be delivered, and I am dreaming for some very sharp pictures. I wonder whether it's possible to get a similar scene with the subject being much more crisp. I can only put this picture at a crispness of 6/10 and i am looking for 9/10....is that possible ?

[jdepould]

Depends on what lens you're using. 18-200s are great walkaround lenses, but when it comes to absolute image quality there are better choices. A 200 or 300 prime will give you excellent sharpness, but you lose the versatility of the 18-200. Having said that, the 18-200s I've seen aren't BAD by any means. Adding a little unsharp masking can also help.

If you're a stickler for tack sharp images and you don't have $1300+ to spend on a lens, look into prime lenses. They have fewer parts and are generally sharper than the consumer-grade zooms.