Picture Editing for sports

Taff

Taff

Suspended / Banned
Messages
899
Name
Darren
Edit My Images
No
As I'm trying to build a portfolio for sports photography I was just wondering what the best form of processing was for them I like the 2nd edit and it is how I edited the match I photographed on Saturday but I'm unsure on the edit now.

standard Edit
Rugby 2 by Daz_James_, on Flickr

High Clarity Edit
Chepstow RFC v Cwmbran RFC 07-09-2014 -72 by Daz_James_, on Flickr
 
Personally think the second image is abit to unnatural, the first image in terms of colours is good enough just needs a tad more contrast, also these shots aren't level which is pretty much the first rule, get it level! I would have also cropped the guy out behind the two players or cropped as much out as possible as he seems a bit too much of a distraction...
 
Joeturner11 said:
Personally think the second image is abit to unnatural, the first image in terms of colours is good enough just needs a tad more contrast, also these shots aren't level which is pretty much the first rule, get it level! I would have also cropped the guy out behind the two players or cropped as much out as possible as he seems a bit too much of a distraction...
Click to expand...

That's why I started to be unsure of the 2nd edit as I have seen other sports pics like this and liked them but the more I looked at them the more unnatural they looked.

Level wise the pitch actually slants so if you level the pitch the building looks off level so I guess I should always ensure the pitch is level and not worry about the buildings (try and avoid them anyways)

Do me a fave Joe can you do an edit of the original off camera please so I can see what you mean with the crop.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/blq1x8i1mwm5qed/_DSC3885.JPG?dl=0
 
first would also be my preference too Darren.. I often find if I like the effect something has when processing, I like it even more when I pull the slider back half-way. This this could be the case here. :thumbs:

And while there are a few things to make you think its not level, all the verticals are vertical which means everything else is a trick of the eye.

ALso I don;t think you can loose the second player in the black without having the other one too close to the edge. Crop is good for me. :)
 
Proud2btaff said:
That's why I started to be unsure of the 2nd edit as I have seen other sports pics like this and liked them but the more I looked at them the more unnatural they looked.

Level wise the pitch actually slants so if you level the pitch the building looks off level so I guess I should always ensure the pitch is level and not worry about the buildings (try and avoid them anyways)

Do me a fave Joe can you do an edit of the original off camera please so I can see what you mean with the crop.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/blq1x8i1mw5qed/_DSC3885.JPG?d=0
Click to expand...

Thanks for the original to play with, I have done the best I can with it, contest levelling and cropping etc. what you think?

fortp.jpg
 
Last edited:
Proud2btaff said:
@Joeturner11 contrast wise looks a little better than mine but the crop i'm not sure on I can see now why the pros use small f stops to isolate the main subject lol.
Click to expand...

Yep, the subjects can be a hell of a pain in the background, the f/2.8 of my 400mm helps this is massively blowing the background way out The Bokeh is simply superb
 
Joeturner11 said:
Yep, the subjects can be a hell of a pain in the background, the f/2.8 of my 400mm helps this is massively blowing the background way out The Bokeh is simply superb
Click to expand...
I would love a 400mm but I have been using a 70-300mm zoom which only gives 5.6 at the long end, I take it when you shoot sport you use 2 bodies, what other lens do you use as I have been using my 18-105 on my second as it allows me to get shots that are closer to me only thing is getting used to quickly changing cameras with the flow of the game.
 
Darren,

It depends on what types of sports photography you are looking to build a portfolio for.

You won't see that kind of editing in newspapers and so if you are looking to shoot for an agency or directly to the papers then your first example would be preferred. Colour, density, exposure, crop/rotate and nothing else. However, if you are looking to shoot PR or corporate sports photography, or advertising then a more creative approach works and you might see a more contrasty/"HDR look" in images.

If you are going to put a lot of editing effort into the second example, and it is more PR/commercial than editorial (it wouldn't be appropriate at all for news images) then you should also be looking to remove the distractions in the background. You could do that with less DOF but you could also clone those out the blue and yellow objects. Clearly you would be hoping for a better background and if you were setting up a PR shoot then certainly you would have selected somewhere else.

Whilst it isn't directly related to your question in the initial post I do have to say that the crop by @Joeturner11 really doesn't work. You wouldn't ever crop a player close to the action in half on the edge of the frame - they either need to be fully in or fully out of the image. To include the out of focus two spectators in (one of whom is also clipped) again is a poor judgement in my opinion especially in preference to the remainder of the cropped player. It also appears to have either introduced a slant, or not corrected it as in your edit. Your focus should be entirely on the action for this kind of image.
 
meonshore said:
Darren,

It depends on what types of sports photography you are looking to build a portfolio for.

You won't see that kind of editing in newspapers and so if you are looking to shoot for an agency or directly to the papers then your first example would be preferred. Colour, density, exposure, crop/rotate and nothing else. However, if you are looking to shoot PR or corporate sports photography, or advertising then a more creative approach works and you might see a more contrasty/"HDR look" in images.

If you are going to put a lot of editing effort into the second example, and it is more PR/commercial than editorial (it wouldn't be appropriate at all for news images) then you should also be looking to remove the distractions in the background. You could do that with less DOF but you could also clone those out the blue and yellow objects. Clearly you would be hoping for a better background and if you were setting up a PR shoot then certainly you would have selected somewhere else.

Whilst it isn't directly related to your question in the initial post I do have to say that the crop by @Joeturner11 really doesn't work. You wouldn't ever crop a player close to the action in half on the edge of the frame - they either need to be fully in or fully out of the image. To include the out of focus two spectators in (one of whom is also clipped) again is a poor judgement in my opinion especially in preference to the remainder of the cropped player. It also appears to have either introduced a slant, or not corrected it as in your edit. Your focus should be entirely on the action for this kind of image.
Click to expand...

It was just a suggestion :)
 
meonshore said:
Darren,

It depends on what types of sports photography you are looking to build a portfolio for.

You won't see that kind of editing in newspapers and so if you are looking to shoot for an agency or directly to the papers then your first example would be preferred. Colour, density, exposure, crop/rotate and nothing else. However, if you are looking to shoot PR or corporate sports photography, or advertising then a more creative approach works and you might see a more contrasty/"HDR look" in images.

If you are going to put a lot of editing effort into the second example, and it is more PR/commercial than editorial (it wouldn't be appropriate at all for news images) then you should also be looking to remove the distractions in the background. You could do that with less DOF but you could also clone those out the blue and yellow objects. Clearly you would be hoping for a better background and if you were setting up a PR shoot then certainly you would have selected somewhere else.

Whilst it isn't directly related to your question in the initial post I do have to say that the crop by @Joeturner11 really doesn't work. You wouldn't ever crop a player close to the action in half on the edge of the frame - they either need to be fully in or fully out of the image. To include the out of focus two spectators in (one of whom is also clipped) again is a poor judgement in my opinion especially in preference to the remainder of the cropped player. It also appears to have either introduced a slant, or not corrected it as in your edit. Your focus should be entirely on the action for this kind of image.
Click to expand...

Thanks Mike, it helps knowing what type of editing you use for the different portfolios, I am looking to build a portfolio for newspapers to try and get some images published in the future or even get a job with an agency.

I will go back and re-edit all of the images as I don't want the PR/Commercial look for them.
 
Joeturner11 said:
I use a Nikon 400mm f/2.8 II and 70-200mm f/2.8VR II
Click to expand...
Oh rite, I always assumed you would need a small focal length as sometimes the action comes so close especially when your sat on the try line that I thought using the 70mm as the shortest length wouldn't be short enough, saying that I suppose it is totally different when your behind sponsorshipboards as they are set back from the line. Not something they have in grassroots lol.
 
Proud2btaff said:
Oh rite, I always assumed you would need a small focal length as sometimes the action comes so close especially when your sat on the try line that I thought using the 70mm as the shortest length wouldn't be short enough, saying that I suppose it is totally different when your behind sponsorshipboards as they are set back from the line.
Click to expand...

70mm is all you need at the widest angle your mostly need to be honest when your sat behind the boards or pitch side, sometimes I have my older D2Xs with a 24-70mm f/2.8 attached for some 'luck' shots or use it behind the goal on a remote release...
 
Joeturner11 said:
70mm is all you need at the widest angle your mostly need to be honest when your sat behind the boards or pitch side, sometimes I have my older D2Xs with a 24-70mm f/2.8 attached for some 'luck' shots or use it behind the goal on a remote release...
Click to expand...
Ah rite, I will experiment on Saturday and use my 150-500mm on one body and my 70-300 on the other.
 
Joeturner11 said:
a Suggestion, sometimes work sometimes doesn't. I love how you try to make this personal :')
Click to expand...

Well given you were the only person that made that particular crop it kind of has to be personal.

Had Kipax posted the same crop I would have made the same comment - it has nothing to do with you as an individual but the poor advice you gave.

The trouble with forums is that unless the OP digs a little then they might take "just a suggestion" as a given or expert advice, and it might well be - and in other situations it might not.
 
OK straight off the bat.... 1 is better than 2 for all the reason said..

Secondly.. for a portfolio? sorry but this really shouldn't make a portfolio shot... portfoio is massively different to your best shots from a match.. portfolio has to be the best ever shot.. is this your best ever rugby shot? the fact that it looks slanted is a big nono .. Ok the pitch is on a slant.. then use a shot from a pitch that isnt on a slant.. a portfolio shot has to speak for itself.. your not allowed to start explaining why it looks lobsided... the blue bins and yes even the buildings also don't help..

I am NOT knocking the picture.. its a decent sports shot.. but not a portfolio shot IMHO
 
KIPAX said:
OK straight off the bat.... 1 is better than 2 for all the reason said..

Secondly.. for a portfolio? sorry but this really shouldn't make a portfolio shot... portfoio is massively different to your best shots from a match.. portfolio has to be the best ever shot.. is this your best ever rugby shot? the fact that it looks slanted is a big nono .. Ok the pitch is on a slant.. then use a shot from a pitch that isnt on a slant.. a portfolio shot has to speak for itself.. your not allowed to start explaining why it looks lobsided... the blue bins and yes even the buildings also don't help..

I am NOT knocking the picture.. its a decent sports shot.. but not a portfolio shot IMHO
Click to expand...
Sorry Kipax this isn't one of the shots I would ever use as a portfolio shot it was an example I used for the processing, I should have made that more clear.
 
First one for me, second one is a bit too unnatural.
A quick edit for ya.
Image not quite sharp enough for this crop, but focuses every thing into the action.
gets rid of distractions.
 
Last edited:
My two pence, as meonshore says, unless it's a sports shot for advertising etc, keep it as natural looking as possible. That's not to say you can't add a little bit of contrast, sharpening, saturation etc. but understated is always better than OTT in my opinion. As for cropping, this is something I'm rarely 100% happy with. Apart from those awesome shots that pop up and fit into a lovely crop that is obvious straight away, I always end up trying a couple of crops and seeing what I think works best. I guess that is down to your own eye and opinion, I remember sending a few shots to another sports shooter to get feedback and he told me that my cropping was terrible and that I'd learn, given time, how to crop. (the events section on my site is exempt from these comments as I'm stuck with a 7 x 5 ratio crop so I can sell prints.) Of course if you're sending to a newspaper or other publication they may be grateful of some dead space for copy.
 
I would have loved to have shot beside you at a big game, you faff about all you want doing fancy/crap/un needed editing, while youre doing that my photos are hitting the sports desks while youre are still in Photoshop
 
Proud2btaff said:
Oh rite, I always assumed you would need a small focal length as sometimes the action comes so close especially when your sat on the try line that I thought using the 70mm as the shortest length wouldn't be short enough, saying that I suppose it is totally different when your behind sponsorshipboards as they are set back from the line. Not something they have in grassroots lol.
Click to expand...

If your club's anything like the local one's I've shot at, you definitely don't want to be THAT close to the perimeter! A safe distance and a 70-200 is more than sufficient! Of course, you have to wait for the action to come to you (and some games that's in short supply), and looking at the original of the pic you posted, it was a big crop and the blurring of the background just isn't going to happen with your lens. Solutions aren't cheap. May be a 70-200 and a 1.5x converter? I just know that I can't aspire to the standard of Gary Coyle et al without big commitment and big bucks.
 
Gary Coyle said:
I would have loved to have shot beside you at a big game, you faff about all you want doing fancy/crap/un needed editing, while youre doing that my photos are hitting the sports desks while youre are still in Photoshop
Click to expand...
Is that aimed at me Gary?

I understand the need for the photos to be spot on when shooting a big game and having to get them into the media yesterday. The reason for this post for me was because I wanted to understand the editing of photos to build a portfolio. I understand the necessity of having the best lens possible however I am trying my best with what I currently have and in the future when I can afford to I will invest in better lenses as I would love to make a career of Sports Photography in the future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top