# How to make photos look professional in PS



## Destin (Dec 13, 2010)

Ok, now before you yell at me for the title, there was no other way to word it. I'm stuck in a rut. I've gotten pretty good at photography, in my opinion. (I'll let you be the judge: www.destindanser.com

But, my photos lack that "professional" look that I see other sports photographers getting. I just can't seem to figure out what I need to do in post to get the more professional look out of my photos. 

For example:






This is a good photo. He's at peak action, and the lighting is decent. What can I do in CS5 to make it look better?

I know that "more professional" is a very general description. I just don't know how else to describe it.


----------



## Dao (Dec 13, 2010)

I do not know how to make it look professional in PS. 

Personally, I think the subject does not stand out in this photo.  Beside the water mark, the person seems blend into the background especially the dark jeans.

And due to how busy the background is, I will say if you can find a way to blur the background a little bit and see if that help bring the subject out.


----------



## Buckster (Dec 13, 2010)

How are you at making and using masks?  If you're good at it, make the background darker and blur it with a lens blur so that your subject stands out.  If you're not so good at it, you should focus on learning the technique, as it's real handy for lots of stuff in photo editing.

On the front end though, while shooting, you might want to think about getting less DOF to bring your subject away from the background so you don't have to do much editing later.  I notice this was shot at around 85mm @ f/4.  Don't know which lens it is, but open it up as wide as you can get it to throw that background OOF.  If f/4 is the limit on the lens you're shooting these with, get a faster lens.  That may be the biggest difference between your shots and those of the pros.

The next thing to think about is the lighting.  Throw that background darker by lighting your subject brighter and compensating with a faster shutter speed, which helps the kind of shooting you're doing anyway - to freeze your subject.  If you're already lighting these, use flags or snoots or something to keep them from lighting the background.  If you're already doing that, use more light(s) or get the ones you're using already closer to the subject.


----------



## Destin (Dec 13, 2010)

Buckster said:


> How are you at making and using masks?  If you're good at it, make the background darker and blur it with a lens blur so that your subject stands out.  If you're not so good at it, you should focus on learning the technique, as it's real handy for lots of stuff in photo editing.
> 
> On the front end though, while shooting, you might want to think about getting less DOF to bring your subject away from the background so you don't have to do much editing later.  I notice this was shot at around 85mm @ f/4.  Don't know which lens it is, but open it up as wide as you can get it to throw that background OOF.  If f/4 is the limit on the lens you're shooting these with, get a faster lens.  That may be the biggest difference between your shots and those of the pros.
> 
> The next thing to think about is the lighting.  Throw that background darker by lighting your subject brighter and compensating with a faster shutter speed, which helps the kind of shooting you're doing anyway - to freeze your subject.  If you're already lighting these, use flags or snoots or something to keep them from lighting the background.  If you're already doing that, use more light(s) or get the ones you're using already closer to the subject.



Gotcha. I'm definitely no good at masking. But I'm also not sure it's practical to use them on every photo, when I'm trying to sell these photos to the riders so I need shots of as many riders as possible. There are just under 200 photos from on my site from this, and that's alot of masking. So I'll have to work on the way I shoot. But I need to learn masking, regardless. 

I was shooting with a 70-200 2.8. the reason I was at f4 was because my main light (and sb-600) was clamped 8 feet up a pole, and I had it set about 1/2 a stop too high. Only way to compensate was to climb up to it, or go to a smaller f-stop. Didn't have time to climb up to it. 

But, I do like the idea of lighting the subject more and using a faster shutter speed to darken the background. I even tried it on a few shots, but didn't take the time to get my lights right, so it looked funny. I'll try using more lights next time, and maybe some snoots if I need to. Thanks for the advice!


----------



## gsgary (Dec 13, 2010)

The football shots have too much DOF due to a short lens, it's very hard to blur the background with 200mm unless you wait untill the action is on top of you, i use a 300F2.8L and that is sometimes too short but 300mm make quite a difference at blurring the background


----------



## KmH (Dec 13, 2010)

Get closer, physically or with zoom.

Use good compositional technique, in the camera viewfinder preferably, or at least by cropping in post processing.

Look carefully at gsgary's image. The player fills the frame, and his face is at a ROT power point.


----------



## Edsport (Dec 13, 2010)

Had a quick go at blurring the background. The best way is to do it with the camera if possible...


----------



## Derrel (Dec 13, 2010)

Edsport's edit is a good example of how to improve such a shot after the fact!


----------



## Destin (Dec 13, 2010)

I understand what you guys mean about GSGary's photo, but a 300 2.8 isn't in my budget right now. And All my football photos were being shot on a d40 this season, meaning I had 6 megapixels, and couldn't drop much because parents wanted 11x14 prints. 

Now I'm about to get a d90 which will allow more cropping and better high iso performace. So Next football season should be way better. 

As far as EDsport's edit, I agree that it makes the rider stand out more, but that blur makes my eyes hurt. Doing it with DOF is definitely the way to go. 

How does photo look? I still feel it's just lacking a little something to give it a truly professional look:





EDIT: Sorry about the ridiculous watermark. I turned them off in my smugmug that contains this photo, and they won't go away.


----------



## gsgary (Dec 13, 2010)

You don't need a 300F2.8L, this was taken with a 300F4L which was a fantastic lens i'm sure the Nikon is as good and not too expensive


----------



## burgo (Dec 13, 2010)

you could use viveza 2


----------



## KmH (Dec 13, 2010)

Destin said:


> I understand what you guys mean about GSGary's photo, but a 300 2.8 isn't in my budget right now......


But, you can still crop.


----------



## Destin (Dec 13, 2010)

KmH said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > I understand what you guys mean about GSGary's photo, but a 300 2.8 isn't in my budget right now......
> ...



Except if you had read through the rest of that, you would have seen that I'm only shooting a 6mp camera, and selling prints. Can't crop much. 

And to whoever mentioned the 300 f4, thats a possibility, but most of the stuff I would need 300mm for would be at night, where f4 just won't cut it


----------



## Destin (Dec 13, 2010)

gsgary said:


> The football shots have too much DOF due to a short lens, it's very hard to blur the background with 200mm unless you wait untill the action is on top of you, i use a 300F2.8L and that is sometimes too short but 300mm make quite a difference at blurring the background



Also, for american football, having a super short DOF isn't always a good thing. Most good shots have more than one player, weather it be a tackle, or 2 players jumping to fight over a pass. Generally you need at least a 4-5 foot DOF to get all that, if not more. And sometimes you want wayyyy more, such as a shot of the reciever catching the ball with the QB standing 20 yards back down the field watching the play. So for football I honestly don't mind not having short DOF


----------



## gsgary (Dec 14, 2010)

I much prefer the tight shots and so do the papers and mags 
this is F2.8


----------



## KmH (Dec 14, 2010)

Destin said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > Destin said:
> ...


How big are the prints you're selling? I used to have a 5MP Nikon D1X that I sold prints from that were 4 feet by 6 feet.


----------



## Destin (Dec 14, 2010)

KmH said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > KmH said:
> ...



Yeah, you can do that. But, according to 95% of the people I talk to on here, and other forums, with 6mp you should only print up to 11x14 for optimal results.


----------



## KmH (Dec 14, 2010)

It really depends on the image, and of course crops will be less than 6 MP making getting closer even more critical.

Most of the sports prints sold are 4x6's, 6x9, with an ocassional 8x10.

Even then there are ways to up-rez photos so they can be printed larger, if needed.

The point is...Don't shoot yourself down so quickly.


----------



## Destin (Dec 14, 2010)

KmH said:


> It really depends on the image, and of course crops will be less than 6 MP making getting closer even more critical.
> 
> Most of the sports prints sold are 4x6's, 6x9, with an ocassional 8x10.
> 
> ...



Well, it's a non-issue now. Just sold my d40, I'll be getting a d90 in the coming weeks. And I'll only be keeping that for 3-4 months until I can afford a D7000.


----------



## clbd39 (Dec 15, 2010)

You seem to have quite a bit of understanding left to gain. (which there is ALWAYS learning for us ALL to do)

Start with the basics...
-Rule of Thirds
-Elevation
-Lighting (angle as well)
-Background (DoF and if there's something "growing" out of your subject)


What do you use for post process?  I would always recommend shooting in RAW, that way if your white balance isn't right or you are slightly over/under exposed it can be salvaged

I edit all of my photos in Lightroom2 (RAW) and export to photoshop (cs4) still in raw (use ctrl+e) and edit and then convert to 8bit jpeg after all my editing is done

sometimes i'll even do a few edits to expose certain parts in light room and export 5 different versions to layer together is photoshop


----------



## Destin (Dec 15, 2010)

clbd39 said:


> You seem to have quite a bit of understanding left to gain. (which there is ALWAYS learning for us ALL to do)
> 
> Start with the basics...
> -Rule of Thirds
> ...




I know the rule of thirds. But most of the time it doesn't apply to sports photography because you want the subject to fill the frame. The main reason my subject in the example photo doesn't fill th frame is that I was trying to show how high off the ground he was. 

What do you mean by elevation?

Lighting- Worked with what I could do. I couldn't set a stand up as it was in a crowded area. So I got the flash off camera to the only place I could. Ideally, I would have have 2 flashes on stands lighting at 45 degreee angles on either side of the ramp. Just wasn't possible. 

Background- Yeah, I could have been shooting at a better angle, I admit that. There wasn't really a good way for me to get up higher and get the rafters out of the shot. Here is a little better example from the same shoot:






As far as post goes, I have lightroom 2 and Photoshop CS5. I'm not great with either one, but I know the basics. I usually shoot raw, but in this case I opted not to, because I needed my camera's buffer to be as big as possible... riders were coming over the jump one after another, non stop. Maybe 2 seconds apart. I may have been able to do it in RAW, looking back on it. Lesson learned. 

Thanks for the advice man.


----------



## KmH (Dec 15, 2010)

Destin said:


> I know the rule of thirds. But most of the time it doesn't apply to sports photography because you want the subject to fill the frame.


Then your understanding of how to effectively use the ROT is lacking, because the ROT applies just as much to sports photography as to any other genre. So does filling the frame.


----------



## Destin (Dec 15, 2010)

KmH said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > I know the rule of thirds. But most of the time it doesn't apply to sports photography because you want the subject to fill the frame.
> ...




The rule of thirds states that the subject should be at or near one of the four intersections of the grid. If you are filling the frame with a subject that's impossible, because your subject is taking up the entire frame. I'm not claiming to be an expert on the rule of thirds, but this is just common sense. 

There is a difference between the rule of thirds and proper composition. The rule of thirds is only one element to proper composition. Once again, I'm not claiming to be an expert. Just stating facts that I know to be true.

EDIT: I know I have alot to learn, as does every one of us. I'm not trying to sound like a dick. I do appreciate the criticism!!


----------



## NikWilliamson (Dec 19, 2010)

Take a look at this. I blurred the background a little bit, adjusted the levels, and desaturated it a tad. The mask is pretty rough, but it should give you an idea.


----------



## Shane Anderson (Dec 23, 2010)

I'm no expert but I've been working on photographing motocross. Some observations about your motocross rider photo and things I have learnt:

a) your shutter speed appears too high. 1/250 will freeze the rider but not the wheels and give more impression of motion.

b) the bike is too close to the tree/sky horizon and doesn't stand out enough.

c) the angle is un-interesting.  Try to get more of the rider and less of the bike.

d) If you are wanting to give the impression of the height the rider is jumping, a less tight crop can work better as the background can give a measure of scale of the height to the viewer.  In the first photo below, the rider is not that far off the ground, but from the camera viewpoint his head is aligned with the third tier of the stadium so it gives the impression of more height.

e) assuming you've got your composition close to right, it's easy to make a mild crop to get the subject right with regards to the ROT.

Also another technique with motorsports to isolate the subject is to try panning. This will get a nicely blurred background regardless of the actual depth of field.

Here are a couple of taken with my D5000 and 70-200 lens:


----------



## catrinahampton (Dec 23, 2010)

I think it would help to get some DOF, but there are improvements you can make in PP. Here, I just brightened with curves, added a warming filter, and sharpened.


----------



## Destin (Dec 23, 2010)

Shane Anderson said:


> I'm no expert but I've been working on photographing motocross. Some observations about your motocross rider photo and things I have learnt:
> 
> a) your shutter speed appears too high. 1/250 will freeze the rider but not the wheels and give more impression of motion.
> 
> ...



Honestly, I disagree about the shutter speed. Blur on the wheels is annoying to my eye, I don't like it on motocross photos. I like it in car racing, but on motocross with knobby tires it makes the photo look out of focus. It's all personal preference though. Also, it take alot of sharpness away from the rest of the rider and the bike. It doesn't show up as blur, but you lose ALOT of sharpness. May as well be shooting with a $200 55-200 instead of your 70-200 if you arent going to take advantage of the extra sharpness, or the higher shutter speed that the faster lens gets you. Just sayin..

I'd also disagree about the height. The tree line gives a clear representation of height in my photo. In yours the stadium also shows height, but it's a busy background that distracts from the rider. In mine, the rider pops out of it, because there is nothing going on in the background. 

As far as the angle, I would say the same about yours on the first photo. It's simply not interesting. It's a flat shot of the side of the bike. It almost looks 2d, there is no depth to it. 

In your second photo the rider is very underexposed. It definitely needs fill light, in the form of flash, or the sun, or whatever. A quick mask in PS could help it alot though.


----------



## catrinahampton (Dec 23, 2010)

Here is another play (excuse the horrible masking...it was quick). In this one I also used a warming filter, brightened with curves, sharpened, and also did a color pop to the background to deepen the color. The photoshopped blurs always look....well, photoshopped to me!


----------



## Mike_E (Dec 23, 2010)

Motion blur.  If you don't feel that the picture is moving it's not likely to move you, at least as far as sports photography goes.  Obviously you don't want too much but look at gsgary's.  There are things flying around away from the main subject that define motion.  Even the rugby shots show muscles bulging that wouldn't be except for extreme effort.

All this is to say, or show, that the subject isn't static but is flesh and blood and pulsing with adrenaline which is what you want if you care to have a sympathetic reaction in your viewers.

Anyway, you're not off much just be a little more organic.


----------



## gsgary (Dec 23, 2010)

Motorcross, now were talking here 2 that have been published


----------



## Shane Anderson (Dec 24, 2010)

Nice pics Gary, love the first one!!


----------



## Stephen.C (Dec 24, 2010)

I gave it a little go in LR3. Boosted Contrast and added a brush on it that lowered clarity / sharpness, and also boosted blacks / contrast.


----------



## Fender5388 (Dec 27, 2010)

sorry i didnt really read all the posts in here, but what got my attention were the bike tricks haha. for bmx photography, opposed to other sports you usually wanna scoot back some and get more of the environment in the shot.
this tells the story behind the trick. where he came from and where he's going all in one shot. im mean yea sure you cn zoom right in on the kid in the air. but it doesnt tell you anything about what he's doing. this is coming from a bmx rider/ photographer. 











like these two shots, you can get more of a feel of whats actually taking place in the photo. and just from looking at your first shot, it seemed like the lighting was a bit flat and that the colors could be more vibrant. but all this is just my opinion.


----------



## Destin (Dec 27, 2010)

Fender5388 said:


> sorry i didnt really read all the posts in here, but what got my attention were the bike tricks haha. for bmx photography, opposed to other sports you usually wanna scoot back some and get more of the environment in the shot.
> this tells the story behind the trick. where he came from and where he's going all in one shot. im mean yea sure you cn zoom right in on the kid in the air. but it doesnt tell you anything about what he's doing. this is coming from a bmx rider/ photographer.
> 
> 
> ...



I totally agree man. But they were just coming over a tabletop, so including it was rather boring. And trust me I know what the riders wanna see, I'm a mountain biker (mostly xc racing, some Downhill, and dirtjumping just for fun).

Honestly, the lighting was bad in the park I was shooting and I only had one flash set up. More or less my fault. 

This is a mountain biking shot I took at a race over the summer. Nothing exciting, but photos like this sold. I made $450 off of selling prints after the race! Sorry about the watermark. Used mostly ambient, and 2 off camera flashes for fill.


----------



## TerribleWone (Dec 29, 2010)

Man, its rays MTB! I have shot there before, and despite looking like there may be some usable light, its poorly lit. The same situation happens in the park I use to ride here in toronto.






I set this shot up two years ago and let someone take it for me. It really needs a third light to fill the ramp in a little but you get an idea about the separation between the rider and background using light. The photo I posted does lack some of the separation it should have since I was wearing a shirt and helmet that was the exact same color as the rafters. The photo could have been better had it be taken at F4.0 rather than F7 that if I remember correctly was taken at. 

Anyways getting back to your photo I would never turn to PS for any form of simulated lens or action blur, just looks cheap. For any "still" ie lacking visible action (see motorsports pan) try to keep your app to 4 or lower and make use of light to form separation.


----------



## Restomage (Dec 29, 2010)

You should be making your photos look professional straight off the camera.


----------



## Destin (Dec 29, 2010)

TerribleWone said:


> Man, its rays MTB! I have shot there before, and despite looking like there may be some usable light, its poorly lit. The same situation happens in the park I use to ride here in toronto.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nice man! Haha I can't believe someone on here knows what rays is!! It's a 4 hour drive from my house, but I go there once a month in the winter just to keep myself sane through the winter. I'm going crazy right about now wishing I could be out riding!

That photo looks sweet man. It could definitely use a light on the ramp, but I like it. Mind telling me how your flashes were positioned in relation to the rider? I'm assuming one right and one left, but how far to the side? I really can't wait to get back there and get another try at getting some good photos (and riding). It's just hard to find a place to shoot where I'm not gonna get run over haha

I would never try to simulate blur in photoshop either, honestly. It really does just look crappy.


----------



## mjhoward (Dec 29, 2010)

Shane Anderson said:


> a) your shutter speed appears too high. 1/250 will freeze the rider but not the wheels and give more impression of motion.
> 
> Here are a couple of taken with my D5000 and 70-200 lens:



Its funny, because the EXIF for the pics you posted show that YOU used the exact same shutter speed (1/250) for your photos


----------



## Dmitri (Dec 29, 2010)

I think Destin just wants to argue.


----------



## TerribleWone (Dec 29, 2010)

Destin said:


> That photo looks sweet man. It could definitely use a light on the ramp, but I like it. Mind telling me how your flashes were positioned in relation to the rider? I'm assuming one right and one left, but how far to the side? I really can't wait to get back there and get another try at getting some good photos (and riding). It's just hard to find a place to shoot where I'm not gonna get run over haha



With only two strobes and poor park lighting I had to make the compromise and choose to primarily light the rider. The flash on the left sits up on the ramps deck while the other sits down on the mini ramps flat bottom to the right further back. Both point towards the rider and are both set to full power. Normally I would not set both to 1/1 but since there is a big difference in distance to the subject the further light appears as if its not as strong automatically despite being at the same power. The end result is that the strobe on the left is the key light that gives the good separation and the light on the right acts as the fill light. This photo was edited before I color profiled my LCD so when I look at it now its been pushed way too hard. If I can find the NEF file I will be able to bring more of the ramps surface out with fill light adjustment and then edit the color and contrast accordingly. Man I should get on that!

Rays is awesome, I do have a photo of me riding there, but its pretty brutal. It again suffers from asking two lights to do too much. It would have been a lot better with a third light, or changing the angle of the shot to behind the ramp on the landing. I could have then repositioned my strobes to light the subject and the ramp. Anyways these are all very old photos, I really have to try shooting BMX now that I have came a long way.

PS if you are 4 hours from rays where are you from? Mi or NY? I am about 5 hours away since I live near Toronto.


----------



## OrionsByte (Dec 29, 2010)

Destin said:


> I know the rule of thirds. But most of the time it doesn't apply to sports photography because you want the subject to fill the frame. The main reason my subject in the example photo doesn't fill th frame is that I was trying to show how high off the ground he was.



Working from Edsports' edit, I did a slight crop.  The biker now lies along one of the third-lines, and their upper body is right near a power point.  It's not _that_ much of a crop, and if it was done from the full-size original instead of the web'd version, it would still make a fine print.

Before





After


----------



## TerribleWone (Dec 29, 2010)

The problem with a crop such as that in BMX is that we now have no idea what the rider is doing. Is he flying out of a ramp, jumping into foam or jumping a box rhythm? The original photo still suffers from the same problem despite the fact that I know it was taken on the medium rhythm at rays. Had I never been to the park I really cant tell whats going on. This is the issue that anyone shooting action sports must work around. Generally you want to have where they came from and where they are going to in the same frame. It gives the action some form of continuity.


----------



## OrionsByte (Dec 29, 2010)

TerribleWone said:


> The problem with a crop such as that in BMX is that we now have no idea what the rider is doing. Is he flying out of a ramp, jumping into foam or jumping a box rhythm? The original photo still suffers from the same problem despite the fact that I know it was taken on the medium rhythm at rays. Had I never been to the park I really cant tell whats going on. This is the issue that anyone shooting action sports must work around. Generally you want to have where they came from and where they are going to in the same frame. It gives the action some form of continuity.



Point taken, but even with some foreground interest to show context you can still crop the photo so that the biker isn't just _centered_.


----------



## Destin (Dec 29, 2010)

TerribleWone said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > That photo looks sweet man. It could definitely use a light on the ramp, but I like it. Mind telling me how your flashes were positioned in relation to the rider? I'm assuming one right and one left, but how far to the side? I really can't wait to get back there and get another try at getting some good photos (and riding). It's just hard to find a place to shoot where I'm not gonna get run over haha
> ...



Awesome man. I'm definitely excited to get back down there in a few weeks to try shooting it again. I know I can do alot better, I just need to slow down and think about what I'm doing more. Most of the knowledge is in my head, I just need to get better at implementing it correctly, which is harder than it sounds haha. 

I'm from Buffalo man, so we aren't far apart. I actually went to the Toronto international bike show 2 years ago, before I needed a passport to come across. I was looking forward to coming there to take some photos too, but don't have a passport yet.


----------



## TerribleWone (Dec 29, 2010)

OrionsByte:

In terms of contemporary photography you are spot on, but for me as a rider I find the OG and especially the crop perplexing. For the average person these issues may not be present, but lets say the photo was in a BMX mag a lot of people would be confused. Just to me as a rider I like to see where one is coming from and going to. Additionally I like some scale in the photo, and thats something even the photo I posted of the miniramp air lacks. For example in my photo you can see that I am airing out and back into the same ramp. However its hard to tell how tall the ramp is or how high I am airing. Take a guess how high I am out of the ramp and how tall the ramp is.

A. 3 feet out of a 4 foot ramp?
B. 4 feet out of a 5 foot ramp?
C. 5 feet out of a 6 foot ramp?
D. 6 feet out of a 6 foot ramp?

Contrary to the way it looks, I am actually 6 feet out of a 6 foot ramp. The photo lacks any kind of real scale so its deceiving. had the photo been taken further back the scale of the ramp and the air would look MUCH larger. Unfortunitly the option does not exist since it was a tight indoor ramp. 

Destin:
Man get yourself a passport and save yourself the massive drive. Joyride150 just opened up near toronto. Its a almost exactly like rays but about 50-65% the size. The park is only 2 hours from your place and its nearly as good.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Dec 29, 2010)

TerribleWone said:


> OrionsByte:
> 
> In terms of contemporary photography you are spot on, but for me as a rider I find the OG and especially the crop perplexing. For the average person these issues may not be present, but lets say the photo was in a BMX mag a lot of people would be confused. Just to me as a rider I like to see where one is coming from and going to. Additionally I like some scale in the photo, and thats something even the photo I posted of the miniramp air lacks. For example in my photo you can see that I am airing out and back into the same ramp. However its hard to tell how tall the ramp is or how high I am airing. Take a guess how high I am out of the ramp and how tall the ramp is.
> 
> ...


 

i gotta agree, as a former bike guy i need to see the ramp and whats going on or its just a kid in the air. you dont know if he's  1'above the ramp or 10' dont know the entry or exit point. all things that really convey how good a guy is and what hes in the middle of.


----------



## OrionsByte (Dec 29, 2010)

TerribleWone said:


> OrionsByte:
> 
> In terms of contemporary photography you are spot on, but for me as a rider I find the OG and especially the crop perplexing. For the average person these issues may not be present, but lets say the photo was in a BMX mag a lot of people would be confused. Just to me as a rider I like to see where one is coming from and going to. Additionally I like some scale in the photo, and thats something even the photo I posted of the miniramp air lacks. For example in my photo you can see that I am airing out and back into the same ramp. However its hard to tell how tall the ramp is or how high I am airing.



I totally see your point, and I concede that I don't know anything about BMX photography specifically.  I'm just trying to suggest that you can take a photo that demonstrates scale and context without throwing out the rule of thirds.  

As an example, here's something that turned up when I did a Google image search for "BMX Photography": http://delarge.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/k2148259131.jpg

Notice where the bike and rider is?  Right at an intersection of thirds.  Yet scale and context, the elements that you find desirable, are still intact.  That's all I'm saying - it's possible to have your cake and eat it too.

I think we're on the same page here, but I hope this clarifies my point a bit.  If not, I'm honestly not interested in turning it in to a big deal, so I'll concede.


----------



## TerribleWone (Dec 29, 2010)

OrionsByte:

You hit the nail right on the head. The only point that I was making is that in BMX related photos I would sacrifice the rule of thirds over cropping out the riders path. Anyways the example you posted is exactly the right idea when it comes to these style of photos. Anyways another good example is a photo of a rider sliding a rail, you would never crop any portion of the rail out of the photo, you must see where it starts and ends not only for motion continuity but for the sake of showing how hard the trick was. 

Cheers mate


----------



## gsgary (Dec 29, 2010)

When shooting sport you don't have much time to mess about in Photoshop because the papers want the shots the same day or the next day so you need to get it right in camera 
here are some that i have spent about 90 seconds in LR


----------



## KmH (Dec 29, 2010)

Great shots. :thumbup:

Note how the subject fills the frame, but the ROT was still used to create drama, tension, and space for movement within the image frame:






Here the subject doesn't fill the frame, but the ROT was still used to create space for movement both down and to the left, also providing drama and tension.


----------



## Destin (Dec 29, 2010)

KmH said:


> Great shots. :thumbup:
> 
> Note how the subject fills the frame, but the ROT was still used to create drama, tension, and space for movement within the image frame:
> 
> ...



except for me, as a cyclist I find the photo of the guy on the bike rather boring. I want to see a little more of the bike in the photo, and a less awkward crop on his body. Maybe even a rider or two around him so you know the reason he is pushing so hard. It's not a bad photo, but as in my bmx photo it doesn't convey what is going on very well in my opinion. The surfing photo is great though.


----------



## gsgary (Dec 30, 2010)

Destin said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > Great shots. :thumbup:
> ...


----------



## RjL (Dec 30, 2010)

Restomage said:


> You should be making your photos look professional straight off the camera.


 

Says who? IMO it makes no difference to me whether you take a poor pic and make it look great or take a great pic right off the camera.

Aside from saving time the pic is still interesting and pleasing to the eye. 

Now I try to make my photographs the best possible but on occasion I still use PP. I use it far less often now than when I started, however I enjoy the challenge and creativity of PP.

RjL


----------



## thatfornoobs (Jan 25, 2011)

Straightened, added better dof and color corrected.


----------



## TerribleWone (Jan 27, 2011)

thatfornoobs said:


> Straightened, added better dof and color corrected.



Color does not look correct on my screen and its calibrated.


----------



## cedew (Jan 27, 2011)

This turned into a great topic. I'm think we can mostly agree that it's rarely any one thing that makes a great image, aside from mind blowing subject matter anyway. I'd like to throw in some thoughts on what makes a professional looking image.

The basics need to be there: exposure, focus, colors, composition, etc. I hate to associate blur with professionalism, really it's more about subject isolation, and it just so happens that blurring backgrounds help isolate the subject. One thing in particular that strikes me about professional looking sports photos is an intimacy with the athlete. This is something you can't get with processing. The image above definitely looks more interesting than the original, but I'm not sure I wouldn associate that with a professional look, it's something you probably wouldn't see in a bmx mag.

Though we have no rules in photography, there is an unwritten rule about blur with motocross. People like to see a small amount of tire blur at the minimum. When the tires are frozen, it looks static, and motocross is definitely not about being static. I struggle with this myself, and typically error on the frozen tire side instead of the blurry image side, it sucks heading home with 500 blurry shots.

One thing that gdgary has going for his image in the first page is that nice low perspective. Whenever possible, show your viewers something they don't see from their everyday perspective. Give them a feeling like their down and dirty in the action, up close and personal. You can see the concentration on the man's face, you can see him defy gravity as he accelerates, it gives you a real feeling of action, that's mostly why I think it works, great isolation helps.

Another tip that might seem silly, but post pics at a good size when you post them. It's the same concept as an IMAX theater, a larger image makes you feel like you're in it more, nothing looks very interesting on a 9" tube television. I had one image I gave to a friend, I never viewed very large at home, but when he used it as his background on a 24" Dell, it looked stunning, a night and day difference.

I'll post a few that I like. I think they mostly work because of good subject isolation, action is just okay, colors are always nice in motocross, and some clouds rolling through at the right time added a bit of shadows that made things a little more interesting. I also think it helps to be able to see their 'faces', no back of the head shots, or obscured access to the 'eyes'.


----------



## TerribleWone (Jan 27, 2011)

^ fantastic shots!

I also agree on isolating the subject. For me there are three main options in doing so: lighting, aperture and shutter (motion blur). 

examples....

Shutter






Lighting






Aperture






There is also perhaps a 4th way.... color





http://www.flickr.com/photos/29414553@N02/


----------



## Destin (Jan 28, 2011)

Cedew- excellent shots. I have gotten much better since starting this thread, and since shooting all my images in it. Unfortunately I haven't had a chance to shoot motocross or bmx again yet... snow sucks. But here are a few of my more recent sports shots:
















Alright... so some of those are from summer. But now I know what I'm looking for in a good sports photo more than I did when I started this thread..

Edit: excuse the watermarks on the first 2 photos. They are old ones that I no longer use, but i haven't changed a few gallleries on my site yet...


----------



## auntiephoto (Jan 29, 2011)

This is great information.  I'm new to masks and wondering if Lightroom 3 has that ability.  Can you recommend a site where I can learn more about this technique? Thanks.


----------

