"Frozen" ball....

[Harleypugs]

Took a personal shot at a baseball gig this weekend.

The technique was dicussed over in the sports forum on FM so I thought I would try it out....

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3598/3457957396_d61fa65572_o.jpg

[FlyingPhotog]

I just bailed...

<Helluva Capture>

[JustinL]

Yes, you surely pulled it off well. I can't find the FM discussion, but I remember seeing it.

[snyderman]

that is amazing. Cool shot.

dave

[MJPhotos24]

Seen that before but never tried it - what's the link to the FM board? I rarely visit there anymore but probably should check it out again.

[USER876]

Very cool....can you share the technique? How do u focus? How slow can you go with the shutter and still pull it off?

[JustinL]

I found the following:
http://www.sportsshooter.com/special_feature/student_contest_05/index.html

http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1502

(linked from FM)

[5x5 photography]

I love it, the depth of field is great.
Nice work.

[korrektor]

incredible shot. both technically and artistically impressive!! I'm in awe

[morob7]

Great bokeh!!

[canonnoob]

I have done it before... pretty tricky eh? lol... nice framing of the shot.. that is the hardest part..

[bobbyz]

Nice but bg is too dark for my taste. Paul's shot on FM forum is perfect with superb lighting. Here the player is blurry for some reason and his body parts are not clear.

[USER876]

Nice but bg is too dark for my taste. Paul's shot on FM forum is perfect with superb lighting. Here the player is blurry for some reason and his body parts are not clear.

I think the narrow DOF and OOF player was done on purpose here.

[Dan-o]

I agree with Bobby. I don't like the background being so dark. I like the idea though.

[Harleypugs]

Yeah...the OOF player is on purpose...as is Pauls. I will admit Paul's location was lit better...but the day my shots are better than Pauls will be a happy day indeed....

[Harleypugs]

Actually just went back and looked at Paul's....his 2008 offering is very close and as dark as mine...;)

[danaitch]

Have you PPd your background to make the BOKEH more noticeable? It looks a bit artificial to me. Sorry.

[Harleypugs]

No...I didn't. I was shooting through a fence with gives a lattice effect to the bokeh. You have to think about the setting and situation of a shot....instead of saying something looks artifical.

[tmalone893]

I've never "seen that" before and I'm sure there are many others that haven't either. That is an awesome picture to me! Thanks for sharing that.

[Harleypugs]

You are welcome...I was pretty happy with the shot!

Thanks for looking.

[MJPhotos24]

For those that think it's "too dark" - you realize the ball would be completely blown out if it wasn't right? You're exposing for the ball here fellas and I assume trying to get it right in camera and not in post.

[Apollo11]

Awesome shot. The background looks like an impressionistic painting, whereas the ball is such a crisp photo. Very cool, and extremely hard, having both looks in the same image.

Well done!

[dshankar]

Sweet shot!!

[angela6571]

No...I didn't. I was shooting through a fence with gives a lattice effect to the bokeh. You have to think about the setting and situation of a shot....instead of saying something looks artifical.

I dont think he was accusing it of being artificial. Just saying it has that kind of look to it. There is a difference.

For those that think it's "too dark" - you realize the ball would be completely blown out if it wasn't right? You're exposing for the ball here fellas and I assume trying to get it right in camera and not in post.

Because the ball gets a lot more light than the rest of the field, right?..

Im also not a fan of the vignette.

Theres a lot more to Detrick's photo than just a frozen ball.

The clean background
The dividing horizontal line
The almost perfect light fall off on the ball
The grimace on the pitcher's faceJust to name a few.

Its a start, and it shows comprehension of a concept but it has room for improvement. Try it some more if you really want to.

[MJPhotos24]

Because the ball gets a lot more light than the rest of the field, right?..

What?? Because the ball is a pearl, it's bright white and not rubbed down like the one in Chris' shot and reflects. Kind of like the white pants in Chris' shot that make it "brighter" overall as well...or when you have teams wearing white uniforms and you expose for skin tones and blow parts of the white out to achieve it.

Theres a lot more to Detrick's photo than just a frozen ball.
The clean background

The dividing horizontal line
The almost perfect light fall off on the ball
The grimace on the pitcher's faceBackground - the one player back there is annoying but you can't do anything about the signage. Horizontal line is the layout of the field and batters eye, again nothing the photographer can do about that - this could be straightened using the yellow fence though. The exposure on the ball in this shot is perfect so that comment doesn't make sense. Finally, the photographer can not control what face the pitcher makes.

Chris had all the components you want, but you can't compare what the photographer can not control like some nit picking you have here.

[S-S]

i like it, i think it works
reminds me of those old viewmaster pictures where they give a 3d effect with a stereoscope-type viewer

[Harleypugs]

I dont think he was accusing it of being artificial. Just saying it has that kind of look to it. There is a difference.



Because the ball gets a lot more light than the rest of the field, right?..

Im also not a fan of the vignette.

Theres a lot more to Detrick's photo than just a frozen ball.

The clean background
The dividing horizontal line
The almost perfect light fall off on the ball
The grimace on the pitcher's faceJust to name a few.

Its a start, and it shows comprehension of a concept but it has room for improvement. Try it some more if you really want to.


I agree...there is always room improvement. Thanks!

[Zoso23]

thats so cool, love it.

i have never tryed anything quite like this but i imagine it would be extremely difficult. i like the way we can make out the pitcher in the background, it really gives the shot context.

you have done an awesome job.

[Joe Cyr]

Loved your shot, so I tried my hand at it during an exhibition softball game. Imitation is the greatest form of flattery...Mine is no where near as nice as your shot. I'm not sure it works as well with softball, but I gave it a go.

[USER876]

Nice shot joe....how did u select your focus point?

[Harleypugs]

Very nice!

I think you did a great job. I think the shot lends itself better with baseball...because of the leg kick. I think though I might play around with this next time I shoot softball too...;)

Love it!

[Joe Cyr]

Nice shot joe....how did u select your focus point?
I manually focused on a spot in front of the catcher (you can't see her) and waiting that split second for the ball to come into my focus area. I was amazed at how simple, yet effective it was.

[USER876]

I manually focused on a spot in front of the catcher (you can't see her) and waiting that split second for the ball to come into my focus area. I was amazed at how simple, yet effective it was.

Did you use live view?

[Harleypugs]

Joe...that is the cool part about this shot...it is fairly simple to do.

Hardest part is making sure you have the ball where you want it so the pitcher is in the background.....

Live view is not needed.

Set your focal point and use the motor to capture the ball in focus where you want it.....and bob is your uncle.

[canonnoob]

Honestly I dont see what all the arguement earlier was about.;. they both are great shots and both should be praised... jon.. nice work.

[Joe Cyr]

Did you use live view?
No... manual focus through the viewfinder... just like we used to do years ago before digital (or even AF lenses)... I have never used live view once when shooting any games.

[angela6571]

Because the ball gets a lot more light than the rest of the field, right?..

What?? Because the ball is a pearl, it's bright white and not rubbed down like the one in Chris' shot and reflects. Kind of like the white pants in Chris' shot that make it "brighter" overall as well...or when you have teams wearing white uniforms and you expose for skin tones and blow parts of the white out to achieve it.

Theres a lot more to Detrick's photo than just a frozen ball.
The clean background

The dividing horizontal line
The almost perfect light fall off on the ball
The grimace on the pitcher's faceBackground - the one player back there is annoying but you can't do anything about the signage. Horizontal line is the layout of the field and batters eye, again nothing the photographer can do about that - this could be straightened using the yellow fence though. The exposure on the ball in this shot is perfect so that comment doesn't make sense. Finally, the photographer can not control what face the pitcher makes.

Chris had all the components you want, but you can't compare what the photographer can not control like some nit picking you have here.

The ball is a pearl? I dont know what baseball youve been playing. Even a brand new ball is just white cow hide. Its not aluminum foil out there. The point is that the light on the field is constant. Youve got a better chance of blowing out white uniforms that than you do the ball unless its some shiny piece of vinyl junk.

Im not saying the picture was too dark or too light. Just that I didnt agree with your initial comment.

Also, who says you cant do anything about the signage? Is there signage along the entire outfield wall/fence? Doesnt look like it and I higly doubt it. Maybe it cant be eliminated but it can be minimized.

And when did I say that a photographer COULD control what face a pitcher makes? I dont remember doing so. Im sure if you took the time to read the SS link posted, youd see that Detrick took 166 images to get that one shot. A lot of things came together. Some he couldnt and some he could. However, he made a pretty wonderful image.

In summary, Im not saying that the OP's image is bad. Im not saying that there are things he could have done to fix the background (Ive never seen the field or where he was shooting from) or things he could have done to make the pitcher look a certain way. Im also not saying that if you Detrick in Pug's position, he could generate the same picture again. I am simply pointing out that aside from stopping a ball in mid-flight, the two pictures are very different.

[MJPhotos24]

The ball is a pearl? I dont know what baseball youve been playing. Even a brand new ball is just white cow hide. Its not aluminum foil out there. The point is that the light on the field is constant. Youve got a better chance of blowing out white uniforms that than you do the ball unless its some shiny piece of vinyl junk.

WHAT?? A pearl is reference to a brand new ball - i.e. a brand new baseball is bright white and does not have much dirt on it, or it hasn't been rubbed down. If you don't know about WHY they rub a baseball down before a game then enough said, until you do you probably won't understand. Either way, last I checked white is a reflective color, this comment is completely asinine. Just look at the two side by side, the biggest difference on the ball is because Chris' shot is a rubbed down (dirty) ball and the one harley shot is brand new.

What does my "playing" have to do with anything? If you must know I made it to college before a car accident ended it and now make my entire living in baseball coaching and shooting it.

Also, who says you cant do anything about the signage? Is there signage along the entire outfield wall/fence? Doesnt look like it and I higly doubt it. Maybe it cant be eliminated but it can be minimized.

Most parks have signage along the walls except in one area - the batters eye. This park looks to be the same as the hundreds of others I've shot, played or coached in. This park has a white sign to the right of the image, and black sign to the left creating a clean area in the middle for a batters eye. How can the photographer do anything about them and get this? They can't - not this shot in particular. Other shots yes, but this one no because you want what he has - the pitcher following through in the frame with the ball coming towards you. Honestly look at where the ball is relative to the signs - pretty much right in the middle so the background directly behind it is almost perfect because of this pitchers delivery - you should be able to tell in Chris' shot the guy is over the top and this guy is more 3/4 or dipped down a bit more.

And when did I say that a photographer COULD control what face a pitcher makes? I dont remember doing so. Im sure if you took the time to read the SS link posted, youd see that Detrick took 166 images to get that one shot. A lot of things came together. Some he couldnt and some he could. However, he made a pretty wonderful image.

When did I say Chris' didn't take a great image? In fact I'll quote myself from my previous post - "Chris had all the components you want". Now, you critiqued his photo matching it directly up with Chris' shot in which you can not do because of many factors. #4 of your direct match up was "The grimace on the pitcher's face". The way you have this comment makes it sound like it's something that can be controlled.

In summary, Im not saying that the OP's image is bad. Im not saying that there are things he could have done to fix the background (Ive never seen the field or where he was shooting from) or things he could have done to make the pitcher look a certain way. Im also not saying that if you Detrick in Pug's position, he could generate the same picture again. I am simply pointing out that aside from stopping a ball in mid-flight, the two pictures are very different.

Again, WHAT? You directly compared the two. The way you worded it it sure sounds that way. You also have a contradicting statement in this post.

Is there signage along the entire outfield wall/fence? Doesnt look like it and I higly doubt it. Maybe it cant be eliminated but it can be minimized.

...is it the above or is the below...these contradict one another.

Im not saying that there are things he could have done to fix the background (Ive never seen the field or where he was shooting from)

[angela6571]

Im not about to go back and forth with you over this because it literally is not worth the time. If you want to equate the originally posted image with Detrick's because there was just too much that the OP "couldnt control", you go for it.

Any two pictures can be compared against one another and thats the wonderul thing about photography.

While both pictures do have a ball frozen in mid air, the things I previously posted are some of what sets Detrick's picture apart from the one posted here. Whether the OP could control it or not, they are still things that set the two pictures apart. Its the difference between a good picture and a great picture. Theres a lot of things you cant control out there but you dont hear professionals whining about it all the time.

Ref in the way? Sorry about your luck
Bad background? Sorry about your luck
Floating arms and legs in the frame? Sorry about your luck
Capture that great moment with the sleepy look of a recent blink? Sorry about your luck

You can defend it all you want. Im not about to lose sleep over it.

I simply hope that people in the future may start to consider more than just one subject in a picture when they evaluate how good it is. POTN seems to have a pretty narrow field of view when it comes to critiquing and just about anything is a "great shot" around here...

Also, just for clarity's sake, let me reiterate the feeling that Im not saying there was anything the OP necessarily could have done to make the shot better. I havent seen the field and Ill refrain from making such assumptions.
Again, Im simply stating that the OP's image and Detrick's are very different.

[DDCSD]

Outstanding shot. Looks like a ball placed on an oil painting!

[MJPhotos24]

Angela
Again with the contradictions. You can't compare two different shots on two different fields with two different subjects during two different environmental situations - it's impossible. You look at the situations at hand and take it all in account, it's as simple as that. It's not like professionals who make there entire living off shooting have a choice all the time what fields to shoot, where to shoot, time of day, weather, etc. Looking over some past posts of yours it seems you only want perfect situations as you critique things the photographer can't control in several posts, it's not going to happen 90% of the time. I guess that's why you have absolutely no images posted over 2+ years, no perfect situations have arisen.

As for the "professionals" comment you made, have you ever worked in a photo pit with pros? I'll tell you right now there's always a wish list going on in there - things they wish were better while they're shooting and chimping a bit. Whining no, but always looking over everything in the image and adjusting if at all possible. The World Baseball Classic for example we had assigned seats, we couldn't move really unless the guy gave us the OK. I heard all series long people's, and my own, wishes while uploading in the photo room or after a big play in the pit...."I wish I was on the other side for that", "wish I got the ball", "wish that there wasn't a sea of yellow vests in the other photo pit as my background", etc, etc, etc. You bet they know what they want and don't want, but they also know to take into account the situation at hand. If we all only shot when everything was the perfect situation we'd all be looking for new jobs.

[1shot4u]

WOW...awesome shot...great DOF.

[AdamLewis]

Mike,

For what its worth, the posts by "angela" were from me. Shes my fiance. She apparently logged into POTN a couple days ago and I didnt pay attention to see that it wasnt my name up there. Ive never had to before.

That being said; I still stand behind everything I said. Ive worked in a number of positions with a number of professionals. In fact, believe it or not, I am a professional myself. However, I dont see how that or the posting of pictures would validate (or in the case you seemingly try to make, invalidate) anything I have to say.

Its like Michael Jordan scoffing at Phil Jackson because he couldnt make a dunk from the free throw line. I just dont get it. But whatever. Like I say, its really just not worth my time.

Off to work!

[Harleypugs]

Thanks for the comments guys...

As far as my shot being compared to Detricks...about the only thing that compares is the technique. I really was just testing out a the thoery and I think I came away with a very nice image. I am very happy with the ball and the oil painting like bokeh that the lighting and lattice effect of the fence created.

Now....that I have an idea of how to make this photo..I will go out under better conditions and get my Detrick level photo....

Thanks for the honest c&c of my photo...it not only allows me to grow and learn, but it allows others that are reading this thread.

Jon

[MJPhotos24]

Adam, something really does not ad up here and I'm starting to wonder if you're just using two accounts. I bring to your attention the thread started by "angela" that states her fiance was looking for critique of his images, but you were active on the board at that time to post them yourself so why would you have her post them looking for critique? Something is very fishy going on here and starting to think you've been using two accounts just by the writing style of both you and "angela". Also, I'll point out in this thread you say it was you under her name by mistake but in another thread posted closely together 1 day ago you quote someone else today saying "she", suggesting it was her posting. Finally, you posted 1 day ago at :09 - angelas post was 1 day ago at :20, you posted again at :36. If she logged in "a couple days ago" how were you posting like that? You'd have to log in and out to do that so obviously anyone can see somethings off here big time!

As for the comments you're defending, they make no sense. There's to many contradictions and seem completely asinine IMHO. I know you have limited experience being a student who aspires to do more in photography, as it says on your pbase, and that you have trouble with criticism as seen in your past posts, but come on....something is off as is and they haven't been explained at all. Any good professor, coach, or teacher will make there students explain the how and why behind it so they can see the faults and thus learning. You learn from mistakes and having to explain why it's wrong (or right), it's as simple as that - kind of like the Michael Jordan quote "I've failed over and over and over again in my life and that is why I succeed" - he admits it, learns from it, and builds off it. In fact most pro athletes concentrate on there mistakes more so than what they do good because they know they are not always right, the same can be said for any professional in many cases.

As for the Michael Jordan & Phil Jackson thing, there's a big difference between Phil Jackson who knows how and why to do something and a fan yelling from the stands that has no knowledge or experience in the matter. These posts honestly seem like the fan in the stands who yells things out without thinking first, one who doesn't know what they're talking about or why something would or wouldn't work. Someone who can show they know why and how, either by example or sound explanation, has a lot more backing than the random thought that wasn't filtered by the brain before saying it.

Harley - exactly, some day you'll be at the perfect park with the perfect situation and say "it's time to get this shot". I did that a lot on my trip to FL recently as I thought out shot ideas and had to wait to find stadiums that would allow me to try them. It's all a learning experience.

[AdamLewis]

The old thread you "bring to my attention" was made by her when I was banned.

Its called having two computers Mike. But thanks for the Dick Tracy trackdown. Nothing is off but thanks for assuming.

Also, I cant help but laugh as you take a line from a pbase account and chalk it up to a resume. That is what is asinine.

As for experience?
Since youre spending so much time of your professional photography time sleuthing around my pages, I would have thought youd find this but maybe not
Taken a year ago. Ball exposed, pitcher exposed, scene exposed, no vignette.
http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa67/adamlewis88/UL%20Baseball%202008-05-16/AL_BBC2008vRutgers0066.jpg

I know its just not possible right? That ball really does just get so much more light compared to everything else!...

But youre right. Im just a "crazy" fan. What do I know?..

[Mk1Racer]

Geez guys, relax already.

To the OP, very nice image!

[MJPhotos24]

Adam, you are intentionally misleading people on here by using two screen names IMO, which is a forum violation if I'm not mistaken. You were banned for a reason I assume, so had her post your images under a different name because you wanted critique (that's what the post says) - that seems very strange. Old news so who cares, however I love that within seconds you switched computers to post on the same forum you were already on and then quickly switched back - that's REAL believable. Impossible no, but about as believable as the tooth fairy. Maybe the moderators can tell which IP you were at when posting and clear it up, I'll gladly admit I'm wrong if that be the case.

I took the line from the pbase site because it's what you wrote describing yourself, I didn't want to assume this or that and took an exact quote you wrote. It's called research, you do it when something seems fishy to find answers. As for my shooting time to respond and check things, it's called download time - right now for example was a 1pm game so right now images are downloading. Luckily you get a few minute break when uploading to the server, or downloading from the card, or putting a batch action on, batch tagging, etc. May be a rushed response but a response none the less.

As for your image - huh, seems the ball is blown out and not properly exposed - go figure it seems white IS a reflective color. Look at the OP's image for a properly exposed ball as they have it perfect, and yours is not. It's not a matter of the field getting more light (though it can happen with some stadiums design and time of day), it's a matter of exposing for the right object you're going for (for example blowing out part of the white uniform to get the players face). Zach and the ball are not properly exposed, that's simple.

[AdamLewis]

You know Mike, the real tragedy here is that you, as a 'professional', are in here bantering back and forth on something that is completely irrelevant and pointless.

My ball is "blown out" just as much as the pictured uniform which only goes to show that they both receive (and reflect) about the exact same amount of light.

An IP check (if you really need to stoop to such levels) will show you the same thing because the two computers are both in my house, using my single router, that is connected to my single cable modem.


All I orinally tried to say that apparently set you off was that the ball receives no more light than anything else on the field. Being that it is just white leather (and normally rubbed down/roughed up leather at that) it should expose about the same as a clean white uniform.

Please, lets just both act a little more mature and leave it at that and drop this. Its getting old and benefitng nobody.

[Mk1Racer]

Maybe you two should get a room! :rolleyes:

[MJPhotos24]

Adam - Thanks for the personal attack to my professionalism. I think as a professional one should not let someone mislead those trying to learn, which I believe you are doing since all the stuff just does not ad up. Do wonder though, you're not a professional anymore? You're bantering back and forth as well and said earlier you're a professional - seems an attack on my professionalism here would just be an attack on your own then.

Not once did I say they are not even light (though it can happen). I said you expose for the ball thus making the background darker because it's a white surface against an already dark background. If you were exposing for the background (pitcher) the ball would be blown out in this example; however, he did a perfect job exposing for the ball resulting in a trade off of a darker background. It's really simple and the main thing anyone should take away from all this.

The IP check - finally a valid point, that can happen depending on the set up you have - though given everything it just seems highly doubtful.

So you know none of this "set me off" - why do you think I keep explaining the reasoning behind it? That's rhetorical btw. Just wish you actually explained the why and how of your reasoning instead of contradict, get defensive, and attack because it would have benefited more. But, just like all your threads everyone else is wrong and you're always right.

[hatchd]

ok, just to let you know, most people probably aren't reading anything that you two are arguing about so let's just relax and look at some great pictures.....like the one the OP posted. Good shot. Is it really as simple as set your focal point and snap the picture when the ball is in it(in concept, obviously.)? What more to it is there?

[Anke]

:D :D Great capture! :D

[Kendoway]

Sorry to dust off an old thread (just discovered this).

Jon - it's a GREAT shot, but after looking through this thread, I couldn't really find a link or a description of how the capture was made. Did you simply focus the camera manually in the mid-ground with a low F stop and use burst mode?

I'd really love to know. Again, killer shot.

[JNRSM3]

wow! that picture is awesome. I'm definately leagues from being able to do that.

[DDCSD]

Sorry to dust off an old thread (just discovered this).

Jon - it's a GREAT shot, but after looking through this thread, I couldn't really find a link or a description of how the capture was made. Did you simply focus the camera manually in the mid-ground with a low F stop and use burst mode?

I'd really love to know. Again, killer shot.


Pre-focus in a spot between the pitcher and plate. Work on your timing, because burst mode (even 10fps) would be a complete crap-shoot.

[Harleypugs]

Pre-focus in a spot between the pitcher and plate. Work on your timing, because burst mode (even 10fps) would be a complete crap-shoot.


what he said...;)

Jon

[TwistedGray]

....because burst mode (even 10fps) would be a complete crap-shoot.

But when you hit...you HIT!

[DDCSD]

But when you hit...you HIT!


One out of 10K attempts isn't good enough luck for me. My old sociology teacher told me that if the odds were less than 1 out of 26, it would never happen to you.

If you depend on 10fps burst rate (or 8.5 or 6.5 or 5...) to capture this, be prepared to be disappointed.

Here's 30 fps, and it couldn't even capture that elusive bat-on-ball.

http://www.sportsshooter.com/special_feature/30fps/index.html

[Kendoway]

If you depend on 10fps burst rate (or 8.5 or 6.5 or 5...) to capture this, be prepared to be disappointed.

Here's 30 fps, and it couldn't even capture that elusive bat-on-ball.

http://www.sportsshooter.com/special...fps/index.html

That's pretty cool Derek - thanks!

[Croasdail]

Actaully it just isn't that hard to get with the right camera. Selecting center zone only (9 or 11 points depending on camera), shooting over the catchers shoulder and keeping the ball center frame, you will get this quit often. But you have to have the right camera to get it regularly.

And not to agree with Adam, almost never did or do, he is spot on here. The contrast in the OP shot is just over the top. It is a very heavy handed shot. It isn't a bad shot. It just could be improved upon.

And again, gulp, Adam is right that critique here is almost always taken the wrong way. When I re-started out shooting sports again after very long absence, I only got better because a very good photographer who used to post here regularly took the time to tell me how to improve my shots. Much more then the "great shot" and "watch your horizons" crap you get here regularly.

Its funny though because Adam almost never took critique well. It is one thing to ask for it, it is another to accept it. Sure it hurts sometimes. If you want at-a-boy comments, keep sharing with your friends. If you want to really improve, have strangers tell you what they think then take in what you think is helpful, and toss what isn't.

OP - if you are still out there. Great attempt. But like in Adams shot, get more context into the shot. You can't always control the lighting that is there, so I am not going to complain about that part except to say that is what they made photoshop for. I love to see when people try new things - well done.

Also - I wouldn't put too much weight into the old "I'm a Pro" thing. Being a pro now days means you went out and bought a bunch of gear and are now trying to make some money off of it. It doesn't say anything about your abilities. There are plenty of crap pros around, and some superb amateurs. Judge by their work - not what organization they joined. Adam is a competent shooter, and when he isn't out trying to prove it, has some excellent advice and some really nice shots. But don't take the whole "sports shooter" thing to mean much of anything. You have everything from people shooting for local leagues, to max preps, to college students, and some actual real shooters who are able to pay their mortgage mixed into the bag. Judge them by their results, not their words.

[Harleypugs]

OP is still out here...

This was my first attemp at this and I only shot like 5 frames. I was extremely happy with how it came out. Sure the contrast is over the top but I was not trying to make an editorial shot here.... I love how artsy it came out and took it that way in post.

It was a lot of fun attempting this shot and I like the outcome....

I am sure I will try it again some time....

Actually did....

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3345/3486054083_984da44d66_b.jpg

[Jaewhy]

very cool

[Richtherookie]

Good odds or bad odds, are odds. If it was film i'd never try, shooting digital i'd be all over it. I wish i would have thought of this last weekend, i finaly got a ball wrapped around the bat picture, had i read this thread I would have tried this also. Thanks so much for the post. even though the two others pretty much screwed up your post with the tears, I found this helpful, and if nothing else if give me an idea to go try, i may NEVER get the frozen ball, but it will get me out of my "element" making me learn better photography. thanks again.

[Croasdail]

Jon - nice framing on it. Good connection between pitcher and the ball. Angle also provides a very nice clean background - It works. There are lots of ways to get rid of ugly backgrounds, taking an angle like this is one of them. Image looks a bit soft on screen but that was probably from shrinkage.

[iinastynateii]

Very nice! Thank's for sharing, and thanks to those who provided links as to how to capture images like this.

[sgriff]

I have to admit I got this one totally by accident. But I liked the effect, too. Might not be baseball/softball, but I thought this one was particularly interesting since the ball was moving right to left (in the direction the background player is running), rather than coming straight towards the camera.

No PS editing except minor crop.

[burnet44]

wow
Love it
I think the darker background makes the ball jump out and look sharper
IMHO

but I basically know nothing