Chelsea Ladies v Bristol Ladies Soccer

Aressem, it was done in jest to therons posts.......maybe check the timeline of this thread again with regard to lack of comments, that was made when only the original picture was posted and in response later to being called a troll.

a few more from the game

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

regards...

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Ok, to me these are much better. Action is at it's peak. I like #1 and #4 the best. Watch your horizons on these two.

yes thank you, no3 also could do with a tweek, i just posted straight up with just resizing for here

Here in europe pictures without feet is considered good, ive spoken to the picture editor for our sports dept and he likes closer in shots if a player is say heading or chesting a ball.
out of interest ive included some links for our evening paper here in london and good use is made of pictures with and without feet. These pictures are not considerd wrong or technically incorrect but great for maybe linking to the printed article.
I notice that one of the posters in this thread has his sports images on a site that show american football players cut at the waist, the requierement for a football (soccer) picture must have feet in it, but doesnt apply to your American football where a player maybe running, or even kicking a ball. im intrigued, please understand im not trolling, im not trying to cause a rumpus, but if my comments generate some discussion, i may learn why from that........but the style of my original picture here is considerd very acceptable and depending on the shot....even desirable.......here in Europe.


http://www.standard.co​.uk …etico-madrid-9281858.html

http://www.standard.co​.uk …l-assessment-9278994.html

http://www.standard.co​.uk …-is-not-lost-9278935.html

soccersnaps wrote in post #16858432
Here in europe pictures without feet is considered good, ive spoken to the picture editor for our sports dept and he likes closer in shots if a player is say heading or chesting a ball.
out of interest ive included some links for our evening paper here in london and good use is made of pictures with and without feet. These pictures are not considerd wrong or technically incorrect but great for maybe linking to the printed article.
I notice that one of the posters in this thread has his sports images on a site that show american football players cut at the waist, the requierement for a football (soccer) picture must have feet in it, but doesnt apply to your American football where a player maybe running, or even kicking a ball. im intrigued, please understand im not trolling, im not trying to cause a rumpus, but if my comments generate some discussion, i may learn why from that........but the style of my original picture here is considerd very acceptable and depending on the shot....even desirable.......here in Europe.


http://www.standard.co​.uk …etico-madrid-9281858.html

http://www.standard.co​.uk …l-assessment-9278994.html

http://www.standard.co​.uk …-is-not-lost-9278935.html

I agree with your comments that some shots don't have to have the complete body, such as headers or the goalie throwing the ball but most do require it. When I clicked on the first and last link, there are pictures below the newspaper picture that all but one show the full body. I just believe that for soccer that 95% of the pictures should show the entire player. Your action is very good but for the very first picture that you posted, seeing the whole body would have been much better. Just my opinion.
Here some of my pictures that don't show the entire player:

oh yes , i agree wholeheartedly and am fully aware that other pics on the links are full body.

im not advocating all pics should be part body, im not sure what percentage of pictures i produce are full body although youre probably very close with 95% to what i was thinking too. But the impression i was getting from some of the replies was that the other 5% were not acceptable and feet must be in the pic.....here were use them and show them .

soccersnaps wrote in post #16856296
over 400 views with just 1 response, not trolling, my previous posts would show that, and a stupid comment too. 400 views with just 1 response is far from instant feedback, but i would love critique...far from coming........potn is good for critique?....this post proves otherwise.
however enjoyed joining in with the tounge in cheek replies....smilies and all........sorry you have no sense of humour...

Well posting a single picture generally doesn't really entice people to leave any feedback unless it's posted in the C&C forum. Just based on my observations, people don't generally comment on a single picture unless it's horribly bad or exceedingly good. Photo sets generally receive more feedback but as was already mentioned feedback as a whole seems to have dropped off.

And I did look up your website and previous posts. One thread in particular you had withdrawn the image due to lack of feedback... And in this case you didn't post any smilies in your own posts so I had no way of knowing if you were being serious or not.

thank you for writing back.........its fair to say i didnt understand the protocol regarding posting just 1 pic, ive posted just 1 pic for many of my wildlife posts and thats been okay.
you mentioned that just 1 pic may not get critique unless its particularly bad, and yet my pic may not be considered perticularly good from some of the replies written so far, and thats great by me, im happy to hear those comments......and believe me, ive learnt from them.

although im not a troll, i am a little incompetant with pc's and im not sure if i have or even know how to use smillies here on this forum, but i will look into that.

It's all good, I know how you are feeling though - I have posted from time to time and haven't heard a peep.

I sum it up as I don't stink but I don't excel either.

soccersnaps wrote in post #16858432
Here in europe pictures without feet is considered good, ive spoken to the picture editor for our sports dept and he likes closer in shots if a player is say heading or chesting a ball.
out of interest ive included some links for our evening paper here in london and good use is made of pictures with and without feet. These pictures are not considerd wrong or technically incorrect but great for maybe linking to the printed article.
I notice that one of the posters in this thread has his sports images on a site that show american football players cut at the waist, the requierement for a football (soccer) picture must have feet in it, but doesnt apply to your American football where a player maybe running, or even kicking a ball. im intrigued, please understand im not trolling, im not trying to cause a rumpus, but if my comments generate some discussion, i may learn why from that........but the style of my original picture here is considerd very acceptable and depending on the shot....even desirable.......here in Europe.


http://www.standard.co​.uk …etico-madrid-9281858.html

http://www.standard.co​.uk …l-assessment-9278994.html

http://www.standard.co​.uk …-is-not-lost-9278935.html

I don't think it's all about no feet/all body/no whatever... it's about the context of the picture. Sure if you have 2 people going up for a header then it's ok to crop out the feet as it draws the audience closer to the action.

As for american football, it's about the hands and more of the upper body. So a lot of the tight shots will be of the upper body. Different for every sport.

I like the last 4 photos, the ones before don't do much for me. Would like to shoot some of the Bristol Ladies football team, they play pretty close to me.

Please keep in mind that the VAST majority of views you receive on a thread are from unregistered visitors who cannot and will never post.

Personally I did not see this thread until just now, and while I was going to write a response to your original photo, your second post (and second overall in this thread) was an extremely sarcastic and rude comment about all the great feedback you got... and so it turned me off from me even attempting to try and offer any critique.

firstly ....sarcasm is what i do well
secondly....you just read this and commented on how rude i was to fedback when if you follow the timeline.....there was no feedback!!!!! and that was what caused the sarcasm!!!!! which was clearly in to a response from a poster who also enjoyed the humour, albeit sarcasm which is said to be the lowest form of wit, but at least he enjoyed it and joined in with it!!!!!.

when i eventually got some feedback.......i was very appreciative of it and never rude
thank you to all who did give feedback, joined in with the debate and gave me the opportunity to learn from the points of view that they expressed.......

im happy to be rude and sarcastic......now go **** yourself