Need Your Opinion

(1) Which photo do you prefer with regard to post-processed image tones, saturation? (Explain why, if you have the time.) Both photos were taken at 6:10 PM, CST (Thursday, 9/20/2012), within a second of each other, same sequence. Both were shot at UW=Plattevllie, which lies in the very SW corner of WI.

(2)*** Disregard the backdrop, composition, focus etc. (if possible).

A)

I like the warmer skintone in the first one better.

1 seems sharper
maybe better contrast sharper

why the high ISO?

looks like you have enough light for 400 iso

Im prob wrong

Like #2. Mainly the sign in #1 has an odd pop out, the sign in #2 is in the background but it doesnt bother me as much. Like the exposure in #2 better as well, #1 is a litte dark for me on the bottom half and that black gate in the background is not helping it out any.

Ignoring the background, which I find washes out too much, I like #1 due to the warmer, richer colors.

I much prefer A. over B. because of the warm skin tones and vibrant colors. When I first saw this image, I immediately said to myself that this is golden hour light that is within about an hour of sunset.

There are a couple of features of this image that shout golden, liquid light that can't be simulated in post. First, the shadow angles on the ground and inside the helmet. They reveal a very low sun angle. People instinctively know that a low sun angle is consistent with warm light and pleasing skin tones. Bold, vibrant colors are also a characteristic of this time. If you try to artificially create that same warm light at high noon, the 'look' won't ring true. This late-in-the day light is to die for. If you can get it, flaunt it.

Having said that, I also suspect you may have added a bit of saturation or vibrance. Purists may find the colors just a tad bold. Personally, I prefer the bolder, vibrant look. Others will have more slightly muted tastes. Both points of view are OK.

Phil

In Phil we trust

i like 1

B44, you are correct, I could have dialed in at 400 ISO (or 500 ISO), with that light, shooting at that position on the field (at that moment in time), and probably gotten reasonable captures. I have a tendency to prefer higher shutter speeds in order to freeze the action, sacrificing some noise at higher ISO's.

I was actually, at that point in time, looking to capture a receiver downfield, coming over the middle, looking back for the catch (one of my goals for that game). The middle of the field was in the shadows of the stadium (west side has the dominant side of seating) and darker by about 1 1/3 stops.

BTW, Thank you (all) for chiming in.

wait I was right
OMG

also he is a rt handed qb
he is sprinting out left
tough thing to do with all qb's
gotta turn hips up field to throw

In 1 he hasnt started his hip turn
in 2 even his face is shown less
also the ball has to be behind the hip to get the hips turned to throw

I think 1 shows more full body and is a better shot
the processing isnt that big of a deal for me

as much as the action face and ball

I cant be right 2x in a row
I also think 1 is sharper
not that either are oof

unless he is flushed very poor ball mechanics

Picture A for me. I prefer the golden skin tones and the vibrant colors. The grass also looks better in image A. The grass in image B looks a little to neutral or grey to me.