Moorilla Hobart International (tennis)

Fired off a few shots from the stands during an evening women's semi-final.

I've never shot tennis before, so it was an experience! I'd like the opportunity to shoot from courtside sometime. It was a little awkward from up in the stands with the other punters crowding around!

No feedback at all? Constructive criticism is always welcome.

This was my first foray into sports photography.

Tennis is an action sports. While your photos are sharp and nicely exposed, they don't convey action. You need to set the shutter speed such that the racket and the ball are somewhat blurred upon impact (not always, but in general and as an example). I used to shoot quite a bit of tennis, but that was so long ago I don't remember the setting that I used. One thing that helps a great deal is to preview in advance those tennis photos (from tennis magazine or Internet) shot by pros who make living doing that sort of thing. Your photos are nice, though. They just need to convey some action drama rather than tennis "posing."

Thanks for the feedback. 3 of the 4 shots are action shots, so I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're saying but I will check out some magazines etc before I shoot this kind of thing again to see if I can get a feel for what the pros are doing.

love the exposure and DOF what lens did you use? I think by action shots they may have meant the ball in the shot right in the middle of the strok. I have 3 recent posts from the Medibank International that you may wanna compare them with. But I love how sharp and well expossed these are I'd love to know you're set-up

30D + 70-200 2.8 L IS

mizuno wrote in post #2531265
Thanks for the feedback. 3 of the 4 shots are action shots, so I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're saying but I will check out some magazines etc before I shoot this kind of thing again to see if I can get a feel for what the pros are doing.

There's a difference between a shot that conveys action and a frozen shot. Yours are all frozen poses and they don't convey action. Take a look at some of the action shots here:

http://sports.yahoo.co​m/ten/gallery

I now what you are saying SYS but I don't think motion blur is always necessary if your timing is right you can show action even if the whole image is tack sharp. The problem with shots 3 and 4 are that they are taken on the follow through after the ball is out of frame and the players muscles are no longer tensed. Had the shots been taken just slightly sooner the ball would have been in frame and the muscles would have shown good definition implying action.

Damian75 wrote in post #2531550
I now what you are saying SYS but I don't think motion blur is always necessary if your timing is right you can show action even if the whole image is tack sharp. The problem with shots 3 and 4 are that they are taken on the follow through after the ball is out of frame and the players muscles are no longer tensed. Had the shots been taken just slightly sooner the ball would have been in frame and the muscles would have shown good definition implying action.

No, motion blur is not necessary depending on the situation, and that's precisely why I stated in my earlier post, "not always." But when you play tennis, you play with the racket AND the ball.... You gotta have the ball in sight somewhere to at least convey the action whether it's blurred or tack sharp.