Heartland Rugby - Accepted and Rejected Any Ideas

I'm a tad stumped and hoping that you can help me find what I'm missing.

I covered one of the Heartland Championship Rugby matches today for a couple of local papers and as normal sent a few shots in to the Press Association. What perplexed me was that a number of the shots were rejected by the PA because they had players backs in them.

No complaints about the rejection (had hundreds ), what I'm interested in is what I've missed. These look like the same type of shots that I've taken (and had published) before.

Any ideas on what's wrong with them ...

Accepted:

HTTP response: 503 | MIME changed to 'text/html'

HTTP response: 503 | MIME changed to 'text/html'

HTTP response: 503 | MIME changed to 'text/html'

HTTP response: 503 | MIME changed to 'text/html'

HTTP response: 503 | MIME changed to 'text/html'

HTTP response: 503 | MIME changed to 'text/html'

HTTP response: 503 | MIME changed to 'text/html'

Sorry, cant help with the rejection reasons but great shots, very sharp, excellent colour.

Which teams, Wellington region??

Mark

Horowheuna Kapiti Vs West Coast (South Island team)

ok - a few things - ad boards... clean backgrounds are must at level of sport
The large speights sign whilst allows you to see where the action is - may send out the wrong info to the readers.

the tackle shot is in all honesty a delete.. no ball no face no passion etc. it tells no story.

second and fourth shot - too busy in the back ground - and a re just standard shots. nothing really happening.

the third shot apart from the advert for the beer. has no face and misses the action. Get the face ball and try scoring moment. then you have a great pic. the player who missed the tackle will have a great facial express (i would image) get that in the shot then bingo.

A good nights sleep and I think I would agree with most of that Chris. The only subjective point is perhaps the sponsors tent in the back ground. Big staduim top level sport then I'd agree aboutthe back grounds, with something more provincial there might be a case for including the surroundings to better "place" the event.

Thanks for the thoughts - sometime I need to told what you already knew but time had me forget.

Honestly, I would have rejected them too. Like you pointed out, the first rejected shot is unfortunate that you were on the wrong side. It is just how it roles sometimes. Second one is bad, it just does not stand out. It is a mid-field play where something is almost happening, without a ton of supporting action. Not bad, just not news worthy, particularly if it is not a not worthy player. Third shot, again unfortunately even though it is a key moment, wrong location. It is not something that catch a readers interest. Last one again is shot just too loose to really jump out. I like it... not a bad moment, but not a "wow" moment again unless it is someone that was key to the game.

One of the things that can set your work apart is if you are doing a good job of captioning the images. If these image were of people the readers would care about, then you need to make sure the photo editor can quickly identify those shots.

The good thing is the images are nicely exposed. I would almost surely move from shooting from the sides to either the of corners or the ends so that you capture the action as it comes toward you. It commits you more to one side or the other, risk is higher and you need the right lenses to work it. But you also get better isolation of the players from the background, which will help focus the viewer. Your doing good, but to regularly get space on the pages, with all the competing images out there, you need to be producing great images. Also really watch your backgrounds. In viewing your other images online, you got a lot of "stuff" back there. Watching that will help you standout. Your not far from photo nervana... keep at it.