SportsShooter Application

Ok, so to be honest, I don't know if this post is allowed here. If not, lock er up and throw it out.

I've been looking at the site many of us are familiar with, SportsShooter.com, for about six months now. I look to it for inspiration, tips, and their special features.

My question: Will my portfolio make it:
I am glad to accept criticism - heck, I NEED criticism!

http://bdstewart.smugm​ug.com/gallery/4087460​#238202154

Who knows what they want anymore.... I've stopped guessing because the quality of new members portfolios is all over the place. From a generalist Portfolio question, I would say they are all nicely done shots. The Hockey shots don't show a enough variety for me... all good... just all the same angle. The others are ok... good shots... but not what I would expect from a "professionals" portfolio. They should be stunners. But that doesn't seem to be the criteria with SS.

From a general standpoint, your shots are all well done. I am not knocking them at all. All are well executed. It is just a portfolio used to be much more then that. They are more then examples that you can produce good work... they should be the best of the best. You are doing better then the average joe/jane. You portfolio should show those not just well captured shots, but also well envisioned shots.... if that makes any sense what's so ever.


Good luck with it.

Croasdail wrote in post #4617342
Who knows what they want anymore.... I've stopped guessing because the quality of new members portfolios is all over the place. From a generalist Portfolio question, I would say they are all nicely done shots. The Hockey shots don't show a enough variety for me... all good... just all the same angle. The others are ok... good shots... but not what I would expect from a "professionals" portfolio. They should be stunners. But that doesn't seem to be the criteria with SS.

That is actually one of my concerns - the images displayed by some new members are no better than what I can do on the average day.

The hockey shots are all from the same angle because my hockey arena has one main arena that has a good view without looking through glass.

HuskiesD1 wrote in post #4617363
That is actually one of my concerns - the images displayed by some new members are no better than what I can do on the average day.

The hockey shots are all from the same angle because my hockey arena has one main arena that has a good view without looking through glass.

So why bother joining

gsgary wrote in post #4617376
So why bother joining

It's still an excellent networking site.

From what Ive seen on there, thats better than a lot of what I see on there. If I had to guess, Id say youd get in.

I was thinking of joining but have heard negative things about them and after seeing what it takes to get in there (especially after they make it sound like some big deal...) Im not really all the interested anymore. Not to mention that youve got to pay for it...

SS.com is what you make of it and once accepted you can change your images all you want so that may be why you see some mediocre images that are not very good on there. I know when first subscribing you have to have top notch stuff, but they don't track you down and slap your knuckles with a ruler once you put up mediocre shots later down the line.

They are trying to keep the site for professionals and students in the field, not weekend warriors or hobbyists (or at least that used to be there selling point) so images alone is not all they're looking for...#2) They want great captions, "Little Timmy falls down the well because he got to close" is not a good caption. They want top newspaper captions using that criteria usually. #3) Your bio means a LOT!! "I like to shoot pics on Saturdays when I'm not working at the mill, and once the paper used my snapshot of Timmy as he fell down the well, even giving me credit" would be an instant rejection. Again, you can change your bio once accepted so you see some people who don't put much there after being accepted. It's true 80% of people get rejected.

Caption Example using your info from the V-ball image, and some I made up:
December 27th, 2007. Blaine senior setter Jessica Granquist ( 8 ) jumps in celebration as teammates Ari Mewhorter (9) and Molly Kreklow (6) look on after defeating Maple Grove 3 games to 2 in the best of five match for the Section 5AA High School Championship at Spandex Arena in Cookamonga, AL.

Not the greatest...but gets the point across I think.


As for your gallery, would have to say the same...the hockey images are almost all the same angle and same play - not good for SS because they want to see different things done. Every arena has different angles, not the best mind you but different. Football one with the crowd background is lopsided a bit...night ones look good but way to tight a crop IMO (but I always leave crop room - every editor has always told me to). Soccer image same thing though it's my fav. of the bunch along with the v-ball one since I wanna watch my team celebrate a championship like that, ha...that coaching one I'd delete in all honesty, as a HS coach that's not the shot I want of me anywhere (dressed in womens clothing for one, and the tongue out). We have a lot of reactions worth captioning and this is just not one of them. So just might want to mix it up a little more.

LOL Mike I think of a shot of you in womens clothing with your tongue hanging out would go over real big....no matter where it was posted

MJPhotos24 wrote in post #4618208
SS.com is what you make of it and once accepted you can change your images all you want so that may be why you see some mediocre images that are not very good on there. I know when first subscribing you have to have top notch stuff, but they don't track you down and slap your knuckles with a ruler once you put up mediocre shots later down the line.

They are trying to keep the site for professionals and students in the field, not weekend warriors or hobbyists (or at least that used to be there selling point) so images alone is not all they're looking for...#2) They want great captions, "Little Timmy falls down the well because he got to close" is not a good caption. They want top newspaper captions using that criteria usually. #3) Your bio means a LOT!! "I like to shoot pics on Saturdays when I'm not working at the mill, and once the paper used my snapshot of Timmy as he fell down the well, even giving me credit" would be an instant rejection. Again, you can change your bio once accepted so you see some people who don't put much there after being accepted. It's true 80% of people get rejected.

Caption Example using your info from the V-ball image, and some I made up:
December 27th, 2007. Blaine senior setter Jessica Granquist ( 8 ) jumps in celebration as teammates Ari Mewhorter (9) and Molly Kreklow (6) look on after defeating Maple Grove 3 games to 2 in the best of five match for the Section 5AA High School Championship at Spandex Arena in Cookamonga, AL.

Not the greatest...but gets the point across I think.


As for your gallery, would have to say the same...the hockey images are almost all the same angle and same play - not good for SS because they want to see different things done. Every arena has different angles, not the best mind you but different. Football one with the crowd background is lopsided a bit...night ones look good but way to tight a crop IMO (but I always leave crop room - every editor has always told me to). Soccer image same thing though it's my fav. of the bunch along with the v-ball one since I wanna watch my team celebrate a championship like that, ha...that coaching one I'd delete in all honesty, as a HS coach that's not the shot I want of me anywhere (dressed in womens clothing for one, and the tongue out). We have a lot of reactions worth captioning and this is just not one of them. So just might want to mix it up a little more.

Gonna find a different angle to shoot at.

By the way, the tongue image IS a woman.

As for crops, I've been told the opposite many times. My photoj professor likes really tight crops.

I could add more detail to the cutlines, you are right about that.

I greatly appreciate your feedback!

ROFL!!!

Now to the OP's original query. I kind of agree with what has been said about the hockey shots, all from the same angle. I would keep # 2 and dump the rest of the hockey shots. It is real easy to get hung up in the "there is only one place to shoot from" syndrome. Look around and shoot thru the glass if you have to.
As far as the other shots, I like 1, 2, 6, 8, 9.
On the coach shot, as funny as it may seem you have to think along the lines of possible ridicule that could come from that shot.
Last year or maybe the year before, I saw a lady in the stands at a basketball game who was very animated in her reactions to action on the floor. So I had enough action shots to send in so I just started really watching her. Ended up with maybe 20-25 really good shots of her reacting, and about 5 great ones. Only one problem, she had some real dental issues and her daughter was also a cheerleader. The absolute best shot of her, I tormented over as to whether or not to use it. It was a great reaction and expression on her face but, it really highlighted her dental problem. In the end I went with a lesser shot but, still it had good emotions and you could tell just by looking she was on the edge of emotions watching a play on the floor. It just didn't show her problem, her mouth was partially closed and partially covered by her hands. Now I know, anyone who knew her knew she had this problem but, it was not my intention to highlight that, publish it and risk the possible ridicule of her daughter by other students (kids can be so cruel). In the end I would pull the shot of the coach. Funny as it may be with that look, it is not what I would call portfolio quality.

dmwierz wrote in post #4618411
ROFL!!!

The image was removed ... because I was laughing too hard.

better than I can do. I'm just posting cause i'm a SCSU alumn. Rock on GARVEY!!

I just dont get why their going to be so critical about a caption and then they let people join who take some very sub-par (IMO) pictures...

AdamLewis wrote in post #4619255
I just dont get why their going to be so critical about a caption and then they let people join who take some very sub-par (IMO) pictures...

It really is quite important - the more information you can give, the more insight the reader has into any given event.

SportsShooter is meant for professionals and up and coming students. Regardless of their requirements, I'd rather be apart of the site than an outsider who merely observes, for the sake of both my "career development" and because of the things I can learn from people who know a lot more than I.

Anywho..

Thanks again for your feedback.
I'll make sure NOT to tell the coach