MJPhotos24 wrote in post #4718835
Well, I'm not trying to be rude but this board is for critism and learning from it, you have to be able to take it and grow - thats life. You see it in school (teacher and grades), you do it in sports (coach), you do it in a job (boss). You can't just wait for someone to say how great the shot is when it clearly isn't. For a fan photo sure, it's fine to show a buddy, but for a pro photo and card company usage it wouldn't of left the camera body. You did say for card usage, you didn't say fan photo. Cards are pro photos.
The background is not irrelevant because it is a lot easier for a company to remove the background with nice clear images that do not have cluttered backgrounds. It's a LOT easier actually so it's far from irrelevant. Card companies are run like a business of course, time is money, and if it's going to take more time then the photo goes bye bye.
Your eyes are not lying to you, but they're naive in how its run like most people are. A card company pays a photographer to go to a game to cover a team or teams. The photog has his "hit list" which is the guys he's concentrating on, and then the other guys he tries to get a shot or two of but they are not the main targets. So some player will only have 2-3 images taken of him, and if it's in a burst then guess what, the cards will come out with the same or similar photos. I have a Marlins players card out from a company and the same darn photo was used for 4-5 cards. It was the only photo they had, I had plenty more but they paid for one and were using that. It's business and they want to save $$ just like anyone else.
So what is the point? You said it's worthy of a card photo - it's not. Sorry, but it's the truth.
As for that shot on his card you showed, see what I wrote above to understand why. It's not lazy, it's probably the fact that he WAS NOT on the "target" list and the photog was doing his job focusing on those who were. He was probably added later and they already had images on file so why pay a photog to go shoot again? It's pointless and the photo editor would get fired for doing that!
Upper Deck I'm sure isn't worried about jersey sales when they choose where to hire and send there photogs. Not to mention UD is a US based company and probably choose to hire US based photographers because it's a heck of a lot easier paperwork and keeps jobs in the US. I know for a fact they dont give two craps about the jersey - home/away/alternate/pink with roses/dont matter. As long as the NHL will approve the shot - oh yea, the NHL has to approve the photos being used.
I'm starting to hope youre about 12 in all honesty. Whats so hard about capturing that image? TTG (through the glass) is harder to shoot but the pros do it all the time. The Sabres arena has about 4 holes, but the 6 that are TTG spots are also used. The image youve shown is a guy that is cutting during warmups, so anyone can sit there and shoot the same photo 100x over and over again as the players all do the same thing in shooting lines, shoot, cut around the back end (which is looking to me what you got) and then to the other line to shoot from the other side. That is not a difficult shot IMO.
You're on a message board that is supposed to be based on CRITIQUING PHOTO QUALITY. This isn't supposed to be a fan site where you post your image and a bunch of twelve year olds that know nothing say "great shot man, so cool, yea, yea, see you in english tomorrow".
It's not lazy of the card companies to not send someone to Calgary, they're a business and if they can save money by having someone shoot them in a US based arena where they already have trusted photographers. The card company is not as good as it used to be, there's not tons of money being thrown around - photographers pay has been cut DRASTICALLY over the last 10 years, the NHL got new licensing agreements for UD only so it's not like Topps or anyone else can compete with them.
Hey, you want to be a dink that's fine. I qualified what I was posting the image for, and the overal image quality was not it. Do I think it would make it to an actual card? Not a chance. None of my photos would, even though I am repeatedly told the photos I take are BETTER than the hockey cards people collect, for the action of the shot. I'm not a pro and never have I insinuated that I was. But thanks for insulting my inteligence at being not more than 12. I see plenty of poor quality shots on here that are from people looking for advice on how to get better. Infact I've made such posts with little to no response. I made a fun thread to see if others had any other shots they found interesting, though not having to be the best in pro photographic quality, and you took it and turned it into a bash everything but what the actual subject of the photo looks like. I can take advice and criticism about the photographic quality when I ask for it, but if you don't have anything to say about the subject then don't bother to reply ripping apart everything that's not relevant. If this shot is so easy and I'm just some dumb kid then why don't I see this type of shot in pro quality all the time? Why rather do I see boring shots used to produce multiple products using basically the exact same image?
As for Upper Deck and any other card compaines, that's really not the issue of this thread. However as a collector, and photography fan, I am dissapointed at the lack of respect given to the team and players I collect. It's not an isolated case but rather a trend which has continued for 2+ years. Pardon me if you take offence to that, but regardless of budgets, licenses or any other BS you want to drag in a company producing this sort of product has no excuse to be so lopsided. Costs to have a photog stay in any city for a 4 game home stand to shoot isn't any different for Calgary, Nashville or Tampa Bay so don't try and give me some cock-n-bull story. Edmonton, Vancouver, Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto have plenty of cards featuring their home jeresys. Your US paperwork excuse just failed you. But again, thanks for insulting my inteligence and believing it's just some fanboyism as opposed to someone with serious interest and having invested the time and energy to research the point. I'm sure UD saved a ton of money not hiring a photog to be in the Dome compared to the "quality" they get from the "trusted" photogs in the US who can't take more than 1 different usable image of a player. I'm sure all those hockey card buyers in Mississippi are the main target audience of this American company and those buyers aren't concerned with some piddly Canadian hockey team. I mean who are the Calgary Flames to "real" hockey collector's anyways? Not like they don't have one of the best forwards, best goaltenders and of course, best jerseys in the league. Some may say the world. I'm sure UD really doesn't think that matters to their main target buyers across the US. Wonder what Crosby collectors would think if 98% of his cards were in the same jersey, boring shot. I mean those things don't matter, right? The NHL can only approve what they are presented with, and I highly doubt they get every image shown to them all at once and it was their agent who said "yeah, use all 3 of these sequential shots of this Canadian team player because nobody cares about them, they are just filler". I know how business works, and pulling 3 shots from file at 3 different times looking for approval isn't going to first off always get the same person looking them over and secondly there isn't anything to dissaprove the shot for. The guy from the NHL isn't looking at the quality or dynamic of the shot, they are looking to cover their butt and not get sued.
I'm not a pro, I don't have pro gear and I don't shove my lens in the face of the players. I sit in a seat like any other fan and do the best I can so I can keep doing what I am allowed and I don't ruin fan photography for everyone else. I don't bring in gear that's not allowed. I don't stand infront of everyone else blocking their view. I don't shove my lens against the glass which would help with glare and reflection. I know I could do all of this, but I choose not to so that I am not the cause of negative reaction to fan photography. I respect the privalge I am given and I don't attempt to abuse it and have it taken away. Other people don't seem to care, but I am not going to be the problem. I don't get to sit rink-side during games, or have access all over the building. During the game I'm more focused and invested in the game than in photography, so that's why all my shots are generally from the pre-game skate. If that's not good enough for you, I really don't give a crap. If it makes you feel better to run around claiming how superior you are on this mesage board which is open to everyone, not just pros, go ahead. That shows just who the 12 year old is here. C&C is welcome, however if you aren't going to be constructive then you are just being ignorant and arrogant. I mean you couldn't even give a lick of advice as to how to improve this shot for next time since it's something you claim you could shoot 100x over with ease. Again though, thanks for contributing to this thread in any sort of positive manner. 
I should have you know that for this 12 year old 6th grader with such inferior skills, having been contacted by friends and family members of the actual players I shoot asking if they can use my photos is enough to keep a smile on my face, despite your attempt to bully my shot.
NOsquid thanks for your input and attempt to tweak. As I said I've not done any PP to the pic other than the crop. Your work looks good. 
MizzouMan_2000 thanks for your input as well, and nice concepts on your football cards. 
Conon EOS 40D, Canon EOS Rebel XTi, Canon EF 18-55mm Kit Lens, Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM, Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II, Canon EF 75-300 USM II, Canon EF 28-135mm IS, Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8
