USOC invites top photographers to shoot official shots of team members and they are getting a lot of criticism over the "finished" results. What do you think? IMO most MM members could have done the same or better.
If those images are for real, that is a serious disappointment. I shoot sports portraits weekly, some with very limited time with the athletes and there is no way I would turn in images like the ones in that post to my editor. I am sure my editors would never hire me again if I turned those in.
D S P wrote: If those images are for real, that is a serious disappointment. I shoot sports portraits weekly, some with very limited time with the athletes and there is no way I would turn in images like the ones in that post to my editor. I am sure my editors would never hire me again if I turned those in.
from what it seems, it was an event where many photogaphers were invited, and open to take snapshots.
Maybe the organization that hired the photographer didn't have a budget for the shoot. In that case, shame on the organization for hiring someone with no experience.
me voy wrote: Maybe the organization that hired the photographer didn't have a budget for the shoot. In that case, shame on the organization for hiring someone with no experience.
Whoa.. That's no excuse. These are Olympians. I've worked for the USOC and USA Basketball. They are usually pretty selective of who they allow to shoot the athletes.
It's also very unprofessional for that photographer to release images of that quality.
If they are selective then why was this photographer there in the first place? I put the blame on USOC for not doing their homework. My question is: how much are they paying? You get what you pay for.
me voy wrote: If they are selective then why was this photographer there in the first place? I put the blame on USOC for not doing their homework. My question is: how much are they paying? You get what you pay for.
It was prolly press day. They set up a bunch of backdrops & some lights & let the photographers & athletes go at it. I looked up the photographer who's images are in question (google images) & he seems a paparazzi type, who shoots events, but has no control over light, etc.
There's a lot of hacks who get their foot in the door in high places & it seems they are there to stay.
Wow, while I hate to criticize others work, those photos were very amateur.
I had the honor of photographing two of our Olympians for an ad campaign for Frontier Communications this winter. I had to say that these two women were a complete delight to work with.
The were set up on a carpeted floor with 100 athletes passing through each station. There's no way the paper is going to survive that. The time it would take to pull it out more would use 25-50% of the shooting time.
That explains the paper. I can't explain the lighting. Follow the links and you can see they had very little space, although it didn't seem to be a problem for the guy who shot the BTS photos.
me voy wrote: Maybe the organization that hired the photographer didn't have a budget for the shoot. In that case, shame on the organization for hiring someone with no experience.
You mean the USOC? With sponsors like Visa, McDonalds, Coca-Cola and many many more huge corporations, trust me, they have the money. They may not have even paid them. Maybe the photographers did it on spec. It's says the photographers were invited. Didn't really say anything about being paid. Maybe they did it on spec in hopes to sell to news outlets. Not really sure myself.
It's sad this guy is being ridiculed. There were a lot more photographers there. Most I'm sure are photojournalists and sports shooters with portraiture not being their best genre.
These are pretty bad but 4 minutes per session doesn't give you a lot of time to get too creative on the spot. After I read this article it made a lot more sense. I'm sure others did a better job though.
You mean the USOC? With sponsors like Visa, McDonalds, Coca-Cola and many many more huge corporations, trust me, they have the money. They may not have even paid them. Maybe the photographers did it on spec. It's says the photographers were invited. Didn't really say anything about being paid. Maybe they did it on spec in hopes to sell to news outlets. Not really sure myself.
It's sad this guy is being ridiculed. There were a lot more photographers there. Most I'm sure are photojournalists and sports shooters with portraiture not being their best genre.
These are pretty bad but 4 minutes per session doesn't give you a lot of time to get too creative on the spot. After I read this article it made a lot more sense. I'm sure others did a better job though.
Bob Matin, a noted sports photographer had an interesting take on this
"Klamar’s photos were taken at a media summit. These sessions are also known as “photo day” or “media day” and can be best described as organized chaos. Remember photo day in high school? It’s like that, except there’s dozens of photographers in a small area. At a recent Yankees “photo day,” space was so limited that photographer Nick Laham had to set up in a bathroom… and you’d never know it." http://www.sportsphotographer.net/sport … ic-photos/
Seems the photographer is a pretty good sports photographer who was way over his head for this type of assignment.
wow really ?
They are the same level of quality if not better then what most of you all are complimenting as "sensual , exotic , erotic , so tender (two girls doing a 69), so edgy , so unique , So stunning , so incredible , so _________ ....
same type of quality level if not better then what the majority of the people are asking "have I improved after 3 months and $$$$ of equipment ?"
Never mentioning the wrinkled Bedsheets they are using instead of Proper backdrops . Never mentioning the Dust spots , just focusing in on the crappiness of the crotch or tits in the shot more then anything else.
These are the same level of quality if not better then ....
rickspix_uk
Posts: 51
Southend-on-Sea, England, United Kingdom
Well as someone from across the water who will not be supporting your athlete's ( sorry ) and someone who is most definitely an amateur with lots to learn I have to say that I WOULD have been embarrassed to put these out as finished images ! I am damn sure I COULD have done better , or binned the lot !
Not ideal circumstances. 3 or 4 minutes per athlete. Very small area to work with multiple photographers working on top of each other. Kind of explains why the athletes look so distracted and the lighting is so crappy. Sounds like a MM group photo shoot.....
I would blame the producers for providing measly 10x12 shooting bays to work in. Maybe OK for headshots, but forget about full length.
EDIT AGAIN: Now that I see some of the other links (atlantic.com ,et, al.) I see there were many good shots from the day. I wonder if the OP solisticevisuals link was an elaborate hoax? Maybe an assistant released some outtakes?
Herman Surkis
Posts: 6,230
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Escalante wrote: wow really ?
They are the same level of quality if not better then what most of you all are complimenting as "sensual , exotic , erotic , so tender (two girls doing a 69), so edgy , so unique , So stunning , so incredible , so _________ ....
same type of quality level if not better then what the majority of the people are asking "have I improved after 3 months and $$$$ of equipment ?"
Never mentioning the wrinkled Bedsheets they are using instead of Proper backdrops . Never mentioning the Dust spots , just focusing in on the crappiness of the crotch or tits in the shot more then anything else.
These are the same level of quality if not better then ....
| 
| 
| edu