Jumpy Bikes

Few from a freestyle motoX show:

1:


2:


3:
One with a little context to the height!


4:
Halfway through a backflip!

EEEK! Those are terrifying! wow though - well done on capturing those moments

xx

In these kind of shots I think it's a must to see the takeoff and landing. You get no feeling what so ever how high and how far he's going. And I know he's going pretty big. So it's a shame not to show that in the picture. I can see some motion blur as well, try to shoot with faster shutter speed next time

To feature the take off and landing the bike would then become so small in the shot that it would be lost in the background. As for the motion blur, that is intentional. Shooting fast means that the shot ends up looking like the bike is stationary and there is no feeling of motion in the shot.

These are wicked Ste - I really like numbers 2 and 4!! Followed by 1 n 3

I hear what Tommy's saying, but I think getting a close up (esp in those two) has paid off - I bet those bikers would love to own those photos!! The contrast of the clouds really works for me too.

I think I can say that I know this kind of photography, and the whole industry pretty well. And I know for sure that an action sports magazine would never print these kind of photos. This is typical photos for the local newspaper taken by photographers who don't really know anything about the sport. And motion blur is every action sports photographers worst enemy. People pay three times as much for a flash with super short flash durations just to prevent exactly that. I'm sorry if I'm a bit harsh here. No hatin'! I understand that you guys can like these

I think that's fine on reporting the event to that market, but from an artistic viewpoint I like Ste's work, esp in the two I mentioned

That's not to say I don't like the 'usual' stuff either - just that I like these and see their plus points too

It's not harsh, its wrong. I have been into motorcross and freestyle for a while now, and the majority of the published work is of a similar nature to this that being a close up on the rider. The number of shots that show the whole picture with both ramps and the bike are few and far between. An article may feature one to set the scene but the rest are close ups of the tricks.

And here is an online freestyle mag:
http://www.dirtrider.com/features/fr...ery/index.html

ESPN:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=4166354

Official site of a tour:
http://www.ifmxf.com/gallerys.jsp?id=138

Pics of the tricks in close up similar to my take on it.


I have a friend who is a pro 'tog, covering both Premier league football and Super League Rugby. So I am fully aware of what is required of a shot to be published, a pic I took of Trent Barrett (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_Barrett) was.

The inclusion of motion blur was for aesthetic reasons, for the sense of movement and motion. These shots are taken for use in photographic competition and exhibition and from my experience and the shots I have had exhibited I know what is required for a shot in that world. That being if its an action shot to include some motion and feel of speed.

Did professional action sports photographers take all those shots on those websites? I seriously doubt it. And I was talking about magazines, not websites (where almost everyone can get published). Pick up an issue of Transworld Motocross or similar magazines and check for yourself. Check out this link right here as well

http://motocross.transworld.net/2009...rs-nate-adams/

I see that in outdoor motocross and supercross (races) they take lots of close-ups, and that looks really good, but in freestyle you really have to see how big they're going, where they come from, and where they're going.

If you had published these shots on any picture forum for action sports I can guarantee you would have got the same comments. I posted a few shots like that (only snowboarding) when I first started out, and it didn't take long before people let me know those wore not going to get me anywhere in this industry.

I also see that you said that the bike would be lost in the background if you shot it wider or further away, but that's one of the things you'll gonna have to figure out as an action photographer. You need to find the right angle to make it all work together.

And you can't seriously mean that you can compare rugby and freestyle motocross?

Well i bow down to your vastly superior knowledge.

If the site you posted is the pinnacle of this type of photography, then why do they also feature close ups of the tricks and not just take and landing shots? Surely if you are right and that the ONLY way to shoot this stuff is as you say, why does the site you have posted have close ups?

Are they wrong too, or only the ones you pick out are the ones that are the proper shots.

Are you sure that you are not mistaking your preference for the long off type of shot with little focus on the subject as the way it should be?