Schools Rugby at Murrayfield

W

wookie6262

Messages
3,346
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
Last edited:
My grandson managed to play in the finals at Wembley in the schools tournaments.
I was in the crowd, I wasn't even allowed to raise my lens!
Managed to get a few before the stewards latched on to me.
 
DE65Y said:
My grandson managed to play in the finals at Wembley in the schools tournaments.
I was in the crowd, I wasn't even allowed to raise my lens!
Managed to get a few before the stewards latched on to me.
Click to expand...
The SRU are pretty good at giving accreditation for these events.
 
Watch the white balance in the first few pics. Far too warm. The empty seats as backgrounds is a shame, maybe consider going onto the sidelines and shooting into the stand with people in it, or even go into the stand and shooting down onto the pitch to fill the frame with the pitch.
 
brizrob said:
Watch the white balance in the first few pics. Far too warm. The empty seats as backgrounds is a shame, maybe consider going onto the sidelines and shooting into the stand with people in it, or even go into the stand and shooting down onto the pitch to fill the frame with the pitch.
Click to expand...


a) Do you know what the difference between daylight and stadium lighting looks like?

b) Have you ever shot schools' rugby in a national stadium before?

c) Shooting down looks like utter cack.
 
DemiLion said:
a) Do you know what the difference between daylight and stadium lighting looks like?
Click to expand...

Funnily enough, I do.

Do you know the difference between an incorrect white balance and an accurate one? Here is a clue:

1.jpg

4.jpg

b) Have you ever shot schools' rugby in a national stadium before?
Click to expand...

Yes I have.

c) Shooting down looks like utter cack.
Click to expand...

You know what looks like utter cack? Sporting action with a sea of empty seats in the background.

There's a reason why the majority of professional rugby photographers on say, Getty, shot down during Covid.

gettyimages-1308394785-2048x2048.jpg

Any more condescending, ignorant bullet points?
 
Last edited:
brizrob said:
Watch the white balance in the first few pics. Far too warm. The empty seats as backgrounds is a shame, maybe consider going onto the sidelines and shooting into the stand with people in it, or even go into the stand and shooting down onto the pitch to fill the frame with the pitch.
Click to expand...
The lighting at Murrayfield is appalling. Even with the naked eye it looks far more yellow that I have presented the images. I just dragged your "accurate" image into photoshop and it measures in terms of colour how it looks. Every white is at the blue or cool end which is the exact opposite of the lighting in the stadium.

Not every lighting looks the same and I agree with @DemiLion that a higher viewpoint(excepting something unusual like a top down or taken high in the stands) looks terrible. Your image proves the point as the separation isn't great and the players lack the stature they would if you had shot it lower. All opinions welcome though I just don't agree with yours.
 
Last edited:
wookie6262 said:
The lighting at Murrayfield is appalling. Even with the naked eye it looks far more yellow that I have presented the images. I just dragged your "accurate" image into photoshop and it measures in terms of colour how it looks. Every white is at the blue or cool end which is the exact opposite of the lighting in the stadium.

Not every lighting looks the same and I agree with @DemiLion that a higher viewpoint(excepting something unusual like a top down or taken high in the stands) looks terrible. Your image proves the point as the separation isn't great and the players lack the stature they would if you had shot it lower. All opinions welcome though I just don't agree with yours.
Click to expand...

Fully appreciate that lights can be terrible, they are at most rugby grounds, especially Murrayfield, but you can either dial in the best white balance you can manage in-camera, or colour correct in Photoshop in 20 seconds like I did in the above pics.

I'm not saying higher viewpoint looking down is incredible or even great, far from it, but it's a damn sight better than having an empty stadium as a background. Like I said, a big chunk of Getty rugby action shot during Covid was from high up. Or at least a mix of both viewpoints. It's done for a reason, because backgrounds are key in sports photography.
 
Last edited:
But in terms of the action shots itself, it's good stuff. Though maybe consider cropping a bit tigher on the last one, too much empty space on the right.
 
We will agree to disagree on white balance. Would you shoot a sunset and try and make it appear like midday. The colour was balanced using a manual reading taken with an expodisc and that is as far as I was going to go. It looks accurate on my monitor and in keeping with the conditions on the night.

To address your other point regarding the seating. We are not in Covid and I am shooting for parents not stock and media. There are delegated areas for shooting at this event and given there is around 1000 in attendance at a 67000 seater stadium it is going to be hard to show supporters in each image unless I stand at the half way line(not allowed) and shoot action within five yard or so of halfway back towards the small cluster of supporters. I shoot to sell so those seats tell a story that they are playing at Murrayfield. If I shot stood up the images would look like any other taken at their school of club standing up as grass is pretty similar on most pitches. I maximised my sales by shooting face on to the action and making sure it was obvious where that action was. Even given that I'm not sure I agree about a crop as it needs space on the right.

I probably put 1500 images up from the 4 matches I shot one day and the vast majority were 3x2 format. I'm fairly sure that is what these are as 3x2 works well if parents or players want a slightly chunkier format print and a wee bit space allows for that option. The good earner message in the OP was a clue that these images were intended to sell.
 
brizrob said:
Any more condescending, ignorant bullet points?
Click to expand...

Yes.

a) I'm fairly certain that I've never bumped into you shooting England Schools Rugby.

b) I'd say that white balance was fairly true for some stadium lights, especially ones that haven't updated to LED. Your adjustment is an inaccurate representation of what happened in my view.

c) School kids want to see the stadium, empty or not. When they in the finals at a national stadium, it is all about the venue. Not clean backgrounds.

d) SOME Getty photographers shot down. Others didn't. That was because of Covid restrictions and limitations to the number of photographers allowed pitchside.
Those that were forced up on to the gantry grumbled like hell.

It's interesting. You come on here and criticise other people's sports photography - and I use criticise rather than critique deliberately.

And yet you remain anonymous and have never shown a single one of your images.

I wonder why?
 
wookie6262 said:
We will agree to disagree on white balance. Would you shoot a sunset and try and make it appear like midday. The colour was balanced using a manual reading taken with an expodisc and that is as far as I was going to go. It looks accurate on my monitor and in keeping with the conditions on the night.

To address your other point regarding the seating. We are not in Covid and I am shooting for parents not stock and media. There are delegated areas for shooting at this event and given there is around 1000 in attendance at a 67000 seater stadium it is going to be hard to show supporters in each image unless I stand at the half way line(not allowed) and shoot action within five yard or so of halfway back towards the small cluster of supporters. I shoot to sell so those seats tell a story that they are playing at Murrayfield. If I shot stood up the images would look like any other taken at their school of club standing up as grass is pretty similar on most pitches. I maximised my sales by shooting face on to the action and making sure it was obvious where that action was. Even given that I'm not sure I agree about a crop as it needs space on the right.
Click to expand...


I've been shooting for RFU/England Rugby Schools for ten years. Both of those paragraphs are absolutely spot on.

(Well, apart from the Expodisk thing - which may be seen as being a bit overly keen!)
 
wookie6262 said:
We will agree to disagree on white balance. Would you shoot a sunset and try and make it appear like midday.
Click to expand...

That's not really the same is it, comparing a sunset to Murrayfield floodlights? When you're talking artificial light, it's about getting accurate looking skin tones. Washed out yellow/amber faces like in your original shot is not accurate, that's just a fact. If you used a WB card to get a K value then I humbly suggest you try again. It's admirable you want to effectively convey the lighting conditions but I have to ask why. There's a reason why stadia are replacing their lights with LED ones that give a more natural (and consistent) tone, because it looks better.

wookie6262 said:
To address your other point regarding the seating. We are not in Covid and I am shooting for parents not stock and media. There are delegated areas for shooting at this event and given there is around 1000 in attendance at a 67000 seater stadium it is going to be hard to show supporters in each image unless I stand at the half way line(not allowed) and shoot action within five yard or so of halfway back towards the small cluster of supporters. I shoot to sell so those seats tell a story that they are playing at Murrayfield. If I shot stood up the images would look like any other taken at their school of club standing up as grass is pretty similar on most pitches. I maximised my sales by shooting face on to the action and making sure it was obvious where that action was. Even given that I'm not sure I agree about a crop as it needs space on the right.
Click to expand...

Like I said, that's totally fine. My original point commented that all the empty seats were a shame and offered a suggestion for you to mitigate that. You're right though, you're shooting for parents who don't care about that kind of thing. But this is a CRITIQUE board, so that's what I assume people are here for, to offer critical insight and comments on their work.

And why does it need space on the right? What does all that dead space serve? I'm not saying crop a lot, but a touch to balance the frame better, it's unbalanced as is.

wookie6262 said:
I probably put 1500 images up from the 4 matches I shot one day and the vast majority were 3x2 format. I'm fairly sure that is what these are as 3x2 works well if parents or players want a slightly chunkier format print and a wee bit space allows for that option. The good earner message in the OP was a clue that these images were intended to sell.
Click to expand...

Again fair enough, I should take your circumstances into account in terms of who you're selling to, but none of us are parents of the players so you put these up for critique and it's fair game to critique them from an aesthetic pov.
 
DemiLion said:
I've been shooting for RFU/England Rugby Schools for ten years. Both of those paragraphs are absolutely spot on.

(Well, apart from the Expodisk thing - which may be seen as being a bit overly keen!)
Click to expand...
I'd say it was a bit lazy rather than keen. If the teams were wearing white I would probably take a reading off a jersey but you are miles back at Murrayfield and not many white targets to use. Sometimes the logos on signs work well but they are a long way from teh pitch at Murrayfield.
 
brizrob said:
That's not really the same is it, comparing a sunset to Murrayfield floodlights? When you're talking artificial light, it's about getting accurate looking skin tones. Washed out yellow/amber faces like in your original shot is not accurate, that's just a fact. If you used a WB card to get a K value then I humbly suggest you try again. It's admirable you want to effectively convey the lighting conditions but I have to ask why. There's a reason why stadia are replacing their lights with LED ones that give a more natural (and consistent) tone, because it looks better.



Like I said, that's totally fine. My original point commented that all the empty seats were a shame and offered a suggestion for you to mitigate that. You're right though, you're shooting for parents who don't care about that kind of thing. But this is a CRITIQUE board, so that's what I assume people are here for, to offer critical insight and comments on their work.

And why does it need space on the right? What does all that dead space serve? I'm not saying crop a lot, but a touch to balance the frame better, it's unbalanced as is.



Again fair enough, I should take your circumstances into account in terms of who you're selling to, but none of us are parents of the players so you put these up for critique and it's fair game to critique them from an aesthetic pov.
Click to expand...
Critique away. You won't hurt my feelings I will just explain my thinking and the reasoning behind my choices. I think all the photographers that shoot at Murrayfield are keeping their fingers crossed for the lights to be ungraded.
 
DemiLion said:
Your adjustment is an inaccurate representation of what happened in my view.
Click to expand...

:ROFLMAO:

I take it you don't use Photoshop at all then, adjust levels, contrast, curves? My adjustment was meant to illustrate how an accurate WB setting in-camera would have photographed the games better.

DemiLion said:
c) School kids want to see the stadium, empty or not. When they in the finals at a national stadium, it is all about the venue. Not clean backgrounds.
Click to expand...

You're right and I've suggested that context should have been taken into account in my critique earlier. But we're not school kids, this is a critique board and I made a very simple suggestion as to how to mitigate ugly backgrounds.

DemiLion said:
It's interesting. You come on here and criticise other people's sports photography - and I use criticise rather than critique deliberately.

And yet you remain anonymous and have never shown a single one of your images.
Click to expand...

Bless. Getting ar$ey because someone critiqued photos on a board called "Photo sharing & Critique". There were plenty of pats on the back for the action captured, I even belatedly offered some my own, I also offered some suggestions to improve the work. Simple.

My own images are irrelevant to this discussion and I certainly have nothing to prove.
 
Last edited:
PS: gantry photographers will have grumbled at Twickenham because that would be side-on and miles from the action. I wasn't suggesting doing that at Murrayfield.
 
brizrob said:
PS: gantry photographers will have grumbled at Twickenham because that would be side-on and miles from the action. I wasn't suggesting doing that at Murrayfield.
Click to expand...
Neither was I. I was explaining why getting a crowd in the background was never going to hide the seats and that the seats were part of the story. I don't disagree about clean backgrounds but with kids rugby for sales you are shooting the kid and where they are stood primarily often if they aren't even part of the action. It is a funny game to shoot as you are trying to get saleable images of as many kids as possible. The ones I put up here were because I liked teh action.

You are at a higher level of this game than I am so feel free to critique and offer suggestions. I don't agree on this occasion but that doesn't mean I don't welcome the conversation and an opportunity to learn. I have certainly learned a lot from @DemiLion and others on this site through my fledgling sports photography journey. I've made plenty of mistakes and there are lots more to come..
 
brizrob said:
My own images are irrelevant to this discussion and I certainly have nothing to prove.
Click to expand...


Apart from showing that you know what you are talking about. Which is somewhat doubtful given your opinions.
 
brizrob said:
PS: gantry photographers will have grumbled at Twickenham because that would be side-on and miles from the action. I wasn't suggesting doing that at Murrayfield.
Click to expand...


The difference between us is that you are guessing. Whereas I'm not.
 
wookie6262 said:
You are at a higher level of this game than I am so feel free to critique and offer suggestions.
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced that he is. All I see are the same bland tropes being handed out as 'advice' rather over forcefully.

As for your shots, in terms of retail images for schools from a national/senior stadium, they are excellent. Including the cropping - although I might go a little tighter on the second one.
 
DemiLion said:
I'm not convinced that he is. All I see are the same bland tropes being handed out as 'advice' rather over forcefully.

As for your shots, in terms of retail images for schools from a national/senior stadium, they are excellent. Including the cropping - although I might go a little tighter on the second one.
Click to expand...
The second shot was just because of the Murrayfield signage behind him. I figured that would sell if parents or players saw it and it did. One of the reasons I sat where I did
 
DemiLion said:
The difference between us is that you are guessing. Whereas I'm not.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I was replying to DemiLion talking about photographers grumbling at a gantry position. He fails to admit that no one wants the gantry at Twickenham because it’s side on, and miles from the action so unless you’re extremely lucky with a specific piece of action in the game you can make a frame out of, or you're directly in line with the try line, there’s barely anything good to be had there.
DemiLion said:
Apart from showing that you know what you are talking about. Which is somewhat doubtful given your opinions.
Click to expand...

I don’t care about showing that I know what I’m talking about. Nor do I care if you believe that I’m top-end or not. This is a critique board, I critiqued. Then you went off on one, patronising, condescending, talking nonsense and making ignorant assumptions about me.

And if you genuinely don’t think it’s a professional sports photographers job to compensate for dodgy floodlight colours then I’m not sure there’s much else to say.
 
brizrob said:
I don’t care about showing that I know what I’m talking about. Nor do I care if you believe that I’m top-end or not.
Click to expand...

You are correct. I don't think that you are a 'top flight' sports photographer, as you put it.
If you are, we will almost certainly know each other. Happy for you to PM me if you want.


This is a critique board, I critiqued. Then you went off on one, patronising, condescending, talking nonsense and making ignorant assumptions about me.
Click to expand...

If you think that I'm patronising, then you might want to take a wee wander through the posts that you've made over the past few years. Combined they make some rather eyebrow raising material.

And if you genuinely don’t think it’s a professional sports photographers job to compensate for dodgy floodlight colours then I’m not sure there’s much else to say.
Click to expand...

Correct. I don't believe that it is a photographer's job to compensate. It is their job to replicate what the eye sees as closely as possible.
 
brizrob said:
Sorry, I was replying to DemiLion talking about photographers grumbling at a gantry position. He fails to admit that no one wants the gantry at Twickenham because it’s side on, and miles from the action so unless you’re extremely lucky with a specific piece of action in the game you can make a frame out of, or you're directly in line with the try line, there’s barely anything good to be had there.
Click to expand...


I wasn't failing to admit anything. I was disputing this comment:

There's a reason why the majority of professional rugby photographers on say, Getty, shot down during Covid
Click to expand...

The majority of photographers did not.
 
DemiLion said:
The majority of photographers did not.
Click to expand...

Look again.

Not exclusively of course, but a much, much higher proportion than non Covid times. Why? Empty stadiums = awful backgrounds = poor pictures.

DemiLion said:
Correct. I don't believe that it is a photographer's job to compensate. It is their job to replicate what the eye sees as closely as possible.
Click to expand...

Utter rubbish.
 
jamesev said:
that second one looks horrible, far too washed out
Click to expand...

Whites that are actually white and accurate skin tones = washed out? Interesting.

You can't "wash a picture out" by altering the white balance, which is all I did.
 
brizrob said:
Whites that are actually white and accurate skin tones = washed out? Interesting.

You can't "wash a picture out" by altering the white balance, which is all I did.
Click to expand...
wow the fundamentals of light - color, quality, quantity and direction completely missed. If you have a red light on a "white" surface it doesn't appear white

https://images.app.goo.gl/jqYRAao6dFSCSmAU8 I'm pretty sure the models skin isn't blue
 
brizrob said:
There's a reason why stadia are replacing their lights with LED ones that give a more natural (and consistent) tone, because it looks better.
Click to expand...
The overpowering reason I have heard raised for changing lights to LEDs in sporting venues is electricity usage.
 
Wow. That’s some serious handbag action. There’s more competition on here than on the pitch at Murrayfield.
 
camairish said:
Wow. That’s some serious handbag action. There’s more competition on here than on the pitch at Murrayfield.
Click to expand...
You obviously weren't there on Saturday.
 
jamesev said:
wow the fundamentals of light - color, quality, quantity and direction completely missed. If you have a red light on a "white" surface it doesn't appear white

https://images.app.goo.gl/jqYRAao6dFSCSmAU8 I'm pretty sure the models skin isn't blue
Click to expand...

What kind of nonsense post is this? "Color quality quantity and direction" :ROFLMAO: says the man who thinks adjusting white balance to create natural looking skin tones = "washed out" :ROFLMAO:

The photographer in your above photo purposefully dialled in a WB value to achieve the look they wanted. And are you genuinely comparing a studio shoot purposefully coloured that way, with terrible stadium bulbs that make everyone look as orange as Trump? White balance in professional sports photography is meant to be manually dialled in when dealing with awful floodlights (with temperates that change from frame to frame) to achieve white whites. It's as simple as that.
 
Last edited:
brizrob said:
What kind of nonsense post is this? "Color quality quantity and direction" :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
the 4 fundamentals of light. after all photography is all about light. Even beginners know this - maybe a refresher 101 photography would help your cause.
 
camairish said:
Wow. That’s some serious handbag action. There’s more competition on here than on the pitch at Murrayfield.
Click to expand...

To be fair, there is a hint of relative discussion and some pretty cool images (y)...............................

but there are some rude and personal slights too.

That stops here.....
_____________________________

Watching ;):police:
 
jamesev said:
the 4 fundamentals of light. after all photography is all about light. Even beginners know this - maybe a refresher 101 photography would help your cause.
Click to expand...

All photography is about light? What insight, thank you.

Please, tell me where I have gone wrong in my posts...? Then explain to me why you disagree that the best sports photographers in the world adjust their WB for bad floodlights so that they get natural looking skin tones and white kit that is white in the photo. You know, what Auto WB is literally trying to do in-camera anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top