I find it interesting as I have been recently shooting photos for various sports photography companies needing shots of people at races. I am learning what the people racing want--or at least what the companies think they want.

They don't really want the dynamic artsy image that, I, as a photographer, might want to render for them.

They want a generic snapshot, centered, facing the camera, filling the frame, uniformly lit, ...BORING!

Sure, some appreciate the art and would love more, but most, just want that record of them in the experience! It might as well be a mugg shot of them at the police department, which would be more creative actually!

Anyhow, I find myself having to just take the shot and be happy I fit them in the FOV. But it does bother me that people want boring shots of themselves--least that is what the photo companies want me to believe.

One guy, I shoot for, does appreciate different angles and allows me to be more creative in my shots, and It did seem to pay off. Many of the athletes appreciated the fresh point of view.

I guess the question is, why do people want generic shots? Is it because that is what they are spoon fed and expect due to it always being that way? Do they carry this view over and think "wow, that image is ugly because it's not centered? We as photographers learn to know what makes an image interesting but there is still some disconnect that makes this unacceptable in certain circumstances.

I want to remove that disconnect, but is it possible? Are the companies just wanting me to shoot based on the highest probability I will get the shot? Do the participants really want more and just don't get it offered because of the them going the for probabilities?

I think that's what most people are used to seeing so that's what they want to see. Not just true of athletics, either. You're dealing with people who aren't used to being photographed (most likely), other than the occasional snapshot. Funny how you can show someone a different type of image (not saying I'm the most creative photographer in the world) and they say "oh, that's really nice, but how about...".

My friend's line is "that's why we call 'em clients!". If they're paying and that's what they want, then that's probably how it's going to be. But if you get those shots and still have time to experiment a little, it'll be a great way to build a portfolio of other options that someday may click with the right client.

Give em what they want. Isn't this one reason why many professionals start to regret that they went professional? (no longer allowed to be creative)

I believe this to be universally true: What everybody wants from a photo of themselves is to look good. For most people, the rest is gravy.

One possible exception to the rule is when the subject looks good, but says: "That doesn't look like me."

One paper I shoot for lets me do what I want, get whatever angle I want, while another wants it this way or that way, yet, when they get my stuff they almost always end up going for "my way". Finally they stopped telling me what they wanted because they knew I'd get something better.
One of the most interesting choices was of a soccer player after losing the final game of his career. He is on his knees curled up in the middle of the field, you dont see his face, just this curled person in the middle of the field .... all alone with a completly black background. They ran that shot big on the front page of the sports, words wern't really needed for that one, and it was the farthest thing from what the paper wanted, but when they saw it, it just blew them away.

I guess the thing to do is give them what they want, but throw in a few "others" and they may decide to go with those instead. Good Luck!

JS

Good advice John. You have to give the editor or client what they ask for/want that's part of the deal when you take the job. But it doesn't mean you can't give them a little extra and that can be what you want. As you said sometimes, not always, they well come around to your way of seeing the image. If you are going to successfully make a living with the camera you have to please the client with the images you present to him. Unfortunatley they don't always meet your expectations or artistic standards. This is the main reason I quit the picture for pay business 20 years ago.

When it comes to sports, artsy generally isn't wanted from what I understand. There is nothing wrong wtih being creative or presenting a fresh, new view, but you have to consider that many images are going to be used for some publication, and they have specific requirements. Pick up a copy of Sports Illustrated or The Sporting News and look at the photos - they're not publishing artistic photographs of sports but of peek moments of action that are frozen.

The main reason why I think that these companies want the straight shots is because 1)they are high percentage shots (which are even difficult to get in some sports due to timing), 2) these images capture the peek moments of intensity, and 3) they are easily manipulated for reproduction.

I'm not saying that there is no place for artistic photography in sports, but when it comes to just capturing action, there are some general rules that work best. And remember, they are your clients. They're commissioning you for the work. Not to sound like an ass, but you always have the right to refuse a contract if you don't like the stipulations you're going to be bound by.