Soldier Field

[Sebastian]

[skyline315]

i love this shot. the angle of the field, and the color difference between the field and the dark sky. it works very well. good job

[Elysian]

That's a good shot, I like it and espcially because of the angle (close to a corner).
It also a nice bright and colorful shot with some strong diagonals (top sections).
The dark blue sky works quite well with the green grass.
In my opinion a better shot than most of the shots I've seen on their web site .
Btw, who played?

[Sebastian]

Thanks everyone!

To asnwer some questions, the game wasw Chicago Fire vs. the Metrostars, and the lens used was the 17-40L at f/8 or thereabouts.

[gmen]

Just spotted this one. I love a stadium pic! I've visited numerous top stadia across Europe (AC Milan, Real Madrid, Benfica etc.) and Soldier Field looks as good as any of them.

A very nice shot - the sky, the floodlights, the grass - they all contribute to a well exposed and composed image.

[Sebastian]

Just spotted this one. I love a stadium pic! I've visited numerous top stadia across Europe (AC Milan, Real Madrid, Benfica etc.) and Soldier Field looks as good as any of them.

A very nice shot - the sky, the floodlights, the grass - they all contribute to a well exposed and composed image.

Thanks Gmen!

[Lava Lamp]

Honestly, I'm not loving it, possibly because soccer and Soldier Field seem to go together like chocolate ice cream and any onion. What would Ditka or Butkus think?

Seriously, it doesn't have the impact of your usual shots. I'm not sure where to look.

[gmen]

Surely a good stadium shot should capture the atmosphere of the venue... and encourage you to look around the whole frame to get a feel for the place? For what it's worth, I think it does that.

[Sebastian]

Honestly, I'm not loving it, possibly because soccer and Soldier Field seem to go together like chocolate ice cream and any onion. What would Ditka or Butkus think?

Seriously, it doesn't have the impact of your usual shots. I'm not sure where to look.

LL,

Thanks for taking the time to comment, it's always appreciated. Could you help clarify something for me though?

Seriously, it doesn't have the impact of your usual shots. I'm not sure where to look.

I don't quite understand that statement. Not the part about where to look, but the "impact of your usual shots." I just don't know what you mean because I don't see the impact in my shots, it's not somethig that I can readily recognize when it's referred to. What exactly is missing from this shot that you see in my other shots? How does it lack impact?

I'm just trying to understand because I never felt my work had "impact," and without knowing what you mean I'm at a loss as to what you think is missing from this shot.

Sometimes it's dificult to explain something like that, so if you can't really clarify, then I understand. I just think it would help me see something in my work that I may have never seen before. And that is one of the best things about critique, seeing someone else's view of things.

Thanks LL!!

[Chunk]

LL,

Thanks for taking the time to comment, it's always appreciated. Could you help clarify something for me though?



I don't quite understand that statement. Not the part about where to look, but the "impact of your usual shots." I just don't know what you mean because I don't see the impact in my shots, it's not somethig that I can readily recognize when it's referred to. What exactly is missing from this shot that you see in my other shots? How does it lack impact?

I'm just trying to understand because I never felt my work had "impact," and without knowing what you mean I'm at a loss as to what you think is missing from this shot.

Sometimes it's dificult to explain something like that, so if you can't really clarify, then I understand. I just think it would help me see something in my work that I may have never seen before. And that is one of the best things about critique, seeing someone else's view of things.

Thanks LL!!

If you don't mind, I'll jump in here because I kinda agreed with LL when I read that comment. You usually give us a fresh or unusual viewpoint in your pics, even on old timeworn subjects, that make us wish we could see that way. The Soldier Field pic, while technically very good is perhaps not that much different from other shots we've seen of it or similar subjects, even if it is better than I could take.

Too bad so many seats were empty. It seems the end you are sitting in has more people. Since the action in soccer takes place all over the field, why is that so lopsided? Do they switch ends with the periods?

[Lava Lamp]

LL,

Thanks for taking the time to comment, it's always appreciated. Could you help clarify something for me though?



I don't quite understand that statement. Not the part about where to look, but the "impact of your usual shots." I just don't know what you mean because I don't see the impact in my shots, it's not somethig that I can readily recognize when it's referred to. What exactly is missing from this shot that you see in my other shots? How does it lack impact?

I'm just trying to understand because I never felt my work had "impact," and without knowing what you mean I'm at a loss as to what you think is missing from this shot.

Sometimes it's dificult to explain something like that, so if you can't really clarify, then I understand. I just think it would help me see something in my work that I may have never seen before. And that is one of the best things about critique, seeing someone else's view of things.

Thanks LL!!

What I meant about impact is that it doesn't grab me. I feel like I've seen it before, like it could be a snapshot taken at any stadium. It has the rich, saturated colors and contrast I see in your other photos, but with a fairly commonplace point of view and composition. When I compare it in my mind to your stop light photo or the some of your self portraits with the Jeep, or even the avatar you use, it doesn't stand up.

I think you know I'm not trying to be harsh - just to explain. Others may disagree.

[Sebastian]

If you don't mind, I'll jump in here because I kinda agreed with LL when I read that comment. You usually give us a fresh or unusual viewpoint in your pics, even on old timeworn subjects, that make us wish we could see that way. The Soldier Field pic, while technically very good is perhaps not that much different from other shots we've seen of it or similar subjects, even if it is better than I could take.

Too bad so many seats were empty. It seems the end you are sitting in has more people. Since the action in soccer takes place all over the field, why is that so lopsided? Do they switch ends with the periods?

Chunk,

I don't mind at all, I value your thoughts, thank you.

[Sebastian]

What I meant about impact is that it doesn't grab me. I feel like I've seen it before, like it could be a snapshot taken at any stadium. It has the rich, saturated colors and contrast I see in your other photos, but with a fairly commonplace point of view and composition. When I compare it in my mind to your stop light photo or the some of your self portraits with the Jeep, or even the avatar you use, it doesn't stand up.

I think you know I'm not trying to be harsh - just to explain. Others may disagree.

LL,

You're not being harsh at all, it's this sort of input that helps the most, thank you. I think I'm starting to see what you mean.

[opus]

May I add my two pennies?

The only thing that really grabs me is the sky. I keep looking at it. When I try to look around the stadium, I'm always drawn back to the sky. The colors in the rest of the stadium complement the twilight blue, but I don't want to gaze at the field, I want to gaze at the sky.

The color is great, but like others have said, there's nothing really all that interesting going on inside the stadium. If, suppose, the people on the field were lined up in a perfect pattern, or there was some riveting action on the field, the stadium might have more impact. If you were sitting so that you caught the "grass lines" pointing straight towards that sky (as in a road pointing toward the horizon), it might have more impact. If there was one lone person standing in the middle of the expanse of field, it might have more impact. As it stands right now, the only real impact that affects me (personally) is the color.

The shot is clear and sharp and colorful, and proudly takes its place alongside some of the best stadium shots I've seen, but it doesn't grab my emotions with a "great new viewpoint", as others have said.

But honestly, very few stadium shots do. So as a stadium shot, this is very good.

[Sebastian]

Kelly,

Thanks for taking the time to write. I see what everyone is saying about the viewpoint, it is rather generic.

[gahspidy]

I will finally add my 2 cents here as I have been looking at this shot and coming back to it again but not really knowing what to say about it.
The image itself is very good. Lighting, sharpness, colors , clarity. The framing is fine as well ( although somehow the corner of the field that is cut out bothers me some because so much of the field is there and then"snip", that one corner missing). This would be a great shot to print next to a story or srticle about the game or the stadium itself. But this is just not the type of shot that is" impactful" This is not to say that it is not up to Sebastian standard of work, I think it is. The quality is there and it was obviously composed with great thought. It is just good for what it is, a shot sort of documenting what went on at Soldier Field that night.
Whenever I see a thread from Sebastian, I always look right away as I know there is going to be something good on the other end of that link. And once again, there was.

[Sebastian]

Thank you Gary.