[Edgar_in_Indy]

I also only get thumbnails. Do you have to have a facebook account to view larger versions?

[Neville]

I also only get thumbnails. Do you have to have a facebook account to view larger versions?

I don't know which of my two links you clicked on. The second link does not require a Facebook account at all.

[Edgar_in_Indy]

I don't know which of my two links you clicked on. The second link does not require a Facebook account at all.

Umm...I'm only seeing one link.

EDIT: Okay, I see the second link now at the bottom of post #6. Might be a good idea to include it in your original post.

[Giklab]

If you like contrasty and saturated pictures that's your thing entirely. That said, this one: https://www.facebook.com/nevillebaileyphotos/photos/a.1484613821835309.10737...type=3&theater and similar look like fake HDR. I think he was talking about these.

[traderdrew]

A lot of times I did not convert my photos to sRGB before I posted them on the net. They say there is an advantage to this as so for the different browsers interpret the colors better.

[derekkite]

Looking at your shots at the Google site doesn't look oversaturated. It may be my tablet. Are the Facebook shots identical? Some sites do things to photos. Usually the team colors and those venues are pretty garish. Reds are really hard to get without blowing the detail.

If anything the scenes look busy. There is lots of bright detail that takes your eye away from the action. A very narrow depth of field may help, but also could make shots with the ball not look right.

You have some great action shots there. Great focus, great timing. I honestly think that most of those shots are as good as you can get them in the circumstances, and some of them are great. I think a pro would end up doing something like a graduated blur from the edge of the points of interest, or a slight vignetting with the goal of bringing the eye to the action. And they may actually tone down the colors a bit, but not much, maybe even a graduated toning down from the center out.

Let me put it this way. You got great shots, better than most could in those circumstances. A pro wouldn't tell you the tricks they use to process that busy confusing environment to highlight the action. What he did say was processing is the difference. What and how is to be figured out. That is valuable information. You are about to reach the next level.

[Glorfindelrb]

Great series! I shot few student rugby match and that's a great sport for photography.

- A bit too much saturated for my taste but not that much, check you screen calibration (it's very important to have a recently calibrated screen for saturation/contrast/vibrancy adjustment).
- Some are probably uselessly pushed in sharpness, noise is very visible at 800iso. I prefer some noise than to much smoothing but the pic is obviously sharp enough and my K5IIs do better. I always try not to go too far in noise adjustment, if you can do less and keep the 100% ok, go for less. If you need that mush try to be selective with masking. (ex: NBP_5777.jpg)
- Few of your pics are non-keepers. (ex: NBP_5792.jpg is great and NBP_5793.jpg is a bad shot) I think you should not let a pic like NBP_5793.jpg be in your final album. The viewer is necessarily disappointed after the great shots.

In any way the comment is not self-explaining and is not deserved if it's a criticism. But i'm not sure what it means so...

[Nass]

On my work screen the reds do look a bit strong, ie the 2 pics right at the top. I've never found Pentax to do red all that well, it seems to be prone to overdoing red.

[severalsnakes]

It was an unhelpful comment from your photographer friend. The images on your Facebook page look fine on my laptop, and quite natural. (The action shots are great and it looks like you had an amazing view!) ... But my phone always jacks up the saturation and contrast on images and "enhances enhancements" to make them look extreme - I suspect there's some sort of inequality to the calibration of the screens that your fellow is viewing these images on, to the one you edited them on.

The saturation of the images is a little hot, but not by much. Softening contrast instead might solve that issue. I appreciate the lifted shadows to see details in dark areas, but that might be flattening the image too much and confusing the subject and the background. Maybe let the shadows be a little darker and the blacks be a little blacker...

BUT, when it comes down to it, they're your images and you should make them how you like, especially since it sounds like you're doing this mostly for pleasure? ... The other photographer isn't buying your work, so you don't have to please them. What if we all processed our images so they had the exact same look? That's a world I don't want to live in!

[From1980]

I had no problem seeing the collection from Google photos and there isn`t anything new to say. While a handful of these may be slightly overdone your overall results do show a great eye for timing and do reflect a talent for this genre. Tweak your post processing some and use your own vision. You can do as well or better than the other guy.

[manntax]

I finally was able to see your album via google link (Google Photos site here ). To my taste majority of these photos are slightly overdone with sliders - particularly the balance between whits and shadows and black is disturbed by this HDR-like treatment, but saturation and white balance could also do with some tweaking in several cases. I know what you wanted to achieve , this sort of pop for your subjects, but in the meantime there is some naturalness lost and photos looks kind of artificially , more or less depends on which photo.
Having said that it is still an enjoyable series and some moments and expressions are priceless ! Great photos with maybe slightly off processing (to my taste , on my calibrated screens).

[Murfy]

if it was me I would ask him what he meant because you don't use Photoshop. The ones on my tablet looks fine, so maybe it is an issue with what people are viewing it with, which no photographer has any control over when viewing on the web

[stevebrot]

Red channel saturation and luminance are too high giving the impression of an overprocessed image.

Ignore the Facebook comment.


Steve

[FantasticMrFox]

So true! In fact, I took over 700 shots during the match, and purged them down to less than 100. I was simply not happy with most of them.

I'd purge even more. Not because the images aren't good, but because few people have the patience to go through a hundred very similar images of one game. For a Facebook album of the same event I'd pick the 20 to 30 best images. That way people also get an impression of even higher quality, because you are only showing your very best results - it's what every Pro does, only show the best and hide all the mediocre images. During my year in Ghana I took over 7,000 images, of which maybe one- or two-hundred are decent, and only 18 made it into the portfolio on my website.

Other than that, I agree with the rest of the bunch. The images are very good (you captured some great action), but I'd ease up a little on the saturation/contrast/clarity/luminance.

[stevebrot]

If you like contrasty and saturated pictures that's your thing entirely. That said, this one: https://www.facebook.com/nevillebaileyphotos/photos/a.1484613821835309.10737...type=3&theater and similar look like fake HDR. I think he was talking about these.

Yes, that one looks a little surreal, almost like a composite.


Steve