« Contest Update (and Prizes!) | Main | Title: Most Awkward Title »

Monday, 12 August 2013

Comments

Cool but more a matter of luck than any talent or skill - other than being a good enough sports tog to be working the venue with proper gear. I don't see the photo having staying power, more that it's a flash in the pan (sorry).

Which he "took" with a trackside remote. I'm wondering, if he'd had the camera in his hands maybe he would have chosen a better angle, etc etc

I think the best part of the shot is the photogs far side trying to beat Bolt to the finish line

I read earlier about the amount of work required before and during the meet in order to cover it. Without the work there would have been no lucky picture.

Why is there the same bolt of lightning in two different photos?
[There were five remote cameras. --Mike]

Mike, the two photos were taking with the same camera. no?

A great stroke of luck. I have to say however, that I don't like the way the images have been processed. Splotchy over-saturation and excessive contrast in a scene that would really be helped by opening up those shadows. I supposed it's a matter of taste, but I'm surprised at those choices.

About the same amount of luck as the fastest human on the planet being named Bolt.

Is this the competition winner?

I fail to see how the remote trigger or the "luck" diminishes the shot in any way. Morin lucked out, but you can't ignore the skill and pre-race prep that helped him be ready for just that stroke of luck.

Call it "luck" or "divine intervention", but this is a fantastic photo. And the fact that the shot was remotely taken, in no way diminishes it. As anyone doing photography knows, "being lucky" requires a lot of preparation. Besides, a lot of great shots today in sports (or animal life) are taken with remotely triggered cameras.

To those who are impressed by all the prep work, wasn't it Ctein who said "no-one cares how hard you worked to get the shot?" (or something like that)

[But don't forget the corollary, which is that you still have to work hard enough to get the shot. --Mike]

For me, the key element in the success of this photo is the placement of Bolt's head, smack in the pale square of the advertising hoarding. Anywhere else in this frame just doesn't work as well. With the remote triggering, though, can the photographer take full credit for that? I genuinely don't know.

[Well, of course he can, except insofar as you can't take credit for anything that works in any photograph that works. I mean, can you take credit for a cloud or an expression or the color of a flower? He set up the camera, took multiple exposures, and picked the one that worked best. Of course, serendipity plays a part—witness the point of the post, the lightning bolt. But serendipity plays a part in a great many photographs. Without it, photography would hardly be photography. --Mike]

Dear Richard,

I gotta give credit where credit is due-- It was Bob Nadler who said that. I just quoted him.

To the credit of the photographer, when you read his description of the event on the AFP website, it doesn't come across at all as, "Look at how clever and hard-working I was," but more properly, "Boy did I get lucky!"

Luck favors the prepared, but he's not making a big deal over that, just how fortunate he was to get an unexpected bonus.

pax / Ctein

The comments to this entry are closed.