Little League - Attempt #2

[gidoc]

Thanks for the input on th elast posting. Here is my favorite from the last Little League game. Last shot with XTI, Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS.

http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk131/gidoc/Baseball/MarlinsAngels_0005_edited-1.jpg

[HughJ]

Nice shot, but he's swinging at high pitches.

[Sittingshooter]

Gidoc, I saw that your image editing was on so I had a quick go at it. Just a little clone and crop. I am a newbie to PP and only have Elements 2.0 but this took me about 3 minutes to do. I am sure many here could do much better.

[carpenter]

Gidoc, I saw that your image editing was on so I had a quick go at it. Just a little clone and crop. I am a newbie to PP and only have Elements 2.0 but this took me about 3 minutes to do. I am sure many here could do much better.

I like the original better. You brought a tree that was not at the fence (which also made a black mark on the batter's leg), up to the fence and removed the shadow from his pants which I thought was rather neat.

[TiKTaC]

Good image considering the lens you used and the direct sunlight. Hope you don't mind but I played with the image also taking out the trash can and bike. Looked like fun to try. ;)

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g124/TiK-TaC/MarlinsAngels_0005_edited-1.jpg

[dmwierz]

FYI, you guys playing around with the clone tool are on a slippery slope, editorially, and pretty much any reputable photographer will not be OK with doing this.

The shot is OK - the background is horrible, though. The way to deal with this is to move further up or down the base line, NOT in post processing.

[tim1960]

Can you explain "on a slippery slope" with the clone tool? I'm not sure I understand why it's not OK to clone out some things espcially "clutter"?

[Joe Cyr]

Kudos to Dennis here!

It's the job of the phographer to take the photo as is. Not just snap and say, 'Oh, I'll edit that out later in photoshop.' For your own personal photos, I guess it's fine. But you are not presenting an image the way it was intended to be seen. The slippery slope is, whats next? Clone a ball closer to the bat? People lose their jobs for faking photos. This is to the extreme of course an does not apply here. "Fixing" photos for your own use is fine though.

[Sledhed]

Dennis is talking about selling photos for editorial and commercial purposes, and he is correct. If the prints are for yourself and not other use, clone away.

[penodr]

Dennis is talking about selling photos for editorial and commercial purposes, and he is correct. If the prints are for yourself and not other use, clone away.
I disagree, the only time an editted photo is wrong to use is if it is sent to a news agency or is used where it could reasonably be viewed as a photo of something that is historical. You can take this picture and edit out the trashcan and sell it to the parents. If you can not edit photos used for commercial purposes then every ad agency in the world would be out of business. Everything from models, to food, to tourist ads are edited. Also if you can't edit out a trashcan in the background is it not ok to use noise reduction, sharpening, or saturation functions in CS3 or Lightroom, these change the actual photo. People get in trouble when the take a picture of a war zone and clone in a child that apprears to be in the middle of a firefight when they were not there. Its the changing of the photo and being dishonest about it. They lie because the Post will not buy and print a picture that the photographer says has been edited for ethical reasons.

Sorry to jump up on my soap box but editing photos in an artistic way is a valid way of producing an image, you just have to be honest about it.

Dave

[dmwierz]

OK, guys, do whatever you want. As for the argument, I doubt anyone could post anything here that hasn't already been written elsewhere.

Trust me, though, this is the very epitome of a slippery slope - once you start, where do you stop? Cloning out a trash can? Cloning out people in the background? Adding eyes to a player whose eyes are shut? Moving or pasting in a ball?

I'm not gonna engage in this debate, as there have been hundreds of similar discussions here and more pointedly, on SportsShooter. People smarter and more articulate than I have offered both sides of the argument, so PLEASE let's not do it again here.

Suffice it to say, if you shot for me (even kids stuff) and I found out you were mod'ing your shots like this, you had BETTER have a bullet-proof reason or I'll be looking for a new shooter.

Besides, when you shoot 3,000 images in a day (not unusual for a day's worth of covering kids sports), you don't have the time to do stuff like this - get it right when you shoot it!

Peace out.

[FZ1dave]

get it right when you shoot it!

Alot easier said than done, especially for us amateurs.

If I wanna make a garbage can disappear in post, I will. :lol:

Are you saying you've never done something similar?

[dmwierz]

Alot easier said than done, especially for us amateurs.

If I wanna make a garbage can disappear in post, I will. :lol:

Are you saying you've never done something similar?

From my post:

OK, guys, do whatever you want.

I'm not telling anyone what to do - just stating my opinion.

Dave, of course I've played around with the clone tool (and other PS tools). And, as Chris said, for personal use, it's common for it to be considered acceptable, but this is where the slippery slope comes into play. You practice your "skills", then you have the chance to shoot for real, and you have this shot that would be great, if only it had a ball in it, or didn't have someone's legs sticking out from behind a banner, and next thing you know, you're sliding down that slope...Far fetched? I don't think so.

http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2007/04/toledo03.html

http://www.talkingphotography.com/archive/2007/notCreative.htm

http://snorrigunnarsson.com/2007/09/04/photojournalism-on-steroids/

And your comment about it being "easier said than done" is EXACTLY why it shouldn't be done. Learn how to shoot properly, how to frame the shot correctly; how to seek a cleaner background by repositioning yourself; how to expose your shots appropriately, etc., etc....fight the temptation to take the "easy" way out by "fixing it in post".

Or not...

[penodr]

From my post:

http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2007/04/toledo03.html

http://www.talkingphotography.com/archive/2007/notCreative.htm

http://snorrigunnarsson.com/2007/09/04/photojournalism-on-steroids/



Completely irrevalent, this falls into the news photos should not be editied or don't lie when you edit. If he had told them before they printed that he edited out the legs he would still have a job. They may have asked for the unedited photo but he would still have a job.

There are, in my view, two points of view. The first is the belief that you take a photo and do all the "work" before you press the shutter, the second is the belief that you may edit photos when producing art. Both are valid points of view. Go look up any number of Ansel Adams photos and you are looking at an edited photo. Not a digitally edited photo but a darkroom photo none the less. If the Photoshop tools were for personal use only there would not be the huge demand in the ad field for Photoshopped skills. Check out any McDonalds, Burger King ad you like they are edited photos and they are not for personal use.

We are not trying to make you shoot any differently, you have the right to shoot anyway you like and to demand that anyone you hire to follow the same rules. However your view of how photography should be done does not give you the right to tell other people that their photos are unethical. Unless I'm wrong the only place you ever see people losing their job is in edited news photos, they might lose their job for a bad job at editing an ad but that's a skill issue not an ethical one.

There is no "slippery slope" when you are honest about it. If I take a picture of a kid playing soccer and attempt to sell the photo to the parents with the understanding that the trashcan on the sidelines was edited out and give them the choice to buy the unedited photo there is nothing wrong with that and my guess is that the one without the trashcan we be sold everytime.

Dave

[dmwierz]

Dave - We've gotten WAY off thread here, and I swore I wouldn't get pulled into this (again), but what the heck. You have totally missed my point, and I'm not surprised, 'cuz it happens all the time. I often wonder whether I just need to shut up and go away...yet I find myself coming back here over and over. I guess I just can't keep my big mouth shut when I see people (especially beginners) getting steered in what I judge to be the wrong way, or I feel the need to offer an alternative opinion to discussions to attempt to get people to consider a different perspective or to actually THINK about what they are doing and why they are doing it.

Some people are threatened by this, like I'm telling them they or their opinions are wrong, and if this happens, I'm sorry for how they interpret my statements, but I'm not sorry for having an opinion and stating it publicly.

I NEVER accused anyone of being unethical (The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks) nor am I telling people what to do (how many times do I have to say this?). I am only stating my opinion and endeavoring to get people to open their eyes and consider learning how to accomplish their goals without resorting to digital tricks. Some things can only be done in post processing, but often it is clear these images have been manipulated and all who view them know this.

Obviously the Detrich discussion is extreme, but it is NOT irrelevant any more than studying early American history is irrelevant to trying to understand current day politics.

I think it's time for me to take a hiatus from this board. I find myself at odds with more and more people herein. Either POTN is changing, or I am.

There is no "slippery slope" when you are honest about it. If I take a picture of a kid playing soccer and attempt to sell the photo to the parents with the understanding that the trashcan on the sidelines was edited out and give them the choice to buy the unedited photo there is nothing wrong with that and my guess is that the one without the trashcan we be sold everytime.


Seems a bit Machiavellian, no? In other words, because it sells it must be right? Great - I'll add a ball to every one of my batter shots whether one was there in the real photo or not! I'll clone in an Umpire giving the "Safe" sign to add drama. I'll remove the annoying coaches in frame (or the annoying other people's kids) in order to make the shot more appealing. And because these images might sell better, these are the right things to do? Do the purchasers know these images have been manipulated? If no, you are intentionally deceiving them, and I could not disagree with this practice any more than I do.

Look, I shoot a LOT of youth sports (much more most folks around here, I would guess) and pro and college stuff, and I never, ever kludge images like this. Sure, I'll sharpen and adjust levels, straighten horizons, crop for effect, but when I am taking an action shot (all the way from kids to pros) the action shown what the action was - the photo is a factual representation of what occurred at the time the shutter was mashed, or as close as I can get to it. I don't add nor subtract anything which will change how the event is perceived to have transpired by the viewer.

If all you're doing is taking pictures of your kid this is one thing. When you are selling or even giving these images to other people, then I feel a photographer has the responsibility of being honest with what they are selling.

In a studio or T&I environment, it's obvious you're setting up an image that is posed, and as such, a little digital trickery is usually OK - air brushes and dodging and burning have been done for years.

Action shots are entirely different IMO. What is presented in the photo needs to be what actually occurred, including presenting the environment, defects and all. If anyone thinks it's different for youth or editorial images, or if "just" removing a trash can, or a person's legs is OK, then IMO they're on the slippery slope and they don't even know it.

It's getting more and more difficult to be a sports photographer, for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is how many prospective customers have their own decent cameras. Imagine if your customers found out (or even if you tell them) that the way you're able to get such great shots is by post-processing trickery. How many would say "Shoot, even I can do that. I can take a picture with MY camera and add or subtract stuff with my computer. I though your were actually that good at taking photos, not just good with a computer".

Again, think about it. I'm not asking anyone to agree with me - just to think about it.

[penodr]

I NEVER accused anyone of being unethical (The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks)

I feel that you implied it very heavly.



Obviously the Detrich discussion is extreme, but it is NOT irrelevant any more than studying early American history is irrelevant to trying to understand current day politics.

But using a episode of the news being unethical to explain your point when its already been estiblished that news editing is wrong is, irrevalent in my view.


I think it's time for me to take a hiatus from this board. I find myself at odds with more and more people herein. Either POTN is changing, or I am.

That would be a shame since you do seem to posses a great skill for photography, looking at some of your incredible baseball photos.


Seems a bit Machiavellian, no? In other words, because it sells it must be right?

There is much in the art world that I personally think is way overpriced and mundane, the famous three painted squares painting for one. But I realize that art is subjective and has a right to exist.



Great - I'll add a ball to every one of my batter shots whether one was there in the real photo or not!

I have never condoned that.


Do the purchasers know these images have been manipulated? If no, you are intentionally deceiving them, and I could not disagree with this practice any more than I do.

Once again being honest is the key issue here.


Sure, I'll sharpen and adjust levels, straighten horizons, crop for effect,

How is cropping out the soccer player 5 feet away charging the main subject any different the cropping out the trashcan 30 yards away and off the field?


It's getting more and more difficult to be a sports photographer, for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is how many prospective customers have their own decent cameras. Imagine if your customers found out (or even if you tell them) that the way you're able to get such great shots is by post-processing trickery. How many would say "Shoot, even I can do that. I can take a picture with MY camera and add or subtract stuff with my computer. I though your were actually that good at taking photos, not just good with a computer".

Agree 100%


Again, think about it. I'm not asking anyone to agree with me - just to think about it.

I have thought about your point of view. I have had another separate discussion with a purist who could not understand why I was not a purist like him. He feels that on camera devices are ok, ie. fliters but digital changing of the file is bad. It seems now that I have let that disagreement slip over into this one, for that I'm sorry.

It seems that in my old age my ability to convey my thoughts in writting are not nearly as good as my ablity to talk to someone. I think that if we sat down and discussed this over a beer we would be closer than we appear to be. Actually if your ever in the Northern VA area let me know and I'll buy you a beer and pick your brain on how to make the pictures I take of my daughter and her team playing soccer better.

Dave

[FZ1dave]

You practice your "skills", then you have the chance to shoot for real, and you have this shot that would be great, if only it had a ball in it, or didn't have someone's legs sticking out from behind a banner, and next thing you know, you're sliding down that slope...Far fetched? I don't think so.

From the links you provided apparently not, but believe me I've had hundreds of chances to insert the missing ball into a photo and would never think of actually doing it. Removing background clutter, maybe, but I've never actually done that either. I believe you should try to keep a photo as true to original as you can.

But, to say cropping for effect is okay, but removing a trash can in the background isn't, that's a tad hypocritical. Both methods are manipulation for a better final product.

And your comment about it being "easier said than done" is EXACTLY why it shouldn't be done. Learn how to shoot properly, how to frame the shot correctly; how to seek a cleaner background by repositioning yourself; how to expose your shots appropriately, etc., etc....fight the temptation to take the "easy" way out by "fixing it in post".

Oh I try believe me. I'm a work in progress. :lol:

[dmwierz]

But, to say cropping for effect is okay, but removing a trash can in the background isn't, that's a tad hypocritical. Both methods are manipulation for a better final product.

I disagree 100%! Cropping changes nothing in the image - it adds nothing and subtracts nothing that was in the original scene. It's the same as zooming in or out with a zoom lens or moving closer or farther away to frame the shot or shoot tighter or looser.

On the other hand, cloning and other digital manipulation changes the actual image itself, and turns the image from actual to a fabrication IMO. When you clone, etc., you are changing the actual pixels themselves and the items which are displayed in your image, not just cropping out items you don't want to include.

FWIW, I am not a pure purist (if that's a real term). As I said, I will edit an image, and will even use the Healing Tool to remove egregious sensor dust spots (on the images submitted to pro-level wire services - I normally don't have time to do this on thousands of images taken during a day of youth shooting) but I will say that whatever I do is only an attempt to have the image represent as close to the actual scene as I can make it appear - nothing more, nothing less.

If I'm not mistaken, a modern digital camera spans maybe 7 stops of dynamic range. A typical outdoor scene can range from 3 to 12 stops of dynamic range from dark shadow to bright sunlight. A human eye is somewhere around an astounding 24 stops (not my numbers - taken from someone a lot smarter than me), so we sometimes have to perform an editing task or two to have the image appear as close to reality as the technology (including the camera, the display media and the computer itself) will allow. Again, IMO, this does not include adding or taking anything away from the image.

And BTW, I will contend that action shots of kids ARE news images. They are capturing a "newsworthy" event in the life of that child.

If you want to manipulate and fabricate, shoot T&I and you'll be right in tune with what is expected. You manipulate the light; the shadows; the pose; the props; the background; the reflections off a forehead; the way the uniform fits or looks; sometimes people have you remove zits or other blemishes...but in this case, as in the product and food photographs mentioned above, everybody KNOWS what is being done. We all know the Quarter Pounder you see in the magazine advert looks nothing like what you see when you go to lunch. We all KNOW Glamour Shots show people as they don't actually appear every day, etc., etc.

[Dreamer14]

Dmwierz,
I must say you have opened my eyes to some things I didn't know, Thank you. I agree with your views.

[FZ1dave]

I disagree 100%! Cropping changes nothing in the image - it adds nothing and subtracts nothing that was in the original scene.

Nothing is subtracted? Apparently we're not talking about the same thing.

First pic- original "scene"
Second pic- cropped

To say nothing was subtracted from the original scene is flat out wrong. While no pixels were manipulated (other than resizing/sharpening), there were certainly some that were subtracted.

[dmwierz]

To say nothing was subtracted from the original scene is flat out wrong. While no pixels were manipulated (other than resizing/sharpening), there were certainly some that were subtracted.

Dave - Why not take the time to READ my post before telling me I'm wrong? Of course some portions of your image are removed or added when you crop an image (or zoom a field of view), but you didn't bother to read what I wrote before you rushed off and slammed out your reply AND your judgment of what I had said.

Cropping changes nothing in the image - it adds nothing and subtracts nothing that was in the original scene.

On the other hand, cloning and other digital manipulation changes the actual image itself, and turns the image from actual to a fabrication IMO. When you clone, etc., you are changing the actual pixels themselves and the items which are displayed in your image, not just cropping out items you don't want to include.


The operative word here is the scene, as in what was in front of you at the moment you took the shot.

And BTW, Dave, a person's opinion is neither wrong nor right. It is simply their opinion.

Some of youse who are interested in broadening your horizons might want to go to the SportsShooter message board


and do a search of the messages with the words "ethics photoshop". Then take the time read and open your mind a little. Like I said above, people a lot smarter and more articulate than I already have said most of what can be said on the topic.

[MJPhotos24]

Dennis, careful banging your head against the brick wall...I had a response worked out but then just x'd out and said why bother, to many people don't like to listen anyways.

[Cadwell]

I'm not gonna engage in this debate, as there have been hundreds of similar discussions here and more pointedly, on SportsShooter. People smarter and more articulate than I have offered both sides of the argument, so PLEASE let's not do it again here.

A pity none of you decided to stick to that... This thread is not the place to discuss photo editing ethics. Please get back to the business of discussing what a nice photo the OP posted...

Moderator.