Photo ethics question

While at a ski resort, I observed a photographer set up and shoot an action skiing shot for an equipment client. There was a stylist to insure the ski suit fit just right, some people holding lights, reflectors etc and they had light fluffy snow piles built so when the skier skied through them they would burst just so making an exceptional image. Now when this image was published I am sure the casual observer was amazed at the shot wondering why he/she could not capture such an image.
My question is this: I have been trying to get that great football shot of the receiver going up for the pass just out of reach of the defender. It has alluded me so far in the 4 HS games I have attempted to photograph.
Can't I just get some players together and set up the shot like the advertising photographer did with the skier? True it won't be a photojournalist reality shot. But with everything being "Photoshopped" these days what is reality anyway?
JS

It's just not the same. Part of the rush of sports photography is getting the shot without faking it. Timing is a big part of being a successful sports photographer. Post this on the Sports forum, and I'm sure the guys over there will say the same thing.

I sort of know that but I was just getting philosophical.
JS

Truth is, it depends on what you plan to use it for. You you were planning on passing it off as a "Live Event" shot, then I wouldn't suggest doing it. If you're using it for editorial purposes, then there's nothing wrong with it IMHO.

L8r,

This is certainly an ethical issue.

If I'm shooting editorially (i.e. to provide news/action images to a newspaper/magazine), the only 'changes' I make to the image are related to exposure (i.e. to better reflect what the viewer would have seen at the time) and cropping* (i.e. to remove 'dead space').

You may indeed influence what the viewer sees via choice of angle and focal length - but staging, cloning and similar practices are a bridge too far. If 'the moment' has eluded me then I'm just going to have to live with it - and work out how to capture it better the next time round.

... * and even cropping could change the context of an image if it removes important participants.

Have a read of this as well: http://www.epuk.org …rner/profession​alism.html I suppose the key is not to harm your own reputation or (as importantly) your client's reputation by providing a 'dubious' image.

---- Gavin

Like Gmen said it is an ethical issue, most definately. Contarary to what rigrider said, which I am sure he meant something other than editorial when he said,

in an editorial application it would get you two things. 1. Fired or reprmanded. 2. A reputation for falsifying an image.


In the example as originally posted, this was more than likely and advertising application. The goal in this would be to get the most compelling image to show the peak action to enhance the product. When you look at an ad you don't thnk if the image is an actual happened shot or a staged shot. You expect it to be staged for the effects desired.
However when you read a newspaper, magazine or an online edition of a news/sports publication what you see is expected to be a realistic presentation of the event described. To use this image from a "created or staged" image is against all ethics of journalism.

Remember the image shot by AP photographer Al Diaz of Alian Gonzalez hiding in a closet being held by some guy as police opened the door to find the two hiding. With guns at the ready, as they didn't know what to expect when the door opened, it was a realistic example of what happened. The reader can take one look at this photo and see what happened without even reading the caption. Now if Diaz had taken a shot of the officers opening a door, guns at the ready to find nothing. Then he took a shot of the man holding the kid as he was being removed from the house, cut them out and added them to the image of the cops opening the door, that wouldn't depict any sort of what really happened. Assuming that they found the kid sleeping in a bedroom and the man gathered him up to turn him over to authorities. In the latter case it would be falsifying an image. It didn't happen that way and any photographer who turned that in would be fired on the spot as soon as it was revealed that that is not what actually happened.

You can TAKE any photograph you wish (The "Flag Raising on Iwo Jima" was staged for crying out loud!), but what you do with it is the issue.

If you frame it and sell it as a "sports/action" shot, no problem. If the maker of the sports equipment wants it for advertising, no problem. In those cases you are just presenting it without claim. If you posted it with the caption "Johnson outreaches McNabb to snag the game winning touchdown in the final seconds last thursday.", well then, you are making a false claim. THAT then is a lie.

Just remember, if the great shots were easy to get, everyone would get them.

My take is that for what you want, in the manner you you seem to want it, 4 games is nowhere near enough. 4 seasons of games would be more like it. If I get 5 shots a year worthy of a frame, it has been a GREAT year.

Rad

Perhaps I'm confused over definitions here then.

I've always thought the term "editoirial" photography was used for dipictions of events as opposed to photojournalism, which is photography OF actual events.

If I am incorrect in my definitions, then I apologize. I didn't mean to give an impression that it was ok to "Pass off" a set up as a live event.

L8r,

It's rather like modern art - it's the reasoning why a piece was created, that is the real story behind it.

Otherwise, get the best shot in your ability. There is no point in submitting a poor second-rate shot that will never see the light of day, if you can stage a stunner.

Morally, you could spend your life waiting for the shot you see in your minds eye. It may eventually happen, but if you stage it, you are only cheating time.

Just don't fake it to make it say something that is patently not true - like Manchester City winning the cup!!!

Graham

I think the key here is that the ski shot was for a sports equipment advertisement. It was not going to be presented as an actual skiing event.

"Editorial" refers to photos used to ilustrate non-fiction reportage, whether it be live news or "How-to". Staging a shot as originally posted would only be acceptable for editorial purposes if it was for an article about setting up shots for commercial use. In any event, it would need to be clearly identified as a staged/posed shot.

The flag-raising on Iwo Jima actually happened twice. The original shot was by a Navy Photographer's Mate, IIRC (I believe it was caught on 16 mm movies - whether too or only, I can't recall). Joe Rosenthal's later, more famous, shot was of a second, larger, flag being raised to replace the first. The second flag was visible over the entire island, IIRC.

If you're staging a shot, using the team members, and planning on putting it in the local newspaper, then, of course, there are ethical considerations.

However, if you're just trying to stage the shot to create the emotions associated with such an image, I say go for it.

Technically I'd consider the staged shot almost like a portrait setting vs. a candid shot.

For me stuff like this is perfectly fine... when it's not editorial. For editorial I guess we all know what rules are. For everything else there's just simply no rules at all. I did quite few shoots for clients who wanted photos for different things, from advertising to their own posters or cards. And those photos need to look perfect, which means usually you can't do it between the race for numerous reasons. So I do it out of race time. With that I can control light, I can be whereever I want to be, not where race officials mark photographers zones, and I can make skier or whoever I'm shooting to pass by forever, not just once or twice as he would during race. So is this staging? Definitely! Is it allowed? For commercial photo definitely... at least in my mind. On the other side... do those Playboy models just lie on beach and photographer got lucky to be there at that time? If so, I would really like to get info where that beach is
I guess we all stage something no matter what we shoot. Some people might even say using flash is staging, so if it's not editorial shoot I just don't bother about this.