[Recovered Thread: 118754]

[pagerboy]

I think it looks ok but maybe would have kept the players in the back since it doesn't look real.

[vIZnquest]

Post processing is personal preference but the photograph captured in the sports arena is to convery the action as it is happening and/or happened.

You capatured a great action shot of the keeper sans the actual ball that was in play. Clearly not part of the capture. Missed that part but, then added it. Hmmm.

Hashing about it akin to exposure and lighting is just justifying your action in adding what was missed in the actual capture.

Dishonest no matter how you want to justify what you did to create a shot for comment on what in essence is a fake. It was not mentioned or stated and I guess you wanted to see if your post process skills would be passable enough to justify your choosing to add an element to the action shot.

This shot looks good with ball added I will give it that but under the circumstances in which it was created and then not even mentioned in the post, I give it a resounding, "thumbs down".

I do enjoy your futbol, voetball, calcio, football (soccer) shots but this one. "Nuff said" by me already.

[bluesman graham]

To follow Johns new thread, i have to agree that modern digital technology makes misrepresenting a pic very easy, however, it is not a new phenomenon!! when i working with a press agency, we would sometimes have to leave a football game sometimes after only 20 minuets to get back to the darkroom and dev the films then print up any descent shots to wire down to the papers in London. Sometimes i would have a pin sharp pic but no ball:sad:, then on occasions as time is of an Essenes, i would "cut" a ball from another pic and selotape it in a convenient spot to the original pic and send it down the wire!!, hay presto a perfect shot ready for the morning papers. This procedure was by no means uncommon among agency's working to very tight deadlines, however having said all this i do agree that with modern technology the faking of a pic should be left back in the "darkroom" ages. i have never doctored a digital image in this way, and never will. Anywaywith 10 fps canons with 100 pic bursts, if you now miss the ball you should throw the towel in anyway!:lol:! Kind regards Graham

[vIZnquest]

bluesman graham wrote:

Anywaywith 10 fps canons with 100 pic bursts, if you now miss the ball you should throw the towel in anyway!:lol:! Kind regards Graham

Not everyone is able to have this type of camera and have to work within what they can acquire. I am sure this is in jest but I am not much for the "machine gun" style shooting that has become quite the norm in "sports photography". I guess if you have to make a living at it then that is what you have to do.

It is all in the matter of what it is that you want and what you can afford, time and place has alot to do with it as well. Some can get access to prime shooting positions while others are relegated to the stands. In that case, it doesn't matter much what equipment you have.

[Mark1616]

vIZnquest wrote:

Not everyone is able to have this type of camera and have to work within what they can acquire. I am sure this is in jest but I am not much for the "machine gun" style shooting that has become quite the norm in "sports photography". I guess if you have to make a living at it then that is what you have to do.

Machine gun shooting is not always going to work unless you have 8.5fps + anyway in a lot of situations. Lets take volleyball for example which I have been doing quite a bit of recently. With 5fps if you don't get the right shot on the release of the shutter then the next on will be missing the ball so machine gun is not going to work on all but the fastest cameras. If you have a tool like that then you are likely to be pro and you will need to get the shot at all costs and the technology is really going to help but there is still a lot of skill there.

BTW I would love the new 1D LOL.

[musket]

Great action shot well portrayed