Is there such a thing as going too far in editing?

[klfatcj]

I'm echoing some of the sentiments here, hopefully adding something. I really think it comes down to what the intent of the picture is.

If one is trying to show what a great picture they took, adding a key element is wrong - you missed it, therefor not as great a shot. Editing out distracting elements is sort of okay, but, some of the skill is setting yourself up ahead of time and being aware of the distracting elements. Of course, you are often limited to where you can position yourself, so not necessarily cheating to clone things out.

If one is using it as journalism, as in the example above regarding a missed call, you simply can't do it. If you had actually got the perfect shot, there is occassionally the chance that it proves the ref was right, despite what you thought you saw (I get that videoing my kids sports - positive the ref blew the call - review it and realize they were right - once in a while ... ). Won't get into what print journalists do in bending a story - just can't allow it with pics.

If it is to sell/give a player or their family, I don't see a big problem with adding or movinga ball, especially if it is just moving it closer in the frame. In this case, the photo is not there to show the skill of the photographer, it is to show the player.Changes may add context and reflect what actually happened. Portraits with soft focus lenses, makeup and good lighting are really not that different. They are all cheats in a way, not reflecting harsh reality.

If it is to develop a portfolio, show both. Then one can judge skills both as a photographer and post-processor.

Kevin

[The Barbarian]

Had it been in a controversial match, it also would have provided a greater focus on the referee's error in not calling the foul, which would have resulted in a penalty kick. However, it also would have been providing stronger evidence of the blown call than actually existed.

This is one of the reasons that an A&D committee will not review photos of a game in a hearing.

I hope no one was as offended by being "fooled" as some appear to have been, by a cloned in ball. I'd have to agree that a journalist shouldn't alter photos, but not all of us are journalists, or aspire to be one. I, for example, don't sell any photos, and don't plan to.

That particular photograph was for a grandparent, BTW. I have to admit, I'm a bit surprised by the reaction of a few people.I supposeit would have been different if I hadn't mentioned that I cloned in the ball and cloned out people.

Didn't think it was that much of an issue.On the other hand, it gave some vent to different ideas aboutchanging photographs, and maybe made everyone examine theirassumptionsaboutphotography and sports.

Which is probably a good thing. Carry on.

[airbrushjohn]

a very interesting read!

i am very new to photography! iunderstand everyone's posts. the only thing that i can add is, that i always try to get the shot as natural as possible. i am terrible at ps. and if you look at the pic again, the goalie's eyes are looking higher than where the ball is placed, so really the actuall ball was higher. if the folks bought the picture and they were happy, thats all that matters. to me and i maybe wrong or just have a different view of photography, since digital has come along, you can 100s of pics to get the best shot with out ps.

but i do understand ps is just like the film days where you had little tricks to get the picture to look the way you wanted. but to me sports shold be just the pic that was captured, no ps magic. there are so many different settings on these new cameras, that sometimes you need a rocketscience masters degree to figure them out!! hahahahahahahahahaha

here is one i lucked out and caught!