| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Must be some newfangled camera..............
Kevin Clifford, Student/Intern, Photographer
 |
Reno | NV | United States | Posted: 12:23 AM on 07.28.08 |
->> "This class will discuss what images are considered “killer sports images” and what the necessary elements in these images are to make them successful."
or how to Photoshop them to make them killer? LAME |
|
Delane B. Rouse, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Washington | DC | US | Posted: 12:30 AM on 07.28.08 |
->> Robert....that's a classic!!! I gotta get me a camera like that.
But seriously...there was no need to move the ball AND it's just bad. |
|
Marc F. Henning, Photographer
 |
Bentonville | AR | USA | Posted: 12:41 AM on 07.28.08 |
->> Lucy! You got some splainin' to do.
kidding aside, i hope this is a case where the doctoring was done without our fellow SS member's knowledge. wouldn't be the first time. the photo already had legs of its own. not necessary.
marc |
|
Rod Mar, Photographer
 |
Seattle | WA | USA | Posted: 1:07 AM on 07.28.08 |
->> Robert,
That's simply amazing.
What an AMAZING coincidence -- and an AMAZING photographer -- to be able to get three "virtually identical" frames from different at-bats.
I've been photographing all this time and I've NEVER shot the SAME BATTER breaking his bat in the exact SAME POSITION three different times.
I mean, the only way that I know, and all of this photographer's prospective students would know they're from different at-bats is that the ball is in a different place in each frame!
They're different at-bats, right? Otherwise, the ball wouldn't be in different positions, right?
Right?
:) |
|
Ben Chen, Photographer
 |
Laguna Hills | CA | USA | Posted: 1:12 AM on 07.28.08 |
| ->> Hey, guys, the image I sent in for PJ use was the original unmodified image and also shown in the gallery. It is my believe I can Photoshop the image to make a better advertisement. Kind like when parents ask me to move the ball in youth sports in order make the photo more appealing. I apologize if you think this is beneath you. Ben |
|
Alan Stewart, Photographer
 |
Corydon | IN | USA | Posted: 1:14 AM on 07.28.08 |
| ->> At least it's the same ball. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
 |
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 1:29 AM on 07.28.08 |
->> Ben,
This is a serious question:
Are you joking?
I really want an answer.
--Mark |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
 |
Live HVN : Work SFO-NYC | | | Posted: 1:32 AM on 07.28.08 |
->> Folks,
What Ben is using the images for is not editorial work. His images are being used for marketing and advertising. In the realm of marketing and advertising the images standards are not the same as those in the editorial/newspaper realm.
When shooting for a news publication we have to abide by strict guidelines. Any variation from the basic rules of these ethics is unethical.
When using an image for advertising, or marketing, the rules for 'photographic truth' simply do not exist. When I shot for UMass Athletics I used to avoid looking at certain applications of my work because I hated that elements were added/removed from the photos. When I shot for Major League Lacrosse I was almost amazed at how sponsor logos would magically appear on lax sticks higher up on the shaft, because the logo may have been previously covered by tape. While I didn't do the editing, I understood my images were for ad and marketing purposes.
So, with Ben using the images for ad purposes what he is doing is fine. He is branding himself. He is selling himself, he is not saying the images are for newspaper use. The ball needed to be shifted to accommodate text, then he shifted the ball.
Ben is a fantastic sports photog. Anyone who knows his work knows this. However Ben has branched out away from newspaper/wire sports shooting and is doing what he has to do to drive income.
Let us not forget , this is a business, especially for the self-employed. |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
|
Live HVN : Work SFO-NYC | | | Posted: 1:34 AM on 07.28.08 |
->> Delane,
You have done work for leagues for years, you're telling me none of your images has ever been doctored by a league? I already know the answer to that one, so don't bother answering it. |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 1:37 AM on 07.28.08 |
| ->> Steven... If that's the case, Ben is selling a lie. He's selling his image as a "fantastic sports photog" on images he didn't actually produce. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 1:37 AM on 07.28.08 |
->> Steven,
He's marketing his abilities to teach sports photography. Even restaurants are forbidden to fake menu photos. It's called false advertising.
The editorial market is overrun with talented photographers. I want to know if a potential hire has "situational" ethics so I can move on to the next candidate.
--Mark |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
|
Live HVN : Work SFO-NYC | | | Posted: 1:50 AM on 07.28.08 |
->> Mark:
I tend to agree with 99% of what you say and I highly respect your opinion, your insight and your intellect. With that said, I think we may differ on how we view the use of Ben's images and 'situational ethics.'
Ben has done work for teams and leagues, as well as newspapers and magazine.
When a photographer works for a team/league or sponsor their needs are vastly different than those working for a newspaper/magazine.
When shooting for a team/league, my ethics are quite different for how I shoot than working for a news outlet. When shooting for a news outlet I shoot it all. I have no opinion, no sides, no preference. I shoot what I see without passion for one-side or another.
When I have shot for teams/leagues and sponsors, I was hired to make them 'look good.' This does not always happen in the shooting but it does happen in editing. I don't do 'doctoring.' Not only am I not interested it I also happen to suck at it and insist on having my clients outsource all of it (even when shooting totally set up corporate portraits).
I think Ben's situational image may push some boundaries but it is not outside the realm of accepted advertising photos. I want a car that can go anywhere, but don't believe my Explorer can do many of the things I see Ford doing with Explorers in some of their ads.
......and go find me a single edible Big Mac that looks anything like the one on the huge menu behind the cashier at McDs. |
|
Mike Brice, Photographer
 |
Toledo | OH | USA | Posted: 1:51 AM on 07.28.08 |
->> People taking the class should know that he only achieved those images through the use of Photoshop.
It is like taking a law class from someone who flunked the bar. |
|
Mark J. Terrill, Photographer
 |
Simi Valley | CA | USA | Posted: 1:54 AM on 07.28.08 |
| ->> So....let's see here Steven. Does that mean that I can manipulate my portfolio images? I mean I'm just selling myself, right? I guess the same would go for contests, right? After all, I'm just trying to get a job and win a contest, right. It's not editorial so why should ethics matter? Anyone see a pattern emerging here in the last few months? |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
|
Live HVN : Work SFO-NYC | | | Posted: 2:04 AM on 07.28.08 |
->> Mark (LA Mark),
No, I personally see an ethical line for portfolio images for news/editorial publications.
On the other hand look at the portfolios of many commercial photographers. Their images are heavily manipulated. The images they are create and designed to be manipulated.
If you are creating a portfolio of images that will be used for commercial clients, they want to see an 'end result.' These clients don't have an ethical boundary, they just want to see what you can produce,in camera or in computer.
If you are creating a portfolio for editorial purposes then any manipulation that goes beyond the NPPA Ethics or the AP Photo Stylebook (do they even have that anymore? it was a small book witha grey cover that dealt with the dos,don'ts and ethics of working in a digital medium) would be a huge no-no.
I think anyone who shoots any subject for newspapers/wires need to know and adhere to the ethics of truth-in-images as a mandatory guidelines.
Photogs obviously go back and forth depending on clients,but they must always be mindful of who their client is.
......and it's not a pattern I am encouraging. I'm just saying different situations and different clients have different photo manipulation ethics. |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 2:08 AM on 07.28.08 |
->> Steven...
Mark actually put it a lot kinder than I did, but we're still saying the same thing.
What Ben is doing is false advertising. I.e., lying. While you certainly have valid points on drawing distinctions between who your clients are, Ben is offering $1,500 workshops and using examples of his work to sell himself, but at least some of those images aren't real.
Additionally, he lists his work for a "premier sports newswire providing live content to editorial markets" among his credentials and therefore should adhere to editorial standards not only in his self-marketing but in his instruction. I don't know about the latter but he certainly isn't doing the former. |
|
Michael McNamara, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Phoenix | AZ | USA | Posted: 2:08 AM on 07.28.08 |
| ->> If Ben is going to be fast and loose with his photoshop ethics, then he shouldn't call himself a "photojournalist" in his bio. |
|
Ben Chen, Photographer
|
Laguna Hills | CA | USA | Posted: 2:13 AM on 07.28.08 |
->> Mark Loundy, as a freelance photographer, I always keep in mind whom I am working for on each job and what are expected from each client. For PJ work, it is clear that the images are not to be altered. For advertisement, I have photoshoped hundreds images for clients; it is not only OK to alter/enhance, it is expected as a professional that I am able to modify an image for the advertiser.
As for fake menu photos, ever heard of “Food Stylist”?
Mike, I do teach Photoshop in my Youth Sports classes so the students learn how to alter the images in order to make the parents happy.
Mark Terril, I want to say hi to you first before I defend myself. Once again, the photo was unmodified in my portfolio and in my online gallery; it is altered only for advertisement use.
To summarize, I see a clear distinction between PJ and Non-PJ use of the images as well as all the ethics go with each. To those of you that disagree with my view, I respect your opinions. Enough said. |
|
Mike Brice, Photographer
|
Toledo | OH | USA | Posted: 2:15 AM on 07.28.08 |
->> I guess there are a couple of things that bothers me with this photo and others like it. OK. Probably a lot more than a couple, but here are two.
1) When I go to an assignment like a game, I always look at what was published in other locations to see what other shooters captured. If the other shooter is cloning in a ball, well I might be feeling bad for missing that moment. But in reality, I didn't. That shooter created that moment through Photoshop.
2)It continues to set unreal expectations which tempts more and more people to violate ethics to create images to keep up with the other shooters.
Those who attend Ben's class will practice and shoot, and might not create an image like Ben has manufactured. Heck, Ben couldn't even create it. So it creates this steep hill for those to climb.
It would be one thing to be talking about this in the abstract, but I lived the last 15 years or so in Toledo and worked for a small weekly paper. Practicing and practicing. I then went to work at a couple smaller dailies as a reporter.
Sometimes I would get to shoot. I remember shooting with the D1 - wow, it was a brick, but it was nice not to have to develop film shot with the N90s.
Many times during those years, I would be at events covered by the large daily. One photographer - and I am sure you all remember - was fired for cloning in balls, hockey pucks, and who knows what else he cloned in and out.
So when I think back at those assignments, I have to wonder, did he get the shot, or did he manufacturer it.
I am not saying he isn't a great photographer. But there is more to creating a PJ image than almost and Photoshop.
I wonder how many other photographers looked at his work and thought the same thing. I was at that event and didn't capture that.
Until one finally did, and it all came crashing down.
Ben is selling the illusion that he can create those great sports images. He needs to be able to deliver the goods without Photoshop or come clean with his students. |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 2:23 AM on 07.28.08 |
->> Mike B. - The final sentence in your post is really all that needed to be said.
Ben... I really, really, really hope that in your Youth Sports class you explain that you don't manipulate your images shot for editorial clients. Not doing so and listing that you're an editorial shooter as part of your credentials, well, it would be no wonder our readers think photojournalists Photoshop everything. |
|
Mike Brice, Photographer
|
Toledo | OH | USA | Posted: 2:23 AM on 07.28.08 |
->> Ben,
The idea that you could not find another excellent sports photo to be used with the ad, but needed to alter this one to make it work with the text speaks to the depth of your portfolio.
Mike |
|
Jeffrey Furticella, Photographer, Assistant
 |
Munster | IN | US | Posted: 2:37 AM on 07.28.08 |
->> The inspiration for Ben's workshop must have struck him after attending one of Allan Detrich's workshops.
GRIN
- furt |
|
Rodrigo Pena, Photographer
 |
Palm Desert | CA | USA | Posted: 2:44 AM on 07.28.08 |
->> Ben I see where you are coming from. You are seperating advertorial work from editorial work from the same photographer. This is highly dangerous as you have come to learn. The photo in question does not have the background cut out or crazy glow effects on the ball or bat to make us think that this is an illustration. Thus, not adhering to editorial ethics has put you in a bind. This is the reason for ethics to exist in the first place. Ethics exist so that the public's trust in a photographer's images will remain intact. When one strays from the ethics as a few have done in the past, turmoil results.
I understand that you think this is a harmless photoshop tool to make your images better for your clients, but keep in mind your photos could be lying to the public who does not know that your photos are not real. When I looked at your image of the broken bat and the ball close to it, I looked for a "photo illustration by Ben Chen," but could not find one. |
|
Rich Cruse, Photographer
 |
Laguna Niguel | CA | USA | Posted: 2:54 AM on 07.28.08 |
->> Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. You either get it (the shot) or you don't. That is what makes the great photographers so great. They catch that one moment. They anticipate it and are ready to capture it and execute with precision. I remember seeing Robert Beck's recent photos of Tiger at the US Open. That is the type of photographer I aspire to be. One is a photograph, the other is a photo-illustration. Any manipulation of a sports action photo like baseball, should not be used to promote your photographic abilities, but can be used to show your PhotoShop abilities.
People depend on us to tell it like it is. Once you lose their trust by changing a key element, they won't believe you when you DO get the killer photo! All your credibility goes out the window. |
|
Scott Varley, Photographer
 |
Torrance | CA | USA | Posted: 2:54 AM on 07.28.08 |
->> After looking at Ben's photos on his site, I have to wonder which ones are truthful and which ones are not. Your entire collection of work now comes into question. If you changed one photo, and seem very comfortable doing it, then where does it end? The "original" was a good photo to start with. Live with the dead space between the broken bat and the ball and move on.
The thing that's amazing is that Ben has the "original" on his site and on another page of the same site, he has the altered image. Then, he gave Samy's a third image to use on their workshop site. How many altered images is enough. Are there other versions floating around.
Ben, stop monkeying with your photos. Rely on your actual photography skills to advertise yourself and your workshops. Not trickery. Or, instead, teach a Photoshop manipulation class instead of a sports photography class. Because if you're teaching people how to capture the best sports image, then adding balls to your photos, you're doing a real disservice to your clients. |
|
Mike Brice, Photographer
|
Toledo | OH | USA | Posted: 3:35 AM on 07.28.08 |
->> In the picture on Samy's site, there is no text. So why move the ball for that photo?
Also, since this is an advertising image now, would it need a model release and a license from MLB? |
|
Corey Perrine, Photographer
 |
Hudson | NH | USA | Posted: 4:33 AM on 07.28.08 |
->> "Mike, I do teach Photoshop in my Youth Sports classes so the students learn how to alter the images in order to make the parents happy."
Key problem: LEARN + ALTER + YOUTH SPORTS
Key problem justification: = PARENTS HAPPY
Ben,
Do you think $1,500 is a justifiable price to learn to be dishonest with a genre of photography that is meant to be truthful?
What's wrong with teaching people how to get it right in the camera?
What kind of message do you think this sends to the students? Parents? Viewers?
Let's say you are successful with these classes over time. Have you thought the kind of visual army you send out into the world? How it impacts our industry?
Do you see the ripple effect?
Curious,
Corey |
|
Wally Skalij, Photographer
 |
Los Angeles | CA. | USA | Posted: 4:49 AM on 07.28.08 |
->> Ben,
It baffles my imagination that you see no problem with your manipulated photo. Your advertising for a photo workshop so what kind of message are you sending? With all the sports you shoot you couldn't find a photo that would work for the ad?
I have to agree with Scott Varley and wonder about the rest of your work. It's too bad!
Wally |
|
Darrell Miho, Photographer
 |
Los Angeles : SFO : HNL | CA | usa | Posted: 5:04 AM on 07.28.08 |
->> while i understand the different needs of editorial, corporate and advertising clients, the reason i have a problem with the image intent of the image and the perception of the viewer.
while ads can be heavily altered, the general public knows that and accepts that. no one expects the big mac that they eat will look as perfect and beautiful as what they see in the ads or the in-store signage.
with the workshop photo however, the general public will think that the photo in question is an actual photo as it came out of the camera, which it has obviously been proven that it is not.
it doesn't matter to me that it is an advertisement. what matters is the expectations of the viewer. this is an advertisement for a sports photography workshop that is supposed to teach you how to take better photos. the viewer EXPECTS this to be an original photo but it is not. this photo is not the original photo and it is intentionally misleading.
what i find absurd is the fact that the photographer is justifying this and trying to hide behind the veil of "advertising". the problem with a veil is it is thin and weak and we can see right through it.
BEN: i have given you much advise in the past and i would like to give you one more piece of advice, change the photo. with as many hours that you have spent reading everything on this site, you should have known that this would not go over well.
how do you expect to gain the respect of your students, peers and clients if they know you doctor your photos? if they know you doctored one, they will question them all. even if you wouldn't doctor a photo for news, any editor that hires you (that is if any will anymore) now will question every photo you submit, simply because they know you can and they know you will.
your honor and reputation are only as strong as the trust that others have in you. |
|
Darrell Miho, Photographer
|
Los Angeles : SFO : HNL | CA | usa | Posted: 5:08 AM on 07.28.08 |
->> EDIT: sorry, a couple words were missing in the first line.
while i understand the different needs of editorial, corporate and advertising clients, the reason i have a problem with the image is the intent of the image and the perception of the viewer.
i now return you to your regularly scheduled programming. |
|
Michael Proebsting, Photographer
 |
Barrington | IL | USA | Posted: 8:22 AM on 07.28.08 |
->> Frischling,
Why don't you see if Ben is available to be the photo editor for your new book, he does nice work. |
|
Walter Calahan, Photographer
 |
Westminster | MD | USA | Posted: 8:36 AM on 07.28.08 |
| ->> Cool, too bad a program can't be written and embedded in the photo to let us move the ball around wherever we want in the frame. |
|
Tom Sperduto, Photographer
 |
Edison | NJ | USA | Posted: 9:06 AM on 07.28.08 |
->> I wonder if Samy's Camera knows that Ben is using manipulated images to sell himself as a photographer who can teach how to "capture" killer images?
This is sad.
The almighty dollar wins again at the cost of young photographers hoping to learn and grow. They all deserve a refund. |
|
Brian Tietz, Photographer
 |
Fort Myers | FL | USA | Posted: 9:38 AM on 07.28.08 |
| ->> Altering images for a commercial client and faking images to sell yourself as a "killer sports photographer" are two completely different things. You should rename your workshop to "How to Take Sports Photos and Photoshop them into Different ones that don't Represent what Actually took Place, and May Not Even be Possible Due to the Laws of Physics." Ben, deep down inside you have to know better. |
|
Darren Carroll, Photographer
 |
Cedar Creek (Austin) | TX | USA | Posted: 9:40 AM on 07.28.08 |
->> Ben (and Stephen),
Are you f&%#ing kidding me? It's one thing to (over)promote your work, relying on ambiguously hyperbolic descriptions ("premier sports newswire," "international publishing house") to make things sound better than they really are--while it's cheesy and most people can see right through it, it's still Marketing 101 and therefore somewhat understandable, if not somewhat laughable. It's by far another to present fraudulent images with the implication that they're honestly come by in an attempt to make money off of one's "talent."
And then, when called to the carpet on it by your peers, to attempt to justify it by saying it's an "advertisement?" I'm not sure what's worse at that point--the actual manipulation itself or the fact that you're willing to insult the intelligence of every honest photojournalist in this community by even positing such an argument. You faked a picture. You put a ball where it wasn't. And you're using that picture to convince people that they should give you money to teach them how to make pictures like that. Pictures that you haven't actually made. And you don't see anything wrong with that. That's bullshit.
But then again, if reading this message board for years has taught me anything, it's that there are plenty of people out there who are experts in the art of photographic bullshit (and the comments attempting to justify your actions you in this thread, not to mention the reason for it in the first place, do nothing to disabuse me of that notion) . And there are, unfortunately, too many more out there who can't see when they're having a heap of it dumped on them. So here's my suggestion: Let's leave the teaching to those who can do what they say they can do, and don't need photoshop to help them fake it. |
|
Brian Tietz, Photographer
|
Fort Myers | FL | USA | Posted: 9:47 AM on 07.28.08 |
| ->> Now the real question is: How many threads will it take for this one to play out? |
|
John Lee, Photographer
|
San Francisco | CA | USA | Posted: 9:58 AM on 07.28.08 |
->> I don't know you Ben, have never met you. You might be a swell guy...
But as a member of this small professional photography industry, your images lead me to believe that your professionalism cannot be trusted. |
|
Matthias Krause, Photographer
|
Brooklyn | NY | USA | Posted: 10:14 AM on 07.28.08 |
| ->> I think such thing could get you banned from being a NPPA member. And I wish it would get you banned here too. |
|
Thomas Quinn, Photographer
|
Valparaiso | IN | USA | Posted: 10:15 AM on 07.28.08 |
->> I must add my two cents in on this even though I probably echo what most people say on here.
When I take a workshop or visit a confrence to hear someone speak, I look at their work first. I look at their website and say to myself, is their talent worth my money and time? Will I learn something from this?
Take for example the baseball and broken bat shot. Nice capture, is my first thought. Then I find it photoshopped. Once I found out it was photoshopped, I looked at other images on his website and wondered, is the ball really there or did he photoshop that too. I changed my mind on the first shot and thought this person is lying to us.
I am a photographer that can always learn a thing or two from my peers to better myself. I went to the last sportsshooter luau and listened and learned from the likes of The Big Kahauna, and Dave Black and others. Their work speak for itself and is captured in camera. Even Dave Black and the painting with light which is manipulated in a way (by flashlight) but still captured in one frame on a camera and not via photoshop.
I say this to indicate that the session I listened to was titled, "Painting with Light" The title brought forth a image in my head of using a light to paint the scene, or capture in this case.
I when I see, Capturing Killer Sports Images, I think to myself, He is going to teach me to capture an image like a baseball coming off a broken bat because thats what he shows. Even though I have done that without manipulation during a Cubs game two years ago, the manipulated image shown is not the one taken.
I guess when he says it is alright to alter for advertisement use, I do not believe in this case the advertisement is for anyone but himself. I also beleive based on title, that this is false advertising. A workshop title of "Creating Killer Images in Photoshop" might be a better title.
Also I believe, that MLB, MLS, and NCAA have strict policies with regaurds to using images captured on crendiential and using them for advertising and self promotion, not in a portfolio.
So in my diatribe here, I see a sportsshooter.com member selling a product(class) and image which has been manipulated to better himself. How is this any different than a certain photographer who was fired for placing a basketball in an image and removing feet from underneath a banner during a baseball game to a newspaper?
I guess I am with the rest of you in that I went and looked at his website and could not believe some of the images shot were not doctored. You can argue they were not, but you mix one drop of back paint in a 5 gallon bucket of white, you will never, ever have pure white paint again. You have come out and said, you photoshop images for advertising and how is that different from a beautiful picture of a Big Mac. Yes I agree, the picture usually never matches the product but its the art department usually that photoshops the picture, not the photographer. I would probably see that the picture the photographer turns over to the add agency, is the same picture the photographer captured in front of the lens. Hence the name Art Department.
Just my two cents |
|
Derrick den Hollander, Photographer
|
Melbourne | VIC | AUSTRALIA | Posted: 10:39 AM on 07.28.08 |
->> All I can say is that I would have difficulty trusting images on Ben's website. I'm not one to judge someone I've never met, but my gut feeling is what has been echoed here - so which pictures are real, and which ones are'nt. Thomas provides an interesting analogy - white and black paint, and never getting pure white. That, I can relate to.
What does dismay me is that a fair few, and not only in this thread, totally judge and basically slam another member - instead of enlightening them, we slam them, humiliate them. That's a major disappointment. Why does SS allow members who PS images beyond ethical and accepted boundaries, allow people to be members (and feature them) who could'nt be bothered captioning their work, who don't put their reputation on the line every time they work for a living. It's like a "So I did'nt put in a benchmark effort last weekend, who cares, parents will buy pictures this weekend anyway" mentality has pervasively been allowed to join. Maybe they always have, and I'm the only one who was required to exhibit a basic benchmark standard when I joined.
SS would be a much better place if people were educated, and not kicked when they make a mistake, be it a small one or a pretty large one.
I've said it once, I'll say it again. I am soooooo going to save myself $25 next year. |
|
Rod Mar, Photographer
|
Seattle | WA | USA | Posted: 10:42 AM on 07.28.08 |
->> Ben,
It's certainly not beneath me if you want to move things around for your advertisements.
However, your photographs do probably warrant a disclaimer somewhere on the image that the ball has been moved for optimum effect (you use text freely on these images so it shouldn't be a problem).
I don't believe anyone here wants to deny a fellow photographer a successful career.
You mention that parents like balls, etc. moved around in youth league photos.
You are marketing to your clients "killer images". You also suggest that many of your clients (parents) don't care if they've been manipulated -- perhaps consider being more up front about it?
Why not teach that skill in a class?
It seems that moving balls around, changing backgrounds, etc is the final step of creating the ultimate killer image (even big fancy magazines alter their photos).
My honest opinion (as both a photographer and a parent of a child athlete) is, if you're not up front about it, then people will think you're being sketchy, and I don't think that's the image you're trying to portray. |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
|
Live HVN : Work SFO-NYC | | | Posted: 10:44 AM on 07.28.08 |
->> Darren:
Since you bring me into this I have to ask two things
1) Spell my name right
2)Have I ever shown, produced, or depicted any images, at any time, that meet the wording in this paragraph?
"But then again, if reading this message board for years has taught me anything, it's that there are plenty of people out there who are experts in the art of photographic bullshit (and the comments attempting to justify your actions you in this thread, not to mention the reason for it in the first place, do nothing to disabuse me of that notion) . And there are, unfortunately, too many more out there who can't see when they're having a heap of it dumped on them. So here's my suggestion: Let's leave the teaching to those who can do what they say they can do, and don't need photoshop to help them fake it."
.......quick answer....No I have not. |
|
Aaron Rhoads, Photographer
 |
McComb | MS | USA | Posted: 10:50 AM on 07.28.08 |
->> For advertising, "killer sports images."
If you have to alter the photos?
Wouldn't that be false advertising? |
|
Vincent Johnson, Photographer
 |
Chicago | IL | USA | Posted: 10:57 AM on 07.28.08 |
->> To all photographers take note (including you Ben Chen):
This isn't about ethics, it's about marketing yourself.
Some of us on this site are just starting out, some of us are in the prime of our career and others are towards the end. At some point some of us will be asked to become photo editors, photo buyers, or at least asked what we know about a photographer who's work or services our employer may use. Based on this thread I would say Ben's attempt at selling himself may have just cost him a few clients.
I know some who have posted in this thread have posted in other threads about some of the recent CPoY & Student SS contest winners who have been glamming up their images with the vignette effects & over saturation. Those now professional photographers names are in the back of mine, as I'm sure some other photographers heads. Don't assume these things won't effect your career. Sport Shooter message boards are permanent an uneditable, as are some other message boards.
Don't think you're not being Googled by every editor who you might work for. |
|
Ed Wolfstein, Photographer, Assistant
 |
Burlington | VT | USA | Posted: 10:59 AM on 07.28.08 |
->> What disturbs me about this marketing effort is that a student will see some of these doctored images, and think to themselves: "Wow, this guy is good! I'm gonna sign up for his classes!" - when in reality, the images are manipulated. That's the false advertising here. With that kind of advertising, there no limit to what could be shown to embellish the abilities of the educator!
I don't doubt the ability of the photographer, in fact, Ben does fine work. But why cast doubt on a career like this? Was Soriano's bat really broken that way? Or was the angle enhanced to suit a layout? As Darrell points out - it puts all of Ben's future work in question. What about future plays at the plate?
And justifying this kind of work by stating that it's done all the time for soccer moms just doesn't fly with me either.
My 2 cents. |
|
Mark Smith, Photographer
 |
Elk City | OK | USA | Posted: 11:08 AM on 07.28.08 |
->> Unless you are advertising the Photoshop skill to move the ball, the image and the ad are lies.
I've sold many thousands of youth sports images and I've never manipulated one, other than to make composite images. I do not ever move a ball or anything else to make the image "killer". If my images aren't "killer", they don't sell.
The headline on the Samy's ad is how to "capture" a killer image. At least one of those images wasn't "captured", it was created. |
|
Joe Cavaretta, Photographer
 |
Ft Lauderdale | FL | USA | Posted: 11:59 AM on 07.28.08 |
| ->> Ben: Yes, WAY beneath me, actually. |
|
Joseph Brymer, Photographer
 |
Lincolnton | NC | usa | Posted: 12:13 PM on 07.28.08 |
->> Ben,
You may be doing this for marketability but you’re ruining your credibility. This is a very small group of photographers on this site, several at the top of there game, and believe me they talk to each other. So in the long run you’re really hurting yourself by doing this. |
|
Robert Hanashiro, Photographer
 |
Los Angeles | CA | | Posted: 12:24 PM on 07.28.08 |
->> Distilling the comments here:
In any instance like this, digital manipulation openly admitted by someone that works in the photojournalism field comes down to one thing: Credibility. |
|
This thread has reached the maximum number of posts
If you would like to continue it, please create a new thread.
[ Create new thread? ]
|| Sponsor Special Deals
SB-900 TTL AF Shoe Mount Speedlight
|
Available from:
Samy's Camera
|
Price: $499.95 |
Notes:
The SB-900 i-TTL Speedlight leads the Nikon Creative Lighting System delivering the portability, power and versatility to support any photographer's creative lighting imagination. SportsShooter.com users should call 866-726-9463 to get the special SportsShooter price.
|
|
-- More Info -- |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|
