tennis

I appreciate the difficulty of indoor sports shots, and restrictive lenses. I like the grain here, and the gesture of the player. Adding the ball from another neg is, however, a no-no here on APUG, and I would say a MAJOR no-no for a newspaper. Perhaps a small thing in the grand scheme of life, but why start risking credibilty over this small a detail, when you've captured the essence of the athlete so nicely?

I appreciate it may be a no-no for here, however for newspapers I'd argue it isn't (yes there are ethical issues) due to this digital age I'm sure many many greater alterations to images have been made. Here I felt it added to the image - possibly it added a more mass appeal and possibly more relevance. I'd be very interested in discussion as I wasn't sure myself whether to add it or not.

Photoshopped ball from another shot is indeed over the line, as it were, but if you could strip it in the old fashioned way, well, it might get you into trouble at the newspaper, but we'd be impressed.

Have you tried a developer like Acufine or Microphen? These will give you an honest extra stop of speed over the box speed, then if you extend development to increase contrast (which is really what happens when you try to "push"--you're not really getting an EI of 6400), you should have a smoother tonal range. You should be able to get an honest two stops from TX 400 using the RAF pyro-metol formula I've posted in the Chemical Recipes area, but it will probably be too grainy for 35mm.

I'd suggest flash, but the light here seems surprisingly nice for an indoor sports venue. I'd experiment with a few different developer combinations and see what prints best.

Yes, perhaps greater alterations have been made in newspapers. so why do you think so many people are so suspicious of what they read and see in the media?

Did it really add anything to this image? I'm not sure I would have seen it if you hadn't metioned it. The strength in this photograph is the gesture of the athlete. Not worth losing credibilty over it.

Forgive me if this sounds harsh, it is not intended to be. Would suggest that you consider working on your timing, and less on PS. The reason for saying this, there have been (and still are) many very good photographs made a sporting events without the use of PS. Have seen many balls coming of of bats, rackets and even golf clubs .... I used to spend some time at a drag strip catching the cars in the air just as they left the line...would watch the tree and knew when the driver would 'hit it' and have many fine shots that show the rear tires almost folded up, and the front tires in the air. It takes many less than perfect shots to get a really good one...but if it was easy..after all anyone can PS a ball into the image...a real pro would have it there from the start.
Just my thoughts, yours will be different.

Or to put it another way, when I see an amazing sports photo (and I'm not really into sports), I think that the camera captured something that the eye couldn't see, like a basketball player parallel to the court in midair, or a baseball pitcher in a contorted position, or a ball coming off a racket, and I want to believe that the athlete's body, the ball, and the racket are all in the actual physical position that they appear to be in in the image when the shutter was fired. This image may seem dramatic, but it's a lie, because the ball may never have been in this position in space during this volley, and when the racket and the athlete's body were in the position shown, the ball was in fact outside the frame, so maybe you've reconstructed the drama, but in doing so you've falsified the science, and I would argue that they're both important.

35mm film is cheap. Practice, shoot lots of it, and you can get the real thing.

I understand what is being said. Not particularly sure on my own opinion. I have a feeling that the ball may have been moving too fast to actually be seen, due to the slow-ish shutter speed. But if you ignore the ball issue(ie pretend it ain't there), what do you feel about the rest of the shot?

This is a strong image on it's own without the ball. (At first glance I didn't really notice the ball until I read your text.) Last year I did a shoot of several soccer games for a local school sports photographer. It was stressed that they preferred the ball in play if possible. I think a lot of editors probably like that too. I had a lot of trouble getting both a good photo and the ball together. It is good that you mentioned the PS'ed addition up front.

--John

One of the two major newspaper companies in Australia has a definite policy of no images will be called photographs if it has been digitally changed. It is then called a digitally altered image, and is captioned as such. They are very strict on this as their credibility is at stake. They have a policy statement that they do their retouching, eg:- spotting, dodging, burning, digitally. The same as they used to do in the darkroom, but absolutely no alterations to the image like adding or deleting a person, building, machine or ball etcetera, etcetera. The local newspaper editor, who is a neighbour, has talked to me about the editorial policy handed down from the powers above, stating virtually the same standards. Mick. Ps:- great shot of the fella, but I think I would crop it just before the line on the RHS of the ball, really makes it a stronger picture. That is a serious comment, meant in good faith.

No matter if "no-no" or not: This is a great B&W sports photo !! Knowledgeable handling ofTri-X too. Without the ball it would be another photo but it would be not less good !