Cloning

BillN_33 said:
Cheers Jeremy

they were quite wild "young" pigs and I have been know to like the odd bacon sandwich …. I'd just pocked up some bacon from a farm shop ……..French bacon just does not exist

I find all these don't do that, why are you doing this, it's art, not art, why are macros bugs, don't take images of birds etc., etc., interesting

PS - it also reminded me of the old farmer who fell into a pig pen and (presumably knocked himself out) - all they found the next day was a leg bone, one of his shoes and his false teeth
Click to expand...
You need to cure your own bacon. It's the way forward.
 
Went to a meeting once where they had an "outsider" who came in to "score" each image. Something about a triangle (not Exp ISO etc). Put me off for life!
 
jerry12953 said:
I find most of the responses in this thread truly shocking. Cloning is a very real issue for some people and it has nothing to do with processing. I will clone minor items from an image if - on another day - they might not have been there at all. Where cloning becomes excessive is if it's done to such a way as to alter the nature of the actual scene. Yes, I do mean removing telegraph poles from a landscape! And I have never been to a camera club in my life.

It's about integrity, honesty and documentary values and such like, which photography has - or used to have - at its very heart. Maybe I'm a bit naïve but there's still a part of me that believes that what I see in an image was actually there in reality. Fortunately I'm not the only one. Remember a couple of years ago when the winner of the Landscape Photographer of the Year competition was disqualified because it was shown that his images (ALL of them) had been more or less constructed from a number of other images? I'm with the guy(s) who did the detective work and finally made that decision.

I've noticed laziness creeps into my own work sometimes. with film one needed to be meticulous at all times with one's compositions. Now its OK to think - ah, what the h** - I can always clone it/them out later. I don't think it's healthy at all.
Click to expand...

I think your taking photography a bit too seriously. What your saying is none of us should ever alter any image because you think it's wrong and dishonest.... Yeah right!
If I was taking pictures for the press (as I used to) I might agree to a certain extent, although the press has always faked and fiddled pics long long before photoshop came along, it just took us a little longer. But most of us take photographes for fun or to sell to paying customers and if it makes us or the customer happy well thats what we'll do, you don't have to do the same, but I'm dammed if I'll stop doing what I enjoy to make you happy.
If you really want to do it the old fashioned way get a plate camera and throw your digital camera in the bin, but remember no burning or dodging, and no fiddling the developing times to alter the contrast.... Got to keep your integrity! ;)
 
As an overview to the ethical consideration, is that integrity as a technical construct, or a cultural one?
 
swanseamale47 said:
I think your taking photography a bit too seriously. What your saying is none of us should ever alter any image because you think it's wrong and dishonest.... Yeah right!
If I was taking pictures for the press (as I used to) I might agree to a certain extent, although the press has always faked and fiddled pics long long before photoshop came along, it just took us a little longer. But most of us take photographes for fun or to sell to paying customers and if it makes us or the customer happy well thats what we'll do, you don't have to do the same, but I'm dammed if I'll stop doing what I enjoy to make you happy.
If you really want to do it the old fashioned way get a plate camera and throw your digital camera in the bin, but remember no burning or dodging, and no fiddling the developing times to alter the contrast.... Got to keep your integrity! ;)
Click to expand...

In your last sentence you're talking about processing and I have no problem with processing at all. As you say it was done in the days of film and we all do it on digital.

In my opinion there is a distinction between processing and manipulation - call it what you will. I have already said that I'm happy to clone out small, insignificant details which on another day might not have been there at all. But when it comes down to removing whole landscape features (or adding them....), as some people do, in order to make the image more superficially "attractive" it creates a false picture of that landscape and the photographer loses their integrity by doing it.

As I'm not into portrait photography or weddings I haven't given any thought to the issues involved there. Who knows, I might think differently.
 
Integrity. lol
Ever thought some of us just like creating pictures. Iv'e done all sorts from adding a different sky to removing trees.

Since when were there rules to taking a photo and why does it seem your the one making them, where is the line, what can we change in a photo.
 
What's interesting to me is earlier @droj accused me of murder for removing people...yet also now claims it's okay to remove elements that might not be there on another day, not I'm not 100% certain but I'm fairly certain those people I removed were not actually living in that field... Oh and the fence I removed was only a temporary structure too...there for a few weeks while there were still nesting birds in the field :P

Make your mind up man
 
MWHCVT said:
What's interesting to me is earlier @droj accused me of murder for removing people...yet also now claims it's okay to remove elements that might not be there on another day, not I'm not 100% certain but I'm fairly certain those people I removed were not actually living in that field... Oh and the fence I removed was only a temporary structure too...there for a few weeks while there were still nesting birds in the field :p

Make your mind up man
Click to expand...

I think you're confusing my posts with his.......
 
jerry12953 said:
I suppose where I differ from most people here is that I'm deadly serious about the landscape.
Click to expand...

why-so-serious-.jpg


Sorry, couldn't resist

I'm with the vast majority here though, i can't see any harm done by cloning out whatever the photographer feels necessary to improve the look of their own images, be they temporary or not
 
jerry12953 said:
I suppose where I differ from most people here is that I'm deadly serious about the landscape.
Click to expand...
Oh please... I had to roll my eyes at that. Passionate... Yea, I get that. Deadly serious? You need to relax and live a little more...
 
Too lazy to remove a crisp packet and cloning out out = sloppy

Seagull ruining an otherwise great shot and cloning out = what's the problem?


Then again.. crisp packet on other side of a fence.... sod it.. clone it out.


Hardly a big deal.

When retouching/processing attempts to make up for lack of photographic talent, that's when it's really sloppy. When it attempts to make an otherwise mundane shot more exciting.. that's beyond sloppy... that means you're not even a photographer IMO.

If there is rubbish and crap all all over the floor in a landscape shot... maybe it should stay in as a comment about the dissonance between our romanticised ideals about "nature" and the "natural" world and the reality of what we actually have.

I think I'll start taking landscape shots... chocolate box pretty, gushing with sentimentality... but include the crap and rubbish usually seen at places of "outstanding natural beauty". I reckon that would be interesting... and as an added bonus, would freak the OCD types out :)
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Too lazy to remove a crisp packet and cloning out out = sloppy

Seagull ruining an otherwise great shot and cloning out = what's the problem?


Then again.. crisp packet on other side of a fence.... sod it.. clone it out.


Hardly a big deal.

When retouching/processing attempts to make up for lack of photographic talent, that's when it's really sloppy. When it attempts to make an otherwise mundane shot more exciting.. that's beyond sloppy... that means you're not even a photographer IMO.

If there is rubbish and crap all all over the floor in a landscape shot... maybe it should stay in as a comment about the dissonance between our romanticised ideals about "nature" and the "natural" world and the reality of what we actually have.

I think I'll start taking landscape shots... chocolate box pretty, gushing with sentimentality... but include the crap and rubbish usually seen at places of "outstanding natural beauty". I reckon that would be interesting... and as an added bonus, would freak the a lot of the OCD types out :)
Click to expand...
Always a pleasure reading your posts. ;)
 
jerry12953 said:
But when it comes down to removing whole landscape features (or adding them....), as some people do, in order to make the image more superficially "attractive" it creates a false picture of that landscape and the photographer loses their integrity by doing it.
Click to expand...
Yeah! And some famous painters are nothing but con-artists!

I'm quite happy to make a picture by bringing different elements from different sources together. In fact, some of my pictures have no photographic content at all! Even though they may look like photographs. How dare I? They are not 'false pictures'. Do you think I am doing something bad now I've "lost my integrity?" I'm not claiming they are something that they are not.

But I am not applying made up, nonsense rules to mine and other people's work.
 
Last edited:
ianp5a said:
Yeah! And some famous painters are nothing but con-artists!

I'm quite happy to make a picture by bringing different elements from different sources together. In fact, some of my pictures have no photographic content at all! How dare I? They are not 'false pictures'. There is no harm in it. I'm not claiming they are something that they are not.

But I am not applying made up, nonsense rules to my work.
Click to expand...

I vowed I would not contribute any further to this thread. However here I am again.

I thought we were talking about photography, not painting? Who mentioned con-artists, 'false pictures' and nonsense rules ? You seem to be putting words into my mouth which I have not said, nor would I.

If I had the time I would look up the definition of a photograph, and then you could all argue about that. But life is too short ......

Just as a response to Pookeyhead's post above: I agree almost totally with his last three paragraphs. There is a place for beautiful landscapes with an unpleasant human element left in. Some very well-respected and well-known photographers have done it and I have done it myself and exhibited the results. This type of image does create questions in the viewer's mind, however, and I don't just mean "Why have you left that crisp packet/wrecked car/electricity pylon in. Couldn't you have cloned it out?" If they do, the photographer has done their job.

Many people only want to see pretty things, and many photographers only want to produce them, creating a false picture of the world about them. But other photographers may want to make a statement about nature or the landscape.

I wasn't sure who he meant by OCD types, though.........

(Awaits more flak............)
 
jerry12953 said:
Who mentioned con-artists, 'false pictures' and nonsense rules ? You seem to be putting words into my mouth which I have not said, nor would I.
Click to expand...
You did write "false pictures". Referring to removing or adding features. I like to do that sort of thing and see nothing wrong with it. And I'm quite happy to take it to an extreme if the picture is worth the work.
Coming up with particular rules, deciding what should and what shouldn't be removed, and judging a photographers "integrity" based on your rule is nonsense to me.
 
Last edited:
ianp5a said:
You did write "false pictures". Referring to removing or adding features.
Click to expand...
Jerry was talking in the context of his own work and other work of that ilk, which is primarily documentary. Integrity has a strong import in that context.
 
mossienet said:
Went to a meeting once where they had an "outsider" who came in to "score" each image. Something about a triangle (not Exp ISO etc). Put me off for life!
Click to expand...
Are you spurning geometry?
 
droj said:
Jerry was talking in the context of his own work and other work of that ilk, which is primarily documentary. Integrity has a strong import in that context.
Click to expand...
It doesnt look like that to me. But sorry, if that was what was intended.
 
When I was starting out a teacher recommended to me three essential tools for landscape photography: a tripod; a saw and a pair of bolt cutters. The first was useful for beating your way through undergrowth to get to a location; the second handy for cutting off branches/ cutting down trees cluttering a composition; and the third one indispensable for removing wire fences/power lines that might well ruin a good shot.

All tongue-in-cheek, of course, but it is considerably less strenuous - not to mention safer - using the clone tool.

RichBrew
 
Last edited:
I don't see a benefit of removing the pipe. It doesn't spoil the picture for me. It even gives you something to think about.
But that doesn't mean what applies to that picture should apply to any other picture. Take each case on it's own and not make a rule to apply to all landscape images.
 
Last edited:
ianp5a said:
I don't see a benefit of removing the pipe. It doesn't spoil the picture for me.....
Click to expand...

The point is.......that's not really the point...lol

The scene without it, doesn't exist, to clone it out is to fake the picture, unless you pull it out of your archives as a shot taken before the pipeline was built.
I've got a lot of time for the leaving sh1t alone approach, but I dunno about this one particularly, I mean the pipeline itself doesn't impact significantly on the scene, whilst you could say its still fake if you remove it, I wouldn't be losing any sleep over it one way or the other.
If however the pipeline was more intrusive, it would have to stay.
So I agree with you, but for different reasons, using this analogy leaves little room for cloning anything, on one hand if the offending object/s are insignificant there is no point in cloning them out, but on the other if they are a significant element....a feature of the scene, they are part of it and have to stay.
We're just talking about this image in particular, as you say, Take each case on it's own and not make a rule to apply to all landscape images. or any other tbh.

Its just an opinion.

We all have a choice, to think what we want to think, and to express those thoughts without a load of mouth from the gobs***e gang, the money shooters are free to think too but its not in their interest to make things harder for themselves, there's no arguing with steak, or beans for dinner.
 
joxby said:
The scene without it, doesn't exist, to clone it out is to fake the picture,
Click to expand...
Someone could clone it out of their own picture and "fake the picture'', as you put it. If that is what they liked then fine. We'll all form our own opinion of the result anyway.
jerry12953 said:
For those who would like to hear some reasons why landscape images should not be cloned to any significant degree, I suggest they read this
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I like it that my pictures aren't significantly erased :)

To be fair, "Fake" is a bit too blunt an instrument to describe anything cloned.
 
I'm putting this out as a general question. If you are a taker of photographs, what are you actually trying to convey? Can you define it? Do you have a coherent mission statement, or are you just blundering about?
 
droj said:
I'm putting this out as a general question. If you are a taker of photographs, what are you actually trying to convey? Can you define it? Do you have a coherent mission statement, or are you just blundering about?
Click to expand...

I've said this before Rog

Yes, one of my missions is to see as many of the world's birds as possible and get as many good shots of those that I can as a record of the experience …… if I have to PP and (clone) the images to improve them, so be it.
The same goes for Dragonflies and damselflies and other of natures creatures
If some of the images that I take are dramatic and creative, other than being "record shots" then that's an unintended positive as far as this mission goes.
My main mission in this area is to take the best "record shots" that I can …….. simple as that, nothing clever, complicated or deep, and to do so I need the best equipment that I can afford, (that's a fact as far as I am concerned), if I am to get the best record shots. My ability and success in this subject area is limited by the equipment that I have and my travel budget
I take the shots for me, if other appreciate them, that another bonus.
 
Last edited:
Hmm. I don't 'think' I am trying to convey anything to anyone. It's probably all for myself at the moment. But definately some blundering about too. That's the fun part.
 
Last edited:
droj said:
I'm putting this out as a general question. If you are a taker of photographs, what are you actually trying to convey? Can you define it? Do you have a coherent mission statement, or are you just blundering about?
Click to expand...

Have you ever considered that some people just "enjoy" photography for photography's sake, you don't need a mission statement to go out into the wilderness with your camera and enjoy taking photos, and i certainly wouldn't consider anyone doing such as "blundering about"

I go out and take photos that please me, if i feel they need some alteration or cloning then i am free to do so, does that make my image a "fake", certainly not, but even if it did, WHO CARES, why should it bother anyone else other than the person taking and editing the photography what they deem necessary to produce a pleasing photograph
 
we will always have this "art" versus "whatever" versus "records" versus "just taking images debate" …….. and equipment versus an good eye with any old camera debate

we just need to appreciate and try to understand both sides ……… (I am, for what it's worth)

getting serious is good for some but not for others ………
 
Yes, if someone enjoys having a "mission statement" or some other mantra, then all the better.
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
we will always have this "art" versus "whatever" versus "records" versus "just taking images debate" …….. and equipment versus an good eye with any old camera debate

we just need to appreciate and try to understand both sides ……… (I am, for what it's worth)

getting serious is good for some but not for others ………
Click to expand...

Totally agree, and there is no defined "line in the sand" of what constitutes one or t'other, even though people seem to want to define this line and know if/when they have crossed it, but to me i think it is a very grey area and no single "rule" will ever please everyone
 
Since by cloning one is trying to create the image *as you want to see it* then it might be argued that is more creatively valid than a straight, untouched record shot. No-one would castigate a painter for leaving out (or painting in extra) rubbish in order to create their image, so why should a photograph be different?

As for removing or leaving the pipe, it's not been there until recently, and will likely be gone in another 100 years, so it's hardly a fixed part of the landscape. Leaving it in or not is surely down to the taste and wishes of the image maker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top