How much cloning is acceptable...?

As a landscape photographer trying to get some work into coffee shops and restaurants ... how much of the clone-stamp tool is acceptable? I can't imagine anybody objecting to me removing a small flare reflection against a sky, but what if I waited an hour and couldn't get a photo without a car driving by? Can I "alter the scene" by removing a small, distracting element, and then sell it as a fine art print? ( Assuming I do a good job at the pixel level? )

Here's a good example:





Notice the cars at left. Is this "disengenuous?"

u can always block the road...

... and art is CREATED by you. Part of that creation may be to remove distractions, or even add attractions.

In portrait photography we often de-emphasize pores, pock-marks, blotches, and wrinkles. (Few complaints about this!!)
Photojournalism, on the other hand ...
Ken

Forrest said:

As a landscape photographer trying to get some work into coffee
shops and restaurants ... how much of the clone-stamp tool is
acceptable? I can't imagine anybody objecting to me removing a
small flare reflection against a sky, but what if I waited an hour
and couldn't get a photo without a car driving by? Can I "alter
the scene" by removing a small, distracting element, and then sell
it as a fine art print? ( Assuming I do a good job at the pixel
level? )

Here's a good example:





Notice the cars at left. Is this "disengenuous?"

Click to expand...

--

Wanted: Beautiful young woman to be my wife. Must be obsessive-compulsive about housekeeping.
http://www.ahomls.com/gallery.htm

In photojournalism that would be a no-no; as an art print, anything you can/want to do is okay, in my opinion. Anything at all....

Ken Phillips said:

Forrest said:

As a landscape photographer trying to get some work into coffee
shops and restaurants ... how much of the clone-stamp tool is
acceptable? I can't imagine anybody objecting to me removing a
small flare reflection against a sky, but what if I waited an hour
and couldn't get a photo without a car driving by? Can I "alter
the scene" by removing a small, distracting element, and then sell
it as a fine art print? ( Assuming I do a good job at the pixel
level? )

Here's a good example:





Notice the cars at left. Is this "disengenuous?"

Click to expand...

--
Wanted: Beautiful young woman to be my wife. Must be
obsessive-compulsive about housekeeping.
http://www.ahomls.com/gallery.htm

Click to expand...

ricardo franca said:

u can always block the road...

Click to expand...

My dog is pretty well trained ... but not that well! "Alex! Stay!"

Newk said:

In photojournalism that would be a no-no; as an art print, anything
you can/want to do is okay, in my opinion. Anything at all....

Click to expand...

This would make a great photojournalism piece, though, you have to admit. "Today, in Glacier Park in Montana, cars drove a road." Is that a front-page headline, or what??

Seriously, I'm not sure how anybody would ever find out you removed a car ( except that I've had the with-cars version on my site for about a year, and just recently removed them, part of redesigning my whole site -- suprised no one complained about the yellow! ), but if they did, you don't think someone who bought one of these as a 10x15" fine-art landscape print would feel violated somehow? Decide that I have bad ethics?

Personally, I'm of the opinion that when I choose a very slow shutter to make a waterfall or a star-trails ... or when I do a black and white ... I'm already "altering reality" to my own artistic tastes ... I'm just wondering how the "clients" take it?

Thanks for the input!

Good advice in this thread---give your customers what they want---even the supermodels have their tummies "de emphasized' digitally. And imagine your print with a majestic sun (assuming directionally correct) setting---or an eagle soaring---all possible with digital. Or add some space aliens and sell it to the National Enquirer.

Newk said:

Newk said:

Newk said:

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Newk said:

Newk said:

--
Wanted: Beautiful young woman to be my wife. Must be
obsessive-compulsive about housekeeping.
http://www.ahomls.com/gallery.htm

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Frank from Phoenix
Olympus E20N; C5050; FL40; LiPo; Tripper 15 Gb, Pentax MZ-S

Forrest said:

Seriously, I'm not sure how anybody would ever find out you
removed a car ( except that I've had the with-cars version on my
site for about a year, and just recently removed them, part of
redesigning my whole site -- suprised no one complained about the
yellow! ), but if they did, you don't think someone who bought one
of these as a 10x15" fine-art landscape print would feel violated
somehow? Decide that I have bad ethics?

Click to expand...

There's probably no way to tell how any one client might react. While most would probably not have any opinion, simply being happy to enjoy the print, there will always be folks that will react in their own way. There's not much you can do about that, just go with your own feelings. If someone that has purchased a version of the image with the cars in it and has objections, just offer to replace their print with one that has no cars in it. It would be interesting to see what they'd decide to do!

Before photoshop there was a healthy industry of professional retouchers and negative strippers who had the skills to manually do just about anything that we can do in PS and more. Even with powerful tools like PS, it still takes a fair amount of skill to artfully manipulate a scene like this without visibly "mucking things up". Thats just one more skill that you bring to the table when you create an image for sale as a gallery print.

--
Tom Young
http://www.pbase.com/tyoung/

I agree with mos of the posts that responded...

Art is something that you control 100% and anything goes....

You are not selling real-estate... or trying to convince someone that hardly anyone goes to this place ... see the roads are empty, etc...

Visual-Art is "Your-vision for the world to see"

Arjh

PS... I love the border treatment that you have given to your images, are these bought actions or you've created them yourself...
Presentation is half of the total visual experience in my books

Forrest said:

Forrest41926 said:

In photojournalism that would be a no-no; as an art print, anything
you can/want to do is okay, in my opinion. Anything at all....

Click to expand...

This would make a great photojournalism piece, though, you have to
admit. "Today, in Glacier Park in Montana, cars drove a road." Is
that a front-page headline, or what??

Seriously, I'm not sure how anybody would ever find out you
removed a car ( except that I've had the with-cars version on my
site for about a year, and just recently removed them, part of
redesigning my whole site -- suprised no one complained about the
yellow! ), but if they did, you don't think someone who bought one
of these as a 10x15" fine-art landscape print would feel violated
somehow? Decide that I have bad ethics?

Personally, I'm of the opinion that when I choose a very slow
shutter to make a waterfall or a star-trails ... or when I do a
black and white ... I'm already "altering reality" to my own
artistic tastes ... I'm just wondering how the "clients" take it?

Thanks for the input!

Click to expand...

Forrest said:

As a landscape photographer trying to get some work into coffee
shops and restaurants ... how much of the clone-stamp tool is
acceptable? > Notice the cars at left. Is this "disengenuous?"

Click to expand...

--
JohnnyBGood

I see you got pretty good ethics. But in this case, I would'nt object to a little wizardry added. Although it might be sometimes suspect that no car is ever visible in a series including roads...
I agree with other folks about your artistic vision: it must prevail.

But in the case of photojournalism, I just hate it. Remember the first time Nat Geo used photoshop to alter a front page. The pict was the pyramids in Egypt, and they removed some tourist buses. The funny thing is they were proud to show the original pict inside the magazine, with this sort of line "Is it'nt great we can do this?" They got deluged with complaints about the altering of reality being unethical. I expect to see reality in such a mag, even if it means getting dirty streets, yellow teeth, dirty fingernails, tourist buses, and so on: that's what I'll see if I go there.

But even if he does not retouch the photojournalist may alter reality as well by choosing angle, or right moment to avoid an unwanted part of reality: you can't get it really honest 100% could you.....

Forrest said:

As a landscape photographer trying to get some work into coffee
shops and restaurants ... how much of the clone-stamp tool is
acceptable? I can't imagine anybody objecting to me removing a
small flare reflection against a sky, but what if I waited an hour
and couldn't get a photo without a car driving by? Can I "alter
the scene" by removing a small, distracting element, and then sell
it as a fine art print? ( Assuming I do a good job at the pixel
level? )

Click to expand...

I'm very much in the Galen Rowell school on this so, in my opinion, none is acceptable aside from removing dust and such.

Mark

Mark Scheuern said:

I'm very much in the Galen Rowell school on this so, in my opinion,
none is acceptable aside from removing dust and such.

Mark

Click to expand...

--
JohnnyBGood

Hi Mark. You sure maintain a hard line! While I would refrain from retouching street pictures, I think retouching does not always disserve humanity (to be grandiloquent). Recently took a group shot of a family reunion. Out of the five frames, none put everyone in the best view. So I did not commit a big crime in picking one of the faces and sticking it to the next frame. This way grandpa does not have closed eyes on the best allover picture. I don't see how this is wrong! A much lovely souvenir now instead of a bad pict. This was just a "repair" right?

The cars-even though small, date the image.

This is otherwise a timeless image.

Frank

One of THE most respected and successful landscape photographers routinely uses the cloning tool to remove things that shouldn't be there - old trailers, tin cans, baby diapers, etc. I would be doing him a great disservice by mentioning his name (you WOULD know him), but trust me, his work is awesome!!! You see, most pros really aren't "purists". It's a game played by amateurs who wanna be pros.

Just do it. The viewers will love you for it.

Forrest said:

As a landscape photographer trying to get some work into coffee
shops and restaurants ... how much of the clone-stamp tool is
acceptable? I can't imagine anybody objecting to me removing a
small flare reflection against a sky, but what if I waited an hour
and couldn't get a photo without a car driving by? Can I "alter
the scene" by removing a small, distracting element, and then sell
it as a fine art print? ( Assuming I do a good job at the pixel
level? )

Here's a good example:





Notice the cars at left. Is this "disengenuous?"

Click to expand...

--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com

I'm with you on this one, Mark. Cloning is cheating. If something bothers you in a shot, then find a way to take another shot. But don't take the easy way out and clone.

The power of photography stems from the fact that the image is real in some way. If you clone then your image isn't real anymore and you lose credibility as a photographer. IMO, of course.

I feel the same way about 'fixing' portraits and don't retouch them unless I'm asked specifically to do it by the customer. I know lots of people retouch portraits. I really don't like it. I shot a really nice shot of my 3 year old niece today where she has some chocolate on one of her cheeks. It bothers me a bit, but it stays. Portraiture is about capturing the essence of people - flaws included. Not about producing a dream image.

Cheers,
Hans

Mark Scheuern said:

Forrest said:

As a landscape photographer trying to get some work into coffee
shops and restaurants ... how much of the clone-stamp tool is
acceptable? I can't imagine anybody objecting to me removing a
small flare reflection against a sky, but what if I waited an hour
and couldn't get a photo without a car driving by? Can I "alter
the scene" by removing a small, distracting element, and then sell
it as a fine art print? ( Assuming I do a good job at the pixel
level? )

Click to expand...

I'm very much in the Galen Rowell school on this so, in my opinion,
none is acceptable aside from removing dust and such.

Mark

Click to expand...

to wander out there and pick up the trash, before you shoot?

I guess if you are shooting pretty pictures for calendars, books and decoration, it would be ok. If you are a documentarian(is that a word?) then you will want the scene to be as it is.

--
-Kel 2K

One interesting but not widely known fact is how much of what you call 'cheating' was done even for U. S. Civil War photography. The camera DOES lie! (You'll have to do your own research on this ... but if you watch the Antiques Road Show in Cleveland episode you will get some great hints!)

We are talking about ARTWORK. Is a painting no longer a painting because I used my thumb instead of a brush?

The camera - film or digital - is but one tool in the process of producing a print. We adjust the color ... or remove it. We adjust contrast - or levels. We sharpen it. We soften it. We MAKE IT OUR OWN. Adding or subtracting a tree, a wart, whatever.
That's ART.
Note that it's not photojournalism ... but we aren't discussing that here.
And ... Galen Rowell used a flash for fill ... isn't that cheating?
Ken

Hans Kilian said:

The power of photography stems from the fact that the image is real
in some way. If you clone then your image isn't real anymore and
you lose credibility as a photographer. IMO, of course.

I feel the same way about 'fixing' portraits and don't retouch them
unless I'm asked specifically to do it by the customer. I know lots
of people retouch portraits. I really don't like it. I shot a
really nice shot of my 3 year old niece today where she has some
chocolate on one of her cheeks. It bothers me a bit, but it stays.
Portraiture is about capturing the essence of people - flaws
included. Not about producing a dream image.

Cheers,
Hans

Mark Scheuern said:

Forrest said:

As a landscape photographer trying to get some work into coffee
shops and restaurants ... how much of the clone-stamp tool is
acceptable? I can't imagine anybody objecting to me removing a
small flare reflection against a sky, but what if I waited an hour
and couldn't get a photo without a car driving by? Can I "alter
the scene" by removing a small, distracting element, and then sell
it as a fine art print? ( Assuming I do a good job at the pixel
level? )

Click to expand...

I'm very much in the Galen Rowell school on this so, in my opinion,
none is acceptable aside from removing dust and such.

Mark

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--

'Don't hope your pictures will 'turn out' ... make them good to begin with'. Oft said by my late father.
http://www.ahomls.com/gallery.htm

Forrest said:

As a landscape photographer trying to get some work into coffee
shops and restaurants ... how much of the clone-stamp tool is
acceptable? I can't imagine anybody objecting to me removing a
small flare reflection against a sky, but what if I waited an hour
and couldn't get a photo without a car driving by? Can I "alter
the scene" by removing a small, distracting element, and then sell
it as a fine art print? ( Assuming I do a good job at the pixel
level? )

Here's a good example:





Notice the cars at left. Is this "disengenuous?"

Click to expand...

--as mentioned earlier, the key word is "art". can you imagine an "artist", when painting a scene, painting in an mcdonald's hamburger wrapper just because it is in the scene? the artist has always had this advantage over the photographer. before digital it was very hard to alter the image in the darkroom. the gods have blessed us with digital, let's create beautiful images.
c.johnson

Forrest said:

what if I waited an hour
and couldn't get a photo without a car driving by?

Click to expand...

Here's a technique I use for crowd removal:

http://www.deviantart.com/view/255544/

Take two to four images by tripod, spaced in time just far enough apart that different cars don't ALWAYS overlap a specific spot. Then just load them as layers and erase any cars on the front layer and let the background show through. You should keep the same exposure as you shoot or you'll have to adjust them to match.

--
[ e d @ h a l l e y . c c ]

I just finished an art show today, displaying landscape and wildlife images. I was asked 5 times in 2 days by potential customers if I 'digitally fixed-up' or 'computer-enhanced' my shots, once they heard that they were captured digitally. The public is becoming rapidly more suspicious of photographic art, and equates 'digital' to cheating, lack of 'reality', etc. Most of the same effects were possible in the darkroom, but the public has no experience with the darkroom, and most do have experience with a computer, and with viewing the ever-growing world of computer-generated art and characters in movies, TV, and advertising. I have a couple of shots in my portfolio that are composites or have elements that have been cloned in or out. I now label those as composites or 'digital art', and may remove them entirely from my portfolio, because of the negative impression that they generate for digital photography. I told the customers that I do on the computer the same things that I did with darkroom photography, mainly adjusting color balance, contrast, and brightness, either globally or focally in the image.

I notice that a number of larger or more prestegious art shows still refuse to accept digital photographs, and require hand-printed, film-based, numbered prints. Time will tell if digitally captured fine art prints will have a 'tainted' reputation, or will be eventually accepted (perhaps with an attached proof of the RAW image, to see that the scene is 'real' ;-) )

As an aside, a few booths away from mine, was another photographer who shoots similar scenes with med. format Velvia film. The colors were so unnaturally 'jacked up' that it was totally unreal, but I suspect that the same customers who questioned me accepted these garish colors as 'real' once he had verified that he shot film.
-David